Speed and New Releases

123578

Comments

  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    PiMacleod said:

    The idea I proposed above was a way to squeeze more points per fight.  More points = less fights needed to hit max progression.  You could opt to forget the challenges, just run your meta team,  get max progression that way. 
    To be fair, I suggested something similar earlier, in less detail but for the same goal.

    Spudgutter said:
    I agree with dormammu from earlier in the thread, you are wading into a weird territory where they have to add all sorts of new code, and it just isnt feasible.

    This is a simple fix.  Take the amounts earned for the first three clears off all nodes, across the whole event.  Add them together.  That is now max progression.  Super simple.  You can now play less the entire event.  If you miss a day due to irl stuff, it is easier to still get the max.  If you are missing an essential, it is easier to get the max. 

    There are ways to make it work, I'm sure. I was playing around with the idea that it be based on characters either dealing damage or downing enemies. That way they actually have to be used, and not just background while Gritty takes care of everything. It could be more like a daily objective than a score multiplier. If you used 20 characters +6,000 points or whatever. Rewards roster diversity without making it a requirement.
    I agree with bbigler, they can't make the game too easy. That's kinda the problem, it is too easy already, its just time consuming. Of course if it were tougher than that would just put more emphasis on the faster/better characters.
  • PiMacleod
    PiMacleod Posts: 1,786 Chairperson of the Boards
    bbigler said:
    The speed game is for competitive players. Casual players can be happy by ignoring placement rewards and just playing how they like. But the enticing extra rewards and seeing other people's progress may turn a casual player into a competitive one. Plus, casual players already chase after the fastest teams/characters anyway because they're the best. 

    Something I've said long ago is that the top rewards are designed to be hard. So hard that it pushes people to their limit and only the most dedicated, addicted, smartest or big spenders get those rewards. If all rewards were easy to get, then everyone would be at the same level and there's no incentive to try harder or spend. By making rewards have a spectrum of difficulty, it creates a spectrum of roster strengths because everyone will not put in the same amount of effort or money.  So, people would do well to accept the rewards their level of effort will give them and not complain that some rewards are too hard.  
    While I agree with your post entirely,  I also dont see why extra reasons/incentives to use other characters couldn't be implemented.  The difficulty can be the same.  The points per node can be the same.  Just give people what a bunch of people have asked for... reasons to use 80% of the roster that just sits there.  It doesnt mean theres a nerf on the meta.  It just means that you can use your meta team, OR you can use these other options, and score extra points for doing so.  It shakes up the leaderboards, makes less-powerful/speedy options something to consider, and doesnt buff/nerf anyone.  You still keep PvP the same way...  the meta never changes.  The challenges change per event.

    Spudgutter said:

    I agree with dormammu from earlier in the thread, you are wading into a weird territory where they have to add all sorts of new code, and it just isnt feasible.

    This is a simple fix.  Take the amounts earned for the first three clears off all nodes, across the whole event.  Add them together.  That is now max progression.  Super simple.  You can now play less the entire event.  If you miss a day due to irl stuff, it is easier to still get the max.  If you are missing an essential, it is easier to get the max. 
    New code?  That's what ALL changes we ask for will require.  New code is no excuse to not ask for change.  If something is not possible due to 'new code', let the dev's tell us 'No'.  If anyone is telling us No on their behalf, then it's just defeating the point of ever asking for anything to change.

    As for how difficult it would be to implement,  that's up to the devs.   What I suggested seems pretty simple.  A point multiplier.  The game sees you used Namor and completed the fight,  so it runs the math, and adds on 1.3x the value to the point total.  Or whatever the multiplier would be.  It's like a Boosted List, but instead of boosting power levels, it boosts the point outcomes based on certain criteria.  As far as UI, just place it on the map in a corner, with bullet points, like a reminder list in the foreground, telling the players what challenges/multipliers exist.

    Also, as far as the Heroic comparison,  I dont see it.  The Heroics REQUIRED a character to use.  This isnt a requirement, but rather a bonus.   Remember, you'd still be using the same progression and point structure.  Full progression can still be earned using every tried and true method.  This presents an extra option.  Sure, the competitive people will want to min/max it to stay COMPETITIVE... but if they are truly competitive, then the audience we are talking about is the same people that already have everyone rostered.  (Of course, in my head/example, I'd assume they would change the 'challenges' list to match the SCL entered... cant have a SCL 4 containing a 4* character challenge).

