MPQ Developer Q&A November 2024 (ANSWERS)

Zalasta

There definitely has been some cash grab behaviors in recent years. This addition is certainly going to cost a segment of the player base a bunch of HP that they’re not spending today (or that they would spend elsewhere to strengthen their roster).

Likewise, ISO continues to be an issue for most of the player base due to the increase in releases (3/5, 4, and now 2 star releases) and ascension. Their answer hasn’t been to adjust the ISO economy, but to significantly increase the ISO for cash offers. Granted, these have been great by historical standards, but we shouldn’t have to buy ISO to keep up if we’re not buying other offers or buying out vaults that artificially advance rosters.

It continues to boggle me what they spend their time working on when there are so many areas that need attention.

entrailbucket

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Daredevil217 I sure do appreciate you unblocking me just to tell me how wrong I am!

For someone who was so completely uninterested in competition of any kind, you seem have done a total 180 on it -- now it's absolutely critical that they have some way to let players go from day 1 to top tier competitive.

I think your example illustrates perfectly why this had to go away, though. You were able to get the best, what, 7, 8, characters in the game, fully maxed out, without spending a dime? That cannot happen in a game built around selling competitive advantage. Why would anyone spend anything, ever, when that route was available to them?

Players will still be able to move up. They'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way -- by spending an ungodly amount of money. And they will!

Honest question, for you or anyone else. Do you think that this is going to do anything to stop free to play players from hoarding their way to 550s? I just don’t see it being that big of a deterrent. And if you do believe it, then will the complaints about free to play players stop?

Like I said, it only punishes new players from getting the same advantages I had. They have to pay an exorbitant amount to swap those extra Namors for Chasms, when I was able to do it for free. Oh well. Sucks to be them I guess.

I do. It makes it more difficult/expensive and creates a higher chance of cover "waste" (a fate worse than death!).

And really, I don't have complaints about free to play players. The game is free to play! Feel free to play it freely!

But if you think you should be able to compete at the very top end, in the top .01% of all players, without spending, why? Why, in a game that exists only to make money, that sells competitive advantages for money, should players who spend nothing feel entitled to win everything? Because they're smarter than players who pay?

If I run a restaurant, and I offer customers a free meal if they know a secret password, am I required to keep that deal in effect forever, even if the password is now on the internet and all my customers are getting free meals? Why would anyone ever pay for their food?

That's what I don't get. This game is not a meritocracy and it's never pretended to be -- it's a business. You saw that the very first day you logged in, when there was a store selling covers or iso or HP for money. It's not "fair." You can't outsmart it, because you don't make the rules. Players are not in control, and if you think you've found some cool way to get a free lunch, you should expect them to take it away.

I disagree with both these points (shocker). You can still hoard your way to metas and avoid cover waste if you use the favorites properly. Opening at that volume it should be pretty easy to give the first character set to leave a massive cover advantage so there is zero waste. I guess we’ll see who is right here in time, but I don’t think this will make it any more/less difficult to 550 whoever I want. Like I said, it just taxes going backwards. But I already benefited and got all the competitive folks, as you pointed out.

Another point of disagreement, is I do think it is ok for somebody to play for over five years and grind their way to the end game. I don’t think it should be pay to win only. You do. There were no free meals. People did dishes in that restaurant for 5 to 10 years in order to get that free meal. Sure they didn’t pay for a thing, but, they sure did dedicate a lot of time to be able to eat a meal a big spender could walk in and afford day 1. I have zero problems with that as a system.

Except they didn't "do dishes." Playing the game for free is not doing work -- it's having fun. In fact, it's getting something for free that others pay for. They spent 5 to 10 years eating free burgers, and now they think they're entitled to filet mignon.

All things equal, I think a person who plays the game for 8 years should have an advantage over someone who plays it for 1. I think someone who plays the game optimally and is smart with resources should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. And I think someone who spends should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe there are different ways to the same destination. You seem to feel that money should be the only factor or that by spending you should be entitled to be in the 1% and a non-spender shouldn’t have a way there. I could be wrong, and I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am. But I ask what is this “competition” you want so badly? Whoever spends the most wins? It’s weird.

