Time to update the 3* champion cover rewards, right?

elusive

nick_chicane wrote:

I dont see how they could change things without annoying people. Since they aren't making anymore 3*s, they could only alter rewards in the 4*s. Now, what happens to all the people who have already earned most of the champion rewards for characters that they add rewards to? Those people couldn't get the added covers.

It kind of reminds me of the daily rewards; didn't they add new rewards (e.g. CP) to days that people could have already passed? I don't believe we got any kind of compensation for that.

Bowgentle

aesthetocyst wrote:

Why the assumptions that the 4* tier will be "finished" or limited to a particular #?

Wishful thinking.

Nick441234

elusive wrote:

nick_chicane wrote:

I dont see how they could change things without annoying people. Since they aren't making anymore 3*s, they could only alter rewards in the 4*s. Now, what happens to all the people who have already earned most of the champion rewards for characters that they add rewards to? Those people couldn't get the added covers.

It kind of reminds me of the daily rewards; didn't they add new rewards (e.g. CP) to days that people could have already passed? I don't believe we got any kind of compensation for that.

Exactly. They have created a problem for themselves by not creating anymore 3*s. Sure, they could raise the Champion rewards above 100 levels, but is that really the answer? Its going to take long enough to get 100 covers for a 3* without having to then get say another 50 on top of that.

Pylgrim

Bowgentle wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

Why the assumptions that the 4* tier will be "finished" or limited to a particular #?

Wishful thinking.

How so? The reasons they gave to finish the 3* tier entirely apply to the 4* tier and we've already seen a fatigue of the meta, in which new characters cannot dethrone the established top 5 and they have started power-creeping newer releases. This cannot go for much longer.

Keegan

Vhailorx wrote:

But adding 3 new 4* cover rewards will definitely result in lots of retroactive compensation claims. Not worth the hassle imo. Realignment will already piss some people off ("i champed 3* X just so I could get 4* Y covers as champ rewards, but now 3* X give 4* Z covers! You suck demiurge! Game deleted!")

Pretty much this. You'd have a customer service nightmare. I'd be very, very mad if one day my 3Thor was slotted to give me Hulkbuster, and another it's going to give me Drax. The only resolution would be to give all players who had a champion whose covers are going to change the covers they were going to receive, and that's a lot of 4* covers to just hand out. If there is going to be an active way to get the new 4* covers, it'll have to come from a new or otherwise modified source other than the champ'd 3s. People have invested too much time and in-game resources (sometimes translated from actual money) to change the three covers.

DDQ would seem like an obvious candidate, but that'd be if the game's design considers this a need like we do

The Herald

Keegan wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

But adding 3 new 4* cover rewards will definitely result in lots of retroactive compensation claims. Not worth the hassle imo. Realignment will already piss some people off ("i champed 3* X just so I could get 4* Y covers as champ rewards, but now 3* X give 4* Z covers! You suck demiurge! Game deleted!")

Pretty much this. You'd have a customer service nightmare. I'd be very, very mad if one day my 3Thor was slotted to give me Hulkbuster, and another it's going to give me Drax. The only resolution would be to give all players who had a champion whose covers are going to change the covers they were going to receive, and that's a lot of 4* covers to just hand out. If there is going to be an active way to get the new 4* covers, it'll have to come from a new or otherwise modified source other than the champ'd 3s. People have invested too much time and in-game resources (sometimes translated from actual money) to change the three covers.

DDQ would seem like an obvious candidate, but that'd be if the game's design considers this a need like we do

Like they refunded every single point of overspent iso8 from adjusting the 3* tier?

Isn't the game being improved a small price to pay? You would really want Alpha test stand ins to remain permanent? Don't forget that rechamping is viable, and should be an ongoing process for years to come (especially if 3*s become more available in response to a 4* shift).

carrion_pigeons

We all know that d3 has been incredibly stingy with their rewards model but complaining that everyone who already got 4* champ covers deserves reimbursement when/if they normalize them is not being reasonable.

If d3 was never allowed to make any changes that inconvenienced some portion of their playerbase, they'd never be able to change anything. Players who spent money got what they were paying for, which was expressly NOT an expectation of future rewards for which they didn't pay.

Keegan

carrion pigeons wrote:

We all know that d3 has been incredibly stingy with their rewards model but complaining that everyone who already got 4* champ covers deserves reimbursement when/if they normalize them is not being reasonable.

