Patch Notes 5/21 Discussion (Inc Spider-Man)

Unknown

Yeah, it's weird. If Bewilder were purple Psylocke would be immediately top shelf. Why is it even blue in the first place? The only other blue AP steal is Hood's passive, right? Anyway, I guess she'll be a lot more valuable post nerf, too. Stealing some random AP for 10 is way better than 3 potential turns of stun on a single target.

Unknown

After using Spidey lvl 128 3/5/4 a little, here are some thoughts.

Blue seems really weak and generally not worth using AP for. It's real use is to make Purple better.
Yellow seems pretty good, but makes me not want to use it when there are 3 web tiles out. Before, it didn't matter much since web tiles were easy to reproduce, now they are too precious to consume unless it is end of match healing.
Purple seems lackluster overall, but not terrible. This might be because of just how powerful the ability was before.

Overall, I think making Purple create a web tile if there isn't one on the board might actually be all that is needed to make Spidey feel right. It makes his Blue a little more powerful and doesn't make it feel as big of a penalty to use his Yellow since you can get another web tile up relatively easy. It also allows Purple to slightly build off of itself so making 2 purple matches actually reduces enough normal match damage to feel useful.

Unknown

kaganb wrote:

Overall, I think making Purple create a web tile if there isn't one on the board might actually be all that is needed to make Spidey feel right. It makes his Blue a little more powerful and doesn't make it feel as big of a penalty to use his Yellow since you can get another web tile up relatively easy. It also allows Purple to slightly build off of itself so making 2 purple matches actually reduces enough normal match damage to feel useful.

There's one side effect to consider, Venom. Three purple matches plus a purple boost would be all you need to fulfill the web tile requirements for his killer Devour. Sure, you also need to collect enough black for the ability itself, still feels a bit overpowered for a 1*.

ayatorahxephon

Spiderman was both my favorite hero and my 1st 3* that I had maxed covers for. I am really frustrated with the changes given that I have invested a lot in him. I do agree he is somehow Op but they really overnerfed him into a gold bagman. Both his purple and yellow heavily depended on his blue skill, given now it needs 5 ap to activate, you need 15 ap to get 3 webs on and another 12 yellow for him to activate his full heal. What the hell? 27 tiles just to get a full heal? Really? a 2* OBW can heal three times given the same tiles she get and she has an active and a passive steal to hasten her heal. Previously when Thor get nerfed, he is still usable with some compensation as thor red produce fewer tiles and need more ap but stronger, yellow weaker but produce more tiles and green get buffed.
Spidey? All his skills are totally a joke now. No compensation... In the end he is just there sit at Venom prologue waiting to heal injured heroes.

Unknown

played about 10 matches last night with him. Bleh. Keep in mind I rarely used his blue before. I really just used him for a few protect tiles and matching a couple colors.

His purple is a joke now because I cant get web tiles out to make it any good. Prior to the nerf I could just skip making webs and toss out 40+ damage prot tiles which was fine to me. But now they are in the 20 range..... They protect for less than half of what dakens attack tiles do for 1 match and he's a level 69.....

I'm switching his roster spot back to black widow which is laughable but I have other choice. A 3600 cleave heal is more useful than 4-5 turns of stun on one character and her ability costs less ap too. Her purple is better too. Hes one of my only high 3 star characters this sucks.

Unknown

Moghwyn wrote:

kaganb wrote:

Overall, I think making Purple create a web tile if there isn't one on the board might actually be all that is needed to make Spidey feel right. It makes his Blue a little more powerful and doesn't make it feel as big of a penalty to use his Yellow since you can get another web tile up relatively easy. It also allows Purple to slightly build off of itself so making 2 purple matches actually reduces enough normal match damage to feel useful.

There's one side effect to consider, Venom. Three purple matches plus a purple boost would be all you need to fulfill the web tile requirements for his killer Devour. Sure, you also need to collect enough black for the ability itself, still feels a bit overpowered for a 1*.

I'm not saying to make a web tile with each match, just if there are no web tiles on the board. 2nd match doesn't create an additional one and Venom would still need 5 more web tiles to eat an opponent.