How is that weird? Of course the player who spends the most should win! They literally sell in game advantages! This isn't chess -- it's not a fair competition or a game of skill or optimization.

Imagine a chessboard where you could kick some guy $100 and turn all your pieces into queens. That's MPQ. That's every competitive f2p game ever. And they've been clear about it from the moment it launched. Nobody deceived you on this. It's never been fair.

You're, like, applying morality and shoulds and values to what is a fundamentally unfair money-extracting machine stapled to a superhero match-3 game. From 2013 until very recently, the player who spent the most money absolutely did win. Where have you been?

Heck, I've been crushed by whales innumerable times over the years and that's totally fine with me. They keep the lights on for everyone. They absolutely deserve to win everything.

Zalasta

If you think this game is PTW, you should check out Forge of Empires or Last War. MPQ pales by comparison.

TheXMan

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Daredevil217 I sure do appreciate you unblocking me just to tell me how wrong I am!

For someone who was so completely uninterested in competition of any kind, you seem have done a total 180 on it -- now it's absolutely critical that they have some way to let players go from day 1 to top tier competitive.

I think your example illustrates perfectly why this had to go away, though. You were able to get the best, what, 7, 8, characters in the game, fully maxed out, without spending a dime? That cannot happen in a game built around selling competitive advantage. Why would anyone spend anything, ever, when that route was available to them?

Players will still be able to move up. They'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way -- by spending an ungodly amount of money. And they will!

Honest question, for you or anyone else. Do you think that this is going to do anything to stop free to play players from hoarding their way to 550s? I just don’t see it being that big of a deterrent. And if you do believe it, then will the complaints about free to play players stop?

Like I said, it only punishes new players from getting the same advantages I had. They have to pay an exorbitant amount to swap those extra Namors for Chasms, when I was able to do it for free. Oh well. Sucks to be them I guess.

I do. It makes it more difficult/expensive and creates a higher chance of cover "waste" (a fate worse than death!).

And really, I don't have complaints about free to play players. The game is free to play! Feel free to play it freely!

But if you think you should be able to compete at the very top end, in the top .01% of all players, without spending, why? Why, in a game that exists only to make money, that sells competitive advantages for money, should players who spend nothing feel entitled to win everything? Because they're smarter than players who pay?

If I run a restaurant, and I offer customers a free meal if they know a secret password, am I required to keep that deal in effect forever, even if the password is now on the internet and all my customers are getting free meals? Why would anyone ever pay for their food?

That's what I don't get. This game is not a meritocracy and it's never pretended to be -- it's a business. You saw that the very first day you logged in, when there was a store selling covers or iso or HP for money. It's not "fair." You can't outsmart it, because you don't make the rules. Players are not in control, and if you think you've found some cool way to get a free lunch, you should expect them to take it away.

I disagree with both these points (shocker). You can still hoard your way to metas and avoid cover waste if you use the favorites properly. Opening at that volume it should be pretty easy to give the first character set to leave a massive cover advantage so there is zero waste. I guess we’ll see who is right here in time, but I don’t think this will make it any more/less difficult to 550 whoever I want. Like I said, it just taxes going backwards. But I already benefited and got all the competitive folks, as you pointed out.

Another point of disagreement, is I do think it is ok for somebody to play for over five years and grind their way to the end game. I don’t think it should be pay to win only. You do. There were no free meals. People did dishes in that restaurant for 5 to 10 years in order to get that free meal. Sure they didn’t pay for a thing, but, they sure did dedicate a lot of time to be able to eat a meal a big spender could walk in and afford day 1. I have zero problems with that as a system.

Except they didn't "do dishes." Playing the game for free is not doing work -- it's having fun. In fact, it's getting something for free that others pay for. They spent 5 to 10 years eating free burgers, and now they think they're entitled to filet mignon.

All things equal, I think a person who plays the game for 8 years should have an advantage over someone who plays it for 1. I think someone who plays the game optimally and is smart with resources should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. And I think someone who spends should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe there are different ways to the same destination. You seem to feel that money should be the only factor or that by spending you should be entitled to be in the 1% and a non-spender shouldn’t have a way there. I could be wrong, and I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am. But I ask what is this “competition” you want so badly? Whoever spends the most wins? It’s weird.

