Constructive Criticism from a Concerned Day 1 Player

As the title states, I picked this game up day one and have literally played every day since then. I have to say, I'm concerned regarding the long term sustainability of this game and its current path, and I'm going to thoroughly explain why.

Right off the bat, I'm going to state some positives. New characters are always welcome, as well as new PVE and new PVP events. The support, frequent updates (for better or for worse are a good sign regardless), and interaction on here is also great for the game and appreciated by the fan base.

I'll start with this: my interest in the game has decreased significantly since the Ragnarok nerf and the announcement of future "balancing," and I'll explain why. I thought about it a lot over the elapsed time and have come up with reasons why I think the changes are negative.

First off, I'm now more reluctant to invest in a character, especially those on your hit list. I had 200K iso saved yesterday, more than I've ever had by 100K, because I was concerned as to whom to put it towards. And when I'm unsure where I'm aiming, frankly I lose interest because goals in these games are important. Being unsure as to what is safe to put your game currency into deters progression because you don't know what you're going for and what you'll end up with. And being unsure is a problem, especially with F2P games where you can boost your in game experience with money. I've purchased HP twice because I like to support games that are doing well, and was literally a day away from purchasing 1200 to finish my Rags off. He got nerfed, I held on to the money, and am literally reluctant to invest again.

Additionally, another common theme comes in: no one likes to lose power they had. For instance, let's rate power on a scale from 1-10. If Rags was a 10, he's now a 5 we'll say (speaking hypothetically, of course). Let's just say the highest character is now a 6/10 power. If we had started with a highest character at 5/10, and BOOSTED to a 6, we'd all by thrilled because power is relative. We remember what we had, and it's frustrating to take a step back. Since we all came to love the 10/10, going to 6 is a problem, whereas if we started at 4 or 5 and went to 6, the community would be thrilled.

Nerfs also are not necessary, expecially in a game like this, and I'll explain why. First off, as a blanket statement, if nerfs are for balancing, make other characters better instead. It's that easy. Everyone is happy, and no one loses what they invested in. You technically do "lose" if you have a higher character to aim at, but it doesn't feel that way and you're more excited to move forward than to take a step back. If you're concerned that PVE suffers sans the nerfs or by increasing power, do what you continue to do and make harder challenges. My "uber" team of Rags, Wolvie and whomever had problems with that level 240 team. Also, forcing a character is a great tool too, as it limits the player without handicapping their characters. So if nerfing was to make PVE more fair, increase difficulty by raising levels, boosts, or forcing lesser used character to be used.

PVP...this game isn't a true PVP. It's a PvE where a player selects who you fight, basically. I'm going to explain why nerfs are unnecessary, giving an example of when they are necessary and explaining why they're not here. I have been competitive in numerous games, one of which is Street Fighter 4 and fighting games in general. In a fighting game, if one character is broken as to where you HAVE to use them to be competitive, then yea a nerf is necessary. For example, in the Power Rangers fighting game for SEGA, ONE character is viable: Ivan Ooze. So to win, you have to use him, and frankly that damages the longevity of the game, because it's just not interesting. The scene died because the game was so inbalanced, and people lost interest. In this game, it's not a true PVP. Players do not play players, we play the computer using their characters, and frankly no one is unbeatable under these circumstances, and we're limited to the level cap. It's an even playing field. I beat countless Rags/Spidey teams with my Storm/Thor/GSBW team, with little to no problem, because I'm better than the AI. Pretty much everyone is. So a nerf is unnecessary in a PVP sense because no character is broken in the computer's hands. Additionally, shields are an effective nerf to any PVP problems because they prevent the player from losing points, the only real PVP aspect. So you've already built in a nerf. Lastly, there is no need to play ANY particular character with the skipping system, so nerfs aren't necessary for progressing purposes. Essentially in PVP you can ignore ANY character or combination you want. So how will nerfs balance that? I genuinely feel that we're not limited in PVP by any character being an uber because the nature of the game always gives the player the upper hand. NEVER once did I say "this is unfair." I said "geeze, I want that character," and worked towards it. Now, not so much, because I don't know who to work for.

I was very into Castlevania: Harmony of Despair, on XBOX 360. There were 2 broken weapons that made the game absolutely cake. The developers tried a small nerf, which aggravated people, but the weapons were still good. So you know what they did? They added additional levels where the bosses were essentially immune to the weapons. So instead of just telling a player "No, you can't use this any more, we've made it useless and you've lost your reward," they instead said "Keep it, but there's much better now..." People don't mind that because it gives them a goal. And now that's the problem with this game: who is the uber you go after? I'm scared to invest in Spidey and Mags...heck I'm worried I'm losing my Thor and Wolvie. You already killed C. Storm, and now I never see her. Is it good to decrease character usage by making them bad, or is it better for a game to increase usage of other characters by improving them?

The above (building a counter into a game for an uber) is a great tactic, and was I thought the purpose of Hulk, who counters repeat attack players. Keep that up, seriously, building balance in the game by adding counters to popular choices is an excellent method and I believe well-received.

Games and gamers are very psychological in nature, I know, I'm an avid gamer and have been my whole life. As a 26 year old attorney, and as the prime generation for gamers, essentially growing up with it, move into adulthood, gaming time becomes finite. We simply don't have time to waste, so we play games deliberately. I was logging at least an hour into this game daily, but the recent developments have shunted that because frankly, I don't want to invest in something that'll be taken away. Attempting to make a game competitive by taking away good options is socialist in nature, you're punishing hard work and trying to even the playing field. No, I'm not calling your socialists lol and I'm hoping my analogy doesn't murder my argument, but seriously, taking away never helps a community. Instead, improve other characters. If you didn't nerf Rags and instead made BagMan an uber, I guarantee you more people would be excited by the prospect of building towards a new character. People want goals, want to aim at the best. Keep improving the best instead of lowering the ceiling.

IceX or any D3 rep, I'd be happy to continue this discussion here, through PMs, or even e-mails if you want to message me (you should have the one I signed up with on file). I've invested a lot into this game and want to see it flourish, I derive no satisfaction from voicing my concerns. Frankly, it sucks I have to. I love the game and want it to continue to be successful.