gamar wrote: jralbino wrote: You ascribe a lot of thoughts to people that they don't actually write in their posts. It's what you posted jralbino wrote: Let's start with the fact that RIGHT there, in the quote YOU quoted, it says 49% are fine with one or the other. That shows a pretty reasonable attitude to me. Never mind the fact that the majority of people are taking issue with the end turn, not the damage ratio. In other words, the things you think are "reasonable" are: 1) Twin Pistols gains AP, does 5.7k damage, and ends the turn or 2) Twin Pistols gains no AP, does 5.7k damage, and does not end the turn The second of which is... the view I ascribed to the critics: gamar wrote: Yes, a lot of people think the "end of turn" was "unnecessarily tacked on" BECAUSE they seriously underestimate how good that damage ratio is on a character like hood. I think both of those options, which you describe as "reasonable," are way too powerful. I think you underestimate how good they are. Based on what you actually, clearly said in your post.
jralbino wrote: You ascribe a lot of thoughts to people that they don't actually write in their posts.
jralbino wrote: Let's start with the fact that RIGHT there, in the quote YOU quoted, it says 49% are fine with one or the other. That shows a pretty reasonable attitude to me. Never mind the fact that the majority of people are taking issue with the end turn, not the damage ratio.
gamar wrote: Yes, a lot of people think the "end of turn" was "unnecessarily tacked on" BECAUSE they seriously underestimate how good that damage ratio is on a character like hood.
DayvBang wrote: turul wrote: So when does magneto2* purple will be nerfed because of 4thor? All characters will be nerfed to ensure 4* Thor reigns supreme. ALL CHARACTERS.
turul wrote: So when does magneto2* purple will be nerfed because of 4thor?
Raekwen wrote: There isn't an option for "I never use this so I couldn't care less."
Demiurge_Will wrote: You'd think people would read the 5th cover description, wouldn't you? But time and time again, playtesting shows that anything that's in text, a meaningful percentage of people miss. It's not what I think or predict should be the case (my instinct is usually that people will read more than they prove to do), but it's what I observe, in every game I work on. Sometimes it's worth changing up how things work anyway - like we decided to in the previous version of the ability, and like we do with many other abilities in the game - but the additional confusion is a piece of the puzzle.
Nonce Equitaur 2 wrote: Demiurge_Will wrote: I've got an email with a concern about the interaction from the 9th. That's all good stuff. Would have been better to earlier say "We noticed a possible problem before posting her full stats. We watched to forums to see if players would spot it. They did, so we bumped up the priority."
Demiurge_Will wrote: I've got an email with a concern about the interaction from the 9th.
jralbino wrote: Being objective, you're probably aiming to maximize AP generation on the colors you need though, not setting up cascades.
Demiurge_Will wrote: KevinMark wrote: Demiurge_Will wrote: We playtested both versions, and making TP continue to end the turn at level 5 was easier to understand, the added damage led to more exciting moments, and the turn ending kept it feeling different from other abilities. It comes down to people who played the version of the ability we went with having more fun. I don't quite get what is meant by the bold part. Getting the 5th cover of any 3* character ability you like is a great milestone. It's an achievement. I think it would be pretty shortsighted to think that people don't read what the 5th cover does before they are upgrading/respeccing. I'm sorry but I also don't buy the rest of the explanation. You'd think people would read the 5th cover description, wouldn't you? But time and time again, playtesting shows that anything that's in text, a meaningful percentage of people miss. It's not what I think or predict should be the case (my instinct is usually that people will read more than they prove to do), but it's what I observe, in every game I work on. Sometimes it's worth changing up how things work anyway - like we decided to in the previous version of the ability, and like we do with many other abilities in the game - but the additional confusion is a piece of the puzzle.
KevinMark wrote: Demiurge_Will wrote: We playtested both versions, and making TP continue to end the turn at level 5 was easier to understand, the added damage led to more exciting moments, and the turn ending kept it feeling different from other abilities. It comes down to people who played the version of the ability we went with having more fun. I don't quite get what is meant by the bold part. Getting the 5th cover of any 3* character ability you like is a great milestone. It's an achievement. I think it would be pretty shortsighted to think that people don't read what the 5th cover does before they are upgrading/respeccing. I'm sorry but I also don't buy the rest of the explanation.
