How to get Bonus Heroes back.

Dogface

I have quite another thing with TH, which I didn't really think of before. The option to choose your color in TH is a nice thing if you have like a 5/5/2, but I'm having some characters at 5/2/4 for example. Now the wisest choice would be to make it a 5/3/4, but sometimes the lowest covered color is the weakest power. 

Wonko33

Dogface said:

I have quite another thing with TH, which I didn't really think of before. The option to choose your color in TH is a nice thing if you have like a 5/5/2, but I'm having some characters at 5/2/4 for example. Now the wisest choice would be to make it a 5/3/4, but sometimes the lowest covered color is the weakest power. 

You still have the choice. You’re not forced to pick lowest level

Jacklag

Vhailorx said:

But you act like that frustration is some mistake by demi.  That's the feature for them.  Now every token opened is an opportunity cost because those shard are stuck with that character forever.  BH could be swapped whenever necessary as per the dictates of all the other RNG elements of the game.  Targeted heroes cannot.

I did not intend to invalidate anyone's frustration. If my comment lead to such conclusion, I apologize. The frustration you describe is exactly the same I feel. But you can't have a cake and eat it too.

Vhailorx

Jacklag said:

Vhailorx said:

But you act like that frustration is some mistake by demi.  That's the feature for them.  Now every token opened is an opportunity cost because those shard are stuck with that character forever.  BH could be swapped whenever necessary as per the dictates of all the other RNG elements of the game.  Targeted heroes cannot.

I did not intend to invalidate anyone's frustration. If my comment lead to such conclusion, I apologize. The frustration you describe is exactly the same I feel. But you can't have a cake and eat it too.

Except, you can.  Because you and I can both eat the same digital cake without a problem!  all of these choices are arbitrary, and while it is true (1) that demi/d3 do need to recoup their costs for the game to survive, and (2) demi/d3 desperately want to frame this discussion around the give/take scenario, there is actually no need to link these things.

And for that matter, isn't the whole cake thing a pretty silly idiom anyway?  I know that for me personally, eating a cake is more or less the only reason I would ever consider having one.  So having + eating seems like a perfectly reasonable goal.

Lastly, no need to apologise!

NotBAMF

It's a poorly worded cliché. What it's MEANT to say is that you can not eat your piece of cake right now and also save that piece of cake in case you want it later. You have to choose between eating it [now] or having it [for later]. But you can't do both! But to just hear the cliché, that's not what you think it's saying.

It probably should be "you can't eat your cake and save it, too".

jtsings

Dogface said:

I have quite another thing with TH, which I didn't really think of before. The option to choose your color in TH is a nice thing if you have like a 5/5/2, but I'm having some characters at 5/2/4 for example. Now the wisest choice would be to make it a 5/3/4, but sometimes the lowest covered color is the weakest power. 

  If I were you, unless it's a character you plan on using immediately, is just don't convert the shards until you are ready to champ the character.  So hold on to the shards until you either get all the shards to completely cover them or if you happen to draw the middle color to make 5 you can use your existing shards to get your last color.  That way the only cover that won't be usable is the first color.  I'm pretty sure they said you can hold up to 9999 shards so even if you have a 1/1/1 character you should still be good holding onto the shards until it's time to champ or get the correct build for them.

purplemur

Colorless covers do not help dilution, colorless covers do not help champed characters
Lowering the draw rate by 1% does not help dilution. lowering the draw rate does not let us make progress on our favorite characters.

I have yet to draw a 4* from a Mighty Token, Bought the resupply, bought the holiday bundle, etc.....no 4's, don't count on it making up the gap. That's like saying you will get a 5* Support from Master Tokens because they have given us more opportunities to get supports. How has that worked out? 

Shards help you build a character, Bonus Heroes let us make progress on characters. they should be able to work together, New players can build out a usable Dr. Strange and then once he is champed start collecting the first 13 on someone else, while doing like most of us and having your BH ride him to maxchamp. Remember the devs said most players used their BH on Champs.

HoundofShadow

I doubt they are interested in solving dilution. This is what I observed based on players' responses to bundles:

Most players won't buy cash bundles if they already have those characters champed unless (for some), those characters reward them with 5* covers via champ rewards (typically).

They don't mind buying HP bundles even though they got them champed because they earned it in-game and if it is decent or brings them closer to certain milestone.

If players are able to champ all the characters in the game, they are likely to quit the game. It's similar to Pokemon 1st Gen. Once you get your Mew, you play with it for a while and move on to the next game.

Let's assume both BH and TH exist together, players are getting 2 extra 4* covers around 27 pulls and 2 extra 5* covers around 167 pulls. For 3*, it will be even faster. Over time, players are able to hit 13 covers faster and their desires to buy cash bundles will decrease due the lack of need. However, the lower ranking players will feel even more pressured to quit the game due to the "influx" of covers. You can't expect newbies to keep dropping Starks to catch up with roster slots.

