Daredevil217 wrote: 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.
GurlBYE wrote: No offense, you aren't being paid for pr, but you also aren't doing a good enough job of it to even be an unpaid intern. This token has no basis for it's existence in current form and was a poor solution to a problem with numerous solutions. The new token WAS effectively nothing. It's literally 70% chance of being something that you can obtain for free during a pvp match. You think we all don't realize this is a business. It's as if you hadn't read the other 57 pages of this thread and the 10 pages of the other where people have CONSISTENTLY come up with ideas that still have a cost of entry, in some sort of premium resource. Talking down to everyone and being devil's advocate to a poor solution is a waste of everyone time. The developers aren't going to read it and say "welp this one forums poster gets it, guess our job is DONE" and posters aren't going to say "well this token is literally a waste of time, but sure I'll empty my bank account on it because forums poster says I should be happy with ANY solution"
New McG wrote: GurlBYE wrote: No offense, you aren't being paid for pr, but you also aren't doing a good enough job of it to even be an unpaid intern. This token has no basis for it's existence in current form and was a poor solution to a problem with numerous solutions. The new token WAS effectively nothing. It's literally 70% chance of being something that you can obtain for free during a pvp match. You think we all don't realize this is a business. It's as if you hadn't read the other 57 pages of this thread and the 10 pages of the other where people have CONSISTENTLY come up with ideas that still have a cost of entry, in some sort of premium resource. Talking down to everyone and being devil's advocate to a poor solution is a waste of everyone time. The developers aren't going to read it and say "welp this one forums poster gets it, guess our job is DONE" and posters aren't going to say "well this token is literally a waste of time, but sure I'll empty my bank account on it because forums poster says I should be happy with ANY solution" Nope, I'm not any form of PR. Nor am I saying anyone should be emptying their bank account to buy the new token. What I am saying is, we have none of the info that their company does when it comes to the impact this change has had on them financially. If they had bottomed out the past month, then certainly, drastic measures would have been taken by now to right the ship. Since that hasn't happened, then maybe their easiest course of action was to make a (literally) token gesture to those most vocally outraged. They made a decision a month ago to shift the paradigm of the game. People on the forums exploded, but obviously the game in general has not. If they looked at the numbers and said "well, revenue is down 90% since the change, but we're sticking to our guns on this thing" they'd be insane. And despite all the everyone's tinfoil hat outcry about how this is all because of whales (or whatever the excuse du jour may be), there's a whole giant economy to this game beyond this forum. The game has been in the hands of millions of people, and having even a small percentage of those dropping a few bucks here and there is how the game keeps going. In general, most of those people will ever even know of the existence of this forum, and the ones who are here seem to want to take that non-opinion on these kinds of matters, and imply that everyone who isn't here agrees with them. I think if it were anywhere close to that case, something significant would have been changed after a month of the new direction of the tokens.
GurlBYE wrote: You deciding peoples opinions and feed back AREN'T as valuable because they aren't the majority, isn't better than the people who seem to think the peoples here's matter more (which is a rare opinion).
GurlBYE wrote: No one here thinks that their opinions are the only one that matters.
astrp3 wrote: I don't think McG or anyone else is claiming that people here think their opinions are the only ones that matter. But there ARE people here who seem to think their opinions represent those of veteran players, paying [non-whale] players, or those who post on the forums, none of which is necessarily true. As I've mentioned before, to little effect, people who are unhappy with the change may be more likely (and possibly MUCH more likely) to post than those who are neutral or happy and so may well be over-represented among those who have posted. There are numerous examples that could be given of the dangers of drawing hasty conclusions from such a voluntary poll (I gave one earlier where the difference was enormous). Yet people still continue to post things like "99% of the forums are against this change" (which isn't even true just counting the # of posters who have weighed in on the issue, never mind the problems with voluntary polls). None of which is to say that complaints here represent a minority opinion either. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but IMO, if opinions here aren't in the majority, they AREN'T as valuable as those that are. If the majority thinks X is or is not a good idea and the minority thinks the reverse, then the opinions of those in the majority should count more (since they are, by definition, in the majority). I'm not saying that minority opinion shouldn't count at all, just that it should count less than majority opinion. If they take a poll of new characters people want, shouldn't the votes of those in the majority (or plurality) count more (isn't that the point of doing a poll in the first place)?
