Time Gem Season Updates *Updated (10/19/17)
Comments
-
Finally, I would like to say that by removing the 15 CP they are essentially slowing down everyone's progress, so it is not like other stuff they have done intentionally (A/B testing comes to mind) or unintentionally (bonus draw rates glitch that many missed out on) where you suffer and someone else gains. Obviously the people who were hitting 1200 suffer the most, but theoretically, this CP is being taken from EVERYONE. So if the end game transition slows down, at least it slows down for everyone and it's not like your neighbors are now transitioning faster than you. Just younger rosters get to catch up faster which is GOOD for the health of the game.
But it's not slowing everyone down. 2% of players will still get their "full" cp allotment. So this change will arguably further stratify the playerbase.
0 -
Great analysis. Being a cognitive psychologist myself, I 100% agree with your post, well done!Daredevil217 said:
It’s 6 one way, half a dozen the other.Philly484 said:Well the reasoning of more players being able to obtain top 10 is completely inaccurate. They are punishing the Veteran players who have took time to develop their roster. Players shouldn't feel like they are being punished, and that is clearly how more of the majority feels. I understand new players are excited about the change it helps develop the roster faster, but then the "Brick Wall" will hit the new players faster, and they will either quit playing because they don't want to spend money, or they will stick with it and spend money. I have a feeling the higher percentage will be new players dropping off.
The purpose serves new players in roster development, but hurts developed rosters, and from comments from new players they are only looking at the quick 4* cover versus long-term effects of the change. Which will result in not having applicable CP once they want to try to move into 5* territory. Also to the players who want to bad mouth those of us who spend money on the game, that isn't a fair statement(s). If that is what makes the game enjoyable for us, then that is what makes the game enjoyable for us. This move isn't justifiable in regards to veterans, and in my opinion even new players, because all you are looking at is getting a quick 4* cover.
If forced to choose between the two alternatives (and that right there is a problem in and of itself because there are an infinite number of other options they could have went with, but IF...), then people can have
a very slow beginning transition and a slightly faster (but still slow) end game transition (old system).
Or a much quicker beginning transition and an even slower end game transition (current system).
[Not to mention all the CP a player is missing out on on the back end, they will get loads on the front end being able to climb to 575 earlier in their roster development, plus will get the occasional T10 while not likely ever getting to 1200 points early on. So they will have way more CP when they are ready to make the leap to 4/5 land.]
I'm not a developer. But as a psychologist I’d say the former is more important to the developers. Hooking people early, getting them resourced and invested is far more important than speeding up the end game for many reasons.
The biggest from a psychology perspective is once they have you hooked/addicted it is much harder to leave if you are unhappy later. Look at any theory on dysfunctional relationships, sunk cost fallacy, cognitive dissonance theory and you can understand that people will put up with a lot once they feel they are invested. We grip and complain but will still grind it out for Nightcrawler tomorrow. Much easier for a new player to get curbstomped over and over in PVP, see that they have to roster, collect, and level 100's of characters in order to transition to the end game, and say "what's the point?".
The second is purely speculation on my part, but 1) vaulting decisions 2) removing CP from progression 3) putting off CL126 for as long as possible, all tell me that perhaps it's intentional that they are trying to speed up the early game and slow down the late game which makes PERFECT sense. You need to get people transitioning faster or else the light at the end of the tunnel isn't visible and people quit. But if people at the top transition too fast then they either quit when they reach the ceiling and have no where to go (boredom), or we need to open up the 6* tier, which I really don't want. Maybe, just maybe... the developers aren't incompetent fools, but are willing to break a couple eggs in order for the game to have longevity. They also view the game on a larger scale than "how is my individual roster development impacted".
