4* DDQ discussion.

acescracked

broll wrote:

acescracked wrote:

smkspy wrote:

At 42 characters and rising, when does "premium" content stop being premium. 50 four star characters? 20 five stars characters? The inevitable six star tier?

Why would number of four or five stars affect their premium status? I would think a six star tier would. I don't see your point there.

I presume when he said premium, he really meant rarity. The s reflect rarity not power. If there are more 4 s than 3 doesn't it no longer make sense? 4 s are now less rare than 3 s, which doesn't jell with the whole idea of = rarity. If the LTs are supposed to have the rarer characters, 5 & 3 might be more appropriate until a 6 comes out

However, the 4 rarity also comes from scarily of the covers, 4 DDQ would continue to make them less rare. Not saying it's bad, but it's interesting to think about.

Oy Vey....again a number of 4 stars vs number of 3 stars does not determine rarity (don't understand why you made a power reference). Rarity is set by how hard something is to attain not by pure number. There are more 3*s than 1*s but everyone gets a ton of 1*s.

DDQ gives a specific 3* cover everyday and a random 4*\5* once a week.
PvP, Pve, alliance placement gives out more 3*s
Heroic & event tokens have higher 3* pull percentages than 4*
Vaults have more 3* covers than 4*

You even said *s reflect rarity. Anyway, this is derailing the thread. But by your suggestion of pure number of covers should set rarity 1*s are then the most rare!!

GurlBYE

acescracked wrote:

Skygazing wrote:

Honestly ISO is what really needs a boost. Yes 4* covers daily would be nice, but without more ISO they're functionally useless.

I'm on day 685 with no notable 5*s and 13 champed 4*s, which make up the bulk of my teams. I have 10 fully covered but unleveled 4*s (plus a handful at 11 or 12 covers) and that number only seems to be getting bigger.

It sucks having undercovered and therefor unusable characters sitting on your roster, but what sucks more is having fully covered ones that are still unusable because of what it takes to actually level them.

You are correct, for most regular players 4* covers aren't the issue. We play events and progress. Once a solid 3* roster built, 4* covers start to come in. Generally after time or whaling has passed most regular players find themselves ISO poor and lack of 4* covers isn't the problem.

The OP admitted to playing no PvP, occasional DDQ, didn't specify how much pve and is shocked that he can't progress. But is requesting an *ASAP* change that will award premium content of a free to play game for just signing in periodically.

Of course I'm a consumer just like everyone here and would benefit from such a change, but I'm a realistic consumer. Hell, if he can convince D3 to give their 2nd highest tier of covers away for free daily...props to him!

4 stars are premium content now?

So what are 5's?

GurlBYE

acescracked wrote:

broll wrote:

acescracked wrote:

smkspy wrote:

At 42 characters and rising, when does "premium" content stop being premium. 50 four star characters? 20 five stars characters? The inevitable six star tier?

Why would number of four or five stars affect their premium status? I would think a six star tier would. I don't see your point there.

I presume when he said premium, he really meant rarity. The s reflect rarity not power. If there are more 4 s than 3 doesn't it no longer make sense? 4 s are now less rare than 3 s, which doesn't jell with the whole idea of = rarity. If the LTs are supposed to have the rarer characters, 5 & 3 might be more appropriate until a 6 comes out

However, the 4 rarity also comes from scarily of the covers, 4 DDQ would continue to make them less rare. Not saying it's bad, but it's interesting to think about.

Oy Vey....again a number of 4 stars vs number of 3 stars does not determine rarity (don't understand why you made a power reference). Rarity is set by how hard something is to attain not by pure number. There are more 3*s than 1*s but everyone gets a ton of 1*s.

DDQ gives a specific 3* cover everyday and a random 4*\5* once a week.
PvP, Pve, alliance placement gives out more 3*s
Heroic & event tokens have higher 3* pull percentages than 4*
Vaults have more 3* covers than 4*

You even said *s reflect rarity. Anyway, this is derailing the thread. But by your suggestion of pure number of covers should set rarity 1*s are then the most rare!!

