BlatantFix said: 2*s were handled ok for the most part. I still think it was cheap to not award the mighty tokens retroactively for level 143, but whatever, the shards were at least given retroactively correctly.3*s - For those you changed the feeder for I get not handing out new shards if the cover was already given, after all, covers were already received there, even if it's a bit annoying it was for a different character (incidentally I'd love to hear why Daredevil and Elektra both still only feed 4* Elektra when every other instance of this got changed). But for secondary feeders I don't understand the logic of not handing out the shards, as you've created the scenario where I would have been better off not leveling anyone for two weeks prior to this change. My level 201 Iron Man for example, has now missed 120 secondary shards for having been leveled, 55 of which I would have absolutely got as I've added at least a couple of levels to him within that time frame, only to now find myself too high level to earn a reward. In what world does that make sense?Even worse for 4* characters, while it doesn't personally affect me, anyone just over level 300, 320, 340 etc. has been massively hit by this, as they are literally receiving less rewards than they would a few levels lower as per the examples in this thread. Offer any player the chance to take that legendary token back for the better rewards and I'm sure they'd take it, but they can't.Someone in my alliance just unloaded a 2 year haul of command points thinking it would be beneficial. Now not only was it not beneficial, it was plain detrimental. They would have been unequivocally better off for having done so a few days later. Again, why?To top it all off the update was made at short notice, with vague communication that included this statement:"At the same time, for 4-Star characters that are receiving all-new rewards, we want to ensure that players receive those rewards for the level they have reached."This was simply not true, they did not receive those rewards, they received a small fraction inconsistently applied. The fact you didn't even mention 3* secondary feeder shards not being given suggests you knew it would be unpopular. Then a member of your team openly insults players reactions on discord, which you can claim isn't official, but as far as I can tell most of my alliance gets news on there way before I do reading here.This entire thing was a mess, and it just didn't need to be. What's worse, the way it was rolled out suggested you knew it wasn't really beneficial to anyone, but just thought no-one would kick up too much of a fuss. And are only now reacting because you misjudged that.
grumbLEGO said: From what I can tell from some of these truly impressive posts and my own experience (2019 play days, shield level 155) it all boils down to something very simple. The communication seemed to indicate that the change in rewards would be treated like previous feeders. It was not. They could have gone so far as to change the reward and give nothing retroactively, at least that didn’t happen, but that’s small comfort because the retroactive rewards are a. Inconsistent with previous retroactive rewards and b. Just don’t make a whole lot of sense. Also. Is there any real reason why we need to split up shard rewards in champ levels and not just award 500 at one level and give other rewards at the other levels? You got to 500 shards (or the equivalent for lower cover tiers) at the same place you’d get a cover before anyway, why split it up?
shadow2999 said: The biggest issue that I have is lack of a real conversation from the devs to handle this head on and actually stand infront of the community and start answering questions and handling in an open and honest way. There is way too heat to just take it to a back room and not communicate with the rest of the class....at least that is what I would do if I were in charge...letting this fester is only going to make it worst. And it has. Each day of radio silence rather an active engagement is a lost opportunity. And while it may be childish to say, I hope that shows in thier bottom line if that is what it is going to take to get them out and public.
MoosePrime said: Two years ago, when the first 4* Champion rewards were updated to have 5* covers, we were told any future updates would credit the covers for levels that had been achieved. This is why I (and probably many others) expected to receive the shards for the levels we had passed.https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/749081/#Comment_749081
Brigby said:Hi Everyone. I spoke to the developers this morning, and they provided the following information.Any future 4-Star characters that have their Champion Rewards changed to offer 5-Star covers, will also retroactively credit those covers to players that had already achieved those levels.
HoundofShadow said: I find it amusing that players like to fantasise that devs will be generous with rewards, and yet, they are aware, and they have always repeated in the forum that the devs has always being stingy with rewards.However, this doesn't stop them from expecting the devs to fulfil their fantasies.In the first place, don't you guys find that something is amissed when they decided to push out 9 4* feeders and 28 new 3* feeders simulataneously?Between the second last update and the latest update, it's a fact that the full information about the retroactive rewards was not posted yet. Yet, players decided to jump the gun and assumed that things will be done the good old way. You guys need to take responsibility for your actions and your choices for jumping the gun and for assuming. I've seen this happening so many times over the last two years, and yet, you guys have never apologised to the devs for jumping to conclusions and assuming that things will be done according to your fantasy.Some of the biggest mistakes made by the team were not defining the scope of "retroactive rewards" and posting how retroactive rewards work <10 hours before the update goes live.The players are at fault for jumping the gun before full information is out and for assuming that you will be flooded with over 100 Mighty Tokens and tons of 4*/5* covers and shards.In the future, the devs really need to define the definitions of words. In this case, the players have defined "retroactive rewards" as Mighty Tokens, 5* shards, 5* covers, 4* shards, 4* covers, double dipping and hell, even triple dipping, and whatever. This has happened so many times, and I can pull up cases after cases for your references.Also, the team need to put this disclosure at the top of every post when they decide to be a little nicer: "Past goodwill/generosity is not indicative of future goodwill/generosity." The team need to understand this cold hard truth, players in here don't see you as humans. They see you as only rewards machine. They don't care whatever happened to you in your and they have said that it's not their problems if you guys can't hit your KPIs. They have clearly defined the relationship between you and them.The players need to stop assuming things and expecting the devs to fulfil your fantasies. You guys are adults. If you want to assume things, you need to take responsibility for your own actions when things didn't happen the way you expected. Ask and verify. If you can't get an answer, then you need to decide what to do next. You either wait or make educated guesses.
HoundofShadow said: The only group of players who have legitimate cases are:1) players with 370 Hulkbuster and the likes receiving 2 covers instead of 6 covers2) 4* Secondary shardsThe rest such as expecting 100 Mighty Tokens, triple dipping and whatever is simply ridiculous.