Finally, I would like to say that by removing the 15 CP they are essentially slowing down everyone's progress, so it is not like other stuff they have done intentionally (A/B testing comes to mind) or unintentionally (bonus draw rates glitch that many missed out on) where you suffer and someone else gains. Obviously the people who were hitting 1200 suffer the most, but theoretically, this CP is being taken from EVERYONE. So if the end game transition slows down, at least it slows down for everyone and it's not like your neighbors are now transitioning faster than you. Just younger rosters get to catch up faster which is GOOD for the health of the game.
Again, psychologically speaking it's easier for us to stomach stuff that impacts us negatively if we can just paint ourselves as victims and vilify others, but reality is much more complex. Something to consider.4 -
Vhailorx said:
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.
Why not? I know its not the same group of people but one group does employ the other. In my business, if i hire people and they bungle the job, im responsible for that. Why should they be any different.
And yes, I'm EyeSnipe.
1 -
Sure, but the theory still fits. It's slowed down for more people, while still allowing some to have something to chase, a la carrot and stickVhailorx said:Finally, I would like to say that by removing the 15 CP they are essentially slowing down everyone's progress, so it is not like other stuff they have done intentionally (A/B testing comes to mind) or unintentionally (bonus draw rates glitch that many missed out on) where you suffer and someone else gains. Obviously the people who were hitting 1200 suffer the most, but theoretically, this CP is being taken from EVERYONE. So if the end game transition slows down, at least it slows down for everyone and it's not like your neighbors are now transitioning faster than you. Just younger rosters get to catch up faster which is GOOD for the health of the game.But it's not slowing everyone down. 2% of players will still get their "full" cp allotment. So this change will arguably further stratify the playerbase.
1 -
I see you.....corytutor said:Vhailorx said:
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.
Why not? I know its not the same group of people but one group does employ the other. In my business, if i hire people and they bungle the job, im responsible for that. Why should they be any different.
And yes, I'm EyeSnipe.
1 -
Really? You agree that those of us in this thread who can understand the reasoning are either liars, stupid or both?Vhailorx said:
I agree with much of the content of this post, though the tone is a bit more conspiratorial than I think is useful.corytutor said:Ummm. Forum polls are dumb. We dont represent the playerbase. We don't even represent the majority of vets.
Anyone who thinks removong a reward accessible to all, and only makes it available to the top 2 % and says its for everyone's benefit is either a liar, stupid, or both.
This isnt to help anyone. Its a ploy to push midrange players up by flooding them with covers that cost hp to roster and to get players closer to 5* land because the majority of purchases are made at the beginning to get a jump on their roster, and once 5* land is in sight. In between that not much spending happens.
At least that was my and most of my alliances experiences. Buy slots early. Buy cp these days.
As for dev response, lack of details etc.
Are you really that surprised? This is the same group that dropped a brand new event that almost instantly failed, and they tpok the weekend, entire event, off. Its also the same guys that deny swaps, give cut and paste answers and rarely read your ticket.
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.0 -
Thanks! Mostly a Person-Centered therapist here (work in a University Counseling Center) but still have to know all of that Cognitive/Behavioral stuff for licensing purposes and it does come in handy with clients as well.Bubez said:Great analysis. Being a cognitive psychologist myself, I 100% agree with your post, well done!
I'd be shocked if a game this successful didn't have psychologists in their employ helping guide decisions.
They use continuous reinforcement (every time I play, I get rewarded) which is the strongest for developing a conditioned response early on when learning a new behavior.
They also combine that with partial reinforcement on a variable ratio schedule (the "rush" you get pulling that slot machine, or in this case, opening tokens). This is the schedule of reinforcement that most strongly maintains a desired behavior (how gambling addictions are formed) and is hardest to break.
So in short, they know how to hook you, AND keep you. That's not by accident.
3 -
Yes. How else could you justify taking a reward available to all, limit it to the top 2% and say it helps the little guy? It doesnt. If anything its going to further seperate the top from everyone else.
It wont be helpful to the little guy for years, and then hes going to hit a wall trying to transition to 5* land.
