Thanks for the token

LifeofAgony

It's a nice gesture, but it's trying to use a shot glass to stop all the leaks in the dam - it's still gonna break.

people getting unusable covers is exactly the issue with the 5* tier and why any rebalances of characters that lower their power in this tier is really a kick in the pants.

Swap the damn covers for everyone, not just latest, at least make it seem like you guys care for a minute.  

kyo28

The positive point is that we get a free token, which is always a nice gesture.

HOWEVER

This is again a gesture purely aimed at high-end or super-whale gamers. For casuals and semi-hardcore players, we are way off going into full 5* territory and by the time this token will be worth something, a bunch of other and better 5*s will be out and the character we got will most likely be nerfed. So what's really the point of getting this token for us? What does it do for my roster? It has no positive impact at all in the short and long run but all the bad decisions from late are still there (vaulting older 4*s, nerfing OML, Vintage Heroic tokens, future DDQ nerf, etc)

When D3 really starts caring about regular or semi-hardcore players, then I'll be impressed. But for now this free token does ZERO regarding gaining back the trust I have lost in them ... ZERO!

Katai

Got a Bruce.  My first, so basically this compensation costs me 1000hp.

lomgamer

So... am I only one who get no cover for no more guns?
When i opened MPQ my gf allready got one and another one for selling OML... so i sold mine too, opened token (4th cover for spidey, so thanks) But still got no cover for free.

Mpqdr72

I had a 2 red cover OML that I've used maybe once or twice so I have no idea of how good or bad he really was. If it had been 2 yellow covers then maybe I would have used him more. I feel for the ones that had him levelled and usable. Long ago I had xfw fully covered and used him with my 3* and did pretty well considering my roster at the time. When he got the nerf hammer I had pretty much nothing left to compete with so I had about a 6 month long break and when I decided to come back again awhile ago I decided to level all my 3* to champions before moving on (only 2 left). Now I have started the tedious 3-4* transition and expects more nerfs before I'm in 4* land. Btw I got a green Thanos from the free token. Now he's 2/1/2.

granne

Got a Goblin cover, so 5Cap is now the only 5* I don't have rostered. Well, once I get around to rostering Goblin, that is. Hanging onto HP ready for C&D, and don't feel inclined to sell off my maxed Moonstone when she's about to be an essential and her replacement is only at 9 covers. He'll get the next spot.

Still, the free cover was an nice, and unexpected, gesture. Thank you.

Vhailorx

DFiPL said:

I wasn't expecting a third token after selling my 2/0/1 OML (I still have his yellow coming up in my daily drop at some point here, so he will get re-rostered, but I figured I might as well cash in a character I wasn't using and see what it did for other 5s). I got Panther's yellow from that. I'll take it!

As to your points:

1) a ha ha ha no. I mean, look: I agree that nerfing a 5* character is super-lousy precedent. That is not a behavior that's going to incentivize future 5* builds from people who don't yet play at that tier. I have all but OML currently rostered. I've not, to this point, spent any ISO building any of them (except for the brief infusion to get the second sellback token for OML). Main reason: nothing I've heard about play at that tier makes me think "man, that sounds like fun." But even without that? The idea of leveling my Thanos, or Strange, or Panther, in the aftermath of the OML nerf just doesn't sound like a good use of resources. My 5* will be "good enough" as meatshields, and I'll hang out down in the 4* tier instead.

That SAID? people who've been relying on him, either to speed through PVE clears or to save health packs while climbing in PVP, have gotten a benefit from him these past however many weeks or months. The idea that they're now entitled to withdraw all that ISO invested and put it into somebody else is specious. That's true at the 4* tier, and I think it's still true at the 5* tier.

Now, it might be in Demiurge's interest to do that so that people don't feel spooked away from building out their 5*, given the cost to acquire and build these characters. But that's a somewhat different argument.

2) That I'll completely agree with, yep. If someone's so disenchanted with the changes to OML that they're cashing him in for however many additional 5* covers, they should not then find themselves not only having sold their 5* character off, but having done so for unusable covers.

3) That's the tradeoff, isn't it? If you've progressed into 5* land, you aren't being crushed by MMR/scaling because of the changes to OML. You're being crushed by MMR/scaling because you sold off a usable 5* in OML and are left with less than you had before. Yeah, you'd have been in a less favorable position had you kept him, but you'd still have had a leveled/championed 5* to face that scaling/MMR with.

