Anniversary Updates

lukewin

Gonna break it down, to actually not miss anything and spoiler so people don't have to read unless they want to.

SunCrusher wrote:

Something really isn't sitting right with me here.

When the majority of the forum was complaining about difficulty including many of the people who were in these same Alliances, I was personally expecting that pretty much, nobody - or at least WAY FEWER - than -111- Alliances were going to make it to Round Eight.

I mean, just look at the level of OMG THIS IS WAY TOO DIFFICULT sort of complaints that were going on during the first release of Galactus Hungers. I'm not counting the THERE ARE BUGS complaints or the generalized THIS IS NOT FUN complaints. I'm talking about the complaints that were indicative that people seriously were NOT making progress... either AT ALL or EXTREMELY SLOWLY.

And then, when numbers started being published via another thread, we were amazed that so many (way before the tally even ran to 111 and before Ice ever posted any stats) Alliances DID in fact make it to Round Eight.

I think there's a severe disconnect here somewhere.

IF we actually had FEWER than the 111 Alliances that passed through Round Eight, I think we'd actually be on par in regards to saying, HEY I THINK THIS DIDN'T WORK OUT! LOOK! ALMOST NOBODY MADE IT THROUGH! THE NUMBERS PROVE IT!

But - I don't think I'm completely off my rocker in thinking and saying that, DESPITE THE LEVEL OF 'THIS IS TOO DIFFICULT' COMPLAINTS including those coming from the Top Tier Alliances, MORE ALLIANCES THAN EXPECTED APPARENTLY MADE IT THROUGH.

I'm not saying this because I don't think rewards should be extended further; that's not even the point.

I'm saying that what the atmosphere was in the forums during the event depicted a MUCH DIFFERENT picture than what the eventual statistics showed and this major disconnect is making it difficult to reconcile what is considered realistic or not in terms of expectations.

All those problems snowballed. Difficulty, bugs, server outages, fun. You are surprised that 111 made it to round 8. I'm pretty sure if they released all the numbers, you'd be less surprised. I'd be surprised if it was more than .01% of all alliances that didn't make it there. 111 out of ___ alliances would probably be a be a better indicator to judge off. The people that use the forum are a vocal minority. If you didn't know that already, now you do. If the experienced players that are having these issues are vocal on the forum, imagine the problems the inexperienced players that aren't vocal on the forum, are having. Where will they get the feedback to improve the event, if the vocal aren't vocal?

SunCrusher wrote:

In all honesty, BEFORE the thread with the data was posted, I think a lot of us were expecting literally a handful - if even a handful - to make it. I personally was expecting EVERYONE to be up in arms over the difficulty level once the event ended and the stats showed that literally, nobody made it and we'd be descending upon the devs en masse to collectively appeal for reconsideration of the event.

But as it turned out, apparently 111 Alliances made it through anyways (which equals to approximately 2,220 players) which, to me when I was gauging the level of WE CAN'T DO THIS 'feel' in the forum, is WAY more than I would have ever expected.

If we want to bargain and ask the devs to reconsider the rewards structuring or simply rewards, period, I really don't think we ought to use the '111 Alliances was too few' approach.

2,220 players got the rewards, but not all those players were doing the work. The problem with the large problem, is that not everyone is using the 111 Alliances was too few approach. Due to the size of the problem, there are people approaching it from all sides, but again, due to the size of the problem, it's hard to identify all those approaches, because they get buried.

Suncrusher, more like Funcrusher, amirite? Just kidding.

Flare808

Honestly, with how many different factors that all contributed to a less than satisfying Anniversary (token rates, Galactus fiasco, ISO not doubled for lightning rounds, server instability, etc), some ISO, HP, and a couple of tokens doesn't seem like enough. Normally, I dislike asking for more because it seems greedy, but this is a special situation.

Say you go to a restaurant and you have a completely horrible experience. Waiter forgot to take your order- when the food finally comes, its cold- they overcharge you on your bill. Most managers would understand your frustration and comp your meal or give a significant discount. Would you go back to eat there again? Probably not for a long time, if ever. Your first thought about the restaurant would most likely be about the horrible service.

Say that same manager came over and apologized and not only comped your meal but gave a gift certificate and invited you to come back and give the restaurant another chance. Would you go back? I most likely would. What I would remember from the experience would be the hospitality and understanding that the manager showed.

