MPQ At Marvel.com: Command Points & 5-Star Phoenix!

GrumpySmurf1002

puppychow wrote:

Punisher5784 wrote:

IceIX wrote:

DayvBang wrote:

Will CP available for sale alongside HP and ISO?

I believe (and hope) that the answer is "no".

No, with a social caveat. Players that purchase Iso/HP will also receive a small number of CP with their purchase, and this CP will also be "gifted" to everyone in their Alliance. It's technically possible, therefore, to whale a 5* cover for the entire Alliance... by purchasing over 100 Stark Salaries... IE, it's an Alliance bonus, not a method of gaining CP.

That's really interesting that the Alliance benefits from a teammate purchasing Iso/HP.. will there be any other scenarios where the Alliance gains CP through other methods? Like instead of gaining Iso when each member plays, you gain CP? Also, is CP giftable on Facebook?

Let's see. .. Stark salary costs one hundred bucks. 100x100= $10,000. So if an alliance collectively spends 10gs, each member gets a leg token. Wow.

Not a token, they get a specific 5* cover of their choice for that price. At least that's how I'm reading it.

puppychow

evil panda wrote:

So using Phoenix locks out players from using Teen Jean on the same team, right? This is a slap in the face to my maxed Jean Grey!!


(I'm totally kidding, I love that she's in the game now. Will save my whining for when I can't get her in any of my token draws )

Not a slap, it's common sense. When players were doing the thorevine combo, nobody really cared that you couldn't use Lthor too. With the ability to reanimate, Dark Phoenix will be a pain in the **** to face.

As an aside, I find it quite interesting that all the 5 releases have self healing capabilities. Is that going to be a feature or characteristic to qualify/be considered a 5 ?

Crowl

Pylgrim wrote:

Why should the game be easier for newer players than it was for the people who started years ago? Why should you expect to catch up to our two years of effort with only a few months of your own? If any, it could be argued that the game owes more loyalty to the players that have stuck along for this long than to newcomers that may or may not be willing to stick around for long. Obviously, that's not how it is because the game does want to keep enticing new players, but it is the entitlement what I don't get.

It should be easier for the simple fact that when you started the relevant roster level was 1* and 2*, now the game has moved on to 4* and 5* as the high end, so the finishing line has moved immensely for a new player, so logically you either need to move the starting line forward a lot too or you need to speed up how fast they can move and really are you honestly going to try and claim that getting people much quicker to the poorly covered 3* point has the slightest relevance to the maxed 4* crowd?

You seem to be working from a false premise, the expectation is not that they catch up with your 'two years of effort' in a few months, but that it will take a lot less time than two years to get to your current level because otherwise it is impossible for them to ever get to a competitive level since in two years time the bar would have been raised ever higher and if people have no hope of ever catching up then what you will end up with is an ever decreasing niche at the top end as people burn out and a larger but transient pool at the lower end and in the long run that will lead to a game that dies off and then all your 'effort' will have gone to waste.

It is quite interesting that the word entitlement always gets thrown around by people who have been playing this game a long time when the reality is that expecting nothing to change in the status quo of the game is just as self-entitled as those expecting the devs to do more for those in their earlier days of the game.

puppychow

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

puppychow wrote:

Let's see. .. Stark salary costs one hundred bucks. 100x100= $10,000. So if an alliance collectively spends 10gs, each member gets a leg token. Wow.

Not a token, they get a specific 5* cover of their choice for that price. At least that's how I'm reading it.

I'll believe it when I see it (or someone posts a youtube video).

puppychow

Pylgrim wrote:

It may be hard for you to get it because you were not around back then, but I guarantee you that the game has been /greatly/ sped up and made easier for beginners. I would write you a comprehensive list but it would take me a while because it's lots. Besides I don't get the entitlement of the new players... Why should the game be easier for newer players than it was for the people who started years ago? Why should you expect to catch up to our two years of effort with only a few months of your own? If any, it could be argued that the game owes more loyalty to the players that have stuck along for this long than to newcomers that may or may not be willing to stick around for long. Obviously, that's not how it is because the game does want to keep enticing new players, but it is the entitlement what I don't get.

re: new players. You're forgetting that D3 is a for-profit business enterprise that constantly needs players to buy stuff. Through the new rebate system (i.e. "Command Points"), they are getting the old players to cough up $$$ to pursue 5 covers. D3 also needs to convince the newcomers that they can come in and have a shot at holding their own against the legacy players; hence, all the changes to simplify the game (especially in pvp) for newcomers.