I sympathize, of course; I've been beating the 'scaling needs an overhaul' drum for a long while now. But anybody who finds themselves being crushed in the aftermath either made the mistake of leveling their 5* before they had more than, like, OML + 1 other, or made the mistake of selling off a still-usable character out of pique, knowing that RNG meant the sellback wasn't likely to result in 'oh hey now I have Thanos or Black Bolt covered/leveled, let's do this.'

I really hate the logic behind your #1.  Are you really so concerned about the possibility that some people have spent iso on OML, used OML, and will now get that iso back?  Who cares?  There are also plenty of players who spent iso on OML last month who are getting screwed. Demi is retroactively devaluing player investments.  That's a huge disincentive to ever spend resources on anything.  So it's much better to let players retroactively make leveling decisions whenver the game retroactively changes characters.  The advantage that some players might get from a generous policy like de-leveling is minimal in comparison to greater health of the whole game system.   When demi makes changes like this they should always err on the side of being too generous to players because that will keep players happy and keep them spending on the game.  MPQ isn't a morality play; it's an economy.

Your #3 seems to miss my point.  Those players who invested in, say, Phoenix + OML are in the worst position.  They can no longer compete to the same level with their nerfed OML, but they also have no practical alternatives.  If they sell OML for increased compensation, they still get champed 5* mmr, but they no longer have a full 5* team.  And selling Phoenix for regular compensation is crazy given how long it takes to build 5*s now.  For the same reason it's also not really possible for this player to just cover and champ another 5* quickly.  It might take months to do that (even if RNG cooperates).  My point is that there is a small group of players for whom this specific change is disastrous for extrinsic reasons (i.e. the crazy scaling/mmr system in the game).  Some extra consideration should be given to them. 

Disclaimer: none of these problems really apply to me.  I have a 1/2/0 OML that I used for PVE trivial nodes and will likely continue to use for PVE trivial nodes.  I have no 5* champs. 

cooperbigdaddy

Thank you for the free token!

The Viceroy Returns

With the free token, my brother got a 6th Phoenix Green. 
Literally the ONLY cover that would have been a waste for him out of the entire 5 Star cover pool.
Typical MPQ...

DFiPL

Vhailorx said:

DFiPL said:

I wasn't expecting a third token after selling my 2/0/1 OML (I still have his yellow coming up in my daily drop at some point here, so he will get re-rostered, but I figured I might as well cash in a character I wasn't using and see what it did for other 5s). I got Panther's yellow from that. I'll take it!

As to your points:

1) a ha ha ha no. I mean, look: I agree that nerfing a 5* character is super-lousy precedent. That is not a behavior that's going to incentivize future 5* builds from people who don't yet play at that tier. I have all but OML currently rostered. I've not, to this point, spent any ISO building any of them (except for the brief infusion to get the second sellback token for OML). Main reason: nothing I've heard about play at that tier makes me think "man, that sounds like fun." But even without that? The idea of leveling my Thanos, or Strange, or Panther, in the aftermath of the OML nerf just doesn't sound like a good use of resources. My 5* will be "good enough" as meatshields, and I'll hang out down in the 4* tier instead.

That SAID? people who've been relying on him, either to speed through PVE clears or to save health packs while climbing in PVP, have gotten a benefit from him these past however many weeks or months. The idea that they're now entitled to withdraw all that ISO invested and put it into somebody else is specious. That's true at the 4* tier, and I think it's still true at the 5* tier.

Now, it might be in Demiurge's interest to do that so that people don't feel spooked away from building out their 5*, given the cost to acquire and build these characters. But that's a somewhat different argument.

2) That I'll completely agree with, yep. If someone's so disenchanted with the changes to OML that they're cashing him in for however many additional 5* covers, they should not then find themselves not only having sold their 5* character off, but having done so for unusable covers.

3) That's the tradeoff, isn't it? If you've progressed into 5* land, you aren't being crushed by MMR/scaling because of the changes to OML. You're being crushed by MMR/scaling because you sold off a usable 5* in OML and are left with less than you had before. Yeah, you'd have been in a less favorable position had you kept him, but you'd still have had a leveled/championed 5* to face that scaling/MMR with.

I sympathize, of course; I've been beating the 'scaling needs an overhaul' drum for a long while now. But anybody who finds themselves being crushed in the aftermath either made the mistake of leveling their 5* before they had more than, like, OML + 1 other, or made the mistake of selling off a still-usable character out of pique, knowing that RNG meant the sellback wasn't likely to result in 'oh hey now I have Thanos or Black Bolt covered/leveled, let's do this.'