Its pretty obviously flawed.1 -
If anybody is keeping track, it is now over 24 hrs from when we were promised more details. What's the Over/Under that we will only find out when the event shows up in a few hours.0
-
We wont know until in game im sure0
-
It's not the tone I would use, but yeah: It is foolish to take demi/d3 at face value when the say that moving CP from progression to placement was done for the purpose of making CP more available.Spudgutter said:
Really? You agree that those of us in this thread who can understand the reasoning are either liars, stupid or both?Vhailorx said:
I agree with much of the content of this post, though the tone is a bit more conspiratorial than I think is useful.corytutor said:Ummm. Forum polls are dumb. We dont represent the playerbase. We don't even represent the majority of vets.
Anyone who thinks removong a reward accessible to all, and only makes it available to the top 2 % and says its for everyone's benefit is either a liar, stupid, or both.
This isnt to help anyone. Its a ploy to push midrange players up by flooding them with covers that cost hp to roster and to get players closer to 5* land because the majority of purchases are made at the beginning to get a jump on their roster, and once 5* land is in sight. In between that not much spending happens.
At least that was my and most of my alliances experiences. Buy slots early. Buy cp these days.
As for dev response, lack of details etc.
Are you really that surprised? This is the same group that dropped a brand new event that almost instantly failed, and they tpok the weekend, entire event, off. Its also the same guys that deny swaps, give cut and paste answers and rarely read your ticket.
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.
And mostly I was agreeing with cory (and actually also with you and daredevil) that it seems quite likely that demi's intent with this change is speed up the 4* transition for middle class players (most casuals won't see much benefit from this change because they won't play 40 matches per event).
But I honestly have little sympathy for demi trying to deal with the problems created by the fragmentation of the playerbase. I can dredge up posts from myself and other players in mid 2015 warning that demi's chosen method of switching to a 4* endgame and then introducing 5*s was inevitably going to fragment the playerbase and cause all sorts of secondary problems. I feel perfectly justified in being upset that Demi ignored the problem for years and may now be trying to solve the problem by punishing 5* transitioners like me.
5 -
Nah, all that stuff is pretty basic skinner box mechanics that have been used in successful MMOs and freemium games for years. I don't think demi needs to employ an in-house psychologist to know that stuff. You just need to attend some game development conventions/events and pay attention to the industry. Demi seems like a fairly small shop.Daredevil217 said:
Thanks! Mostly a Person-Centered therapist here (work in a University Counseling Center) but still have to know all of that Cognitive/Behavioral stuff for licensing purposes and it does come in handy with clients as well.Bubez said:Great analysis. Being a cognitive psychologist myself, I 100% agree with your post, well done!
I'd be shocked if a game this successful didn't have psychologists in their employ helping guide decisions.
They use continuous reinforcement (every time I play, I get rewarded) which is the strongest for developing a conditioned response early on when learning a new behavior.
They also combine that with partial reinforcement on a variable ratio schedule (the "rush" you get pulling that slot machine, or in this case, opening tokens). This is the schedule of reinforcement that most strongly maintains a desired behavior (how gambling addictions are formed) and is hardest to break.
So in short, they know how to hook you, AND keep you. That's not by accident.
D3, on the other hand, may well have some in house psychology staff mandating the inclusion of certain elements in the games they support as a condition of the publishing deals.
0 -
Here is the rub, they don't want the vets anymore. They want new players and new money. That's what's more important. Well at least that's what it feels like.Vhailorx said:
It's not the tone I would use, but yeah: It is foolish to take demi/d3 at face value when the say that moving CP from progression to placement was done for the purpose of making CP more available.Spudgutter said:
Really? You agree that those of us in this thread who can understand the reasoning are either liars, stupid or both?Vhailorx said:
I agree with much of the content of this post, though the tone is a bit more conspiratorial than I think is useful.corytutor said:Ummm. Forum polls are dumb. We dont represent the playerbase. We don't even represent the majority of vets.
Anyone who thinks removong a reward accessible to all, and only makes it available to the top 2 % and says its for everyone's benefit is either a liar, stupid, or both.
