entrailbucket said:To suggest that this was by design defies all logic.
justsing said: Sekilicious said: Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Mine is that a single champed Ultron would make PvP significantly more difficult than Polaris and her various counters with a 4* MMR. A single champed Kitty or BRB may make PvP more bearable than Ultron, but a single champed Ultron would make PvE in SCL10 possible beyond spamming endless Winfinites, though maybe not the challenge node. Getting to top-50 to 100 in SCL10 every event is a significant hurdle to champing every 5* as they are released. Not sure why you think a single champed Ultron would be more useful in SCL10 PVE than single champed Kitty or BRB…….. I play SCL10 PVE with a single champed Kitty on my alt account and do fine. Kitty is faster than BRB, especially when you can use R4G as a 3rd. But champed BRB isn’t that slow either since Polaris pairs well with him and fuels his AP gen.
Sekilicious said: Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Mine is that a single champed Ultron would make PvP significantly more difficult than Polaris and her various counters with a 4* MMR. A single champed Kitty or BRB may make PvP more bearable than Ultron, but a single champed Ultron would make PvE in SCL10 possible beyond spamming endless Winfinites, though maybe not the challenge node. Getting to top-50 to 100 in SCL10 every event is a significant hurdle to champing every 5* as they are released.
HoundofShadow said: A couple of simple tweaks to turn Odin from mediocre to meta is to turn his ability into this:(PASSIVE) If an enemy would deal at least X damage, Odin jumps to the front, fortifies 3 random basic or friendly special tile(s), and then reduce that damage by 20% for each color of Fortified tile on the board. If Odin was already in front, fortify 3 random basic or friendly special tiles of each color instead and then reduce that damage by 20% for each color of Fortified tile on the board.
dianetics said: HoundofShadow said: A couple of simple tweaks to turn Odin from mediocre to meta is to turn his ability into this:(PASSIVE) If an enemy would deal at least X damage, Odin jumps to the front, fortifies 3 random basic or friendly special tile(s), and then reduce that damage by 20% for each color of Fortified tile on the board. If Odin was already in front, fortify 3 random basic or friendly special tiles of each color instead and then reduce that damage by 20% for each color of Fortified tile on the board. This would make him incredibly overpowered. After 2 turns he could conceivably reduce 100% of the damage coming in. He would also start create all those countdown tiles and be a real menace.The only option you would have is to stun him in order to do damage.If you were to switch jump in front to provide fortified tiles and already in front to reduced damage it might work better.
HoundofShadow said: Knull was a "must have" because Cyclops was deemed the worst of 2. You either go Cyclops/Colossus/Wanda or Colossus/Wanda/Knull. If players had a choice, Knull won't even be in the picture.
atomzed said: entrailbucket said:To suggest that this was by design defies all logic. I can’t speak for D3, but I personally think there is business sense to their current model. In mobile games, you can generally earn money through (1) whales and/or (2) masses. Of course, they are not mutually exclusive and all mobile games will earn money through a combination of whales and masses. However, the centre of gravity differs for different mobile games. Those mobile games who focus primarily on the whales will adopt a P2W model. They release the latest and better tools that warp the entire meta around it. If the player don’t have it, they lose. The pro of this business model is that the developer will earn a lot from the whales. The cons is that if it is taken to the extreme, the masses will leave the games, and eventually the whales leave the game because there is no one to fight. Then the game will fold. Those mobile games who focus primarily on the masses will adopt a F2P model. The emphasis is on sustainability and keeping the players engaged. With such a model, variety of the tools is more important than releasing meta tools. The pro is that the masses will stay, and if they spend some amount, it can accumulate to big sums. The cons is that the new tools developed may not be seen as desirable. It’s a continuum and not a binary option. We can debate on which end of the spectrum MPQ should be located at. But it is still our preference and not D3 preference. They must have some business logic to pursue this path. To be able to continue for 8 years is no mean feat. They must be doing something right. Edit: added more clarification why P2W will drive the whales to leave.
entrailbucket said: I'm not talking about "the masses." This game has always been based on generating revenue from the masses, and that's why it's been so successful.I'm talking about the top .0001% of players, who dominate the top of the leaderboard in PvP and PvE. In mobile games it is typically quite expensive to do this. In MPQ it was quite expensive to do this. Now it's not. If your argument is that they chose to convert that population of very high-paying players into non-spenders for sustainability reasons, that makes zero sense.
