This Game Isn't Fun Anymore

over_clocked

Moon 17 wrote:

I see Riggy mentioning cosmetic purchases all the time and think, "That sounds like something people would really enjoy." Then I never upvote those posts or comment on them. So I'm doing both now.

That sounds like something people would really enjoy.

I'm saying that again - D3 could learn from Gabe Newell and add purely cosmetic items to the game. The ones that do not influence the game whatsoever unlike 5th yellow for LT. Team Fortress 2, also affectionately known as Hat Simulator 2, is one of the most profitable F2P games around (yes I know it wasn't originally that way and back in 2007 when it came out Valve couldn't just go and make it free right away). Ditto Dota 2.
As Marvel characters are well-known and loved, cosmetic items for them would sell at ridiculous rates - I imagine there might be some issues with the copyrights here and there as is the case with the various Marvel movies, but even then there must be thousands of samples to choose from.
I would totally buy a sexy mohawk Storm reskin for all my Storms or a tuxedo for the Hulk (like Patch's). If I could
I'm sure other people feel the same, I can't be the only one.

Twysta

I've sold Counterstrike: Global Offensive gun skins for like $10.
For ONE gun skin.
A skin!
It doesn't even do anything other than make the guns look pretty.

Unknown

Instead of a 40-pack of worthless tokens, sell an option to turn off all animations for 15,000 HP

you could be PRINTING MONEY here, people!!

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

All the arguments about being too good reminds me of all the guy saying using Thunderclap over and over is a result of great strategy.

And of course it *is* a great strategy. Just as obtaining the power 9 in vintage ages of MtG.

While it lasted. D3 decided to take a step to stop it, and it was a sensible step too (even if overdone): they killed off the key ability. Instead of resorting to some **** like giving less points to team running Rags or applying increasing buff to the opponent or take half of your prizes on next tournament...

Phantron wrote:

I'm not the person who decides why Thunderclap is nerfed but ATU is not. You'll have to ask D3 for the answer to that. D3 doesn't want people use 2 AP Thunderclap so they nerfed that. D3 doesn't want people to use Wolverine/Thor forever so they got nerfed too. D3 doesn't want people to use Spiderman/Magneto but instead nerfing him they put this modifier to greatly increase the level of the enemies for those who do use him.

Again, don't you see the slip on the last sentence? If D3 actually was against those abilities they could walk the paved road and just nerf them. Especially as it was even announced well ahead unlike the former batch. Simple reasoning shows they are not really against those abilities and want to keep them in the game too as they are (or at the least not think touching them worth any kind of priority contrary to earlier announcement.)

That implies what they do is only loosely related. And just want to generally shape the game to some vision of their devs -- that looks stable enough as the tech survived since TaT without any significant alteration.

And that vision, that idea of play is what we here recognize as either lack of fun or its direct opposite.

And the reasons, the fine details and even potential workarounds hardly change that.

Phantron wrote:

The fact is if you're doing something not wanted by devs they can always stop it. I don't know why they chose this method which seems way worse than just nerfing the character.

Yes. I guess most of use here agree with that. They may be evil, may be ignorant, may be incompetent or greedy -- or even have the best intentions. Or serve some part of the gamer population outside us forumers' view. That also doesn't change how we feel playing the game.

Unknown

I don't know if the devs are secretly laughing at the guys who fight 395 enemies, or that it's some freak accident that scaling turned out the way it is, but by the time The Hunt came around, it's really no secret that the devs are coming for your Spiderman and Magneto. There's nothing subtle about how the scaling punishes you for using those two characters. I'm pretty sure my The Hunt scaling is well above almost everyone on this forum and it got bad enough for me to stop using those two characters for future events except in emergencies.

I do think the devs should answer why they think it's a good idea to have these crazy mechanisms against two characters (and Modern Storm on desert/forest) instead of just nerfing them, but you can't say you weren't warned. The only way they can make the message clearer would if armed thug shows up to your house and beat you up whenever you used these two characters.

To go back to the Ragnarok example, it'd be like if you used pre nerf Ragnarok too much the game purposely finds opponents that are worth 5 points or less for you on all your matches and BattleAngel2 randomly shows up to attack you with level 395 Ragnarok, Daken, and someone else for -50 points. Is such mechanism justified? No, but you can't say you weren't warned if such crazy things are happening to pre nerf Ragnarok users.

Unknown

But it is profoundly stupid to use some weird workaround to punish players who use a mechanism you created rather than just removing the mechanism. Don't you get that? Plus, it potentially ends up ends up messing up others who don't use said mechanisms, merely due to good play.

Any mechanism that rewards poor play and punishes good play is stupid. It's not really debateable. When I'm sitting there with my OBW at full blue and injured characters, and I don't heal them because I'm afraid that the game will punish me for doing so, that is hardcore stupidity right there.

Dormammu

Rajjeq wrote:

Any mechanism that rewards poor play and punishes good play is stupid. It's not really debateable. When I'm sitting there with my OBW at full blue and injured characters, and I don't heal them because I'm afraid that the game will punish me for doing so, that is hardcore stupidity right there.

