What's up with the "Pay to play" node in Star Lord event.

Mechahamster

I think they were trying to avoid setting a precedent. The previous bonus events gave the hero's specific cover. They couldn't do that this time, because the 3* would have been underwhelming, and they obviously don't feel like giving free 5*s. So you got a token. But then the star of the event would be MIA, so they made a bonus node for those that have him.

You just decided to give it the most negative, pessimistic spin.

Why don't we tackle the problem of content being gated by a paywall when it actually gets here. Because this is obviously not it, as it is ludicrously unlikely anyone will pay their way to a 5* that is not available in any token that can be bought with hero points just so they can get their hands on 5K iso. Even the biggest perfectionist whale who needs to have every cover immediately will wait until he rotates into the regular tokens.

Phumade

Mechahamster said:

Nobody is saying that the odds to play that node were great. We're just saying that it doesn't matter as much as you're making out for something that essentially boils down to a lucky freebie on top of a very easily obtained 4* token.

Its very true that most people don't pay attention to the odds.  But rest assured that there is a significant portion of the player base that does track odds to ensure that you and other players can be confident that:

1.  What ever drop percentages demi advertised has been scrutinized for accuracy at the 4* and 5* level.
2.  All exploits are immediately (including Lt exploit, and BH token exploit) exposed and info propagated through the various line groups.
3.  All events are run consistently within their stated rules.

For better or worse, it was detail oriented players who discovered:
1. shield hops.
2. CCs
3. trapcakes.
4. MMR cloaks
5. Optimal path scoring.
blah blah blah.

It is to all players benefit, when detailed oriented players apply rigor to how the game is run.

Mechahamster

Erm. What?

morph3us

I think the point to be made is that the rng gated progression model of obtaining 5-stars means that 5-star essential nodes feel arbitrary and unjust. Therefore, 5-star essential nodes probably shouldn't exist in game until an alternative means of progression exists.

As mentioned, the 5k iso reward in some senses mitigates the effect of this in this instance, but the principle still applies.

KinDM

Phumade said:

By that I mean an avg roster should have a 75% confidence level of being able to earn the next essential character either through placement, progression or resources awarded in that event.

otherwise its a pay to play event

New Character events are, what, 10%  chance to place and win the new character, and top 100 alliances win the new cover? I think it's something like that. The Thanos event gave a 10% chance at the cover for player progression, and another 10% for the alliance Progression. Plus another 10% chance for the special event. My numbers may be slightly off, but I don't think 75% of total players win the next event's Essential 4* during a normal character launch, and that's something that can have an effect on not only the next event's ranking, but thru that into the next and next if you don't already have those event's characters. That seems like a way bigger deal than one optional node that doesn't affect rewards at all in a one off, one play thru flavor event.

Mechahamster

morph3us said:

I think the point to be made is that the rng gated progression model of obtaining 5-stars means that 5-star essential nodes feel arbitrary and unjust. Therefore, 5-star essential nodes probably shouldn't exist in game until an alternative means of progression exists.

As mentioned, the 5k iso reward in some senses mitigates the effect of this in this instance, but the principle still applies.

The same argument can be made for the Deadpool nodes. If you want to be able to play all of those all the time, you need around 100 roster slots, with some minor deviations for a few rotating spots. Now tháts gating your content behind a paywall.

Phumade

KinDM said:

Phumade said:

By that I mean an avg roster should have a 75% confidence level of being able to earn the next essential character either through placement, progression or resources awarded in that event.

otherwise its a pay to play event

New Character events are, what, 10%  chance to place and win the new character, and top 100 alliances win the new cover? I think it's something like that. The Thanos event gave a 10% chance at the cover for player progression, and another 10% for the alliance Progression. Plus another 10% chance for the special event. My numbers may be slightly off, but I don't think 75% of total players win the next event's Essential 4* during a normal character launch, and that's something that can have an effect on not only the next event's ranking, but thru that into the next and next if you don't already have those event's characters. That seems like a way bigger deal than one optional node that doesn't affect rewards at all in a one off, one play thru flavor event.

