Stop giving 20 ISO rewards first, discussion and musings

firethorne

Malcrof wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Nearly 300 upvotes and no official comment?

That's not of the cool.

Not just an official comment, but also the math to back it up.

It is here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35728

Um, that's just an official response on the specifics on how the draw rates work today. We already know we get 20 ISO rewards. The percentage at which it happens today isn't what we need comment on. Why they refuse to make that percentage zero while true rewards still exist is.

DrStrange-616

Malcrof wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Nearly 300 upvotes and no official comment?

That's not of the cool.

Not just an official comment, but also the math to back it up.

It is here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35728

Seriously? That doesn't address in any way shape or form that actual question of this thread, and you know it doesn't. Pretending it does is completely disenguous. It's disheartening to see your homeritis seems to have overwhelmed your common sense. We're not stupid. Don't treat us as though we are.

And, wow, did you completely edit the OP?

Malcrof

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Nearly 300 upvotes and no official comment?

That's not of the cool.

Not just an official comment, but also the math to back it up.

It is here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35728

Seriously? That doesn't address in any way shape or form that actual question of this thread, and you know it doesn't. Pretending it does is completely disenguous. It's disheartening to see your homeritis seems to have overwhelmed your common sense. We're not stupid. Don't treat us as though we are.

And, wow, did you completely edit the OP?

Couple of things... if you look under the post, it shows you who made the edit.. all i did was change the thread name to invite MORE discussion, and that was done while checking in with the OP, any content in the OP is all his, outside of the edit note.

2nd..
No-one is treating anyone as stupid.. the link i provided was an official response in regards to how hard it is to get any specific reward out of a node vs getting the 20 iso.. a link that 100% needed to be put in this thread, as frustrations over not getting the CP reward vs the 20 iso are part of what started this thread... but , this thread was not locked, as that is not the only thing this thread is about.... adding relevant info to the thread is called being constructive...

DrStrange-616

It's an official comment, true, but it's about the odds and really has little to do with the reason for this thread and the frustration behind it. 300 people didn't upvote it because they didn't trust the odds, they don't want 20 ISO. That has yet to be addressed at all.

I stand by my statement no official comment has been on the subject we all actually give a noodle about.

firethorne

Indeed. Malcrof, I'll be diplomatic here and say thank you for trying to provide information, but with all due respect, that isn't the information this thread is seeking.

This is a fairly important topic to the community, and I don't think it is unreasonable to request. Tensions are high, and this thread is lingering around enough where anything but a clear response will be viewed as intentional misdirection and an attempt to sweep the true matter at hand under the rug. So, even if you're tempted to make this go away, don't. You don't want this to be the next "working as intended" or "you're supposed to lose."

Malcrof

DrStrange-616 wrote:

It's an official comment, true, but it's about the odds and really has little to do with the reason for this thread and the frustration behind it. 300 people didn't upvote it because they didn't trust the odds, they don't want 20 ISO. That has yet to be addressed at all.

I stand by my statement no official comment has been on the subject we all actually give a noodle about.

Actually it has been addressed, multiple times, in multiple videos.. even the people making the game and the videos have agreed they want to change it.. but it is not super high on the list.

Not sure how much more official you can get, than a video answering the question directly.

I will dig up one of the 2 videos and post the link here. Stay tuned, we have loads of new forum members now, who may never have seen them, and i think an archive of these videos may be a good idea, as with the Q&A threads we used to do prior. Not sure where to put them.. so will think on that.. any input for that is appreciated.

Even with all that, this thread is going to stay open.. please don't think i am not on everyone's side on this.. i play as well, probably too much.. and hit the same walls everyone else does.. heck, i am a couple million iso short myself just for the covers i currently have... so i would love to see it changed.. but i am also a software engineer, no, not for D3/Demiurge, but i do know how hard something tiny can be, no matter how simple it seems on paper, to implement, without breaking 20 other things in the process...


Edit:
Ok, found one of the videos, it is from July (4 months ago, i know, seems like it was longer than that!), and is the very first thing covered in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuQKEuCI_Ww

JVReal

I think there is a disconnect here, a difference between acknowledgement and resolution.

Yes they have acknowledged that 20 Iso is a problem... but have not given an indication that it is being fixed or when it is being fixed which would be resolution.

To acknowledge something (or address it in a video with no solution) does very little to a person being affected by it.

An abuser may acknowledge that he beats his spouse, but until he stops doing it there is little comfort to the spouse... action to stop the behavior is required for there to be resolution. Lets not get wrapped up in the details of the analogy and stick to the end result.

Acknowledgement without action or even promise to action is of no value and the same as inaction.

It's important to us, the player, but it is not important to them the developer. Until the developer acknowledges AND takes steps to bring resolution, acknowledging that it is important to them by taking action or setting a date to have it fixed, the player will not feel that it is resolved... nor should they.

