On Retroactive Rewards

jamesh

Here are my thoughts after having some time to process:

1. I think the decision to not hand out shards that correspond to covers already redeemed under the old set of rewards is reasonable.  I can live with the fact that newer players will get to choose the colour of the cover they receive when they hit those milestones and I got a fixed colour.
2. I think the decision not to award shards for characters that did not previously award 5* covers is inconsistent with IceIX's description of what I received. I hadn't previously received a 5* Prof X cover when my 4* Prof X passed level 300, so I expected to receive those shards.
3. The decision to award a bonus 100 shards at levels 300, 320, 340, and 360, even for characters that already awarded 5* covers was nice, but doesn't really make up for (2).  500 shards spread over five characters is far less useful than 500 shards concentrated on a single character.  Depending on how the game develops, it is entirely possible that some of those shards will never turn into a full cover.
4. The bonus shards from (3) ended up making the retroactive rewards we did get quite confusing.  For instance, my level 302 Thor only gave me 100 Storm shards (where I obviously hadn't previously received a Storm cover at level 300), while my level 298 Ant-Man gave me 250 Wasp shards. Even if your algorithm says that's what I should have got, it doesn't feel logical.

It would have been helpful to include some worked examples for the 4* tier.  If you weren't going to offer that, then at a minimum you should have responded when community members tried to create these worked examples based on your words.

I don't think it would have made the rewards given out any more acceptable, but it would have removed confusion over whether it was a mistake.

winter37

Jamesh outlined some of my feelings about this above, so I'll say that I agree with him when he says:

jamesh said:

Here are my thoughts after having some time to process:

1. I think the decision to not hand out shards that correspond to covers already redeemed under the old set of rewards is reasonable.  I can live with the fact that newer players will get to choose the colour of the cover they receive when they hit those milestones and I got a fixed colour.
2. I think the decision not to award shards for characters that did not previously award 5* covers is inconsistent with IceIX's description of what I received. I hadn't previously received a 5* Prof X cover when my 4* Prof X passed level 300, so I expected to receive those shards.
3. The bonus shards from (3) ended up making the retroactive rewards we did get quite confusing.  For instance, my level 302 Thor only gave me 100 Storm shards (where I obviously hadn't previously received a Storm cover at level 300), while my level 298 Ant-Man gave me 250 Wasp shards. Even if your algorithm says that's what I should have got, it doesn't feel logical.

Piggybacking on that, the big issue I had here was communication:

1) Neither the original post not the amended statement added the night of the 9th communicated what happened when the rewards dropped, which is frustrating because I think people would be far less up in arms if it had just said something to the effect of "This change won't be like retroactive feeder rewards for 5*s getting a 4* feeder, so not seeing shards for a level you've surpassed for a particular character is expected behavior.

2) I still don't understand what the intention was with characters new to the champion rewards system. For example, I got no shards for 4* Ronin from my 3* Hawkeye, and I don't understand the logic behind that. 

Daredevil217

fight4thedream said:

**Mod note: Please keep this thread on topic. Removed a couple of posts and issuing a warning on flame baiting.

I saw the post you were referring to and it honestly seems like that poster is (rightfully) flagged at least once a week and regularly engages in flame baiting. I’m legitimately curious how many “strikes” one gets here. 

Back on topic, I don’t know what else needs to be said or how much more “data” needs to be collected before we get an official response. We are all sharing our various stories of how we got hurt by this but the running themes are the same. 

In fact we STILL haven’t gotten a single word on WHY they made the changes they did. I swear Ice said they didn’t just want to tack the retro rewards info at the end of that post and would go into greater detail about the why and how Monday (though the post has been edited). Only, instead of separate thread giving us said info he in fact buried it in an edit late the night before. 

I also haven’t gotten an answer on how feeders are to work going forward. 

I hope they know that the silence is inciting not calming. 

Pongie

What should have happened is not to delay the 9 new 5* feeders until shards were implemented. The feeders should have kept coming per previous schedule (with retrospective covers while players had lower champion levels). 

Then when shards were introduced, announce a change to champion rewards where certain levels got replaced by shards. Along with this, announce that retrospective covers are no longer given and replaced by 100 shards. 

