Constructive Criticism

Malcrof

Looks like everyone wants different things out of the game.. sure 20 iso is the highest single.. but at the point of this post i am making, 73% want other things first...

Intriguing. If the dev's look at this.. it may put the 20 iso issue even further back on the burner... no-one i know of has quit over the 20 iso, and threads have been up about that for years.. i would look at the other 73% of the answers for the next big thing.

JVReal

Lots of valid issues in the list, tough to only pick 2.

I chose 20 iso and character balancing. They seem to be the ones that directly impact me currently.

20 Iso shouldn't be too difficult and will have an immediate positive impact on the game and not require much thought.

Character balancing requires a lot of thought because we have a core set of characters that were designed based on an old character building scheme of making abilities increase in BOTH power and cost when adding covers. For this reason we have characters with abilities in the high teens of AP that when compared to other newer characters are super expensive. I agree that IM40 is the worst of this. I have him at 5/5/1, and only ever use his 1 cover Yellow to generate Red. After that, he's too expensive DOUBLY so... he has a high AP cost for his moves, then an AP penalty for using it... that's double dipping and I've never been a fan of that. Same with Hulk's Red Smash... at 3 covers it Costs 14 red AP AND consumes up to 10 Green AP AND Self Damage possible... so many better red abilities. Sniper Rifle is so darn expensive at 19... that and Ballistic Salvo max covered cost 20 AP. Even Whales! is only 14 and you get a guarantee win if you have DP points.

It's not the newer characters that need balanced (the ones I'm not using yet because I'm still building them) but the older ones that I am holding and currently only get used when they are boosted or for very specific nodes. They need to be redesigned with the new mentality of consistent AP cost, but varied strength based on covers and character levels. Oh, and the redesign needs to be an improvement not a nerf. Keep GSBW usefulness, but bring down the cost a bit, reduce the cost of IM40's attacks and eliminate the AP penalty for using it.

I left communication out of it because it's more about how they communicate than anything. People say they don't care what they say, they just want to hear from them... well that was proved wrong on Galactus 1. They came out and said "You're supposed to lose" and we went nuts on them. It was a stupid thing for them to say and do, but it was their truth. I'd rather see action from them and a quick note saying what they are working on with a goal for it to be implemented. One good thought out post from them announcing something is better than nothing, and better than dropping a comment on a random thread that only creates more questions.

"We've heard your request for 20 Iso adjustment, we have that scheduled to be worked on for update 90, we'll give you more specifics when we post the highlights for that update". It's communication, it gives a timeframe, and tells you to expect more information. Communication is a no-brainer that should always be on the forefront and isn't something that can be checked off of a list and then move on... it's a constant.

ammenell

communication is a big topic. without it you dont even need to go any further and _any_ topic instantly becomes obsolete

its the scaling for me.
my video game career began with tetris and super mario, on gameboy.
many handhelds and consoles followed, still playing on ps4

with 20+ years of gaming experience, i challenge you to name a game that lets you roster/equip the best item of the game prematurely, then scales everything to this items level/power and destroys your game experience until you throw that item away.

the best part is reading about rumors they are working on an update to PREVENT softcapping.
i feel like someday i will wake up and have a bunch of badly covered 3*s maxed, 2hours later my fb acc info will be posted, first come first serve.

Unknown

madok wrote:

colwag wrote:

Would it?

What if the answer to what you want is "No, and it's not plausible that we're going to change it in the near future"?

Like if that is their honest answer I'd rather they not say anything at all about that issue.

I'm fine with them telling us no as long as they are talking to us.

Easy to say that, but "Working as intended" and "You're supposed to lose" are already pretty badly stinging memes around the forum.

Anything that wasn't considered a gargantuan apology, potentially followed up with somebody's resignation, was seen as a gigantic slap in the face of the playerbase.

Like, if the answer to the 20 Iso issue is "we want you to keep playing, and don't want you to just stop after 4 clears. We don't want it to be that easy to get command points. We are not going to change it." then yeah I would imagine that'd do a lot more harm then just staying mum about that.