How is that weird? Of course the player who spends the most should win! They literally sell in game advantages! This isn't chess -- it's not a fair competition or a game of skill or optimization.

Imagine a chessboard where you could kick some guy $100 and turn all your pieces into queens. That's MPQ. That's every competitive f2p game ever. And they've been clear about it from the moment it launched. Nobody deceived you on this. It's never been fair.

You're, like, applying morality and shoulds and values to what is a fundamentally unfair money-extracting machine stapled to a superhero match-3 game. From 2013 until very recently, the player who spent the most money absolutely did win. Where have you been?

Heck, I've been crushed by whales innumerable times over the years and that's totally fine with me. They keep the lights on for everyone. They absolutely deserve to win everything.

There are f2p games that make money other ways like selling cosmetics that do not give you a competitive advantage.

entrailbucket

@TheXMan said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Daredevil217 I sure do appreciate you unblocking me just to tell me how wrong I am!

For someone who was so completely uninterested in competition of any kind, you seem have done a total 180 on it -- now it's absolutely critical that they have some way to let players go from day 1 to top tier competitive.

I think your example illustrates perfectly why this had to go away, though. You were able to get the best, what, 7, 8, characters in the game, fully maxed out, without spending a dime? That cannot happen in a game built around selling competitive advantage. Why would anyone spend anything, ever, when that route was available to them?

Players will still be able to move up. They'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way -- by spending an ungodly amount of money. And they will!

Honest question, for you or anyone else. Do you think that this is going to do anything to stop free to play players from hoarding their way to 550s? I just don’t see it being that big of a deterrent. And if you do believe it, then will the complaints about free to play players stop?

Like I said, it only punishes new players from getting the same advantages I had. They have to pay an exorbitant amount to swap those extra Namors for Chasms, when I was able to do it for free. Oh well. Sucks to be them I guess.

I do. It makes it more difficult/expensive and creates a higher chance of cover "waste" (a fate worse than death!).

And really, I don't have complaints about free to play players. The game is free to play! Feel free to play it freely!

But if you think you should be able to compete at the very top end, in the top .01% of all players, without spending, why? Why, in a game that exists only to make money, that sells competitive advantages for money, should players who spend nothing feel entitled to win everything? Because they're smarter than players who pay?

If I run a restaurant, and I offer customers a free meal if they know a secret password, am I required to keep that deal in effect forever, even if the password is now on the internet and all my customers are getting free meals? Why would anyone ever pay for their food?

That's what I don't get. This game is not a meritocracy and it's never pretended to be -- it's a business. You saw that the very first day you logged in, when there was a store selling covers or iso or HP for money. It's not "fair." You can't outsmart it, because you don't make the rules. Players are not in control, and if you think you've found some cool way to get a free lunch, you should expect them to take it away.

I disagree with both these points (shocker). You can still hoard your way to metas and avoid cover waste if you use the favorites properly. Opening at that volume it should be pretty easy to give the first character set to leave a massive cover advantage so there is zero waste. I guess we’ll see who is right here in time, but I don’t think this will make it any more/less difficult to 550 whoever I want. Like I said, it just taxes going backwards. But I already benefited and got all the competitive folks, as you pointed out.

Another point of disagreement, is I do think it is ok for somebody to play for over five years and grind their way to the end game. I don’t think it should be pay to win only. You do. There were no free meals. People did dishes in that restaurant for 5 to 10 years in order to get that free meal. Sure they didn’t pay for a thing, but, they sure did dedicate a lot of time to be able to eat a meal a big spender could walk in and afford day 1. I have zero problems with that as a system.

Except they didn't "do dishes." Playing the game for free is not doing work -- it's having fun. In fact, it's getting something for free that others pay for. They spent 5 to 10 years eating free burgers, and now they think they're entitled to filet mignon.

