Q&A with Demiurge_Will Answers from Demiurge_Will begin on p.2

Noobulator

Demiurge_Will said:

Colognoisseur said:

The 5* PvP game is all bout those that have Gambit and those that do not. Based on forum posts it seems like it is a similar thing in the 4* tier except you need three characters; Medusa, Grocket, and Gamora.

Is this again a problem of only a few players that it seems a problem only to those at the top of the tiers?

When we look at win rates of different 4-star characters, we see more diversity at the 4-star level than we do at 5-star, and there are some other 4-stars that are competitive in win rate with the three you name. Those newer characters are showing up more often as the time since their release increases and more players are getting them leveled up all the way.

That said, the variety in good strategies available is something that can pretty much always be healthier. The basic tradeoff we face there is between making lots of changes to characters and having a richer metagame, and being cautious and slow about changes to characters and sacrificing some variety. We've been on the cautious side of that spectrum lately because we think that makes the average player happier, but we could be wrong about that tradeoff.

5* meta in pvp has always lacked diversity. Not a bad thing per se, but as new 5* roll out people adapt to using whoever fastest two 5* are. It seems impossible to balance all 5* such that many teams are used. 

aesthetocyst

bluewolf said:

aesthetocyst said:

Anyone ask about Gambit yet? As in, is the plan to adjust him (for real this time), or keep cranking up the power creep even more?

Brigby addressed it in the comments for the Power Gem season updates thread. It’s on the agenda at some point to adjust him.

 Thanks, had not noticed the brief mention there. I did see the whole thread being consumed by the purpleflinger though ...

Demiurge_Will said:

... often folks primarily care about how well they convert AP to damage. 

So nice to see someone on the other side of the fence express accurate insight into player behavior, priorities, motivations. It's reassuring.

JHawkInc

I have a question.

What exactly goes on with the information trickle of new character releases? Generally, we have to wait for a Marvel.com article to go live over there, then it gets posted here with character info, then threads here get updated accordingly (like the Sneak Peek thread Brigby maintains will update an event to show which character covers it gives once that new character has been announced). It used to be that this all happened midday on Tuesday, so we were well ready to go when the release event started on Thursday.

But sometimes, like today, like right now, the new character is viewable in-game, because the preview for the next event has gone live, but there's no information about this new character on the forums, because the forums are waiting for Marvel.com to publish their article.

The game moves like clockwork, and has for years, so it's frustrating when the flow of information changes (and stutters and sometimes stops) when new characters come out because it appears the release articles don't move like clockwork (despite having been around for just as many years).

Heartbreaksoup

Thank you very much for answering questions, Will.  It is very interesting.

Addaran

Just want to echo that it's amazing to get lots of answers and informations like that.


Any information on futur change to the way point-based PVP or the MMR work would be nice. (Are the devs happy with the way things are or do they want to change stuff?)

Eichen

We've been on the cautious side of that spectrum lately because we think that makes the average player happier, but we could be wrong about that tradeoff.

Players don't like when characters are nerfed to obscurity. Characters like W-XF  and OML both went from extremely overpowered to bottom tier. Many players spent lots of money on those 2 only to see them become almost unusable. That giant nerf that takes a character from overpowered to underpowered is what the player base doesn't like.  As long as an overpowered character is still top tier after a nerf I think everyone will be happy. 

Whoolly

As always our doors (mics ? ) are always open for the demiurge and d3 crews. I loved doing the live show with questions over discord, and would love to do it again. Thanks to all the listeners who made the last one great.

ursopro

are you gonna address the iso drought that happens every time a boss event comes around usually followed by 2days subs events?

aesthetocyst

JHawkInc said:

I have a question.

What exactly goes on with the information trickle of new character releases? Generally, we have to wait for a Marvel.com article to go live over there, then it gets posted here with character info, then threads here get updated accordingly (like the Sneak Peek thread Brigby maintains will update an event to show which character covers it gives once that new character has been announced). It used to be that this all happened midday on Tuesday, so we were well ready to go when the release event started on Thursday.

But sometimes, like today, like right now, the new character is viewable in-game, because the preview for the next event has gone live, but there's no information about this new character on the forums, because the forums are waiting for Marvel.com to publish their article.

The game moves like clockwork, and has for years, so it's frustrating when the flow of information changes (and stutters and sometimes stops) when new characters come out because it appears the release articles don't move like clockwork (despite having been around for just as many years).

When too many humans are involved in an interdependent ways, there will occasionally be dropped balls.

This is just another dropped ball.

Or, it could be ... A Change. Change happens.

But my money is on 'oops.' The only missing piece was "Piecing Together". No JJ PT article. Meh. Brigby did post a thread here hours before the preview went live in the game.

As for being surprised....it's a thursday, a new release is due, and a new season of a certain series drops the same day. Maybe they went for a not-very-surprisy ingame surprise, but were undone by their own system (the event preview)

fight4thedream

This may be a bit of a loaded question so consider it more as food for thought rather than as a question that needs immediate answering:

Has the development team considered moving away from the current direct-damage-to-win paradigm that currently underpins the vast majority of game play to a conditions-based win system?

