Finally a legit MPQ in game survey!

Fightmastermpq

Raised my rating from a 1 to a 7 just like I said I would. The game is far more friendly to new players now.

Voted Groot, but only in the hopes of getting a Baby Groot.

Alsmir

nick_chicane wrote:

What I dont understand is why anyone would still be playing a game they thought was so bad that they voted it 0? What sort of lunatic does that?

As long as vaulting is a thing, I'd honestly give it a -1 out of 10.

deadtaco

nick_chicane wrote:

What I dont understand is why anyone would still be playing a game they thought was so bad that they voted it 0? What sort of lunatic does that?

It didn't ask to rate the game, it asked how likely you would be to recommend it to a friend, which I would in no way do, thus a zero.

Style55

I, too, rated it a zero. In the current state of game there's not really an easy way to get settled/started in the game. Between the 4/3* essential nodes in PvE, the ridiculous vaulting, etc. For a new person starting the game the time to fully cover 1 of the 45~ 4* characters would not be anywhere in the realm of "player friendly" without an absurd amount of luck or money being dropped on this game.

Edit. After realizing how negative the tone of this comment was I felt I needed to add that some character releases are done in a rather nice way, Coulson for example - mini event with a random cover given. Sadly they're just so infrequent.

CrookedKnight

nick_chicane wrote:

What I dont understand is why anyone would still be playing a game they thought was so bad that they voted it 0? What sort of lunatic does that?

I'm at a point with my roster where I can steamroll the bugs that hurt players and take advantage of those that help us (hello, countdown tile damage!) but when I rate the game I do so based on whether I'd recommend it to a potential new player. I can't imagine starting out from scratch and having to deal with this buggy nonsense, never mind the difficulty of breaking through to 3* and 4* play with vaulted tokens in effect (and no bonus heroes until SHIELD rank 50+!).

Fightmastermpq

CrookedKnight wrote:

nick_chicane wrote:

What I dont understand is why anyone would still be playing a game they thought was so bad that they voted it 0? What sort of lunatic does that?

I'm at a point with my roster where I can steamroll the bugs that hurt players and take advantage of those that help us (hello, countdown tile damage!) but when I rate the game I do so based on whether I'd recommend it to a potential new player. I can't imagine starting out from scratch and having to deal with this buggy nonsense, never mind the difficulty of breaking through to 3* and 4* play with vaulted tokens in effect (and no bonus heroes until SHIELD rank 50+!).

BH unlocks at rank 8. And vaulting is great for new players as they get next tier characters covered much more quickly.

It's not a 10, there are still bugs, P2W, and luck-based progression, etc......but it's not a 0 either.

I've told people "it's a really fun game, but you'll never finish it, eventually you will have to compete against people that are paying to win, and there are a lot of luck components designed to get you to spend money to make up for bad luck." Sometimes they are pretty casual and jump in anyway despite the negatives.

Crowl

Fightmastermpq wrote:

BH unlocks at rank 8. And vaulting is great for new players as they get next tier characters covered much more quickly.

It's not a 10, there are still bugs, P2W, and luck-based progression, etc......but it's not a 0 either.

I've told people "it's a really fun game, but you'll never finish it, eventually you will have to compete against people that are paying to win, and there are a lot of luck components designed to get you to spend money to make up for bad luck." Sometimes they are pretty casual and jump in anyway despite the negatives.

BH is still RNG, so more luck-based progression and even if they do move to the next tier quicker they run into somewhat of a brick wall of content requiring characters they have few reliable methods of obtaining, perhaps the nodes in ddq that have a required character should offer a vaulted and non-vaulted character.

Personally, I am happy to recommend people play the prologue as the mechanics and licence are a good combination, but I also tend to suggest that they think twice about going further than that and given how small a part of the overall game it is, I only give a score about 2 or 3 overall in these surveys.

CrookedKnight

I though it was Clearance Level 8! That IS better.

GurlBYE

nick_chicane wrote:

What I dont understand is why anyone would still be playing a game they thought was so bad that they voted it 0? What sort of lunatic does that?

