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

12357

Comments

  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2017
    Meh. 

    As has been pointed out, most players are locked out of essential nodes for every single new release. Let's look at the numbers. 

     The 4* essential node gives out approximately 1250 ISO total per day (100/250/500/140/standard token=250, mystery boost=0) , and unless you placed well enough to earn that placement cover in the previous PVE, you are locked out of completing that node at all until day 2 or 3 (or 4/5 in a 7 day event), when you can you earn/roster that cover and play that node. 

    So you're looking at 2500/3750 (or 5000/6250) ISO that most people are locked out of for every new release. Someone else can look at the frequency of 3/4/7 day events if they want - let's just ballpark estimate it at 3000 ISO on average. 

    Yeah, you can complete that node eventually, but the ISO that was available as a reward prior to the day you earn/roster it is locked away from you. 

    So, where is the magic line? 3000 ISO is a trivial reward amount and not a problem (or it's fine, because it's broken up into smaller pieces), but 5000 is non-trivial and game-breaking? Can 75% of players earn that cover for placement in the previous PvE? Do 75% even have a realistic chance at the placement reward? 
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    MarkersMake said:
    Meh. 

    As has been pointed out, most players are locked out of essential nodes for every single new release. Let's look at the numbers. 

     The 4* essential node gives out approximately 1250 ISO total per day (100/250/500/140/standard token=250, mystery boost=0) , and unless you placed well enough to earn that placement cover in the previous PVE, you are locked out of completing that node at all until day 2 or 3 (or 4/5 in a 7 day event), when you can you earn/roster that cover and play that node. 

    So you're looking at 2500/3750 (or 5000/6250) ISO that most people are locked out of for every new release. 

    Yeah, you can complete that node eventually, but the ISO that was available as a reward prior to the day you earn/roster it is locked away from you. 

    So, where is the magic line? 2500/3750 ISO is a trivial reward amount and not a problem, but 5000 is non-trivial and game-breaking? 
    You keep missing the point. If you place T100 in the release event you get that character. You don't get a 10% shot at that character, or 3x 10% draws for that character, you earn the exact cover that you need to complete the essential node in the next event. That many people fail to do so is irrelevant as everyone is given the same chance. In the case of Star-Lord, the vast majority of players that did everything within their power to attempt to earn a Star-Lord release token didn't get one, and thus are stuck behind a paywall for this node. Honestly I don't understand why they don't go back to awarding 5* release covers like they did with the first run of Civil War - that would really make this whole problem go away.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2017
    Oh, my mistake. Phumade made a big deal about it being a non-trivial reward, and pulled 75% out of somewhere, so I thought I would address those points. 

    If you're upset that the RNG is the sole arbiter of who gets 5k ISO, that's fair. I have the same issue with the Heroes for Hire test prices, although I think the latter is far more serious, because it's not the in-game RNG, it's some dev. 

    Just out of curiosity, would you still be upset if it were 500 ISO? Or only 10% as upset? ;) 
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Lol.  Honestly, the principle really bothers me.  This is the first true paywall that I think we have had and I really really don't like the precedent - even if it is "only" 5k ISO.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    That's understandable. 

    I'm not entirely thrilled with it either, and I was one of the lucky winners. I just thought the philosophical argument was strong enough on its own merits, and Phumade's references to "non-trivial" rewards and his random 75% standard actually detracted from the crux of the issue, and should be addressed. 

    If it makes you feel better though, I'll donate my 5k to a charity by rostering poor Yelena, leveling her up, and then selling her for a 5k loss. :) 
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Lol.  Honestly, the principle really bothers me.  This is the first true paywall that I think we have had and I really really don't like the precedent - even if it is "only" 5k ISO.
    So, will that iso be required for the next event? Because the outrage seems to stem from something essential being "paygated", when in actuality, it's something readily available in literally every possible portion of the game.
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Fightmastermpq said:
    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.
    So Cyclops was the last 4* given out just before this crash, because I can't even recall the last time he was among the PVE rewards. A few weeks? Months? If the idea being that this singular node (with non-essential reward for completing it) breaks the unwritten "everything you need should be given out in the event just before it's required" rule, then the DDQ Crash isn't within that cycle, either.
  • astrp3
    astrp3 Posts: 367 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2017
    Phumade said:
     

    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.
    We are getting off-topic here, but if your definition of pay-to-play is a game that requires you to pay for ANY content, and your definition of "free-to-play" is a game where ALL content is free then I certainly disagree, as does Wikipedia, to name but one source.  I could look for others or discuss the merits of Wikipedia as a source, but then I suspect this would devolve into one of those pointless discussions about what constitutes a definition, the etymological fallacy, etc. etc. and I've had plenty of those (I have a video game history blog and had my fill of that with the whole "what is the definition of a video game and can it only refer to games played on a raster-scan display" debate).


    As for the larger point, I agree that if this is a harbinger of things to come, there is reason for concern (at least for those concerned about such things - though I am not among them). I just don't think it is.
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    astrp3 said:
    Phumade said:
     

    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.
    We are getting off-topic here, but if your definition of pay-to-play is a game that requires you to pay for ANY content, and your definition of "free-to-play" is a game where ALL content is free then I certainly disagree, as does Wikipedia, to name but one source.  I could look for others or discuss the merits of Wikipedia as a source, but then I suspect this would devolve into one of those pointless discussions about what constitutes a definition, the etymological fallacy, etc. etc. and I've had plenty of those (I have a video game history blog and had my fill of that with the whole "what is the definition of a video game and can it only refer to games played on a raster-scan display" debate).