Its a fair point, and if you want to use this example to launch a broader discussion in a new thread, I would offer a full throat-ed endorsement of your position.

To be clear, I would say that an avg roster (which is debatable) should have a 75% confidence level of being able to earn the next essentials chars either though placement, progression, resources awarded in that event.

So this means an avg roster should have a 75% confidence that they will place top 50 for a new 4*.  

but my statement also implies that they can earn the character through progression and that would be sufficient to enable them to compete for top 50 and the next essential.

That point is debatable and I welcome further discussion to ensure that avg players have a reasonable opportunity to compete.

So what does that really mean?  Can we just push the essential down to 50% of prog table, and that enables players to compete for T50?  I'm open to that solution and I stand by my comment that

all essential chars required to complete an event should be earn able either through placement, progression, or resources awarded.

morph3us

Mechahamster said:

morph3us said:

I think the point to be made is that the rng gated progression model of obtaining 5-stars means that 5-star essential nodes feel arbitrary and unjust. Therefore, 5-star essential nodes probably shouldn't exist in game until an alternative means of progression exists.

As mentioned, the 5k iso reward in some senses mitigates the effect of this in this instance, but the principle still applies.

The same argument can be made for the Deadpool nodes. If you want to be able to play all of those all the time, you need around 100 roster slots, with some minor deviations for a few rotating spots. Now tháts gating your content behind a paywall.

Point taken, but in the case of DDQ, you have a means of earning a required cover over time, RNG free.  That constitutes directed progression in the game, which unlocks further content.  I have no problem with that.

I don't have any moral compunctions about a monetary paywall.  This is a freemium game, so I expect that that monetisation actually has to be the end-point from a developer/publisher's point of view (be that actual user spending, or user engagement).  Putting content behind an "RNG paywall", though, I think is a bad idea from a user engagement perspective.  This is speaking from a broader perspective, if it were to apply to more events in the future.

Also, to be honest, I don't believe this is a harbinger of evils to come.  I suspect the devs just thought it would be nice to have a bonus for people lucky (or unlucky!) enough to pull a 5-star Star-Lord, and didn't expect people would get irritated by missing out on finishing a node (they clearly don't understand the mile wide streak of OCD running through people who enjoy playing in their Skinner Box!).

NewMcG

I'll put it this way: If they had "paygated" anything vital to a player's growth in the game, I'd possibly be peeved. They put a small/medium sized chunk of an in-game currency behind it. Nothing else. No story content. Nothing.

If this is ticking you off, then you should have an equal amount of outrage for the Crash nodes requiring a given 4* character that isn't always immediately given out prior to the running of that round of the 4* DP node. That actually gives out something potentially valuable in comparison to 5k iso.

NewMcG

Phumade said:

otherwise its a pay to play event

No, it's a "pay to play" node. But it's more of a "roll the dice to play" node, because there were many chances given to win the required character, and probably somewhere around 1/3 of high end players ended up with a SL just off the tokens they won.

Phumade

Someone made the broad point that Boss events have essentials that might not have been awarded in the previous event.  

I want to acknowledge the accuracy of that comment and put in the broader context that the Devs have explicitly stated that new chars will be featured as prizes in at least 2 events before they are eligible for a Crash matchup.

In that context,  I would fully argue that every Boss event essential char, has been awarded multiple times prior to that event.

Applying that test here, it would be hard to argue that the 3rd day of the 10% store reaches the level of being awarded "multiple times".  Honestly even once the char hits the LL packs,  I would still support the argument that requiring a 5* character to even participate in the node amounts to a "PAY TO PLAY" experience.

astrp3

Phumade said:

Someone made the broad point that Boss events have essentials that might not have been awarded in the previous event.  