This! Why should a player be penalized for using an ability the developer gave us? It's like they are saying: "Yes, Spider-Man and OBW can heal, and it's a really handy tool for you to use, except that if you do we're going to make sure it doesn't go well for you later, so you're better off not using it at all. In fact, just don't use that character we gave you."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6782

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

I don't know if the devs are secretly laughing at the guys who fight 395 enemies, or that it's some freak accident that scaling turned out the way it is, but by the time The Hunt came around, it's really no secret that the devs are coming for your Spiderman and Magneto. There's nothing subtle about how the scaling punishes you for using those two characters. I'm pretty sure my The Hunt scaling is well above almost everyone on this forum and it got bad enough for me to stop using those two characters for future events except in emergencies.

I do think the devs should answer why they think it's a good idea to have these crazy mechanisms against two characters (and Modern Storm on desert/forest) instead of just nerfing them, but you can't say you weren't warned. The only way they can make the message clearer would if armed thug shows up to your house and beat you up whenever you used these two characters.

To go back to the Ragnarok example, it'd be like if you used pre nerf Ragnarok too much the game purposely finds opponents that are worth 5 points or less for you on all your matches and BattleAngel2 randomly shows up to attack you with level 395 Ragnarok, Daken, and someone else for -50 points. Is such mechanism justified? No, but you can't say you weren't warned if such crazy things are happening to pre nerf Ragnarok users.

That horse your flogging? It's dead, I tells ya, dead.

It's irrelevant whether people were "warned" or not. That's not the point at hand, and I don't see why you keep clinging onto it, other than it's the only part of your argument not in dispute. I'd agree, we were warned. That doesn't invalidate the point that EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON HERE is making, which is that punishing you for building an efficient roster and / or being great at the game is stupid at best, plain wrong at worst.

You also continually (conveniently) ignore the point that has been made more than once - not everyone has a useable C Mags or Spidey. I don't. So when community scaling kicks my **** - what's that all about? I'm sorry - am I playing too well with my solitary two 3*s - Hulk and Shieldbro? Am I somehow not taking enough damage?

There are fundamental, simple problems here which really aren't in dispute:

- Forcing you to play the game in a sub-optimal way is stupid. It doesn't encourage progression. It certainly won't encourage sales of 40 token packs. Where's the point in me trying to land more Spidey or C Mags covers, if I'm not supposed to use those characters anyway?
- It is imbalanced. Pure and simple. There's enough anecdotal evidence in this thread alone (never mind all the others) that the scaling doesn't work fairly, and that there's no rhyme or reason to the scaling that people see. I admire the guesswork that you and others have put into trying to figure it out - but it's still guesswork. And it doesn't explain some of the cases we've seen.

Your stance seems to be "stop complaining - you were warned." (I'm not sure why.) Whereas I think it's right and fair to use threads like this to call out some of the issues. I believe the Devs are reading. I believe they are listening. I think they haven't responded because it's not a straight-forward issue to resolve, so there's not really a statement they can make just now. But I commend the community in being quite united and bringing these issues to their attention.

Spoit

Seriously phantron,we get it. you have a complex about blue powers with low costs, but everything doesn't revolve around them

Unknown

_RiO_

allorin wrote:

I believe the Devs are reading. I believe they are listening. I think they haven't responded because it's not a straight-forward issue to resolve, so there's not really a statement they can make just now.

There is a simple solution; remove community scaling and remove competition from PvE. Split the progression reward and placement rewards so that PvE gets progression rewards and PvP gets placement awards. Make both ladders give out more rewards to compensate for lack of one in its opposing type of event. PvE players get more granular progression rewards, giving them a feeling of steadily achieving something, PvP players get a better chance at earning a reward that is more substantial than a 2* cover or some tokens.

Starting players play at their scaled level. Veteran players play at theirs. No intermingling, no competition, no need for a stupid mechanism like scaling to 'even the odds'.

Ofcourse, the developers aren't going to actually do this as the competitive aspect plays into goading people to buy additional cover packs (hoping for an essential node and/or boosted character to provide them an edge for better placement), boosts (better chance at beating the currently over-leveled opponents) and health packs (quick recovery after losing to tough opponents). Removing the competition from PvE would cut directly into their profits.

Twysta

I wouldn't mind if they had "noob events".
Where say only people who have played less than 50 days can enter.
And/or where all the rewards are 2* stuff or lower to help the newbs develop their roster.

Unknown

Twysta wrote:

I wouldn't mind if they had "noob events".
Where say only people who have played less than 50 days can enter.
And/or where all the rewards are 2* stuff or lower to help the newbs develop their roster.

Since I've started playing I've thought every event (PvP and PvE) should have two versions and you can only enter (and be seen in scaling/MMR pools for) one version

For example

The "easy" version that gives out 2* covers, a 3* for first, and HP
The "hard" version that gives out 3* covers, a 4* for first, HP, and big ISO prizes

HailMary

gamar wrote:

Since I've started playing I've thought every event (PvP and PvE) should have two versions and you can only enter (and be seen in scaling/MMR pools for) one version

For example

The "easy" version that gives out 2* covers, a 3* for first, and HP
The "hard" version that gives out 3* covers, a 4* for first, HP, and big ISO prizes

I like this idea for PVE. For PVP, I think the reward tiers (2*-cover reward nerfing notwithstanding) do a good job of segregation.

