MPQ 12th Anniversary Celebrations

BriMan2222

Yelena is great, and Black Widow is pretty good too. The others are worth using sometimes just because a 550 boosted to 672 has crazy match damage. They were worth using in pvp before copter and car were locked out if you didn't have better options.

I'm sure they'll all be viable as 6 stars, if they are able to be ascended.

Waddles_Pines

Don't know if this was suggested already, but since they're adding rejiggered scl, why not make 6* exclusive to the new harder scl 10?

entrailbucket

@GrimSkald said:

@entrailbucket said:
All that data shows that the game has been losing players steadily for 4 years. How is that related to any particular change? I'd say it's a symptom of not changing anything -- players get bored of doing the same thing for years and quit. Maybe 6* and new PvE will bring some back, or maybe it'll get new players interested.

It's very, very interesting that things like "no more swaps" don't seem to have accelerated the decline at all, when we heard that that would kill the game over and over again.

The swapping system has opened up a lot of extra possibilities and lets players prioritize the characters they are actively going to use over random pulls. I know people were grumbling a lot when it came out, but it all in all has been an extreme net positive for the game (at least, for the game as it's played.) So long as you have spare Hero Points and you've maxed out at least one version of the character, you can decide what covers you want and accelerate your favorite characters so much more.

I don't disagree (although I haven't done much swapping myself), but this was absolutely not a popular take when the feature launched. The consensus among vets was that removing CS swaps was not only terrible for them, but was also terrible for players who weren't doing CS swaps yet, and even for players who'd never be in a position to do them.

And I think this is a good example of many MPQ changes over the years. True healing was universally hated when it was rolled out, but it ended up being the right thing to do. Almost all of the major nerfs were met with outrage, but every one ended up being a positive for the metagame.

Will Unity end up in the same place? Will 6*? Harder PvE? I don't think we can know right now.

Phumade

@entrailbucket said:

@GrimSkald said:

@entrailbucket said:
All that data shows that the game has been losing players steadily for 4 years. How is that related to any particular change? I'd say it's a symptom of not changing anything -- players get bored of doing the same thing for years and quit. Maybe 6* and new PvE will bring some back, or maybe it'll get new players interested.

It's very, very interesting that things like "no more swaps" don't seem to have accelerated the decline at all, when we heard that that would kill the game over and over again.

The swapping system has opened up a lot of extra possibilities and lets players prioritize the characters they are actively going to use over random pulls. I know people were grumbling a lot when it came out, but it all in all has been an extreme net positive for the game (at least, for the game as it's played.) So long as you have spare Hero Points and you've maxed out at least one version of the character, you can decide what covers you want and accelerate your favorite characters so much more.

I don't disagree (although I haven't done much swapping myself), but this was absolutely not a popular take when the feature launched. The consensus among vets was that removing CS swaps was not only terrible for them, but was also terrible for players who weren't doing CS swaps yet, and even for players who'd never be in a position to do them.

And I think this is a good example of many MPQ changes over the years. True healing was universally hated when it was rolled out, but it ended up being the right thing to do. Almost all of the major nerfs were met with outrage, but every one ended up being a positive for the metagame.

Will Unity end up in the same place? Will 6*? Harder PvE? I don't think we can know right now.

The issues wasn't swaps. its was the DISCONTINUATION of swaps into the newest debut char. Everyone is in favor of swaps, the only discussion is what is the tarrif?

GrimSkald

@entrailbucket said:

@GrimSkald said:

@entrailbucket said:
All that data shows that the game has been losing players steadily for 4 years. How is that related to any particular change? I'd say it's a symptom of not changing anything -- players get bored of doing the same thing for years and quit. Maybe 6* and new PvE will bring some back, or maybe it'll get new players interested.

It's very, very interesting that things like "no more swaps" don't seem to have accelerated the decline at all, when we heard that that would kill the game over and over again.

The swapping system has opened up a lot of extra possibilities and lets players prioritize the characters they are actively going to use over random pulls. I know people were grumbling a lot when it came out, but it all in all has been an extreme net positive for the game (at least, for the game as it's played.) So long as you have spare Hero Points and you've maxed out at least one version of the character, you can decide what covers you want and accelerate your favorite characters so much more.

I don't disagree (although I haven't done much swapping myself), but this was absolutely not a popular take when the feature launched. The consensus among vets was that removing CS swaps was not only terrible for them, but was also terrible for players who weren't doing CS swaps yet, and even for players who'd never be in a position to do them.

And I think this is a good example of many MPQ changes over the years. True healing was universally hated when it was rolled out, but it ended up being the right thing to do. Almost all of the major nerfs were met with outrage, but every one ended up being a positive for the metagame.

Will Unity end up in the same place? Will 6*? Harder PvE? I don't think we can know right now.