So is bag man premium content?

He's not even in tokens.

Your argument isn't even very relevant to the topic at hand.

GurlBYE

Calnexin wrote:

ClydeFrog76 wrote:

DFiPL wrote:

Selfishly, I'd love daily 4* DDQ with an additional cover opportunity daily.

How is that selfish? Pretty much everybody wants it.

It's selfish because it's player-focused. If the players get everything they want right away, the game dies. Devs need to eat, too.

They've eaten lol.

why would a person who has whaled up 5's to champ level at this rate spend any money on 4's when they can naturally win them already with their 5's?

Crowl

Calnexin wrote:

I think the dearth of 4* covers is being adequately addressed by CL. Making 4* daily would accelerate the game, requiring the dev team to create either more 4* or higher tiers. If everyone has the same roster... that's the end game. It's when you stop playing.

Adding a daily 4* cover really would not change things in the manner that you suggest, just look at how many covers you need, one a day would take in excess of a year just to get the first 13 covers let alone all the champion levels and in that time they would have released another couple of dozen new characters too.

broll

acescracked wrote:

Oy Vey....again a number of 4 stars vs number of 3 stars does not determine rarity (don't understand why you made a power reference). Rarity is set by how hard something is to attain not by pure number. There are more 3*s than 1*s but everyone gets a ton of 1*s.

DDQ gives a specific 3* cover everyday and a random 4*\5* once a week.
PvP, Pve, alliance placement gives out more 3*s
Heroic & event tokens have higher 3* pull percentages than 4*
Vaults have more 3* covers than 4*

You even said *s reflect rarity. Anyway, this is derailing the thread. But by your suggestion of pure number of covers should set rarity 1*s are then the most rare!!

You're 100% correct. I was thinking in text and came to a similar conclusion by the end of my rambling and posted it anyway.

smkspy

acescracked wrote:

smkspy wrote:

acescracked wrote:

Skygazing wrote:

Honestly ISO is what really needs a boost. Yes 4* covers daily would be nice, but without more ISO they're functionally useless.

I'm on day 685 with no notable 5*s and 13 champed 4*s, which make up the bulk of my teams. I have 10 fully covered but unleveled 4*s (plus a handful at 11 or 12 covers) and that number only seems to be getting bigger.

It sucks having undercovered and therefor unusable characters sitting on your roster, but what sucks more is having fully covered ones that are still unusable because of what it takes to actually level them.

You are correct, for most regular players 4* covers aren't the issue. We play events and progress. Once a solid 3* roster built, 4* covers start to come in. Generally after time or whaling has passed most regular players find themselves ISO poor and lack of 4* covers isn't the problem.

The OP admitted to playing no PvP, occasional DDQ, didn't specify how much pve and is shocked that he can't progress. But is requesting an *ASAP* change that will award premium content of a free to play game for just signing in periodically.

Of course I'm a consumer just like everyone here and would benefit from such a change, but I'm a realistic consumer. Hell, if he can convince D3 to give their 2nd highest tier of covers away for free daily...props to him!

At 42 characters and rising, when does "premium" content stop being premium. 50 four star characters? 20 five stars characters? The inevitable six star tier?

Why would number of four or five stars affect their premium status? I would think a six star tier would. I don't see your point there.

Covers & token packs are d3's main source of revenue. Covers are a resource the players want and it's a resource they want the players to pay for, so it's a constant battle.

Everything is their main source of income, seems though it's our choice of which is more important whenever we need want to prove some point.

thanos8587

GurlBYE wrote:

They've eaten lol.

why would a person who has whaled up 5's to champ level at this rate spend any money on 4's when they can naturally win them already with their 5's?

theyve typically whaled for cp. theyve got tons of hp and they just buy 40 packs during the new 4*s pvp event to champ it immediately. why? epeen of course. epeen is all.