The only problem I see with non-optional player lockouts would be for those players who are in the middle of 2* land: they could definitely use more 2* covers for diversification, but don't really need them, and the more ambitious would like 3* covers more.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

allorin wrote:

I believe the Devs are reading. I believe they are listening. I think they haven't responded because it's not a straight-forward issue to resolve, so there's not really a statement they can make just now.

There is a simple solution; remove community scaling and remove competition from PvE. Split the progression reward and placement rewards so that PvE gets progression rewards and PvP gets placement awards. Make both ladders give out more rewards to compensate for lack of one in its opposing type of event. PvE players get more granular progression rewards, giving them a feeling of steadily achieving something, PvP players get a better chance at earning a reward that is more substantial than a 2* cover or some tokens.

Starting players play at their scaled level. Veteran players play at theirs. No intermingling, no competition, no need for a stupid mechanism like scaling to 'even the odds'.

Ofcourse, the developers aren't going to actually do this as the competitive aspect plays into goading people to buy additional cover packs (hoping for an essential node and/or boosted character to provide them an edge for better placement), boosts (better chance at beating the currently over-leveled opponents) and health packs (quick recovery after losing to tough opponents). Removing the competition from PvE would cut directly into their profits.

Progress-only does't work in Pve because the devs progression rewards in pve are too abusive usually. They tried no placement rewards....once. the 4**** rewards were unobtainable. Fewer...far fewer...
3*** were given out. Less hp even. It was horrible. The concept is fine, the problem arises with the devs having to decide how much good tender lovin is too much.

So no, no no no no to progression only with this company.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

gamar wrote:

Since I've started playing I've thought every event (PvP and PvE) should have two versions and you can only enter (and be seen in scaling/MMR pools for) one version

For example

The "easy" version that gives out 2* covers, a 3* for first, and HP
The "hard" version that gives out 3* covers, a 4* for first, HP, and big ISO prizes

I like this idea for PVE. For PVP, I think the reward tiers (2*-cover reward nerfing notwithstanding) do a good job of segregation.

The only problem I see with non-optional player lockouts would be for those players who are in the middle of 2* land: they could definitely use more 2* covers for diversification, but don't really need them, and the more ambitious would like 3* covers more.

But even now, (assuming they're capable of placing in 3* range), they would have to decide whether to go for the 3* covers or the 2*, so that's not really any different if the tournaments were divided, is it?

HailMary

gamar wrote:

But even now, (assuming they're capable of placing in 3* range), they would have to decide whether to go for the 3* covers or the 2*, so that's not really any different if the tournaments were divided, is it?

Oh, I see.

I misread the "you can only enter" part as "the game will decide for you which version you're able to see at all." That makes more sense, and the difference in reward value would help minimize high-end players smurfing the junior events.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

gamar wrote:

But even now, (assuming they're capable of placing in 3* range), they would have to decide whether to go for the 3* covers or the 2*, so that's not really any different if the tournaments were divided, is it?

Oh, I see.

I misread the "you can only enter" part as "the game will decide for you which version you're able to see at all." That makes more sense, and the difference in reward value would help minimize high-end players smurfing the junior events.

Oh, yeah, my idea was that you could see both of them but once you complete a node in one the other one gets locked out, so you make the choice which to enter

scottee

I suspect the thought progress went something like this:

-Hey, we have overpowered character abilities. Let's nerf them. (Rag, CStorm)

-[crowd] What the tiny kitten goodness?!?!? I just put ISO/HP into them and now you undo all my work! Stop punishing me for leveling a character that you gave me!

-Hey, we have more overpowered character abilities. Instead of nerfing them and getting yelled at, let's just adjust the difficulty for those using them. (CMag, Spidey)

-[crowd] What the tiny kitten goodness?!?!?! Stop punishing me with level 395 enemies when I'm just using the game mechanics you gave me!



...Yes, I think it was a bad decision to adjust scaling for certain characters when they should have nerfed the abilities instead. Hopefully when they do enact the nerfs, they remove the effects of scaling by those characters. But no, that doesn't mean the devs are trying to punish people. The outcry BEFORE crazy scaling was, "It's not fair I don't have Spidey/CMag, because I can't compete with those who do!" I don't have high level CMags/Spidey, but I'm sure it's about the same difficulty to beat level 395's with them as it is to beat level 200 enemies with other maxed 3*'s.

Unknown

All I know is that currently in simulator my "easy" nodes are in the 130s. My roster is level 85. Hard nodes are in the 188 or higher levels. How is this fun? I did too well? Eh?

On the other hand my alliance mate has characters over 100 or so, and is seeing level 120 enemies on the hard simulator, and much lower on the easy. Before the 3rd refresh I was ahead of him on points in simulator, but that was due to him not playing as much from Limitied time. He has on this refresh since caught up and passed me in overall points.

This just leads me to believe that this game does not want you to play. Playing is bad. Playing more, well that is not good so let's make it harder so you do not play as much.... Huh? Strange design philosophy.