    Yeah, I feel that is a semantical can of nightmare worms to be opened. He seems to be fine with considering "one node, in the three-plus year history of the game, requiring a character that is available via random chance" to make an entire game "pay to play". While overlooking that the node's reward isn't required for anything else, or even the progression of the event it is contained in, and is a single reward of a commodity available in literally every other portion within the game.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    New McG said:

    Yeah, I feel that is a semantical can of nightmare worms to be opened. He seems to be fine with considering "one node, in the three-plus year history of the game, requiring a character that is available via random chance" to make an entire game "pay to play". While overlooking that the node's reward isn't required for anything else, or even the progression of the event it is contained in, and is a single reward of a commodity available in literally every other portion within the game.


    No I think I've put this in perfect context by saying this is the first instance of a "play to pay" node in the 3 year + history of the game.

    and if its an innocent 1x error then fine, but if it shows up in a future event, then it can only be interpreted as an acceptable form of paygating mechanics.
  • Pongie
    Pongie Posts: 1,411 Chairperson of the Boards
    Look at my roster (a bunch of 5* with 1-2 covers) and you'll see that starlord is the first 5* I haven't been lucky enough to pull from the limited number of tokens available to earn. Was a little sad the streak ended (it's bound to happen sooner or later). What made it worst was finding out I'm locked of or 5k iso and 10xp. I'm seriously hoping this is not signs of things to come...
  • kyo28
    kyo28 Posts: 161 Tile Toppler
    They should've made it a node with the required character being 'A' Starlord. That way, those that aren't lucky enough to get the 5* version (or don't whale to get him) can use the new 3* version or the existing 4* version.

    But this node with the only way to play is having the 5* version was clearly an indirect push towards whale, to give those that were on the fence that last little push to spend.
  • Coubii
    Coubii Posts: 133 Tile Toppler
    Don't really see the fuss about one tinykitty mission being locked. The reward would be appreciated, but not required.
    From Thanos Boss event plus this Star Lord event, you have 3 chance to get a 5tarLord.

    If such event for a 4* would have gave a cover, and based on how many 4* are given out, think now what is the odd to have a 5* in a similar event ?
    3:10 better than vaulting on 1:21.
  • Crowl
    Crowl Posts: 1,580 Chairperson of the Boards
    Fightmastermpq said:
    MarkersMake said:
    Meh. 

    As has been pointed out, most players are locked out of essential nodes for every single new release. Let's look at the numbers. 

     The 4* essential node gives out approximately 1250 ISO total per day (100/250/500/140/standard token=250, mystery boost=0) , and unless you placed well enough to earn that placement cover in the previous PVE, you are locked out of completing that node at all until day 2 or 3 (or 4/5 in a 7 day event), when you can you earn/roster that cover and play that node. 

    So you're looking at 2500/3750 (or 5000/6250) ISO that most people are locked out of for every new release. 

    Yeah, you can complete that node eventually, but the ISO that was available as a reward prior to the day you earn/roster it is locked away from you. 

    So, where is the magic line? 2500/3750 ISO is a trivial reward amount and not a problem, but 5000 is non-trivial and game-breaking? 
    You keep missing the point. If you place T100 in the release event you get that character. You don't get a 10% shot at that character, or 3x 10% draws for that character, you earn the exact cover that you need to complete the essential node in the next event. That many people fail to do so is irrelevant as everyone is given the same chance. In the case of Star-Lord, the vast majority of players that did everything within their power to attempt to earn a Star-Lord release token didn't get one, and thus are stuck behind a paywall for this node. Honestly I don't understand why they don't go back to awarding 5* release covers like they did with the first run of Civil War - that would really make this whole problem go away.

    If you look at the playerbase as a whole then his point is a valid one because only 10% of all players can get a 4* from placements in a new release event, so since roughly the same amount of people should be able to complete that node based purely on the LT won is the mini event itself, the additional ones people earned from the Thanos event should actually result in more people being able to complete the event than the typical 4* essential after a new release.

    The issue with this is not that less people are able to complete the node as the numbers will be fairly similar, the real problem is a common one in this game and that is that progression is random, sometimes rng works in your favour and other times it doesn't.


  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    JVReal said:
    When a 5* essential is used to stop you from progressing and gaining the progression rewards, or stops you from completing an entire segment of a PVE, like Gauntlet essentials, then you can complain and people will be more prone to listen.  This is not that moment.
    So do you feel this meets the mechanical definition of how a "Play to pay" node is constructed? (i.e. with respect to the char requirements to play)  If they had switched the nodes so that the exact same node/ruleset is the entry point vs the last node, would that not be a Prima Facie example of "Paygate"? (including the element of intent"

    If you objection is that its a minor reward, and or doesn't involve "significant or substantial" content, then I'll acknowledge those concerns by saying that this is the first example of "Paygate" mechanics and if its a mere error with out Scienter/intent and we can then dismiss this as a poor decision on Demi part.

    If this was more than an error and purposeful,  I don't think I'm out of line in calling Demi out and asking for a clarification as to what level of content they are willing to lock behind a "PAYWALL".

    In any case, if this happens again in subsequent events,  we will all be looking to this thread to say that the 2nd incident wasn't a mistake/accident, rather  a continuation/expansion of what happened here.  We clearly identified the noxious behavior and at a min we began to define "significant and substantial" game play.  Ie.  No one cares if the reward was 20 iso, more people concerned at the 5k level,  even more concern at 50k iso, etc..



  • rbdragon
    rbdragon Posts: 479 Mover and Shaker
    I saw this node and was annoyed because I had planned on waiting to spend my meager 300cp hoard for when C&D entered. But the completionist in me said I need to have that character, so I went for it and got it on my last pull.

    None of the cp was bought, it was all earned, so I disagree with the sentiment that it is pay to play. However, I agree it sucks requiring any 5* character, especially when there is no way to earn one directly.

Categories