Demiurge_Will wrote: We playtested both versions, and making TP continue to end the turn at level 5 was easier to understand, the added damage led to more exciting moments, and the turn ending kept it feeling different from other abilities. It comes down to people who played the version of the ability we went with having more fun.
ClydeFrog76 wrote: Raekwen wrote: There isn't an option for "I never use this so I couldn't care less." First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
RefinedBean wrote: GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Gauntlet was September, and Deadpool is more recently than 6 months. Speaking personally, character design is way more interesting anyway. Another PvE like Deadpool, with the same basic mechanic and different words is nice for about 30 seconds. Then it's just same ol' same ol. (although at least Deadpool's wasn't "lets fight Venom and Ares and OMG STOP IT WITH THESE VILLIANS") Gauntlet isn't "new," really. It's a fun little idea but it's otherwise just...well, the Gauntlet. There's no story, although I'll grant it DOES give a sense of accomplishment, thankfully. That's more than can be said for most everything else in PVE and a lot of PVP as well. Pardon me - looks like Deadpool was more like 5 months ago? Maybe less. That was a fun one. I guess since it got repeated so soon due to the anniversary, it lost its luster. Looks like we're of different opinions on what we find most interesting. Personally, I don't really care about character design - I find discussions like these pretty amusing, but there's only so much something like "This ends the turn now, it didn't before" can hold my interest. I'd much rather focus on the PVE side of things, and why we haven't seen new content in so long. Why is there a push to churn out as many new 3* characters as possible and not give us anything new to do with them? It just seems...silly. I've said this in previous threads - there's only so many mechanics that can be added to a Match 3 game. They're teasing us with charged tiles, sure. Those could be significant, given time. But eventually everything, every new character they release, is going to be very same-y. Remember the big bluster about Blade when he was released? Now, no one cares. Same with Mystique. They're vanilla. Countdown timers, stuns, etc. - it's all been done before. We shouldn't focus on Hood's yellow. We should focus on the fact that the game is perilously riding the edge of boredom. Am I the only one whose interest has been flagging because I've busted my hump for new characters that, in the end, haven't done anything to change the game in an appreciable way? I doubt it.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Gauntlet was September, and Deadpool is more recently than 6 months. Speaking personally, character design is way more interesting anyway. Another PvE like Deadpool, with the same basic mechanic and different words is nice for about 30 seconds. Then it's just same ol' same ol. (although at least Deadpool's wasn't "lets fight Venom and Ares and OMG STOP IT WITH THESE VILLIANS")
Ben Grimm wrote: ClydeFrog76 wrote: Raekwen wrote: There isn't an option for "I never use this so I couldn't care less." First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Let's not Godwin this particular issue. I'm not thrilled about the change either, but there's such a thing as hyperbole bordering on offensiveness.
atlasspeaks wrote: i don't think demiurge or anyone else should cater to the stupid or uninformed. if they don't read what a 5th cover does it should be their loss instead of nerfing a character by adding something like a turn-ending ability and sticking it to those of us who are literate...
