MPQ Halloween 2021 Activities

KGB

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

entrailbucket

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

So, it's better for us to have no idea what their plans are?

HoundofShadow

So, it's about resource planning. It's the same reason why some players want to know events weeks in advance.

I have never considered such question seriously because if we are fluid and adapt to situations easily, we should be able to overcome problems and more importantly, learn from past experiences. If everything is predictable upfront, life can be pretty boring.

I sank about 1.5 cover worth of shards into iHulk and had fun with him. Even though he's rendered almost useless in pvp, I have no regret. Also, I broke my hoard for Colossus and Wanda. Now, Gamora has been created to counter them. I don't think it's a big deal. Players want rock, paper, scissor, isn't it?

Playing with characters, to me, is more about the process, rather than the final destination. The process of discovering different synergies is more fun than knowing when a character will be countered in the future. Why worry about the future when you should be focusing on the present? Even in real life, no one can predict exactly what happens in the future. I wonder how players who are addicted to knowing what happens in advance in an online game live their lives. Surely, it must be tormenting to not know how the next 7 days will guaranteed to be like.

MegaBee

entrailbucket said:

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

So, it's better for us to have no idea what their plans are?

Yes IMO.

entrailbucket

MegaBee said:

entrailbucket said:

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

So, it's better for us to have no idea what their plans are?

Yes IMO.

Why???

ThaRoadWarrior

This game is different from other games who do constant rebalances, like for instance fighting games where you buy/unlock a fully formed character for one price, since it takes a very long time to get characters into a fully functional state (sometimes years of grind). Also historically this game doesn't do "rebalances" very often, they do salt-the-earth burndowns that turn characters into champ reward farms unfit for in-game use. So the player base doesn't have a lot of trust that their characters are going to be any use anymore after a rebalance - I think like KGB said, knowing your only meta 5* is about to get sandblasted soon, or is on the eval block for something like that would be pretty grim as a player.

HoundofShadow said:

[...]
I have never considered such question seriously because if we are fluid and adapt to situations easily, we should be able to overcome problems and more importantly, learn from past experiences. If everything is predictable upfront, life can be pretty boring.
[...]

This is a funny thing to say - this game doesn't allow you to fluidly adapt to anything unless you've already been hoarding for a year or two, or you have a big enough roster to flex off any random change. If you're an up and coming roster, particularly at a tier transition, you are going to be caught pretty flat footed if you don't have a required character, or your only high level character gets nerfed or hard countered by a new release. For years I used to check the boost list and DDQ required character lists so that I could sell and roster single cover required characters in a flex-slot on my roster before I had one of everyone. There were alliance events where I would do that every refresh when the nodes would change using rewards from the previous event that I'd left on my vine. If you're in that position, you may choose to sell off expiring covers or a max-champ 2* or 3* looking for resources when you don't have a replacement and live a little dangerously, but if you see they are going to be required for something tomorrow you may wait a day or two. It's all about quality of life. Do they "owe" us any of that? No, not really. But we used to get it, and a long, long precedent was established, and then it changed and now it's really intermittent when communication happens in advance.

entrailbucket

HoundofShadow said:

So, it's about resource planning. It's the same reason why some players want to know events weeks in advance.

I have never considered such question seriously because if we are fluid and adapt to situations easily, we should be able to overcome problems and more importantly, learn from past experiences. If everything is predictable upfront, life can be pretty boring.

I sank about 1.5 cover worth of shards into iHulk and had fun with him. Even though he's rendered almost useless in pvp, I have no regret. Also, I broke my hoard for Colossus and Wanda. Now, Gamora has been created to counter them. I don't think it's a big deal. Players want rock, paper, scissor, isn't it?

Playing with characters, to me, is more about the process, rather than the final destination. The process of discovering different synergies is more fun than knowing when a character will be countered in the future. Why worry about the future when you should be focusing on the present? Even in real life, no one can predict exactly what happens in the future. I wonder how players who are addicted to knowing what happens in advance in an online game live their lives. Surely, it must be tormenting to not know how the next 7 days will guaranteed to be like.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that you would prefer to have zero communication from the developers because you like surprise changes. 

Would you prefer that they stop releasing character previews or patch notes?  Do you wish that events would start and stop at random times?  Or that character abilities were changed at random?  This cannot be a popular viewpoint.

ThaRoadWarrior

Sophistry.

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

So the player base doesn't have a lot of trust that their characters are going to be any use anymore after a rebalance - I think like KGB said, knowing your only meta 5* is about to get sandblasted soon, or is on the eval block for something like that would be pretty grim as a player.

It would *absolutely* be grim as a player to know this.  But if they are targeting someone, would you rather know it in advance or be kept completely in the dark about it until the day it happens?

