A suggestion for those who are fed up and/or not spending money.

tiomono

Bowgentle said:

MegaBee said:

PiMacleod said:

Um.  Im not defending anyone here... But im real curious.

What does everyone keep using the flag button for?

Honestly, i only have ever dared to think about using it if someone was being insulting.  Ive seen it a few times, but not towards me.

I flag if someone's being blatantly insulting. Otherwise, I reserve it for spammers, and I haven't seen any of those here.

We need an 'insane white knighting' flag.

But I would be compelled to flag those flags since its directly calling someone insane. Just sayin.

A_Wise_Man

So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice.  I don't really understand the logic behind this. 

First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you?  That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another.  

If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it?  I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it.  If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several).  Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game.  If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision.  

If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop.  Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down.  If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision.  If it's not, then I really dont understand at all.

LifeofAgony

You don’t have a lot of ways to directly impact the devs if you don’t plan on quitting entirely.

1.  Don’t spend real world currency
2.  Send emails to support (which many would argue is tilting at windmills)
3.  Come on here and post an opinion (again, windmill tilting)
4.  Rate the game poorly through your chosen App Store.

i don’t see it as a bad way to let the devs know that their actions have repercussions.  If the whole of mpq actually stopped spending for way, a week, I imagine they’d take notice.  But that has never occurred so if you’ve stopped personal spending, and tried all the aforementioned avenues, give the game a bad rating.  It’s another way to speak up.

dkffiv

A_Wise_Man said:

So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice.  I don't really understand the logic behind this. 

First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you?  That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another.  

If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it?  I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it.  If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several).  Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game.  If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision.  

If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop.  Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down.  If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision.  If it's not, then I really dont understand at all.

That is exactly the point.  If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off.  Highlighting predatory behavior is important.  I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.

If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them.

HoundofShadow

I read the feedback about "paying 250 to compete", which is misleading. 

There are 9 SCL to choose from in PvE.

Fact: SCL 1 to SCL 6 doesn't require Prof X.

Opinion: Since Whales has been whaling the game, they are still going to be on top of PvEs regardless of whether Prof X is required in the following PvE. 

Fact: The odds of getting Prof X is 1:250 or 1:166 which means on average, you expect to see between 4 to 6 players with Prof X per 1000 players.

If players are intentionally going to give bad rating due to Prof X saga, at least back it up with facts or be more precise in their reviews.

Spreading lies like this aren't going to help the game in general.

Kolence

You can call it lies, but some players might just look at it as trying something new... 
  

DAZ0273

Howzabout if players offer the Devs a 1/250 odds chance of giving a good review?

A_Wise_Man

dkffiv said:

A_Wise_Man said:

So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice.  I don't really understand the logic behind this. 

First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you?  That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another.  

If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it?  I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it.  If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several).  Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game.  If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision.  

If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop.  Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down.  If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision.  If it's not, then I really dont understand at all.

That is exactly the point.  If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off.  Highlighting predatory behavior is important.  I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.

If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them.

I'm sorry, I must be missing something.  What events have been occurring every 2 weeks that require a $250 buy in to play?  I must have missed those events.

dkffiv

A_Wise_Man said:

dkffiv said:

A_Wise_Man said:

So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice.  I don't really understand the logic behind this. 

First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you?  That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another.  

If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it?  I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it.  If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several).  Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game.  If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision.  

If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop.  Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down.  If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision.  If it's not, then I really dont understand at all.

That is exactly the point.  If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off.  Highlighting predatory behavior is important.  I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.

If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them.

I'm sorry, I must be missing something.  What events have been occurring every 2 weeks that require a $250 buy in to play?  I must have missed those events.

If this is the new norm, theres a new 5* every month or so.  I'm in a competitive PvE alliance family and a lot of members felt pressured into buying 10/40 packs to compete and are now worried about losing their slots because their scores will be lower without PX. 

Commanders might have to rearrange members to optimize scores and doing that is a lot of extra effort, especially when you factor in PvP end times and a boss event that will start on the last day.  With big alliances you're also dealing with people all over the world with different time zones so managing all this is a ton of unnecessary stress.