    And finally, let's be real... they want us to play their game a bunch.  The newly formed Support circuit is a testimony to that.  More clears needed and more playing.  They want us playing more because it leads to a higher percentage of players that might open their wallets in order to obtain the resources needed to complete that next level.  So they arent gonna reduce the amount of 'clears'.  But to say that someone would need character 'X' in order to get that point boost? And then they run that character in H4H along with the event?  Yeah... that's more along their lines.
  • PiMacleod
    PiMacleod Posts: 1,786 Chairperson of the Boards
    Straycat said:
    PiMacleod said:

    The idea I proposed above was a way to squeeze more points per fight.  More points = less fights needed to hit max progression.  You could opt to forget the challenges, just run your meta team,  get max progression that way. 
    To be fair, I suggested something similar earlier, in less detail but for the same goal. 
    Yes, I know.  I liked your idea too.  I just like to go in detail because the internet is a place where people will pick you apart for the smallest detail missed.  ;)
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    PiMacleod said:
    New code?  That's what ALL changes we ask for will require.  New code is no excuse to not ask for change.  If something is not possible due to 'new code', let the dev's tell us 'No'.  If anyone is telling us No on their behalf, then it's just defeating the point of ever asking for anything to change.

    As for how difficult it would be to implement,  that's up to the devs.   What I suggested seems pretty simple.  A point multiplier.  The game sees you used Namor and completed the fight,  so it runs the math, and adds on 1.3x the value to the point total.  Or whatever the multiplier would be.  It's like a Boosted List, but instead of boosting power levels, it boosts the point outcomes based on certain criteria.  As far as UI, just place it on the map in a corner, with bullet points, like a reminder list in the foreground, telling the players what challenges/multipliers exist.

    And finally, let's be real... they want us to play their game a bunch.  The newly formed Support circuit is a testimony to that.  More clears needed and more playing.  They want us playing more because it leads to a higher percentage of players that might open their wallets in order to obtain the resources needed to complete that next level.  So they arent gonna reduce the amount of 'clears'.  But to say that someone would need character 'X' in order to get that point boost? And then they run that character in H4H along with the event?  Yeah... that's more along their lines.
    Not my idea.  You literally just change the numbers.  No new code needed. 

    Secondly, from my limited knowledge of coding for mobile apps, and info gleaned from posts here and on discord, we are talking 5 years of legacy coding that adding any new thing, especially something that doesn't already exist, is a giant wrinkle.  Just look at the support pve.  It is basically a reskinned pve, with unstunnable boss nodes.  They just added two preexisting things together.  You are literally asking for something that does not exist at all, and just saying it is easy as if saying that makes it true.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree because i dont see them implementing either idea
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    That argument may have worked two or three years ago, but with literally 100 unique 4* and 5* (counting the limited as well), there are just too many characters to stay in this mindset.  

    Just quick and dirty back of the napkin math, taking out the limited and 5*, you have 76 different 4* that require 13 different covers to champ.  Assuming zero cover waste, that is 988 different covers.

    Cl9 will get you about 100+ cp and 2-4 4* covers from progression.  Lets say you do well, get 120 per week from playing and 4* covers from progression, and pull from classic tokens.  That equals 10 covers a week.  Almost 2 years just to champ all of them.  Just to champ them.  Not including all the additional 4* that get added during those 99 weeks, or the fact we are talking cl9 or that 140+ pulls will be 5*.  Scale it back to cl7 or 8 and it is even worse.

    I'm sorry, this game asks for a lot of play time in order to get rewards, i don't think it is out of bounds to ask for the amount time to be reduced.  They want to make extra money?  Fine, listen to the costume threads frm the number of people that will pay .99-4.99 for a costume.  Monetize the little stuff, for small amounts, and watch the money roll in.
    Competitive players can earn more than 120 CP and 10 x 4* covers per week. I'm having no difficulty covering 4*s; and I can champ 1 per week. But this goal of champing all 4*s is not for a casual player. 

    Like I said, the rewards are meant to push you to your limit so that you get to a point where you say it's not worth the extra effort.  So make your decision, but don't blame the game. I agree that it's a ton of time, but I've decided to spend that time until I quit. If it's too much time for you, then accept that those extra rewards are unobtainable. You're acting like it's all or nothing. There are degrees of time commitment and corresponding degrees of rewards. So even though I don't like how much time it takes to be competitive, I understand that it's necessary to push people to their limit in order to "separate" players. This is also true of many things in real life.  
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    bbigler said:
    Spudgutter said:
    That argument may have worked two or three years ago, but with literally 100 unique 4* and 5* (counting the limited as well), there are just too many characters to stay in this mindset.  

