They Managed to Make it Worse

245

Comments

  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    Boycott this Agent Venom vault everyone. If we all do, then they will get the picture and hopefully change it back.
  • Tony_Foot
    Tony_Foot Posts: 1,790 Chairperson of the Boards
    Who cares everyone was saying they were rubbish and poor value and that they weren't buying anyway. So they can put them up top 30k a token for all I care. Unless you guys were telling lies and buying them why care. No one forces you to buy a terrible cover for a terrible price icon_e_biggrin.gif
  • thisone
    thisone Posts: 655 Critical Contributor
    If we thought the last vault was poor value, and these are even worse I don't see why we shouldn't say so.

    Since we are already not buying the vaults how else can we express our displeasure?

    I want to spend money on the game but let's face facts, if I feel I am not getting my money's worth then I won't spend. And only I determine what is worth it to me. No one else
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Polares wrote:
    I really don't get it. I guess this vaults were popular, so that is a good way of making us players spend HP (even for single tokens) so Devs make more money, so why ruin it ????? Why be so greedy when they are already getting a lot of HP from it??????

    In the worst case (for the Devs) people was getting a 4 cover for 600-1000HP (considering that at least 3-5 pulls were needed, being quite lucky!) every 7 days. There is nothing crazy about this! And we have 40+ 4s, so no one is really going to use this to get a 4 from nothing to maxed.

    My guess is there concern is that narrowing the length of time it takes to fill out the roster, means less opportunity time for them to throw money at other gamble vaults. They don't want these vaults to be popular, they just want the illusion of choice so they claim they are making improvements.
  • MojoWild
    MojoWild Posts: 765 Critical Contributor
    Do we know that this was intentional?
  • Dragon_Nexus
    Dragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    MojoWild wrote:
    Do we know that this was intentional?

    Ahhh, the important question no-one ever thinks to ask.

    Though in fairness to our side, it would be nice if we got a heads up on these things. I tend to lean towards the idea that a lack of announcement means the devs were caught unawares about a bug or something rather than deliberately trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
  • swordfishdata
    swordfishdata Posts: 48 Just Dropped In
    I managed to make the mistake of thinking to myself "well, at least they dropped the price to 100hp/token from 150." Boy, was I ever wrong.

    I bought 10 tokens, not thinking. Now I'm out 2k HP (effectively $16) for 10 2* tokens, literally a days worth of 2*s.

    R115 was truly the "**** you, fork over your cash." update.

    Come on guys, you were headed in a good direction the mission bonuses and the limited vaults. Now this?
  • firethorne
    firethorne Posts: 1,505 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2016
    MojoWild wrote:
    Do we know that this was intentional?

    We don't. Though with advertising the $100 ISO bundle on the level up screen, they've set the stage for us to assume greed over incompetence. You do have a point. There is a history of inexplicable bugs for things that should be seemingly simple. And, it really is a personal judgement call on wether greed or lack of testing is worse, but both are bad.
  • CrookedKnight
    CrookedKnight Posts: 2,579 Chairperson of the Boards
    MojoWild wrote:
    Do we know that this was intentional?

    Don't be silly, if it wasn't intentional it'd never have gotten out of testi.....

    Touche, sir or madam.
  • Wonko33
    Wonko33 Posts: 985 Critical Contributor
    This is a bad deal , don't buy it. Low sales will make them reconsider the next one.

    It is a very simple situation with a very simple solution ...
  • Eichen
    Eichen Posts: 176 Tile Toppler
    The way it was there was no reason to not pull one at a time until you got the 4* and that is why they changed it. They just made the wrong change.

    What the should have done is leave the single pull at 150 and change the 10x pull to 1300 and the 20x pull to 2400. Some people would still pull them one at a time but some would opt for the higher priced pulls.
  • SnowcaTT
    SnowcaTT Posts: 3,486 Chairperson of the Boards
    Thought first two vaults were terrible, but they had a terrible character.

    Bought singles until I hit the Spider Woman in that vault - had a 3/3/5 at the time and lots of HP. Why not?

    4/3/5. Then pulled another one in an LT within a couple of days, 5/3/5. Then pulled another one in an LT today...and suddenly I "have" to champ Spider Woman or that vault pull was a waste.

