ADChaos said: Now there's an awful decision that benefits exactly no one.
I know of at least one veteran who said they liked the change and it was exactly what they were asking for. And given the tiny number of players whose opinion on this change I know, it is extraordinarily unlikely he's the only one. So your "exactly no one" comment is clearly wrong (though it may be the case that most players dislike the change).
Has it even been mentioned that they've still got problems with the store, or is it just a running gag at this point?
The preview of characters shown at the bottom of the screen announcing this change isn't showing up in the app... just the hero expiring is shown.
astrp3 said: ADChaos said: Now there's an awful decision that benefits exactly no one. I know of at least one veteran who said they liked the change and it was exactly what they were asking for. And given the tiny number of players whose opinion on this change I know, it is extraordinarily unlikely he's the only one. So your "exactly no one" comment is clearly wrong (though it may be the case that most players dislike the change).
Well if you're going to mince words, he's saying it benefits no one, you're quoting your buddy as saying it was exactly what they were asking for. That's not the same, its absolutely possible to ask for something that doesn't benefit yourself...
I happen to know several people that do just that, and given that I know a relatively tiny amount of people, it would be extraordinarily unlikely they're the only ones.
MissChinch said: astrp3 said: ADChaos said: Now there's an awful decision that benefits exactly no one. I know of at least one veteran who said they liked the change and it was exactly what they were asking for. And given the tiny number of players whose opinion on this change I know, it is extraordinarily unlikely he's the only one. So your "exactly no one" comment is clearly wrong (though it may be the case that most players dislike the change). Well if you're going to mince words, he's saying it benefits no one, you're quoting your buddy as saying it was exactly what they were asking for. That's not the same, its absolutely possible to ask for something that doesn't benefit yourself... I happen to know several people that do just that, and given that I know a relatively tiny amount of people, it would be extraordinarily unlikely they're the only ones.
The reason this player (who isn't my "buddy"- I don't even know the guy) liked the change was because he thought it might allow him (or someone else) to complete the crash. For the most part, I don't agree with him, but that's his opinion. And you may know several players who demand game features that they feel benefit no one, but I don't. And even if several such players exist, unlike the OP, I'm not universalizing their opinon
I suppose I was taking the OP too literally, but it galls me when people make arguments to the effect of "I don't like this/people who post about this on the forums don't like this, therefore no one likes it and the devs are morons/greedy scumbags for implementing it."
astrp3 said: The reason this player (who isn't my "buddy"- I don't even know the guy) liked the change was because he thought it might allow him (or someone else) to complete the crash. For the most part, I don't agree with him, but that's his opinion. And you may know several players who demand game features that they feel benefit no one, but I don't. And even if several such players exist, unlike the OP, I'm not universalizing their opinonI suppose I was taking the OP too literally, but it galls me when people make arguments to the effect of "I don't like this/people who post about this on the forums don't like this, therefore no one likes it and the devs are morons/greedy scumbags for implementing it."
I agree with your sentiment entirely.
I was just poking at your post in a similar way I thought you were poking at his... It wasn't necessary, but neither are most of the posts in this thread. Not that it makes any difference, but I do actually know people that ask for things that don't benefit themselves... I am generally more greedy
MissChinch said: I agree with your sentiment entirely. I was just poking at your post in a similar way I thought you were poking at his... It wasn't necessary, but neither are most of the posts in this thread. Not that it makes any difference, but I do actually know people that ask for things that don't benefit themselves... I am generally more greedy
Sorry if I sounded testy there. I knew you were poking at me and that's cool. And I also know people who ask for things that don't benefit themselves, but usually because they benefit others, not because they benefit no one.
I, for instance, am very altruistic when it comes to MPQ. I want them to implement changes that other people like. That way I can keep playing the game and they can keep giving my the points I need to get the characters I want
ADChaos said: I should have said 'a restricted group which likely represents a slender minority of players and certainly far fewer than stood to benefit from the change not taking place'. Am I being reasonable enough for you now?
LavaManLee said: Color me confused as I do not understand who this benefits. Is anybody really ONE cover away from doing the Crash? You are either close enough to finish it or too far away to bother. I suppose if you had someone who was 5/5/0 then that one cover MIGHT help. But you could probably do it anyways. Covers aren't always the challenge with Crash, levels are. I could be 5/5/3 but if I am level 70, so what? I really do not understand who this change benefits including Demiurge as they are not going to increase sales based on this at all.
For the most part, I totally agree with you, but there are a few cases where I think a single cover could make the difference. One is the crashes you can win with a single cover - though you have to be pretty in-the-know to know which ones they are.