atomzed said: entrailbucket said: I'm not talking about "the masses." This game has always been based on generating revenue from the masses, and that's why it's been so successful.I'm talking about the top .0001% of players, who dominate the top of the leaderboard in PvP and PvE. In mobile games it is typically quite expensive to do this. In MPQ it was quite expensive to do this. Now it's not. If your argument is that they chose to convert that population of very high-paying players into non-spenders for sustainability reasons, that makes zero sense. It makes sense if they decide to switch their centre of gravity towards the masses. Put in numbers, they rather earn $1 from one million people rather than eating $1000 from one thousand whales. Maybe they look at their business model and decide that if they keep churning out meta characters like Gambit 1.0, they will burn down the game too fast. And they rather slow burn the game? I think it make sense though whether I agree with it or not, it doesn’t matter.
TheEyeDoctorsWife said: atomzed said: entrailbucket said: I'm not talking about "the masses." This game has always been based on generating revenue from the masses, and that's why it's been so successful.I'm talking about the top .0001% of players, who dominate the top of the leaderboard in PvP and PvE. In mobile games it is typically quite expensive to do this. In MPQ it was quite expensive to do this. Now it's not. If your argument is that they chose to convert that population of very high-paying players into non-spenders for sustainability reasons, that makes zero sense. It makes sense if they decide to switch their centre of gravity towards the masses. Put in numbers, they rather earn $1 from one million people rather than eating $1000 from one thousand whales. Maybe they look at their business model and decide that if they keep churning out meta characters like Gambit 1.0, they will burn down the game too fast. And they rather slow burn the game? I think it make sense though whether I agree with it or not, it doesn’t matter. No business model I know of caters to 0.001% of it’s customer base and survives. It’s like a shoe store selling shoes at $1 million dollars saying , “All we need is one sale this year to make a profit “. To even think of this as a successful model is ludicrous.
Polares said: TheEyeDoctorsWife said: atomzed said: entrailbucket said: I'm not talking about "the masses." This game has always been based on generating revenue from the masses, and that's why it's been so successful.I'm talking about the top .0001% of players, who dominate the top of the leaderboard in PvP and PvE. In mobile games it is typically quite expensive to do this. In MPQ it was quite expensive to do this. Now it's not. If your argument is that they chose to convert that population of very high-paying players into non-spenders for sustainability reasons, that makes zero sense. It makes sense if they decide to switch their centre of gravity towards the masses. Put in numbers, they rather earn $1 from one million people rather than eating $1000 from one thousand whales. Maybe they look at their business model and decide that if they keep churning out meta characters like Gambit 1.0, they will burn down the game too fast. And they rather slow burn the game? I think it make sense though whether I agree with it or not, it doesn’t matter. No business model I know of caters to 0.001% of it’s customer base and survives. It’s like a shoe store selling shoes at $1 million dollars saying , “All we need is one sale this year to make a profit “. To even think of this as a successful model is ludicrous. Well, you found the first one then. Most Fremium games live from their whales and Krakens. I know it is counterintuitive and it doesnt work in most other types of bussiness but it is how these games work. The big difference here respect other business is that most players dont spend a cent EVER in these Fremium games. In general just 5% or less of players spend money. So doplhins and small spenders contribution is very small, almost all of the money is made by milking whales.
TheEyeDoctorsWife said: entrailbucket said: One important piece of information: most of these players used to be big spenders, many in the five-figure range.They stopped spending completely once they realized you only need one or two characters to win everything. If you still needed to spend to win, they absolutely would. These are not sane people.I don't think the devs woke up one day and suddenly decided "let's voluntarily give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to make our most dedicated, angriest players stick around forever!" While I can’t speak for all of humanity , I will speak for everyone I know who could afford to spend 5 figures a year on a video game . Not one of them plays video games . And there may be a demographic of tech nerds still living in their parents’ basement with no girl friend who could do that however I believe hopefully that is a statistically insignificant percentage of the population. We have 2 players in our alliance with a 7 figure net worth and even they only drop about $5K a year . Is anyone here in an alliance where players spend over $200 a week? ( Invite me if so)
entrailbucket said: One important piece of information: most of these players used to be big spenders, many in the five-figure range.They stopped spending completely once they realized you only need one or two characters to win everything. If you still needed to spend to win, they absolutely would. These are not sane people.I don't think the devs woke up one day and suddenly decided "let's voluntarily give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to make our most dedicated, angriest players stick around forever!"