This forum has outlived its usefulness

PenniesForEveryone
PenniesForEveryone Posts: 294 Mover and Shaker
in MPQ General Discussion
@Brigby,

First of all I want to thank you for the time and effort that you put in to this place, and say that the amount of communication that you give us is leaps and bounds better than your predecessor, and for that I am grateful.

I'm going to try and be as constructive as possible here without violating any forum rules, but looking back at several recent failures (vaulting/dilution, wins-based PvP, and now cover banking) it's become painfully obvious that this community is being managed in a manner that is detrimental to its own health.....

The TL;DR is that you are giving too much credence to a vocal minority that represents a very small percentage of the playerbase in large part because outspoken opposition is suppressed with heavy handed moderation and banning any dissent for violation of "forum rules".

Vaulting solved dilution, but the forum outrage brought us semi-vaulting, a decent compromise I suppose, but it happened as the vocal minority that was in opposition was starting to come around.  And now we are back to full on dilution - something that everyone agreed was a problem a year and a half ago, and now that we have that many more 4*s the problem has compounded.  Everyone suffers in large part due to poor feedback from members of this forum.

There was nothing wrong with wins-based PvP.  The vast, vast majority of players never hit 1200 in PvP, yet all the complaints were coming from low-end 5* rosters that typically hit 1200, but never get close to T10.  The rest of the playerbase suffered because you bowed to that very small, very vocal minority.  

Finally the recent change to the cover banking.  After 4 years we finally having something kind of close to colorless colors - the thing players have been asking for since day 1.  The ability to bank covers is a huge benefit to all - the more covers banked, the less waste there is.  Yet the vocal minority on the forum revolted (wander over to reddit if you want to see more positive reception to this feature).  Unable to focus on the positive they could only see the 5:1 rate as being unfair - forgetting about how gracious the ability to bank 5 covers was.  Yet again you listened to the vocal minority that always manages to fight against their own best interest.  And now we all suffer with a 3 cover bank.

Please reverse this change, and then just go ahead and shut down this forum.  We are doing more harm than good at this point.
«134

Comments

  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    It does feel like we hurt ourselves on this one, but I think we all agreed on a few things. Cover banking was good, cs swaps ending was bad, and 5:1 swaps was too high. So even those (like me) said to forget about the swaps and just bank 5, could have influenced the change.
    3:1 means it is much more likely that you actually fill the bank and either swap or cash in champ rewards, where a 5:1 with 5 bank was much more likely to have the bank never cleared. I'd find a 5/5/2 Okoye, headed to classics with 3 banked covers at 5:1 swap much more upsetting than a 5/5/3 Okoye headed to classics with 3 saved covers converted to 1.

  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    "That's how were going to win. Not fighting what we hate, but saving what we love." Rose Tico

    And we all love 5* covers amiright?
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    LavaManLee said:
    So.....why are other people's opinions less important than your own?  Maybe it is your opinion that is the minority and not others?
    Probably the best response lol.  I take the forum for what it is:  a place to get some information from the devs, and a place to argue with people that dont agree with me.  I also might find things that i didnt know i was supposed to be mad about, and things i didn't realize i could be happy about.  

    Dont blame the forum for poor decision making by the devs.  Look at all the changes after 1600+ days: most come at one step forward, two steps back. There are exceptions, but that seems to be the rule.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2018
    That's what balancing is all about. Tilt something to only one side and you upset the balance.   :D
  • Wumpushunter
    Wumpushunter Posts: 627 Critical Contributor
    vaulting destroyed my will to play the game and only stayed because they removed it. Nothing us worse than playing half c a game because they removed your ability to get required characters. So it's hit or miss. Vaulting had to go, win based was changed not because of the forums but because of whales. 
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,824 Chairperson of the Boards
    No offense, but I believe that metrics have a lot more to do with the changes that tend to occur than forum opinions.  I also think that the devs have plans that dovetail with some players' thoughts far more than they are being driven by them.

    And most of the time, the opinions are complaints, which is human nature.  Most people feel more compelled to state their opinion when they are unhappy.  If you agree you think "great!" and move on to other things.