I really hate the logic behind your #1.  Are you really so concerned about the possibility that some people have spent iso on OML, used OML, and will now get that iso back?  Who cares?  There are also plenty of players who spent iso on OML last month who are getting screwed. Demi is retroactively devaluing player investments.  That's a huge disincentive to ever spend resources on anything.  So it's much better to let players retroactively make leveling decisions whenver the game retroactively changes characters.  The advantage that some players might get from a generous policy like de-leveling is minimal in comparison to greater health of the whole game system.   When demi makes changes like this they should always err on the side of being too generous to players because that will keep players happy and keep them spending on the game.  MPQ isn't a morality play; it's an economy.

Your #3 seems to miss my point.  Those players who invested in, say, Phoenix + OML are in the worst position.  They can no longer compete to the same level with their nerfed OML, but they also have no practical alternatives.  If they sell OML for increased compensation, they still get champed 5* mmr, but they no longer have a full 5* team.  And selling Phoenix for regular compensation is crazy given how long it takes to build 5*s now.  For the same reason it's also not really possible for this player to just cover and champ another 5* quickly.  It might take months to do that (even if RNG cooperates).  My point is that there is a small group of players for whom this specific change is disastrous for extrinsic reasons (i.e. the crazy scaling/mmr system in the game).  Some extra consideration should be given to them. 

Disclaimer: none of these problems really apply to me.  I have a 1/2/0 OML that I used for PVE trivial nodes and will likely continue to use for PVE trivial nodes.  I have no 5* champs. 

Who cares? You do, clearly enough. You found it important enough to call it out as a thing which should happen.

Like I said in my previous post, there is a distinct difference between "this is what players should be able to do" and "this is a thing Demiurge should do for business reasons." The idea that players should, after investing in a character to take advantage of the meta, then be allowed to extract 100% of those resources and reinvest them elsewhere if the meta changes is absurd.

I won't disagree that there are business concerns for Demiurge to consider doing something like that, but you're absolutely right - MPQ isn't a morality play. That means doing right by the player (in the context of what they "should" be permitted to do) is completely irrelevant. There's an argument to be made that not making that move could harm the business, and I'd be sympathetic to that, but the harm to the player after months of benefiting from the resource usage is not an argument I find at all compelling.

My #3 isn't missing the point. My point is that the player with just two 5* champions was never competing in the same pool as the folks who are running around with 3+ 5* champions.

What's the argument been for months? "OML isn't all that powerful, he's just a really useful health sponge." So, okay, the health sponge has been revised downward, but it isn't as though he's now in 1* Venom territory. He's still useful. Just less so. So the player with only two 5* champions had a choice: keep the investment they've made and continue on as they have, albeit with some additional effort required, or sell OML and completely hose themselves. I agree that selling both isn't worth contemplating.

On the other hand, those are also players who made the decision to move to that level with just those two characters. Is this a disaster for them? Maybe. It's not like the scaling/MMR was any secret before making that move, though. With the litany of characters who came before who ruled the meta before ultimately getting nerfed, moving into 5* land with just two champions - particularly when, as you point out, it takes so long to get even one character that point - strikes me as an unnecessarily risky move. "These characters are too expensive to build, Demi will never nerf them" is equal parts wishful thinking and dangerous living.

As I said before, nerfing a 5* is a super lousy precedent. Making regressive changes to a character in the hardest, most expensive tier to cover is going to provide a disincentive to all but the whaliest of whales going forward. But at the same time that you can't unring that bell, neither is it reasonable to say "okay, go ahead and swap that character you don't want anymore out for somebody else so that you can stay atop the meta."

Vhailorx

I read your posts DFiPL, and i get the sense that you want to punish players for making meta choices.  Your take on someone who invested in OML and now finds the game harder is basically "too bad.  That's the price of buying into the meta."  that's the morality play that i find totally uninteresting.

In MPQ, demi/d3 have all the power, and they can make any changes they like (no one who has read the license terms is disputing that).  So the whole discussion is what demi/d3 should do to keep players haopy and spending.

You seem to feel that everyone knows that purchases are buyer beware, so people hurt by nerfs only have themselves to blame.

Demi/d3 seem to take the position that they will offer as little compensation as they feel they can possibly get away with, and then add a little bit here and there as necessary (c.f. the free token).