This seems like an appropriate time to overcompensate in order to win back some goodwill and salvage what's left of the Anniversary. 93% of nearly 500 players were dissatisfied with Galactus (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33623). No company can be proud of those numbers.

The 100 HP, 2000 ISO, and 2 tokens is less than what players can normally make in one day. For many, the tokens turned into 500 ISO as few players still need 2*s. Everyone knows that most event tokens will end up being sold as unneeded 2* covers. This amounts to 100 HP and 2500 ISO.

Personally, I would think giving players a 10 pack or even a couple Legendary Tokens would smooth things over much better. At least the 10 pack has a reasonable chance to hit something decent. Legendary Tokens would be even better since you're guaranteed a 4* and possibly a 5*.

Would overcompensating hurt D3's bottom line? Most likely a minuscule amount or not at all. It might even boost sales. There are many people who have decided not to spend more money on MPQ as evidenced by forum posts recently. If everyone gets a few more 4*s, it won't kill D3 as they're giving away digital goods. Those that decided not to spend money may change their mind if they see that D3 wants to rectify the problem.

Simply put, a larger gesture would go a long way to regaining the support of the MPQ community.

SunCrusher

lukewin wrote:

SunCrusher wrote:

Something really isn't sitting right with me here.
>>snipped for length<<
If we want to bargain and ask the devs to reconsider the rewards structuring or simply rewards, period, I really don't think we ought to use the '111 Alliances was too few' approach.

One of the points you don't address, which I would say is the main point, most of the people are upset with, isn't the difficulty alone. Those people that played it, in spite of the difficulty, and made it there, had something else to complain about, that it wasn't fun to do. They're trying to make this the best anniversary yet. You don't do that by starting it off with an event that makes people miserable.

EDIT- You actually did address that, so my apologies. But the atmosphere of the forums is because of the amount of problems, and it sucks that we have to sort it out and break it down to this and that. The sheer number of problems/complaints, compounded to the problem and makes it seem a lot worse than it actually is. Problems that had nothing to do with the gameplay, like an absence of feedback, gets lumped into the problem and it snowballs from there.

I read your post and addressed it in an edit to my own post. I also spoilered my post for its length.

(And no, no offense taken.)

Stax the Foyer wrote:

SunCrusher wrote:

I was personally expecting that pretty much, nobody - or at least WAY FEWER - than -111- Alliances were going to make it to Round Eight.

Der_Lex wrote:

111 made it to round 8, but only 49 finished it. And apparently for many, it took exploiting a bug to get there.

111 alliances made it to round 7 (meaning they cleared round 6), not made it to round 8.

Almost half of the alliances who received at least one cyclops cover received all three cyclops covers.

Not sure if that changes your opinion of the event, but I figured it was worth clarifying.

And honestly, Rounds 6 and 7 were trickier to do than Round 8, provided that you had a certain team composition available.

Changed my post to reflect this though in all honesty, my opinion didn't change too much if only because the bulk of my thoughts came about when people were posting the results of who made it to Round Eight in the forums before this Anniversary thread was started.

cardoor

IceIX wrote:

...

In particular:
We’ll be working to make sure that even in later rounds, there are multiple interesting strategies to tackle Galactus.
We’ll be aiming to make each individual fight against Galactus feel meatier and more satisfying, lasting longer than a short, predictable number of rounds for more players.

....

Please consider increasing a random CD by one tick every time a CD is matched. For example, if there are 4 CD's on the board and you match one, then one of the remaining 3 CD's would increase by one tick (the other 2 are unaffected).

This will help early on but become increasingly less useful as the CD's add up.

Unknown

Stax the Foyer wrote:

And honestly, Rounds 6 and 7 were trickier to do than Round 8, provided that you had a certain team composition available.

For me, this was one of the most frustrating aspects of the event; a player's success or failure basically boiled down to whether you could use one of a handful of teams (only 1 or 2 to my knowledge).

This is contrary to their stated goal of increased team composition. Moreover, many of the abilities which would've been effective against Galactus had already been eliminated from the game (e.g., less than 5 AP abilities, teams like Hood/Sentry & +3 AP/color boosts); and any tiles that would potentially help (i.e., invisibility tiles) were wiped before he used his black ability.

Raffoon

The Devs are still being too stingy. They're making gestures, but the gestures are still far too small.

After screwing things up this badly, they need to go above and beyond the expectations.