This was a flat out cash grab, plain and simple.   If they simply added PX to tokens but did not immediately have a PvE requirement, it would overall be a positive but most people wouldn't notice/care (probably 5-10% would get a cover from free tokens / daily deals).  Some people might buy packs but far fewer would buy than have done so thus far.  

I suppose it was just a coincidence that a few people decided to purchase stark salaries in my alliance in the last few days though, right?

Ishalan

I agree with everything posted.  Myself and some of my alliance will be joining the vip withdrawal.

HoundofShadow

Let's see how many VIP players need to stop with subscription to make an impact on their sales.

MPQ hit 100 million sales in March 2017. That's an average of 30 mil for those 3 years.

Assuming more and more players are leaving the game in large number since 2017 due to:
1) devs' incompetency and/or
2) dev's moneygrab mantra

Their sales have dropped by 60% per year for the following two financial years. Now, their revenue is roughly 10.8 million. If an additional 10% sales drop is required to wake the devs up due to Prof X Saga, then it would take:

(10.8 million * 10% ) / $120 = 900 players with VIP.

900 is not a lot. So, stopping VIP subscription might work.

Edit: the above was based on a one year impact. 

To see an impact to sales in October, assuming:
Their sales is 900,000 per month. 
70% of spenders are VIP.
Then, you would need:
(900,000*10%) / 9.99 or 10 = 9000 players to stop their VIP between now to September to see an impact on sales.

A_Wise_Man

dkffiv said:

A_Wise_Man said:

dkffiv said:

A_Wise_Man said:

So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice.  I don't really understand the logic behind this. 

First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you?  That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another.  

If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it?  I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it.  If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several).  Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game.  If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision.  

If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop.  Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down.  If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision.  If it's not, then I really dont understand at all.

That is exactly the point.  If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off.  Highlighting predatory behavior is important.  I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.

If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them.

I'm sorry, I must be missing something.  What events have been occurring every 2 weeks that require a $250 buy in to play?  I must have missed those events.

If this is the new norm, theres a new 5* every month or so.  I'm in a competitive PvE alliance family and a lot of members felt pressured into buying 10/40 packs to compete and are now worried about losing their slots because their scores will be lower without PX. 

Commanders might have to rearrange members to optimize scores and doing that is a lot of extra effort, especially when you factor in PvP end times and a boss event that will start on the last day.  With big alliances you're also dealing with people all over the world with different time zones so managing all this is a ton of unnecessary stress.

This was a flat out cash grab, plain and simple.   If they simply added PX to tokens but did not immediately have a PvE requirement, it would overall be a positive but most people wouldn't notice/care (probably 5-10% would get a cover from free tokens / daily deals).  Some people might buy packs but far fewer would buy than have done so thus far.  

I suppose it was just a coincidence that a few people decided to purchase stark salaries in my alliance in the last few days though, right?

Ok, but theres a couple problems with that argument. First of all, a 5 star every 4-6 weeks isn't every 2 weeks.   Its every 4-6 weeks.  Second, you don't need to spend $250 to play the event. You can play the whole event other than the 5E. 

Will this affect some people's scores?  Of course it will.   But, unless there's an alliance that's full of whales, most alliances can expect, on average, to experience about the same net loss of points due to people not having the 5E.  If people stayed in their own alliances it would all pretty much even out.  Besides that, most players aren't playing optimal or even near optimal or even making progression in the first place, so making higher ranks should remain about the same.   Kicking people out because they didn't luck into a cover is a decision your alliance is making for this event.  That's not something being forced on you.  That's an alliance decision based on your alliance family's goals.  

Lastly...what is wrong with a company whose main goal is to make money making decisions that may make them money?  I mean, I know I don't go to work to not get paid.  I don't know why people expect game developers and publishers to design and publish games for free.  I really don't see what the big deal is here.  

dkffiv

A_Wise_Man said:

Ok, but theres a couple problems with that argument. First of all, a 5 star every 4-6 weeks isn't every 2 weeks.   Its every 4-6 weeks.  Second, you don't need to spend $250 to play the event. You can play the whole event other than the 5E. 

Will this affect some people's scores?  Of course it will.   But, unless there's an alliance that's full of whales, most alliances can expect, on average, to experience about the same net loss of points due to people not having the 5E.  If people stayed in their own alliances it would all pretty much even out.  Besides that, most players aren't playing optimal or even near optimal or even making progression in the first place, so making higher ranks should remain about the same.   Kicking people out because they didn't luck into a cover is a decision your alliance is making for this event.  That's not something being forced on you.  That's an alliance decision based on your alliance family's goals.  

Lastly...what is wrong with a company whose main goal is to make money making decisions that may make them money?  I mean, I know I don't go to work to not get paid.  I don't know why people expect game developers and publishers to design and publish games for free.  I really don't see what the big deal is here.  

You're the one who keeps saying every 2 weeks.  I said "few" and 4-6 = few. 

Its obvious that you're new to the game so I'll try my best to explain how things happen in endgame PvE/PvP.  Top 5/10/25 placement for alliances give higher rewards.  In order to reach those goals, all 20 members need to contribute as much as possible.  There are several high end alliance families that span multiple alliances so membership can be 100+.  Normally these are broken up by different goals (575/800/900/1200 etc PvP scores for example) but sometimes members in higher alliances can't make their goals due to other obligations / IRL so swaps between alliances are made.  Commanders need to keep track of these things and be on to gatekeep swaps.  Members are generally reliable so swaps are kept to a minimum - with the randomness of how these 5* covers are given out that is completely out the window.  

I've been around long enough (day 2120+) to know this is a monumentally bad idea.  Commander burn out can cause alliances to fall apart and drive some of the mega whales into retirement.  Once you're off the hamster wheel its hard to jump back on - I know that if I quit its going to be for good.  They're trying to drive sales through desperation instead of goodwill (I regard my purchases as rewarding the devs for creating something I enjoy and am willingly giving money to help keep the lights running).  This last week I've seen far too many messages in alliance chat about people selling off their 3*'s to try to gather enough currency to buy 10/40 packs and ending up with nothing and that is what angers me.  

There's nothing wrong with making money, its the way they're doing it.  I'm almost afraid to suggest this but if they redid the Legendary Resupply bundle with a Professor X cover instead of 5 legendary tokens for the same price/iso/hp (*but did NOT immediately force him into a PvE essential - they instead waited until he was BH'able and in Latest Tokens) I think they would have made a lot more money and there would not be the backlash there is now.  If this coincided with him being in the event tokens too it would generally be seen as a positive move.  I just really don't understand who green lit this and thought it was a good idea.

shardwick

If new players can give the game a rave review and declare MPQ the greatest game ever made simply because they get to play as 1* Iron Man in the Prologue then veteran players can give a critical review too.

Speaking of the Prologue I just looked at it and realized that I forgot to complete a mission two more times. Oooh two 2* Cap covers comin' my way!

A_Wise_Man

dkffiv said:

A_Wise_Man said:

Ok, but theres a couple problems with that argument. First of all, a 5 star every 4-6 weeks isn't every 2 weeks.   Its every 4-6 weeks.  Second, you don't need to spend $250 to play the event. You can play the whole event other than the 5E. 

Will this affect some people's scores?  Of course it will.   But, unless there's an alliance that's full of whales, most alliances can expect, on average, to experience about the same net loss of points due to people not having the 5E.  If people stayed in their own alliances it would all pretty much even out.  Besides that, most players aren't playing optimal or even near optimal or even making progression in the first place, so making higher ranks should remain about the same.   Kicking people out because they didn't luck into a cover is a decision your alliance is making for this event.  That's not something being forced on you.  That's an alliance decision based on your alliance family's goals.  

Lastly...what is wrong with a company whose main goal is to make money making decisions that may make them money?  I mean, I know I don't go to work to not get paid.  I don't know why people expect game developers and publishers to design and publish games for free.  I really don't see what the big deal is here.  

You're the one who keeps saying every 2 weeks.  I said "few" and 4-6 = few. 

