Help me, Help you: Reaching D3s goals for revenue.

Unknown

One important sentence in his explanation is (sum up the idea) :

We randomized the contents of the packs, and WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHY, but it is a huge success. We ASSUME that it's just because it is more fun because "unexpected".

When you are a good marketer, you do not launch a new product that is LOGICALLY diminishing the consumer's experience. It is just COMMON SENSE.

How can you expect players (except the newbies) to enjoy 2* covers that are pretty old in the game, and which everybody already has or can get by playing ?

There's just 1 new character every second week. The randomization of the packs is not justified considering the small number of characters currently available.

The CEO seems to explain it should work like booster packs in CCG. Mr CEO, do you know how many cards are available in a CCG expansion set ? From 100 to 250/300. A booster pack (of paper cards) is 15 cards : 11 commons, 3 uncommons, 1 rare or 1 Mythic and costs $3.99.

The sales of those "new packs" will just collapse very quickly, because even the newbies will be flooded by 2* covers pretty soon.

At least, they should release more 1* and 2* characters, organize more event using them, so that Hard Core players enjoy playing with them.

It's just so easy to LISTEN to customers and make a smash hit of ANY good product...

esoxnepa

I would like to see some type of progression bar for a cover I want. Instead of selling all the worthless covers for ISO, I'd like the option to earn my way to a specific cover.

HP are also over priced for what you get. I think they would see more sales if people felt like they were getting a real benefit from dropping $20. Right now, it seems like the addicts (I've been there with WoW.) are the target audience for revenue.

I came in to the game around two months ago, and even after spending $100 I have no workable 3* covers and seemingly no way to earn 3* covers. Every event I enter, to hit a top 50 finish is a wall of 141 and above, while I just maxed my second 2*.

Unknown

esoxnepa wrote:

I would like to see some type of progression bar for a cover I want. Instead of selling all the worthless covers for ISO, I'd like the option to earn my way to a specific cover.

As I understand it, it works likewise for LoL, making it more enjoyable (I don't like that kind of game, but was explained a bit how it worked).

Unknown

arktos1971 wrote:

It's just so easy to LISTEN to customers and make a smash hit of ANY good product...

They *are* listening to their customers. You're just miffed because they're not listening to you.

_RiO_

ZenBrillig wrote:

arktos1971 wrote:

It's just so easy to LISTEN to customers and make a smash hit of ANY good product...

They *are* listening to their customers. You're just miffed because they're not listening to you.

No; they're interpreting statistics half-legally obtained off of their customers and are attributing the wrong explanation to them.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

No; they're interpreting statistics half-legally obtained off of their customers and are attributing the wrong explanation to them.

What statistics do you imagine they're using? Because there's nothing illegal in their using metrics that show how people are using the service and what they pay for. As for the interpretation of the metrics, I think they're in a far better position to analyze them than we are.

Spoit

ZenBrillig wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

No; they're interpreting statistics half-legally obtained off of their customers and are attributing the wrong explanation to them.

What statistics do you imagine they're using? Because there's nothing illegal in their using metrics that show how people are using the service and what they pay for. As for the interpretation of the metrics, I think they're in a far better position to analyze them than we are.

They've also shown that they've not been...the best there is at interpreting metrics. Seriously, go read that venturebeat article.

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

They've also shown that they've not been...the best there is at interpreting metrics. Seriously, go read that venturebeat article.

I have. I'll agree that they're not the best at presenting metrics, but without the data, I don't think anyone has the standing to argue with their interpretation.

Spoit

ZenBrillig wrote:

Spoit wrote:

They've also shown that they've not been...the best there is at interpreting metrics. Seriously, go read that venturebeat article.

I have. I'll agree that they're not the best at presenting metrics, but without the data, I don't think anyone has the standing to argue with their interpretation.

Sure they have the data, but sometimes it sounds like the people looking at it haven't even looked at the game once

_RiO_

ZenBrillig wrote:

there's nothing illegal in their using metrics that show how people are using the service and what they pay for.

EU directives regarding online privacy.

Companies are not allowed to process the personal data of EU citizens without those citizens having unambiguously given consent to an exact list describing the data that is being tracked and the exact purposes for which that data will be used. The game, atleast the PC version, hides its privacy policy in a non-descript configuration/options/settings panel and makes no such attempt to inform its players or seek their consent.

Also, please note that while aggregated data may no longer be personally identifiable in and of itself, the act of aggregating said data qualifies as the processing of personal data. This makes visitor tracking through tools such as Google Analytics illegal without consent as well, but it usually manages to squeeze through under implied consent. (Many EU member states have implemented the relevant directives in such a way that implied consent suffices. However, that still requires users be notified up front. Only after this would continued use of a service imply consent.)

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

Spoit wrote:

They've also shown that they've not been...the best there is at interpreting metrics. Seriously, go read that venturebeat article.

I have. I'll agree that they're not the best at presenting metrics, but without the data, I don't think anyone has the standing to argue with their interpretation.

They think every1 is ok with ragnarok being a PoS and they don't think they overdid spidey.
With those 2 pieces of information alone, being as they are 2 blatantly obvious pieces of info, I can't see how anyone can give them any sort of good interpretation credit or really anything that involves major game changes.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

They think every1 is ok with ragnarok being a PoS and they don't think they overdid spidey.
With those 2 pieces of information alone, being as they are 2 blatantly obvious pieces of info, I can't see how anyone can give them any sort of good interpretation credit or really anything that involves major game changes.

Can you prove that either of those is false?