I'm not thrilled with the introduction of the Command Points (and 5 tier for that matter), but I can understand the rationale behind it. Does it seem unfair to older players like you and me? Sure. I'm not arguing that point. But again, in the interest of D3 keeping the lights on and the servers up, I can at least tolerate it. For better or worse.

Raffoon

I'm sure we'll find out soon, but what's the number of points needed to add a 5* cover? I saw someone post 720 in their summary of the video, but I didn't hear the devs say that. I think they must be going off of that leaky-picture from a while back, which is a bad idea, since that was a test environment.

Also, will at least 1 of the 5* covers in a given color be required to purchase a 5* cover like in the current HP system for 1-4*, or can you buy a cover of a given color without having found one of that color already?

Sounds like a promising idea if the amount of points given out isn't too stingy. Demiurge's history in this game has shown stinginess with rewards though, so my optimism is guarded.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to ask questions here or in the video thread......

Pylgrim

Hmmm, it seems that I might have come across wrong in my latest post judging by the responses I've got. I didn't try to mean that because I notice a big flaw in the 4* transition, I think that all work needs to be stopped on improving the 3* transition. After all, it's not a zero sum situation. What happened is that I was initially answering to a poster that pulled the old complaint of "rich get richer" which actually IS a "because I feel I'm not being catered enough to, I believe that no one should be catered to, especially the people above me" feeling; a feeling which also presupposes that the "rich" got there by continuously being catered to as opposed to, you know, grinding for two years under worse conditions that the complainer.

In other words, I don't want work on improving the 3* transition to be stopped, I do understand the arguments that many posters answering to me have posited regarding the necessity of accelerating the game for newcomers (as much as it personally stings). Nevertheless, what I do believe is that however far from ideal the current 3* transition is, it's not worse in any way to the 4* transition. Improvements to the 4* transition, I believe are much more urgent because it is really bad; much, much worse than then 3* transition, which is what prompted my annoyed talk about entitlement. So please, if we're talking about a feature that is directly aimed to improve the abysmal conditions of the 4* and 5* crowd, please don't try to hijack the conversation with complaints about the 3* transition; there will be more appropriate times for it.

Also, if you stop and think about it, you'll realise that you should be supporting our plight. See, back when you were 1*s or had not even started to play, WE were through the 3* transition and it was as abysmal as the 4* transition is now; we claimed and claimed for it and it was, eventually, much, much improved. For most of us, those improvements arrived almost too late -when we were already finishing the transition through the gruelling primitive means- but you guys get to enjoy them in full without having worked for them, and that's fine. Now you say that it still needs more work done, and I'll take your word for it; it is hard for me to see it because from my point of view it is so improved compared to what I experienced, that I have trouble imagining any better. But our clamour for a better 4* transition? It will be you guys, again, the ones who'll benefit the most from its eventual improvement when you get there, while we'll probably be fighting the good fight to improve the 5* transition.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

Hmmm, it seems that I might have come across wrong in my latest post judging by the responses I've got. I didn't try to mean that because I notice a big flaw in the 4* transition, I think that all work needs to be stopped on improving the 3* transition. After all, it's not a zero sum situation. ...

Also, if you stop and think about it, you'll realise that you should be supporting our plight.
...

Now you say that it still needs more work done, and I'll take your word for it; it is hard for me to see it because from my point of view it is so improved compared to what I experienced, that I have trouble imagining any better. But our clamour for a better 4* transition? It will be you guys, again, the ones who'll benefit the most from its eventual improvement when you get there, while we'll probably be fighting the good fight to improve the 5* transition.

FWIW, I've never publicly taken issue with your posts in the past, though I'd be lying if I didn't let you know that more than a few of them came off as overwhelmingly myopic. It's kind of hard to support people who regularly dismiss your frustration, or worse, openly insult you for offering your experience or opinion. (Not directing this at you in particular, but commenting more on a general forum vibe problem these days.)

That being said, as a well adjusted adult, I was more than happy to support you when you raised the issue of LTs (notice for those paying attention, I didn't say "whining," "crying," complaining," ad nauseum, I said raising the issue), because, well, it sounded **** and I empathized with your frustration regarding lack of progression.