This isnt to help anyone. Its a ploy to push midrange players up by flooding them with covers that cost hp to roster and to get players closer to 5* land because the majority of purchases are made at the beginning to get a jump on their roster, and once 5* land is in sight. In between that not much spending happens.
At least that was my and most of my alliances experiences. Buy slots early. Buy cp these days.
As for dev response, lack of details etc.
Are you really that surprised? This is the same group that dropped a brand new event that almost instantly failed, and they tpok the weekend, entire event, off. Its also the same guys that deny swaps, give cut and paste answers and rarely read your ticket.
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.
And mostly I was agreeing with cory (and actually also with you and daredevil) that it seems quite likely that demi's intent with this change is speed up the 4* transition for middle class players (most casuals won't see much benefit from this change because they won't play 40 matches per event).
But I honestly have little sympathy for demi trying to deal with the problems created by the fragmentation of the playerbase. I can dredge up posts from myself and other players in mid 2015 warning that demi's chosen method of switching to a 4* endgame and then introducing 5*s was inevitably going to fragment the playerbase and cause all sorts of secondary problems. I feel perfectly justified in being upset that Demi ignored the problem for years and may now be trying to solve the problem by punishing 5* transitioners like me.0 -
It does feel that way rockett. And its horrible for business.
Sure i want that new guy who may buy a few starks to start up. But i also want to keep the guy that buys one every month or blows a grand every sale.
At least smart business would0 -
This company reported over 100million in sales a year ago. They shouldnt be hurting for cash soo much that they need to give the shaft to its long time consumer base. I mean come one. They employ 3 cs guys. They've got change to spare im sure0
-
Foolish for taking them at face value, I can understand. Liar or stupid? Give me a break. If that is an easy threshold to cross, every time I call you foolish from here on out, it's me secretly calling you stupid. Sound fair?Vhailorx said:
It's not the tone I would use, but yeah: It is foolish to take demi/d3 at face value when the say that moving CP from progression to placement was done for the purpose of making CP more available.Spudgutter said:
Really? You agree that those of us in this thread who can understand the reasoning are either liars, stupid or both?Vhailorx said:
I agree with much of the content of this post, though the tone is a bit more conspiratorial than I think is useful.corytutor said:Ummm. Forum polls are dumb. We dont represent the playerbase. We don't even represent the majority of vets.
Anyone who thinks removong a reward accessible to all, and only makes it available to the top 2 % and says its for everyone's benefit is either a liar, stupid, or both.
This isnt to help anyone. Its a ploy to push midrange players up by flooding them with covers that cost hp to roster and to get players closer to 5* land because the majority of purchases are made at the beginning to get a jump on their roster, and once 5* land is in sight. In between that not much spending happens.
At least that was my and most of my alliances experiences. Buy slots early. Buy cp these days.
As for dev response, lack of details etc.
Are you really that surprised? This is the same group that dropped a brand new event that almost instantly failed, and they tpok the weekend, entire event, off. Its also the same guys that deny swaps, give cut and paste answers and rarely read your ticket.
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.
And mostly I was agreeing with cory (and actually also with you and daredevil) that it seems quite likely that demi's intent with this change is speed up the 4* transition for middle class players (most casuals won't see much benefit from this change because they won't play 40 matches per event).
But I honestly have little sympathy for demi trying to deal with the problems created by the fragmentation of the playerbase. I can dredge up posts from myself and other players in mid 2015 warning that demi's chosen method of switching to a 4* endgame and then introducing 5*s was inevitably going to fragment the playerbase and cause all sorts of secondary problems. I feel perfectly justified in being upset that Demi ignored the problem for years and may now be trying to solve the problem by punishing 5* transitioners like me.0 -
Foolish and stupid are literally synonyms. Not much secret about that.2
-
The rockett said:
Here is the rub, they don't want the vets anymore. They want new players and new money. That's what's more important. Well at least that's what it feels like.Vhailorx said:
It's not the tone I would use, but yeah: It is foolish to take demi/d3 at face value when the say that moving CP from progression to placement was done for the purpose of making CP more available.Spudgutter said:
Really? You agree that those of us in this thread who can understand the reasoning are either liars, stupid or both?Vhailorx said:
I agree with much of the content of this post, though the tone is a bit more conspiratorial than I think is useful.corytutor said:Ummm. Forum polls are dumb. We dont represent the playerbase. We don't even represent the majority of vets.