The irony here is that you don't realize they don't care what you think about the game, just how likely you are to tell other people who might spend money on it, or the question would be "what can we do better"

GurlBYE

On a recommendation, I can't go higher than a 1.

We could go back and forth about personal preferences, but could you in good conscience say to someone right now,

"hey check out this awesome game!"

"Wow that looks cool. Ok, I liked playing as your 90's cyclops and jean grey How do I get them?"

"well umm. Add them as your bonus hero and hope for the best! It'll likely take around a year and a half, It'll be even faster if you spend money! "

The games incredibly stingy, and progress in tiers is too glacial.
I'm having an ok time, but it took so long to get here, so many periods of being burned out bored, tired content, tired game play. Bugs everywhere. It's just too much.

The biggest bonus is that if the person knows to hoard, they may actually cover whatever new 4 star is out if they're lucky.

Otherwise nothing has changed.

Fightmastermpq

Crowl wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

BH unlocks at rank 8. And vaulting is great for new players as they get next tier characters covered much more quickly.

It's not a 10, there are still bugs, P2W, and luck-based progression, etc......but it's not a 0 either.

I've told people "it's a really fun game, but you'll never finish it, eventually you will have to compete against people that are paying to win, and there are a lot of luck components designed to get you to spend money to make up for bad luck." Sometimes they are pretty casual and jump in anyway despite the negatives.

BH is still RNG, so more luck-based progression and even if they do move to the next tier quicker they run into somewhat of a brick wall of content requiring characters they have few reliable methods of obtaining, perhaps the nodes in ddq that have a required character should offer a vaulted and non-vaulted character.

Personally, I am happy to recommend people play the prologue as the mechanics and licence are a good combination, but I also tend to suggest that they think twice about going further than that and given how small a part of the overall game it is, I only give a score about 2 or 3 overall in these surveys.

I don't think this brick wall you speak of really exists. Thinking back to when I started very little of my progress into the 3* tier was dictated by RNG. I got the occasional cover from a token, but I have very clear memories of pushing hard for placement in events that rewarded characters that I wanted/needed, and now they've added them to progression rewards to make them far more accessible than they ever were before. Outside of DDQ any time you need a character they seem to show up as the reward from the previous event. So I think it's a bit disingenuous to act as if progress has been halted by vaulting when RNG-based progression was never really the primary method of progressing through the 3* tier anyway.

Also, don't you think it's kind of silly to tell someone "hey, don't even bother checking out this game.....they just made a change that will make it really hard for you to keep progressing after the first year of play...."

Daredevil217

GurlBYE wrote:

On a recommendation, I can't go higher than a 1.

We could go back and forth about personal preferences, but could you in good conscience say to someone right now,

"hey check out this awesome game!"

"Wow that looks cool. Ok, I liked playing as your 90's cyclops and jean grey How do I get them?"

"well umm. Add them as your bonus hero and hope for the best! It'll likely take around a year and a half, It'll be even faster if you spend money! "

The games incredibly stingy, and progress in tiers is too glacial.
I'm having an ok time, but it took so long to get here, so many periods of being burned out bored, tired content, tired game play. Bugs everywhere. It's just too much.

The biggest bonus is that if the person knows to hoard, they may actually cover whatever new 4 star is out if they're lucky.

Otherwise nothing has changed.

To play devils advocate, if you want to play Jean and Scott it was probably going to take that long (if not longer) under the old system.

That said, I don't think anyone plays this game just for Jean and Scott and there in lies the problem.

The goal for me was never to get 4-5 max champed heroes at each tier and launch into the next one. I was in it for the long game and liked that aspect of of it.

I focused on getting every single 2* champed and maxed while my 3* were coming along slowly but surely and in the interim I was happy in 2* land. I was in no rush to complete the game because I knew there was no end.

Same thing with the 4* tier. If you enjoy the game in its truest sense like I do, I have I think now 43 3* to choose from. No lack of options there. And while enjoying them my 4* accumulated. Now I have 8 champed (not a lot for an almost 900 day player but that's okay).

I never once complained or felt "behind" and just enjoyed where I was at.