    It's a bummer they made the vaults worse. But thanks for making the decision easy for me D3...I'll never buy one of them again since the single purchase option is gone. Which is good, it reminds me not to chase the 4*'s anyway, which are pretty pointless in game play anyway, since you made 5*'s god-like in comparison.
  • BigRussian
    BigRussian Posts: 166 Tile Toppler
    Won't be pulling anything from this tinykitty vault. LOL. Nice try bean counters! BigRussian 1 - Bean Counters 0
  • fmftint
    fmftint Posts: 3,653 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2016
    MojoWild wrote:
    Do we know that this was intentional?
    On it's own the 1x option disappearing could be a bug, but coupled with the hp increase on 10/20x, this can only be viewed as intentional
  • babinro
    babinro Posts: 771 Critical Contributor
    To be perfectly fair D3 has made it clear that they are experimenting with vaults. Its possible that through their experimentation that they found the current formula too rewarding.

    I can actually appreciate the potential need to increase costs/nerf things when they are being tested in an ongoing live environment.

    That being said, I think it's completely fair for the players to call out how this wasn't a gradual shift but a pretty significant one. If you want to test this without the individual buy then why not keep the costs the same as the old ones for x10 and x20?

    Alternatively, if you want to discourage individual buys just make the discounts for buying 10 and 20 greater than the inflated costs of 1. IE: 1 pull = 300 HP 10= 2000 HP.

    Its my hope that this is just testing the waters like many of the other vault changes we've seen and we'll move onto something else soon. The world isn't ending yet.
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    Tony Foot wrote:
    Who cares everyone was saying they were rubbish and poor value and that they weren't buying anyway. So they can put them up top 30k a token for all I care. Unless you guys were telling lies and buying them why care. No one forces you to buy a terrible cover for a terrible price icon_e_biggrin.gif

    People were pulling 1-by-1 from these small 20 item vaults to get the 4* cover. It saved HP and some people got the cover after just a few pulls. Now that option is gone, which is why people are angry.
  • deadtaco
    deadtaco Posts: 409 Mover and Shaker
    HaywireII wrote:
    I even got a Dr Strange cover in my vault this time but the lack of single pulls kills it for me. That's a deal breaker.

    I didn't even notice the removal of the one pull button, I flipped by the vault, saw it had Agent Venom and Ragnarok, laughed and moved on.
  • Polares
    Polares Posts: 2,643 Chairperson of the Boards
    broll wrote:
    Polares wrote:
    I really don't get it. I guess this vaults were popular, so that is a good way of making us players spend HP (even for single tokens) so Devs make more money, so why ruin it ????? Why be so greedy when they are already getting a lot of HP from it??????

    In the worst case (for the Devs) people was getting a 4 cover for 600-1000HP (considering that at least 3-5 pulls were needed, being quite lucky!) every 7 days. There is nothing crazy about this! And we have 40+ 4s, so no one is really going to use this to get a 4 from nothing to maxed.

    My guess is there concern is that narrowing the length of time it takes to fill out the roster, means less opportunity time for them to throw money at other gamble vaults. They don't want these vaults to be popular, they just want the illusion of choice so they claim they are making improvements.

    You might be right be right, but if they think this, they are wrong icon_razz.gif

    As I said before, it is just one cover every seven days and we have 40+ 4s! And these vaults can't be reset, so that's it. You need 3640 days to max all 4s just by using these vaults, almost 10 years! And this would be just if you get all 4 covers, if you spend 600HP on average you will probably get just one every 5 or 6 vaults at most.

    In the end, the only result is people spends less HP in these vaults because the needed inversion is higher (every body knows 'cheaper' is king) and people is way more annoyed in general, so less inclined to spend money somewhere else in the game.
  • Mr_Sinister
    Mr_Sinister Posts: 356 Mover and Shaker
    In have AV fully covered, and unlike everyone else I really like him, and I also bought the last vault with accumulated intercept hp over a week. I won't be doing the same with this vault. Get your heads out of your butts, D3.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    Reading between the lines of some of the puzzle warriors 3 interviews, it seems clear that the vaults are intended by the game design team as another method for players to spend specific resources on specific 4* covers (to ease some of the irregularities of RNG roster building).

    So I think what we are seeing here is the internal struggle between the game design team and the monetization team. Game design recognizes that the player transition experience isn't great and wants to improve it. Monetization is concerned that making too many 4* covers available to too many people at too low a cost reduces the push to buy resources (and speeds up transition, which means people won't play the game as long). These goals are in tension. Sadly (for players!), I think we can all guess which of these two competing interests will triumph in the end. . .

Categories