Anyone who thinks removong a reward accessible to all, and only makes it available to the top 2 % and says its for everyone's benefit is either a liar, stupid, or both.
This isnt to help anyone. Its a ploy to push midrange players up by flooding them with covers that cost hp to roster and to get players closer to 5* land because the majority of purchases are made at the beginning to get a jump on their roster, and once 5* land is in sight. In between that not much spending happens.
At least that was my and most of my alliances experiences. Buy slots early. Buy cp these days.
As for dev response, lack of details etc.
Are you really that surprised? This is the same group that dropped a brand new event that almost instantly failed, and they tpok the weekend, entire event, off. Its also the same guys that deny swaps, give cut and paste answers and rarely read your ticket.
But the last parahraph is wrong. You can't conflate demi (the people that designed boss rush so badly and then threw up their hands and said "eh, we'll get it next time" when the problems became super obvious) with d3 (the people who run these forums and administer CS tickets).
Also, ha! not on mobile at the moment and just saw your sig corytutor. Eyesnipe?!!! your posts make much more sense now.
And mostly I was agreeing with cory (and actually also with you and daredevil) that it seems quite likely that demi's intent with this change is speed up the 4* transition for middle class players (most casuals won't see much benefit from this change because they won't play 40 matches per event).
But I honestly have little sympathy for demi trying to deal with the problems created by the fragmentation of the playerbase. I can dredge up posts from myself and other players in mid 2015 warning that demi's chosen method of switching to a 4* endgame and then introducing 5*s was inevitably going to fragment the playerbase and cause all sorts of secondary problems. I feel perfectly justified in being upset that Demi ignored the problem for years and may now be trying to solve the problem by punishing 5* transitioners like me.
0 -
Their answer is too open ended, in my opinion. There are two ways to understand it, in my opinion, and I'm not sure which, or if either, is correct.Brigby said:
I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.ronin-san said:
So without concrete information as to the why, you walked into an already quarreling senate, donned your gas mask, pulled the pin, and said, "We'll have a chat on the morrow, lads".-snipped for clarity-
I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them.Orion said:Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing?
My kids get upset when I tell them to do something they don't like, and don't first get an explanation as to why.
Exactly what was the outcome you expected, when you dropped in to sprinkle in dissent, and dashed out?
This is freaking childish, Brigs. Shame on you, and shame on your manager, who advised you to do this. Incomplete information caused a craptonne of dissent. No matter what side of the fence you're on regarding this change, the way this was handled was tactless.
Enjoy your "How are we doing" Surveymonkey comments.
The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.
Optimist: With a little tweaking of SCL and slice, all 1,200 point players willing to adjust will still get 15 CP because there are actually more 15 CP placement slots than players that can get to 1,200.
Pessimist: We mean more players will achieve some sort of CP reward. There are more CP rewards than players who hit 1,200 points so they'll still get "something", although it may be far less than the 15 CP they currently get...even if they make adjustments to SCL and slice...and players not hitting 1,200 will also see "some" of the CP from placement too.
Optimist seems highly unlikely. Pessimist actually seems accurate. I think in that case more people would rather hear, "Too many people get 15 CP so we're cutting that number down. Hopefully you don't miss the cut. If you do, enjoy your lesser rewards. Also, we made sure to give a few new people "some" CP, so hopefully their voices will drown out yours".
Who knows, with such vague statements and no follow up...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.8K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.6K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 504 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 421 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 299 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements