Next Steps... (Communication)

bk1234

Well Hibernum screwed up, -- fortunately, all at Hibernum, you have me -- and I have a background in Public Relations.

Because I really love this game, I'm going to share some steps for how to fix this -- and I'm going to do it for free (though someone will need to contact me for future advice because I will have to charge you my standard contract rates).

1. Understand your bad decision -- what is the extent of the impact?

2. Take full responsibility, apologize and explain.

3. Focus on the present -- See your mistake as a miss-take -- How can you make things better NOW?

4. Be proactive in the future.

If you take my advice, you will sail smoothy through this disaster -- You're welcome.

losdamianos

2. Take full responsibility, apologize and explain.

What apology ??
D3have obviously listened to our comments (Pre 10.0.2) and based on our valuable comments those changes were introduced
From release notes topic

Cthulhu wrote:

Hey all,

Overall we have been listening to everyone's comments and are trying some new things out in an attempt to address the great feedback we have been accumulating. We play Magic a lot at the office both the cards and the app, and we have added some Magic TCG related things to the app that we are excited to finally talk about.

Even with the best scenario that is revert back to pre patch with sensible rewards and bring back big boxes etc I still feel insulted D3 has lost trust of most players no matter what they will do.. I honestly cant see the right answer to come out of this mess which is bit sad because I really enjoyed Pre 1.10.2 MTGPQ

bk1234

@losdomianos

I am frequently accused of not adding positive things to this community.

Just trying to find some balance.

Astralwind

I've posted in another thread but I think the best move they can make now is to really LISTEN to us and also to GIVE us something in appropriate.
In other P2W games, they actually give out freebies generously even to F2P players. I sticked to that game for almost 3 years. And needless to say, I have supported them by spending.

In this game, not only are the rewards/compensation stingy, they're even asking me to pay to join in for events now. Flabbergasted, I am.

Ohboy

Astralwind wrote:

I've posted in another thread but I think the best move they can make now is to really LISTEN to us and also to GIVE us something in appropriate.
In other P2W games, they actually give out freebies generously even to F2P players. I sticked to that game for almost 3 years. And needless to say, I have supported them by spending.

In this game, not only are the rewards/compensation stingy, they're even asking me to pay to join in for events now. Flabbergasted, I am.

There's no other IAP game I've ever come across more generous to their f2p players than mtgpq. Seriously, name me some so I can try them out too.

PastrySpider

While many of the changes in the recent patch weren't great ideas, I think a major reason we are seeing such a huge backlash actually comes down again to problems of communication and I think I've spotted a big source of the problem. When presenting major changes to the users in release notes, they always focus three things: cool new stuff/events, card rebalances and bug fixes. You know, fun and interesting things. Stuff that makes people happy (or only mildly annoyed for rebalances). The problem is that these aren't actually the things that really need the most well thought out communication.

What really needs careful and well thought out communication are unpopular changes such as changing the progression event rewards, reducing coalition rewards, changing the number of cards in a pack, making an event where the cost rough equates to the price, etc. However, in release notes the don't measure these things which means that as a community they come as nasty surprises. Rule one of public communications is "Get Ahead of Bad News!!!". I think the idea right now is that players won't notice if you don't mention them but that obviously not true. This fundamentally makes you look like you have something to hide and people are more likely to assume the worse (incompetence, malice or greed).

I actually think there are somewhat reasonable explanations for many of these changes. Card packs were presumably adjusted so that 60 crystals = 1 pack conversion rates are easier to understand and people don't need to save up for ages to get the best value of pack. Possibly pack rewards were decreased to compensate for changes in the dupe rate. They got rid of mythics from coalition events because they were causing too many top players to max out on mythics. Answers will be nice now but better handling of unpopular decisions is vital if you want keep this game alive.

gruntface

I don't disagree, not even a little but somewhere out there is an empty stable with an open door and nearby a horse is on the loose.

buscemi

Ohboy wrote:

Astralwind wrote:

I've posted in another thread but I think the best move they can make now is to really LISTEN to us and also to GIVE us something in appropriate.
In other P2W games, they actually give out freebies generously even to F2P players. I sticked to that game for almost 3 years. And needless to say, I have supported them by spending.

In this game, not only are the rewards/compensation stingy, they're even asking me to pay to join in for events now. Flabbergasted, I am.

There's no other IAP game I've ever come across more generous to their f2p players than mtgpq. Seriously, name me some so I can try them out too.