While there are exceptions, most notably the Kaecilius and Apocalypse boss fights, I believe there are a lot of potential fun game experiences that could be brought to the fore if the game shifted towards a conditions-based win system.

I think such a shift would help address some common complaints and requests, namely:

* Lack of game mode diversity
* Lack of opportunities to use non-top tier characters
* More puzzle-like events or game modes
* More casual game modes

Additionally, such a shift could potentially transform the valuation of characters as it would add another facet for consideration.

Obviously, the major issue of such a shift is that it would not be new user friendly as they would be limited by the depth of their rosters. But a potential work around to that issue would be to only make such events accessible and visible after a player has reached a certain Shield Rank, let's say SR 75 (I am just throwing an arbitrary number. I have no idea what a SR 75 roster looks like)

So after said player reaches SR 75, they get a pop-up congratulating them and informing them they have now been granted clearance to the Puzzle Tab, where they can access these condition-based win events. Since newer players won't see this tab, they won't be aware they are missing out on anything and for the more pro-active ones that read the forums and such, they will be encouraged to rank up faster to access these events.

Also, it would allow those burned out from the more competitive aspects of the game a place to challenge themselves at their own pace which in turn would hopefully help with player retention. 

Oh boy, went off on a tangent there but I think now you might understand why I said my question was a loaded one. lol

Anywhoo, as always thanks for all your hard work and looking forward to what the dev team has in store for us with Infinity War right around the corner.

Heartbreaksoup

Oh, I love love LOVE that suggestion fight4thedream !  That could be so much fun mixing up brawls with different sorts of goals.  Maybe the villain needs to be defeated by matching 100 blue, so you'd want 2-star Magneto to help you make them, that sort of thing.

aesthetocyst

fight4thedream said:

Has the development team considered moving away from the current direct-damage-to-win paradigm that currently underpins the vast majority of game play to a conditions-based win system?

Yes....please give me the PVE pinball.

I would imagine they could develop an in house engine to quickly build scenarios. Then endlessly iterate 'new' (remixed) content without significant ongoing development, only maintenance.

PenniesForEveryone

Noobulator said:

Demiurge_Will said:

Colognoisseur said:

The 5* PvP game is all bout those that have Gambit and those that do not. Based on forum posts it seems like it is a similar thing in the 4* tier except you need three characters; Medusa, Grocket, and Gamora.

Is this again a problem of only a few players that it seems a problem only to those at the top of the tiers?

When we look at win rates of different 4-star characters, we see more diversity at the 4-star level than we do at 5-star, and there are some other 4-stars that are competitive in win rate with the three you name. Those newer characters are showing up more often as the time since their release increases and more players are getting them leveled up all the way.

That said, the variety in good strategies available is something that can pretty much always be healthier. The basic tradeoff we face there is between making lots of changes to characters and having a richer metagame, and being cautious and slow about changes to characters and sacrificing some variety. We've been on the cautious side of that spectrum lately because we think that makes the average player happier, but we could be wrong about that tradeoff.

5* meta in pvp has always lacked diversity. Not a bad thing per se, but as new 5* roll out people adapt to using whoever fastest two 5* are. It seems impossible to balance all 5* such that many teams are used. 

Weekly 5* boosts!

wymtime

PenniesForEveryone said:

Noobulator said:

Demiurge_Will said:

Colognoisseur said:

The 5* PvP game is all bout those that have Gambit and those that do not. Based on forum posts it seems like it is a similar thing in the 4* tier except you need three characters; Medusa, Grocket, and Gamora.

Is this again a problem of only a few players that it seems a problem only to those at the top of the tiers?

When we look at win rates of different 4-star characters, we see more diversity at the 4-star level than we do at 5-star, and there are some other 4-stars that are competitive in win rate with the three you name. Those newer characters are showing up more often as the time since their release increases and more players are getting them leveled up all the way.

That said, the variety in good strategies available is something that can pretty much always be healthier. The basic tradeoff we face there is between making lots of changes to characters and having a richer metagame, and being cautious and slow about changes to characters and sacrificing some variety. We've been on the cautious side of that spectrum lately because we think that makes the average player happier, but we could be wrong about that tradeoff.

5* meta in pvp has always lacked diversity. Not a bad thing per se, but as new 5* roll out people adapt to using whoever fastest two 5* are. It seems impossible to balance all 5* such that many teams are used. 

Weekly 5* boosts!

Boosting 5* will only help if they really boost 5*.  Look at offseason events where the boost 5* for the event.  Thanos is boosted and is a strong 5* but if you don’t have Thanos you are more than ok.  If you put a new release boost on 5* it would break PVP because you would need the boosted 5* to beat the boosted 5*.  Finding the right balance of boost would be really important for 5* to be boosted weekly.  I think balancing out the 5* tier with buffs and making it easier to cover older 5* is more important right now than than weekly boosted 5*.

aesthetocyst

wymtime said:

PenniesForEveryone said:

Weekly 5* boosts!

