Brigby and Cthulu - when we will get feedback?

mohio

JablesMc wrote:

I get the feeling that "killing" champ rewards might be a way to introduce more parity for newer 4* players in the future. Now, it could be less likely to have a few people pwning with lvl 370 4*, and more people with comparable newer 4*.

As to whether this will work out that way, remains to be seen. I personally have my doubts.

Also, I am not intending this post as either an endorsement, nor a condemnation of this possibility, merely an observation.

I think this gets at, but isn't exactly, the answer to why we are seeing vaulting now. I'll expand a bit below what I mean.

As many have noted, a frequent complaint about new characters went something like : "Oh great, another character I don't really care about and will take months and months to cover". What is rooted in this complaint but not specifically said, is that even once that character is fully covered and maxed out, championed, whatever, it's still not likely to see much play. Why? Because we've been collecting champion covers for Thor, HB, JG, Iceman, Fury, etc. for over a year already. My highest champions are up to 305+, and I don't even play nearly as hardcore as some on here. 6 more months and they'll be up to 320+. Would I really choose to run my newly championed Riri over my 320 4hor? Even Medusa with all her cool abilities isn't likely to measure up to another character in her tier 50 levels above her. These new characters have a built in disadvantage of over a year's worth of covers, and there's just no way to bridge that gap in the old system.

So - faced with this reality, what would you have done? D3 needs to continue to make money, and so far that has meant that they need to continue to make new characters. Pumping out more and more 4* into the diluted token pool and not offering a way to "catch up" in covers would be bad because each new character would be more and more irrelevant to people who have been playing as long as most of us have been. Vaulting gives every new character increasing relevance past just their initial PvE and PvP since RNG might hand you more covers than you know what to do with and they could all of a sudden become your next highest level champion.

In summary - I don't think they decided to do vaulting to deliberately keep people from getting level 370 characters, I think they did it to level the playing field on new vs. old characters so people would play with them more than they might otherwise.

madok

Mohio, the weekly boosts help with that though.

I use those lower level champed characters all the time when boosted. Of course that is the only time I use them because with 5* scaling, they die very quickly when not boosted..

Brigby

Hi Everyone. Rest assured, we have certainly not forgotten about this topic. Having said that though, it is a complicated and multilayered one that requires time and attention in order to address it in the best way possible.

We're carefully going through all the feedback the community has provided, and we will be discussing this in depth with the development team. Once there is news I can announce, I'll be sure to update the community.

bbigler

Brigby wrote:

Hi Everyone. Rest assured, we have certainly not forgotten about this topic. Having said that though, it is a complicated and multilayered one that requires time and attention in order to address it in the best way possible.

We're carefully going through all the feedback the community has provided, and we will be discussing this in depth with the development team. Once there is news I can announce, I'll be sure to update the community.

I'm very glad that our feedback is not ignored, but considered and goes back to D3. The more you can communicate with us Brigby, the calmer people will be (I think).

bbigler

mohio wrote:

In summary - I don't think they decided to do vaulting to deliberately keep people from getting level 370 characters, I think they did it to level the playing field on new vs. old characters so people would play with them more than they might otherwise.

Just my 2 cents here: I think they implemented vaulting as a direct result of player surveys showing that most players would not recommend this game because new players will be years behind current players (due to slow 4* progression), which would cause the player base to get smaller and smaller over time, thus decreasing their revenue and eventually bringing the end of the game. So, their solution is to try to get everyone to just build the new characters in an attempt to level the playing field for both newbies and veterans. This way, the target is always moving and reduces the power that veteran players have. Veterans will still have an advantage (as they should) due to their existing champs though.

This change seems like a very long term one, where the benefits will be seen a year or two from now. Most 4* Champs will stop around 280, thus leveling the field, instead of veterans getting their 4*s up to level 370. They will be able to get their 3*s up to level 266, which effectively adds to their 4* fighting options. But by the time that happens, they will be transitioning to 5* land, making 3*s and 4*s mostly irrelevant. I suppose D3's utopian vision of the future has everyone chasing after the latest most powerful characters, with veterans only having an advantage in roster diversity, not more powerful characters.

But MARK MY WORDS: They will vault 5*s as well once there are more than 12 in the Classic Legendary Packs! So, collect those SS and OML covers now while you still can.

Magic

Brigby wrote:

Hi Everyone. Rest assured, we have certainly not forgotten about this topic. Having said that though, it is a complicated and multilayered one that requires time and attention in order to address it in the best way possible.

We're carefully going through all the feedback the community has provided, and we will be discussing this in depth with the development team. Once there is news I can announce, I'll be sure to update the community.

Thank you for taking note. I promise to be a good boy and I won't spam about it in other threads. We are in a situation where any news or feedback is appreciated. If on Monday you will know that the information will be available on Friday please let us know on Monday. We will have something to look for.

smkspy

Look at how long the level up button took to get fixed, patience is gonna have be a huge virtue when it comes to them fixing BH.

A_Wise_Man

Brigby wrote:

Hi Everyone. Rest assured, we have certainly not forgotten about this topic. Having said that though, it is a complicated and multilayered one that requires time and attention in order to address it in the best way possible.

We're carefully going through all the feedback the community has provided, and we will be discussing this in depth with the development team. Once there is news I can announce, I'll be sure to update the community.

Read as: Don't hold your breath.

CNash

BatteryHorse wrote:

The issue is that almost everything seems to be vaulted, so we don't have a lot of choices anymore. The compromise position of a vault that has the new 12 and another vault that has the historical 4's already in the game, seems like a common-sense solution, and the devs have been very tight-lipped about whether they're considering it.

Let's play devil's advocate. It may seem "common-sense" to us, but we don't think like developers of a free-to-play mobile app. What's the main benefit to us of a "Classic 4*" token? It's so that we can continue to work on the characters we've already rostered, whether it's the 13 primary covers or champion levels. All pulls are older 4*s, no chance of pulling a new character. Great... for us.

Flip it around, though: No pulls are new 4*s. What are the developers constantly pushing on us, promoting through fancy splash screens, and "interviews" at Marvel.com? New 4*s. It's got to feel like we're thumbing our nose at all the hard work they put in to make these new characters. Further, it encourages players' rosters to stagnate. They know as well as we do that we can construct a number of great 4* teams out of the 47 current 4* characters; why should a player who can consistently beat PVP and PVE events with his Hulkbuster, Jean Grey and Iceman have to worry about new characters at all?

On a more cynical, monetisation level, a "Classic 4*s" token means fewer roster slot sales, as 4* tier veterans don't have to worry about needing to roster a randomly-pulled new 4*; they can grab their initial three covers from progression and placement, and fill in the blanks with CP until the new one hits the "Classic 4*" token six months later. The old trap of "oh no, I've got 4 covers expiring in my queue, better buy some HP" is closed off. More player choice is anaethema to a game so heavily built around the "gatcha" slot machine model. There's a lot of truth to that widely mocked quote of "Most players think random token pulls are exciting", after all.

firethorne

CNash wrote:

BatteryHorse wrote:

The issue is that almost everything seems to be vaulted, so we don't have a lot of choices anymore. The compromise position of a vault that has the new 12 and another vault that has the historical 4's already in the game, seems like a common-sense solution, and the devs have been very tight-lipped about whether they're considering it.

Let's play devil's advocate. It may seem "common-sense" to us, but we don't think like developers of a free-to-play mobile app. What's the main benefit to us of a "Classic 4*" token? It's so that we can continue to work on the characters we've already rostered, whether it's the 13 primary covers or champion levels. All pulls are older 4*s, no chance of pulling a new character. Great... for us.

Flip it around, though: No pulls are new 4*s. What are the developers constantly pushing on us, promoting through fancy splash screens, and "interviews" at Marvel.com? New 4*s. It's got to feel like we're thumbing our nose at all the hard work they put in to make these new characters. Further, it encourages players' rosters to stagnate. They know as well as we do that we can construct a number of great 4* teams out of the 47 current 4* characters; why should a player who can consistently beat PVP and PVE events with his Hulkbuster, Jean Grey and Iceman have to worry about new characters at all?

On a more cynical, monetisation level, a "Classic 4*s" token means fewer roster slot sales, as 4* tier veterans don't have to worry about needing to roster a randomly-pulled new 4*; they can grab their initial three covers from progression and placement, and fill in the blanks with CP until the new one hits the "Classic 4*" token six months later. The old trap of "oh no, I've got 4 covers expiring in my queue, better buy some HP" is closed off. More player choice is anaethema to a game so heavily built around the "gatcha" slot machine model. There's a lot of truth to that widely mocked quote of "Most players think random token pulls are exciting", after all.

Well, I just know the change equated to the suspension of my VIP purchases. It isn't worth it for me to continue to put money into a game where my ability to work on characters I've been working on for years can shift dramatically for the worse without warning. Work that into your sales figures as you like.

NewMcG

firethorne wrote:

Well, I just know the change equated to the suspension of my VIP purchases. It isn't worth it for me to continue to put money into a game where my ability to work on characters I've been working on for years can shift dramatically for the worse without warning. Work that into your sales figures as you like.

Well, if I luck into pulling a 5* Hawkeye off the tokens from Ultron, I may drop $20 to give myself some HP cushion. So I guess they may net an extra $10 this month between the two of us after factoring in your VIP loss!

kyo28

From a monetary point of view, it makes perfect sense to add a old 4* pack or even packs:
1. roster slots: I keep buying slots because I want to roster every single character + I need the newer ones for when they are the required character in PVE events
2. Give me a chance to catch up with my old 4* and I'll then gladly invest in the newer 4*. Stifle my progression by forcing me to restart with newer 4* continually and I'll be less inclined to spend money as I don't feel any progression: instead I keep being stuck at leveling 4*s to 10-12 covers and am then forced to move on to the new flavor of the day 4*. No chance to champ hence no transition hence no drive to spend money

That's from the point of view of my roster of course. Other rosters may have other needs and wants and as such have different triggers for spending money.