Doctor Who:Legacy
Puzzle Forge
Triple Town

I'd love to reel off a longer list than that, but you've got a point... decent mobile games are few and far between, and next to impossible to find.

julianus

As an additional point, some of the preliminary communication on these items was lacking in detail - e.g. mana gems, masterpiece card sales, pay-to-enter events, adjusted card rewards. These items were all raised in advance of the update, but much of the information needed to evaluate them was missing. The fact that the reality was quite different from the ideas people had formed is at least partly the reason for the strong reaction.

If things settle and the company (and customers) manage to (successfully) get beyond the current situation, they'll really need to look at their communications approach and ensure that what they say matches up to what they deliver.

Mainloop25

They should finally publish the drop rates once and for all and end so much of the speculation. The reduction in cards from packs is a major sticking point, and could be alleviated by letting people decide for themselves what the worth is if they can do some concrete math on them.

Mainloop25

Game play isn't as fun but Pokémon duels is something I've messed with for a bit now. I havent delved deep enough to discover the pay walls, but free packs are fast more generous so far, in terms of drop rates.

madwren

Been having fun with Fire Emblem Heroes myself, but one of the main draws of PQ is my coalition-mates. Would love to find a game we could all play cooperatively.

PastrySpider

While publishing drop rates would be nice, I don't think it will happen and isn't really the root of my concern here. They are doing plenty of unpopular things which are totally obvious.

bk1234

buscemi wrote:

Triple Town

Such a fun game -- don't think I ever spent a penny in it either and I played it for a couple years.

Merlin's Rage did F2P really well -- too bad they couldn't get cheaters managed and ended up folding.

trashbear

Balancing a free to play game's economy is hard. Especially after introducing a guild system. If the rewards are too generous they could break the game. Sometimes serious changes must be made to reduce the rewards going to the top players. That's completely understandable. What's inexcusable is the lack of communication before these changes.

Here's an example of the kind of communication I'd like to see. These charts were made by developers of another game that had the exact same issue.




They admitted that the top players were going to get less going forward, but that these changes were necessary for the long term health of the game. And they provided hard data to backup those claims! Maybe D3 considers this kind of data trade secrets and doesn't want to share. That's fine. Just provide anything so the players in the top coalitions can think the reductions in their rewards are noble sacrifices for the greater good instead of shameless ploys to frustrate everybody to spend more money.

madwren

Thanks for sharing these. I would absolutely love this sort of communication.

Ohboy

trashbear wrote:

Balancing a free to play game's economy is hard. Especially after introducing a guild system. If the rewards are too generous they could break the game. Sometimes serious changes must be made to reduce the rewards going to the top players. That's completely understandable. What's inexcusable is the lack of communication before these changes.

Here's an example of the kind of communication I'd like to see. These charts were made by developers of another game that had the exact same issue.




They admitted that the top players were going to get less going forward, but that these changes were necessary for the long term health of the game. And they provided hard data to backup those claims! Maybe D3 considers this kind of data trade secrets and doesn't want to share. That's fine. Just provide anything so the players in the top coalitions can think the reductions in their rewards are noble sacrifices for the greater good instead of shameless ploys to frustrate everybody to spend more money.

Could you complete the case study? It's interesting, and I would like to know more details.

trashbear

Ohboy wrote:

Could you complete the case study? It's interesting, and I would like to know more details.

http://community.gemsofwar.com/t/2-1-pr ... ilds/11984

I stopped playing when I couldn't keep up with the grind. The developers had to keep adding new currencies and new sinks to deal with the top players. As a player in the middle of the pack I never felt like I was making any meaningful progress. So I completely understand the reason for the change in coalition rewards, but I think the implementation is off the mark.

aenigmaeffect

I absolutely concur that communication is the key. We can only guess/assume/infer the reasons why they drastically reduced the payouts and all the other changes. While they probably avoided telling us in advance for fear of backlash (or they didn't think it was necessary, which I think is even worse than purposeful avoidance), the backlash already happened. It can't get any worse (well, seeing more reductions was definitely worse, but that happened also). At this point, I would love for them to just be forthright with some communication on WHY they made these changes.

Even if it's "bad news" (ie. they realized they've been too generous, want to level things out, or even that they're not generating enough revenue, whatever), it would really shine some light on why they went the direction they did, and hopefully help US see where they're coming from. Graphs similar to those posted by @trashbear would be a fantastic start.

I don't think they need to apologize for the changes (apologize for the lack of communication, but not for the changes, if they have their reason), and I'm not asking them to roll the changes back (since that's unlikely), as long as they just share their point of view! Obviously, they're not obligated to to communicate, but that's what's needed to keep us customers happy and continue playing/paying.

buscemi

We could make those charts ourselves if we could be bothered.

Perhaps D3 don't want us to have a handy chart to refer to that tells us that all players at all levels are being burdened.