All things equal, I think a person who plays the game for 8 years should have an advantage over someone who plays it for 1. I think someone who plays the game optimally and is smart with resources should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. And I think someone who spends should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe there are different ways to the same destination. You seem to feel that money should be the only factor or that by spending you should be entitled to be in the 1% and a non-spender shouldn’t have a way there. I could be wrong, and I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am. But I ask what is this “competition” you want so badly? Whoever spends the most wins? It’s weird.

How is that weird? Of course the player who spends the most should win! They literally sell in game advantages! This isn't chess -- it's not a fair competition or a game of skill or optimization.

Imagine a chessboard where you could kick some guy $100 and turn all your pieces into queens. That's MPQ. That's every competitive f2p game ever. And they've been clear about it from the moment it launched. Nobody deceived you on this. It's never been fair.

You're, like, applying morality and shoulds and values to what is a fundamentally unfair money-extracting machine stapled to a superhero match-3 game. From 2013 until very recently, the player who spent the most money absolutely did win. Where have you been?

Heck, I've been crushed by whales innumerable times over the years and that's totally fine with me. They keep the lights on for everyone. They absolutely deserve to win everything.

There are f2p games that make money other ways like selling cosmetics that do not give you a competitive advantage.

Yeah, that's true. In fact I think the pay to win stuff is mostly on the way out? Console gamers definitely rebelled against it. I'm not sure if mobile games are trending the same way.

Regardless, it's WAY too late for MPQ to pivot to something like that.

Daredevil217

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Daredevil217 I sure do appreciate you unblocking me just to tell me how wrong I am!

For someone who was so completely uninterested in competition of any kind, you seem have done a total 180 on it -- now it's absolutely critical that they have some way to let players go from day 1 to top tier competitive.

I think your example illustrates perfectly why this had to go away, though. You were able to get the best, what, 7, 8, characters in the game, fully maxed out, without spending a dime? That cannot happen in a game built around selling competitive advantage. Why would anyone spend anything, ever, when that route was available to them?

Players will still be able to move up. They'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way -- by spending an ungodly amount of money. And they will!

Honest question, for you or anyone else. Do you think that this is going to do anything to stop free to play players from hoarding their way to 550s? I just don’t see it being that big of a deterrent. And if you do believe it, then will the complaints about free to play players stop?

Like I said, it only punishes new players from getting the same advantages I had. They have to pay an exorbitant amount to swap those extra Namors for Chasms, when I was able to do it for free. Oh well. Sucks to be them I guess.

I do. It makes it more difficult/expensive and creates a higher chance of cover "waste" (a fate worse than death!).

And really, I don't have complaints about free to play players. The game is free to play! Feel free to play it freely!

But if you think you should be able to compete at the very top end, in the top .01% of all players, without spending, why? Why, in a game that exists only to make money, that sells competitive advantages for money, should players who spend nothing feel entitled to win everything? Because they're smarter than players who pay?

If I run a restaurant, and I offer customers a free meal if they know a secret password, am I required to keep that deal in effect forever, even if the password is now on the internet and all my customers are getting free meals? Why would anyone ever pay for their food?

That's what I don't get. This game is not a meritocracy and it's never pretended to be -- it's a business. You saw that the very first day you logged in, when there was a store selling covers or iso or HP for money. It's not "fair." You can't outsmart it, because you don't make the rules. Players are not in control, and if you think you've found some cool way to get a free lunch, you should expect them to take it away.

I disagree with both these points (shocker). You can still hoard your way to metas and avoid cover waste if you use the favorites properly. Opening at that volume it should be pretty easy to give the first character set to leave a massive cover advantage so there is zero waste. I guess we’ll see who is right here in time, but I don’t think this will make it any more/less difficult to 550 whoever I want. Like I said, it just taxes going backwards. But I already benefited and got all the competitive folks, as you pointed out.

Another point of disagreement, is I do think it is ok for somebody to play for over five years and grind their way to the end game. I don’t think it should be pay to win only. You do. There were no free meals. People did dishes in that restaurant for 5 to 10 years in order to get that free meal. Sure they didn’t pay for a thing, but, they sure did dedicate a lot of time to be able to eat a meal a big spender could walk in and afford day 1. I have zero problems with that as a system.