    Just quick and dirty back of the napkin math, taking out the limited and 5*, you have 76 different 4* that require 13 different covers to champ.  Assuming zero cover waste, that is 988 different covers.

    Cl9 will get you about 100+ cp and 2-4 4* covers from progression.  Lets say you do well, get 120 per week from playing and 4* covers from progression, and pull from classic tokens.  That equals 10 covers a week.  Almost 2 years just to champ all of them.  Just to champ them.  Not including all the additional 4* that get added during those 99 weeks, or the fact we are talking cl9 or that 140+ pulls will be 5*.  Scale it back to cl7 or 8 and it is even worse.

    I'm sorry, this game asks for a lot of play time in order to get rewards, i don't think it is out of bounds to ask for the amount time to be reduced.  They want to make extra money?  Fine, listen to the costume threads frm the number of people that will pay .99-4.99 for a costume.  Monetize the little stuff, for small amounts, and watch the money roll in.
    Competitive players can earn more than 120 CP and 10 x 4* covers per week. I'm having no difficulty covering 4*s; and I can champ 1 per week. But this goal of champing all 4*s is not for a casual player. 

    Like I said, the rewards are meant to push you to your limit so that you get to a point where you say it's not worth the extra effort.  So make your decision, but don't blame the game. I agree that it's a ton of time, but I've decided to spend that time until I quit. If it's too much time for you, then accept that those extra rewards are unobtainable. You're acting like it's all or nothing. There are degrees of time commitment and corresponding degrees of rewards. So even though I don't like how much time it takes to be competitive, I understand that it's necessary to push people to their limit in order to "separate" players. This is also true of many things in real life.  

    I'm not sure they want to go the route someone took, where they played a bunch, came back, spent a bunch of money with the whole intention of getting to a point and quitting again.  No offense, but you are probably more of an exception than a rule, so your personal experience should probably not be the one they try to emulate.  Mainly, because they have no guarantee that the person that did quit, comes back, and even if they do, then drop several hundred dollars.  My original post was

    Spudgutter said:
    Straycat said:
    Not much they can do about it now, we are all stuck clearing 70+ nodes per day or whatever. 
    I wish we didnt just accept this.  What is so wrong with asking them to scale it back to one less clear per node?  If they are adding more events, like supports, that run concurrent with other events, why not ask they give us a break?

    And your response is along the lines of "it's been that way, so that way works because of 'X' reason, so we should just accept it."

    My point, as someone who has played for almost 1900 days, is that they are constantly improving the rewards.  We get more covers, iso, cp, riso, rewards, etc. all the time.  That is great.  It is so gradual, you dont even notice it, but comparing year to year is like comparing old phones.  Mpq rewards in 2019 are terrific, if you look at the investment vs rewards from 2016. 

    I'm saying, in my uninformed opinion, that they would do better to reduce the amount of effort needed.  I think they would benefit.  More rewards for more people means more roster spots required.  More rewards means better competition in pvp, so more shields required. And so on.

    You *cannot* counter it with fact, just your own uninformed opinion or theory, because they have never reduced the rewards.  We both don't know the outcome.  I argue we give it a try, and you argue we don't.  Call me biased, but i think they should listen to the veterans who haven't quit, especially those that have not already made it clear they are quitting again in the future.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,822 Chairperson of the Boards
    One thing that isn't being considered in the discussion of number of clears is difficulty changes.

    The developers set it up so that you have 4 times that difficulty increases.  Clears 1-4 are currently not the maximum difficulty; clear 5 is.  So in a way, making the final clear at the highest difficulty be required for full progression has some logic.

    For a lot of players, almost all clears are completely trivial and the only X factor is how many healthpacks you might use around Thanos or how long you needed to hit the 5E node.

    For more beginning/developing players, the difficulty increases can represent actual issues in clearing nodes and getting full progression can feel like an accomplishment.

    I am not arguing that the number of clears isn't large, but it can be done pretty quickly at a certain point if you choose.  I am asking if the difficulty gradation system is set up the way it is intentionally and if reducing clears would have a negative impact on the gradual increases (making a sharper curve) and be less friendly to newer players.