I want to acknowledge the accuracy of that comment and put in the broader context that the Devs have explicitly stated that new chars will be featured as prizes in at least 2 events before they are eligible for a Crash matchup.

In that context,  I would fully argue that every Boss event essential char, has been awarded multiple times prior to that event.

Applying that test here, it would be hard to argue that the 3rd day of the 10% store reaches the level of being awarded "multiple times".  Honestly even once the char hits the LL packs,  I would still support the argument that requiring a 5* character to even participate in the node amounts to a "PAY TO PLAY" experience.

It is true that the essentials in boss events were available at some point prior to the event as placement/progression awards. Unlike PvE/PvP, however, they were not available in the event immediately prececeding the boss event, which means that players who hadn't been playing for a while never had a chance to get them via prog/placement (in my first boss event, there were 2 or 3 nodes I couldn't play).

Of course, even with PvE, you wouldn't have had a previous chance to earn required characters for the very first PvE you played in, but that's a fairly minor exception. And of course, getting the 3* placement award for finishing top 50 or top 300 in a PvE is, by definition, limited to 50 or 300 characters per bracket. And getting the 4* cover for finishing top 10 is even more difficult. I also don't think there is a way to get both the 2 and 3-star essential from placement in the previous event (though 2*s are common enough that you probably don't need to, unless you are really new to the game).

Having said all that, though, I think that PvE, BB, and boss events are closer to being pay-to-play than this is (not that they're all that close), since there is actually a viable way to buy the essential characters right before the event.

But I just can't agree with using the term "pay to play" to describe a node that I feel wasn't intended to induce people to pay actual money and for which no one would actually pay money. If someone actually DID pay the amount of money required to get a 5* Star-Lord cover just to play that node, I would be far more concerned that such a player was allowed to vote and operate a motorized vehicle than I would about any alleged cash grab on D3's part (sorry for the sarcasm - couldn't resist).

MaxxPowerz

If the devs really had malicious intent I think they would try and tempt people with more than 5k worth of iso! For the amount of money you would have to spend to acquire any meaningful amount of CP the rewards from doing so would far outweigh the meager amount of iso being offered. I for one am not in the business of spending dollars to make pennies!????

But there is good news - the Star Lord store is open for another 4 days. Come back when you have more CP and see if you can pull him. I plan on doing so to pull additional covers.

Some people will be left out in the cold, but a significant portion of people will also acquire him in the coming days. Such is life.

Fightmastermpq

New McG said:

I'll put it this way: If they had "paygated" anything vital to a player's growth in the game, I'd possibly be peeved. They put a small/medium sized chunk of an in-game currency behind it. Nothing else. No story content. Nothing.

If this is ticking you off, then you should have an equal amount of outrage for the Crash nodes requiring a given 4* character that isn't always immediately given out prior to the running of that round of the 4* DP node. That actually gives out something potentially valuable in comparison to 5k iso.

Sorry, wrong again.  Characters don't show up in DDQ until players have had the chance to earn them through play.....

http://forums.d3go.com/discussion/51072/deadpools-daily-quest-crash-of-the-titans-adjustments/p1

Why do you think that is exactly?  Oh, because keeping content behind a paywall or even an "RNG paygate" if you want to make that distinction is a tinykitty thing to do.

Phumade

astrp3 said:

Phumade said:

Someone made the broad point that Boss events have essentials that might not have been awarded in the previous event.  

I want to acknowledge the accuracy of that comment and put in the broader context that the Devs have explicitly stated that new chars will be featured as prizes in at least 2 events before they are eligible for a Crash matchup.

In that context,  I would fully argue that every Boss event essential char, has been awarded multiple times prior to that event.

Applying that test here, it would be hard to argue that the 3rd day of the 10% store reaches the level of being awarded "multiple times".  Honestly even once the char hits the LL packs,  I would still support the argument that requiring a 5* character to even participate in the node amounts to a "PAY TO PLAY" experience.