Except they didn't "do dishes." Playing the game for free is not doing work -- it's having fun. In fact, it's getting something for free that others pay for. They spent 5 to 10 years eating free burgers, and now they think they're entitled to filet mignon.

All things equal, I think a person who plays the game for 8 years should have an advantage over someone who plays it for 1. I think someone who plays the game optimally and is smart with resources should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. And I think someone who spends should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe there are different ways to the same destination. You seem to feel that money should be the only factor or that by spending you should be entitled to be in the 1% and a non-spender shouldn’t have a way there. I could be wrong, and I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am. But I ask what is this “competition” you want so badly? Whoever spends the most wins? It’s weird.

How is that weird? Of course the player who spends the most should win! They literally sell in game advantages! This isn't chess -- it's not a fair competition or a game of skill or optimization.

Imagine a chessboard where you could kick some guy $100 and turn all your pieces into queens. That's MPQ. That's every competitive f2p game ever. And they've been clear about it from the moment it launched. Nobody deceived you on this. It's never been fair.

You're, like, applying morality and shoulds and values to what is a fundamentally unfair money-extracting machine stapled to a superhero match-3 game. From 2013 until very recently, the player who spent the most money absolutely did win. Where have you been?

Heck, I've been crushed by whales innumerable times over the years and that's totally fine with me. They keep the lights on for everyone. They absolutely deserve to win everything.

It’s a weird take to me because that’s like saying the team with the highest salary cap should automatically win every title. They earned that right by buying the most talent. No need to play the games out. They should just win everything forever.

You say I’m imposing some morality by saying that things like brains, skill, time spent, money spent, etc. should net a person an advantage all things being equal (that part is important). That just seems like common sense to me. And note I said advantage. Not should win everything forever.

Like I said, no need to answer because I can already see you are misrepresenting and failing to understand me. Just see the bold above, agree to disagree, and have a nice day

entrailbucket

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Daredevil217 said:

@entrailbucket said:
@Daredevil217 I sure do appreciate you unblocking me just to tell me how wrong I am!

For someone who was so completely uninterested in competition of any kind, you seem have done a total 180 on it -- now it's absolutely critical that they have some way to let players go from day 1 to top tier competitive.

I think your example illustrates perfectly why this had to go away, though. You were able to get the best, what, 7, 8, characters in the game, fully maxed out, without spending a dime? That cannot happen in a game built around selling competitive advantage. Why would anyone spend anything, ever, when that route was available to them?

Players will still be able to move up. They'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way -- by spending an ungodly amount of money. And they will!

Honest question, for you or anyone else. Do you think that this is going to do anything to stop free to play players from hoarding their way to 550s? I just don’t see it being that big of a deterrent. And if you do believe it, then will the complaints about free to play players stop?

Like I said, it only punishes new players from getting the same advantages I had. They have to pay an exorbitant amount to swap those extra Namors for Chasms, when I was able to do it for free. Oh well. Sucks to be them I guess.

I do. It makes it more difficult/expensive and creates a higher chance of cover "waste" (a fate worse than death!).

And really, I don't have complaints about free to play players. The game is free to play! Feel free to play it freely!

But if you think you should be able to compete at the very top end, in the top .01% of all players, without spending, why? Why, in a game that exists only to make money, that sells competitive advantages for money, should players who spend nothing feel entitled to win everything? Because they're smarter than players who pay?

If I run a restaurant, and I offer customers a free meal if they know a secret password, am I required to keep that deal in effect forever, even if the password is now on the internet and all my customers are getting free meals? Why would anyone ever pay for their food?

That's what I don't get. This game is not a meritocracy and it's never pretended to be -- it's a business. You saw that the very first day you logged in, when there was a store selling covers or iso or HP for money. It's not "fair." You can't outsmart it, because you don't make the rules. Players are not in control, and if you think you've found some cool way to get a free lunch, you should expect them to take it away.