Unknown

colwag wrote:

madok wrote:

colwag wrote:

Would it?

What if the answer to what you want is "No, and it's not plausible that we're going to change it in the near future"?

Like if that is their honest answer I'd rather they not say anything at all about that issue.

I'm fine with them telling us no as long as they are talking to us.

Easy to say that, but "Working as intended" and "You're supposed to lose" are already pretty badly stinging memes around the forum.

Anything that wasn't considered a gargantuan apology, potentially followed up with somebody's resignation, was seen as a gigantic slap in the face of the playerbase.

Like, if the answer to the 20 Iso issue is "we want you to keep playing, and don't want you to just stop after 4 clears. We don't want it to be that easy to get command points. We are not going to change it." then yeah I would imagine that'd do a lot more harm then just staying mum about that.

Perfect comment.

Some observations:

"Working the Intended": This is a game for fun and spend time or job you are being paid monthly?

"You're supposed to lose": No one likes to lose. This mindset will only frustrate and cause dropouts of the game. It is crucial to prepare challenges (Gauntlet), but plan to miss shows bad faith.

"We want you to keep playing, and do not want you to just stop after 4 clears": OK. I have paid work that pays the bills and allows me to have a minimum of dignity. Study to better professional skills and knowledge. I will devote time to the work / study or a mere game? Thinking ..... I think better not to play than to play more than three or four times the same node to get a measly CP.

simonsez

Flume wrote:

I can't believe that balance isn't winning.

It should've said "5*s are too damn powerful"

Unknown

uberhamster wrote:

colwag wrote:

I voted for PVP (because that is a painful slog) and new events (because I want more different gameplay, darn it)

That's really interesting. I find PvE a painful slog and PvP to be much less frustrating. I shield 1-2 times per event though.

You never finish a PVE match to learn that you actually lost more progress then you gained, because you didn't spend enough .

Malcrof

ammenell wrote:

with 20+ years of gaming experience, i challenge you to name a game that lets you roster/equip the best item of the game prematurely, then scales everything to this items level/power and destroys your game experience until you throw that item away.

Everquest.. seeing someone obviously pleveled to 60, but having no gear to go with it, getting 1 shot by grey's....

David [Hi-Fi] Moore

Thanks for the poll. I'm sending it around D3 Go! and Demiurge to help ensure it gets seen.

The Viceroy Returns

Malcrof wrote:

ammenell wrote:

with 20+ years of gaming experience, i challenge you to name a game that lets you roster/equip the best item of the game prematurely, then scales everything to this items level/power and destroys your game experience until you throw that item away.

Everquest.. seeing someone obviously pleveled to 60, but having no gear to go with it, getting 1 shot by grey's....

Didn't Oblivion constantly scale monster levels up to you as you improved as well?
As in mundane goblins you randomly encountered that used to have basic pointy sticks suddenly improved with shields and helmets n ****. The same one you used to throttle easily, but now improved because you are improved.

Interestingly enough, in Skyrm this was almost removed completely because wouldn't ya know, players HATED IT.
It's why old school RPG's were so fun. The ability to dominate that which used to dominate you is a big part of the reward for leveling up. it also gives perspective of "look how strong I've gotten!" as well.
If the content scales up with you, why bother?

So hard to only pick 2, but I picked:

PVE Scaling
I really feel for the players in 2 star and early 3 star land that got "rewarded" with a 5 star character and now can't play PVE.
The addition of the 5 star character tier has harmed this greatly, even though they specifically said it wouldn't. Either they flat out lied, or they screwed up something that you'd think they would specifically check for when rolling out such a big addition to the game. Either way, it needs fixing. PVE is not fun when you have to fight260+ level Ares & Juggernaut, or those PVE event with ridiculously high scaling, like the Sentry PVE. Whatever method is used to scale PVE should be standardized across the board for all PVE events, with maybe heroics using a slightly different formula (I think they already do; but it should be kept in check as well).
4 Star Transition
They have barely said anything about this directly, other than "we have some vague concepts" about 4 months ago. This could affect any number of the other things on this list (token types, Legendary implementation, 20 ISO, etc), and is the biggest issue affecting me personally, so I picked it. Those are are very valid, but this could encompass them if cone correctly.

