On Retroactive Rewards

thedarkphoenix

KGB said:

The problem now though is that it's not just 5 levels of champ rewards that have changed. It's 15 levels of rewards at the 4* level. So for someone who has a max champ 370 they would be getting:

5 LTs (at the 300, 320 etc levels) plus 60 cp (the other shard replacement of champ rewards) more than someone who just has a L295 or below 4*. That's a LOT of extra resources they got that I am not going to get just because they got there first.

So while I am sympathetic to their loss, it will be no where remotely fair if they get that much extra resources. There should be a claw back of LT's and CP's if those players get awarded more shards. Or those of us who aren't at those levels need double rewards when we do reach them.

Prior feeder updates already benefited veteran players who double dipped the 280/300 etc rewards with extra LT's so at some point that has to stop for fairness sake.

KGB

The entire meta of this game has been about getting there 1st.

This is more about how much money do they think they are going to loose 

froggerjohn

Several points, and apologies if most of them have been made before.

1. Every time characters are added to MPQ, resources are spread thinner, to a wider base. We needed a resource boost just to maintain the same relative progress as what the norm was years ago. You don't need to take stuff away from us to "pay for" the elements you add.

2. Feeders are a critical element of being able to complete older 5*s. Many players have been awaiting feeders for a long time. So when you update those feeders, but nerf them into obscurity, you've crippled the ability to complete those characters. Maybe permanently (short of rostering a duplicate 4*). I imagine most players above a certain level would prefer no feeder, with the hope one will still come someday, compared to turning their long-time hopes into a small fraction of their expectations.

3. The higher level characters a player has, the more they have been penalized by this update. Some players likely spent money and/or resources preparing for this update, and find themselves in a worse position than had they done nothing. These are really disastrous side-effects, that beg reconsideration.

4. There's now incentive to not champ a character that doesn't yet feed another, just to not lose its potential 5* progress.

5. Players have an emotional investment in this game. By your design. So it shouldn't be a surprise to have an emotional response to policy choices that negatively impact their experience.

6. There have been a lot of good steps recently in MPQ. All of these had the potential to be very positive outcomes, and yet, many of them had quite the opposite response from large numbers of players. And sadly, the reason why they had a negative response is almost exclusively the same factor -- taking something away from us. So I refer back to point #1 above. When you go to all the effort to make things better for us, and we really do appreciate that, please try to reconsider whether such elements really need to be "balanced" by a negative effect that almost certainly evokes player backlash. 

killahKlown

froggerjohn said:

4. There's now incentive to not champ a character that doesn't yet feed another, just to not lose its potential 5* progress.

Frogger, that is an EXCELLENT point that I had not seen brought up yet.  Thank you!

Vhailorx

thedarkphoenix said:

KGB said:

The problem now though is that it's not just 5 levels of champ rewards that have changed. It's 15 levels of rewards at the 4* level. So for someone who has a max champ 370 they would be getting:

5 LTs (at the 300, 320 etc levels) plus 60 cp (the other shard replacement of champ rewards) more than someone who just has a L295 or below 4*. That's a LOT of extra resources they got that I am not going to get just because they got there first.

So while I am sympathetic to their loss, it will be no where remotely fair if they get that much extra resources. There should be a claw back of LT's and CP's if those players get awarded more shards. Or those of us who aren't at those levels need double rewards when we do reach them.

Prior feeder updates already benefited veteran players who double dipped the 280/300 etc rewards with extra LT's so at some point that has to stop for fairness sake.

KGB

The entire meta of this game has been about getting there 1st.

This is more about how much money do they think they are going to loose 

Clearly demi/d3 are scared of too many covers going out too quickly.  But that doesn't mean they are right.  they have tons of gameplay data to use for planning, but that doesn't mean they are doing to a good job of interpreting that data.