Kavel

How about giving us a window with a free respec to try out different builds. I've had my Spidey at 3/5/5 but now it's looking like I might want to swap him over to 5/5/3 or 5/3/5 considering his heal is really the only reason I'd bring him into a match.

Unknown

Thank you so much for this change. PVP is so much better now that every other team I face doesn't have a stun-locking spiderman in it.

Also, PVE has been much more reasonable.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

kermitk50 wrote:

Finally Ice emerges!

My fear is that from all of this anger on the boards over the last week or two, what will be taken from it is "they are just complaining about the Spidey nerf, they will get used to it". I want to make sure it is known that the spidey nerf is possibly the least of the issues that are plaguing players right now.

I don't have any information to give on the other stuff at the moment. But I will definitely most assuredly say that we are by no means sitting here thinking that all the rage is over Spider-Man and nothing else.

As for my absence, just been busy lately. As much as I'd like to pour more time into chatting/keeping up communication with you all, this is one of my many hats and I can't wear it all the time.

Speaking of hats...IceIX....this will be the 7th time i've mentioned hats...come on now. My punisher REALLY really REALLY wants a top hat....i've tried taping one to him but it isn't the same. and i can't swipe as well with the tape.

Dayv

Moghwyn wrote:

kaganb wrote:

Overall, I think making Purple create a web tile if there isn't one on the board might actually be all that is needed to make Spidey feel right. It makes his Blue a little more powerful and doesn't make it feel as big of a penalty to use his Yellow since you can get another web tile up relatively easy. It also allows Purple to slightly build off of itself so making 2 purple matches actually reduces enough normal match damage to feel useful.

There's one side effect to consider, Venom. Three purple matches plus a purple boost would be all you need to fulfill the web tile requirements for his killer Devour. Sure, you also need to collect enough black for the ability itself, still feels a bit overpowered for a 1*.

Just another example why web tiles are a bad mechanic, in my opinion. They are either prone to game-breaking combination strategies or so hard-fought to power an otherwise weak ability that I think it's impossible to find a middle ground. They should remove them completely and redesign all the characters that used to use them to balance them properly.

Unknown

It's hard to tell how to fix Spidey. Current solution doesn't work... he's now nothing better than a prologue healing machine. Ugh.

My feeling is they should have kept the stun mechanic (but bumped up costs to 3 at the lowest, so you'd have to match just to stay level) and nerfed the heal.

When you think Spiderman, who the hell thinks 'Oh, yeah, Peter Parker... he heals people'. Spiderman as an annoying superhero who slows everything down with webs (ie: stuns) makes absolutely perfect sense though.

Hissori

Well, what I do know, is my girlfriend will be happy im not playing as much now. I pretty much used spidy for a full heal at the end of the battle so I could continue to play and not wait for lives to regenerate. More than any of his other skills. So...I wont be playing as much. I guess thats what the devs want obviously. Devs should offer how much iso was used to max out spidy as a refund. I wont be using spidy at all any more. Far better choices now. My 141 dare devil will be more fun to play now. Basically, now all that matters is how much the damage skills do and hit points. So everyone is using new thor, hulk, and your choice of 6k+ health chatacter. Fights are super boring now to me. Everyone uses the big guns...no room for support characters now. What a waste. You just made the game super boring/frustrating and im goin to play less
..so I wont be spending as much money anymore. Is that really what you want devs? Well you got it from me. Im sure im not the only one...that ant we can no longer keep playing for hours in a row because we'll be out of lives. Im sure not going to spend money on life replenishment.

Unknown

The flavor behind Spider-Mans All Tied Up is he stuns equal to the web tiles in play, so what if when any player matches a yellow web tile, all stunned characters are unstunned(causing the webbing is broken/gone)

Unknown

punisher is also another character affected by spider nerf.

he has a perfect rainbow with spider man. spider become useless, who can pair up with punisher if i am playing pvp

Unknown

i knew the answer now

nick fury or falcon

i have to save some money for these covers

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

gamar wrote:

People buy slots when they need space for a new character. Getting a new hero already feels "impactful," and any slot that doesn't have a hero in it is just wasted spending.