    I understand fully that many people here (most?) are full vets and have only considered the time needed for clears since the 4X and 5X progression was introduced as "I need to do this", but for some players, it's still a question of "can I do this?"

    ____

    Slightly related:  What can players do to influence developers in terms of the number of clears?  If we all agreed, "too much"....how many would willingly underclear to make that point?  Competition remains tight at the top with 7X being the order of the day.  I guess you can always stop playing early but it would take a lot of people doing that to effect any changes.
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2019
    @Spudgutter @Vhailorx
    I do consider myself a veteran of the game because I've played since the beginning, but I've quit several times because of the time commitment. So I do understand that the game "asks too much". My problem is that progressing at my desired rate takes more time than I can sustain. If I was happier with a slower rate of progression with a corresponding smaller time commitment, then I could sustain gameplay. So, I believe it's possible for someone to play less than max progression, still make progress and still be happy with that progress. That's why I don't see a problem with the time demands of the game. You can choose how much you play. No one is forcing you to do 5 or 7 clears, only yourself because you want faster progression. But you have to accept that your progression speed and time commitment are directly related. What you want is to get the same rewards for less time and you think that would be fair. But that's not fair to people who put in more time than you, it would take away their reward for working harder.

    The good news is that the stronger your roster becomes, the less time it should take to get the same rewards. This has been true for me. 

    Also, IMO, I don't think reducing the time to get the same rewards will increase revenue due to roster slots and shields. Those HP demands are already there and quite high.  I'm not saying the game is perfect, but players have always had the choice of how much they wanted to play with a corresponding rate of progress. If that ratio of time to progress is too large for you, then find another game that's easier. If more players are quitting the game because of the time commitment instead of other reasons, like getting bored, then you have a solid argument against the devs. 
  • Yepyep
    Yepyep Posts: 954 Critical Contributor
    Spudgutter said:
    PiMacleod said:

    So, yes -- I say introduce "point multipliers per Story event".  Example "clear a match with Namor = points for that match are 1.3X".  "Clear a fight using only boosted characters = points for that match are 1.2X".  Etc.  Etc.  And then *gasp* let the players stack them!
    I used Namor and the other two were boosted!  I got both multipliers!

    I agree with dormammu from earlier in the thread, you are wading into a weird territory where they have to add all sorts of new code, and it just isnt feasible.

    This is a simple fix.  Take the amounts earned for the first three clears off all nodes, across the whole event.  Add them together.  That is now max progression.  Super simple.  You can now play less the entire event.  If you miss a day due to irl stuff, it is easier to still get the max.  If you are missing an essential, it is easier to get the max. 

    The problem is that there is no downside to this.  Almost every change they incorporate, they find some way to make it one step forward, two steps back.  They just won't do this because someone in charge of maming maiming decisions over there has decreed it that we must pay a penalty in order to get a bonus.  Aside from ddq, i am having a hard time thinking of a purely positive thing that didnt have some reasonable negative item attached to it. 
    Enjoying your contributions to this thread, @Spudgutter -- just wanted to fix the one spelling typo above.  :D
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    Based on past and historic changes, the amount of rewards correlates with how much effort they expect from the players. Asking them to reduce the number of clears from 5 clears to fewer clears while not reducing the rewards is like telling your boss that you want to have lesser work done or fewer job responsibilities without decreasing your salary. I'm not sure if that's possible for most of the people in real life. The devs has metrics and data for almost everything in the game. I'm sure they have more than 5 years worth of metrics and data telling them how to regulate the amount of resources in the game. 

    Look at Support. Players asked for easier access to Supports and look what happened. They could have simply added Support tokens as part of progression rewards but they came up with a new event with Support tokens available to the top 3 placements in a 24-hour run events with 7 clears. Why? Do they know that players appreciate just putting only Support Tokens in progression rewards? Of course they do! But they chose to make the players work or chase for it because they make decisions based on the data and metrics that they have.

    The point systems look pretty complicated and assigning different points to over 200 different characters are going to be time consuming. Even adding the counter for the most number of coloured tiles for NightCrawler took them a long time due to coding issues. They have to go through new phases of catching new bugs, many rounds of testings, more meetings just so that the players can get the same rewards using lesser time? This suggestion, realistically speaking and based on ROI alone, is not worth the effort for them to implement. You need to remember that they are a subsidiary of a listed company, so ROI is important to them, given that they have limited development time. If it doesn't help them meet their corporate financial goals, it's unlikely to be implemented.