To conclude, your average customers are unlikely to buy something if it doesn't fulfill their needs. Dilution is a big problem for those wanting to "champed it all". At best, I see them making progress for targeted characters easier, rather than making progress for all characters easier. Besides, since many players don't care about characters that they are not interested in, even when they are "needing" covers for them, it ends up more unlikely they will solve dilution problem. Unless they decide to shift their monetising goal to iso-8...

Vhailorx

Hound, even if I concede your point that more 3* would be bad for the game (which I don't actually concede), you are still acting as if BH/the rates need to be normalized across all tiers. 

Bring back BH for 4*a and 5*s, but not 3*s. "Problem" solved.

Unfortunately, demi doesn't want to fix this issue because they think it makes them money.

HoundofShadow

By saying "bring back BH", I assume it will be implemented along with TH, instead of removing TH totally.

The call to stop releasing new characters go back as far as 2016. Things haven't changed much yet, have they?

I'm not normalising them, but I'm accepting the fact that the bean counters won't be generous in the long run. We might get something like Gwenpool-Prix once or twice a month in the future, but I don't see them doing it every 5 days or even everyday.

The devs mentioned before they have some kind of cap system that goes across powers, resources etc. They also mentioned it's a tough sell to the bean counters if it's going to involve HP. 60% of HP usage goes to roster slots and 30% goes to Packs. With Shards, we might see some shift in the future.

What you are suggesting is probably asking them to double or increase the cap by 66% (2 out of 3 tiers). Sure, they might take your feedback and discuss it in the meeting room. Then, the bean counters are going to ask, "What's in it for us?" What do we get if we allowed both BH and TH to exist in 4* and 5* tiers?"

Why not we brainstorm some reasons to make it look like a good deal to the bean counters? We are not going anywhere if we don't see things from the side of the bean counters.

"Players will be happier, therefore; they will spend more." is not really a good reason. They are unlikely to buy that.

helix72

Wonko33 said:

I am not firmly in the 5* meta but have a toe in- since shards and colorless covers  I have champed 3  that were 5-5-2  (2 before the retro rewards)  

This was surprising to me. Unless I'm reading it wrong, you're saying you earned 3 x 500 = 1500 5* shards since they've been introduced? I bought the bundle that had the Kitty shards, but other than that, I haven't earned enough shards for a single 5* cover and I play PvE SCL 9 to full progression and every PvP to 900. Are you in a top 10 alliance or something?

Twysta

I think people who say "shards are fine" are also forgetting that for the lower rate we get in acquiring a "bonus hero" we also lose out on a substantial number of CP, HP and ISO from rewards as a result of the champion rewards restructure as well. 
This sounds like two steps backwards to me. 

tiomono

Twysta said:

I think people who say "shards are fine" are also forgetting that for the lower rate we get in acquiring a "bonus hero" we also lose out on a substantial number of CP, HP and ISO from rewards as a result of the champion rewards restructure as well. 
This sounds like two steps backwards to me. 

And others would say it's a lateral move. Not backward at all. Shards make it easier to get a character to 13 covers. That battles dillution better than the 1% higher draw rate that we got with bonus heros. 

My 5* prof x was 5-0-4 shards would let me champ him way sooner than needing to get only 2 covers of purple from his feeder and still needing to get a lucky draw or trade in 3 saved covers to finish him.

In my opinion shards is a step forward even with the lost resources from exchanged champ rewards.

purplemur

but Hound, think about it from the devs perspective: What was their reasoning behind making any of the substantial UI/ rewards updates in the past? What was the bean counter rationale that said yes champion rewards are ok? Why did they update daily rewards - those don't correlate 1:1 to spending I reckon.
There are non bean counter reasons why games decide to improve their quality. It might be better to have a huge influx into the 5*, where competition for placement will increase, motivating spending to gain advantage, or keep position. There is cost in the code hours to have BH , it is a poor ROI to throw it out completely. You seem to have a good grasp of their situation: I ask you to theorize why would/should game developers make improvements to their product? 
They have to keep up with a changing marketplace. They cannot simply expect us to come back day after day and spend without giving us some incentive,there needs to be a tradeoff, there are other Marvel games, Other Match3, other card collecting games; they face stiff competition (players are not the enemy). What can they do to not just keep their existing base but to expand and get more weekly downloads - It is just not as simple as more covers = more cost, there are other KPI's that a good management team will look at that guide them to profitability. Take marketing; does it directly create revenue? only kinda...., but if you utilize it correctly it will give you a larger share of the marketplace, will endear brand loyalty, it will attract customers from tangential market segments (think boomers (dads), tweens (siblings) that saw an ad on Disney+)
You haven't given any evidence that people are not buying the weekend deals: The deals keep coming. I think it's a pretty good value and if there was a fav char I will buy it.
You also haven't disproved that Goodwill = spending. Look at the ISO sale! 
This oft spit idea of just wanting stuff for free is total mindrot. Of course actual people(not the trollbots who always throw this back at us) want free stuff- no tinykitty sherlock but it's an unreasonable expectation that they would choose to pay for something that other places give away unless there were things like loyalty and added quality that override the "fair deal" mindset. We are not muggers waiting in an alley: I am a discretionary spender and how we are treated directly affects my spending choices. I did not spend on the previous HP sale because of their tinykitty with the shards (spent it on different game deliberately) but bought the Holiday Bundle solely because of their corrective action (already have cap/juggs). The Value I get for my time spent is a key determining factor to playing FTP mobile games; if it is off-base and stingy players walk = just look at the long list of failed games that D3GO! has released. MPQ is facing player die-off: That could be just natural life-cycle, the game has lasted longer by far than most, but disengagement starts with the devs and the players are forced to be reactive to the created paradigm.