The other is cases where a power's effects increase dramatically from four to five covers (which seems fairly common among 4*s). A few months back, they had a Peggy crash and I remember thinking that I would have been able to beat it if I had 5 covers instead of 4 in either red or blue. I don't remember which color it was but I think the issue was than an extra cover would have allowed me to down the opponent by firing it twice instead of three times and I was just unable to fire it three times. Actually, I might have eventually won that one, but if I did it took me multiple days and a lot of health packs and boosts, whereas with the extra cover, I would have done it within a few tries.
So its not a matter of figuring out who would benefit from the opportunity to buy a specific 4* cover every 5 days, its a matter of figuring out who would benefit from not having the ability to buy a specific 4* cover every day (staying in the store for 8? days) cycling daily in comparison to having the ability to buy one 4* cover every 5 days.
After about 2 months proper planning could ensure that the daily rotation is strictly better (discounting phenomenally low rates of HP acquirement, like it taking a year to get 3600HP and that lining up perfectly with the single magical cover needed to win a crash, exactly when that crash is being offered) , "proper planning" is itself a cost, one that many would find unreasonable (and I don't blame them).
There may be someone who would actually benefit, more likely in the short term... but IMO its a trick question. D3/Demi isn't judging the change on the merit of it being something the players like, or even something that makes the game more enjoyable... They're basing it on financials (as per Anthony from Demi) as such it might be a resounding success, and even when looked at in retrospect, a good decision.
Its frustrating that they lacked the foresight to see that people would buy from the store, and that buying from the store would be unacceptable, doubly so because they ran ill-conceived tests prior to deciding to offer the store in its previous incarnation.
If I wanted to just wildly speculate I'd guess this change wasn't the developers idea, that it got pushed down by management/stakeholders and that most of the ire would be more appropriately focused on the fact that the direction is so bad as to allow something like this to happen.
That doesn't get the developers off the hook for completely botching the technical side of things in spectacular fashion... wrong date/inadvertent change, a second day of incorrect change (with the data out there, because if you bought an IW, a 5 day imhb was for sale) discrepancy between screenshot preview and actual lack of preview... and who knows what else we didn't see.
All that said, I'd bet the vast majority of the player base didn't even notice, and wont... If they don't follow the forums or read chats they're probably only recently realizing that they've been pulling an awful lot of the more recent heroes, and seemingly none of the old ones from LTs...
astrp3 said: ADChaos said: I should have said 'a restricted group which likely represents a slender minority of players and certainly far fewer than stood to benefit from the change not taking place'. Am I being reasonable enough for you now? Ah. Thank you. The stickler in me is much happier now (though I would have been even happier had you changed that "certainly" to "likely" or even "very likely" but a stickler's gotta stickle, I suppose). Sorry for the rant, but sarcasm and hyperbole (both of which are rampant on here) are guaranteed to get a rise out of me. Especially because they are so often used on the internet as substitutes for actual arguments (too often by people who claim that they're the paragons of rationality and their opponents are the reverse). I should probably just stop reading these thread, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.
animaniactoo said: astrp3 said: ADChaos said: I should have said 'a restricted group which likely represents a slender minority of players and certainly far fewer than stood to benefit from the change not taking place'. Am I being reasonable enough for you now? Ah. Thank you. The stickler in me is much happier now (though I would have been even happier had you changed that "certainly" to "likely" or even "very likely" but a stickler's gotta stickle, I suppose). Sorry for the rant, but sarcasm and hyperbole (both of which are rampant on here) are guaranteed to get a rise out of me. Especially because they are so often used on the internet as substitutes for actual arguments (too often by people who claim that they're the paragons of rationality and their opponents are the reverse). I should probably just stop reading these thread, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Come sit by me. I mean, as my husband is wont to say "This sarcasm is strong in this one" - but I'm a fierce opponent of absolutism. And fond of the saying "The limits of your experience are not the limits of reality".
OK, I assume we're far beyond useful feedback or suggestions that would ever actually be considered, but I just wanted to toss this out there, assuming that frequency of purchasing was an issue (daily purchases is too much, one every 5 days seems like it wont be)
@Brigby is this an issue you can still provide feedback to the designers on?
Have a Heroes for Hire store sell 5 specific 4* covers for 5 days, one of which being a cover for the current crash hero. Have the store gray out once someone purchases one of these covers, making them unable to purchase the other 4 options. Have the store refresh at the same time it would for the next crash (plus 4 other covers)
You still throttle purchases to the amount that its currently at. You still make the crash hero available. Now you cycle through all possible 4* covers in the same amount of time the daily incarnation used to. This would make purchasing targeted 4* covers possible with the added wrinkle of having to make a hard decision if your covers are in the same store... not quite as good as the previous store, but VASTLY superior to the existing one.