How many live service looters have to launch with miniscule drop rates only to discover that more loot actually raises player engagement? (Diablo 3, destiny, the division, anthem, destiny 2 menagerie, etc).  Sure, fixed cover rewards are a bit different than randomized loot like diablo or destiny weapons, but now also releases new content way more frequently than AAA games.

I have always thought that a somewhat higher cover/iso distribution rate, especially when the player could target their progress (and no BH and shards are not enough IMO) would help player engagement, especially in the 4* and 5* transitions where roster progress is glacial, without tanking spending.

BuzzedLightbeer

tiomono said:

This update was very odd. Not always consistent with how champion reward updates have been handled for more than a year. Not even consistent with itself.

My 298 hulk buster gave me 1 rescue cover and 250 shards for rescue which seems consistent. Then I look at my level 300 totally awesome hulk that gave me 1 banner cover and only 100 shards.

I'm just baffled how the devs came to this conclusion as a reward structure. Having 2 extra covers for a character gives me 150 shards less instead of the 400 more that the green checkmark would seem to imply.

See, this example actually furthers my confusion on how this entire system could be deemed appropriate by the devs.  My 305 Hulkbuster gave me the one Rescue cover and then just 100 shards.  I’m much farther away from that second reward cover of Rescue, despite my Hulkbuster being a mere seven levels further along than yours.  It sure doesn’t feel like a “reward” for having earned those few additional HB covers, that’s for sure.  

I’m honestly happy that you and others in your situation haven’t missed out, I just wish that for those of us in situations like mine we had the same opportunity at the second cover.  Sorry you’ve suffered a similar fate with your Awesome Hulk.  I just don’t see how any of this is particularly logical.

GrimSkald

KGB said:

The problem now though is that it's not just 5 levels of champ rewards that have changed. It's 15 levels of rewards at the 4* level. So for someone who has a max champ 370 they would be getting:

5 LTs (at the 300, 320 etc levels) plus 60 cp (the other shard replacement of champ rewards) more than someone who just has a L295 or below 4*. That's a LOT of extra resources they got that I am not going to get just because they got there first.

So while I am sympathetic to their loss, it will be no where remotely fair if they get that much extra resources. There should be a claw back of LT's and CP's if those players get awarded more shards. Or those of us who aren't at those levels need double rewards when we do reach them.

Prior feeder updates already benefited veteran players who double dipped the 280/300 etc rewards with extra LT's so at some point that has to stop for fairness sake.

KGB

You are vastly over-valuing LTs and CPs, and under-valuing 5* covers. Speaking for myself, I "lost out" on about 22 covers (I would have gained 32, I gained 10.)  If someone from D3 said to me, "we'll give you those 22 covers, but only if you pay for them in LTs/CP," I would say "yes."  In a heartbeat.  It doesn't matter that all but 3 of those covers are for a character who I'll hardly ever use (1 additional Kitty and 2 additional Prof X covers,) I'd still go for it.  5* covers are worth, more or less, at least 8-10 draws.

I'll point out that if they continue this retroactive system it will end up biting people very, very hard.  That is to say, by the old system they would complete a 5*, by the new system they will not, and not have any good way to complete that 5* without a ton of resources.  I feel very sure that everyone will be there someday, and it will hurt the 4* players more than 5* players.  4* players can't be certain of covering a 5* without feeders, a consistent 5* player will...

crackninja

Since feedback has been requested...I am upset by this because i feel as though this has all been part of a long-term, deliberate plan to reduce rewards vs the old systems, including a specific methodology for reducing retro rewards.  Exhibit 1a for me is that feeders were put on hold until shards were implemented.
While I may not be "owed" full covers or shards equaling those covers, under the system that has been in place since the beginning of the 5* feeder system it is a reasonable expectation that I would get them with these newly announced feeders.
That the announcement of how this would be unveiled was delayed and unclear to many did not help, especially because people made decisions with real money implications based on the only information they had available to them at the time.  Personally I was unaffected by this, made no efforts to get characters to a certain level, and would not have been notably happier had a clear, full announcement been made of the changes earlier, but for those that did, I have great empathy for them.
I could go on for pages, and as a community we have, but I boil this down to this being another example where there was the option to award maybe a little "too much" from the beancounter perspective, to a small fraction of the playerbase, or to massively shortchange them, and a choice was made.  One with repercussions.

pheregas

If they want to stop the double dipping aspect of retroactive rewards updates; then may I recommend that each new 5* character gets a new 4* as the provider of the shards/covers as the new 5* enters classics.

