New Feature: Bonus Heroes! *Updated (3/1/17)

Daredevil217

Brigby wrote:

I just wanted to hop on real quick to clarify that it was my mistake earlier in that post. I meant to say acquiring 4*s became harder and harder since they were becoming more and more diluted. I've edited the post to add the correction.

Well I have two responses to that.

1. Keeping Latest Legends as they are would allow people worried about dilution a small pool to pull from.

2. Your "Vintage Heroic" solution is WAY more diluted because it has all vaulted 4s along with all vaulted 3s and all 2s. It's dilution central.

I really appreciate this dialogue and would love more of an explanation. Because honestly, something is not adding up.

Vhailorx

Brigby wrote:

I just wanted to hop on real quick to clarify that it was my mistake earlier in that post. I meant to say acquiring 4*s became harder and harder since they were becoming more and more diluted. I've edited the post to add the correction.

But that's not quite accurate. Acquiring 4*s has actually become a little bit easier over the course of 2016. Between PVE prog covers and moving 10cp lower in prog reward tables, players have access to more 4* covers than ever before (still not enough IMO, but more than before). The problem is that acquiring any PARTICULAR 4* was getting harder and harder as the pool diluted.

And the bonus heroes introduction arguably exacerbated that problem by making ~75% of 4*s MUCH harder to get than they were before. Sure, it's great if all you want is the newest 12 4*s. But if you happen to want the older ones you are stuck to 1 or 2 prog covers a year + bonus heroes.

This is why adding vintage tokens with ~7% chance of dropping 1 of 30-something vintage 4*s is an absolutely terrible "solution." You haven't actually solved the identified problem that it's too hard to cover particular 4*s. You have just created a new way for us to spend dozens or hundreds of dollars chasing very long odds.

I'm sorry brigby, I try to very very hard to be fair to demi/d3 in my comments and recognize that I have a limited, biased perspective as a player. But I have to say that this whole series of changes has been very disappointing.

First the bonus heroes system was rolled out with barely any prior notice to players at all. The new odds listed for token pulls were switched (on mobile) to be less informative (and in some cases straight-up inaccurate), and a massive change to the game economy was pushed out with, apparently, almost no thought as to the consequences for mid-level and newer players (insofar as players identified massive problems with the new system in about five minutes, but demi/d3 had no plan to address these issues at all and had to take more than week to produce a list of potential solutions).

Then, after tremendous player feedback (and, to be fair, some pretty good communication from d3), the first solution is to come out with vintage tokens and invite us to spend more money solving a problem that you created?

It's just not good enough; you can and should do better.

Ayasugi-san

Vhailorx wrote:

Then, after tremendous player feedback (and, to be fair, some pretty good communication from d3), the first solution is to come out with vintage tokens and invite us to spend more money solving a problem that you created?

The communication wasn't that good, it was a week in between updates, and none of them even hinted that the solution would include 2*s being mixed in with the vaulted characters, much less outnumber them. If they'd said something about that, then we would've given feedback that it was not at all a solution, and they could've gone back to the drawing board.

GurlBYE

I was really hoping that the 4's in vintages were higher than normal to compensate for this being a solution to vaulting but everytime someone quotes the current heroics 4 star and 2 star rate, it has yet to be denied even though we still haven't seen this token.

Vhailorx

Ayasugi-san wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

Then, after tremendous player feedback (and, to be fair, some pretty good communication from d3), the first solution is to come out with vintage tokens and invite us to spend more money solving a problem that you created?

The communication wasn't that good, it was a week in between updates, and none of them even hinted that the solution would include 2*s being mixed in with the vaulted characters, much less outnumber them. If they'd said something about that, then we would've given feedback that it was not at all a solution, and they could've gone back to the drawing board.

Brigby was available and continued to acknowledge the issue, even when he had no new information. That's pretty good IMO. Compare it to boss rush (where they actively locked all threads discussing the topic after about a week)

Crnch73

Yea... this is a joke. Spend money on what is basically a heroic token, but it has the older 4's... doesn't matter, I'll never pull a 4 from a heroic token anyways. As mentioned above, they had a problem, they made it worse, then their solution was to have us pay to fix it. I have to believe they aren't stupid, so this is nothing other than greed, right? Or are they just stupid?