Don't just run the 20 man bracket LRs that everyone's been fondly remembering, run them with Legendaries for the top 5.

Don't just give everyone 5k ISO for the messed up LRs, give them 15k to show that you're sorry you goofed.

Don't just change the Galactus fight, increase the rewards given out too. Mix some Legendaries in there too.

Don't just give 200 HP and 1k ISO, also give everyone the rewards from a tier above where they progressed in Galactus. 200 HP does not come close to a guaranteed 4* cover.

The anniversary was supposed to be a time when rewards flowed freely to show appreciation for the players. Yeah, the token odds are better now, but we were expecting odds at least as good as they are now from the start.

And how about something to make up for the 30 hours of complete silence that accompanied the launch? Yes, I know there was a comic convention going on. Guess what, the most important day of the year for the game was ALSO going on. It's your job to be there to communicate during that time. Take 15 minutes off from the convention and check the forums on your phone, for god's sake.

This is really a poor showing. Hope for this event is dwindling faster by the minute.

Dayv

SunCrusher wrote:

In all honesty, BEFORE the thread with the data was posted, I think a lot of us were expecting literally a handful - if even a handful - to make it. I personally was expecting EVERYONE to be up in arms over the difficulty level once the event ended and the stats showed that literally, nobody made it and we'd be descending upon the devs en masse to collectively appeal for reconsideration of the event.

But as it turned out, apparently 111 Alliances made it through to Round Seven anyways (which equals to approximately 2,220 players and of these, 960 to 980 players from 48-49 Alliances went through Round Eight) which, to me when I was gauging the level of WE CAN'T DO THIS 'feel' in the forum, is WAY more than I would have ever expected.

If we want to bargain and ask the devs to reconsider the rewards structuring or simply rewards, period, I really don't think we ought to use the '111 Alliances was too few' approach.

In my case, Galactus oddly became easier in round 7 and then far easier in round 8 because the damage output of his countdown tiles was enough to make Hulk- and Captain Marvel-dependent strategies viable. Round 5-6 were a dead zone of total luck that actually improved as damage increased. Before those strategies became viable, I was close to quitting the game entirely, the event was so frustrating.

SunCrusher

DayvBang wrote:

SunCrusher wrote:

In all honesty, BEFORE the thread with the data was posted, I think a lot of us were expecting literally a handful - if even a handful - to make it. I personally was expecting EVERYONE to be up in arms over the difficulty level once the event ended and the stats showed that literally, nobody made it and we'd be descending upon the devs en masse to collectively appeal for reconsideration of the event.

But as it turned out, apparently 111 Alliances made it through to Round Seven anyways (which equals to approximately 2,220 players and of these, 960 to 980 players from 48-49 Alliances went through Round Eight) which, to me when I was gauging the level of WE CAN'T DO THIS 'feel' in the forum, is WAY more than I would have ever expected.

If we want to bargain and ask the devs to reconsider the rewards structuring or simply rewards, period, I really don't think we ought to use the '111 Alliances was too few' approach.

In my case, Galactus oddly became easier in round 7 and then far easier in round 8 because the damage output of his countdown tiles was enough to make Hulk- and Captain Marvel-dependent strategies viable. Round 5-6 were a dead zone of total luck that actually improved as damage increased. Before those strategies became viable, I was close to quitting the game entirely, the event was so frustrating.

Which Stax and lawboy were both mentioning, too, which could perhaps translate to, 'Everyone WAS stuck in the dead zone... but once they got free, it was smoother running'?

Pylgrim

DayvBang wrote:

SunCrusher wrote:

In all honesty, BEFORE the thread with the data was posted, I think a lot of us were expecting literally a handful - if even a handful - to make it. I personally was expecting EVERYONE to be up in arms over the difficulty level once the event ended and the stats showed that literally, nobody made it and we'd be descending upon the devs en masse to collectively appeal for reconsideration of the event.

But as it turned out, apparently 111 Alliances made it through to Round Seven anyways (which equals to approximately 2,220 players and of these, 960 to 980 players from 48-49 Alliances went through Round Eight) which, to me when I was gauging the level of WE CAN'T DO THIS 'feel' in the forum, is WAY more than I would have ever expected.

If we want to bargain and ask the devs to reconsider the rewards structuring or simply rewards, period, I really don't think we ought to use the '111 Alliances was too few' approach.