Boosting 5* will only help if they really boost 5*.  Look at offseason events where the boost 5* for the event.  Thanos is boosted and is a strong 5* but if you don’t have Thanos you are more than ok.  If you put a new release boost on 5* it would break PVP because you would need the boosted 5* to beat the boosted 5*.  Finding the right balance of boost would be really important for 5* to be boosted weekly.  I think balancing out the 5* tier with buffs and making it easier to cover older 5* is more important right now than than weekly boosted 5*.

Got to be careful tho. The current 3% level boost is weak, but the +100 levels they used to have in PvP was WAY to much on the top end. Got to be a happy medium.

Due to the steep scaling 5*s are on, I'd (again) suggesting a decaying buff (lower level chars would be buffed more levels (255s to 360?) than higher-level characters (550s buff to 575?))

Demiurge_Will

ZeroKarma said:

Are there any plans in the pipeline to address the tremendous gap that now exists between the veteran player and the new folks?

When I started, there was one 4* character and the game revolved around 2's and 3's. That is obviously different now, where 5* characters are a must for progression in PvP, and the path to a pair of champed 5*'s is quite long for people not spending ungodly amounts of money.

Is there a concern that existing event structures are no longer able to support both of these groups because of how wide this divide is, and if so what are the chances that PvP at the very least will split in the future? My idea would be parallel events that limit the rosters like the Heroics used to, so high level PvP is 4* featured and no more 3*. The 2nd tier would be no 5* at all.

There are three big pieces to this puzzle that we talk about:

1) Making sure that people can have fun even when they don't have everything that veterans have.
2) Making game systems (especially event-related ones) function well in the context of an increasing power gap.
3) Determining how possible it is for new players to narrow the gap and play alongside veterans.

The different Shield Clearance Levels for events is the big thing we added to try to address #1 and #2 - now it's possible for newer players to get something out of trying to place highly in events, since they're not competing in placement against players who have been playing four years longer.

Other work we do related to #1: The newer 3-stars we released along with 5-stars have been to try to make the mid-game richer. And when we're planning new features, we try to make most of them relevant to a wide range of players.

The third one is a balancing act. If older players are still playing just as hard as the newer players, it wouldn't feel right if they end up in the same place. Veterans' investment in the game ought to give them an advantage. But it's also important that, if you outplay someone who started the game earlier than you consistently over time, eventually you'll come out on top. This happens less frequently as the game ages, and it does take a while to get there even if you're playing hard, but there are players in the top echelons of the game that have spent many fewer months getting there than other folks.

Demiurge_Will

Eichen said:

We've been on the cautious side of that spectrum lately because we think that makes the average player happier, but we could be wrong about that tradeoff.

Players don't like when characters are nerfed to obscurity. Characters like W-XF  and OML both went from extremely overpowered to bottom tier. Many players spent lots of money on those 2 only to see them become almost unusable. That giant nerf that takes a character from overpowered to underpowered is what the player base doesn't like.  As long as an overpowered character is still top tier after a nerf I think everyone will be happy. 

Making people happy is tricky! (But also my job, and I love the challenge.)

When you measure win rate, OML is still in 4th place among 5-stars. (This stat puts all builds in one bucket, so the fact that more people have an OML with more covers and levels affects this - he's still in pretty good shape but not as impressive when you compare like to like.) But going from the very top to... anywhere that's not the top can definitely feel like going to bottom tier by comparison.

I think that the rebalance that would get the best possible reception would be one that takes a character from being much better than every other character, to still the best character in the game, but with a smaller lead over other characters. Unfortunately, that's both a really narrow balance target to hit (and there's always some uncertainty to a balance change), and it won't totally fix the biggest problem that a single best character causes, the reduction to strategic depth. If the right strategy is to always pick the most powerful character, strategy won't change if everyone agrees they're less powerful, but still better than everyone else - that's the pain of a nerf without the benefits. So in order to shake up strategies, at least some people have to think the character is no longer the best.

(Trying to narrow the gap between the strongest character and the rest of the pack while keeping the strongest character the strongest is what we attempted to do with the recent Gambit rebalance, and that didn't successfully shake up strategy.)

Sm0keyJ0e

Demiurge_Will said:

(Trying to narrow the gap between the strongest character and the rest of the pack while keeping the strongest character the strongest is what we attempted to do with the recent Gambit rebalance, and that didn't successfully shake up strategy.)

Gambit really has two powers that are rather game breaking: his purple overwriting pretty much everything, rendering anyone that makes special tiles virtually powerless, and his -2 ap destruction that occurs every turn. While you could theoretically move around the first one with some finesse (albeit frustrating and difficult), there is no way around the second component.

If his purple didn't overwrite fortified tiles (or CD tiles in general) and/or his passive black had some condition for it to start destroying ap, I think he remains the top toon in the game but other options are now available. (These are just examples of minor tweaks.)

Colognoisseur

@Demiurge_Will

I feel like its my birthday Christmas and Fourth of July all at once.

These answers you have given over the last few days, Will, have been the best communication that has ever come from the Demiurge team.

The insight that has been shared allows me to be much more understanding of the issues you are facing as a developer.

It also allows me to make more of an effort to understand when a change is not necessarily to my personal benefit.

I can only say Thank You.

IceHockey333

@Colognoisseur How about a total revamp on the title of the thread?