SnowcaTT

I was asking for that in March (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41618) and gave statistics of why it should happen soon in April (https://www.d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.p ... 0&p=512283)...and I'm not alone by any measure, practically every player looks at the DDQ structure and scratches their head on why it -ISN'T- happening on a daily basis.

I'd still like to see clashes (LT's) once every five days....and DEDICATED 4* COVERS REWARDED every day. Again, well past time to do this, 3*'s have had it done forever and now there are more 4*'s in the game than 3*'s.....

acescracked

GurlBYE wrote:

4 stars are premium content now?

So what are 5's?

The two tiers are not mutually exclusive with regards to rarity. Both can be premium content. D3 makes it's money off of these digital goods so whether you think them stingy or generous that's up to you. Sometimes I wonder if you play MPQ. I would think it's obvious how the star levels are setup; with regards to giving thern out and prompting people to spend on token packs.

GurlBYE wrote:

So is bag man premium content?

He's not even in tokens.

Your argument isn't even very relevant to the topic at hand

Bagman became a character nobody wanted to roster so he was removed. Please, know a little bit before you think you've found a zinger point. You forgot to mention devil dino and howard the duck also.

With regards to relevance to the topic at hand. How much of each post do you read when commenting? I said in the post you refrenced it was derailing the thread. You kept it going with the bagman fail zinger.

Straycat

In regards to the original post;
1) if you only play DDQ, a 4* cover every day would be a drastic increase. To go from 2 vault tokens 1/100 chance at a 4* to a guaranteed 4* is a lot.
2) The pvp top tier is generally agreed upon, if more people were able to get all the covers for the best characters, the meta would shrink so every team would be the same. At least thats how I think it could play out. But I also don't know how most players' rosters are, so I can't really speak on it
3) Already addressed on this thread, but people pay to have the best roster, that advantage would diminish
4) Lower tier are probably not going to sell a 4 star cover anyway
5) The core gameplay can't really change, although the new characters are diverse enough that it can change the strategy quite a bit. And the pve has changed, with enemies increasing their levels and the end of the 20 iso reward. Cupcakes are gone in pvp, not that I ever saw them. Is boosted 4*s new in pvp?

I would like something added, but you can't run a clash everyday and you can't remove the clash. A daily clash with 5 cp reward might be a compromise, but it would deplete my boosts pretty fast. Unless the structure of legendary tokens change, one LT a day is too big of a reward.
My suggestions: Dat required character starts including 4*s at certain shield ranks. Then the big enchilada gives a 4 star cover. Maybe a couple times per cycle to keep the rewards from coming out too fast. Or just another easy required character node that rewards a taco token. Just a little bonus for having a character on the roster

tizian2015

Calnexin wrote:

ClydeFrog76 wrote:

homeinvasion wrote:

san-mpq wrote:

3) For the top tier players (see: Pay To Win), this is a negligible change, and unlikely to alter anything in their day.

As a player that paid $5,000 for my roster I would be demanding a refund if you picked up the same roster for free.

Whale tears sure are salty.

Like it or not, someone who spends $5k on the game is providing significant support. They deserve an advantage.

He spent (!) 5k on the game, but the game needs new spenders. Will he spend again 5k? If the answer is no, then he bought his advantage, its gone, but wait, his roster is deep (its a guess, but if 5k are not enough to get there, we all should quit this game) in 5* land, so he already have its advantage. What about with the players at start of the normal DDQ? There are players who spent hundreds and thousands to get a deep 3*roster to dominate the game. Same situation, the game needs progression as we players need it, otherwise its dead. If you tell a new player "look, spend 5k to get where he is", the new player quits.

Every game is changing, what was spent was spent, if its money if its time. For example: Every expansion of WoW the old toptiergear is overruled by the newlowtiergear by start, to get players motivated to play.

Btw. sorry for this: If someone spends 5k on a mobile game, he deserves nothing, he needs something, whatever it is...

firethorne

Which is more sustainable: a game trying to appeal to one person willing to spend $5000, or 5000 people willing to spend $1?

revskip

firethorne wrote:

Which is more sustainable: a game trying to appeal to one person willing to spend $5000, or 5000 people willing to spend $1?

