Alsmir wrote: Just a quick observation: Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working. Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed. Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face). Random crashes - not fixed. Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile. Good to know, that you have your priorities straight.
Vhailorx wrote: What's wrong with speculating about how this new vaulting mechanic may affect new players. Vaulting certainly irritated me the last time they tried it when I was still trying to build out my 3* roster. I don't see any reason to think it's a better deal now. As for high level champs, getting everyone to 370 may have been unrealistic for most players. But getting everyone to 310 or 320 was a whole lot more feasible. And the champ rewards at those levels are pretty damn good. Also remember that roster progress in this game has always been a positive feedback loop. Having a stronger roster allows you to access better rewards and progress even faster. It takes a long time to build up a first 3* or first 4* character. And the pace of cover acquisition really picks up once you get a critical mass of characters covered/leveled for any given tier.
Quebbster wrote: Alsmir wrote: Just a quick observation: Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working. Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed. Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face). Random crashes - not fixed. Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile. Good to know, that you have your priorities straight. A new token store is presumably a fairly easy fix and Quick to set up as the structure for that is already in the game. The other issues are presumably more complex to fix, I am sure the devs would have loved to have fixed them already if they could do it without screwing something else up even more. Besides, I do Believe Brigby said the Vintage packs was not the only solution the developers were looking at. It's probably just the fastest fix they could come up with to at least mitigate the issue a bit.
Alsmir wrote: Quebbster wrote: Alsmir wrote: Just a quick observation: Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working. Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed. Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face). Random crashes - not fixed. Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile. Good to know, that you have your priorities straight. A new token store is presumably a fairly easy fix and Quick to set up as the structure for that is already in the game. The other issues are presumably more complex to fix, I am sure the devs would have loved to have fixed them already if they could do it without screwing something else up even more. Besides, I do Believe Brigby said the Vintage packs was not the only solution the developers were looking at. It's probably just the fastest fix they could come up with to at least mitigate the issue a bit. Faster and easier than adding a token with same odds as we used to have in classic LTs? Don't make me laugh.
Brigby wrote: Please stay on topic and keep all discussion civil and constructive. You are certainly encouraged to express your opinions, however I must ask that you please do not deviate from the original topic, and to keep all feedback constructive. I have removed several posts that did not fall under this category. Thank you for understanding.
New McG wrote: All the long-timers talk about "how am I supposed to get my 4* to high champ levels when you take them out of legendaries". Well, realistically, that wasn't happening anyway. I have about a dozen champed 4*. Even if I had everyone champed, and pulled legendaries from the old pool of 50+ 4s, that's 5,000 legendary pulls to get everyone maxed out at 370. I play quite a bit, and probably average around 1 legendary a day, whether it's the every 5 day DDQ token or tallying 20 CP. At one a day, that would be roughly 13 years to finish them off. Maybe there's some top 10 finishes factored in, so a few odd levels here and there, so let's call it 10 years? (And this is barring any other characters ever being released again.) Given the reality of how slow any form of progress was with the diluted token pool, is this what the actual outcry is about? It isn't like the theoretical "vintage legendary" pool of 4* would be getting any less diluted on a monthly basis.
New McG wrote: Vhailorx wrote: What's wrong with speculating about how this new vaulting mechanic may affect new players. Vaulting certainly irritated me the last time they tried it when I was still trying to build out my 3* roster. I don't see any reason to think it's a better deal now. As for high level champs, getting everyone to 370 may have been unrealistic for most players. But getting everyone to 310 or 320 was a whole lot more feasible. And the champ rewards at those levels are pretty damn good. Also remember that roster progress in this game has always been a positive feedback loop. Having a stronger roster allows you to access better rewards and progress even faster. It takes a long time to build up a first 3* or first 4* character. And the pace of cover acquisition really picks up once you get a critical mass of characters covered/leveled for any given tier. It's silly to be outraged on behalf of others, because if they were actually as outraged as they're being made out to be, they'd seek something like this forum out and actually make that complaint for themselves. And if you're "only" shooting for 40-50 levels on all the old 4*'s, then we can call it just a scant 5-6 years or so instead of a decade? Let's not kid ourselves, vaulted or not, without spending exorbitant amounts of money, that's the glacial pace at which those covers would be trickling in, should every 4* get thrown back into the pool tomorrow. (And that's if you have the entire 4* roster champed and never have to waste a 4* pull, which would put you in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority in the first place.)