It is true that the essentials in boss events were available at some point prior to the event as placement/progression awards. Unlike PvE/PvP, however, they were not available in the event immediately prececeding the boss event, which means that players who hadn't been playing for a while never had a chance to get them via prog/placement (in my first boss event, there were 2 or 3 nodes I couldn't play).

Of course, even with PvE, you wouldn't have had a previous chance to earn required characters for the very first PvE you played in, but that's a fairly minor exception. And of course, getting the 3* placement award for finishing top 50 or top 300 in a PvE is, by definition, limited to 50 or 300 characters per bracket. And getting the 4* cover for finishing top 10 is even more difficult. I also don't think there is a way to get both the 2 and 3-star essential from placement in the previous event (though 2*s are common enough that you probably don't need to, unless you are really new to the game).

Having said all that, though, I think that PvE, BB, and boss events are closer to being pay-to-play than this is (not that they're all that close), since there is actually a viable way to buy the essential characters right before the event.

But I just can't agree with using the term "pay to play" to describe a node that I feel wasn't intended to induce people to pay actual money and for which no one would actually pay money. If someone actually DID pay the amount of money required to get a 5* Star-Lord cover just to play that node, I would be far more concerned that such a player was allowed to vote and operate a motorized vehicle than I would about any alleged cash grab on D3's part (sorry for the sarcasm - couldn't resist).

I'll argue your 1st two paragraphs and say define an expectation that any essential should have been offered as a placement/prog prize at least 1 in the prior 15/30/60/90 days.  But that won't address that situation of 5* Star Load being required in a node on day 3.

Lets go ahead and debate those points about essential characters in normal PVE/boss events in a separate thread.  As i stated above

The avg roster should be able to be able to acquire an essential character soon enough in an event to be able to compete at a Top 50 threshold.  (I chose this number because this is the expectation for a new release event).  So if you didn't have the 3*/4* essential you should be able able to acquire them at some point during the event and still have sufficient time/nodes remaining to compete for top 50.

This might mean that you might need to earn the 3*/4* essential at a lower point in the prog table.  I'm okay with this and lets work out the numbers to make this a reasonable expectation.

So at the end of the day How would you describe that node?  Its only a minor piddly "exception" if you believe that they don't ever do A/B testing on purchasing options. 

5k iso is a minor resource amount thats probably on par to what snipers and grillers spend on their avg pvp event.  But the larger precedent is that

A node exists that gives non-trivial rewards which can only be accessed by a character that is only awarded through accumulation of random chance tokens.

I'll happily retract my statement if anyone can show me how I could have applied the resources of the previous boss event to improve my odds of playing that node to over a 50-50 coin flip.

Hadronic

I was hoarding the SL tokens since they are more likely to give me a 4* I can't use than anything else. Why can't I use most 4* you ask? Lack of Iso needed to champ.

Then they offer the Iso I need but only if I open the token and get lucky. It's a chicken and egg scenario.

I don't open tokens cause I need iso. Now I can't get iso cause I didn't open the tokens. It's dumb. That's the source of my frustration with this.

snlf25

This doesn't bother me much at all though I could really use that 5k iso. This isn't nearly as irritating as the Behemoth Burrito and having to keep every 2* rostered. I did give a "Oh NOOOO!" when I first saw the node and hadn't realized it wasn't going to keep me from finishing. I think every 4* and 5* should have one of these featured events.

astrp3

Phumade said:

So at the end of the day How would you describe that node?  Its only a minor piddly "exception" if you believe that they don't ever do A/B testing on purchasing options. 

A node exists that gives non-trivial rewards which can only be accessed by a character that is only awarded through accumulation of random chance tokens.

I'll happily retract my statement if anyone can show me how I could have applied the resources of the previous boss event to improve my odds of playing that node to over a 50-50 coin flip.