Everyone starts at the same place and there will most probably always be more 4s released than 5s.

cpeyton3535

My 2 cents,

4* characters with new feeders should have been handled differently with respect to retroactive rewards.

Previously where an LT was replaced with a cover as a reward and you had already received that LT, you got the cover.  Double dipping?  Yup.  But fair IMO since an LT definitely does NOT equate to a 5* especially for people like myself with abysmal 5* pull rates.

It was stated that the retroactive rewards would be handled similar to the way they were handled previously.  That set an expectation.  Meaning most of us logically concluded that where before we received a cover (like we in fact did at 280!) we would this time get the new equivalent of a cover (ie 500 shards) at the 300, 320, 340, 350 and 360 benchmarks.  Instead we received 100 shards at each of those benchmarks.    

Why give us a cover at the 280 mark but only 100 shards for each benchmark thereafter????? 

This makes no sense to me:
New-feeder 4* at 299  rewards = 1 5* cover and 250 5* shards, 1 reward away from cover 2
New-feeder 4* at 300  rewards = An LT (already received), 1 5* cover and 100 5* shards, 20 rewards away from cover 2

In essence, the person with the 299 is a cover ahead. 

An LT and 100 shards are NOT equivalent to a 5* cover.  Not unless that LT was miraculously a cover for the 5* that 4* now feeds. 



What happened to 3* new feeder rewards?

Seems like all the focus was on 4* feeders into 5* rewards.  I'm sure many players, particularly newer players, are wondering where the 3* feeder into 4* rewards went.  Players with a more advanced roster would have benefited as well, obviously, but honestly it feels like the rewards that would most benefit newer players were ignored.  

KGB

GrimSkald said:

KGB said:

The problem now though is that it's not just 5 levels of champ rewards that have changed. It's 15 levels of rewards at the 4* level. So for someone who has a max champ 370 they would be getting:

5 LTs (at the 300, 320 etc levels) plus 60 cp (the other shard replacement of champ rewards) more than someone who just has a L295 or below 4*. That's a LOT of extra resources they got that I am not going to get just because they got there first.

So while I am sympathetic to their loss, it will be no where remotely fair if they get that much extra resources. There should be a claw back of LT's and CP's if those players get awarded more shards. Or those of us who aren't at those levels need double rewards when we do reach them.

Prior feeder updates already benefited veteran players who double dipped the 280/300 etc rewards with extra LT's so at some point that has to stop for fairness sake.

KGB

You are vastly over-valuing LTs and CPs, and under-valuing 5* covers. Speaking for myself, I "lost out" on about 22 covers (I would have gained 32, I gained 10.)  If someone from D3 said to me, "we'll give you those 22 covers, but only if you pay for them in LTs/CP," I would say "yes."  In a heartbeat.  It doesn't matter that all but 3 of those covers are for a character who I'll hardly ever use (1 additional Kitty and 2 additional Prof X covers,) I'd still go for it.  5* covers are worth, more or less, at least 8-10 draws.

I'll point out that if they continue this retroactive system it will end up biting people very, very hard.  That is to say, by the old system they would complete a 5*, by the new system they will not, and not have any good way to complete that 5* without a ton of resources.  I feel very sure that everyone will be there someday, and it will hurt the 4* players more than 5* players.  4* players can't be certain of covering a 5* without feeders, a consistent 5* player will...

I'm asking for fairness here, not valuing resources vs covers.