I'm guessing your metrics showed a significant amount of players stopping at 11 or 14 roster slots? Come on, I understand that grouping roster slots is a change that will likely get d3p a little more revenue while having little to no negative impact on the majority of players but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Actually, we're expecting this change to have a minor *negative* affect on revenue. One of the major reasons we made this change is so that players don't get into the mindset that 1.99 purchases are the way to move forward in the game. It works, but it's not at all efficient. We get quite a lot of reports from players that we nickle and dime them early on in the game but feel forced to pay anyway and almost invariably, they are players that spent 20 bucks in 1.99 purchases when 15 in 5s and a bit of saving some HP in the same amount of playtime would have served that player *much* better. There's something psychological about getting into a rut in spending on the same pack over and over because it's familiar. We want to lessen that impact some. At the same time, eliminating the 1.99 purchase altogether not only sends the wrong message (lesser paying players need not apply) but also doesn't account for those users that *do* spend a tiny bit here and there.

Clearly the consideration here are just for paying players. What about my daughter who just have 1* characters in the level 40-ish and just starting to earn 2* covers? You should see her eyes light up everytime she gets characters that she sees in the movies. She was jumping like crazy when she pulled a Loki from a token! She has 13 roster slots now and pending covers that she's excited to have so she's been grinding the prologue to get those precious HPs to get her a new slot. With 175 HP in her stash, she's 25 HP away from her 14th slot. Lo and behold, patch arrives and now she needs 600 HP to expand her roster. Her shoulders dropped when I told her she just have to throw away the other cover she has.

But this does not concern you because she doesn't pay for playing the game that she so much loves.

Spoit

kubrick wrote:

punisher is also another character affected by spider nerf.

he has a perfect rainbow with spider man. spider become useless, who can pair up with punisher if i am playing pvp

Falcon has the same colors as spidey (though only 1 active). And even though you can't cast anything with the yellow you collect with him, it synergises well with punisher's strikes (though the attack tiles will dilute it)

Unknown

MonCagz wrote:

IceIX wrote:

gamar wrote:

People buy slots when they need space for a new character. Getting a new hero already feels "impactful," and any slot that doesn't have a hero in it is just wasted spending.

I'm guessing your metrics showed a significant amount of players stopping at 11 or 14 roster slots? Come on, I understand that grouping roster slots is a change that will likely get d3p a little more revenue while having little to no negative impact on the majority of players but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Actually, we're expecting this change to have a minor *negative* affect on revenue. One of the major reasons we made this change is so that players don't get into the mindset that 1.99 purchases are the way to move forward in the game. It works, but it's not at all efficient. We get quite a lot of reports from players that we nickle and dime them early on in the game but feel forced to pay anyway and almost invariably, they are players that spent 20 bucks in 1.99 purchases when 15 in 5s and a bit of saving some HP in the same amount of playtime would have served that player *much* better. There's something psychological about getting into a rut in spending on the same pack over and over because it's familiar. We want to lessen that impact some. At the same time, eliminating the 1.99 purchase altogether not only sends the wrong message (lesser paying players need not apply) but also doesn't account for those users that *do* spend a tiny bit here and there.

Clearly the consideration here are just for paying players. What about my daughter who just have 1* characters in the level 40-ish and just starting to earn 2* covers? You should see her eyes light up everytime she gets characters that she sees in the movies. She was jumping like crazy when she pulled a Loki from a token! She has 13 roster slots now and pending covers that she's excited to have so she's been grinding the prologue to get those precious HPs to get her a new slot. With 175 HP in her stash, she's 25 HP away from her 14th slot. Lo and behold, patch arrives and now she needs 600 HP to expand her roster. Her shoulders dropped when I told her she just have to throw away the other cover she has.

But this does not concern you because she doesn't pay for playing the game that she so much loves.

But of course you were the awesome parent and dropped the $5 yada yada. Hehe

I haven't really talked about this change so I'll throw my perspective in.

D3 isn't really taking the free players into account here. This change is geared towards the micro transaction players who spend minimal amounts but make up a large portion of player base. These players might use all their earned hp on shields to place well, maybe save for a specific cover of their fav character, whatever they feel is best for them. Then this roster slot comes along they need and their like ok whatever, I'll drop $2 for this new cover. Then a week later this next new cover is out. Then a week later, etc etc. so they keep spending on shields to place well and these new covers keep comin. They start to feel like they getting nickel and dimed after a while. So D3's logic. Ok $5 doesn't seem much worse than $2 and if what they are spending on os roster slots then a single $5 purchase in a month might not seem as money grabbing as them spending $2 every week. Or whatever their metrics are showing them. In an odd way it forces the micro spenders to grab the $5 pack instead of the $2 pack, which in a way does kinda save them a very minimal amount of money which I suppose does effect D3 in a small way.