I will grant that the Star-Lord node is the first time I've seen them have a node with a required character that players never had a chance to earn through prog/placement at some point prior to the event. I'll grant that they had a policy that they wouldn't have a required character in a node until after players had had a chance to earn them in such manner. What I don't grant is that the Star-Lord node is "pay to play" since a) as stated before, I find it inconceivable that D3 intended it as such, b) I find it even more inconceivable that anyone in possession of their faculties would actually pay to play it, and c) your definition of "pay to play" seems idiosyncratic to me.
By the standard definition with which I'm familiar, pay-to-play does not mean that all the content of a game is free, only that a portion (debatably a significant portion) is..

As for the non-trivial reward, I suppose it depends on your definition and playstyle, but I would call an amount of ISO that is less than 10% of what I earn in a day "trivial."

If you were implying that this node was an example of A/B testing, I also disagree (what was the B option?) Nor do I think it represents any deliberate reversal of policy on D3's part. Personally, I wouldn't be that concerned if it did but that's just me and I know others would. If they'd taken away something they had previously offered and replaced it with this,, I might be more concerned, but they didn't and in any event, I'll save my bile for those possibilities for when and if they actually happen.

In the end, I think that D3 was just giving a small reward to those who got a token for a new character (it's also possible that they intended that 3* or 5* SL would unlock the node, but my guess is they didn't) and I wouldn't mind seeing them do so with every 5* release.

Pants1000

I was annoyed at first, but once I figured out I could get the 10k progression and token without it, then I got over it.  IMO they should have just made it clear that it was a little bonus for people who got lucky or whaled a 5* Starlord.

It is different than other essentials because there wasn't a reasonable way for most players to get one.  As a 900+ day player who gets top 100 in release events, it's probably been a year or so since there was an essential node I couldn't play.  I'd actually be fine with 5* essentials after the 5* is in classic tokens, but I don't like it so soon after release.

Phumade

astrp3 said:

I will grant that the Star-Lord node is the first time I've seen them have a node with a required character that players never had a chance to earn through prog/placement at some point prior to the event. I'll grant that they had a policy that they wouldn't have a required character in a node until after players had had a chance to earn them in such manner. What I don't grant is that the Star-Lord node is "pay to play" since a) as stated before, I find it inconceivable that D3 intended it as such, b) I find it even more inconceivable that anyone in possession of their faculties would actually pay to play it, and c) your definition of "pay to play" seems idiosyncratic to me.
By the standard definition with which I'm familiar, pay-to-play does not mean that all the content of a game is free, only that a portion (debatably a significant portion) is..

As for the non-trivial reward, I suppose it depends on your definition and playstyle, but I would call an amount of ISO that is less than 10% of what I earn in a day "trivial."

If you were implying that this node was an example of A/B testing, I also disagree (what was the B option?) Nor do I think it represents any deliberate reversal of policy on D3's part. Personally, I wouldn't be that concerned if it did but that's just me and I know others would. If they'd taken away something they had previously offered and replaced it with this,, I might be more concerned, but they didn't and in any event, I'll save my bile for those possibilities for when and if they actually happen.

In the end, I think that D3 was just giving a small reward to those who got a token for a new character and I wouldn't mind seeing them do so with every 5* release.

So we arrive to the cusp of the argument.

I still don't see any evidence that anyone disagrees with my technical definition of pay to play.  Nothing has been discussed that eliminates the observation that 5* Star load was not "earnable" in a prior event.

and so we are left to make our arguments based on Scienter or Intent (a topic any parent would understand from ages 4 to 18).

Thats a fine reasonable argument.  Lets accept that this was a first time innocent mistake.  But we should then acknowledge that this is the exact example of a "PAYGATE" mechanic that should be roundly condemned. More significantly this example should be cited in any future discussions of similar mechanics.

If this is the only example of this happening.  I'll be pleased that we raised awareness of the concern and the devs will take future note.

But if this is the future of similar content, let this be the point where I call tinykitty

**Removed profanity - Ducky.