I think the best evidence of whether Ragnarok is a viable character is to find out how much he's used in the game by the players. (Not the forum members, but the player-base as a whole). But since we don't have access to that metric, can you suggest one that proves your assertion?

As for Spidey, I'd point out that that half the forum (of those that didn't vote "no comment') are happy with the nerf, which is at least anecdotal evidence that it wasn't overdone.

Spoit

ZenBrillig wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

They think every1 is ok with ragnarok being a PoS and they don't think they overdid spidey.
With those 2 pieces of information alone, being as they are 2 blatantly obvious pieces of info, I can't see how anyone can give them any sort of good interpretation credit or really anything that involves major game changes.

Can you prove that either of those is false?

I think the best evidence of whether Ragnarok is a viable character is to find out how much he's used in the game by the players. (Not the forum members, but the player-base as a whole). But since we don't have access to that metric, can you suggest one that proves your assertion?

As for Spidey, I'd point out that that half the forum (of those that didn't vote "no comment') are happy with the nerf, which is at least anecdotal evidence that it wasn't overdone.

Being happy that he was nerfed is a completely different thing than being satisfied with the actual nerf

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

Being happy that he was nerfed is a completely different thing than being satisfied with the actual nerf

The question in the poll was "are you happy with the spiderman nerf?"

I think you're overinterpreting if you think that means that the Yes voters are happy with the fact that he was nerfed but unhappy with the result. I'd rather believe they voted on what the poll asked.

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

They think every1 is ok with ragnarok being a PoS and they don't think they overdid spidey.
With those 2 pieces of information alone, being as they are 2 blatantly obvious pieces of info, I can't see how anyone can give them any sort of good interpretation credit or really anything that involves major game changes.

Can you prove that either of those is false?

I think the best evidence of whether Ragnarok is a viable character is to find out how much he's used in the game by the players. (Not the forum members, but the player-base as a whole). But since we don't have access to that metric, can you suggest one that proves your assertion?

As for Spidey, I'd point out that that half the forum (of those that didn't vote "no comment') are happy with the nerf, which is at least anecdotal evidence that it wasn't overdone.

Proving every1 thinks ragnarok is a PoS is easy, just look around the forums. Pretty obvious to tell spidey sucks also. Do we really need to conduct a poll or something to tell us the obvious or should we just let common sense guide us just this once?

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

Proving every1 thinks ragnarok is a PoS is easy, just look around the forums. Pretty obvious to tell spidey sucks also.

If you believe everything written on the forums, then you'd have to believe that tomorrow, MPQ will have four active users. The forums are a tiny, entirely non-representative section of the overall player-base. This is why metrics are important: because forum opinions aren't worth the electrons that died to make them.

Do we really need to conduct a poll or something to tell us the obvious or should we just let common sense guide us just this once?

Apparently we do. Since half the forum thinks the nerf was okay, and so do the devs, I think the balance is leaning pretty heavily against what you're alleging is "common sense."

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

Proving every1 thinks ragnarok is a PoS is easy, just look around the forums. Pretty obvious to tell spidey sucks also.

If you believe everything written on the forums, then you'd have to believe that tomorrow, MPQ will have four active users. The forums are a tiny, entirely non-representative section of the overall player-base. This is why metrics are important: because forum opinions aren't worth the electrons that died to make them.

Do we really need to conduct a poll or something to tell us the obvious or should we just let common sense guide us just this once?

Apparently we do. Since half the forum thinks the nerf was okay, and so do the devs, I think the balance is leaning pretty heavily against what you're alleging is "common sense."

Do a comparison of ragnarok vs lazy Thor and tell me he isn't a PoS.
Metrics show good info sometimes, other times they are misleading.
When a forum member speaks out there's nothing to confuse.
The forum is the best representation of the population they have and IMO just as or nearly as valuable as any metrics they gather.

I don't believe everything on the forums I read but I'm smart enough and have been playing this game long enough to know the difference in good and bad characters.

Spoit

ZenBrillig wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Being happy that he was nerfed is a completely different thing than being satisfied with the actual nerf

The question in the poll was "are you happy with the spiderman nerf?"

I think you're overinterpreting if you think that means that the Yes voters are happy with the fact that he was nerfed but unhappy with the result. I'd rather believe they voted on what the poll asked.

When multiple people said that very statement in the vote thread...I'm not sure why you're seeing that as a stretch.

In fact this is exactly what I'm saying Re: them looking at the numbers and drawing conclusions without actually analyzing the context

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

ZenBrillig wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Being happy that he was nerfed is a completely different thing than being satisfied with the actual nerf

The question in the poll was "are you happy with the spiderman nerf?"

I think you're overinterpreting if you think that means that the Yes voters are happy with the fact that he was nerfed but unhappy with the result. I'd rather believe they voted on what the poll asked.

When multiple people said that very statement in the vote thread...I'm not sure why you're seeing that as a stretch.

I took it that "yes" voters meant happy that he got nerfed in general.
I by no means took this as an indication that they were happy with how the nerf was executed.

Unknown

I'm not sure metrics are as valuable for balance as for something like people quitting the game.

I could even argue that metrics possibly lead to why Spidey sucks. They relied on metrics to tell them Spidey was OP. Okay, good. Now what? You can't rely on metrics as much to tell you how to properly balance him. Without a deeper understanding of the game mechanics, you get a half-assed nerf.

Consider Spidey users vs non-Spidey users. The latter will likely be more happier with the nerf than the former. Would metrics really tell you that Spidey is truly good or that people are just happy with him sucking?


The only role metrics should play when it comes to balance imo is priority. If there are two abusable mechanics, but one is abused a lot vs the other abused onlly a little, that metric allows you deal with the more important issue first.