If it happened this way, I don’t think there would have been an up roar from the players. 

AlMacD

Blergh said:

Been a while since I posted, but thought I'd add my two cents to the thread. 

[lots of additional insightful commentary, edited for brevity's sake, but worth the read]

You need to find a way to inject the fun back in for higher rosters, give them that feeling that you're achieving something, not just wasting time or struggling for a 4* cover that won't really give them anything in return, your building something, your progressing - not hitting a dead wall and being punished. Once you looked at metrics, and think about a change - ask if it is rewarding to the player base as a whole - if it will make them go wow and emotionally invest. If not, then it's most probably a bad idea. Think about the whole entertainment aspect. 

Another tattoo worthy post...

This and several other comments have touched on a critical factor: the backlash is linked to much more than the retroactive rewards disappointment. The ongoing problems in the game have become a multiplier, making the backlash all the more intense. The proverbial straw / camel thing.

We love the game and community. We've played through the problems in hopes of corrections, and there have been some bright spots along the way (saved covers, bonus heroes, feeders, CP, colorless covers, the end of character nerfs) and some ideas which could be very good with some reworking (such as supports and shards). But reducing retroactive rewards, BH, HP, ISO, and CP in the process of introducing new stuff tends to undermine the new stuff and the problems continue to grow. This week, prior to the rewards distribution, there was much frustration at the loss of resources under the new system, and it appeared we weren't going to be putting much of a dent in the ongoing problems, but at least we would be getting our feeders and retroactive rewards! Queue disappointment and backlash.

Four and a half years in, I'm feeling what Blergh has described (and we are not alone). In order to keep up with the onslaught of new characters in a resource starved game, I make the obligatory investment of time and VIP, but the diminishing returns in fun are causing me to question these investments. Most of my MPQ enjoyment now comes from interacting with my alliance and battle room families, and the occasional new 5* champ, instead of the game itself. Something needs to change.

My recommendations, in no particular order:

• Absorb and act on Blergh's points and suggestions (the insights are on the money), in addition to the numerous great suggestions from the community.
• Give the expected retroactive rewards for each character tier. Covers and shards at least. Maybe even some tokens. It's the right thing to do, and should help morale a bit.
• Bring back bonus heroes and keep shards, or at least make shards much more plentiful and tier based (pooled and usable for any character in the tier). The BH system provided strategic flexibility and better return rates, not to mention fun, which should be restored in some form.
• Make HP, ISO, and CP more abundant in game and more affordable in purchases. Nothing extreme - make multiple careful increases over time to prevent system shock. I think you'll be surprised at how much this strengthens the game and improves the bottom line.
• Combat character dilution and increase fun without morale killing, improvement neutralizing, trade-offs.
• Work on new forms of game play and rewards. Maybe experiment with teams of 4 against 4 (or more)? Live head-to-head matches? Flexible times? Larger boards? Quests? Cooperative gaming? Tier specific events? etc.
• Give veteran players reasons to keep playing..
• Shield level 10?
• Don't be afraid to communicate openly with the players. No gimmicks. Just mutual honesty and respect.We understand you need to make money, and we've proven we are willing to spend it when things are on the up and up. We all want this to succeed.

PinkoMcFlyToo

Daredevil217 said:
Back on topic, I don’t know what else needs to be said or how much more “data” needs to be collected before we get an official response. We are all sharing our various stories of how we got hurt by this but the running themes are the same. 

I think we all know the "data" is whether or not their daily/weekly sales are taking a hit.

PuceMoose

As a 4-star player with no champed (or even fully covered) 5-stars, and no 4-star over 300, I was happy to get five usable 5* covers with the reward update. That was cool. On the downside, I was sad to see *no* secondary shards. That was disappointing, as I would have loved some shards to help 4* Torch and 4* Juggs inch closer to being fully covered.

 I was also disappointed at not receiving any mighty tokens from my champed 2* - I have yet to receive even one mighty token, and was looking forward to opening a few. I know retroactive token rewards aren't a thing they typically do, but it would still have a been a great morale booster with minimal impact on overall roster strength (plus, a great way to introduce/celebrate a new token type). "Wow! You have 11 fully-champed champed 2*, great job! Here's 11 mighty tokens! Go get 'em, tiger!" 