Its obvious that you're new to the game so I'll try my best to explain how things happen in endgame PvE/PvP.  Top 5/10/25 placement for alliances give higher rewards.  In order to reach those goals, all 20 members need to contribute as much as possible.  There are several high end alliance families that span multiple alliances so membership can be 100+.  Normally these are broken up by different goals (575/800/900/1200 etc PvP scores for example) but sometimes members in higher alliances can't make their goals due to other obligations / IRL so swaps between alliances are made.  Commanders need to keep track of these things and be on to gatekeep swaps.  Members are generally reliable so swaps are kept to a minimum - with the randomness of how these 5* covers are given out that is completely out the window.  

I've been around long enough (day 2120+) to know this is a monumentally bad idea.  Commander burn out can cause alliances to fall apart and drive some of the mega whales into retirement.  Once you're off the hamster wheel its hard to jump back on - I know that if I quit its going to be for good.  They're trying to drive sales through desperation instead of goodwill (I regard my purchases as rewarding the devs for creating something I enjoy and am willingly giving money to help keep the lights running).  This last week I've seen far too many messages in alliance chat about people selling off their 3*'s to try to gather enough currency to buy 10/40 packs and ending up with nothing and that is what angers me.  

There's nothing wrong with making money, its the way they're doing it.  I'm almost afraid to suggest this but if they redid the Legendary Resupply bundle with a Professor X cover instead of 5 legendary tokens for the same price/iso/hp (*but did NOT immediately force him into a PvE essential - they instead waited until he was BH'able and in Latest Tokens) I think they would have made a lot more money and there would not be the backlash there is now.  If this coincided with him being in the event tokens too it would generally be seen as a positive move.  I just really don't understand who green lit this and thought it was a good idea.

Thanks for the info!  I've only been playing for 5 years myself so yeah, relatively new player.  I play cl9 and place t10 to t50 depending on what RL stuff I have going on.  I get what top alliances do, but that doesnt make it any less your alliances decision to do so.  Nobody at d3 or demi is forcing you to kick players down for having bad luck.  The only real difference for rewards is in top 2 or top 10 for alliances in cl9 (the 4 star cover and the LT).  Anything below that aside from t100 and it's just a small amount of iso HP and riso, not a big deal.  Personally, I didn't buy HP for professor x and also dont have him.  Still on track for at least top 50 playing semi optimal.  I'll maybe miss out on one black cat cover and 9 cp from missing the 5E.  I can live with that so I didn't bother spending HP.  My alliance isnt bothered by it either.  We will still make an easy top 50 and everyone gets to stay put.  Realistically so few people will get covers that 99% of placement will stay the same.  I think the issue is that some people are used to placing high without spending and feel entitled to the rewards they usually get.  The other issue is people seem to have missed the bit where brigby said it was something they're testing out.  It's a test.  Proper feedback and it wont be run the same way again is all.  Maybe we get something else, maybe it goes back to normal.  Either way I dont mind.

HoundofShadow

The dev team has made it clear this is a test for one event. The thing is, players are going into frenzy because of one test for one event.

What is a test? A test, in this case, and I assume, is to find out whether their hypothesis is feasible or viable. Like any other tests all over the world, there are:

1) hypothesis
2) controlled variables
3) conditions
4) time frame
5) outcomes

Depending on the outcome (s), they may test this again by changing the variables.

What's happening now is players are assuming that the dev will be doing this in the future with the same set of variables or conditions, that is to say, every 5* release will be rolled out exactly the same way.

shardwick

Sure, just like they did with Wins Only. A test here, a test there, then made it permanent and then due to backlash by the community they went back to the points only system until they finally went with a hybrid system.

A_Wise_Man

shardwick said:

Sure, just like they did with Wins Only. A test here, a test there, then made it permanent and then due to backlash by the community they went back to the points only system until they finally went with a hybrid system.

They never made it permanent.  It was a full season test iirc, nothing set in stone.   Lots of people rely on the wins system.   Without the testing and feedback this hybrid system wouldn't exist.  Just remember that just because you (collective you) don't like something, it doesn't mean someone else won't like it or benefit from it. 

Nick441234

I'm glad I'm not playing anymore after this Prof X cash grab. I suspect that would have been the trigger to make me quit, had I not already. Its disgusting. 

HoundofShadow

Aren't that how experiments and hypothesis are carried out? With each test, each hypothesis is proved and disproved. Then new hypothesis is made.

The win based to hybrid win based PvP system is a product of test and hypothesis.