  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    bbigler said:
    @Spudgutter @Vhailorx
    <snip>

    Also, IMO, I don't think reducing the time to get the same rewards will increase revenue due to roster slots and shields. Those HP demands are already there and quite high.  I'm not saying the game is perfect, but players have always had the choice of how much they wanted to play with a corresponding rate of progress. If that ratio of time to progress is too large for you, then find another game that's easier. If more players are quitting the game because of the time commitment instead of other reasons, like getting bored, then you have a solid argument against the devs. 

    Well, I have reduced my engagement drastically because the time commitment is just too much.  And doing that at the 5* tier sucks because it's basically impossible to full cover new 5*s at anything less that top 100 alliance levels of play (max prog or better in every pve, 600-900+ in just about every pvp).  With that level of play, you can generally get enough draws to cover most new 5*s while they are in the LT pool (though it's harder now that there are no more cover swaps).

    But my current level of play (ddq + max prog in a few PVEs every month and late bracket poaching in PVE for release characters and in PVP for season rewards), even 4*s take more than a year to fully cover.  forget about 5*s.  I hadn't champed any new 5*s since January of 2018 (gambit) until last month (5* thor, who left the LT pool with a good 2/4/5 build, and got to 13/13 thanks to a super lucky token pull plus setting Valkyrie as my only 4* BH for almost 3 months) and that will just get worse and everyone post-Okoye is at or below 8/13.  Maybe 1 new 5* every 18 months if I am clever about how I deploy resources and get a bit lucky.

    And the cost of substituting for lost playtime with cash is laughable.  getting an extra 100-200 LT pulls a month is something close to the cost of paying for a second mortgage.  

    I recognize that giving out too many prizes too quickly could be bad for both players and devs too.  But I am not seeing much middle ground in MPQ these days (or for the past few years).  The choices for end game players are basically (1) grind like crazy, (2) spend like crazy, or (3) go ultra conservative, hoard absolutely everything for 10-12 months, drop it all on 1 set of 3x decent 5*s, and hope for the best.  I don't love any of those options.  
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    Based on past and historic changes, the amount of rewards correlates with how much effort they expect from the players. Asking them to reduce the number of clears from 5 clears to fewer clears while not reducing the rewards is like telling your boss that you want to have lesser work done or fewer job responsibilities without decreasing your salary. I'm not sure if that's possible for most of the people in real life. The devs has metrics and data for almost everything in the game. I'm sure they have more than 5 years worth of metrics and data telling them how to regulate the amount of resources in the game. 

    Look at Support. Players asked for easier access to Supports and look what happened. They could have simply added Support tokens as part of progression rewards but they came up with a new event with Support tokens available to the top 3 placements in a 24-hour run events with 7 clears. Why? Do they know that players appreciate just putting only Support Tokens in progression rewards? Of course they do! But they chose to make the players work or chase for it because they make decisions based on the data and metrics that they have.

    The point systems look pretty complicated and assigning different points to over 200 different characters are going to be time consuming. Even adding the counter for the most number of coloured tiles for NightCrawler took them a long time due to coding issues. They have to go through new phases of catching new bugs, many rounds of testings, more meetings just so that the players can get the same rewards using lesser time? This suggestion, realistically speaking and based on ROI alone, is not worth the effort for them to implement. You need to remember that they are a subsidiary of a listed company, so ROI is important to them, given that they have limited development time. If it doesn't help them meet their corporate financial goals, it's unlikely to be implemented.

    I haveproblems with this rationale.

    (1) analogizing demi/d3 to bosses in the dev/player relationship is just absurd.  demi/d3 are not bosses, but salespeople and players are the customers.  Demi/d3 should offer a compelling product (that is also not predatory).  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with players advocating for changes (which is different from expecting demi/d3 to implement all player-suggested changes).

    (2) the devs do have lots of data about playtime, but it's not always clear that they are great at deploying that data to maximal effect.  Certainly, they never share particularly interesting or useful data with the players (what little we get is always carefully cherrypicked to support whatever player-unfriendly change they happen to be making at the time).  And the indirect indicia we can see about demi's use of data is mixed at best (if they REALLY have a good sense of how players play the game, then why wasp?  And king pin? or Boss Rush?)

    (3) This argument is tautological.  Sure, demi/d3 have behaved that way in the past, but my argument is that they shouldn't behave that way in the future.  