Yes they acknowledged it, but it's step 1 in a multiple step process and have yet to take any further steps. We are urging them to take another step.

fmftint

Sure some things can have far reaching effects, but changing a roll variable is as simple as it gets

JVReal

fmftint wrote:

Sure some things can have far reaching effects, but changing a roll variable is as simple as it gets

The codes already there:

It works as:
1st pull - 25% chance of any given reward out of the 4.
2nd+ pull - 50% chance of 20 Iso, 50% chance of new reward. If new reward, rolls randomly between still available rewards.

Just change it to:
1st 4 pulls - 1 random remaining reward out of the 4
5th+ pull - 20 Iso

firethorne

fmftint wrote:

Sure some things can have far reaching effects, but changing a roll variable is as simple as it gets

True. I said it on page 1, this is programmatically one of the simplest changes that should exist, and if they claim otherwise, they must be horrible programmers, because it should be incredibly simple.

And I still would like to see more communication. A video is all well and good, but you can't ask a video a question. It is a one way street. This is not super high on the list? Fine. What, if not a request thumbed up by 300 users is super high on the list? How many more thumbs do we need to make it a priority?

It feels like the dev/player relationship feels like it is getting more and more adversarial. Feeling like we're being talked at rather than part of the conversation adds some fuel to that.

Clintman

Actually they could solve ISO related shortages and the 20 ISO reward by applying a formula that calculates enemy level against a baseline ISO reward. We could get rid of the 20 ISO reward and deal with the punishing aspect of scaling in one fell swoop. People would not be so upset about facing 395 enemies if there was reward to go along with the risk.

I could live with this formula of making all 4 progression rewards a pain in the **** to get if I got 20 ISO for beating level 34 goons, but got at least 150-200 ISO (for example) for beating my massively scaled 348 level teams.

TxMoose

I'd be ok with a happy medium compromise of 75% award, 25% 20-iso. that would alleviate a lot, while not being automatic.

udonomefoo

TxMoose wrote:

I'd be ok with a happy medium compromise of 75% award, 25% 20-iso. that would alleviate a lot, while not being automatic.

Seriously. I don't really buy the "it's too hard and might have unintended consequences if we fix it" line, but ok let's assume that's true. How hard could it possibly be to change that probability number from 50% to something like 75, 80,90 whatever. It's one number.

Crowl

udonomefoo wrote:

TxMoose wrote:

I'd be ok with a happy medium compromise of 75% award, 25% 20-iso. that would alleviate a lot, while not being automatic.

Seriously. I don't really buy the "it's too hard and might have unintended consequences if we fix it" line, but ok let's assume that's true. How hard could it possibly be to change that probability number from 50% to something like 75, 80,90 whatever. It's one number.

I think your suggestions are still too conservative, increase the chance of the proper rewards to 99%, that would deal with the issue for most people without accidentally breaking anything when clearing nodes more than 4 times.

9Enigma

There's a financial reason to keep the system as it is. Not every one cares about the placement rewards. The casual player in particular would get all 4 rewards and put aside the game until the next node comes along. Have many of us have thought...I'll play one more time, I'm due to get that last reward this time.? It's basic intermittent reinforcement, the same mechanism that keeps the gambler playing. The more we play, the more we drain the health of our roster. If our rosters are weak when we want to play an event, the more likely it is that we'll buy health packs. Keeping us in the hunt for the rewards keeps us playing and more likely to purchase other things as well.

CNash

But we know this. We recognise the trick. Sure, it works, but it's now a transparent ploy - everyone sees through it, and are not happy about being manipulated like this.

"Why can't we get rid of those pointless 20 ISO rewards?" we ask.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!", Demiurge insist.

Raffoon

Malcrof wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Nearly 300 upvotes and no official comment?

That's not of the cool.

Not just an official comment, but also the math to back it up.

It is here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35728

That's useful info that's related enough to be in this thread. I don't know why everyone's upset that was posted in here, it makes sense to me.


I think this 20 ISO thing really highlights how clunky and immobile Demiurge's implementation of changes in general is, though. In the beginning of the game, they announced they were nerfing Magneto. A year later it finally happened. Sentry took at least 6 months to nerf.

The problem is that they don't take an iterative philosophy. It's the same reason why the nerfs to Thor and Xforce were so huge. Rather than making small tweaks and changing further if needed, they took a jackhammer to both characters and gutted them. (Same for Sentry). Then they never looked back. Over half a year later, they've said that they're going to look into buffing them back up again. WAY TOO F'ing LONG!

They must be sitting there going. "Oh gee, ISO is an issue and only getting 20 on some nodes is a bad experience. Let's rework the ISO system!!" Fine guys, do whatever you want, but in the meantime change 3 damn numbers so everyone doesn't have to suffer while you analyze things for months on end.

CNash

At my workplace we call this "bias for action". Even if you don't yet have all of the data, there is sometimes merit in making a change anyway in order to make the customer experience better. Most changes are not irreversible - any short-term problems caused by the change can simply be reversed later.

angua51

I think this issue causes more player dissatisfaction, even anger, than anything else so I would like to keep it in full view for longer

udonomefoo

This thread: