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

JVReal

Phumade said:

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..

I was pretty clear with what I feel.  When it is used to gate off content, it can then be called a gate.  When it is used to wall off progression, it can be called a wall.  For now it is a lock that is not locking anything.  Lots of locks are sold in the store with no objection by me, but when said lock is used to lock me out of my house, then I object to how its being used.

Essentials are not a problem, 2*, 3*, 4* or 5*.  It's what they lock out of the game that is the problem, when it actually becomes a problem.

Quebbster

rbdragon said:

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.

I do believe the event ends after the tokens change at the start of the next season. I am planning to sit on my earned Volume 2 tokens until Friday, then open them and see if I happen to get a 5tarLord to finish the last not just before the event ends.
I know it doesn't help you, but it might help someone else who is considering opening.

Phumade

rbdragon said:

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.

Fair enough,  How long did it take you to save up 300cp? Lets be charitable and say 5 events or 15 days of pve play on the long side, or 7 days of dual pvp/pve play.

Do you honestly feel that 7 days of consistent  play is sufficient to overcome this "paygate" mechanic?  I see the logic of that and I would certainly agree that committed players should be able to overcome a "paywall" with consistent play.

In this case,  I don't think a day 3 5* meets that threshold.  I don't think the 4 tokens that were publicly available were sufficient to say that an avg player could reasonably expect to earn the ability to play that node.  

I certainly would agree that if the event gave 20 10% tokens, the avg player could reasonably expect to unlock starlord and my "paywall" concerns would disappear.

I'll even go so far to say that if the required character had been 5* SS, it would been a very reasonable assumption that the overwhelming majority of players has had a opportunity to roster that char in a free to play fashion.

But I don't think you can make those arguments on a character that only winable from a 10% store.

shartattack

This thread is still going? Dude could have earned 5k+ Just in the time he's spent posting.
Anyway, Inside Job, the Coulson Event gave you 10k and a 4* cover.
This event gave you 10k and a legendary token, which is more valuable!
We get more and people still complain.  Some people are never satisfied.

Wonko33

it is not pay to play if there is no way to pay to get the "gate" item.

Fightmastermpq

rbdragon said:

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.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes everyone has a CP hoard large enough to overcome this paywall.  If you want to claim that it's not pay to play you would need to make the argument that the CP could be earned in-game during the time that this node is available - I think a 4 or 5 day period?  Sorry, but that amount of CP just isn't available in-game in such a short amount of time.  If this were a 30-day Growth Industry type of event you might have a case, but not in less than a week.

It would still be tinykitty though because that token is a waste of CP for the vast majority of players IMO.

SnowcaTT

5000 ISO for winning RnG is TiNyKiTtY.

I wasn't in here flaming about it yesterday because I get -5000 ISO for losing out on RNG -EVERY DAY-....I randomly chose Steam/PC to play the game, and now I lose out ~5000 intercept ISO daily.

JVReal

SnowcaTT said:

5000 ISO for winning RnG is TiNyKiTtY.

I wasn't in here flaming about it yesterday because I get -5000 ISO for losing out on RNG -EVERY DAY-....I randomly chose Steam/PC to play the game, and now I lose out ~5000 intercept ISO daily.

I don't get intercepts very often on my iOS device.  The game will decide to send me 3 in a row about twice a week.  Definitely not 5000 a day, and not as frequent as when they first came out.  The difference between Steam and iOS users is very very very nominal when it comes to my experience with Intercepts... it's like they aren't even there anymore.

Maybe they work better if you have VIP, but I'm not willing to make that leap.

Spudgutter

JVReal said:

Phumade said:

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..

I was pretty clear with what I feel.  When it is used to gate off content, it can then be called a gate.  When it is used to wall off progression, it can be called a wall.  For now it is a lock that is not locking anything.  Lots of locks are sold in the store with no objection by me, but when said lock is used to lock me out of my house, then I object to how its being used.

Essentials are not a problem, 2*, 3*, 4* or 5*.  It's what they lock out of the game that is the problem, when it actually becomes a problem.

Exactly.

If this. If that. Anyone can make an argument against anything with "if" statements and questions. Or by using arbitrary "average roster" statements with no actual knowledge of what the actual roster is, since we don't work for Demi/D3. 

The essentials for story missions and DDQ are way worse, because they happen every day, but we acknowledge that they are rewards for luck and skill from previous play.

