Let's talk compensation!

OneLastGambit

Personally i don't think compensation should be given at all, a case be made if you directly purchased the covers maybe.

As others have stated if you want to be compensated for a character and re allocate those resources then I think it only fair you also return every reward you ever earned with said character in your team.

You've already got your money's worth from having a great character help you gain rewards so to me even if said character is later nerfed you have already gotten good mileage from him.

Likewise why should you be compensated because a character is now no longer as good as he was? Can I have compensation for all my 3* except im40 because now I've joined the 4* tier they are all useless? Can the same be said of all the 4* for those in the 5* tier?

Can I get compensation because I champed vision when he was bugged and now he's not? Nope nope and nope. Nor should i.

Time and money investment in the game is a choice and is not guaranteed to be fun or enjoyable. That's part of the risk of investing those things in a game. Apply your logic to another area of life...say...movies... Can I get compensation because the money I spent watching Batman v superman at the cinema has been made null and void by its bad editing? Nope. I understand your perspective (generally i tend to agree with most of your posts) but I think on this occasion we differ I'm afraid.

donietsche

My suggestion for potential 5* nerfs (and compensation) is simple: give players who have maxed and champed (even if only for lvl 450) a special token (one for each character nerfed) that allows them to purchase any color for any other 5* character.

This could/should not be compatible with the option to sell the character for a raised price; therefore they could introduce an option (in the character page) that allows players to redeem their token.

If one decides to do so, the selling price for that 5* character will go back to "normal".

cg2912

I love how all these responses just assume since u have a maxed char then of course you've had it maxed forever and thus you've won every reward offered.
I recall FINALLY max covering xfw using hp for last couple covers. Couple weeks later he was ruined. Boy all those rewards I won were awesome.

MojoWild

Wow, people think way too much about this!

Trilateralus

donietsche wrote:

My suggestion for potential 5* nerfs (and compensation) is simple: give players who have maxed and champed (even if only for lvl 450) a special token (one for each character nerfed) that allows them to purchase any color for any other 5* character.

This could/should not be compatible with the option to sell the character for a raised price; therefore they could introduce an option (in the character page) that allows players to redeem their token.

If one decides to do so, the selling price for that 5* character will go back to "normal".

Amazingly this as an even worse, more entitled suggestion than that of Vhailorx. This is a bad idea. No one deserves any compensation for nerfed characters. Even if you maxed them the day before. Characters can be changed at any time, meaning you use resources to level them at your own risk. Be grateful you're being offered anything as it's more than you deserve.

cardoor

The compensation I am most interested in is the game being fun to play. "Balance" has the potential to be better, but if it becomes Borg-like and ruins the variety then I would much prefer imbalanced characters.

With that said, I wouldn't be happy if they nerfed 4clops. I just put a lot of effort into getting the 120cp for his last cover (so I would not lose 3 more of his covers in the q). Plus he is fun to play as-is.

ThatOneGuyjp189512

the compensation for a "balanced" character has always been the same, half the amount of iso + hp. The fact that you're literally demanding being able to sell the character and then basically keep the character tells me you haven't been on the receiving end of any nerfs in this game.

veny

You are talking about nerfs and we dont even know how reballance will look like.
There are more weak characters than super strong ones that need to be nerfed.

Speaking about being fair - If you want a compensation for covers nerfed, would you accept the penalty for covers buffed?

Best options would be possibility to "drain" iso from affected covers - You decrease their level down to the level 1/40/70/255, getting all ISO invested but nothing more. Thats fair, isnt it? You cant ask for more than you invested.

bpcontra

I'm just impressed that the OP correctly used the term "opportunity cost" on a game forum.

Vhailorx

ThatOneGuyjp189512 wrote:

the compensation for a "balanced" character has always been the same, half the amount of iso + hp. The fact that you're literally demanding being able to sell the character and then basically keep the character tells me you haven't been on the receiving end of any nerfs in this game.

Tell that to my xforce wolverine who was finally covered in march 2015 (the Teenage Riot re-run if I recall correctly awarded my 5th green cover), only to be nerfed into near oblivion just a few weeks later.

Also, your statement implies that a champed 4* at say 280 has exactly the same value as a 13/13 character at level 70.

Vhailorx

veny wrote:

You are talking about nerfs and we dont even know how reballance will look like.
There are more weak characters than super strong ones that need to be nerfed.

Speaking about being fair - If you want a compensation for covers nerfed, would you accept the penalty for covers buffed?

Best options would be possibility to "drain" iso from affected covers - You decrease their level down to the level 1/40/70/255, getting all ISO invested but nothing more. Thats fair, isnt it? You cant ask for more than you invested.