I take the position that demi should always offer generous compensation that always errs in favor of players.  Such a policy would be good for the game overall because players would be less hesitant to invest in the game ifbthey were confident that their investment would not be de-valued after the fact.  More player confidence and investment would be a net benefit for the game, even if some players "get away" with investing in one meta and then transfering their investment ti another meta.

(Also, re: people with just oml phoenix.  They arent really invested in the current meta.  That team hasnt been a premier team since BB came out last summer.  And arguably even earlier.)

DFiPL

Vhailorx said:

I read your posts DFiPL, and i get the sense that you want to punish players for making meta choices.  Your take on someone who invested in OML and now finds the game harder is basically "too bad.  That's the price of buying into the meta."  that's the morality play that i find totally uninteresting.

In MPQ, demi/d3 have all the power, and they can make any changes they like (no one who has read the license terms is disputing that).  So the whole discussion is what demi/d3 should do to keep players haopy and spending.

You seem to feel that everyone knows that purchases are buyer beware, so people hurt by nerfs only have themselves to blame.

Demi/d3 seem to take the position that they will offer as little compensation as they feel they can possibly get away with, and then add a little bit here and there as necessary (c.f. the free token).

I take the position that demi should always offer generous compensation that always errs in favor of players.  Such a policy would be good for the game overall because players would be less hesitant to invest in the game ifbthey were confident that their investment would not be de-valued after the fact.  More player confidence and investment would be a net benefit for the game, even if some players "get away" with investing in one meta and then transfering their investment ti another meta.

(Also, re: people with just oml phoenix.  They arent really invested in the current meta.  That team hasnt been a premier team since BB came out last summer.  And arguably even earlier.)

My point isn't "too bad," but rather that buying into the meta once doesn't entitle one to move one's resources in a shell game whenever the meta changes. Which it has, does, and will continue to do.

But here's where I think there's a fundamental difference between what I'm saying and what you're hearing: I think we have a different definition of "punishment."

To me, actively calling for a nerf of a popular character would constitute wanting to punish someone for "making meta choices." Saying "you made a meta choice 18 months ago, and have benefited from it since; insisting that the change to the meta should entitle you to extract the resources you invested and move them elsewhere is absurd" is not punishment.

Let me offer an example in reverse: for the longest time, I sold off every IM40 cover I got because his AP costs were absurdly high, and his offensive powers were, I felt, unnecessarily draining to the team AP pool. The choice I made was to invest those resources - namely, the HP/roster spot which might have otherwise gone to him and the ISO which might have leveled him - elsewhere.

He got a buff, and is now part of numerous 3* teams because his battery is so crazy useful. Should I have been entitled to have all those covers I sold off back? He'd surely be at least 223 by now, and I wouldn't have had to spend a couple months rebuilding him after he got useful.

As to your other point, it feels kind of uncertain. On the one hand, you're arguing that players shouldn't be "punished" for investing in the meta, while at the same time arguing that some of those affected weren't really invested in the meta.

I mean, I don't know how else to say this other than to repeat myself: I think nerfing a character in the 5* tier sets a bad precedent and absolutely carries negative business ramifications for Demi going forward. I think those ramifications should be in the forefront of their mind as they deal with the aftermath and chart a path forward.

But - and this is as true at the 5* tier as at the 4* as at any other - I don't agree that the appropriate remedy is a 1:1 return of resources. Not because I'm worried about anybody "getting away" with anything, but because "less useful" does not constitute "not useful." If the character were removed entirely because of rights issues, say? Sure. Absolutely. 1:1 resource exchange is appropriate under those circumstances. But merely changed in a way the player doesn't like? Nah.

northnorth

Pfft. Thank you for giving me one of the two colours I have 5 covers for. 

DaveR4470

The token gave me a Hawkeye cover, which means I now have every non-1* character rostered -- a feat I managed only once before, a fairly long time (at least a year) ago, and only very briefly.  

That might disappear again when Hearts of Darkness ends and Cloak & Dagger are officially "in the wild", but I'm hopeful I'll sneak into the top 100.....

Ryudoz

GG Yellow, leaving him at 0/2/2.

Thanks?

DFiPL

DaveR4470 said:

The token gave me a Hawkeye cover, which means I now have every non-1* character rostered -- a feat I managed only once before, a fairly long time (at least a year) ago, and only very briefly.  

That might disappear again when Hearts of Darkness ends and Cloak & Dagger are officially "in the wild", but I'm hopeful I'll sneak into the top 100.....

They'll be in progression rewards for the Hunt, though. So you're looking at 3 days or so, max, outside that status again if you don't hit the top 100.