If you want to dislike this feature, than do so. I agree, it's not awesome, but it is not worth all of this. Someone else mentioned there are way worse things to be upset about in this game, and I agree that this is WAY down the list for me

Fightmastermpq

Spudgutter said:

JVReal said:

Phumade said:

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..

I was pretty clear with what I feel.  When it is used to gate off content, it can then be called a gate.  When it is used to wall off progression, it can be called a wall.  For now it is a lock that is not locking anything.  Lots of locks are sold in the store with no objection by me, but when said lock is used to lock me out of my house, then I object to how its being used.

Essentials are not a problem, 2*, 3*, 4* or 5*.  It's what they lock out of the game that is the problem, when it actually becomes a problem.

Exactly.

If this. If that. Anyone can make an argument against anything with "if" statements and questions. Or by using arbitrary "average roster" statements with no actual knowledge of what the actual roster is, since we don't work for Demi/D3. 

The essentials for story missions and DDQ are way worse, because they happen every day, but we acknowledge that they are rewards for luck and skill from previous play.

If you want to dislike this feature, than do so. I agree, it's not awesome, but it is not worth all of this. Someone else mentioned there are way worse things to be upset about in this game, and I agree that this is WAY down the list for me

I'm not making any if statements at all.  It's content that requires a character that can only be acquired through luck, or spending.  Period.  No ifs at all.  This is something that I find troubling, and I'm a spender.  One of the things that makes the game great is that even though you can pay to win, you can also earn everything you need to compete as you go without spending a dime.........until this node.

It's a very simple question really - are 5* essential nodes acceptable?  Should there be content gated off behind a 5* RNG wall?  You can't earn 5* covers.  All you can earn is a chance to pull them, so should they be required to access all content?  I would have thought the vast majority of the playerbase would agree that no - it's unfair to require players to have 5*s earn all the rewards that the game has to offer, but I guess as usual I'm in disagreement with most of the forums.

Spudgutter

Fightmastermpq said:

Spudgutter said:

JVReal said:

Phumade said:

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..

I was pretty clear with what I feel.  When it is used to gate off content, it can then be called a gate.  When it is used to wall off progression, it can be called a wall.  For now it is a lock that is not locking anything.  Lots of locks are sold in the store with no objection by me, but when said lock is used to lock me out of my house, then I object to how its being used.

Essentials are not a problem, 2*, 3*, 4* or 5*.  It's what they lock out of the game that is the problem, when it actually becomes a problem.

Exactly.

If this. If that. Anyone can make an argument against anything with "if" statements and questions. Or by using arbitrary "average roster" statements with no actual knowledge of what the actual roster is, since we don't work for Demi/D3. 

The essentials for story missions and DDQ are way worse, because they happen every day, but we acknowledge that they are rewards for luck and skill from previous play.

If you want to dislike this feature, than do so. I agree, it's not awesome, but it is not worth all of this. Someone else mentioned there are way worse things to be upset about in this game, and I agree that this is WAY down the list for me

I'm not making any if statements at all.  It's content that requires a character that can only be acquired through luck, or spending.  Period.  No ifs at all.  This is something that I find troubling, and I'm a spender.  One of the things that makes the game great is that even though you can pay to win, you can also earn everything you need to compete as you go without spending a dime.........until this node.

It's a very simple question really - are 5* essential nodes acceptable?  Should there be content gated off behind a 5* RNG wall?  You can't earn 5* covers.  All you can earn is a chance to pull them, so should they be required to access all content?  I would have thought the vast majority of the playerbase would agree that no - it's unfair to require players to have 5*s earn all the rewards that the game has to offer, but I guess as usual I'm in disagreement with most of the forums.

I was replying about Phumade's "if" statements. 

And I said in my second paragraph, I agree that I do not like the feature, just disagree with the proportion with which it is met. I'm just asking that we tone down the hullabaloo about it. 

Fightmastermpq

I just feel like this is actually a much bigger deal that people are realizing.  You can brush it off as "it's only 5k ISO, you can earn that it blah blah blah."  But the fact of the matter is this represents a turning point of having pay to play content vs. not......regardless of how trivial you feel that content is.  Before it was always "is it OK to have pay to play content or not?"  Clearly the answer from the playerbase from this thread is "yeah, D3 - feel free to add content that you have to pay for in my free to play game."  The next question could very well be "ok then, how much are you willing to pay and for how much content?"

mpqr7

This thread is way too long and should probably be locked. It's a free event on top of all other events that gives you a free purple token and lots of ISO.