Did you read my original post? That is basically what I am proposing! I just tried to suggest practical solutions that could be easily implemented by CS across the board (i.e. I think it's easier with their current system to sell a character and award covers/iso than it is to drain iso).

As for penalties when characters are buffed, I tend to think that when demi makes changes unilaterally, then ambiguities should always be resolved in favor of the players. So players should get the benefit of buffs, but they should be protected from the injuries of nerfs. That seems like a reasonable course of action because players have effectively no control over such changes. Favoring the players, rather than themselves, when fixing balance problems is good policy for demi. Not because players "deserve" anything (let's please stay away from the **** "entitlement" discussion that always shows up on the internet), but because keeping players happy is good for the long term health of the game. player engagement is good, player goodwill is good. Obviously demi needs to keep the game healthy and profitable, so fixing bugs and OP characters is useful, but it doesn't seem to me to be absurd to suggest that players should get the long end of the stick when such changes are made.

ZeiramMR

I also champed 4* Cyclops around the same time as Vhailorx (guessing via the Shield Rank ISO like I did). Here's what I gained from having done this in that limited period of time:

1) Having a champed 4* character for PVP this week. Reaching the higher score progressions would have cost me more Hero Points in shielding if I had champed a different character (and the only other boosted 4* this week that I had the option to champion would have been Star-Lord, much different power level.)
2) A slightly easier time in The Gauntlet. I was mostly using Ant-Man on my teams with other characters, which means not a huge impact. But I did use Cyclops here and there too. This isn't even a difference of completing all the progression or not, it only saved me some time and regenerating health packs -- I would have hit full progression anyway but maybe a day later.
3) a couple champion levels. I'm going to ignore this because the reward tracks are the same between champing one 4* and another and I had other covers in my queue.

So in the span of 3 weeks (heck, call it a season), having Cyclops champed saved me several hundred HP in shields, and more valuable to me, some free time. That's the low end of the curve, think of how much benefit over time people who had Cyclops champed last year have gained during the time at his current stats/mechanics. Having a better sellback rate if Cyclops is nerfed is great, but we gained some benefit before the nerf too. As for anyone who had only just championed a nerfed character should at least talk to CS, as I seem to recall them helping people out in the past who had spent monetary resources right before a nerf.

veny

Vhailorx wrote:

veny wrote:

You are talking about nerfs and we dont even know how reballance will look like.
There are more weak characters than super strong ones that need to be nerfed.

I did and you ask for much more. Draining 100% ISO from character is the only thing i suggest. I think its fair and it cant be abused.
Abused how? Well, am i the only one who is building 4* duplitates? With your idea (how i understand it) i would sell all 4* duplicates which would give me their covers back and i could use them to promote my original 4*, basically for free.

If 4* would be that bad you will need to sell it, why do you need compensation?
The only think i would understand is to decrease level to save ISO, but still, 13 card 4* is very useful f.e. in Titan Crash DDQ.

Vhailorx

Veny:

You proposed draining iso from a revised character but letting players keep that character.

I proposed 3 things as a sale price for revised characters:

(1) the full iso cost to level a character to their level at the time of sale. (this is give players exactly as much iso as your drainage proposal)

(2) covers equivalent to the character's current build at time sale. (this is also no different than your proposal. You want to let people keep their characters. I assumed that selling for a price that includes covers is easier given the game's current systems, but the net result is the same: a minimum level character with the same covers you had before the nerf and a bunch of refunded iso).

(3) players can ask for special compensation if they can demonstrate that they spent special resources for a character shortly before a nerf. The most obvious. example of this would be someone that spend 120cp for a 13th cover on a character 1 week before a revision. I specified that such compensation need not be 1:1, and should be given on a case by case basis (i.e. through cs) and only to players who recently spent resources on the nerfed character. I think said the last 3 months. If you stop and think about it, THIS IS WHAT CS DOES ALREADY! I just proposed a fixed policy.

Clearly I haven't explained myself well. People like veny are criticizing me for want too much, and then counterprosing the exact same thing without realizing it!

veny

Part 3 is actually the thing i have problem with.
You expect they will nerf someone so drastically, he/she wil become useless (or below average).
I am just saying you should wait for results... writing down demands like those is really premature.

Btw: How would you refund CPs? As far as i know, LTs drops are so random you would need hundreds of CPs to get the right cover. Would you like to get 20CP for that character? Or more? What would you do with other covers you got?
Only refund for direct purchase trough CPs would be doable (and acceptable with using common sense).