Malcrof

The Viceroy Returns wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

ammenell wrote:

with 20+ years of gaming experience, i challenge you to name a game that lets you roster/equip the best item of the game prematurely, then scales everything to this items level/power and destroys your game experience until you throw that item away.

Everquest.. seeing someone obviously pleveled to 60, but having no gear to go with it, getting 1 shot by grey's....

Didn't Oblivion constantly scale monster levels up to you as you improved as well?
As in mundane goblins you randomly encountered that used to have basic pointy sticks suddenly improved with shields and helmets n ****. The same one you used to throttle easily, but now improved because you are improved.

Interestingly enough, in Skyrm this was almost removed completely because wouldn't ya know, players HATED IT.
It's why old school RPG's were so fun. The ability to dominate that which used to dominate you is a big part of the reward for leveling up. it also gives perspective of "look how strong I've gotten!".

But in all those old school RPG's, things were sectioned off. and if at level 20 you wandered into the wrong place, you had about 1 second to live... and others had level restrictions to even enter the zones... It was not like MPQ where they want everyone to try almost all the content all the time..

madok

Malcrof wrote:

Everquest.. seeing someone obviously pleveled to 60, but having no gear to go with it, getting 1 shot by grey's....

<oldtimer>

Ahhhh the memories. Nothing like the level 1 toons hanging around L Guk and Sol B waiting for Lore items to be rotting.

</oldtimer>

Bishop

All. Becuase who would want anything bad lingering around?

Dragon_Nexus

The Viceroy Returns wrote:

Didn't Oblivion constantly scale monster levels up to you as you improved as well?
As in mundane goblins you randomly encountered that used to have basic pointy sticks suddenly improved with shields and helmets n ****. The same one you used to throttle easily, but now improved because you are improved.

Interestingly enough, in Skyrm this was almost removed completely because wouldn't ya know, players HATED IT.

That was always my main complaint about the game. Nothing like travelling down a road on horse back and getting jumped by 5 bandits with full glass armour.

It's like getting mugged by Bill Gates, I mean some on if you can afford that then why are you even bandits?

shatland

i know it's all but lost hope, but i would still really like the mobile user interface to get looked at. things like special tile counters and strongest color indicators really can't be that hard to add. it's not going to make them the big bucks command points do but neither did the new victory screen debacle or menu overhaul and they had time for those. special tile counters, strongest color indicators, AP visible on screen at all times (without having to swipe left/right) as well as a AP loss/gain visual cue (like we sorta used to have, not the new one that sucks) would make the experience so much more enjoyable on mobile AND steam.

The Viceroy Returns

Malcrof wrote:

The Viceroy Returns wrote:

Didn't Oblivion constantly scale monster levels up to you as you improved as well?
As in mundane goblins you randomly encountered that used to have basic pointy sticks suddenly improved with shields and helmets n ****. The same one you used to throttle easily, but now improved because you are improved.

Interestingly enough, in Skyrm this was almost removed completely because wouldn't ya know, players HATED IT.
It's why old school RPG's were so fun. The ability to dominate that which used to dominate you is a big part of the reward for leveling up. it also gives perspective of "look how strong I've gotten!".

But in all those old school RPG's, things were sectioned off. and if at level 20 you wandered into the wrong place, you had about 1 second to live... and others had level restrictions to even enter the zones... It was not like MPQ where they want everyone to try almost all the content all the time..

I was mostly commenting on a non-freemium game that scaled up content along with you really.