With this new system people "get to" progress faster. The issue is you are no closer to the proverbial "finish line" and whereas before you could progress being scaled against other people with rosters like yours, now you are matched up against people who (best case scenario) have Peggy and Carol but ALSO boosted Red Hulk, Punisher, and Professor. You are going to get creamed by those who benefitted before the wall went up.

People who don't get it will say I "get to progress" never thinking that for some it feels like I have to. I'm not a fan of jumping into shark infested waters without a strong foundation, but the other options are hoarding and softcapping (bleh) or wasting a bunch of covers (bleh). Oh well, more chum for the whales.

Fightmastermpq

Daredevil217 wrote:

With this new system people "get to" progress faster. The issue is you are no closer to the proverbial "finish line" and whereas before you could progress being scaled against other people with rosters like yours, now you are matched up against people who (best case scenario) have Peggy and Carol but ALSO boosted Red Hulk, Punisher, and Professor. You are going to get creamed by those who benefitted before the wall went up.

But hasn't the game always been like this? And shouldn't it be? For the most part shouldn't long term players have a bit of an advantage over newer players? I mean, obviously it's not fun if newer players have NO way to compete, but the guy with 2 champed 4*s has always gotten "creamed" by the guy with all the 4*s champed.

Honestly the game is balanced well enough so that almost any team that you make of 2 maxed characters from a tier can beat just about any other team from the same tier. Boosting makes it tougher, but that's how they reward people for playing for a long time - more opportunities to have boosted characters on your roster. I just don't see this as such a big negative that you would never recommend this game to anyone.

GurlBYE

"Hasn't it always been like this" is a really poor defense to a change, to be entirely fair.
And yes thats why I didn't recommend it before either.


And people playing this game likely are playing it to play their favorite marvel characters, not for the match 3 gameplay, because mobile is full of match 3.

Unless it's a 1 or 2 star (which combined is smaller than the 3 or 4 star tier) they likely won't be seeing that for quite a while.

When attempting to provide something to shift someone's opinion, most things non objective don't provide much incentive. Like It's awesome that you wanted everyone in each tier and liked the collection aspect more than other things.
Not everyone will play that way. And there's nothing wrong with either person's way of playing.

Daredevil217

Fightmastermpq wrote:

But hasn't the game always been like this? And shouldn't it be? For the most part shouldn't long term players have a bit of an advantage over newer players? I mean, obviously it's not fun if newer players have NO way to compete, but the guy with 2 champed 4*s has always gotten "creamed" by the guy with all the 4*s champed.

Honestly the game is balanced well enough so that almost any team that you make of 2 maxed characters from a tier can beat just about any other team from the same tier. Boosting makes it tougher, but that's how they reward people for playing for a long time - more opportunities to have boosted characters on your roster. I just don't see this as such a big negative that you would never recommend this game to anyone.

No, the game hasn't always been like this. Like I said before, I wasn't getting crushed by life-longers because they were competing with each other in a higher tier. Now that they are streamlining progression I "get to" fight those life-longers faster, but with an under-developed roster, and very minimal and infrequent opportunities to catch up. Unless (again, like I said), I hoard or soft-cap. And like I also said, another byproduct of this system (intentional or not) is more chum for the whales.

GurlBYE wrote:

When attempting to provide something to shift someone's opinion, most things non objective don't provide much incentive. Like It's awesome that you wanted everyone in each tier and liked the collection aspect more than other things.
Not everyone will play that way. And there's nothing wrong with either person's way of playing.

Oh, no doubt. More than trying to shift someone's opinion, I am trying to get them to understand mine (and others). I'm basically saying, don't tell me I "get to" progress faster when your definition of progression and mine are not the same. For me, "progress" was getting every character maxed. My version of progress is severely hampered by this new system. I know this system works for some people and I'm not trying to change them as much as get them to understand. Those who this works for either a) have already progressed in the way I hope to, or b) have a different definition of progress. The fact is, if changes aren't made I need to decide if it is worth it to keep playing if I can no longer make progress in the way I'd like. Others get to (and some already have) make that choice for themselves (not others) as well. I'm on the fence right now, but we'll see.