People at all levels above 2* raise the issue of stifled advancement and the pointless of it (scaling & MMR leave little reason to bother) because it's actually an issue for all of them. It's not whining, crying, moaning, or whatever derogatory words people choose to use because they're not emotionally developed enough to tolerate other peoples' thoughts or feelings, it's simply the reality for those making the mistake of posting them in a forum ironically designed to allow people to do just that; share their experiences with each other.

I get that it's hard at the top. While it may be "easier" at the bottom, it is in no sense of the word easy these days.

While the LTs are obviously a problem, so is scaling, so is MMR, so is the effect of rostering a 5*, so is losing more than you gain in PvP, being shut out of a method of using your fully covered and leveled 3*s to viably earn 4*s, and on and on and on and on...

As I said before, I for one am glad to count you among the growing list of what some would call "whiners" or "criers," because I know, as I've known all along, that you're actually just another person trying to share an experience and hoping for the devs to make some kind of meaningful change that makes MPQ better for all... just like a bunch of us have risked doing all along.

Peace.

DBC

Unknown

I cant tell if this isn't exciting news or I'm just burnt out right now. Someone help me out here

IceIX

puppychow wrote:

Let's see. .. Stark salary costs one hundred bucks. 100x100= $10,000. So if an alliance collectively spends 10gs, each member gets a leg token. Wow.

Each person would have enough currency to directly purchase one 5* cover of their choice. Or about 28 Legendary Packs. Pack - 25 CP. 5* Cover - 720 CP.

IceIX

puppychow wrote:

that's assuming: a) the game tells you the SOURCE of the alliance rebate points (yes, I consider CP=rebate), and b) if not, someone doesn't try to falsely claim credit.

An interesting wrinkle, though, is what happens if a person buys 100 stark salaries so that everyone in the alliance gets a leg token, and then files for a chargeback. . . Do the alliance mates keep the token/cover or does the transactions get reversed for all 20 players. A very bad scenario all around, and I could see it happening too.

The game does not tell you who purchased it, just that someone in your Alliance did. We don't want to out anyone that may prefer to stay silent about their purchases.

As for the chargebacks, I can't imagine a situation where that would be possible and would stick. Both Google and Apple have purchase blocks in place *way* before 10K, and someone that does this over time would have an extremely hard time explaining that over the course of several days that they handed their passwords over to their kids each time who then went hog wild. Day after day.

That being said, we won't pull back currency for a chargeback. It's just the cost of doing business, not the fault of an Alliance mate that someone had something odd happen to their account. Why should the Alliance suffer?

fmftint

IceIX wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Thanks for answering some questions about all of this.

Can you give us an idea of how many CP a player could conceivably win/earn in a week?

Depends largely on where you are in Daily Rewards, since that's one of the places they're given out, and everyone's cycles are different. A top end player is going to be getting enough to earn multiple Legendary Packs in a season. Depending on where the player places in each event and if they're earning all the PVE node rewards, it's possible to be earning one+ a week.

This is why I'm opposed to Command Points as node rewards


These were taken minutes before my sub ended, both nodes were played over 6 times, both nodes are 1/4 rewards collected.

Pylgrim

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Hmmm, it seems that I might have come across wrong in my latest post judging by the responses I've got. I didn't try to mean that because I notice a big flaw in the 4* transition, I think that all work needs to be stopped on improving the 3* transition. After all, it's not a zero sum situation. ...

Also, if you stop and think about it, you'll realise that you should be supporting our plight.
...

Now you say that it still needs more work done, and I'll take your word for it; it is hard for me to see it because from my point of view it is so improved compared to what I experienced, that I have trouble imagining any better. But our clamour for a better 4* transition? It will be you guys, again, the ones who'll benefit the most from its eventual improvement when you get there, while we'll probably be fighting the good fight to improve the 5* transition.

FWIW, I've never publicly taken issue with your posts in the past, though I'd be lying if I didn't let you know that more than a few of them came off as overwhelmingly myopic. It's kind of hard to support people who regularly dismiss your frustration, or worse, openly insult you for offering your experience or opinion. (Not directing this at you in particular, but commenting more on a general forum vibe problem these days.)

