The New Player

Unknown

mcheath wrote:

Like IceIX said, many new players didn't like spending $2 at a time to increased roster slots, so this change aims to make roster slot purchases feel like a more 'quality' purchase to retain users. I think they would have preferred to keep it at single purchases had people not complained.

that's funny

Unknown

CoolB76 wrote:

mcheath wrote:

Like IceIX said, many new players didn't like spending $2 at a time to increased roster slots, so this change aims to make roster slot purchases feel like a more 'quality' purchase to retain users. I think they would have preferred to keep it at single purchases had people not complained.

that's funny

I keep visualizing the user who wanted to push the $5 button and instead of going ahead starts writing CS complaint that he sees a $2 button right beside it.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

mcheath wrote:

Like IceIX said, many new players didn't like spending $2 at a time to increased roster slots, so this change aims to make roster slot purchases feel like a more 'quality' purchase to retain users. I think they would have preferred to keep it at single purchases had people not complained.

that's funny

I keep visualizing the user who wanted to push the $5 button and instead of going ahead starts writing CS complaint that he sees a $2 button right beside it.

Sometimes I question if these complaints are real or fabricated. Maybe I'm an oddity but if there was only a $5 button and no $2 button I probably would never have bought. It's like soft drugs leading to hard drugs. I started with the $2 gateway drug and moved onto the harder $5 stuff then eventually onto the (less addictive then expected) $20 drug.

over_clocked

pasa_ wrote:

locked wrote:

I must be stingy with my shielding or something - have enough to buy a couple of slots ahead, have everyone, am F2P. What day are you at, Riggy?

You started when the game made more sense. I doubt you could do the same development without coughing up $ in similar timeframe to similar level. Or even a fraction of it.

Yes, I know, me and Riggy are pretty close if we shave 50 days off his day count. I can't imagine though what it feels like to be a new player now. Sure, progression is possible, but for a F2P, it must be at crawling speed now.

Unknown

locked wrote:

pasa_ wrote:

locked wrote:

I must be stingy with my shielding or something - have enough to buy a couple of slots ahead, have everyone, am F2P. What day are you at, Riggy?

You started when the game made more sense. I doubt you could do the same development without coughing up $ in similar timeframe to similar level. Or even a fraction of it.

Yes, I know, We and Riggy are pretty close if we shave 50 days off his day count. I can't imagine though what it feels like to be a new player now. Sure, progression is possible, but for a F2P, it must be at crawling speed now.

My own experience is rather skewed. I've introduced 7 RL friends to this game who have kept at it for over a month. 4 of them stepped it up and decided to pay $20 and my own advice was to save it purely for roster slots. Heck with shields, skills, or anything else - save it for roster slots. The other 3 opted to continue playing for free but only casually, not even caring if they miss entire events.

The results are about the same. The payers have roster slots in the low 20's, and have a whole slew of 1-5 cover 3* characters. The free players have rosters in the low-to-mid-teens and have a much smaller number of 3* with 1-3 covers. The only real difference is how many unusable characters are sitting in their rosters.

Unknown

is it worth mentioning that at the speed the two star transition seems to be going these days a much higher percentage of the player base has fully leveled 2*s and needs 3* covers to make the next transition but the number of rare covers (percentage wise) has been static if not in decline.


More people fighting for less rewards is not fun...

If they really wanted to mix things up it should be extremely easy to get a 1/1/1 of a new character, then extra covers should be as difficult/rare to get as they are now.

If someone had to take a day off and gets maybe one cover from a release event, why would they put any HP into developing that character.

Want to know what is not fun, a lazy daken with only a single purple cover no matter how many levels they boost him.

Unknown

Riggy wrote:

Derethus wrote:

Except instead of putting in a mechanism that forces you to commit to buying money or hate the game, they could find another way to convert someone into a paying player. Forcing their hands is not the way to go. You could put in one time deals right when they hit that point. Like a special bundle that has multiple roster slots for slightly cheaper or a roster slot token bundle.

Instead this feels like terrible. If you don't pay, you get hamstrung. This is especially apparent because the option that doesn't tinykitty you exists. The closest example I can think of is the MMO space. Most FtP MMOs entice you with skins or increased progression, but Star War: the Old Republic instead decides that you can't sprint until level 15 unless you pay money. This is what these cover bundles feel like to me.

On my current account, at the end of Krakadoom, I picked up my first Psylocke cover. At the same time, I picked up Punisher from the Hero Packs I got from Season 1, and Spider-man from a lucky regular recruit token. I'm at 16 slots. At the time I had 275 HP. Getting to 750 HP before the week was over is possible since I haven't finished the Prologue yet. Getting to 1000 HP? Impossible. Granted, the number of rares I have is a bit crazy considering this account hasn't hit 30 days yet.

This doesn't make me want to put money into the game, though I'm sure it will for others.

The idea of a game capping your progress unless you pay is nothing new, and is a lot more fair than other available options (such as limiting event placement). But this isn't capping your progress, it's capping your roster diversity. Instead of allowing you to keep all the heroes for free, you're forced to pick your favorites or sink money in to it. So I guess what I'm seeing is a difference in the word "progress". You can complete every bit of content available in the entire game but you can't collect every hero possible. Given that those heroes are unusable for you for what will likely be a lot longer than 30 days, I'm not seeing you being limited at all. Dedicate one slot in your roster to the hero of the week and dump the ones you can't afford to keep up.

I get that many players prefer honey to vinegar, carrots to sticks, or whatever analogy floats your boat. I think you're looking at it wrong. The honey that D3 uses? Shiny gold covers. That's your honey. That's your incentive to buy roster space. The bundling of roster spaces for the mid-tier player? That's actually another version of honey (from D3's point of view). You make the purchase and go from the angry red roster icon to the pleasant blue - look at all this space I have. Right or wrong, that's their definition of honey.

I disagree that presenting something and saying that you can only have it if you pay me is "honey". In this day and age you can't take vinegar and call it "honey". There are many free-to-play out there with much better models.

The problem right now is that my incentive to buy HP is "if you don't, you'll miss out on this rare!" That's not a great incentive. You know what's a good incentive? Bonuses. As I said at the beginning of my post, instead of finding ways to make people spend money "or else", they should just have a section of the store with one-time deals that are good. Then you're think, these are the normal offerings, but here's this amazing first-time-buyer deal!

I guess it's especially hard because I know of the past. To new players, this will be normal to them. It's just hard to see a company make these greedy changes and praise them for it.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

I disagree that presenting something and saying that you can only have it if you pay me is "honey". In this day and age you can't take vinegar and call it "honey". There are many free-to-play out there with much better models.

The problem right now is that my incentive to buy HP is "if you don't, you'll miss out on this rare!" That's not a great incentive. You know what's a good incentive? Bonuses. As I said at the beginning of my post, instead of finding ways to make people spend money "or else", they should just have a section of the store with one-time deals that are good. Then you're think, these are the normal offerings, but here's this amazing first-time-buyer deal!

I guess it's especially hard because I know of the past. To new players, this will be normal to them. It's just hard to see a company make these greedy changes and praise them for it.

No one's saying that you can't have it. They're saying you can't have all of it at once. Perfectly acceptable means of offering honey.

There are other f2p games with even "stingier" models than this one. Just b/c you gravitate towards the ones with the most generous policies doesn't mean it is the right choice for every company. Most of those ones with generous policies have a ton more options for content. Given how little there actually is to this game, using that kind of model would make it immediately unsustainable.