    That said, obviously the overwhelming, almost 100% consensus on saved 5* covers was that 5 were too many as the bar for trading in.  So they made a rapid change.  But that opinion was shared in numerous places and this is, after all, a brand new system that they are implementing, so being quick on their feet to respond to opinion is actually a good thing.
  • Rockwell75
    Rockwell75 Posts: 268 Mover and Shaker
    edited June 2018

    There was nothing wrong with wins-based PvP. 
    In principle no but the way it was implemented-- namely the number of wins/time needed to get the top end rewards-- was imho much less preferable to the system currently in place.
  • dragonreader
    dragonreader Posts: 89 Match Maker
    edited June 2018
    Daredevil217 said:
    To be clear, I don't think ONE person advocated for a smaller bank, just a better exchange rate.  When you've been around long enough you know that they can't give us something without taking even more away, but there are people who are legitimately shocked at the bank being shrunk because that is not what they asked for... just a smaller exchange rate.  Now, again I feel this is on the developers.  
    To be fair to the developers, the original bank was set at the exchange rate.  It is reasonable to assume that they are thinking of this as you save up until you can exchange and not as a way to hoard covers.  If that is the case the reduction in the bank to match the new exchange rate isn't surprising.  Plus I did not see many people saying "leave the bank at 5 and lower exchange rate" prior to the change, just "lower the exchange rate."  In fact I saw lots of comments that it was unlikely people could save 5 covers in a reasonable amount of time.  So again when I saw this change (before reading the comments) I wasn't shocked and honestly thought it was what people wanted (though obviously they'd prefer a 1 to 1 exchange rate) and I am sure the developers thought they were offering a fair compromise. 

    Now having said that, I do understand the negative feelings.  People in th 5 star tier (which is not me) have lost the 1 to 1 exchange for latest legends and now feel they are losing 2 covers if they have to exchange at 3.  The developers have said they never intended the 1 to 1 to be permanent but one thing I have learned is once you give a perk or benefit, taking it away feels like a gut punch to those who received it.  So as I say I completely understand the angst.  But for me the issue doesn't really seem to be the bank but the loss of 1 to 1.  Now giving a higher bank (say 5) may compensate for the loss of 1 to 1.  So maybe the compromise here would be:

    Latest Legends --> Bank = 5, Exchange Rate = 3 to 1.
    Classic Legends --> Bank = 3, Exchange Rate = 3 to 1 (since nobody lost anything on classics since if I understand correctly you couldn't exchange those before).

    At any rate, I do think the developers were trying to be fair when they made the change to the bank/exchange rate and should get credit for that.  While I don't always agree with the changes, I do think they are trying to be fair and do what is best for the game.  And I appreciate that.  I've said before on this forums, the task of making everyone happy is impossible since we are all at different points in the game and all have different goals and playing styles.

    Finally, as to the original posts message.  No, there is no reason to close the forums.  I will admit I am often disheartened by the negativity that comes with every change, but I view it as people being passionate about the game we all love.  I do think those of us who appreciate the developers efforts need to let them know.  And if we don't agree with everything they try, that is fine.  We can let them know if a constructive manner.   


  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,967 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2018
    - While I assumed that they would lower the bank by lowering the exchange rate, I know not everyone did. Example:
    thedarkphoenix said:
    Man I thought the 3:1 trade was going to be with the 5 bank...

    it literally never crossed my mind that they would reduce the bank to 3


    :neutral:

    I just assume that if they give us something 3:1, they will take something (5 cover storage) that’s how it usually goes (though not always as evidenced by the hybrid PvP). 

    - As for for the developers not intending people to use it as storage, it’s literally called “New feature- saved covers”

    • Covers that are saved, before a character is Championed, are automatically converted into Champion levels once the character is Championed. This way, no covers are lost if you happen to find that last 13th cover while working to save five covers.

    This was absolutely one of the ways we were intended to use the feature and it was taken from us after three days. Yes we got something back but the net result is more waste. 

    - As for your proposed solution what happens when a Latest character with 4 in the bank rotates to clsssics? Does the bank shrink? Do they lose the extra cover? Does it automatically convert? Seems like a problem.