That being said, as a well adjusted adult, I was more than happy to support you when you raised the issue of LTs (notice for those paying attention, I didn't say "whining," "crying," complaining," ad nauseum, I said raising the issue), because, well, it sounded **** and I empathized with your frustration regarding lack of progression.

People at all levels above 2* raise the issue of stifled advancement and the pointless of it (scaling & MMR leave little reason to bother) because it's actually an issue for all of them. It's not whining, crying, moaning, or whatever derogatory words people choose to use because they're not emotionally developed enough to tolerate other peoples' thoughts or feelings, it's simply the reality for those making the mistake of posting them in a forum ironically designed to allow people to do just that; share their experiences with each other.

I get that it's hard at the top. While it may be "easier" at the bottom, it is in no sense of the word easy these days.

While the LTs are obviously a problem, so is scaling, so is MMR, so is the effect of rostering a 5*, so is losing more than you gain in PvP, being shut out of a method of using your fully covered and leveled 3*s to viably earn 4*s, and on and on and on and on...

As I said before, I for one am glad to count you among the growing list of what some would call "whiners" or "criers," because I know, as I've known all along, that you're actually just another person trying to share an experience and hoping for the devs to make some kind of meaningful change that makes MPQ better for all... just like a bunch of us have risked doing all along.

Peace.

DBC

Hey, thanks for that. I myself have tried to stop using pejorative language such as the examples you mention (not that sometimes I don't think it warranted), but the "rich get richer" comment that's parroted over and over really gets me. Nevertheless, I think we are in agreement; MMR and PVP needs to be addressed (apparently PVE scaling is being addressed and improved before the year is over) along a myriad other flaws of different sizes.

I personally focus on LTs and 4* because, as I experience it, it is the most game-killing flaw: You trudge and grind in events, tolerating the above mentioned problems because you are chasing the ever fleeting illusion of progress, and then, when you arrive at the 4* transition, that illusion of progress is not even there! When you open your 20th IW while 70% of your other 4*s have an average of 4 covers, many of them having 0; or when 4* DDQ, one of the extremely few ways of getting 4*s, literally punishes you for the game's own failure at providing a reliable transition for you, forcing you to fight with underlevelled 1/0/2s or whatnot... the very reason why you tolerate or ignore flaws washes over, making all the underlying problems more visible and frustrating. "Bread and circuses" is a time honoured system to keep a population happy in spite of the clearly visible issues in which they live. The 4* transition is the point where the bread started being rationed.

Even playing the 3* transition when it was worse and through MMR and scaling even worse than we have today, I never experienced this defeating feeling of pointlessness and dejection. I believe that I've been, in average, more patient and tolerant, enthusiastic, even, than most people here through the game's history so it worries me finding myself thinking and feeling in this way.

jimstarooney

IceIX wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Thanks for answering some questions about all of this.

Can you give us an idea of how many CP a player could conceivably win/earn in a week?

Depends largely on where you are in Daily Rewards, since that's one of the places they're given out, and everyone's cycles are different. A top end player is going to be getting enough to earn multiple Legendary Packs in a season. Depending on where the player places in each event and if they're earning all the PVE node rewards, it's possible to be earning one+ a week.

How many days of daily sign ins do you consider a long term player?

Malcrof

Can we change the name, or at least the acronym... i feel very creepy talking about CP.

Xeonic-Ice

Malcrof wrote:

Can we change the name, or at least the acronym... i feel very creepy talking about CP.

.

GodsRightArm

I'm not sure if this was asked yet and if it was maybe it will bring more attention to it because i haven't seen it answered yet.

I know there are rumors of being able to cash in unneeded covers for CP can a RED comment on its legitimacy?

Unknown

Just a few points of clarification:

1) Can we expect to receive CPs for every previous IAP equal to what will be given for future IAPs? For example, if every $20 purchase will net you 1 CP & prior to the 5th you spent $100 on IAPs, will you receive 5 CPs or "just a couple" for having made a prior purchase.

2) If CPs are now being given as SHIELD resupply on certain days, will we receive any CPs if we've already passed the day? As, a day 741 player, I would certainly hope so!!

Stax the Foyer

Malcrof wrote:

Can we change the name, or at least the acronym... i feel very creepy talking about CP.

Com Points it is.

Jathro

Malcrof wrote:

Can we change the name, or at least the acronym... i feel very creepy talking about CP.

How about we call them CoPo?