If you're lucky, you might even win more ISO on top of that. It's really nothing to get upset about. They are giving us lots of free ISO and a purple token... y u mad?

Bowgentle

How about we save the outrage for when they start locking significant content behind a 5* node?

The underlying problem is the RNG in the 5* tier.
Rage against that, please.

JVReal

Fightmastermpq said:

It's a very simple question really - are 5* essential nodes acceptable?  Should there be content gated off behind a 5* RNG wall?  You can't earn 5* covers.  All you can earn is a chance to pull them, so should they be required to access all content?  I would have thought the vast majority of the playerbase would agree that no - it's unfair to require players to have 5*s earn all the rewards that the game has to offer, but I guess as usual I'm in disagreement with most of the forums.

That's disingenuous.  It's not a simple question.  Are toll roads acceptable? Yes or No?  Now put that toll road at the entrance to a Hospital Emergency room... is it acceptable now?  Is hitting someone acceptable? Yes or No?  Is it self defense or domestic abuse or child abuse or boxing or MMA?

You are over-complicating it for your arguments sake, then trying to over-simplify the question to get the answer you want.

5* Essentials are setting the precedent for paygating content...etc, when this one is gating one node that is irrelevant to the success of the PVE.

You ask if 5* Essentials are ok... and if someone says "Yes" because in this situation it is... you'll go on about how it can then be used to gate content in the future, etc.

It is a troublesome action to be sure, and I was irritated by it at first, but when I realized it did not impact progression or non-existent placement, I was ok with it.

When it is actually used to block progress, I will not be ok with it.

Spudgutter

Fightmastermpq said:

I just feel like this is actually a much bigger deal that people are realizing.  You can brush it off as "it's only 5k ISO, you can earn that it blah blah blah."  But the fact of the matter is this represents a turning point of having pay to play content vs. not......regardless of how trivial you feel that content is.  Before it was always "is it OK to have pay to play content or not?"  Clearly the answer from the playerbase from this thread is "yeah, D3 - feel free to add content that you have to pay for in my free to play game."  The next question could very well be "ok then, how much are you willing to pay and for how much content?"

Ok, it is a turning point, but call it what it is. Luck based RNG. A free to pay person could pull it from the one free token from completing the event, and a VIP could get one cover out of 22 pulls (talking about myself, just so there is no confusion)

This isn't "pay" to play because you can get it without paying, and also NOT get it even though you do pay. 

Chrono_Tata

New McG said:

Phumade said:

I'll state that in the history of the game, ever essential node, has required a character that was either "earnable" through progression or placement.

What about the first PVE event ever? Oh snap, mind blown!!!

Actually, when the game was first released, all essential nodes had loaner characters so you could play them even without the essential character in your roster. It was only after the first couple of months or so that they changed it so that you couldn't play essential nodes without the required character. 

UNC_Samurai

Just wait until people figure out that you have to purchase an electronic device of some sort just to access this game!  OMG 100% of this content is now behind a paywall!!1!1!!!

Crowl

Fightmastermpq said:

I just feel like this is actually a much bigger deal that people are realizing.  You can brush it off as "it's only 5k ISO, you can earn that it blah blah blah."  But the fact of the matter is this represents a turning point of having pay to play content vs. not......regardless of how trivial you feel that content is.  Before it was always "is it OK to have pay to play content or not?"  Clearly the answer from the playerbase from this thread is "yeah, D3 - feel free to add content that you have to pay for in my free to play game."  The next question could very well be "ok then, how much are you willing to pay and for how much content?"

It simply isn't pay to play content at all, it is the far worse if anything rng to play content, there will be plenty of people such as myself who got lucky and got a 5* SL cover without spending on LTs.

Unfortunately the top end of cover rewards continue to be gated by this idiotic rng limitation that should have gone away long before we reached our 15th 5* character.

smkspy

I feel that's where the disconnect is coming from more than anything. 15 five stars and it's still a rng - based tier. How many characters is it going to take before devs realize that the tier needs to become accessible through a means other than luck.

I look at my roster and see OLD fives like spiderman and iron man sitting at 2-4 covers and zero way to improve them other than luck.

What's the magic number this tier must reach before players have a legit way to earn them?  20? 25? 

So while yeah, this one node is not really a huge deal to get in a fuss over, it just reminds many of the larger problem that the 5 star tier continues to remain.