New Store - Heroes for Hire (4/11/17)

TazFTW

- RHulk green expiring in 4 days
- Needing 1 red to reach 13 covers
- 2500 HP offer

Insta-bought!

My only purchase so far and even at 2500 HP I think it is only worthwhile to do it for the 13th cover.

Starfury

TazFTW said:

- RHulk green expiring in 4 days
- Needing 1 red to reach 13 covers
- 2500 HP offer

Insta-bought!

My only purchase so far and even at 2500 HP I think it is only worthwhile to do it for the 13th cover.

Is the store gone for you now or could you theoretically buy a second red?

nickaraxnos

No second red. Next offer is chos green

Borstock

nickaraxnos said:

Part of a gm job is to know what the fans want. Of course he should listen to them. Of course he wont be making his trading decisions only because fans want or doesn't want something but he must consider everything. 
When for some reason he must take a decision that will make a big part of the fans unhappy what he should do 
(or someone else from the team) is to communicate with the fans and explain them why the team took this decision. Was it for money? Was it because he strongly believes the new player/coach is what the team needs? In any case he should communicate with the fans because you want them happy. You need to sell tickets, you need many people come to your home games for advertisement. Players want fans to cheer for them and so on.

You're confusing a GM with the team's marketing and customer service departments.

I don't know how to better explain myself without repeating what I've said in previous posts.

Bottom line: The goal of Demiurge is to efficiently create a quality product for the purposes of generating profits. Any change made to the game is designed with this goal in mind, and is based on information and expertise that they have that we don't, because most of us aren't in the mobile gaming industry and none of us have access to their data. They do not make changes to deliberately anger their customers and ruin your day. Changes that they know will result in some player backlash have an upside to them, relative to their goals and not necessarily yours in-game. Your goals in-game are different than their goals in creating the game. As such, changes they make to the game aren't always going to benefit you.

If you spent thousands of dollars champing OML, which resulted in the competitive scaling of your game going to absolute heck in a hand-basket, only to see him nerfed, you should probably be angry, but the best way to counteract what they did is not to feel personally insulted and rant on here like a lunatic (not calling out anyone in particular). I might argue you shouldn't even be surprised it happened. Nerfs happen all the time in a lot of games. They've happened in THIS game. That's one of the risks you run when you put resources into a single major move on your roster. Just like Demiurge is taking on some risk by making a major change to their game. But they're doing exactly the same thing the player did by committing resources to something that might end up backfiring.

For the H4H store, they are undoubtedly collecting data about the different price points. They knew it was going to get out that people are seeing two different prices. The fact that they did it anyway tells me that they knew the backlash from that decision wasn't as significant as what they stood to gain. It'll work or it won't, but they know what they expect to see. They're not idiots who hate you. They're people with jobs and families to support looking to make money off of you.

Qubort

Borstock said:

. Changes that they know will result in some player backlash have an upside to them, relative to their goals and not necessarily yours in-game.

If you spent thousands of dollars champing OML, which resulted in the competitive scaling of your game going to absolute heck in a hand-basket, only to see him nerfed, you should probably be angry, but the best way to counteract what they did is not to feel personally insulted and rant on here like a lunatic (not calling out anyone in particular). I might argue you shouldn't even be surprised it happened. Nerfs happen all the time in a lot of games. They've happened in THIS game. That's one of the risks you run when you put resources into a single major move on your roster. Just like Demiurge is taking on some risk by making a major change to their game. But they're doing exactly the same thing the player did by committing resources to something that might end up backfiring.

For the H4H store, they are undoubtedly collecting data about the different price points. They knew it was going to get out that people are seeing two different prices. The fact that they did it anyway tells me that they knew the backlash from that decision wasn't as significant as what they stood to gain. It'll work or it won't, but they know what they expect to see. They're not idiots who hate you. They're people with jobs and families to support looking to make money off of you.

You assume they knew there would be backlash and the level of it. Companies miscalculate customers responses all the time. See Pepsi for an example. I can't understand why you're so convinced that D3/Demi have the perfect pulse of the games community just because they have data we don't have.

Nerfs do happen. However, never to a character as you stated people had pumped thousands of dollars or hours into. Also, off the data they've shared, didn't make a rational reason. OML wasn't the strongest player but a good utility player.  Does this move encourage anyone to invest money into other characters?

Once again you are drawing conclusions to fit your argument. You have zero evidence they knew there would be backlash. You also have zero evidence they're not idiots. Perhaps they were given a quota to hit for the quarter and are trying to hit without any thought to the long term impact. We don't know and they won't tell us.

You have a lot of blind faith in a company that's had a rough few months. I hope you're right, but colour me skeptical.

Stussi

Borstock said:

For the H4H store, they are undoubtedly collecting data about the different price points. They knew it was going to get out that people are seeing two different prices. The fact that they did it anyway tells me that they knew the backlash from that decision wasn't as significant as what they stood to gain. It'll work or it won't, but they know what they expect to see. They're not idiots who hate you. They're people with jobs and families to support looking to make money off of you. 

And what if the Demiurge team had reduced the OML powers only on a percentage of players? I think that this is the main difference between this actions. Now every players have OML nerfed. Of course who spents thousand of dollars champing him are damaged but I found no discrimination in this. Why I can't have the same chance to power-up a 4* compared to other players? Why they could become more powerful than me without any explicit reason?

Borstock

Qubort said:

You assume they knew there would be backlash and the level of it. Companies miscalculate customers responses all the time. See Pepsi for an example. I can't understand why you're so convinced that D3/Demi have the perfect pulse of the games community just because they have data we don't have.

Nerfs do happen. However, never to a character as you stated people had pumped thousands of dollars or hours into. Also, off the data they've shared, didn't make a rational reason. OML wasn't the strongest player but a good utility player.  Does this move encourage anyone to invest money into other characters?

Once again you are drawing conclusions to fit your argument. You have zero evidence they knew there would be backlash. You also have zero evidence they're not idiots. Perhaps they were given a quota to hit for the quarter and are trying to hit without any thought to the long term impact. We don't know and they won't tell us.

You have a lot of blind faith in a company that's had a rough few months. I hope you're right, but colour me skeptical.

To your first paragraph - I don't assume they have the perfect pulse of the gaming community. I assume they are making decisions based on information. The decisions may be bad ones that ultimately sink the game, but they are neither uninformed or maliciously motivated.

To your second paragraph - Actually, that happens all the time. As for their rationale, I feel it was poorly communicated. They should have just stated, "We never intended for this game to be OML Puzzle Quest, and based on what we know, that's what it's turned into, so we're nerfing him" -> But in a diplomatic way.

To your third paragraph - I don't have zero evidence. They're professionals working for a 15 year old company. I don't think it's unfair to assume they could have expected people would be upset about a nerf and about two different price points for the H4H store. To assume otherwise is ridiculous.

To your fourth paragraph - Nowhere have I indicated that I think these decisions will work. I don't have enough information to draw that conclusion.

Borstock

Stussi said:

And what if the Demiurge team had reduced the OML powers only on a percentage of players? I think that this is the main difference between this actions. Now every players have OML nerfed. Of course who spents thousand of dollars champing him are damaged but I found no discrimination in this. Why I can't have the same chance to power-up a 4* compared to other players? Why they could become more powerful than me without any explicit reason?

They have a reason. The reason is because they either think it will make them more money or they think it will give them information that they can use to make more money.

Stussi

Borstock said:

Stussi said:

And what if the Demiurge team had reduced the OML powers only on a percentage of players? I think that this is the main difference between this actions. Now every players have OML nerfed. Of course who spents thousand of dollars champing him are damaged but I found no discrimination in this. Why I can't have the same chance to power-up a 4* compared to other players? Why they could become more powerful than me without any explicit reason?

They have a reason. The reason is because they either think it will make them more money or they think it will give them information that they can use to make more money.

Of course the reason is to make more money. I have no doubt about that. But this time they are wrong because there is no explicit reason for the difference in price and therefore the reason can be any. What if the reason is based on gender? Or race? Or age? The application is connected to facebook and they know a lot of things about myself.

What if coca cola would sell with a price higher for the gay people? And what if Nike would sell a pair of shoes with higher price for black people? @Brigby and D3 still not answering about that.

Borstock

Stussi said:

Of course the reason is to make more money. I have no doubt about that. But this time they are wrong because there is no explicit reason for the difference in price and therefore the reason can be any. What if the reason is based on gender? Or race? Or age? The application is connected to facebook and they know a lot of things about myself.

What if coca cola would sell with a price higher for the gay people? And what if Nike would sell a pair of shoes with higher price for black people? @Brigby and D3 still not answering about that.

You've gone to a place I won't be following you. I'm tapping out.