A L370 right now with full retro rewards gives: 6 LT's, 60 CPs (what they earned at the time) plus 1 5* cover and 2500 shards (if they gave out everything as they used to do).

My L279 when max champed will give 1 5* cover and 2500 shards.

See the difference: 6 LT's and 60 CP. That's per character!

All I'm saying is that you and other vets should be given the option to 1 time purchase via customer service (similar to what was done when they ended cover swaps) those shards you missed out on but the price should be the rewards that you got at those champ levels. Otherwise it's vastly unfair to the bulk of the players who aren't double dipping on rewards and who didn't in the past either.

KGB

iuchiban

As a recent (less than 70 days played) player, I don't have a lot of experience with the game. I wasn't around for previous changes to feeders, and obviously the 3* and 4* changes don't really impact me.
But, what I do know is that at this stage of the game, Hero Points are FAR AND AWAY the most scarce and most valuable commodity for me. I have all my 2*s champed, most of my 3*s rostered (and some ready to champ), and I'm struggling for the HP to roster the rest (as well as the occasional 4*).
The initial change didn't look great; losing out on HP for progressing champed 2*, in return for a little versatility in the colour of covers received. But, at least there would be some retroactive shards to help ease the pain, and progress some of my 3* characters.
But nope; instead, all I got was a handful of shards, and losing out on complete covers and HP that I desperately need.
So from a newbie's perspective, the change to feeders wasn't good, and then getting far fewer shards than expected feels like a real gut punch. It definitely makes me question whether it's a smart place to spend my time and money.
My 2 cents.

Vhailorx

Kgb, I believe that a 370 4* today yielded 1x 5* cover + 500 shards.  Not 2500 shards.

So while they might have 6 lts and ~60 CP, they are short 2k shards.

And 6 lts + 60 CP is, on average, less than 2x 5* covers.

shardwick

jb5357 said:

I am sure this is felt by others and already said, but wanted to add my reaction. Since the update was announced, I strategically worked my roster to try and get past points where a mighty token would be issued and secondary shards, because in prior updates, replaced awards were issued. When none of these were issued, it felt like punishment for leveling, and I would have been better off not playing for 5 days, instead of using my resources in game, as I would be getting more/better stuff today vs the last 5 days.

i am not as high is my 4 star champing, so that did not affect me, but i feel penalized for working to max out and level my 3 stars.

Same for me. I don't have a ton of 4* characters past 300 so I wasn't expecting to get flooded with 5* covers. I was however thinking that at the very least I would get all of the mighty tokens and shards that I would have earned along the way plus maybe even covers for the 4* characters that were taking over the primary feeder reward spot like Gamora, Magik, Nightcrawler and Valkyrie. So to pretty much get none of that outside of a handful of 5* covers and then for Demiurge to pretty much give everyone the finger for being upset really soured me on the game so much that I am legit thinking of quitting soon. It irritates the hell out of me when a politician gaslights me and I sure as hell am not going to stick around when a damn game developer does it too.

Omegased

Something that has been slightly overlooked, is the lack of 3 star retro rewards. Aside form the fact they changed a few feeders (i still need a magik cover, yet don't get them from my champed Colosus), the rewards have been neutered. why is this relevant to high level rosters?

I'm currently working on my Black Bolt. he is 4/5/3. 
My Medusa is 314, so she's my current favourite to get her to 320 and fully cover BB.

To help her on her way, i have my Kamla Kahn dupe championed. she's currently at 219.

The old system would have her get a Medusa cover at 223. With this new system i've lost 200 shards for Medusa, (as she should have got them at 215, and 218) so effectively a cover (or half a cover if you want to be specific).

This is hugely demoralising - it takes such long time to cover these 5s and what i thought was a sure thing has been pushed out significantly. As others have pointed out, if I hadn't leveled KK up in the past two weeks, i would be better off. that's insane.

marshall

@KGB A LT is but 15% of a 5* cover, so about 75 shards each, plus 3 per pull. So considering classic pulls on those 60 cps, that's a grand total of 78 * 9 or 702 shards at best. Most of which would be applied on undesirable characters like Banner.