If d3 was never allowed to make any changes that inconvenienced some portion of their playerbase, they'd never be able to change anything. Players who spent money got what they were paying for, which was expressly NOT an expectation of future rewards for which they didn't pay.

If you are speaking to my post, I'm talking about rewards not yet received from champ levels.

Keegan

The Herald wrote:

Keegan wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

But adding 3 new 4* cover rewards will definitely result in lots of retroactive compensation claims. Not worth the hassle imo. Realignment will already piss some people off ("i champed 3* X just so I could get 4* Y covers as champ rewards, but now 3* X give 4* Z covers! You suck demiurge! Game deleted!")

Pretty much this. You'd have a customer service nightmare. I'd be very, very mad if one day my 3Thor was slotted to give me Hulkbuster, and another it's going to give me Drax. The only resolution would be to give all players who had a champion whose covers are going to change the covers they were going to receive, and that's a lot of 4* covers to just hand out. If there is going to be an active way to get the new 4* covers, it'll have to come from a new or otherwise modified source other than the champ'd 3s. People have invested too much time and in-game resources (sometimes translated from actual money) to change the three covers.

DDQ would seem like an obvious candidate, but that'd be if the game's design considers this a need like we do

Like they refunded every single point of overspent iso8 from adjusting the 3* tier?

Isn't the game being improved a small price to pay? You would really want Alpha test stand ins to remain permanent? Don't forget that rechamping is viable, and should be an ongoing process for years to come (especially if 3*s become more available in response to a 4* shift).

If they chose to give everyone the 4* covers they were anticipating, that'd be great. I don't think anyone would complain.

In my opinion, it is not a "small price to pay" to change champion level covers. The RPG aspect of this game is designed so that you are forced to make decisions on how to invest your resources based up on their return - 4* covers from 3* champs is part of this design. If you retroactively change your game that negatively affects how people made decisions you're doing a very, very poor job at game management. There are other ways to increase 4* acquirement rates than messing with a subset of your playerbase playing the game as you intended.

Keegan

aesthetocyst wrote:

Keegan wrote:

If they chose to give everyone the 4* covers they were anticipating, that'd be great. I don't think anyone would complain.

In my opinion, it is not a "small price to pay" to change champion level covers. The RPG aspect of this game is designed so that you are forced to make decisions on how to invest your resources based up on their return - 4* covers from 3* champs is part of this design. If you retroactively change your game that negatively affects how people made decisions you're doing a very, very poor job at game management. There are other ways to increase 4* acquirement rates than messing with a subset of your playerbase playing the game as you intended.

Theres also the need to keep the game fresh.

Fixed rewards can be great ... But they also age.

As the characters in the scheme age they are likely to become less desirable. Weakening the value of champing some characters.

Several characters have perfect counterparts that should probably never change. 2thor should give 3thor, Falcon to Flaptain, etc. But others do not or did not when R91 dropped. Punisher had no 4puns .... But now he does.

When the perfect association develops the change should be made.

I agree with this premise. I have no problem with the theory of changing the rewards to have them match the current game structure.

What I do not agree with and have a problem with is that the solution is to just change the covers in the spirit of the game, with no regard for people anticipating the covers who made decisions based on the same spirit of the game. Just because I'd like a Kate Bishop covers from, say, Mostorm's champ rewards doesn't mean I get to screw over people anticipating the 4hor covers. If there's compensation, the change management should be fine.

carrion_pigeons

Keegan wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

We all know that d3 has been incredibly stingy with their rewards model but complaining that everyone who already got 4* champ covers deserves reimbursement when/if they normalize them is not being reasonable.

If d3 was never allowed to make any changes that inconvenienced some portion of their playerbase, they'd never be able to change anything. Players who spent money got what they were paying for, which was expressly NOT an expectation of future rewards for which they didn't pay.

If you are speaking to my post, I'm talking about rewards not yet received from champ levels.

So your argument is that because some people want the current rewards, d3 can't ever change them without compensating the people who wanted. Right?

That isn't reasonable. If people made the choice to level up their Mostorm, then their reward is and always was a higher level Storm. They didn't sacrifice getting covers for some other character by leveling their Storm, and if they chose to let a different set of covers expire at the expense of their Storm, then frankly that's their fault for overplaying for placement rewards they couldn't use in the first place. D3 doesn't owe them a thing for that.

Keegan

carrion pigeons wrote:

then frankly that's their fault for overplaying for placement rewards they couldn't use in the first place. D3 doesn't owe them a thing for that.