Yeah, you're definitely not wrong. I was mystified by the hate, but I was only in a position to use those swaps twice, and each time I availed myself for a few covers and stopped pulling. It was nice, sure, but in general I was more interested in just spreading out the LTs than with concentrating on a particular three (particularly since any particular three almost always has someone meh.) This was probably one of the big reasons they discontinued it as a CS thing -- people who were pulling as "intended" would just stop when they maxed out the oldest 5★, so the "swaps" were really there for people who got screwed over by luck (i.e. the next-oldest 5★ got maxed out first, and you wanted to max out the oldest.)

On the flip side, the built-in swap system makes "double dipping" so much easier with retro-feeding 4★s. Not only can you set them your "favorite," but you can flip any 4★ cover you have at 370 that you don't absolutely love into the feeder. IIRC I got my second Wolfsbane to 370 in about 60 pulls and I probably only converted 1/4 to 1/3 of my pulls to her.

entrailbucket

@Phumade said:

@entrailbucket said:

@GrimSkald said:

@entrailbucket said:
All that data shows that the game has been losing players steadily for 4 years. How is that related to any particular change? I'd say it's a symptom of not changing anything -- players get bored of doing the same thing for years and quit. Maybe 6* and new PvE will bring some back, or maybe it'll get new players interested.

It's very, very interesting that things like "no more swaps" don't seem to have accelerated the decline at all, when we heard that that would kill the game over and over again.

The swapping system has opened up a lot of extra possibilities and lets players prioritize the characters they are actively going to use over random pulls. I know people were grumbling a lot when it came out, but it all in all has been an extreme net positive for the game (at least, for the game as it's played.) So long as you have spare Hero Points and you've maxed out at least one version of the character, you can decide what covers you want and accelerate your favorite characters so much more.

I don't disagree (although I haven't done much swapping myself), but this was absolutely not a popular take when the feature launched. The consensus among vets was that removing CS swaps was not only terrible for them, but was also terrible for players who weren't doing CS swaps yet, and even for players who'd never be in a position to do them.

And I think this is a good example of many MPQ changes over the years. True healing was universally hated when it was rolled out, but it ended up being the right thing to do. Almost all of the major nerfs were met with outrage, but every one ended up being a positive for the metagame.

Will Unity end up in the same place? Will 6*? Harder PvE? I don't think we can know right now.

The issues wasn't swaps. its was the DISCONTINUATION of swaps into the newest debut char. Everyone is in favor of swaps, the only discussion is what is the tarrif?

And yet, all those graphs don't show an acceleration of player loss due to this catastrophic change. The loss has been steady and consistent over time, and to me that makes sense, because MPQ has generally been steady and consistent (and...boring) over time.

This data actually makes a perfect case for why big change is needed -- some vets want everything to stay the same forever, or for the game to "go back to how it was" but all that gets us is a steady bleed of bored players quitting.

Borstock

Here's something I will say.... If 6* MMR forces me to fight 1a6's all day every day, this will be my last Anniversary.

Read_Only

@entrailbucket said:

some vets want everything to stay the same forever, or for the game to "go back to how it was" but all that gets us is a steady bleed of bored players quitting.

In almost 10 years of playing I've never seen a single Vet say they want the game to stay the same.

For 10 years I've seen nothing but people say:

They want constant rebalances
They want new events
They want new challenges
They want new metas more quickly
They offer up ways to change the meta and current power sets
They offer up new modes they would like to try

That doesn't sound like Vets wanting anything but change. Just because they may not like one new feature doesn't mean they don't like change.

entrailbucket

@Read_Only said:

@entrailbucket said:

some vets want everything to stay the same forever, or for the game to "go back to how it was" but all that gets us is a steady bleed of bored players quitting.

In almost 10 years of playing I've never seen a single Vet say they want the game to stay the same.

For 10 years I've seen nothing but people say:

They want constant rebalances
They want new events
They want new challenges
They want new metas more quickly
They offer up ways to change the meta and current power sets
They offer up new modes they would like to try

That doesn't sound like Vets wanting anything but change. Just because they may not like one new feature doesn't mean they don't like change.

I have never seen this. Asking for rebalances is essentially a war crime around here. I've never seen anyone besides me ask for new challenges. Ways to change the meta? This stuff is all hated.

These are all just things I say, and generally I get piled on for them.

Wolvie171

@entrailbucket said:
And yet, all those graphs don't show an acceleration of player loss due to this catastrophic change. The loss has been steady and consistent over time, and to me that makes sense, because MPQ has generally been steady and consistent (and...boring) over time.

On the contrary, all of the graphs show an increase in the loss of alliances after Unity was released earlier this year. The PVP graph clearly indicates an inflection point corresponding to when MMR was broken. The PVE graph also shows the same inflection point despite MMR having no relevance to PVE. What is the relationship? The most likely reason: PVP players who have quit/stopped playing were also PVE players.

