Let's talk compensation!

Blahahah

Eat your cake and still have it is a golden phrase I'm going to steal forever.

But yeah, I understand where Vhal is coming from. It's not so much the value of the goods, but rather that once you sell that character, if you decide to rescind on your decision, you have to claim 13 or 14 more covers for them. The problem then stems from the fact that those are, on average, about a 0.2% chance of getting that character again.

It's not just a flat buy-and-sell comparison because you can't just buy a whole character. Selling them means basically ensuring that there's a chance you never get that character again, meanwhile any future covers you get for them in that span of time will be at reduced value as they could've been used to champion.

The compensation would have to take into account that the span of time it takes someone to fully cover a 4* is about a year (assuming the new system of 4* progression continues to increase over the span of time), meaning you'd have to cover the cost of any cover received within the year in regards to the person's character level and such.


Compensation will be weird, we'll have to wait and see how things play out. I don't agree with "selling back the levels" just off of the sheer development issues it would bring up and the possible bugs and exploits that could follow, but at the same time it's difficult to conceive a viable alternative that won't leave players feeling slighted.

Xenoberyll

The last time sales compensation was offered was before champions and before Deadpools clash of titans if i recall this right. If you sell a championed 4star now consequences are a lot more severe than they used to be. And even though you reaped some champion rewards and got to use the character i see how it feels really unfair if that top character becomes terrible all of a sudden. Turning a great character into a terrible one essentially is destroying ISO the player earned and used to max that guy. So I'd love to be able to just get the ISO back and lose only the covers above 13 but i hope the nerfs and boost will be a lot more reasonable so holding on to the characters is the obvious choice.

Vhailorx

Xenoberyll wrote:

The last time sales compensation was offered was before champions and before Deadpools clash of titans if i recall this right. If you sell a championed 4star now consequences are a lot more severe than they used to be. And even though you reaped some champion rewards and got to use the character i see how it feels really unfair if that top character becomes terrible all of a sudden. Turning a great character into a terrible one essentially is destroying ISO the player earned and used to max that guy. So I'd love to be able to just get the ISO back and lose only the covers above 13 but i hope the nerfs and boost will be a lot more reasonable so holding on to the characters is the obvious choice.

This is a much more eloquent expression of what I have been trying to say in this thread! Thank you!

Norksman

Is there any reason that people are looking at this from an apocalyptic stand point? As in, they only way the're going to nerf someone is to Cho levels?

Can we give D3 the benefit of the doubt here? Look at their track record over the past few months. They are making great changes to the game lately.

Every character is useful in the right circumstances.

Xalthim

It seems to me that fair comp would be cp x number of covers plus your ISO, so if you had gained 13 + 10 champed covers on a 4 star, then 23 x 120 cp = 2760 cp plus your ISO to champ. that's true comp. pay you what it costs you in the game today. Then some added bonus would be reasonable for the trouble.

Blahahah

Norksman wrote:

Is there any reason that people are looking at this from an apocalyptic stand point? As in, they only way the're going to nerf someone is to Cho levels?

Can we give D3 the benefit of the doubt here? Look at their track record over the past few months. They are making great changes to the game lately.

Every character is useful in the right circumstances.

It's not so much that we believe they'll make another Cho (and if they did, they'd probably reel it back).
It's more the issue of the principle of it. If they botch compensation here, it does not bode well for future "compensations"

brisashi

Norksman wrote:

Is there any reason that people are looking at this from an apocalyptic stand point? As in, they only way the're going to nerf someone is to Cho levels?

Can we give D3 the benefit of the doubt here? Look at their track record over the past few months. They are making great changes to the game lately.

Every character is useful in the right circumstances.

They've been pretty heavy handed with previous nerfs.

Norksman

brisashi wrote:

They've been pretty heavy handed with previous nerfs.

The nerfs they did well over a year ago? What is the last character they've nerfed? XFW/4Thor? I've been playing for nearly 18 months and I haven't seen them make any negative changes in that time. I think there's fair evidence to say that they've made some positive changes internally.

At this point, they've given me no reason to doubt that they're going to drop the ball on these. Particularly because they've been vocal about any changes they make not being permanent.

*edit - I accidentally a word

Suddenreal

Vhailorx wrote:

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.

"Worth" isn't arbitrary, since there already is a price established for selling covers/characters. And as other people have already pointed out, your "profit" comes from the rewards you gained by using that character. Reducing a character to its minimum level with max covers isn't an option. You either sell the character or you don't. There is no middle ground. Hate it or leave it. And of course you'll have more company once the popular and powerful get nerfed into the ground. Even if demi/d3 offers every cover in the game as compensation, people will still complain it isn't enough. That's the way it has become.

Also,

Blahahah wrote:

Eat your cake and still have it is a golden phrase I'm going to steal forever.

Actually that's the origin of the "having your cake and eating it" proverb. People just changed the order for some reason, even though it makes no sense at all.

Cascad

Norksman wrote:

At this point, they've given me no reason to doubt that they're going to drop the ball on these. Particularly because they've been vocal about any changes they make not being permanent.

Agreed. Now after returning I can see many positive changes also. And compensation ... I am not sure, but hope they will offer something for us.