I disagree with both these points (shocker). You can still hoard your way to metas and avoid cover waste if you use the favorites properly. Opening at that volume it should be pretty easy to give the first character set to leave a massive cover advantage so there is zero waste. I guess we’ll see who is right here in time, but I don’t think this will make it any more/less difficult to 550 whoever I want. Like I said, it just taxes going backwards. But I already benefited and got all the competitive folks, as you pointed out.

Another point of disagreement, is I do think it is ok for somebody to play for over five years and grind their way to the end game. I don’t think it should be pay to win only. You do. There were no free meals. People did dishes in that restaurant for 5 to 10 years in order to get that free meal. Sure they didn’t pay for a thing, but, they sure did dedicate a lot of time to be able to eat a meal a big spender could walk in and afford day 1. I have zero problems with that as a system.

Except they didn't "do dishes." Playing the game for free is not doing work -- it's having fun. In fact, it's getting something for free that others pay for. They spent 5 to 10 years eating free burgers, and now they think they're entitled to filet mignon.

All things equal, I think a person who plays the game for 8 years should have an advantage over someone who plays it for 1. I think someone who plays the game optimally and is smart with resources should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. And I think someone who spends should have an advantage over someone who doesn’t. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe there are different ways to the same destination. You seem to feel that money should be the only factor or that by spending you should be entitled to be in the 1% and a non-spender shouldn’t have a way there. I could be wrong, and I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am. But I ask what is this “competition” you want so badly? Whoever spends the most wins? It’s weird.

How is that weird? Of course the player who spends the most should win! They literally sell in game advantages! This isn't chess -- it's not a fair competition or a game of skill or optimization.

Imagine a chessboard where you could kick some guy $100 and turn all your pieces into queens. That's MPQ. That's every competitive f2p game ever. And they've been clear about it from the moment it launched. Nobody deceived you on this. It's never been fair.

You're, like, applying morality and shoulds and values to what is a fundamentally unfair money-extracting machine stapled to a superhero match-3 game. From 2013 until very recently, the player who spent the most money absolutely did win. Where have you been?

Heck, I've been crushed by whales innumerable times over the years and that's totally fine with me. They keep the lights on for everyone. They absolutely deserve to win everything.

It’s a weird take to me because that’s like saying the team with the highest salary cap should automatically win every title. They earned that right by buying the most talent. No need to play the games out. They should just win everything forever.

You say I’m imposing some morality by saying that things like brains, skill, time spent, money spent, etc. should net a person an advantage all things being equal (that part is important). That just seems like common sense to me. And note I said advantage. Not should win everything forever.

Like I said, no need to answer because I can already see you are misrepresenting and failing to understand me. Just see the bold above, agree to disagree, and have a nice day

I mean, sports are several levels more complex and unpredictable than a superhero toilet game. If MPQ worked the same way as, say, the NFL, your characters would suffer injuries, contract holdouts, DUIs, etc. The correct analogy for MPQ would be a football game where the owner could purchase yards or touchdowns directly.

You keep trying to make this game into something it's just not. I don't know why you aren't trying to find that game instead of wasting your time with this one.

Anyway, as usual you are continuing to misrepresent and misinterpret me, purposely. At least you haven't deployed the dreaded, unbeatable cry of "Bad faith!" yet.

I liked it much better when you had me on ignore.

Zarqa

You clearly both strongly disagree. Probably time to move on. But it does stand out to me that Entrail speaks in absolutes and clearly believes his opinion is immutable fact, while Daredevil states he thinks/believes/feels things are a certain way, which makes it more his opinion that he shares.

I have to say that I like Daredevil's reasoning style much much better. (I also happen to agree with him, so I might be biased) But Entrail, you do not hold the sole truth about this game. You just have opinions about it.

entrailbucket

@Zarqa said:
You clearly both strongly disagree. Probably time to move on. But it does stand out to me that Entrail speaks in absolutes and clearly believes his opinion is immutable fact, while Daredevil states he thinks/believes/feels things are a certain way, which makes it more his opinion that he shares.

I have to say that I like Daredevil's reasoning style much much better. (I also happen to agree with him, so I might be biased) But Entrail, you do not hold the sole truth about this game. You just have opinions about it.

"MPQ sells items that provide an in game advantage" is, in fact, an immutable fact.