LLohm

Dear @IceIX,

can you help facilitate a swift resolution with Demiurge so they know what they can expect from Amazon Digital Day?

A swift answer with firm resolution will go a long way with us all and we would love to splurge during this holiday period!

edited for typo and context

DeNappa

I don't want to sound too dismissive here, but I feel like people are blowing this up disproportionally. What it boils down to is in essence 'I didn't get as much compensation for the reworked champion structure as I expected', and (especially) forum-vocal veterans with high-champed or maxed 4*'s are being hit "harder" because of their respective better rosters.

Does that invalidate their point? Not completely, either, because it's undeniably weird (at least) that you get less rewards for having just a few more champ levels. And the whole announcement post thing was unclear as well.

(I'm not even sure how much this has affected me -- my highest 4*s are around level 300. I'm just more confusappointed by the whole shards system)

So what I want to say.. Well I don't know. Just it's not the end of the world. Oh well.

AXP_isme

I was very disappointed when this happened. There are some reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate. Fairness can look different depending on where you sit. 

Looking back, my biggest issues are that the communication was unclear. My expectations and reality were totally misaligned. The information was drip-fed and the examples didn’t add up to create a full and clear picture of what to expect. Maybe that’s on me, maybe not. I look back and can see a pattern of communication that I don’t consider to be very good so I’m inclined to say it’s more on the d3/Demi side than on mine (plus that means I don’t have to take as much responsibility, so...). My expectations were conditioned on previous reward updates. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, when information is short or difficult to understand, to use past examples to guide future behaviour. I think that’s called learning. 

I thought it would be like Christmas as a child. Loads of presents, feels great, everyone seems to be happy, massive anticipation, goodwill all around. In short, awesome. In fact it turned out to be more like Christmas as an adult. Lots of people angry and irreconcilable, costs a fortune and leaves you feeling disappointed, hollow and broken paying off the accumulated debts in your finances, relationships and mental health. 

CAttitude

Real situation:
My Riri is at 349.  I am playing Balance of Power.  I have always played through 40 wins to get the 4, but now, because it is Riri, that would be stupid of me to advance her.  

pheregas

And confusion continues to reign.
Just minutes ago, I was rewarded with my alliance sub tokens.

I pulled a Hood cover.

I go to apply and realize that I already have two max champ Hood characters.

Normally, I’d just go delete one, then roster the new one and start rebuilding from there.

But this time I was completely filled with apathy. Should I hold onto the cover, hoping true retroactive rewards are implemented? Should I sell it? Should I reroster?

The fact that I even had to think about this at all frustrates me.

pheregas

OJSP said:

pheregas said:

Should I hold onto the cover, hoping true retroactive rewards are implemented? Should I sell it? Should I reroster?

Keep it on the vine for now.

I sold one of the max champ and rostered again. My faith in the system is at an all time low.

I’ve already sold a couple duplicate max champ 3s since shardmaggeddom dropped. I didn’t want an extra cover hanging out in my inventory taunting me every time I opened the game, frustrating me and filling me with regret. 

Crowl

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 covers
2) 4* Secondary shards

The rest such as expecting 100 Mighty Tokens, triple dipping and whatever is simply ridiculous.

The simple fact of the matter is that an LT is worth 0.15 of a 5*, so it was never double dipping and certainly not your asinine claim of triple dipping if they had followed their own long-standing precedent of awarding covers when they added a feeder. 

CAttitude

Practically asking, how far should we promote a new, non-feeder 4 in this shard hellscape?  279?  297?  I am worried about CapWorthy in this upcoming Civil War event.

bluewolf

CAttitude said:

Practically asking, how far should we promote a new, non-feeder 4 in this shard hellscape?  279?  297?  I am worried about CapWorthy in this upcoming Civil War event.

This probably needs to be a separate thread but yes, the underlying message for players who care more about eventual 5's than using a high level 4 is to stop at 299.

It's just amazing that they are telling us that it hurts us to level people too much.

Barnstormer

If LTs are 15% of a 5* cover, would everyone be happy with 85% of the shards for the retroactive rewards?  Just curious.  That would make it equal for vets and new players.