    (4) At the very end of your post, you finally start making sense.  Yes, this does all come back to financial viability.  And I have always felt that MPQ was monetized too aggressively.  I suppose you think that means I should just give up and find another game to play (which I have mostly done, btw, and which has cost d3 some small amount of revenue), but even that still doesn't explain why players like me shouldn't advocate for change.  
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    bbigler said:
    @Spudgutter @Vhailorx
    I do consider myself a veteran of the game because I've played since the beginning, but I've quit several times because of the time commitment. So I do understand that the game "asks too much". My problem is that progressing at my desired rate takes more time than I can sustain. If I was happier with a slower rate of progression with a corresponding smaller time commitment, then I could sustain gameplay. So, I believe it's possible for someone to play less than max progression, still make progress and still be happy with that progress. That's why I don't see a problem with the time demands of the game. You can choose how much you play. No one is forcing you to do 5 or 7 clears, only yourself because you want faster progression. But you have to accept that your progression speed and time commitment are directly related. What you want is to get the same rewards for less time and you think that would be fair. But that's not fair to people who put in more time than you, it would take away their reward for working harder.

    The good news is that the stronger your roster becomes, the less time it should take to get the same rewards. This has been true for me. 

    Also, IMO, I don't think reducing the time to get the same rewards will increase revenue due to roster slots and shields. Those HP demands are already there and quite high.  I'm not saying the game is perfect, but players have always had the choice of how much they wanted to play with a corresponding rate of progress. If that ratio of time to progress is too large for you, then find another game that's easier. If more players are quitting the game because of the time commitment instead of other reasons, like getting bored, then you have a solid argument against the devs. 
    seriously, you are all over the map with this one.

    "I've quit several times because of the time commitment"  "That's why I don't see a problem with the time demands of the game."

    Completely contradictory.  again, i doubt they want to base a model off of a person who keeps quitting.  do you send them a message every time, so they know why?  how are we, or they, supposed to know why you quit, especially if you come back?  makes no sense, and not a business model any of us would agree is sustainable.

    "What you want is to get the same rewards for less time and you think that would be fair. But that's not fair to people who put in more time than you, it would take away their reward for working harder." 

    Huh?  how does that even make sense?  if they reduce the time commitment, they reduce it for *everyone.*  i can't stress this enough, *everyone* gets more for less.  plus, i have read your sentence several times, i still can't see the logic, that my playing less somehow takes away rewards for others playing harder?  huh???  if they reduce the time constraint, and people still want to put in the extra effort for placement, bravo.  now they are clearing 6 times instead of 7, and they get some more of their life back as well.  

    "The good news is that the stronger your roster becomes, the less time it should take to get the same rewards. This has been true for me. "

    yes.  that is literally the point of the thread.  that speed is too much of a focus, so people are not using newer characters as much because they aren't as fast.  no one disagrees that better rosters play faster.  even one of the larger proponents of staying in the 4* realm fell to the dark said and said his play times are faster.  if they ever go to the route that other have suggested before, that pve is 100% progression, without losing any rewards, that would solve the issue.  i am just being more pragmatic.  they raised the clears required in the past, i advocate for them to lower it back down again.

    lastly, and loudly for those in the back, i will borrow a quote from vhail;

    "    (3)  Sure, demi/d3 have behaved that way in the past, but my argument is that they shouldn't behave that way in the future.  

    stop trying to use that argument that "it has always been this way." because it hasn't.  there didn't used to be ddq.  there didn't used to be 5*.  there didn't used to be two stores to spend cp.  there didn't used to be crash of the titans.  there didn't used to be elite tokens.  there didn't used to be clearance levels.  there didn't used to be champing.  there didn't used to be saved covers!
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    Based on past and historic changes, the amount of rewards correlates with how much effort they expect from the players. Asking them to reduce the number of clears from 5 clears to fewer clears while not reducing the rewards is like telling your boss that you want to have lesser work done or fewer job responsibilities without decreasing your salary. I'm not sure if that's possible for most of the people in real life. The devs has metrics and data for almost everything in the game. I'm sure they have more than 5 years worth of metrics and data telling them how to regulate the amount of resources in the game. 