In my case, Galactus oddly became easier in round 7 and then far easier in round 8 because the damage output of his countdown tiles was enough to make Hulk- and Captain Marvel-dependent strategies viable. Round 5-6 were a dead zone of total luck that actually improved as damage increased. Before those strategies became viable, I was close to quitting the game entirely, the event was so frustrating.

Yeah, sadly my alliance couldn't pull through the dead zone so I never got to use that tactic

j0nats

What i dont get is why people keep buying 10 packs with such low odds, instead of buying covers. Buying a cover = 100% chance of a 3/4 star

Omega Red

j0nats wrote:

What i dont get is why people keep buying 10 packs with such low odds, instead of buying covers. Buying a cover = 100% chance of a 3/4 star

I have a few theories:

1.- They are compulsive gamblers. They enjoy the rush of spending big for a chance to win big.

2.- They want to take shortcuts. They are not interested in progression, building characters and leveling them up.

3.- They think a rare cover will help greatly their progression. Since that cover is well above their level this is the only way they can acquire it so they take their chances.

Omega Red

The average forumite week so far:

Sunday -Pop up reminding last day of sale when anniversary has been a disaster! The nerve of these guys! I'm never spending money on this game again! Worst game ever!

Monday -Improved odds! Free tokens for those who bought early! Any chance we can have another sale? Not enough! I deserve three times what I bought for the indignities and emotional distress you caused me!

Tuesday - Just opened my tokens. Another Moonstone!

Omega Red

GurlBYE wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

The only responsibles of buying those awful tokens are the players themselves. They bought them at those rates, they should own up their purchases. I'm not against giving them extra tokens but asking for a full reset of tokens already opened seems like an abuse from the player side.

You're arguments are about as strong as icex's at this point

My advice, don't go into business, especially not marketing or customer retention, you don't always go in solely with logic to gain peoples trust.

Notice you're the only one supportive of anything going on here?

It's just a hint. Don't wanna spell it out for you.

Edit- and please after seeing more of your posts i really don't want any further discussion. Keep it to yourself.

I'm so sorry to see you getting this angry over a phone game and some random posts from a stranger on the internet.

A friendly advice: stop playing this game and find something else that makes you happy. It's not that hard.

Unknown

OJSP wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

j0nats wrote:

What i dont get is why people keep buying 10 packs with such low odds, instead of buying covers. Buying a cover = 100% chance of a 3/4 star

I have a few theories:

1.- They are compulsive gamblers. They enjoy the rush of spending big for a chance to win big.

2.- They want to take shortcuts. They are not interested in progression, building characters and leveling them up.

3.- They think a rare cover will help greatly their progression. Since that cover is well above their level this is the only way they can acquire it so they take their chances.

My money is on the 1st one..

I buy tokens when I feel like I'm having trouble with game. I get some characters and the game seems just a bit easier then gets to where I feel like I'm having trouble with the game. I buy tokens when I feel like I'm having trouble with game. I get some characters and the game seems just a bit easier then gets to where I feel like I'm having trouble with the game.

It's a vicious cycle.

_Ryu_

Token draws are now much more fun, already get some 3*s and a few 4* (2 red dino covers too).

Now all depends on new galactus gameplay at the weekend to see if d3 can turn the side from dissatisfaction to happiness again!

yogi_

_Ryu_ wrote:

Token draws are now much more fun, already get some 3*s and a few 4* (2 red dino covers too).

I've had all 2* and a couple of 3*s that I can't use.

When exactly is the fun part supposed to be starting?

_Ryu_

yogi_ wrote:

_Ryu_ wrote:

Token draws are now much more fun, already get some 3*s and a few 4* (2 red dino covers too).

I've had all 2* and a couple of 3*s that I can't use.

When exactly is the fun part supposed to be starting?

Before the patch, i got out of maybe 10 anni tokens only 2*s = no fun at all.
After the Patch already draw one starlord and two devil dino and maybe 4 3*s = makes me happy.
So the improvement is there and i cant complain anymore about draws.

The rest up to lady luck!

TLCstormz

Round 2 start day?

Philly79

TLCstormz wrote:

Round 2 start day?

Pretty sure it is tomorrow....

Anyone get the 5k iso yet for the lt round screw up?

Unknown

Anyone get the 5k iso yet for the lt round screw up?

Pretty sure that won't come until after all the lighnting rounds are done as they need to know who played in them.