"MPQ is a business that's constructed to make money" is, as well.

What other "truths" are there? Do you dispute those things?

WhiteBomber

@Daredevil217 and @entrailbucket
Excellent debate! It's like the unstoppable force VS the immovable object! You're like the devil and angel on our shoulders.

DoubleD is all like "The people! Think of the people, diversity and fairness for all! Fight the man!"
and Electroncis Boutique is all like "Money money MONEeeeEEEY!, Eff the poor ash common folk! Feed the machine!"

Meanwhile, I like to think the dev team is all like:
Dev A: I wonder how this will go over...
Dev B: Did you run any numbers on this?
Dev A: .... ?
Devpool: Great idea, I'll write that down!
Dev B: How about... tested?
Devpool: Did you know, I'm like, not even real, man.
Everyone: RELEEEEASE!

What if the truth lies somewhere in between! What if the dev team is actually like "I love this game and it's mechanics that make it an actual fun game, and I also want to make it better for all players" and Marvel is all like "Suck it up buttercup bisch! Cash rules everything around me; do you know how much we had to pay Ben Affleck!?"

That being said! I actually see (and respect) both sides and think you debated well. I've just read so much up to this point, I feel like I'm part of it and wanted to contribute.

My one opinion to toss in the ring: I don't think this game fully is pay to win, more like, pay to get more/further faster and make you think less. I think the very strong low star characters they have been releasing lately show, they might be thinking about David fighting the goliath. I help non pay to pay players with their rosters all of the time and they still win far more than they lose. You just need to spend a foolish amount of time learning far too much to further offset the cash.

WhiteBomber

Disclaimer: Having said that, I in NO way support the recent initiatives put (and being put) in place that cost insane amounts of resources and money.

ThisisClemFandango

I think I'm being challenged for quirky forumite 2024

rainkingucd

@ThisisClemFandango said:
I think I'm being challenged for quirky forumite 2024

are you going to take that lying down? you can prove to everyone that you, and only you, are @ThisisClemFandango

DAZ0273

I reckon Ben Affleck is probably quite cheap now, they could get him for Secret Wars or something for probably a tenth of a Downey Jr.

ThisisClemFandango

I've just imagined people shouting in each others faces regardless of what's being said ie
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA
I DONT THINK IT IS
PROVE THAT IT ISNT
WHAT
YOU CANT
I DONT NEED PROOF ITS MY OPINION
BOTH ARE WRONG
OK
VICTORY
WELL NO I JUST DONT AGREE
WE ALL MUST HAVE THE SAME OPINION AS WE MUST ALL SEE THE GAME AS I DO
YOU FRIGTHEN ME
BECAUSE IM RIGHT
IM GOING TO STOP NOW IM NOT SURE WHY IM SHOUTING ANYMORE TO BE HONEST, IT DOESNT NEED TO BE THIS CONFRONTATIONAL
LOSER!!!!! I WIN
WIN WHAT?
AAAAAHHHHHHHH CANT WIN THE ARGUMENT SO YOU RUN AWAY

ad infinitum
It's like the family guy sketch with the man and the donkey arguing about footloose.

rainkingucd

Okay so this is maybe a deep cut, but I am reminded of the Gators fans in the film Big Trouble (disregard the weird Japanese accent joke which has not aged well at all).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuY4tFvHaSc

OfficialClemFandango

@rainkingucd said:

@ThisisClemFandango said:
I think I'm being challenged for quirky forumite 2024

are you going to take that lying down? you can prove to everyone that you, and only you, are @ThisisClemFandango

.... 🤔 🤨

ThisisClemFandango

Oh for gods sake now I have a stalker
Now I know what it feels like to be Margot Robbie

Scofie

😆 this might save you having to argue with yourself in posts....

ThisisClemFandango

@Scofie said:
😆 this might save you having to argue with yourself in posts....

I have never ever argued with myself how dare you.
You make me sound like some sort of nut job, I've always been a font of reliable information except when I'm not, to amuse myself. Does this mean I am ultimately pointless and wasting everyone's precious time??!! Why would someone do this
What an absolute tool.