New McG wrote: GurlBYE wrote: You deciding peoples opinions and feed back AREN'T as valuable because they aren't the majority, isn't better than the people who seem to think the peoples here's matter more (which is a rare opinion). Uh huh. That's why there's been absolutely zero "the devs are idiots because they haven't taken our ideas and made them happen, why are they so stupid?" posts.
revskip wrote: There is definitely an echo chamber in this (and any) forum. And astrp3 is absolutely right in that people who are not solidly against the vaulting are far less likely to post. And when they do post are frequently rebutted by many of the same people over and over. I know that in my alliance there is a split between players who like the vaulting and don't like the vaulting. There are a couple who even like the new token although admittedly that number is a much smaller group. Out of the other friends who I know in real life who play the game there is also a split. I can definitely understand the complaints against vaulting that some people have. I even share some of those concerns. But I also know that dilution was a huge problem that the forum also railed about for a long, long time. A frequent complaint was that new characters were unusable for a year or more. The vaulting change absolutely turned that on its face, it is now pretty easy to quickly cover any of the 12 in tokens. That change did have some other consequences in terms of older characters but bonus heroes mitigated that to an extent. The new store also mitigates it to an extent. Rome wasn't built in a day and incremental changes are often more well received. Hopefully the devs continue to roll out new things that also mitigate the bad parts of vaulting.
Vhailorx wrote: What percentage of players do you think earn 15+cp a day, win every single crash of the titans, and regularly get LTs from champ rewards and daily resupply? That doesn't sound like a 2* or 3* player to me.).
Vhailorx wrote: C'mon revskip. You are acting like the vaulting and bonus heroes changes were inevitable. Vaulting is terrible, and it is mitigated a bit by bonus heroes. But the the two systems are not inextricably linked. They were just released simultaneously. Demi could easily have done one or the other. The devs can, of course, do whatever they want to the game. But there is nothing wrong with the players pointing out problems if/when whatever they have done is bad. Like many other people here on the forums, I get that the game is a business and needs revenue to keep going. But as a consumer, I don't feel bad about wanting demi to over good gaming value for any investment. And when they fail to do so, I don't see a problem with any player voicing their frustrations (here or elsewhere), especially if the player keeps criticism on point and polite. This vaulting thing crossed my personal line; it' seems too clearly designed to generate more revenue for demi/d3 without offering much value to players (relative to what is being taken away). So I will gripe about it.
Vhailorx wrote: And if incrementalism is the way to go with changes, then why were ~75% of 4*s vaulted with about 2 hours' prior notice? That doesn't seem incremental to me. So is it that player-friendly changes need to be done incrementally, but player-unfriendly changes need to be done as quickly as possible? That may very well be demi's philosophy (it generally describes the way they implement big changes). But I don't have to like it as a player.
Vhailorx wrote: Finally, as a side note; I think your statement that "it's now pretty easy to quickly cover any of the 12 [4*s] in tokens" is actually overbroad. That may well be true for the 4* vet class. But we were already getting 4* covers faster than we could get iso to champ everyone. I doubt that many 2* or 3* players earn enough LTs/CP to quickly cover any 4*s even at the new drop rates. It is around 7% per 4* now I think, and that means it should take somewhere between 100-200 LT pulls to fully cover a new 4* (depending on how many covers you get during the release events). I would bet that only a minority of the player base earns 200 LTs every 6-8 months (in six months, assuming one can do all possible crash events, one will get 36 LT. Buying the remaining 164 tokesn, at the lowest rate of 20cp, would require a little over 3k CPs, which averages out to around 18 CP a day. Most players will get some additional LTs from champing, resupply, or vaults during that time as well, so call it 15cp a day. What percentage of players do you think earn 15+cp a day, win every single crash of the titans, and regularly get LTs from champ rewards and daily resupply? That doesn't sound like a 2* or 3* player to me.).
revskip wrote: Every single time a new character was being released the community was complaining that the new character would be under-covered for 6 months to a year or longer. Vaulting was a direct fix for that very frequent complaint. This is the devs listening to the forum and putting in a fix. Then the forum gets riled up about the fix because it wasn't the fix they wanted (loosening the purse strings on 4*s). Gripe away, I don't think the complaints about it taking too long to cover 4* characters were at all a bad criticism. I also think there are problems with their solution but pretending that it doesn't solve a very common complaint is myopic.
Vhailorx wrote: Re daily CP. 18/day isn't an unreasonable amount. But I still doubt that most 2* and 3* players are getting it. astrp3's example included grinding every PVE event to max prog, and at least 575 in each pvp, plus ddq. That's about 2.5-3.5 hours of playing every day (depending on roster strenght/scaling). It's definitely possible, but only if you have a complete 2*, 3*, and 4* roster (so you never miss an essential node). I really don't think that most people can handle that requirement until they fully cover their 3* roster and start their 4* transition.
WEBGAS wrote: Due to Peggy leave newest and classic legends very soon, I decided to open my 15 LT. rewardered with 3 1 1 2 3 agent 1 coulson:shield: 3 and 1 not a single bonus hero ( I only got a few 3 bonus so far) and this should be a feature that helps US to let growing our rosters?YOU FAILED!!!
WEBGAS wrote: Due to Peggy leave newest and classic legends very soon, I decided to open my 15 LT. rewardered with 3 1 1 2 3 agent 1 coulson 3 and 1 not a single bonus hero ( I only got a few 3 bonus so far) and this should be a feature that " help players build stronger rosters faster"?YOU FAILED!!!