Besides as a 1600+ day veteran I've missed out on heaps of later benefits, like saved covers. I'd have full 4*d if I were to get back all my wasted covers.

Don't really see how you're the victim here?

atomzed

I am absolutely angry at the way the retrospective rewards are rolled out. Specifically the 4* characters feeding into 5* characters (5* feeder).

I have no issues with (1) old feeders not receiving shards because hey, I have received the covers already, (2) some partial shards given for old feeders, because hey, I have received the old covers before. 

I have MAJOR problems with the new feeders.

As many has said, in all previous roll out of feeders, we are given all the retrospective covers. That makes sense because I already meet all your newly defined milestones, just that I completed it before you announced it. This makes perfect sense. 

Now, we are only given 1/5 the rewards. Example, I have a level 348 4* prof X. In the old way, I should have 4 covers that I missed, so giving me makes perfect sense. In the current mood Roll out, I was given ONE cover and a few hundred shards, which do not equate to four covers. 

If your argument is that “hey you were previously rewarded with LT in the past “, then I will say “please, I will refund you the LT from my stash, and give me my 5* covers”.

The situation for the new 5* feeder is just pure pettiness. Petty because the company save a few covers but the company lose the goodwill of the customers. 

As many has said, I am STOPPING my support for the game... I am a regular VIP subscriber but this doesn’t make sense to me anymore. I will also not buy the shards, as a matter of principle. 

Reecoh

I won't rehash the many excellent points made here already, but I want to add that the precedent that had been set with prior 5* feeder releases was one of the considerations I made when deciding how to spend in this game. While we can never be sure which 4* might feed a given 5* (and I have been wrong in my guesses more than once) it was fun to guess and hitting the 280, 300, etc. milestones felt like a worthwhile achievement beyond the LT given simply for the potential for a small boost to the old roster with a 5* cover someday.

The recent drop off in new 5* feeders had been a point of frustration but the expectation of more coming was never changed by any communication from anyone involved with the game as far as I know. Just that a decision was made that feeders were added to often, but more would be on the way eventually.

That was true right up to the point where almost all of the remaining feeders were released all at once with the vast reduction in retroactive payout compared to precedent. So my feedback to the develop team is to consider the definition of bait and switch (from https://www.merriam-webster.com). Emphasis is mine.

1 : a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
2 : the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

This release may not meet any strict or legal definition of the term, but I sure as tinykitty feel like this is what has been done to the player base. And in an environment where loot boxes and similar tactics are getting scrutiny this is not a good look. IMHO.

JHawkInc

bluewolf said:

Someone probably posted something similar already but here goes:

I have almost all the 5's champed.  One that's been lingering is Doom who ended up 5/5/1 with 7 saved covers.  But I have Invisible Woman at 343 and I always thought eventually she might feed him, so I patiently waited for that day to (hopefully, eventually) come.  I figured I could take trading in 3 covers and champ him, or get her to 360, when the time came.

And then the chart got posted and there it was!  Sue will feed Doom!  And wait...shards!  So I imagined taking those shards and finishing him without any waste at all.....it seemed like a massive gift and I could deal with trading in HP and CP for colorless covers....I've been wanting to use him in different events so I figured I'd (try to) wait and see how rewards went before getting too worked up over the HP and CP stuff.

Well, we know how that worked out.  While still trying to figure out the retro rewards after reading a confusing post, I got one actual Doom cover...and 300 shards.  And IW is ONLY 343 so, 4 less random pulls for her over the past 3900 pulls or so, and I'd have gotten a full shard/cover that I could have converted and used some saved if I wanted, or I guess target her and 3 Doom....you get the point.  Instead I now have 8 saved covers and 300 shards for Doom.