    I’m not sure if you were playing the game back then, but due to the backloading of rewards in the change you reference, if you were playing less than 5 clears prior to the change, you would end up with less rewards for the same effort after the change as before.  For myself, who did ~2.5 clears to get the 4* cover, that translated to 2CP and 100-150HP less every event (or a roster slot and a classic LT every 5 weeks); not much, but it adds up over time.  To borrow your analogy, that would mean the boss cutting wages for the exact same workload, with no explanation whatsoever given.  I’m not sure that is possible in real life either, without losing your workforce.

    I understand it’s in their best interest to restrict the flow of awards and resources to some extent, but that balance has constantly been changing for the past 5+ years (to the benefit of both parties, at various times), so it’s not remotely unreasonable to ask for it to change again to counteract a perceived problem (burnout).

    Even a solution as simple as lowering the progression point totals at lower SCL’s would be a start (lower effort corresponding to lower rewards), but there’s a lot of good suggestions out there that should be heard/considered.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm not saying that players shouldn't advocate for changes because players should be able to do so.

    At the end of the day, it's about weighing the players' goals against the company'a financial goals. If the players' goals is to champ 5* or 4* at similar rate as competitive players while playing non-competitively or spending minimium amount of money, then it's better for them to adjust their expectations because this doesn't increase revenues.

    I believe the devs has already "boxed" players into different categories; thus, the amount of rewards players get correlates with how much they invested (time and money) in the game.

    Let's do a little roleplay. Imagine that you are the directors of Demiurge. Just suppose that today, your devs come up to you and tell you that they are going to reduce in-game playtime for all the players (from 5 clears to 3 or 4 clears) while the rewards the same. The likely questions you might ask is:

    1. "Why?"

    2. "How will doing so increase our revenues"?

    How would you answer this question?

    As far as monetizing is concerned, unless you have privy data about how much money is needed for the devs to break even or make profits that will keep the company running for the next few years, it's difficult to say if they are monetizing too much. What if their gross profit is only 5% of revenue after deducting all the costs? Would you still think that they are monetizing too much? 
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,283 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    I'm not saying that players shouldn't advocate for changes because players should be able to do so.

    At the end of the day, it's about weighing the players' goals against the company'a financial goals. If the players' goals is to champ 5* or 4* at similar rate as competitive players while playing non-competitively or spending minimium amount of money, then it's better for them to adjust their expectations because this doesn't increase revenues.

    I believe the devs has already "boxed" players into different categories; thus, the amount of rewards players get correlates with how much they invested (time and money) in the game.

    Let's do a little roleplay. Imagine that you are the directors of Demiurge. Just suppose that today, your devs come up to you and tell you that they are going to reduce in-game playtime for all the players (from 5 clears to 3 or 4 clears) while the rewards the same. The likely questions you might ask is:

    1. "Why?"

    2. "How will doing so increase our revenues"?

    How would you answer this question?

    As far as monetizing is concerned, unless you have privy data about how much money is needed for the devs to break even or make profits that will keep the company running for the next few years, it's difficult to say if they are monetizing too much. What if their gross profit is only 5% of revenue after deducting all the costs? Would you still think that they are monetizing too much? 
    This fundamentally misunderstands the developer/player relationship.

    The player has absolutely no obligation to think about, care about or in anyway consider what the companies financial aims are in relation to what they get out of the game. The player does not sit there and think "Hmm, are Demi going to be a bit short this month, should I buy a Stark to help out?" - they spend time, resources or money to achieve what they want from the game. If the player is significantly attached to the game then perhaps they might consider the games long term prospects and act accordingly but that is an additional "expectation" and one which the Dev's go out of their way to thank players for.

    It is entirely up to the developer to manage players expectations and develop their strategy based upon the same. Demi have done that by making reward to effort their key strategy, if players decide that balance doesn't work for them for whatever reason it is entirely on the developer to adjust things or see players walk away. How do we know this is true? The first run of the Wins based PvP. Demi went too far in adjusting things and something in their metrics/data or otherwise signalled this was going to be a disaster - they changed that in a heartbeat. See also: Boss Rush, Wakanda PvE and I suspect Heroics (all of which I would be happy to see again). If what you say is true then the Devs would have continued with these events regardless of what their metrics/data and other feedback tell them with the expectation that the playerbase can like it or lump it and adapt. This isn't happening.