GurlBYE wrote: A players with 12 champed 4 stars telling me that I can't be worried about new players not having access to required characters, ...And criticism is now outrage. "Ugh it's good enough, stop wanting a reasonable way besides bonus heros to get old heros and random heroics for one week, which were the worst way to get 4's in the first place. Who cares that your ability to improve all your 4's 20 CP at a time was taken away. This is better. Why? Because I said so. And you can cover the characters you have 0-5 covers of a lot faster now, even though improving the way of getting classics wouldn't interfere with this unless you, as the player chose to go that route"
astrp3 wrote: GurlBYE wrote: If you don't like people exaggerating your position and making straw man arguments, don't do the same thing. McG never said you shouldn't be concerned for new players. He clearly stated what his issue was (and it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or his feelings on altruism). I think his point was that a non-newbie claiming that the newbies won't like the change isn't good evidence that they won't - at least not nearly as much as the newbies saying so themselves (which presumably they would). As a 3* player, I think the change benefits me enormously in the short run (though a third "vintage" store wouldn't hurt). I am still concerned about being able to get older top-shelf 4*s in the long-term, but had the change not been made at all, it would have been enormously difficult with the constant influx of 4*s.
GurlBYE wrote: If you don't like people exaggerating your position and making straw man arguments, don't do the same thing. McG never said you shouldn't be concerned for new players. He clearly stated what his issue was (and it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or his feelings on altruism). I think his point was that a non-newbie claiming that the newbies won't like the change isn't good evidence that they won't - at least not nearly as much as the newbies saying so themselves (which presumably they would). As a 3* player, I think the change benefits me enormously in the short run (though a third "vintage" store wouldn't hurt). I am still concerned about being able to get older top-shelf 4*s in the long-term, but had the change not been made at all, it would have been enormously difficult with the constant influx of 4*s.
astrp3 wrote: GurlBYE wrote: A players with 12 champed 4 stars telling me that I can't be worried about new players not having access to required characters, ...And criticism is now outrage. "Ugh it's good enough, stop wanting a reasonable way besides bonus heros to get old heros and random heroics for one week, which were the worst way to get 4's in the first place. Who cares that your ability to improve all your 4's 20 CP at a time was taken away. This is better. Why? Because I said so. And you can cover the characters you have 0-5 covers of a lot faster now, even though improving the way of getting classics wouldn't interfere with this unless you, as the player chose to go that route" If you don't like people exaggerating your position and making straw man arguments, don't do the same thing. McG never said you shouldn't be concerned for new players. He clearly stated what his issue was (and it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or his feelings on altruism). I think his point was that a non-newbie claiming that the newbies won't like the change isn't good evidence that they won't - at least not nearly as much as the newbies saying so themselves (which presumably they would). As a 3* player, I think the change benefits me enormously in the short run (though a third "vintage" store wouldn't hurt). I am still concerned about being able to get older top-shelf 4*s in the long-term, but had the change not been made at all, it would have been enormously difficult with the constant influx of 4*s.
Vhailorx wrote: As for your opinion on thr changes: it's great that you like these changes. Really. But even you acknowledge that there are sime problems. Other players (like me) are more concerned about the problems and less excited about the positives. Debate is great. What has been irritating me (and i think gurl) is that McG seems to he telling us that our concerns don't matter at all, either because they are concerns about players other than ourselves, or because any forum opinion is a minority. That seems silly to me.
astrp3 wrote: I can't speak for McG or anyone else, but a large part of the reason I sometimes rush to the "defense" of D3 is the sheer volume/frequency of complaints (the phrase "you'd complain if they hanged you with a new rope" seems tailor made for us), the tendency to go category-12 ape-poo about every change (OK, I'm exaggerating here myself - it's really only category 10), and posts filled with exaggerated claims that go far beyond the evidence ("virtually the entire player base sees through the blatant cash grab and has expressed their displeasure", "basic logic makes it clear that the developers are lying", etc.), condescension and insults, contradictory claims ("the devs are clueless dolts who don't know what they're doing/the devs are Machiavellian liars and cash-grabbers who know exactly what they're doing"), chicken-little pronouncements, and sarcasm. Yes, there have been calm and reasoned arguments as well, but they seem far too rare to me (though maybe that's just confirmation bias).