NewMcG

Crnch73 wrote:

Yea... this is a joke. Spend money on what is basically a heroic token, but it has the older 4's... doesn't matter, I'll never pull a 4 from a heroic token anyways. As mentioned above, they had a problem, they made it worse, then their solution was to have us pay to fix it. I have to believe they aren't stupid, so this is nothing other than greed, right? Or are they just stupid?

So they should listen to the <.01% of the player base who are active on the forums and dictate their entire business plan off of that? To quote someone:

Ayasugi-san

New McG wrote:

Crnch73 wrote:

Yea... this is a joke. Spend money on what is basically a heroic token, but it has the older 4's... doesn't matter, I'll never pull a 4 from a heroic token anyways. As mentioned above, they had a problem, they made it worse, then their solution was to have us pay to fix it. I have to believe they aren't stupid, so this is nothing other than greed, right? Or are they just stupid?

So they should listen to the <.01% of the player base who are active on the forums and dictate their entire business plan off of that? To quote someone:

The vaulted heroes are their entire business plan now?

firethorne

New McG wrote:

Crnch73 wrote:

Yea... this is a joke. Spend money on what is basically a heroic token, but it has the older 4's... doesn't matter, I'll never pull a 4 from a heroic token anyways. As mentioned above, they had a problem, they made it worse, then their solution was to have us pay to fix it. I have to believe they aren't stupid, so this is nothing other than greed, right? Or are they just stupid?

So they should listen to the <.01% of the player base who are active on the forums and dictate their entire business plan off of that?

Should they listen to some of their most dedicated players​, who've invested quite a bit of time and cash? Yes, they should. And cut the **** with this <.01% spin. If you've got a huge number of people on the forums still irked about this including some forum mods, a thread over 50 pages and still going strong, this sentiment will easily be found outside people on the forums. This is by no means discontent wholly unique to people with a forum login. Most of my alliance mates aren't active on the forums, but they're certainly talking smack about these changes in the alliance chat.

Daredevil217

New McG wrote:

So they should listen to the <.01% of the player base who are active on the forums and dictate their entire business plan off of that? To quote someone

I can only speak for myself, but my issue is not that they refuse to make the exact changes we want. Sometimes HOW a situation is handled is just as bad the situation itself.

My issue is around communication. Let us know why you went one way and not the other.

I feel the forum-suggested solution to put vaulted 4s in classics was very fair. Essentially give those who want it, one avenue to build the way they used to. If that's not viable, all I ask is why the developers don't think so and why they chose "Vintage Heroics"

The answer we got for why our solution wasn't implemented was that the packs would be too diluted and it'd be hard to cover a specific 4*.

Brigby wrote:

We've definitely heard and evaluated that suggestion, but the one issue with adding the older 4*s to the Classic Legends though, is that you now have the same dilution problem as before. Players used to find acquiring any 4* to be a painfully slow process, because there were so many 4*s diluting the pack.

Edit: Sorry for the confusion. I must've accidentally pressed 5 instead of 4. I meant that the dilution of 4* made it hard for players to acquire and max them, especially as the newer ones were being released.

That answer seems like they have our best interests at heart but it's hard to swallow when their solution has the same problem (dilution) only WAY worse (diluted with 2s and 3s no less!)

If you don't want to appease the forum-goers that's one thing, but a better explanation is all I'm asking for. When we get silence or explanations that make zero sense, it's hard not to see this as a money grab (create increased rarity for vaulted 4s then have people pay exorbitant amounts to cover them). It really makes me sad.

GurlBYE

New McG wrote:

Crnch73 wrote:

Yea... this is a joke. Spend money on what is basically a heroic token, but it has the older 4's... doesn't matter, I'll never pull a 4 from a heroic token anyways. As mentioned above, they had a problem, they made it worse, then their solution was to have us pay to fix it. I have to believe they aren't stupid, so this is nothing other than greed, right? Or are they just stupid?

So they should listen to the <.01% of the player base who are active on the forums and dictate their entire business plan off of that? To quote someone:

And how exactly is this token appealing to your "99.99%" of the player base?

What does it provide for them, unless we're assuming they all buy 40 packs?

NewMcG

Ayasugi-san wrote:

New McG wrote:

Crnch73 wrote:

Yea... this is a joke. Spend money on what is basically a heroic token, but it has the older 4's... doesn't matter, I'll never pull a 4 from a heroic token anyways. As mentioned above, they had a problem, they made it worse, then their solution was to have us pay to fix it. I have to believe they aren't stupid, so this is nothing other than greed, right? Or are they just stupid?