I'm both worse off than I expected based on all 25 prior feeder updates, and have more work to do to get a Doom cover thanks to pulling a few too many IWs (for some reason RNG seems to love her on my account) and every time I think about it, it makes me mad and want to throw my phone across the room.  OK, maybe not right now but it sure makes me want to make sure I don't renew VIP or buy a bundle or anything like that.

This basically describes my situation with Cable. And Storm. And Kitty (almost, I actually expected to be a hundred or so shards short of her last cover).

Uneven builds, a half-dozen saved covers each, and finally a situation that looked like it was going to take care of several of them at once.

y4747

background: i'm a long time vet, with multiple 4*s at 370 with dupes, so i'll be talking about the 4*-5* stuff. i was fully expecting 45 5* covers. i got 11, and possibly enough shards for another 2~3.

back when feeders were introduced, there was a choice to either give retroactive covers, or not.
if you do not, players have a clear incentive to keep 4*s at 270, unchamped, saving covers along the way, to ensure getting those reward covers if and when they became feeders. this is very much against the spirit of the game - you want your players to advance as much as they can; same principle that removed scaling in pve since softcapping was such an issue. therefore, i think the devs correctly chose to give full retroactive cover rewards.

doing so has also pretty much set a precedent that i took to mean "don't worry - if you champ and level a toon, you won't regret it. if they become feeders, you won't kick yourself later for missing out". this is how you want players to feel - you don't want them holding back and hedging their bets in expectation of new feeders, you want them to level as they go.

the problem here, in my eyes, is two fold:

1. reducing retroactive rewards negates that feeling of security. it is now, in some situations, in the best interest of players to NOT champ and level their toons. if i were building my 4*s now, i'd probably get 4* carnage to 270 and then start saving covers, expecting him to become a feeder for 5* carnage at some point. maybe i'd do that to other toons that are possible feeders for him, too. you do not want your players holding back roster development.

2. the issue of precedent and communication. for a long while the full retroactive covers has been standard practice. i can understand if the team thought, "we made a mistake, doing the double-dip rewards vets, and that's not what we wanted. let's freeze feeders". players clamor for feeders, which we love. "hm. how do we give them feeders, but not overdo it again? oh, let's cut down on those!"
that is a legitimate scenario - one i disagree with due to point 1 above, but can understand. the problem is, in that case, you need to spell it out big time - the announcement should have clearly stated something like "looking back, feeders were unbalanced toward vets. we don't want that. therefore, as opposed to past feeder updates, retroactive rewards will be greatly reduced. we understand of some don't like that, but it's for the good of the game". instead we got mostly confusion. i get the general tendency to present updates in the best light possible, but it's usually better to be totally upfront about the bad stuff too. i mean, the players will figure it out eventually (i.e., cp/hp costs etc), so getting ahead of that is good practice.

smiley22

My situation - as a multi-year VIP paying customer - which echoes someone in a previous post:

My 5* Prof X sits at 5-0-5 with 7 saved covers (after 360 LT pulls, HORRIBLE luck).  These feeders and shards are supposed to be the solution for this nightmare scenario.  Frankly when I pulled those a few weeks ago I was right at the verge of quitting.

Then shards are announced - skeptical, but hey, maybe this is a path to resolve my problem!  Rollout occurs, less than stellar as expected...

So here we are, new feeders!!  There’s a light at the end of the tunnel!  My 4* Prof X is level 305, that means at least I’ll get the retroactive covers at 280 and 300 and get that progress on a purple cover that has inexplicably evaded me!  Rollout occurs, what.the.eff.  

My 5* Prof X has ANOTHER saved cover and STILL sits at 5-0-5, with a measly 100 shards to show for it.  Worst of all, had my 4* been 297 I’d only be a few pulls away, now I’m 15 pulls from any progress at all.  I’m left with an awful experience on something that should have been exciting.

Long story short, no more VIP or any spending unless they give the retro rewards as anticipated.  Ultimately it won’t be much more for me, but it’s the impression that it leaves.  I couldn’t care less if some whale with maxed 370s gets 6 covers - good for them they earned it.