Galactus Run 2 Changes

Unknown

Agreed with Punisher and Sterno!

My playing time is cut WAY short this round, and I was worried that by the time I got in, there wouldn't be much point.

I just played a match and beat Galactus in what I thought I had seen as Stage 5.

I actually had to check again to make sure I got the stage right!

Biggest difference? I'll be bleeding health packs, but GLADLY. The fights are brutally tough compared to "regular" PvE, involve some decision making and strategizing, but I have a shot at winning!

I actually have a shot at taking Galactus AND some of my nodes down!

Woo hoo!

Special props to D3 for building some tough fights, but also boosting characters that stand a chance at turning the tables on ol' Galactus!

DBC

Unknown

OJSP wrote:

ChoiceMad wrote:

I'm sad that there are so many comments saying "Thank you! Great improvement!" as if devs doing the right thing by making the game (arguably) more playable deserves accolades. It's akin to patting a thief on the back for not robbing someone. "Well done on not stealing just now!" Also, can someone point to the thread or message where devs actually apologize?

Saying thank you and applauding the fact that they listened to our feedback, is just common courtesy.
Comparing the game developers to a thief is a bit much and harsh, isn't it?

Whilst I agree the first run was not fun and the other problems have made the anniversary feel less anniversary-like.. the compensation was an admission of fault and an apology, was it not? (for the server outage). The tweaks to the second run of Galactus Hungers is also an admission of fault, to some extent.. sometimes, action speaks louder than words. Admitting fault explicitly and apologising publicly, is probably not the company policy.

However:https://d3go.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=430567

Thanks for pointing to the devs apology (flimsy, practically hidden, and half-hearted as it was). However, the comparison I made simply implied not just a generalization of poor choices/behavior being ignored solely because the actor self-stifled but, in lieu of continued condemnation, a very moderately opposing behavior is lauded.

An appropriate response should include notes to the effect of '3rd strike your out', 'fool me once, shame on me', or 'I'll be keeping both eyes on you from here on out' and not "Great work on designing slightly less frustrating gameplay! Thanks!"

In other words, no, the 'compensation' or 'tweaks' are not an admission of fault or an apology. If anything, they are a distraction from this and any previous comparable events. We agree that actions do sometimes speak louder than words but those instances are reserved for rare, spectacular actions and never to correct poor choices/behaviors. Additionally, to consider whether formal apologies are company policy or not is inane. Apologies are *human* policy or to borrow your sentiment "just common courtesy". Even governments state clear apologies (where everybody can see it) when they know they've screwed up.

Unknown

Drummerboycroy wrote:

*clip*
I offered feedback.
D3 adjusted.
I commend them for caring about my experience and my opinion.
Simple.

DBC

Fine but you're skipping the several steps that provoked you to provide feedback. If this game came out two weeks ago and you provided feedback on flaws that'd be a perfectly acceptable response to circumstances.

Stax the Foyer

ChoiceMad wrote:

In other words, no, the 'compensation' or 'tweaks' are not an admission of fault or an apology. If anything, they are a distraction from this and any previous comparable events. We agree that actions do sometimes speak louder than words but those instances are reserved for rare, spectacular actions and never to correct poor choices/behaviors. Additionally, to consider whether formal apologies are company policy or not is inane. Apologies are *human* policy or to borrow your sentiment "just common courtesy". Even governments state clear apologies (where everybody can see it) when they know they've screwed up.

I guess my issue is that I don't care whether they apologize, because I don't care whether they're sorry. I just care that things are better.

Maybe they changed things because they felt bad for us.

Maybe they changed things because the company Magic 8-Ball told them to do so.

Maybe they changed things to shut us up.

Maybe they changed things because a groundhog saw its shadow

Maybe they changed things because they didn't make as much money as they'd hoped.

Maybe they changed things because they made too much money, and they don't really have a great handle on how tax brackets work.