So they should listen to the <.01% of the player base who are active on the forums and dictate their entire business plan off of that? To quote someone:

The vaulted heroes are their entire business plan now?

No, but every decision is met with plenty of "sky is falling" rhetoric on the forums. This is just the most current example.

NewMcG

firethorne wrote:

And cut the tinykitty with this <.01% spin.

The game has over 5 million downloads on Android alone. I presume a pretty similar number on the iPlatform. .01% of that 10 million would be 1,000 people. That's probably a pretty generous number when it comes to active, engaged forum dwellers. Making decisions to appease that .01% is way less important to a company's bottom line than anything that may monetize the other 99.9% by even 1% more. Everyone that is personally offended by this needs to think as the business behind it, not the player who's annoyed that now their Rulk won't be getting champ levels as quickly.

NewMcG

Daredevil217 wrote:

The answer we got for why our solution wasn't implemented was that the packs would be too diluted and it'd be hard to cover a specific 4*.

Except maybe "our solution" that was presented isn't as cut and dried easy to implement on the coding side as we'd like. Or maybe they haven't seen a significant downturn in money coming in since the change, and the vocal minority just need to adapt or follow up on their empty quitting threats. Or maybe then that "solution" just leads to "well, I want old 4*s but still the latest 5*s" or "I want old 5*s and newest 4*s", and then they have to come up with a "vintage latest" and "classic latest" legendary, and it's just yet another complaining session from the same people complaining now. This isn't any simple thing, and despite what the forum may think, I have no doubt a whole lot of thought went into this decision before it happened.

Daredevil217

New McG wrote:

Daredevil217 wrote:

The answer we got for why our solution wasn't implemented was that the packs would be too diluted and it'd be hard to cover a specific 4*.

Except maybe "our solution" that was presented isn't as cut and dried easy to implement on the coding side as we'd like. Or maybe they haven't seen a significant downturn in money coming in since the change, and the vocal minority just need to adapt or follow up on their empty quitting threats. Or maybe then that "solution" just leads to "well, I want old 4*s but still the latest 5*s" or "I want old 5*s and newest 4*s", and then they have to come up with a "vintage latest" and "classic latest" legendary, and it's just yet another complaining session from the same people complaining now. This isn't any simple thing, and despite what the forum may think, I have no doubt a whole lot of thought went into this decision before it happened.

Come on man, I know you can do better than that. Not only is the coding something that was in the game previously, they took the time to create a brand new token, so we know the tech is there. Even if it takes time to code, I'd be 100% okay with that. Just let us know the change is coming but it will take the developers some time to implement.

I think they have seen a significant hit in their numbers (sales, ratings, playing time, etc.). I think that's why they began looking into a solution- because they know they pissed off a significant portion of their player base (but neither of us can know that for sure). Unfortunately the "solution" they chose to appease us involves us throwing money at the problem and they are going to "analyze" further after they've made a buck.

There's already a token for old 5s and newest 4s (it's called Classic Legends).

And I'm not assuming our solution is a simple fix, or that we know everything. But, if our solution isn't feasible all I'm asking as that we get communication as to why.

We were told they DID look at it as a possibility and we were given the reason it wasn't pursued. However the reason they gave exists in a much much worse fashion in the solution they did choose to move forward with. So until stated otherwise, it's hard to see this as anything but a money grab.

I predicted this in another thread I made and pointed out all the ways the developers stand to profit with this shift in the economy. Obviously they're not going to come out and say "cash grab" but don't say "we're doing it for you to protect you from dilution" then give us SUPER diluted tokens with rediculously low odds we have to buy as compensation and say you're doing it for us.

Vhailorx

New McG wrote:

firethorne wrote:

And cut the tinykitty with this <.01% spin.

The game has over 5 million downloads on Android alone. I presume a pretty similar number on the iPlatform. .01% of that 10 million would be 1,000 people. That's probably a pretty generous number when it comes to active, engaged forum dwellers. Making decisions to appease that .01% is way less important to a company's bottom line than anything that may monetize the other 99.9% by even 1% more. Everyone that is personally offended by this needs to think as the business behind it, not the player who's annoyed that now their Rulk won't be getting champ levels as quickly.

That's foolish. The game may have 10 mil downloads, but it has closer to a few hundred thousand players at any given time (just look at how many pve brackets there are per event).

And like any freemium game, the vast majority of revenue comdz from a very small percentage of players. And those players are over-represented here on the forums (ezpdcially the upper middle class vets deep in the 4* tier or just a couple of characters into the 5* tier).