    The Devs aren't going to change what works obviously and it has been confirmed previously that the Devs have a "budget" for rewards, so from that perspective there is probably plenty of data telling them that player engagement is at an acceptable level which means they don't need to shake things up too much. However the idea that anybody other than the Devs have to manage the expectations of both the playerbase and their own bean counters seems unlikely to me.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    You are right that the players has no obligations to care about the financial performance of the company. That's also the invisible reason why many players continue to be puzzled by the devs not making simple changes and implementing many wonderful suggestions from the players' povs.

    As far expectations is concerned, I think that the players have some responsibilities to manage their expectations as well.

    The common complain is players have been forced to play for speed or being forced to play MPQ for 2 to 4 hours a day. Therefore, the devs should move all placement rewards to progression rewards or reduce the number of clears needed from 7 or 5 to 4 or fewer, and many more other suggestions.

    On the other hand, like you said, they have a "budget" for rewards, which are likely to be tied to effort to reward ratio. I believe the devs have tried proposing to the beancounters about these suggestions that they received from players. Obviously, the beancounters said no or they asked the dev to come up with a compromise.

    As a result, the devs have to work within certain constraints and budgets set by the higher-up. But still, the players don't and won't care. They only care about rewards, and lesser playtime.


    At the end of the day, the devs have already accepted that they can't satisfy every players and players will leave, which happen to every game. They need to weigh the loss of x number of players under Y categories of players against their long term goals or plans. As of now, the game is still running at 5 clears for full progression even though the complain about 5 clears for full progression have been around for close to 2 years.

    If the players are unhappy or even miserable every time they play MPQ, isn't stepping back to prioritise their real life goals a better solution, rather than fighting against something the devs might not even be able to change?  If a player can only spare x amount of time playing MPQ, then re-adjust the expectations. If players expect to achieve what competitive players are getting by using only ~60% of the amount of effort by competitive players, the expectations has then to be managed by that players, not by the developers.




  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,283 Chairperson of the Boards
    I don't think we are too far apart on our expectations with this game Hound.

    I absolutely agree that:

    a.) The players who have unreasonable expectations are going to end up disappointed because that is just a fact of life
    b.) I also agree with the maxim that you can't please all the people all the time.

    However, if ENOUGH of the playerbase decided that 60% effort was what they were willing to give, the Devs wouldn't last very long fighting against that.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,822 Chairperson of the Boards
    In terms of events that have been abandoned:

    Wins PVP led to a severe drop in PVP engagement and also spending.  The fact that your CP was only in placement meant that the incentive to keep climbing and shielding only made sense for a small percentage of players vs what is usually a fairly large group of people climbing and hopping to 1200.  So the overall impact was to disincentivize high end PVP play beyond the people who colluded to arrange T5 for themselves.

    Fight for Wakanda was experiencing low engagement (I believe there was confirmation of that; at minimum it had tons of anecdotal complaints, far more than normal PVE) among players who were frustrated by its difficulty.  If you ever played it hard, you would have seen that placement was far easier than most PVEs.

    Heroics were a big turnoff with the limited roster availability.  That same design would be absolutely horrible today with full dilution and many newer players being forced to only focus on the top of the 4 tier with any degress of success in getting things covered.  They could certainly run the events with no roster restrictions again; I am not sure why they haven't done so, other than they developed a bad reputation and they think their time is better spent developing new events than trying to improved older ones that people would be less willing to start based on what it was like before.  Many players don't bother to do things like read the forums or find out the behind the scenes goings on.

    Boss Rush had two strikes, big ones:  Impossible to deal with circumstances for the 5's at the time (AP continuing from one boss to the next was a big issue) and the fact that unlike any other alliance event, you were competing within your alliance against each other.  Again, why spend time bringing an old event back with improvements and trying to convince players it's better now vs starting new?

    Aside:  I sense that Support Circuit is starting to approach these other events in terms of annoyance and player disengagement, or at least, dropping SCLs to minimize play time.

    These specific events (and Wins only PVP) - we must assume - actively disengaged players and showed reduced joins, or they would not have been discontinued.  The number of clears to reach progression is different.  I speculate that most players do not play to full progression already, or placement would not be as easy as it is.  So your only way to somehow influence developer behavior might be if some of the top players in the game stopped playing as long with the result that they collected less rewards and somehow that indicated to the developers that they need to reduce clear counts.  But I'm pretty sure that would never happen.  Some people will just quit or reduce  playtime temporarily or for good and the game will probably continue largely as is.  Other players (most top players) will keep playing the required amount to get the top rewards.  I don't really feel like there's much of  way to influence the developers' set goals on this particular play requirement.

Categories