_RiO_

Vhailorx wrote:

Trilateralus wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

Wow, really surprised by the pushback on this.

I don't think I am asking to for anything unreasonable.

You absolutely are. There have been nerfs before and there will be nerfs again, the fact that you're offered anything in return is more than generous. The idea that just because you no longer think a character has value entitles you to anything is ridiculous. You got what you paid for at the time and you got whatever that character won you in the meantime. Your idea is like if a new meta-king character was released and everyone with OML demanding they should get it for free because it's better.

No one has said demi can't change characters at their whim. They deserve the right to do that in their eula.

In the more sane parts of the world, a EULA cannot trump law.
Afaik the UK implements an addition to the EU Consumer Rights Directive in its Consumer Rights Act. Next to the old goods and services dichotomy, this defines virtual goods as a separate third pillar which borrows from both services and physical goods. Both games and virtual items inside games are classified as virtual goods.

Among the things this virtual goods category borrows from traditional goods are the stipulations regarding satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose, but also for the goods to be as described. A significant nerf that substantially alters a purchased character could violate those and give a consumer the legal right to seek compensation. Not only for the reduction in value, but also for any forthflowing damages to other digital content. I.e. building out a set of characters around one certain character that is nerfed and foils the team's intent counts as damages to the other characters as well.

And the EU is looking to make these additional provisions a part of EU directives as well, bringing them into effect EU-wide.

The landscape of freemium games is never going to be the same again.

Vhailorx

Rio:

I was trying to say "reserve" the right. Not "deserve." you will get no argument from me that American courts are much to forgiving regarding the inclusion of onerous terms in eulas (and other contracts of adhesion in general).

Would love to see the us move towards the ecj with respect to this topic. But it's not going to happen anytime soon. So American players are stuck with the eula as it exists.

Stax the Foyer

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.

Yes, but the next nerf will be the first nerf in the post-CP era, and the first in the post-championing era. Using the same ISO/HP formula doesn't account for the massive devaluation of HP, and it's not clear how they plan to account for championing levels.

Something seems very likely to change.

MarvelMan

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Something seems very likely to change.

And this is the crux of the OP: D3 has said they will do something, so lets have an open, rational discussion of what a good option would look like. A basic premise is also that "nerf" is in the eye of the beholder, and its pretty clear that D3 believes that the player is eligible for compensation if they sell the character whether its a nerf or a buff.

Any compensation has to be different than the past as the value of HP has gone down, there are now champ levels to consider, plus XP and Crash of Titans have been introduced. Maybe Vhail's suggestion is a bit over the top, but there needed to be a new starting point and he did a pretty good job of identifying one, plus laying out why he thought it was reasonable. Those crucifying him for attempting to start a discussion need to calm down offer alternatives that are not just "the player had use of the char therefore they deserve nothing." Join the rational conversation by proposing something and offering the logic behind it.

Personally, I think that 75% of the iso plus 30cp per champ level and 15 covers could be fair. The difficultly I see there is that 15 covers would automatically result in champing (and a sell cycle?) plus a LT. So restricting the iso recovered means youd still have to invest in the char again to bring them up to champ/sell and seems like it fairly addresses that the player had use of the character. Another shortcoming is it doesnt take into account how long the player had the char champed (aside from number of champ levels) so someone who used the char for a year vs the person who champed it days before the change was announced get the same thing. That just seems like a minor unfairness to me so i could live with that in order to have a nice, consistent policy/plan.

Arphaxad

Just putting this out there, I'm surprised that anyone is shocked by an on going MMO making balancing changes. This kind of thing happens all the time, and with no compensation. If you want a growing game that stays competitive you have to expect re-balancing to happen from time to time. If a growing game does not re-balance it will become a convoluted mess and you would cry for compensation because of that. It is a loose/loose situation you have put D3 into.

If this is read by a dev, please accept my sincere thanks for the work you are putting into this great game. Thank you for investing time and money into re-balancing champions to make as many of them as possible playable. That kind of diversity adds the fun of team building and to the challenge of resource allocation. Keep up the good work.

Vhailorx

Arphaxad wrote:

Just putting this out there, I'm surprised that anyone is shocked by an on going MMO making balancing changes. This kind of thing happens all the time, and with no compensation. If you want a growing game that stays competitive you have to expect re-balancing to happen from time to time. If a growing game does not re-balance it will become a convoluted mess and you would cry for compensation because of that. It is a loose/loose situation you have put D3 into.

If this is read by a dev, please accept my sincere thanks for the work you are putting into this great game. Thank you for investing time and money into re-balancing champions to make as many of them as possible playable. That kind of diversity adds the fun of team building and to the challenge of resource allocation. Keep up the good work.

Just because balance changes can (and sometimes should) be made doesn't mean that player's should get compensation, especially in a microtransactional game where players can spend lots of time/money/resources targeting specific elements.

This thread is more or less moot now as no nerfs have been omplements, though I am curious to see what compensation is offered for SS and Cho (higher sale,prices should be offered for all significant revisions, good or bad, since the point is to allow players to make informed choices about deploying their resources after the devs make unilateral changes).

But perhaps the fact there are no impending nerfs is because of tHe brilliant arguments made in this thread and others like it? (but really just this one!)

#you'rewelcome!