The forums are definitely a limited viewpoint, and dont represe,t all players. But ignoring the forums would be a bad idea.

Alsmir

New McG wrote:

firethorne wrote:

And cut the tinykitty with this <.01% spin.

The game has over 5 million downloads on Android alone. I presume a pretty similar number on the iPlatform. .01% of that 10 million would be 1,000 people. That's probably a pretty generous number when it comes to active, engaged forum dwellers. Making decisions to appease that .01% is way less important to a company's bottom line than anything that may monetize the other 99.9% by even 1% more. Everyone that is personally offended by this needs to think as the business behind it, not the player who's annoyed that now their Rulk won't be getting champ levels as quickly.

You don't vote in the elections, do you?

SleepingKoala

Vhailorx wrote:

The forums are definitely a limited viewpoint, and dont represe,t all players. But ignoring the forums would be a bad idea.

Well said. Many of those who post on the forums are genuinely concerned for the future of the game and have given constructive feedback. Not all of us have the 'sky is falling' mentality.

NewMcG

Daredevil217 wrote:

Come on man, I know you can do better than that. Not only is the coding something that was in the game previously, they took the time to create a brand new token, so we know the tech is there. Even if it takes time to code, I'd be 100% okay with that. Just let us know the change is coming but it will take the developers some time to implement.

Again, no token is perfect, unless they let people choose exactly who is in what token, which is a programming nightmare, and will never happen. Also, that would be terrible on the business end, as the entire point of anything based on the "lottery" style of random chance is meant to keep people playing. If you make everything easily obtainable, you remove the stick and hand people the carrot. The stick being there is what keeps people playing/buying.

I think they have seen a significant hit in their numbers (sales, ratings, playing time, etc.). I think that's why they began looking into a solution- because they know they pissed off a significant portion of their player base (but neither of us can know that for sure). Unfortunately the "solution" they chose to appease us involves us throwing money at the problem and they are going to "analyze" further after they've made a buck.

Based on what? I think if they had seen any significant change in the income stream, there would have been a way more panicked, quick response than there has been. I mean, even the people on the forums that have been highly vocal about it still seem to be on the "Well, I did actually renew VIP this month, even though I said I wouldn't. But I may not do it next month if you don't change it. I'm totally serious this time, you guys" train, so even THEY aren't changing their spending in a meaningful way.

There's already a token for old 5s and newest 4s (it's called Classic Legends).

Right, but if that Classic Legends token turns into "Old 4's, Old 5's" the way many think is the "easy fix", then this current version of the Classic Legends token goes away, which is ideal for someone who has middling older 5*s and wants their 5* draws to help those, but would prefer to build new 4* characters quickly. So again, without complete token customization (again, programming nightmare) nothing will please everyone, and making more and more variations of tokens to cover all the possible options isn't realistic.

And I'm not assuming our solution is a simple fix, or that we know everything. But, if our solution isn't feasible all I'm asking as that we get communication as to why.

We were told they DID look at it as a possibility and we were given the reason it wasn't pursued. However the reason they gave exists in a much much worse fashion in the solution they did choose to move forward with. So until stated otherwise, it's hard to see this as anything but a money grab.

I predicted this in another thread I made and pointed out all the ways the developers stand to profit with this shift in the economy. Obviously they're not going to come out and say "cash grab" but don't say "we're doing it for you to protect you from dilution" then give us SUPER diluted tokens with rediculously low odds we have to buy as compensation and say you're doing it for us.

They're running a business. You and I, and everyone, download this game for free. They've had millions of downloads, and made zero off of them directly. Their job is to somehow make money after that. You know what they could have done to "fix" the "problem"? Nothing. They could say "tough break, this is how it is, take it or leave it". I mean, in this case alone, when it happened, it was "they're appeasing the whales by vaulting the older characters, what of us little guys?" and now that they offer this it's "they're making this token to appease the whales". People complain about things they know little about, no matter what.

The inner machinations of any company are unknown to us on the outside, and attempts to explain them would likely fall on deaf ears. If someone with a red name showed up and posted a spreadsheet and a Powerpoint slideshow that mapped out data points, and spikes in revenue relative to new character implementations, special events, etc, very few would say "huh, well, that makes sense, and I suppose I understand that there's a bottom line that they have to factor in. There's way more at play here than just my individual experience with the game." It would be a chorus of "who cares about this nerd stuff? I want to get my Teen Jean to 300!"