That's my thing -- if they're targeting someone, I'd want to know about that as soon as possible so I could react.  Historically the worst player reactions are when this stuff just shows up out of nowhere.

Sekilicious

entrailbucket said:

HoundofShadow said:

So, it's about resource planning. It's the same reason why some players want to know events weeks in advance.

I have never considered such question seriously because if we are fluid and adapt to situations easily, we should be able to overcome problems and more importantly, learn from past experiences. If everything is predictable upfront, life can be pretty boring.

I sank about 1.5 cover worth of shards into iHulk and had fun with him. Even though he's rendered almost useless in pvp, I have no regret. Also, I broke my hoard for Colossus and Wanda. Now, Gamora has been created to counter them. I don't think it's a big deal. Players want rock, paper, scissor, isn't it?

Playing with characters, to me, is more about the process, rather than the final destination. The process of discovering different synergies is more fun than knowing when a character will be countered in the future. Why worry about the future when you should be focusing on the present? Even in real life, no one can predict exactly what happens in the future. I wonder how players who are addicted to knowing what happens in advance in an online game live their lives. Surely, it must be tormenting to not know how the next 7 days will guaranteed to be like.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that you would prefer to have zero communication from the developers because you like surprise changes. 

Would you prefer that they stop releasing character previews or patch notes?  Do you wish that events would start and stop at random times?  Or that character abilities were changed at random?  This cannot be a popular viewpoint.

This is a pretty willful misreading of the point to try to 'win' an debate. Good job misrepresenting what Hound and KGB are actually saying. 

entrailbucket

Sekilicious said:

entrailbucket said:

HoundofShadow said:

So, it's about resource planning. It's the same reason why some players want to know events weeks in advance.

I have never considered such question seriously because if we are fluid and adapt to situations easily, we should be able to overcome problems and more importantly, learn from past experiences. If everything is predictable upfront, life can be pretty boring.

I sank about 1.5 cover worth of shards into iHulk and had fun with him. Even though he's rendered almost useless in pvp, I have no regret. Also, I broke my hoard for Colossus and Wanda. Now, Gamora has been created to counter them. I don't think it's a big deal. Players want rock, paper, scissor, isn't it?

Playing with characters, to me, is more about the process, rather than the final destination. The process of discovering different synergies is more fun than knowing when a character will be countered in the future. Why worry about the future when you should be focusing on the present? Even in real life, no one can predict exactly what happens in the future. I wonder how players who are addicted to knowing what happens in advance in an online game live their lives. Surely, it must be tormenting to not know how the next 7 days will guaranteed to be like.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that you would prefer to have zero communication from the developers because you like surprise changes. 

Would you prefer that they stop releasing character previews or patch notes?  Do you wish that events would start and stop at random times?  Or that character abilities were changed at random?  This cannot be a popular viewpoint.

This is a pretty willful misreading of the point to try to 'win' an debate. Good job misrepresenting what Hound and KGB are actually saying. 

I am trying to understand what they're saying, because what they're saying doesn't make sense to me.

ThaRoadWarrior

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

So the player base doesn't have a lot of trust that their characters are going to be any use anymore after a rebalance - I think like KGB said, knowing your only meta 5* is about to get sandblasted soon, or is on the eval block for something like that would be pretty grim as a player.

It would *absolutely* be grim as a player to know this.  But if they are targeting someone, would you rather know it in advance or be kept completely in the dark about it until the day it happens?

That's my thing -- if they're targeting someone, I'd want to know about that as soon as possible so I could react.  Historically the worst player reactions are when this stuff just shows up out of nowhere.

This game is a bit of a stock market - the devs put out hot ticket items, people jump on the IPO and go big if it looks hot, but if you knew the stock was going to be a dud you would pass on it, which doesn’t put any money into the market. So I understand how the business model is sort of built around a certain amount of FOMO and only allowing you to see so far into the future. I would like more comms than we are getting but I don’t know that I need the full roadmap.

MegaBee

entrailbucket said:

MegaBee said:

entrailbucket said:

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

So, it's better for us to have no idea what their plans are?

Yes IMO.

Why???

Because I've seen extended communication (beyond schedules and the like) between entertainment pros and fandom go south far, far too many times. I've seen it in comic books, TV, toys, gaming... the pattern never changes. Someone gets overly familiar or feels entitled to something they're not getting, words are said, feelings get hurt, and communication shuts down.

Just so my words aren't misconstrued, I want to clarify that some communication, e.g. schedules of events, patches, and releases, is to be expected, but I don't think that the fans and customer base are entitled to peeks behind the curtain.

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

So the player base doesn't have a lot of trust that their characters are going to be any use anymore after a rebalance - I think like KGB said, knowing your only meta 5* is about to get sandblasted soon, or is on the eval block for something like that would be pretty grim as a player.