Free to play games figured out a long time ago that shooting for those with obsessive tendencies who will spend the big bucks is the way to go. Most troubling thing about that is that at least some of the time and more likely most of the time it is people who really shouldn't be spending that percentage of their money on a game.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... hp?print=1

http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/s ... lways-free

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/OmTandon ... design.php

While this isn't necessarily as cynical as a publisher saying "How can I get 25-30 people really addicted to buying fake comic book covers rather than eat lunch?" the economic side of it really does kind of cater to the same sort of predatory psychology that a casino or bar might use to snare addicts. So to answer your question, getting the 1 guy to spend $5k is much better for the publisher than the 5000 people to spend $1.

Now I'm not saying that Demi doesn't care about the 5K spending small, they certainly want to engender good feelings that will bring home that bacon but trust me when I tell you that they worry more about hooking the big fish than worrying about hooking lots of little ones.

Crowl

Straycat wrote:

In regards to the original post;
1) if you only play DDQ, a 4* cover every day would be a drastic increase. To go from 2 vault tokens 1/100 chance at a 4* to a guaranteed 4* is a lot.
2) The pvp top tier is generally agreed upon, if more people were able to get all the covers for the best characters, the meta would shrink so every team would be the same. At least thats how I think it could play out. But I also don't know how most players' rosters are, so I can't really speak on it
3) Already addressed on this thread, but people pay to have the best roster, that advantage would diminish

Some of these points are true if you look long enough at the situation, but due to the cyclical nature of ddq, you would still be looking at more than a year for somebody to be in the position to get a 13-cover 4* out of it and in that time we would have had a couple of dozen new releases, the top tier would be playing with the best 2 or 3 maxed 5*'s and most current 4* rosters would have usable 5*'s or highly champed 4*'s by then too, so the idea that every team would be the same is a very flawed one.

The time that there is a biggest roster advantage is when there is a new meta-defining character for the whales to pounce on, this will not change in the slightest with the addition of a daily 4* cover ddq.

Crowl

revskip wrote:

While this isn't necessarily as cynical as a publisher saying "How can I get 25-30 people really addicted to buying fake comic book covers rather than eat lunch?" the economic side of it really does kind of cater to the same sort of predatory psychology that a casino or bar might use to snare addicts. So to answer your question, getting the 1 guy to spend $5k is much better for the publisher than the 5000 people to spend $1.

The strongest ones are those that can offer appealing options to the low level spenders while keeping their whales in place, MFF seems to manage this far better than MPQ for me with them offering a couple of cheap monthly subs that provide far more value than MPQ's equivalent in the VIP system.

Calnexin

tizian2015 wrote:

If you tell a new player "look, spend 5k to get where he is", the new player quits.

Btw. sorry for this: If someone spends 5k on a mobile game, he deserves nothing, he needs something, whatever it is...

The context here is that it's one player. They have an advantage. A new player will almost never run into them. The new player will not see the whale in PvP, and is unlikely to get bumped out of a PvE slot until they reach max SCL and brave the whirlwind. Whales only marginally effect the experience of a FTP player, if at all.

I have to concur that 5k is excessive for any entertainment experience. You could fly to Europe and stay in a nice hotel for that. I've spent a little on this game, but nowhere near that. I can't equate it with a AAA console title at $60 retail in terms of play experience. It says something about the game (or the people playing it) that more is spent.

broll

Calnexin wrote:

I have to concur that 5k is excessive for any entertainment experience.

To play Devil's advocate, it depends on how he spent 5k. If he spent 5k all at once, then absolutely. However, if he's referring to his total lifetime spending and he's been playing for 3 years then it's not so unreasonable.

$5000 lifetime =
$1666.67 / Year =
$138.89 / Month or $32 / Week

That's a little high, but certainly not unreasonable especially for someone who either:
A. Has a high amount of disposable income.
B. MPQ is their only source of entertainment (play no other games, don't go to movies, etc).