Stussi

Ok, I'll made simpler without provocations: Why they don't gives to us the reason of this difference of price?

It's random? Ok. It's based on the amount of money spended in game? Fine.  It's based on the number of OML covers that I have  as a reward? Fine.

Borstock

Stussi said:

Ok, I'll made simpler without provocations: Why they don't gives to us the reason of this difference of price?

It's random? Ok. It's based on the amount of money spended in game? Fine.  It's based on the number of OML covers that I have  as a reward? Fine.

My guess? Trade secrets. They don't want to reveal their strategies and how they interpret their data to other gaming companies. Plus, people would probably just be mad at the reason, not believe the reason, or misinterpret the reason anyway.

Jaedenkaal

I have no reason to believe it's anything but random. They can interpret the 'results' by any demographic they like afterwards.

If you were randomly (or however) chosen to see a 1-day, 3600 hp store, I can understand how that might not be a satisfying or comforting answer.

shartattack

I was angry at the price point difference until I learned that the 3600 hp pack had more to it than the cheaper one.  I might not agree that the 1100 point difference was worth it, but at least it was a different package.  Would it have been just as valuable research to offer a HFH at 2500 and a 3600 Deluxe Platinum VIP Package on the same screen and see what people choose?
 I still bought at 3600.  It is pretty equivalent to buying out a 20 item vault, and for a cover i really needed.  I am super excited to get Rulk champed, and that was worth the HP i put out to get him.

UnsmashableTim

I seem to only get the 2500 minus the first day. Any idea why people are getting different rates? Ps, I know they give different rewards

MarkersMake

Borstock said:

Stussi said:

Ok, I'll made simpler without provocations: Why they don't gives to us the reason of this difference of price?

It's random? Ok. It's based on the amount of money spended in game? Fine.  It's based on the number of OML covers that I have  as a reward? Fine.

My guess? Trade secrets. They don't want to reveal their strategies and how they interpret their data to other gaming companies. Plus, people would probably just be mad at the reason, not believe the reason, or misinterpret the reason anyway.

Look, you have two options:

1) these are test prices, to determine the optimal price point 
2) these are permanent prices

If it is the first case, then the individuals in the two groups *must* be randomly selected. A comparison between the behaviour of two groups requires that the selection of each group's members be unbiased. Deliberately selecting members for each group introduces an insurmountable confounding variable, and makes any conclusions drawn from this analysis unreliable at best.   If you don't understand this, I can't help you. 

OK, so let's look at the second case. These are permanent prices. This fits with your trade secrets and optimizing revenue theory. But it also means that D3 has committed to a game design that is structurally unfair; that will always give some players a competitive advantage over others. If this is the case, then the game is inherently and deliberately unfair, and any short term revenue gains will be wiped out when players begin leaving the game in droves.

Pick one. 

Borstock

I assumed the pricing distribution was random. I'm not sure where I gave the impression I felt otherwise. 

MarkersMake

Borstock said:

Stussi said:

Ok, I'll made simpler without provocations: Why they don't gives to us the reason of this difference of price?

It's random? Ok. It's based on the amount of money spended in game? Fine.  It's based on the number of OML covers that I have  as a reward? Fine.

My guess? Trade secrets. They don't want to reveal their strategies and how they interpret their data to other gaming companies. Plus, people would probably just be mad at the reason, not believe the reason, or misinterpret the reason anyway.

See bolded quotes above.

Random selection is not a trade secret. It's fundamental to any comparative study. 

So either you were talking about something else, or just filling space with nonsense. 

insound0

So how long does it take to get the data they need? Because i wont be waiting around too long whilst knowing other people ate getting 4* coverz cheaper than i can.
Will they restart the store so i can get covers that i would of bought at the lower price? Because otherwise thats ****.

Quebbster

sh81 said:

Am I the only one who thinks this is extremely expensive?

1 cover, a few elites, and a little ISO for 2500 HP?

Thats two and a half roster slots, which in themselves are incredibly valuable!

I wont be using this store, Id rather spend 120cp on a specific cover if it means that much to me.

Considering that fourstar covers used to cost 2500 HP Before CP were introduced... No, I don't really Think 2500 HP is extremely expensive. I'd only buy sorely needed covers at that cost, but I certainly don't regret the game changing covers I bought for HP back in the old Days.

Alas, this is all academical since I have the 3600 HP price Point, and that is too much to pay IMO - the added goods do not make up for the price increase.