I'm even more "old school" that that though; think back to Dragon Warrior (Quest) days on the NES.
You crossed that bridge, and BAM! New pool of enemies to fight!
You had a decent idea of where the zone changes where and could plan accordingly, knowing that there would always be areas that you could go to to get progress and still feel big & bad. It was player choice to decide when you were ready to tackle the tougher enemies. And eventually, enemies that were once tough no longer are as you progress.

To a certain extent, the design of this game probably doesn't lend itself to something like that, but the hyper scaling of PVE based on you doing well in the game needs to be looked at.
It was a bit broken even before 5 stars came onto the scene. How many times have you seen on these very forums posters say they have intentionally not leveled their characters because of the "highest three characters sets your scaling" myth/fact/whatever. We only know it to be true (we THINK it's true anyway) because of a transcript from Customer Service response.
Any re-evaluation of PVE scaling would help everyone.
The best change we got was the removal of community scaling.
At least we THINK it's gone.
There are some reports of levels still magically increasing through no interaction of the player. I've had Gauntlet nodes increase on me just within the last day or so. My Essential 4 in the final tier change from 326's (give or take) to 395's. A mystery to be sure...

Malcrof

The Viceroy Returns wrote:

I'm even more "old school" that that though; think back to Dragon Warrior (Quest) days on the NES.
You crossed that bridge, and BAM! New pool of enemies to fight!

Exactly, unless hunting silver slimes.. you didn't leave the newbie area, unless you were ready.. and doing so had consequences...

itstime1234

"David wrote:

Moore"]Thanks for the poll. I'm sending it around D3 Go! and Demiurge to help ensure it gets seen.

And nothing will be done.

The Viceroy Returns

aesthetocyst wrote:

So instead do like any other multiplayer RPG and have separate events with varying levels of opposition and correspondingly valuable loot.

MPQ used to take a step in this direction with easy and hard subs, but they were both tied into the same competitive event. Players complained about having to play both of them to win, and it almost entirely defeated the purpose of having separate easy/hard subs. Why can't we have completely separate easy and hard versions, or 2*, 3*, 4* versions, of the same event? And why do they almost all have to be competitive?

The devs don't want to divvy up the playerbase and they don't want the elite running away. Silly concerns. It will happen anyway, unless you successfully bore the elite into no longer playing.

I had heard rumors that they were planning to do something like this.
There would be multiple versions of the same event, but with different difficulty/reward tiers that were completely separate from each other bracket wise.
It would like picking a time slice when you join the event. You pick your reward/difficulty tier you wanted to play.

I think they probably back-burned that for the reasons you state.
When a playerbase gets fractured too much, it starts to affect everyone, like dying instances of MMO servers.
In some ways the elite already have run away. All one needs is a max Hulkbuster, Iron Fist, & Jean Grey, and they can go far in PVP, and get those 1K rewards like it's nothing, as well as the 1300 rewards, which gets them more chances at 5 stars.
I'm not close to that tier yet at all myself. My Jean is only 1 1 2 & my Hulkbuster is 2 4 1.

Sadly, they've said that they will probably never remove the "competitive" elements of PVE. And if they would look at doing so, it's probably somewhere behind even fixing/updating the in-battle UI on mobile platforms (which is badly needed; it pains to see how great the game looks on PC/Steam).

Dwarfsteel

I'm new to the forum (first post) and fairly new to the game (39 days in) and would like to offer a new players perspective on some of these issues. I've spent money on this game and (as long as it continues to be enjoyable) I plan to spend more on a regular basis. The game is incredibly fun as it combines so many elements that appeal to me.