The result of all this is D3 loses money, micro spenders save a small amount of money and feel a bit better about a bundle purchase (possibly), and f2p players gt fk'd. I dunno what the intentions really were but the logic seems flawed to me. Maybe their *metrics* let then make things better than how things seem. I doubt it. But what their metrics prolly will show is a poor after effect.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

...and f2p players gt fk'd.

My sentiment exactly.

Psykopathic wrote:

But of course you were the awesome parent and dropped the $5 yada yada. Hehe

Nope. Told her to look for other Marvel games instead.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

MonCagz wrote:

IceIX wrote:

gamar wrote:

People buy slots when they need space for a new character. Getting a new hero already feels "impactful," and any slot that doesn't have a hero in it is just wasted spending.

I'm guessing your metrics showed a significant amount of players stopping at 11 or 14 roster slots? Come on, I understand that grouping roster slots is a change that will likely get d3p a little more revenue while having little to no negative impact on the majority of players but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Actually, we're expecting this change to have a minor *negative* affect on revenue. One of the major reasons we made this change is so that players don't get into the mindset that 1.99 purchases are the way to move forward in the game. It works, but it's not at all efficient. We get quite a lot of reports from players that we nickle and dime them early on in the game but feel forced to pay anyway and almost invariably, they are players that spent 20 bucks in 1.99 purchases when 15 in 5s and a bit of saving some HP in the same amount of playtime would have served that player *much* better. There's something psychological about getting into a rut in spending on the same pack over and over because it's familiar. We want to lessen that impact some. At the same time, eliminating the 1.99 purchase altogether not only sends the wrong message (lesser paying players need not apply) but also doesn't account for those users that *do* spend a tiny bit here and there.

Clearly the consideration here are just for paying players. What about my daughter who just have 1* characters in the level 40-ish and just starting to earn 2* covers? You should see her eyes light up everytime she gets characters that she sees in the movies. She was jumping like crazy when she pulled a Loki from a token! She has 13 roster slots now and pending covers that she's excited to have so she's been grinding the prologue to get those precious HPs to get her a new slot. With 175 HP in her stash, she's 25 HP away from her 14th slot. Lo and behold, patch arrives and now she needs 600 HP to expand her roster. Her shoulders dropped when I told her she just have to throw away the other cover she has.

But this does not concern you because she doesn't pay for playing the game that she so much loves.

But of course you were the awesome parent and dropped the $5 yada yada. Hehe

I haven't really talked about this change so I'll throw my perspective in.

D3 isn't really taking the free players into account here. This change is geared towards the micro transaction players who spend minimal amounts but make up a large portion of player base. These players might use all their earned hp on shields to place well, maybe save for a specific cover of their fav character, whatever they feel is best for them. Then this roster slot comes along they need and their like ok whatever, I'll drop $2 for this new cover. Then a week later this next new cover is out. Then a week later, etc etc. so they keep spending on shields to place well and these new covers keep comin. They start to feel like they getting nickel and dimed after a while. So D3's logic. Ok $5 doesn't seem much worse than $2 and if what they are spending on os roster slots then a single $5 purchase in a month might not seem as money grabbing as them spending $2 every week. Or whatever their metrics are showing them. In an odd way it forces the micro spenders to grab the $5 pack instead of the $2 pack, which in a way does kinda save them a very minimal amount of money which I suppose does effect D3 in a small way.

The result of all this is D3 loses money, micro spenders save a small amount of money and feel a bit better about a bundle purchase (possibly), and f2p players gt fk'd. I dunno what the intentions really were but the logic seems flawed to me. Maybe their *metrics* let then make things better than how things seem. I doubt it. But what their metrics prolly will show is a poor after effect.

I don't know the mechanics, but maybe it's about some fee which GooglePlay / iStore / Steam takes for every microtransaction? And it's better for the devs to have people pay more less often?