Maybe they changed things because Ice had a knock-down, drag-out fight in the alley behind the offices with the lead developer on the Galactus event, and Ice finally got them to put on the sunglasses that show what the event looked like in Round 8.

Maybe they changed things because they got a visit from a guy with a fishbowl on his head and he hypnotized them.

I'm okay with any or all of the above scenarios, because whatever happened, we ended up with a better event. I don't need them to apologize, I just wanted them to fix it, and they did a great job of that.

Unknown

Stax the Foyer wrote:

*clip*
I don't need them to apologize, I just wanted them to fix it, and they did a great job of that.

My consideration is that they should not need to fix anything other than exploits this far into the existence of the game. Anything else should be standardized to such a degree that the only game flaws would occur due to exploits.

Enoc99

Stax the Foyer wrote:

ChoiceMad wrote:

In other words, no, the 'compensation' or 'tweaks' are not an admission of fault or an apology. If anything, they are a distraction from this and any previous comparable events. We agree that actions do sometimes speak louder than words but those instances are reserved for rare, spectacular actions and never to correct poor choices/behaviors. Additionally, to consider whether formal apologies are company policy or not is inane. Apologies are *human* policy or to borrow your sentiment "just common courtesy". Even governments state clear apologies (where everybody can see it) when they know they've screwed up.

I guess my issue is that I don't care whether they apologize, because I don't care whether they're sorry. I just care that things are better.

Maybe they changed things because they felt bad for us.

Maybe they changed things because the company Magic 8-Ball told them to do so.

Maybe they changed things to shut us up.

Maybe they changed things because a groundhog saw its shadow

Maybe they changed things because they didn't make as much money as they'd hoped.

Maybe they changed things because they made too much money, and they don't really have a great handle on how tax brackets work.

Maybe they changed things because Ice had a knock-down, drag-out fight in the alley behind the offices with the lead developer on the Galactus event, and Ice finally got them to put on the sunglasses that show what the event looked like in Round 8.

Maybe they changed things because they got a visit from a guy with a fishbowl on his head and he hypnotized them.

I'm okay with any or all of the above scenarios, because whatever happened, we ended up with a better event. I don't need them to apologize, I just wanted them to fix it, and they did a great job of that.

Agreed whole heartedly.

This new event is much more fun. Galactus is still challenging at higher levels (we are on round 7 now), and getting more challenging, but it isn't as luck based and a good strategy still has a decent chance of winning.

DrStrange-616

The anniversary as a whole has definitely soured me on the game.

That said, this version of Galactus is a HUGE improvement over the last. It's challenging and fun. So, thank you for that.

Stax the Foyer

ChoiceMad wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

*clip*
I don't need them to apologize, I just wanted them to fix it, and they did a great job of that.

My consideration is that they should not need to fix anything other than exploits this far into the existence of the game. Anything else should be standardized to such a degree that the only game flaws would occur due to exploits.

But I want them to add new features and new events. Sure, I'd prefer that they work great right from the get-go, but I'd rather have a shaky first run and a solid second run than no new events.

I don't want them to let the fear of a rough rollout prevent them from creating fun new events.

smkspy

Loving the changes as well, don't know why people want to post their winning teams when devs could nerd them.

anywhos, do we know what essential node changes happen ahead of time?

Unknown

any chance there will be second anniversary sale?

Unknown

Stax the Foyer wrote:

ChoiceMad wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

*clip*
I don't need them to apologize, I just wanted them to fix it, and they did a great job of that.

My consideration is that they should not need to fix anything other than exploits this far into the existence of the game. Anything else should be standardized to such a degree that the only game flaws would occur due to exploits.

But I want them to add new features and new events. Sure, I'd prefer that they work great right from the get-go, but I'd rather have a shaky first run and a solid second run than no new events.

I don't want them to let the fear of a rough rollout prevent them from creating fun new events.