To me, and seemingly also by the poll, the biggest issue is the 20 Iso reward. It just seems like an issue that affects everyone, both new and old and it feels like a relic from when the game was younger and you wouldn't have needed as much Iso to advance. I've got a decent group of 2* going (with a bunch of 1-2 cover 3*) and it's incredibly daunting when I look at how much Iso I need to bring these guys up. Needing 100's of thousand (likely millions when factoring in 3, 4, and 5*'s) of Iso is quite discouraging especially when you want to try and catch up. I'm not looking for handouts or to catch up to the upper tier of players in any short amount of time, but I believe the developers' intent is to get new players rolling so they can enjoy more aspects of the game and continue spending money without feeling burnt out or facing an insurmountable task. Even at this early in the game the 20 Iso feels like a kick in the junk. I can only imagine what the veterans feel like. I'm sure there are dozens of options, but from my perspective, and without severely altering the game mechanics (i.e. creating different tiers of game that are completely separate from one another) there's two options that would improve my, and I'm sure others' game experience.

1. I understand the developer likes to keep the element of chance on the node rewards. Keeping the system as is, it would be much less discouraging if the Iso "booby prize" was upped to say 100 or 70 Iso. I don't believe this would be game breaking and it would be far less discouraging for everyone while slightly speeding up new player advancement. If this seems like too much, the upped prize could be stopped once all the node rewards are achieved and brought down to 40 Iso for continued clears.
2. The second option would be, as suggested by others, to have a graduated rewards delivery. First clear the lowest of the four rewards to the fourth clear the highest reward of the four and then the 20 Iso thereafter (even though I still feel this should be increased)

In relation to this, the cost of buying Iso seems a bit ridiculous for what you get. $58 for 37,500 Iso (and obviously the other packages) is vastly insufficient given the volumes of Iso needed to advance. 37.5K Iso isn't enough given the copious amounts needed to advance. I'd be far more inclined to spend on Iso if it was more inline with what a person (especially a newer player) could earn in a couple weeks or a month.

My second issue is the scaling and to a certain extent the rewards (tokens in particular). As a newer player, I had no idea about scaling. Within my first week I pulled Sentry from a standard token and it nearly broke the game for me. The Prologue nodes jumped beyond being playable for me and I had no idea why. Luckily, I had enough sense though to look up why my game had suddenly become impossible to play. Suddenly I was faced with the decision to sell a shiny new toy or be forced into getting my butt handed to me every time. Fortunately, given the general consensus on Sentry, it was a generally easy decision to make, but what if it was a more useful character? The next incident came about a week later when I won an X-23 from a PVP event. Again, my scaling went overboard. I decided to keep her as she was useful and obviously rarer, but the grind has been anything but overly enjoyable. Had getting rid of her yielded better rewards or options (i.e. trade her for something I needed) it would have been a different story. To fix these issues in my eyes, there are a few ways.

1. Use a better system to determine scaling (particularly in PVE) or get rid of it altogether. The game (single player experience) should become easier to play as you advance. Not become harder or the same level of difficulty. As a gamer, I understand that there are usually areas or portions of a game that are beyond my level and it gives me something to strive for. A player with a lower roster level shouldn't be playing for the same prizes as a veteran. If I try a node that is slightly above my roster level it's a risk. I may win and have a chance at a good prize or lose and better understand my position. A one, two, or three cover character shouldn't wreck the game for someone.
2. Tokens need to be adjusted. Standard tokens should only yield 1 and 2* characters. Heroic tokens should yield 2 and 3* characters only. There needs to be a new token that yields only 3 and 4* characters and legendary tokens should either be kept the same or 4* only and a new token for 5* be created (can't properly comment as I'm not at that level, but it seems the latter would be the best option). There's no chance of getting a game breaking pull turning good luck into a heart wrenching decision and the odds of getting something you want increase at it reduces the number of prizes in a token's pool.

On the topic of pools, the DDQ vault could probably use an adjustment. Don't get me wrong, it's a great way for players to advance. At my level most things are usable, but I can easily see that as things progress I'm going to be getting more and more junk I don't need. I think the vault pool should be decreased (getting rid of duplicates or rather terrible prizes) or have a portion of it (say maybe 10-15 items) be selectable by the player so that at least they can somewhat load it with items they "really" need or some similarly engaging method for striving forward.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on all of this as a newer player. Hope I didn't bore anyone and hopefully it may spark some thoughts by others and the developer (if they read it, haha!)