    - As for your faith in them trying to do the right thing, I’m holding out hope they will land on a 5 bank/3 exchange for fives. Apparently they have and are discussing Hardonics data so that’s a good start!
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    I must generally disagree with the OP.  Assuming that your opinion speaks for all and should be followed is arrogant.  Many times D3 ignores the complaints on this forum because we are the minority, but I also believe that for every one person that speaks up there are 10 more people who don't speak up even though they think the same thing.  It would also be helpful if everyone did not expect D3 to be perfect.  They're figuring this out as they go along, which is the same thing you would do.  It's not an easy problem to solve: keep the game interesting by introducing new features and characters but don't bog down the game with it.  You can't have players progress too fast or too slow.  Plus, they're trying to accommodate players at all levels.  Any game that keeps players engaged for years is doing a good job overall.
  • PenniesForEveryone
    PenniesForEveryone Posts: 294 Mover and Shaker
    edited June 2018
    TPF Alexis said:
    Also, I just want to say that the OP really doesn't make a good argument to support the title. Even if everything in that first post is taken as fact, there's so much more to these forums than just player feedback to Demiurge. We get details of new characters here, previews of upcoming events (if not always in time, but mostly), and, perhaps most importantly, they're a fantastic resource for newer players to come get advice about how to progress in the game. There's still plenty of usefulness here in general, even if perhaps not for the OP's specific purposes.
    A forum is a place for open discussion where ideas can be exchanged - that isn't what we have here.  Here we have a toxic community that actively works against the best interest of the playerbase as a whole with any pointed discourse being suppressed for fear of hurting the ***other's feelings***.

    The rest of the info that is available is helpful for sure, but it's all announcements and info that typically exists in game, and would usually be better off without the comments from the peanut gallery.  There are other more healthy alternatives for that info than this forum.

    ***Removed inappropriate content - Ducky
  • dragonreader
    dragonreader Posts: 89 Match Maker
    edited June 2018
    Daredevil217 said:

    - As for for the developers not intending people to use it as storage, it’s literally called “New feature- saved covers”

    • Covers that are saved, before a character is Championed, are automatically converted into Champion levels once the character is Championed. This way, no covers are lost if you happen to find that last 13th cover while working to save five covers.

    This was absolutely one of the ways we were intended to use the feature and it was taken from us after three days. Yes we got something back but the net result is more waste. 

    - As for your proposed solution what happens when a Latest character with 4 in the bank rotates to clsssics? Does the bank shrink? Do they lose the extra cover? Does it automatically convert? Seems like a problem.

    - As for your faith in them trying to do the right thing, I’m holding out hope they will land on a 5 bank/3 exchange for fives. Apparently they have and are discussing Hardonics data so that’s a good start!
    What I meant by not intending for storage was that I assume they intended for people to exchange when they reach the 3 (or 5 for 2-4star) covers in the bank (or at least assumed they would exchange when you get your 3rd or 4th cover).  The verbage you quoted is just saying you won't lose banked covers if you get that 13th before reaching the exchange.  Again if there had never been the 1 to 1 swap, this wouldn't be an issue.  Everyone would be thinking this is great, instead of losing 3 covers I get to exchange them (or perhaps get champion levels if I get my 13th before my 3rd).  At lower tiers this is no problem becuase we would have lost those covers anyway.  But that's not the case at the 5star level.   

    Anyway, I hadn't thought of the issue of latest going into classics.  So you are right my idea wouldn't work unless they let you keep the other covers but not accrue anymore (for example, if you had 4 in the bank you keep them but can't add a 5th), but that might be too hard to code so perhaps 5/3 for all 5stars is the best they could do if they choose.
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    Eh, so long as the forum has the "Tips & Guides", "Events & Tournaments" and "Character Discussion" sections, it will always have some use.   Even with some of the 1*-3* guides being grossly out of date, they still can get a player over those first hurdles.
  • Steellatch
    Steellatch Posts: 86 Match Maker
    Oh look a win based pvp is back....

Categories