The current change gives a big incentive to huge whales to keep spending and that is the meat of their revenue stream. But other, more casual players may feel like it's time to stop spending as it no longer matters or there is no longer a transition road for them to 4* status, let alone 5* status player.

Since my progression is al but halted, I'm in the same boat as firethorne and will stop renewing my VIP status and no longer buy HP during sales. That boils down to a yearly loss of 120 Euro for VIP and about 50 Euro for HP during sales = 170 Euro yearly loss. Nothing major to D3 ... except if all players start to do like I'm doing now. Then it will add up and THEN we'll see changes in the system, mark my words!

j0nats

Crowl wrote:

Magic wrote:

In the previous system the pace was slower but steadier - I didn't have to hoard that much. I would draw a cover towards a new one - great. I would draw one towards my champion - great (more resources). I would get 14th cover - great - I stop pulling and I champion the next hero. This option is now gone - the resources will be "slimmer" as my 22 champions (2 excluded) will not be fueled regularly. Occasionally I would draw a duplicate and I would sell. This will not change at all as Riri will not get priority for ISO over Medusa.

This was exactly the position I had got into, my roster of champions had expanded enough that I was much more likely to get a cover that could be used rather than one that would end up being wasted.

Exactly this. Ive worked my **** off trying to champ all the top and mid tier heroes.. only to be forced to champ newer heroes who i dont care about just to take advantage of the championing system.

Aaand... no explanation at all from d3.

Magic

And good luck getting to 1200 in PvP with the current group of 4* available (not named Peggy or Carol). Another blow to the 5* progression that is already slow and too RNG based.

SummerGlau

vaulting kinda got me po'ed because i only need one x-23 cover

i mean i set her as my only bonus 4, but that ain't happened yet

Jaedenkaal

Summer Glau wrote:

vaulting kinda got me po'ed because i only need one x-23 cover

i mean i set her as my only bonus 4, but that ain't happened yet

Well, I mean, you weren't very likely to have pulled her from the old legendary tokens in the last 9 days either, so... not much has really changed there. The new system DOES work in your favour in this case (The "I need 1 more cover for X-23" case), as you're more likely to get a bonus X-23 now than you were to get an X-23 before.

ClinicallyCynic

I just want them to bring back the UI with the percentages they had before.
Not sure if this is referring to that when speaking of the "Vault incident of 2017".
But this new UI is just useless. In the original screen it stated what the odds were, based on the # pack you were going to buy. Now, it telegraphs that no matter what pack you buy the odds are the same. 1/4 chance to get one of any of the 3 's. But how can that be true if there is a bonus draw rate for Iron fist? just put it back to how it was. there was no logical reason to change it.

GrimSkald

Here's the thing, while vaulting has aroused a lot of vitriol, I think the assumption that it is wildly unpopular may be a bit misplaced. I made a poll last week asking how people felt about the vaulting:

https://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60371

We had just under 200 people respond, about 20% of the respondents indicating they liked the new system. That's... a very sizable minority. Sure, that's only 200 people, and sure, that's just the forum and not the player base at large, but it still says something. The answer that collected the most respondents was "I like the system in theory, but it needs a serious revamp to work," at 45%. 21% of the respondents saw no value to the vaulting and wanted it scrapped.

What I'm saying is that this may not be as cut and dried as people think. I, for one, think they had the longevity of the game in mind with the system, and think they're on the right track, but need to keep working on it...

Quebbster

ClinicallyCynic wrote:

I just want them to bring back the UI with the percentages they had before.
Not sure if this is referring to that when speaking of the "Vault incident of 2017".
But this new UI is just useless. In the original screen it stated what the odds were, based on the # pack you were going to buy. Now, it telegraphs that no matter what pack you buy the odds are the same. 1/4 chance to get one of any of the 3 's. But how can that be true if there is a bonus draw rate for Iron fist? just put it back to how it was. there was no logical reason to change it.

Some pulls are more equal than others...

kyo28

GrimSkald wrote:

Here's the thing, while vaulting has aroused a lot of vitriol, I think the assumption that it is wildly unpopular may be a bit misplaced. I made a poll last week asking how people felt about the vaulting:

https://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60371

We had just under 200 people respond, about 20% of the respondents indicating they liked the new system. That's... a very sizable minority. Sure, that's only 200 people, and sure, that's just the forum and not the player base at large, but it still says something. The answer that collected the most respondents was "I like the system in theory, but it needs a serious revamp to work," at 45%. 21% of the respondents saw no value to the vaulting and wanted it scrapped.

What I'm saying is that this may not be as cut and dried as people think. I, for one, think they had the longevity of the game in mind with the system, and think they're on the right track, but need to keep working on it...

I get what you're saying but still, 45%+21%= 66% of respondent at the very least see major issues in the current revamp. That's 2/3s of the respondents that are very to extremely negative on this change. Warrants a look by the devs, I'd say.

By the way, still no feedback?