It would *absolutely* be grim as a player to know this.  But if they are targeting someone, would you rather know it in advance or be kept completely in the dark about it until the day it happens?

That's my thing -- if they're targeting someone, I'd want to know about that as soon as possible so I could react.  Historically the worst player reactions are when this stuff just shows up out of nowhere.

This game is a bit of a stock market - the devs put out hot ticket items, people jump on the IPO and go big if it looks hot, but if you knew the stock was going to be a dud you would pass on it, which doesn’t put any money into the market. So I understand how the business model is sort of built around a certain amount of FOMO and only allowing you to see so far into the future. I would like more comms than we are getting but I don’t know that I need the full roadmap.

I don't think they would give us the full roadmap, and I don't think that's something we would ever need anyway. 

Anyway, this wouldn't affect an "IPO" at all.  When they release a character they don't know how popular the character will be, or how they might change the metagame, so they're never going to release a new guy and tell us that guy is on The List the same day -- that would come much later.

entrailbucket

MegaBee said:

entrailbucket said:

MegaBee said:

entrailbucket said:

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

So, it's better for us to have no idea what their plans are?

Yes IMO.

Why???

Because I've seen extended communication (beyond schedules and the like) between entertainment pros and fandom go south far, far too many times. I've seen it in comic books, TV, toys, gaming... the pattern never changes. Someone gets overly familiar or feels entitled to something they're not getting, words are said, feelings get hurt, and communication shuts down.

Just so my words aren't misconstrued, I want to clarify that some communication, e.g. schedules of events, patches, and releases, is to be expected, but I don't think that the fans and customer base are entitled to peeks behind the curtain.

Here's an example of the type of communication I'm talking about, from a different game (Magic Arena):

"We've been carefully monitoring the Standard metagame since the format rotation and release of Innistrad: Midnight Hunt. As Innistrad: Midnight Hunt's Standard season winds down and we approach the release of Innistrad: Crimson Vow next month, we've been aware of some players' concerns about the impact of certain individual cards on metagame diversity, such as Alrund's Epiphany and Esika's Chariot. After reviewing MTG Arena metagame data and recent online events (including the World Championship), and in considering the upcoming release of Innistrad: Crimson Vow, we've decided not to make any changes at this time.

We'll consider changes to the Standard environment, if necessary, after evaluating Innistrad: Crimson Vow's impact on the metagame."


This sort of communication is extremely common in competitive games.  Magic does it.  League of Legends does it.  Fortnite does it.  It's really hard to find examples of popular games that don't do something like this.

MegaBee

entrailbucket said:

MegaBee said:

entrailbucket said:

MegaBee said:

entrailbucket said:

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

Maybe they can't make such definitive statements.  What if they said something like "currently we think Polaris is ok, and we are trying to avoid rebalancing anyone, but we're going to be watching her performance closely as we introduce counters for her."

That tells players that A. she is ok now, and B. she might not be ok in the future.  If a new counter like Mantis "solves" the problem from their perspective, then knowing that would also be really important.

Without this kind of communication, players can't plan their resource allocation at all, because they have no idea what the future might hold.  

I think this would be paralyzing for players. Many would panic when they read this and go into hoard mode avoiding Polaris until they got the 'all clear' from the Devs. Meanwhile when a counter is created and introduced, we'd have no idea how long they need to determine if it worked. Plus if it didn't would they create another one or do a nerf?

Ultimately 6 months (or longer) later when they gave the final verdict (all is well or nerf coming) players would finally be able to open tokens/favorite characters etc. But in the intervening time they've missed out on a whole era of potentially using a character that's turns out to be fine.

KGB

So, it's better for us to have no idea what their plans are?

Yes IMO.

Why???

Because I've seen extended communication (beyond schedules and the like) between entertainment pros and fandom go south far, far too many times. I've seen it in comic books, TV, toys, gaming... the pattern never changes. Someone gets overly familiar or feels entitled to something they're not getting, words are said, feelings get hurt, and communication shuts down.

Just so my words aren't misconstrued, I want to clarify that some communication, e.g. schedules of events, patches, and releases, is to be expected, but I don't think that the fans and customer base are entitled to peeks behind the curtain.

Here's an example of the type of communication I'm talking about, from a different game (Magic Arena):

"We've been carefully monitoring the Standard metagame since the format rotation and release of Innistrad: Midnight Hunt. As Innistrad: Midnight Hunt's Standard season winds down and we approach the release of Innistrad: Crimson Vow next month, we've been aware of some players' concerns about the impact of certain individual cards on metagame diversity, such as Alrund's Epiphany and Esika's Chariot. After reviewing MTG Arena metagame data and recent online events (including the World Championship), and in considering the upcoming release of Innistrad: Crimson Vow, we've decided not to make any changes at this time.