I wasn't as affected as people with max 4*, but I definitely understand their anger.  When you have put this much time and money into something it becomes more than just a game.  Large chunks of my day are spent planning around this game because of the unfortunate structure.  I've been playing for 2 years.  I only have one 4* in the mid-300's(Gamora).  I spent a lot of time and money chasing the Thanos covers (big thanks to BH, I actually pulled a thanos cover and got a bonus Thanos to complete my champ, IT WAS EPIC).  It will probably take me another 2 years to max any 4*.  So if you told me after all that time that I wouldn't get the same rewards as someone starting now?  Yeah, I understand the outrage.

Will this be solved if they give out full rewards?  Yes this is hyperbolic, but what percentage of people would stay with their significant other if they cheated?  I think the vets feel cheated on.  I guess the question is how much do you trust the person will change.  Playstation changed after the PS3 launch, XBOX changed after the disastrous XB ONE launch and both have become customer friendly in my opinion.

I feel exasperated just reading about other people's exasperation. Good luck Demi, I hope you can get it right.

Crowl

I think 85% would have been fine if they had announced that as the amount in the first place, but the initial rewards were so insultingly low that it's probably too late for that now. 

pheregas

One final comment on shards, and maybe this isn't the place for it, but maybe it is...

Shards have fundamentally changed the way I approach level progression and not in a clear-cut way.

A colorless cover is exactly what we've been wanting for quite some time.  Shards are a rather deflating way to roll that out though.

There has been much discussion in other threads regarding "wasted shards."

I am a full 5* completionist player.  This means that I want to champ everybody and that is my primary goal in the game.  3*s are only there to get 4* rewards.  4*s (with a handful of exceptions) are exclusively for gaining the opportunities to get 5* characters (whether that be via LT or progression covers.)

Before shards, I'd BH the newest 4* as soon as available, get them up to 10 covers, then reassign my BH to whichever 4s would next payout an LT.  I almost always had a few xx9 4* characters ready to go.  I'd Heart all of them.  If one of them happened to show up as a progression prize in PVP or PVE, it was a simple, un-Heart click away and I had others to focus on.  If I got one of those BH, I'd get the LT/cover, then un-Heart immediately afterwards.  Easy peasy.

Now, it is silly to Sharget more than one character of each tier, given how the shards dribble out.  And hope that the one you picked doesn't come up in PVE or PVP any time soon.  Sure, you'll still have those shards saved, but that's progress that could have been assigned to another 4, or, progress that you'll have to refocus on in 10 levels, when they are back at xx9 again.  And who knows how long that will take with RNG.

Given the new precedent to not level any 4* character that doesn't have a 5* shard reward since we are going to be hosed on those rewards in the future, it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.  It also makes me very confused on who to target in the future.  Do I target for rewards, skip leveling potentially useful characters simply because they don't have a 5* payout, or just not Sharget anyone?  It's not like I can go back and sharget TA Hulk for Banner covers or Spiderman covers for BSSM covers as those shards are now gone.  I'm better off re-rostering those 4s and starting over.

AXP_isme

I can only assume that there are metrics out there suggesting that more items in the larger game economy depresses overall spending. I can’t really see any other reason not to create some good will by showering all the player base with largesse. Seriously, a cover or shard or token or whatever costs almost nothing to give out yet it creates good will and potentially the scenario in which people are more inclined to spend (near a shard threshold, or with extra covers needing to be rostered, for instance). Surely the combination of feeling good about the generosity of the game and the artificial scarcity (or appearance thereof) for a particular commodity creates a more compelling long-term spending paradigm than scarcity alone. 

Just play Santa! Shower everyone with gifts (and not that crummy: “here’s one token for a vault where you’re almost guaranteed to end up with a 2*” type of generosity we usually get) and make them feel good about MPQ. I’ve played for a long time and I feel closer to the exit now than at any time over the last 5+ years. I will wait to see how shards get built in to the progression rewards but if that follows the same pattern, give with one hand and take with the other, then I think I’ll call it a day. I don’t particularly want to, I enjoy the core mechanic a lot, but I’ve almost completely lost faith.