I didn't say anything about restriction of new events or characters. My implication stated that by this point there should be a standardized method to maintain a continuity of gameplay. Adding new characters/events should be as simple as click-drag from a test workstation to a server (it's an visualization example-- I know software dev does not work like this).

udonomefoo

I was curious if I could do it, so I just beat round 7 Galactus with 2* Mags, MoStorm and Hulk. It was a bit of a long match and Hulk took a lot of punishment, but I was never in any danger of losing. You know it's a whole different ballgame when you can run out "what if?" teams and still win.

PorkBelly

I was hugely critical of the 1st run of Galactus Hungers.

This is a huge improvement & D3 should be acknowledged for their great work on a very limited turnaround time from the 1st run.

JVReal

smkspy wrote:

Loving the changes as well, don't know why people want to post their winning teams when devs could nerd them.

anywhos, do we know what essential node changes happen ahead of time?

They can already track who is using what character and figure out why on their own. They told us during first run that they were surprised so many people were having success with OBW early on.

The only time winning teams being listed was prior to the event when it was still theoretical and they could change it. After the fact their stats will tell them anything that we don't.

The Bob The

I kid, I kid - I'm having a pretty great time this time through.

dasquish

Thank you for listening! The event could be a little more engaging with some of the ideas we floated, and it could be just a LITTLE more difficult, but I don't feel like I'm being punished for playing your game anymore! Faith restored! Way to follow through on feedback!

Raezen

First, yes I agree they made changes that were for the better compared to Round 1. It was nice to see them make changes, even if we had to have a 30 page post killing them for their failings in Round 1. But, in my opinion, we are overlooking some major flaws that they fail to address. Having Cyclops as an essential, when they are fully aware that Round 1 was a debacle, is just another brick in the path of horrible decision making on their part. Yes, Cyclops is only one node, but when that one node has been in every refresh since Round 2 started, that loss of points adds up in conjunction with the loss of a Galactus fight. So since Round 2 started, that means only 4 out of the 5 nodes have been able to be done by a majority of players. Add on top of that they broken BP node and all that can add up to losing any chance of hitting the required points for the Legendary token.

Secondly, the compensation for the BP node is a joke. I would rather have received the appropriate points than a token where I have a slim chance to pull something useful, mainly a Cyclops cover. I fully understand that the points missed will vary from alliance to alliance, but when the issue is caused by the failure of the devs to fix a problem they new existed in the past, then guess what, you should have to put in the time to make things right and not just hand out a chance token. For those that got lucky and got a Cyclops cover or a cover that could make a difference, then congrats to you, but a majority received a pitiful and useless cover.

Finally, I said before and I will say it again. Developing and maintaining a game is a difficult task. Issues are going to come up no matter how good you are. Some people will be happy, some will not. The best you can do is tackle the issues and fix them in a timely manner. The best you can do is to provide events that a majority finds fun and entertaining. There are many things you can do to make your game stand the test of time and not be just a flash in the pan. I urge the devs to step away for a moment and realize that most of us are just trying to help you make the game better and more entertaining. Because right now, I do not believe we have seen the best you can do.

Just my 2 cents.

Unknown

HustyReaps

Stax the Foyer wrote..."Maybe they changed things because Ice had a knock-down, drag-out fight in the alley behind the offices with the lead developer on the Galactus event, and Ice finally got them to put on the sunglasses that show what the event looked like in Round 8."

Was that a reference to the critically acclaimed late 80s movie, They Live, starring Rowdy Roddy Piper?!

If so...you win Post of the Year!!

smkspy

JVReal wrote:

smkspy wrote:

Loving the changes as well, don't know why people want to post their winning teams when devs could nerd them.

anywhos, do we know what essential node changes happen ahead of time?

They can already track who is using what character and figure out why on their own. They told us during first run that they were surprised so many people were having success with OBW early on.

The only time winning teams being listed was prior to the event when it was still theoretical and they could change it. After the fact their stats will tell them anything that we don't.

So they can do all that yet not make a line of script making 5 stars with no time limit. Just goes tto show they can do anything we suggest, just only if they feel like it.