As a reminder, I left out the last data point for PVE even though it fell off the graph. I've actually had to adjust the scaling twice now, both times lower, since Unity was released! The last recorded number for PVE was 6,770 alliances, which is the lowest on record. It's most likely lower now, however, since events disappear immediately after they end due to Unity, the data collection has stopped unfortunately. If players in the earlier slices (S1-S4) could share the final numbers for PVE, we could continue tracking this information.

entrailbucket

The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps. I remember that was the last change that was definitely going to kill the game (the 500th consecutive one!).

Wolvie171

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

entrailbucket

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

Please go back and read what I said (in reply to another poster).

entrailbucket

So, just curious, now that we've got absolutely irrefutable statistical proof (LOL) that the game is dying, what should we do about it?

Not what the devs should do -- that's obvious ("Give us back our swaps!" "Roll back the engine! "Never nerf anybody!" "Free 5* for everybody!"), what should we, the players, be doing? Concrete actions only, please.

Wolvie171

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

Please go back and read what I said (in reply to another poster).

I read and understood your original response (to another poster). You chose to bring up the graphs again, however, which is why I responded in kind.

Please go back and read what I said about the loss of alliances (and therefore, players) since Unity was released.

entrailbucket

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

Please go back and read what I said (in reply to another poster).

I read and understood your original response (to another poster). You chose to bring up the graphs again, however, which is why I responded in kind.

Please go back and read what I said about the loss of alliances (and therefore, players) since Unity was released.

Ok, so please point out on the graphs where the CS cover swap change happened, since that's what I was talking about.

You jumped into a conversation you weren't involved in to make a point that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, and now you're doubling down on that irrelevant point for unclear reasons.

Wolvie171

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

Please go back and read what I said (in reply to another poster).

I read and understood your original response (to another poster). You chose to bring up the graphs again, however, which is why I responded in kind.

Please go back and read what I said about the loss of alliances (and therefore, players) since Unity was released.

Ok, so please point out on the graphs where the CS cover swap change happened, since that's what I was talking about.

The reversal of the latest cover swaps through CS may very well have resulted in players quitting, but only the Devs will have this insider information. Please direct your questions there.

entrailbucket

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

Please go back and read what I said (in reply to another poster).

I read and understood your original response (to another poster). You chose to bring up the graphs again, however, which is why I responded in kind.

Please go back and read what I said about the loss of alliances (and therefore, players) since Unity was released.

Ok, so please point out on the graphs where the CS cover swap change happened, since that's what I was talking about.

The reversal of the latest cover swaps through CS may very well have resulted in players quitting, but only the Devs will have this insider information. Please direct your questions there.

Either your reading comprehension is horrific or you're just being a troll, either way I'm done with you.

Wolvie171

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Wolvie171 said:

@entrailbucket said:
The "catastrophic change" I was referring to was the removal of CS swaps.

You also said, "The loss has been steady and consistent over time." To me, that was referring to the graphs, and also untrue.

Please go back and read what I said (in reply to another poster).

I read and understood your original response (to another poster). You chose to bring up the graphs again, however, which is why I responded in kind.

Please go back and read what I said about the loss of alliances (and therefore, players) since Unity was released.

Ok, so please point out on the graphs where the CS cover swap change happened, since that's what I was talking about.

The reversal of the latest cover swaps through CS may very well have resulted in players quitting, but only the Devs will have this insider information. Please direct your questions there.

Either your reading comprehension is horrific or you're just being a troll, either way I'm done here.

Lol, I've been called many things but a troll is not one of them! I've stopped responding to your postings because you cherry-pick what suits your position and ignore the rest. Even when posters answer you directly, you deflect and veer off to a different topic. You win, congratulations!

Honestly, I hesitated responding to you for this very reason. But your persistence in bringing up my graphs prompted an answer. I won't make that mistake again. Thank you for reminding me.

@entrailbucket said:
So, just curious, now that we've got absolutely irrefutable statistical proof (LOL) that the game is dying, what should we do about it?

Again with the graphs. I shared this information because players have been inquiring and talking about it for as long as I can remember. Absent of any meaningful data from the Devs, this is what prompted me to find a way to measure player activity in the game and to collect this information season after season. I know it's not much, but I hoped others might appreciate knowing this part of the game. We may disagree on the specifics, but the data clearly shows a loss of alliances in the game. That, coupled with the information I gave based on my years of managing the PVE bracket updates, points to an increasing loss of players since Unity was released. Do you really think mocking was the best response?

We all play MPQ for different reasons, but the community, whether that be this forum, Line, Discord, or Facebook, is what brings us together and it is where we can share our passions/rants/dislikes about the game. I don't post often and less so now, but I appreciate everyone who does. Thank you, all & make it a great day!

entrailbucket

If I may recap:

Me: players have been saying every change will be the end of the game for years -- as an example, this just happened when they got rid of CS swaps

Another player: the swaps change turned out good, here's why

Yet another player: the swaps thing was bad, here's why

Me: it doesn't look like swaps had any impact, based on the graphs that other guy posted

Wolvy1700: you're wrong! Unity caused a ton of players to leave!

Me: ok man that's not what we were talking about

(Continues forever)