Ideas for Cover Packs: Player input on the next steps

Marvel Puzzle Quest MPQ General Discussion
1

Ok, so here is a place I would like for us to capture the recurring ideas we have presented for dealing with covers. Clearly make everything free is off the table, let’s focus on what could be done, and what we as a community would see as acceptable.

I do feel confident based on ICEIX’s responses that they are reading our posts. I think there would be value in presenting consolidated ideas that is easily referenced which has received feedback from the forum population.

Here is a suggested format:

IDEA (What it is):

Target Audience (Who is this idea geared toward):

Justification (Why would a developer want to do this):

IDEA (What it is): Retire 20% of the covers on a rotating basis.

Target Audience (Who is this idea geared toward): Everyone.

Justification (Why would a developer want to do this): I have a 5 year old daughter and got this idea from Disneys strategy of retiring videos to the vault, this creates desirability of the movies as they are only available during key periods. This works well to revitalize boring ass titles like Pocahontas.

The idea behind this that we have so many covers now, and the roster is going to continue to grow. The chances of getting a specific cover are less and less likely which actually drives people to choose not to buy cover packs because of poor odds. If the previously submitted ideas of separating covers into different packs was never implemented you could have some increased chances of getting new covers.

Older retired covers would be removed from the packs and might increase in desirability due to rarity. They could be reintroduced during their events which would likely drive sales as people pick that time to buy packs to get at those characters.

2

Reposting these to see what ideas people like and to give Devs a shot to see what the base responds too.

IDEA: I suggest making heric packs have 4 variations as a choice from a standard heroic token:

Pack 1: Chance of 2s and punisher, Cmags, Daredevil, Psylocke etc. or 4s
Pack 2: Chance of 2s and Spiderman, GSBW, Hulk, Fat Thor etc. or 4s
Pack 3: Chance of 2s and IM40, The Hood, Patch etc. or 4s
Pack 4: Chance of 2s and Ragnarok, BP, Loki, Dr. Doom etc. or 4s

Target Audience: All Players

*Justification:With the quantity of new 3 characters coming out it is clear by looking at players rosters that while they may have every cover the quantity of covers makes it ridiculously rare to get enough 3 covers to be viable, which in turn keeps them running 2 teams for too long which makes them feel stagnant.

3

IDEA: Remove 2* heroes from the heroic packs.

Target Audience: Transitioning Players and Veterans

Justification:Why are there so many heroes in the hero packs, there is little chance of getting something you need. Remove 2 covers from heroic packs. For 200HP, let the players get one of the 20 3 heroes, if they are looking for a specific cover there is close to a 1 in 60 chance of getting that one you need versus the stupid chance it is now. People transitioning from 2 to 3 will see value and buy those, excited about the chance to upgrade their roster.

4

IDEA: Make the 4-5 most recent heroes higher chance of reward in hero packs if you want veterans to buy the 200HP pack every time it refreshes.

Target Audience: Veterans

Justification: Here is an idea. 200HP equals a heroic pack that has no 2s and has a 6% chance of each of the last 5 featured characters, and the rest of the 3 and 4s would be one rest of the random chances. Realistically, not many people are going to buy 11-13 covers to max out their character, they are VERY likely to buy 2-3 covers to finish up their HT or Daken to make them viable to 141. Quit trying to go for the jackpot from every customer. The ones that are willing to spend will do so to get the first character up to max level the day he is released. Tone down the greed in the monetization.

Right now, all I need is 3 Falcon Covers, 1 HT Cover, and 10 Sentry Covers. Out of 21 3*s we could say I have about a 7 in 60 ish chance of getting a character I need. Those odds are by no means a sure thing, but they are good enough that I would spend 200HP every day for a chance to get the covers I want, and if I don’t get that character at least I can look at it as a nice 500ISO boost.

When we are talking about D3’s stated goals of getting players to spend money on a regular basis, I think this would do it for me at any rate. New characters are ALWAYS being released. There is no need to bankrupt me on each one, you can do a slow bleed and get much more blood in the end.

5

Retiring heroes just won’t work unless those heroes never show up as the featured character again. It’d literally be P2W if you’ve someone who is actually good that is retired, but even if it’s someone weak like Loki, it’s still very problematic if he ever becomes an essential character or God of Lies event hits. There are several heroes that probably should be retired, but you must be thorough and make sure they don’t ever become needed again. The game doesn’t need IM40, for example, but you also can’t run Heavy Metal events. IM40 is actually one of the last 3* I have all the covers for, and even though he’s practically useless, it’s still an advantage to be able to level him up to 141 in Heavy Metal.

I’m not sure why you insist on your idea that is basically ‘let’s make the cost of heroic token go down to 1/7’ (which is their chance of pulling a 3*). Yeah that’s a great for the players but there’s literally no way D3 would do it. The fact is even if they did that you’d still come back later and say ‘let’s get rid of all the 3* that suck because I’m tired of pulling Loki every time in my heroic token’. The junk heroes are there to establish a comparison baseline versus the 1250 HP per upgrade on 3*. If there aren’t junk 2* there will be more junk 3s to make sure that you’re not getting a better value than 1250 HP per useful 3 cover. In fact I can guaranteed you if they implement this the chance of pulling IM40 and Ragnarok will probably be 25% each to make sure you don’t come out ahead. You’re expected to spend more than 1250 HP to get a 3* from cover packs which is why you’d want to pay 1250 HP instead to upgrade an ability, and you’re supposed to buy the packs because you either lack a hero cover or you’re just feeling particularly lucky.

That said we should have packs with only 4-5 3* that are possible rewards, but it’s not going to happen chronologically. That’d mean right now we’d have something like HT/Falcon/Daken/Sentry for last 4, and that is way too favorable for the player (2 of those are top 5 tier, other 2 are at least above average) and it’d mean D3 will have to purposely release bad heroes just to make sure you don’t have 4 or 5 great heroes released in a row. I suggest pick 5 3*s that’s grouped like this:

1 top tier (Thor, Daken, Sentry, etc)
1 bottom tier (Loki, IM40, etc)
2 Psylocke tier (that’s about the weakest character I can think of that’s still playable)
1 more from whatever tier you want, can even charge more (or less) for the pack depending this character’s tier.

6

I think this idea is what Clintman posted in his second post, and it’s a system I’ve suggested before and still like conceptually. For instance, right now, I’d be most interested in his Pack 3, because it has 2 characters I’m trying to build now, but then I’d probably switch to Pack 2. I agree with your point about not selecting 3s for the alternative packs chronologically, though I think the easiest way to handle this would be to look at the sales metrics and add the most recent new character to the pack with the lowest sales numbers–since the newest characters ought to be very high on the desirability scale, this should produce a fair amount of churn in terms of which pack has the most sales. If a new character is widely seen as a dud, then the pack it was added to will remain in last place when the next new character comes around, and so on. I’d expect the packs would need to have their components shuffled every three months or so, and we’d want to see the number of packs expand with the ever-increasing number of new characters, but that should only be necessary every six months or so to keep the number of 3 alternatives per pack relatively stable.

I think this would be the best way to support players through the 2*->3* transition, which is currently the point in player progression that needs the most help. Players could focus on a particular pack type, maybe two, and build up their first two to three 3s to playable levels–the key point in the transition–and then move to other packs in order to expand their 3 rosters’ depth.

7

Not sure if devs will look into this idea - afterall they removed the Lightning Round packs for Villains and Heroes - all which guarantees a *** character. If not mistaken the price was 5000HP for villains and 6000HP for heroes - 1000HP per cover, but guaranteed to be all ***.

8

I’m not sure why the 3* Courageous/Villian tokens were removed from sales. I can certainly see why they’re removed from rewards, but there’s no reason to remove them as an option to buy, unless D3 felt they’re selling them for way too cheap. I thought they’re appropriately priced at 1100 HP (cheaper than a cover, but no guaranteed you would get the hero you want or the cover you already maxed). Note that it really doesn’t matter if relatively few people were buying those, because it’s not like Spiderman requires an upfront fee for having his likeness to appear in a comic pack. Unless nobody is interested in those type of deals at all (and hard to imagine why not, because it’s still a better deal than buying heroic tokens usually) they should stay. That’s unless of course they felt they could make more off those tokens, but in that case, they’re certainly free to increase the price too if there’s a demand for them.

9

I find myself in the unenviable position of agreeing with Phantron’s post pretty much entirely…

Having guaranteed 3* heroes for 200 Hp is just too cheap IMO. The old 3* hero packs were 1100 for a guaranteed 3* and direct cover buys are 1250. Now I could get behind a 3* pack for a bit less than 1100… maybe 800 as reasonable since, personally, I think a random 3* cover from 60 possibilities is probably of the order of 1/3 less useful than a direct buy (obviously even more of a discrepency if you barely need any 3* covers due to having a bunch of maxed heroes).

Also, from a player point of view, having 3* covers suddenly so much cheaper kind of lessens one of the reasons to play the game.. I know you still need ISO but don’t need to do well to get ISO, in fact getting repeatedly hit while fighting to stay at a mid level result in pvp gets more ISO than rushing points, shielding and then shield hopping at the end. While there is no good selection of 4* heroes to try and get (changes somewhat with fury it seems) 3s are your end game… I do have sympathy with the difficulty in 2-3* transitioning now though but would prefer guaranteed 3* heroes in LRs and improvements in odds of featured heroes in event tokens to a cheap 3* pack.

I assume retiring heroes relates to retiring some of the 3* heroes to improve your odds of getting a given 3* hero to a playable number of covers rather than retiring from the smaller pool of 1/2* heroes. Don’t think I love the idea because you’ll hammer people part way through levelling a 3* where they have some covers, spent ISO as they went along then get stranded unless they spend a lot of HP to get the covers they need. Also, since D3 have a system of required heroes in PvE and most PvP events plus boosted heroes in PvE you either have to stop events using the retired heroes or give an unfair disadvantage to newer players who we’re trying to help with the changes…

Like the idea of multiple heroic packs that have a more limited pool of 3* heroes and ideally a slight/moderate increase in the odds of a 3* pull quite a lot, but agree with Phantron about bracketing by relative strength since 3* heroes aren’t all that well balanced at the moment.

Having said all that my 1st choice would probably be to reverse the insulting reduction in featured hero chance for 10 packs of 6.1% back to 20% or maybe a touch more PLUS increase their odds slightly in single tokens as well.

10

1100 for a 3* token was too high.

Yes, it was less than buying a specific cover but just barely.

Once you get to the point where you have 3* characters with around 6 covers each, this starts to seem like a bad deal.

I also agree that 200 hp for a guaranteed 3* seems a bit low.

A middle ground of 500hp for a random 3* cover seems fair with 10 packs around 4500hp

11

Unless you can convince everyone to completely boycott buying heroic tokens and their variants, the value of a 3* guaranteed token is at least 2000 HP. The chance of pulling a 3* in a heroic pack is about 1/7, and at 300 HP each that’s 1900 HP (first one can be daily deal) for a completely random 3* that you’re not even certain to get at all. It’s even higher if you buy the event packs which is 3800 HP for 1.5 3s, so that figures out for 2533 HP per 3. Yes you can argue it has slightly higher value for a higher chance of the featured guy, but then you can easily argue that getting a guaranteed 3* has high value too since there are certainly people who got no 3s from a 10-pack. If they offer a favorable selection of hero like Courageous (only IM40 was bad out of that selection during that era) expect the price to go even higher. Sure, you can hope the guys at D3 don’t know how to do math and decided to make way less money than they otherwise could, but that’s just wishful thinking. I mean, if it did happen I won’t complain either, but that’s just not something you should count on. The metrics appear to show that plenty of people are still buying these horrible heroic tokens, and as long as that’s happening there’s no reason for D3 to entice people too cheap/smart to buy heroic tokens. They’re getting around 2000 HP per 3 easily on the heroic tokens sales and they’d have no reason to lower what they’re making.

12

Many moons ago I had a thread about retiring older characters when new ones where introduced. I was told by many responders that I was insane. Welcome to the loony bin, your padded cell awaits.

13

Do you still buy HP in game?

14

No but the game was never trying to make significant money off people like me so I don’t expect the game to have a reason for me to buy HP.

If you look at the HP breakdown chart from the article it was something like cover packs at top, followed by ability upgrade and roster upgrade (not sure which order).

Roster is likely a stable source of income and doesn’t need to be touched.

Ability upgrade likewise is probably pretty stable and doesn’t need to be changed.

So that leaves us with cover packs, which is also the biggest slice of the game’s HP expenditure and therefore, almost certainly revenue. They’re obviously sold to the guys who buy the 3800 10-pack event stuff. The problem is that if you put say 3* guaranteed tokens for 1100 (which is massively underpriced), the guy buying the 3800 HP 10 pack is going to think ‘last time I bought one of those 10-pack I got only 1 Loki, so surely having 4 guaranteed 3* is going to be better’. And of course that is much better, so D3 loses the revenue they could’ve gotten on a guy who buys the 3800 HP 10 pack. Now, since the packs cost nothing, you can argue that maybe you can sell more overall to make it up. However, looking at the extremely unbelievable lowball suggestions here tells me that even if they underpriced it at 1100 almost certainly every one of you will still complain it’s too expensive and not buy it, so the net result is that a guy who normally buy 3800 HP 10-pack and gets 1-2 3* now gets about 4 for the same amount, and ends up spending significantly less money overall.

The vast majority of players can be classified as too cheap or too gullible. It also doesn’t matter if you once spent money, because what matters is now. If you have a decent selection of 141s and assuming nothing significant changes with the game, there’s relatively little incentive for you to spend more money on the game. While season 1 probably led to some increase expenses in shields, it’s obvious that when you’ve time to look at it, the amount of HP you spent in shields for the placement is completely irrational, and the season structure is a relatively signficant change to the existing paradigm. Unless they roll out 10 P2W characters in a row, there’s no way an established player will feel pressured to buy new characters.

On the other spectrum you got the too gullible (or maybe too rich) who will just buy this stuff anyway. There are relatively few guys in between that could be convinced with a reasonable reduction in the way overpriced comic pack, and there’s no reason to believe there are enough guys in the middle to make up for the rich/gullible that ends up buying less. And the rich/gullible absolutely will buy less if you have a significant reduction in cost. If it’s say 200 HP per 3* like you suggested, a guy can buy 19 of those instead of the usual 3800 HP 10-pack. He’s going to hit a point where he has all the hero he needs, and simply realizes that if he’s only missing one guy he’ll just do ability upgrade on that instead of hoping buying another 25 3* tokens and hope he draws what he needs.

For whatever reason, gamble pack works very well despite their horrible odds. Unless you can educate the entire playing population to understand that they should almost never buy any pack to begin with, there’s no incetive to try to make money off you or me, because by offering a reasonable deal to someone who was willing to pay for the overpriced packs represents a huge drop in profit and any decent metrics will show that most people are too cheap to buy stuff anyway so the potential gain by offering a reasonable deal is very small compared to the certain loss of profit of sales to the cover pack buyers.