No, that's the very purpose of a reward. It's incentive to achieve something. You don't get to change that without compensation. It's the exact same thing as if you were playing for an Iceman cover in PVE and they gave you Chulk, and you complain and they reply with "You were playing for placement. Any reward you get for first place is appropriate, you got first place."

KGB

Keegan wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

then frankly that's their fault for overplaying for placement rewards they couldn't use in the first place. D3 doesn't owe them a thing for that.

No, that's the very purpose of a reward. It's incentive to achieve something. You don't get to change that without compensation. It's the exact same thing as if you were playing for an Iceman cover in PVE and they gave you Chulk, and you complain and they reply with "You were playing for placement. Any reward you get for first place is appropriate, you got first place."

Then D3 should just put a time limit on collecting the reward. In other words announce that in 30 days the covers are changing so if you want things as they currently are you have 30 days to apply as champ levels and acquire covers. After that it changes over to the new system.

That would be very consistent with how things work in other games/real world (ie you win the lottery you have X amount of time to claim your prize before it's gone). The tail should not be wagging the dog.

KGB

carrion_pigeons

Keegan wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

then frankly that's their fault for overplaying for placement rewards they couldn't use in the first place. D3 doesn't owe them a thing for that.

No, that's the very purpose of a reward. It's incentive to achieve something. You don't get to change that without compensation. It's the exact same thing as if you were playing for an Iceman cover in PVE and they gave you Chulk, and you complain and they reply with "You were playing for placement. Any reward you get for first place is appropriate, you got first place."

It isn't the same because we're talking about people who haven't achieved the rewards. It's more like demanding recompense for changing the top reward when you got 16th place. You have no reason to care, because you didn't get it while it was available and that's totally your fault.

Keegan

Also, yes your reward for taking Storm to 166 is a higher level Storm. But the moment you spend the additional iso to chanp her, you are purchasing higher levels plus additional rewards. There is absolutely an obligation to honor that purchase.

I fail to believe that if any of you were on the losing end of a change you are so enthusiatic about now, you'd remain supportive. This idea is only being considered in the context of how it would help players that want one thing, and tough luck for those that want another.

Keegan

carrion pigeons wrote:

Keegan wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

then frankly that's their fault for overplaying for placement rewards they couldn't use in the first place. D3 doesn't owe them a thing for that.

No, that's the very purpose of a reward. It's incentive to achieve something. You don't get to change that without compensation. It's the exact same thing as if you were playing for an Iceman cover in PVE and they gave you Chulk, and you complain and they reply with "You were playing for placement. Any reward you get for first place is appropriate, you got first place."

It isn't the same because we're talking about people who haven't achieved the rewards. It's more like demanding recompense for changing the top reward when you got 16th place. You have no reason to care, because you didn't get it while it was available and that's totally your fault.

Nope, again. In your scenario someone is looking for compensation for something they never would have achieved. This is changing compensation that was guaranteed, exactly as I described. If you don't see the difference, then I don't know.

carrion_pigeons

But as I said originally, it isn't reasonable to hold a game designer to never ever change the structure of their game if someone doesn't want them to.

The fact is that people who didn't get the rewards didn't get the rewards because they didn't stake their life's goals on getting them. There's no good reason to think the rewards meant the world to them in the first place.

The Herald

Also, you then have the problem of NEVER GETTING THE NEW 4*s if you demand the Champion system remains a broken mess on speculation.

The Champion rewards are a way to guarantee the 4* covers. Just the old 4*s, such as having multiple avenues to CHulk, is pretty rubbish.

Keegan

Please note that at no point did I demand any system remain broken - I agree with the premise, as noted. The bottom line, though, is that such a change to the cover rewards cannot be unilateral in the interest of people who want new covers; compensation for lost rewards after investment is not unreasonable at all. I'm actually kind of flabbergasted that such a suggestion is getting pushback, because if the devs implemented the system with no compensation system in place you can bet all the money in our pockets that this place would go crazy about how awful a decision that was, even those whom it did not directly affect. What reasons are there for not compensating me for losing my promised return on investment simply because someone else wants something else? Compromise, folks.

Keegan

carrion pigeons wrote:

There's no good reason to think the rewards meant the world to them in the first place.

"There's no good reason to think..." is exactly how poor design choices get made, because the first rule in product development is you are not your user, and you should never make such blanket assumptions about user behavior. Heck, that's exactly what we get mad at these developers for, making a change and saying "we didn't think that..."