We'll consider changes to the Standard environment, if necessary, after evaluating Innistrad: Crimson Vow's impact on the metagame."


This sort of communication is extremely common in competitive games.  Magic does it.  League of Legends does it.  Fortnite does it.  It's really hard to find examples of popular games that don't do something like this.

This is literally the only competitive game I play, so I'll take your word for it.

KGB

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

So the player base doesn't have a lot of trust that their characters are going to be any use anymore after a rebalance - I think like KGB said, knowing your only meta 5* is about to get sandblasted soon, or is on the eval block for something like that would be pretty grim as a player.

It would *absolutely* be grim as a player to know this.  But if they are targeting someone, would you rather know it in advance or be kept completely in the dark about it until the day it happens?

That's my thing -- if they're targeting someone, I'd want to know about that as soon as possible so I could react.  Historically the worst player reactions are when this stuff just shows up out of nowhere.

The problem is this causes a panic as I mentioned.

I'd love to get back to where we get Dev comments on character design. For example it would be fine for them to come out and say we designed Gamora to counter the defensive meta of Colossus/SW. It would confirm that she was specifically designed for something as opposed to just being churned out as a bi-weekly release of a new character.

But if they also added 'we are monitoring the Colossus/SW meta for nerf potential if Gamora doesn't prove a solid counter' that's not what we need.

KGB

entrailbucket

KGB said:

entrailbucket said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

So the player base doesn't have a lot of trust that their characters are going to be any use anymore after a rebalance - I think like KGB said, knowing your only meta 5* is about to get sandblasted soon, or is on the eval block for something like that would be pretty grim as a player.

It would *absolutely* be grim as a player to know this.  But if they are targeting someone, would you rather know it in advance or be kept completely in the dark about it until the day it happens?

That's my thing -- if they're targeting someone, I'd want to know about that as soon as possible so I could react.  Historically the worst player reactions are when this stuff just shows up out of nowhere.

The problem is this causes a panic as I mentioned.

I'd love to get back to where we get Dev comments on character design. For example it would be fine for them to come out and say we designed Gamora to counter the defensive meta of Colossus/SW. It would confirm that she was specifically designed for something as opposed to just being churned out as a bi-weekly release of a new character.

But if they also added 'we are monitoring the Colossus/SW meta for nerf potential if Gamora doesn't prove a solid counter' that's not what we need.

KGB

But what if they actually *are* monitoring the Colossus/SW meta for nerf potential?  Why is it better for that to be kept secret from us?  

I don't think they are, to be clear. 

But if they were, wouldn't that be something we would want to know ahead of time, rather than finding out when a change was announced?  Sure, it might cause a panic, but holding off on any communication until the day of causes a much bigger panic and a huge negative reaction.

And what about the reverse of this (which is much more likely)?  If they came out and said, "We are not considering making negative changes to any characters at this time," wouldn't that make people feel safer about investing into them?  Right now, we just don't know what their plans are.

ThaRoadWarrior

Anything that will produce reactionary spending is probably considered desirable from their side, and anything that will reduce that is likely not desirable. So it’s better for us to know, and better for the revenue stream that we don’t in the case of nerfs. And I think that is the problem - it’s need or nothing on this game, not generally rebalances. And it’s one and done catastrophic nerfs at that, not an incremental dial-in that will arrive at balance. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but it is.

KGB

entrailbucket said:

But what if they actually *are* monitoring the Colossus/SW meta for nerf potential?  Why is it better for that to be kept secret from us?  

I don't think they are, to be clear. 

But if they were, wouldn't that be something we would want to know ahead of time, rather than finding out when a change was announced?  Sure, it might cause a panic, but holding off on any communication until the day of causes a much bigger panic and a huge negative reaction.

And what about the reverse of this (which is much more likely)?  If they came out and said, "We are not considering making negative changes to any characters at this time," wouldn't that make people feel safer about investing into them?  Right now, we just don't know what their plans are.

I think once they said they were thinking of nerfing someone, they have to follow through and nerf them. Because as soon as they said that, players would change their behavior (hoard etc). If they later don't nerf, they would be roasted by all the players who hoarded due to the possible nerf because whomever hoarded / changed behaviors for the nerf lost out.

On the other hand, if you nerf out of the blue, everyone is surprised at the same time. Your still roasted by the players (there is no getting around being roasted), but from a fairness standpoint everyone is in the same place.

Also remember not everyone comes to these Forums / Reditt to get advance warnings of nerfs etc. This is another reason for not giving upcoming warnings (unless they literally put them in as 'news' in the game itself.

KGB