MPQ 12th Anniversary Celebrations

@Read_Only said:

@entrailbucket said:
The standard line used to be "Sure, I don't spend anything, but the game needs players like me! If I wasn't around, there wouldn't be anyone for the spenders to fight, and they'd get all bored and quit."

Well, as it turns out, we just had like two months where everybody only fought the computer and not only did nobody mind, they all preferred it! So uh...what exactly are these "customers" adding?

Simply not true in the hangouts I use. Most of the people who preferred it are people like me that didn't play pvp much or at all in the first place. Grinding the free covers quickly and easy is also a bigger reason. I mean how many threads and conversations are there about wanting back the seed pvp? Yep none.

Did you miss the entire thread on here, with a poll, where 2 players out of like 60 preferred the original matchmaking system?

This is brought up constantly, on here and in other places. Everybody wants fights to end in 1 move. Almost every suggestion for how to "fix" matchmaking is "just turn PvP into PvE."

@Jash735 said:
And I’m not trying to knock it in any way, just genuinely curious what advantage you see in it.

It's a trade off: Longer time spent in PvE vs more diverse PvP experience.

Remember, absolute nothing is gated off as a 5 star only experience. I play in the highest CLs in PvE/PvP and get all the rewards (minus placement which I don't have time to do anyway), I can finish Puzzle Gauntlet, Boss battles in R8 etc.

The only difference in experiences between me and someone with a higher leveled roster is PvE clear time and PvP experience. I prefer my PvP experience over the same few meta teams everyone complains about in 5 star PvP.

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

Did you miss the entire thread on here, with a poll, where 2 players out of like 60 preferred the original matchmaking system?

This is brought up constantly, on here and in other places. Everybody wants fights to end in 1 move. Almost every suggestion for how to "fix" matchmaking is "just turn PvP into PvE."

That’s your mistake thinking a poll on here is representative of the player base. This place said no to supports while the player base said yes.

@Painmonger said:

@entrailbucket said:

@TheXMan said:
Losing players should never be a goal

Completely insane take. Making money is the goal. Players who spend no money (and never will) contribute nothing, and in fact are taking up valuable slots from players who do, or might, spend.

I feel like that take is a little insane, though. I don't disagree the ultimate goal is to make money and the devs have every right to make changes they feel are in the best interest of the stability & longevity of their game.

I do disagree on everything but the second sentence, however. There are ways to contribute to any organization without spending directly, and claiming otherwise is simply insulting. That's really my biggest takeaway, even if the statements had been true the tone would turn everyone off to the underlying message that hopefully enough people are paying to keep the game running & healthy.

No one is arbitrarily taking a slot from anyone else, either. This isn't an airplane with limited seats, there is no queue saying I can't play until someone else logs off. There is nothing in the ToS promising a premium paid-only bracket so they don't have to compete with us filthy non-spenders. In fact, if they can't keep up maybe it's the spender's fault for not spending more!

If we gave the devs a dollar every time someone threatened to quit or called it the end of the game & kept playing this would be a moot point & probably the most successful game in history. The meta is always going to move, players are always going to quit. The fact that we're looking at a 12 year anniversary of a FTP mobile game should give all of us some reassurance that a good game has given us a lot of enjoyment while also clearly being profitable, and hopefully we'll see 12 more years!

Can you explain how free to play players contribute to MPQ? Be specific.

In fact, there are limited slots in every event's leaderboard. Those slots should be filled by players who are contributing to the game's continued survival, or they're being wasted.

It is the devs' job to ensure that the things they sell have competitive value. If Galactus and the other 6* can only be obtained by spending money, that'll be a good start.

Maybe google how the F2P model works. Pretty sure you won't find anything about trying to make the free players quit. lnsane, I know.

@entrailbucket said:

@Painmonger said:

@entrailbucket said:

@TheXMan said:
Losing players should never be a goal

Completely insane take. Making money is the goal. Players who spend no money (and never will) contribute nothing, and in fact are taking up valuable slots from players who do, or might, spend.

I feel like that take is a little insane, though. I don't disagree the ultimate goal is to make money and the devs have every right to make changes they feel are in the best interest of the stability & longevity of their game.

I do disagree on everything but the second sentence, however. There are ways to contribute to any organization without spending directly, and claiming otherwise is simply insulting. That's really my biggest takeaway, even if the statements had been true the tone would turn everyone off to the underlying message that hopefully enough people are paying to keep the game running & healthy.

No one is arbitrarily taking a slot from anyone else, either. This isn't an airplane with limited seats, there is no queue saying I can't play until someone else logs off. There is nothing in the ToS promising a premium paid-only bracket so they don't have to compete with us filthy non-spenders. In fact, if they can't keep up maybe it's the spender's fault for not spending more!

If we gave the devs a dollar every time someone threatened to quit or called it the end of the game & kept playing this would be a moot point & probably the most successful game in history. The meta is always going to move, players are always going to quit. The fact that we're looking at a 12 year anniversary of a FTP mobile game should give all of us some reassurance that a good game has given us a lot of enjoyment while also clearly being profitable, and hopefully we'll see 12 more years!

Can you explain how free to play players contribute to MPQ? Be specific.

In fact, there are limited slots in every event's leaderboard. Those slots should be filled by players who are contributing to the game's continued survival, or they're being wasted.

It is the devs' job to ensure that the things they sell have competitive value. If Galactus and the other 6* can only be obtained by spending money, that'll be a good start.

FTP absolutely pad the numbers for engagement & downloads. They provide feedback to the devs, reviews on download platforms, recommendations to friends who become new players, and a wealth of knowledge to new players. Granted paying players can also provide that, but PTW & FTP are just as valuable as each other. If anything, I'd take a recommendation from someone who spent nothing over someone who spent $700,000 over the last 12 years. The more perspectives & players you have the wider the net you can cast.

I know I've also gotten ideas from FTP for teams I'd have never thought of because they had to get more creative with their roster. They aren't locked into the same meta that pay to win players are. That's also how they can provide that dev feedback, since they can find some of those outliers the same old stagnant top 10 would never see.

I did acknowledge the leaderboards. I disagree that someone who started playing last month & bought a VIP should be guaranteed a higher spot than the skill, knowledge, and roster I've spent 4,000+ days building. Again, there is nothing in this game anywhere that says or even implies that paying will mean you don't have to compete against anyone else who didn't pay. I wasn't entirely joking with the part about them not spending enough. A FTP placing higher could also provide motivation for a spender to spend more.

It definitely isn't the devs job to make sure what they sell gives a competitive advantage. As you've said, and I agree completely, it's to make the most profitable game they can. Those two are definitely not the same thing. I've worked for several of the largest retailers in the U.S. when I was younger & they all utilize "loss leaders" that are bigger ticket items sold at a loss to drive sales in other areas or related products.

My first experience with these was water heaters. Retail price was on average 15% less than cost, but you'd make up for it with stuff like the pipe fittings that were marked up anywhere from 500-1,500%. Now imagine those water heaters were FTP & the fittings were the paying players they recruited.

Don't battle royale games like "2 Weeks" and Marvel's own "Competitive Colleagues" make their money almost entirely from cosmetic items that have no impact on gameplay at all? That's a legitimate question, because I haven't played them & not entirely sure, but that's how they were explained to me.

I saw you posted just after this one I'm replying to, and I agree with most of that, but will reply to it separately so they don't get mixed up. I'm also sorry if my post came across rude, too. I didn't mean for it to. Don't let the low post count fool you, I've been on these forums for 10 years, and I respect & value your contributions over the years.

@Painmonger said:

@entrailbucket said:
I don't mean to blame free to play players. They're not doing anything wrong. The devs created the situation they're in and are solely to blame for it.

The problem is that the game's revenues are way down, and that's because the devs have given us no incentive to actually spend money. All the top players completely stopped buying 10 months ago or whatever, and they're still camped out at the top of every leaderboard (and will be forever, unless something drastically changes).

Spending has to beat strategy in a game like this. Why would anybody give the devs money when spending doesn't help you win? They need to sell something that's actually worth buying, so those folks at the top of the leaderboards are forced to either pay up or get passed by.

Sorry, it's me again! This time just saying I agree with pretty much all of this. My biggest criticism in mobile games is getting away from the micro part of transactions.

What made some of those early mobile games so successful & got so much notice as a business venture wasn't by convincing 1,000 people to spend $100 at once, it was 100,000 players spending
$2 at a time over & over again. I don't feel like the value is there for a Cyclops costume when I can spend the same for a AAA PC/console game & maybe DLC if it's on sale.

I'm not sure about spending having to beat strategy since I don't know the monetary rate to charge for knowing the timing on node clearing and optimal power use. Skill should definitely still have a place in a game, especially one with Puzzle in the title.

I think the second post better represents what I actually think, and I think we're generally in agreement about a lot of this. I just tend to be confrontational because...well...I'm used to everyone on here being confrontational with me.

I agree that there should be a place for skill, but it's a difficult line. They have to make money, and they're in a pretty dire place right now. If nobody spends, the game dies.

Why not just make it a pay to play game. Free to start playing but once you reach a certain point you have to pay to continue. The $10 vip would work. Lower the price or drastically increase the rewards on the offers. For example $50 for 100 Galactus shards, 2co, 1099 hp is insane If this was available for $10 most everyone would buy it. Instead of a select few. They would make way more money this way. People need to see the value in what they are receiving for their money. MPQ is a want not a need when it comes to the important things in life The sooner the devs realize this the better off we will all be.