gamar wrote: jralbino wrote: gamar wrote: jralbino wrote: Here's a meaningful percentage - 96%: Yes, I'm cool with not gaining AP AND ending the turn - 4% Yes for covers 1-4, no for cover 5 (variable, cover 5 always keeps the turn) - 30% No, it should never end the turn because it creates a new board which is unfavourable for the user - 17% One of the two needs to go: either the no-AP-gain part or the end-the-turn part - 49% Maybe forum goers aren't representative of your total population, but maybe there's something to what people (the player experts) on here are saying? The "player experts" on here are complaining because it has a poor damage ratio compared to the total damage of Call the Storm The "player experts" would be happier if it gained AP, dealt 10,000 damage, and didn't end the turn Way to make stuff up. Let's start with the fact that RIGHT there, in the quote YOU quoted, it says 49% are fine with one or the other. That shows a pretty reasonable attitude to me. Never mind the fact that the majority of people are taking issue with the end turn, not the damage ratio. SOME are yes, but they are vastly outnumbered by those that are willing to accept a change to accommodate for the charged tile issue, but feel the end turn thing was unnecessarily tacked on. I would REALLY hate to go through the exercise, but if you want to go the route of selectively choosing damage ratio quotes in the thread to make your point, I'm sure I can more than match you with quotes from people that are just wanting removal of this end turn business. Yes, a lot of people think the "end of turn" was "unnecessarily tacked on" BECAUSE they seriously underestimate how good that damage ratio is on a character like hood. That doesn't exactly debunk my point
jralbino wrote: gamar wrote: jralbino wrote: Here's a meaningful percentage - 96%: Yes, I'm cool with not gaining AP AND ending the turn - 4% Yes for covers 1-4, no for cover 5 (variable, cover 5 always keeps the turn) - 30% No, it should never end the turn because it creates a new board which is unfavourable for the user - 17% One of the two needs to go: either the no-AP-gain part or the end-the-turn part - 49% Maybe forum goers aren't representative of your total population, but maybe there's something to what people (the player experts) on here are saying? The "player experts" on here are complaining because it has a poor damage ratio compared to the total damage of Call the Storm The "player experts" would be happier if it gained AP, dealt 10,000 damage, and didn't end the turn Way to make stuff up. Let's start with the fact that RIGHT there, in the quote YOU quoted, it says 49% are fine with one or the other. That shows a pretty reasonable attitude to me. Never mind the fact that the majority of people are taking issue with the end turn, not the damage ratio. SOME are yes, but they are vastly outnumbered by those that are willing to accept a change to accommodate for the charged tile issue, but feel the end turn thing was unnecessarily tacked on. I would REALLY hate to go through the exercise, but if you want to go the route of selectively choosing damage ratio quotes in the thread to make your point, I'm sure I can more than match you with quotes from people that are just wanting removal of this end turn business.
gamar wrote: jralbino wrote: Here's a meaningful percentage - 96%: Yes, I'm cool with not gaining AP AND ending the turn - 4% Yes for covers 1-4, no for cover 5 (variable, cover 5 always keeps the turn) - 30% No, it should never end the turn because it creates a new board which is unfavourable for the user - 17% One of the two needs to go: either the no-AP-gain part or the end-the-turn part - 49% Maybe forum goers aren't representative of your total population, but maybe there's something to what people (the player experts) on here are saying? The "player experts" on here are complaining because it has a poor damage ratio compared to the total damage of Call the Storm The "player experts" would be happier if it gained AP, dealt 10,000 damage, and didn't end the turn
jralbino wrote: Here's a meaningful percentage - 96%: Yes, I'm cool with not gaining AP AND ending the turn - 4% Yes for covers 1-4, no for cover 5 (variable, cover 5 always keeps the turn) - 30% No, it should never end the turn because it creates a new board which is unfavourable for the user - 17% One of the two needs to go: either the no-AP-gain part or the end-the-turn part - 49% Maybe forum goers aren't representative of your total population, but maybe there's something to what people (the player experts) on here are saying?
Demiurge_Will wrote: Nonce Equitaur 2 wrote: When? [was the interaction between Hood & Charged tiles discovered.] Just because a peek behind the curtain might be interesting to some folks: I've got an email with a concern about the interaction from the 9th. The posts on the forums, along with data from the lightning rounds, were useful in confirming that players would notice and estimating how widespread the impact might be - they helped to bump things up in priority. It still wasn't as on fire as other things, since it would be a while before 4* Thor was widely playable. It took us a while to be confident that the problem was with Twin Pistols. At first we thought the problem was with Charged tiles, or how 4* Thor were using them, and we tried tackling things that way for a while. We'd known for a while that on paper, and in longer matches, Twin Pistols was generating too much AP, but because of its high cost and low use in high-end play, it wasn't a priority to retune it. After we settled on that direction, there were a number of rounds of paper design, balancing, and testing before we arrived at the change you see here. It wasn't long between when we arrived at the final numbers and when they were posted here.
Nonce Equitaur 2 wrote: When? [was the interaction between Hood & Charged tiles discovered.]
mouser wrote: I think some folks are overestimating the ability of TP to create cascades. I've looked for opportunities countless times and it's rare to find something more then 2 match 3's you can create--sometimes you can only find a single match 3 as well. Even then they're likely to be in colors you aren't focusing on. I really don't see any justification for making the ability end the turn if it's no longer going to gain AP from destroyed tiles.