The reasons they said they were doing shards was so players could make progress on their favorite characters and make progress on chars that are not necessarily available in selected packs.

IceIX said:

For example, one of the biggest things players have been asking for is a way to direct progress towards given characters, especially those that aren't directly featured in a given pack.

 Sure seems like a problem with dilution. If they want to achieve their (perhaps disingenuous) stated goals than bringing back bonus heroes in a complimentary system WITH shards would be a great way to do that. I have never read anyone point out how having both systems would hurt profitability. facts, case study, personal experience in the field, anything substantive.....Would any of the naysayer NOT want BH heroes in addition? Would any player really toggle off the option if they could? of course not because its a sweet tool that worked and now with shards would work even better because you wouldn't need to gamble on that 5/x/5, just  target them to completion while making your champed Juggs progress to a level where they tank green over Grocket. I really feel like the naysayers are just souring discussions for the sake of it. 

Less is not more, if my xmas bonus was 1% less than last year and it is on various gift cards I am gonna be looking at a true lateral move to a new employer. I am incentivized to work hard for that bonus. Just like grinding away at DPvs MPQ on that second day of the second day, I hate it but I put in the work because I want that eventual reward. 3 shards?!? Thanks for that but if it's a choice between working 50 hrs a week and getting an Applebees giftcard or slack through 35hrs and not have to go to a strip mall and eat trash then I'm gonna play on the toilet instead of answering vendor emails even though I like working hard and find slacking makes time go slower. Just like my engagement with the game now, love it but I don't feel like playing HaT again for some inconsequential uptick in my portfolio.I can't easily track insignificant changes (.006%) Stagnation is not directed progress. 
For every case where a character is locked in at some 5/x/5 build or whatever try to remember other players out there who's chars with a 2/4/3 build that is not benefiting. Try to remember the champs that lost resources and don't need any colorless nothing. I always read about how it's not about us on the forum but anecdote after anecdote full of self justification. Its great for you so it must be totally awesome. "but what about the situation where...NO it is great;quit whining!" it's like some people just don't want others to shoot for the moon. 

final thought: if they can do colorless covers with shards the mechanic is there for colorless bonus heroes.

HoundofShadow

There are a few reasons why they do certain things. They make major updates to extend the longevity of the games or to renew interest among players.  I think they make major updates to the game about once or twice a year. 

I agree that not everything is tied to spending/revenues. Sometimes, it has to do with cost analysis.To simplify things, the profitability for all organisations revolve around this simple formula:

Profit = Revenue - Cost

For example, coding efficiency affects the number of man-hour needed on a project. Let's say previously it will take 60 man-hour to code something, and under the new system, it will take 48 man-hour. It's a reduction in cost in the long run, so it's something that makes sense to do. That could explain why Steam UI went that way. How could steam players get their old UI back? It's either 1) increase the number of steam players or 2) better code efficiency. 

Then, sometimes it has to do with priority and importance.

I would want to be more optimistic but the devs' replies about certain important topics such as dilution and roster slots that I saw and read in the past two years or so usually revolves around cost, bottom-line or tradeoffs. It would be great if BH and TH could exist together. The fact that they decided to replace BH with TH instead of making BH colourless cover tells you the reason why.  Again, it's not about being naysayers. These are how decisions are made in the meeting room in bigger companies: cost analysis, bottom-line margin, financial forecast, ROI, KPIs, the what-ifs etc. It sounds cold but it's difficult to put a value on players' happiness when only about 5% of players spend on F2P games.

Vhailorx

Hound, you are making some really big assumptions there.  The fact that TH replaced BH could mean a lot of different things.  I don't even really know that there is an obvious Occam's razor explanation

You jump to the conclusion that it necessarily means that supporting both TH and zbH simultaneously would be a money-loser for demi.  But if Demi doing X meant that X was certain to lose money, how do you explain the many times demi has changed directions?

I applied your perserverance purlermur (and agree with you), but I think I am out of patience bashing my head against that particular brick wall. . .