So yes, if they "broke" some OP cover, you should ask for compensation. On the other side i strongly doubt there is some "OP" character right now, that could be nerfed so badly, that your demands will be justifiable.

Lets be honest - when exactly did they nerf character last time. Seriously i dont remember - i remember only Iron Man that is OP now, and Quicksilver who seems to be better than his old version. Oh and 4* Wolverine got better too i think.

Vhailorx

Refunding cp for direct buy is relatively easy (take the cover, refund the 120cp). The trickier one is when someone mine's a cover out of a vault. When they do so, they almost always get a lot more than just the target cover. So you can't give some one 200 tacos if they spent that many mining out a 13th cover for some 4* unless you also take away the other covers, iso, hp, champion levels, etc that they got. And that would be a nightmare. Something more reasonable would be to give people a modest amount of cp, maybe 20, or 40? That's not enough to outright but a cover, but it is a decent boost towards 120, or it could be turned into and LT (turning 1 cover of fixed progress into one or two covers of rng progress). That's what I mean when I say that compensation doesn't need to be 1:1 and should be handled case by case.

And again, this is what cs is already doing. Doesn't everyone have at least one alliance-mate who got screwed by some in-game quirk, asked for help from cs, and actually got it? Thats basically all my #3 is. I just laid out the standard that players would have to meet.

As for nerfs: I did specify in my scenario that the nerf was bad. But I basically think that demi should offer a generous sale price any time a character is cjanged long after release.

I also think it is hardly hyperbolic to anticipate a severe nerf. Here is a list of characters that were nerfed from a state of meta significance to a state of "barely ever used except when essential."

Rags 1st nerf
2* wolvie (he wasn't terrible post nerf, but he was a mid-to-tier 2*)
3* spidey
Sentry
Xforce wolvie
4* thor

That is a pretty significant list (and longer than the list of character who were nerfed without becoming near-useless).

Obviously, we need to wait and see before commenting on these specific changes. I am just of the opinion that demi would be better off always offering generous compensation whenever they change a character long after release.

veny

Now i realized turning true heal into health burst also turned many useful heroes into useless trash.
Yes, we should wait. After seeing results i am sure we will know better which cover was nerfed and how badly. And i am sure with this info it will be much easier to ask for refund, because more "angry customers" will appear.

Suddenreal

The more I read this thread, the more I'm starting to think you're not really grasping the concept of "selling". Once you sell it, it's gone. I mean, why would you get the covers back? You sold the character because (you think) he's not good anymore, so why would you still want him? If you sell him, you don't want him anymore, but if you want to get his covers in return, then you still want him, so you shouldn't have sold him. And if indeed you don't want him, you sell the character, and then his covers, and get more in return than the character was worth in the first place. And wanting more in return than something is worth, is being "entitled" because of your warped logic. What you are trying to do is indeed eating the cake and then still have it.

Vhailorx

Suddenreal wrote:

The more I read this thread, the more I'm starting to think you're not really grasping the concept of "selling". Once you sell it, it's gone. I mean, why would you get the covers back? You sold the character because (you think) he's not good anymore, so why would you still want him? If you sell him, you don't want him anymore, but if you want to get his covers in return, then you still want him, so you shouldn't have sold him. And if indeed you don't want him, you sell the character, and then his covers, and get more in return than the character was worth in the first place. And wanting more in return than something is worth, is being "entitled" because of your warped logic. What you are trying to do is indeed eating the cake and then still have it.

We are talking about digital goods. "Worth" is entirely arbitrary. And I am basically trying to propose a blanket system that gives players as close to exactly what the the character was "worth" in the first place, so I still don't see the "asking for more than I put in" critiques.

As for selling: did you read my exchange with Veny? I don't actually want to sell the character, I want to extract the iso spent leveling a character without selling them. I have proposed selling for iso+covers because the game can clearly handle that type of mechanic (they did to to allow people to break down their dupes after the champ system was released).

I like that demi/d3 recognize that it's a good idea to offer players some compensation for characters whenever they are revised long after release. But I hate that demi/d3 then strong-arm players into keeping revised characters by requiring a player to completely sell a character in order to get any compensation. The game has many mechanics that heavily incentivize owning every character, and rebuilding a character takes a very long time. That seems unnecessarily punitive to me. Clearly I am in the vast minority if judged by this thread. I suspect, however, that once a popular, powerful gets nerfed into the ground, I will have more company. I was just trying to do it before nerf details were released to keep the discussion abstract.

Nightglider1

acescracked wrote:

File a class action lawsuit! Also, organise a multi city protest! We also need to contact the media and get some press releases out.

And don't forget the Guy Fawkes masks.