Daredevil217

New McG wrote:

Daredevil217 wrote:

Come on man, I know you can do better than that. Not only is the coding something that was in the game previously, they took the time to create a brand new token, so we know the tech is there. Even if it takes time to code, I'd be 100% okay with that. Just let us know the change is coming but it will take the developers some time to implement.

Again, no token is perfect, unless they let people choose exactly who is in what token, which is a programming nightmare, and will never happen. Also, that would be terrible on the business end, as the entire point of anything based on the "lottery" style of random chance is meant to keep people playing. If you make everything easily obtainable, you remove the stick and hand people the carrot. The stick being there is what keeps people playing/buying.

I think they have seen a significant hit in their numbers (sales, ratings, playing time, etc.). I think that's why they began looking into a solution- because they know they pissed off a significant portion of their player base (but neither of us can know that for sure). Unfortunately the "solution" they chose to appease us involves us throwing money at the problem and they are going to "analyze" further after they've made a buck.

Based on what? I think if they had seen any significant change in the income stream, there would have been a way more panicked, quick response than there has been. I mean, even the people on the forums that have been highly vocal about it still seem to be on the "Well, I did actually renew VIP this month, even though I said I wouldn't. But I may not do it next month if you don't change it. I'm totally serious this time, you guys" train, so even THEY aren't changing their spending in a meaningful way.

There's already a token for old 5s and newest 4s (it's called Classic Legends).

Right, but if that Classic Legends token turns into "Old 4's, Old 5's" the way many think is the "easy fix", then this current version of the Classic Legends token goes away, which is ideal for someone who has middling older 5*s and wants their 5* draws to help those, but would prefer to build new 4* characters quickly. So again, without complete token customization (again, programming nightmare) nothing will please everyone, and making more and more variations of tokens to cover all the possible options isn't realistic.

And I'm not assuming our solution is a simple fix, or that we know everything. But, if our solution isn't feasible all I'm asking as that we get communication as to why.

We were told they DID look at it as a possibility and we were given the reason it wasn't pursued. However the reason they gave exists in a much much worse fashion in the solution they did choose to move forward with. So until stated otherwise, it's hard to see this as anything but a money grab.

I predicted this in another thread I made and pointed out all the ways the developers stand to profit with this shift in the economy. Obviously they're not going to come out and say "cash grab" but don't say "we're doing it for you to protect you from dilution" then give us SUPER diluted tokens with rediculously low odds we have to buy as compensation and say you're doing it for us.

They're running a business. You and I, and everyone, download this game for free. They've had millions of downloads, and made zero off of them directly. Their job is to somehow make money after that. You know what they could have done to "fix" the "problem"? Nothing. They could say "tough break, this is how it is, take it or leave it". I mean, in this case alone, when it happened, it was "they're appeasing the whales by vaulting the older characters, what of us little guys?" and now that they offer this it's "they're making this token to appease the whales". People complain about things they know little about, no matter what.

The inner machinations of any company are unknown to us on the outside, and attempts to explain them would likely fall on deaf ears. If someone with a red name showed up and posted a spreadsheet and a Powerpoint slideshow that mapped out data points, and spikes in revenue relative to new character implementations, special events, etc, very few would say "huh, well, that makes sense, and I suppose I understand that there's a bottom line that they have to factor in. There's way more at play here than just my individual experience with the game." It would be a chorus of "who cares about this nerd stuff? I want to get my Teen Jean to 300!"

Let's say instead of "Vintage Heroics" They gave us "Vintage Legends" (20 CP contains all vaulted 4s and 5s). Your argument is "people will still complain". Fair. It's the Internet. But just because you will always have complainers doesn't mean some solutions aren't better than others and appease more of the player base. This solution is legitimately the worst option for players (for the developers it may be different) as no one is crying for more 2s.

You say they don't have to tell us their rationale or business model. That's fair. They really don't have to do anything. But the fact is, THEY DID. And the
reason they gave for not implementing "Vintage Legends" is a flat out lie just using basic logic (the only reason we didn't make THAT token is dilution, but here, have a token with way more dilution). The lying is what is rubbing me the wrong way more than anything else.

Finally, your stick and carrot analogy makes sense. I get not wanting us to progress too fast (Iso shortages will never let that happen btw) but the lines they are giving us are about wanting us to progress faster, and how all their changes are in response to community concerns. Yet their actions have painted a very different picture from their words. If you don't see it, that's on you.