I sympathize with you Sterga. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I ever get fed up and leave CO, it won't be due to anything Cryptic has done. It'll be because of these forums.
Wanted to offer some perspective on why the nerf was done.
Whenever you make a purchase for a virtual item ingame, especially combat-related ones like vehicles, you're not actually buying ownership rights to them, you're paying for access rights. It's not actually yours in a physical sense. The vehicle you bought is still property of Cryptic like every other piece of virtual property as stated in the TOS. You only paid for the rights to use them while the game service is still running. When and if the game service ends one day, you don't get to actually keep your them, even if it's a digital commodity.
Since they're still property of Cryptic, it means that they will be subject to changes and balance fixes like every other piece of content in the game. I get how people can be upset since it's easy to treat your vehicle like you actually own it only to get it modified undesirably later on, but I think that's the wrong way to view them in terms of ownership or actual lack of. They should put disclaimer notices in the Z-store to to clearly indicate that any purchased vehicles will be subject to balance fixes at a later time. At least that allows for the player to make a better informed decision before actually buying a vehicle.
I know previously I mentioned about compensations and how refunds are not reasonable. I retract that statement and think that refunds should be considered since such disclaimers haven't been used up till now.
I sympathize with you Sterga. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I ever get fed up and leave CO, it won't be due to anything Cryptic has done. It'll be because of these forums.
A tiny, tiny minority of CO players actually use the forums. Why not just quit the forums but keep playing CO
A tiny, tiny minority of CO players actually use the forums. Why not just quit the forums but keep playing CO
Stop trying to trick other players into giving up on the true end game of champions online just so you can have an edge in hero games you savvy savvy gamer you u3u
PS - OG gangsta grove street mac-10 ride or die box truck
I do not go around shadowy corners twirling my mustache between my fingers and trying to bring about the death of this game with every action I take(we actually have someone for that job around here already who shall remain nameless).
Stop trying to trick other players into giving up on the true end game of champions online just so you can have an edge in hero games you savvy savvy gamer you u3u
Again, I have not seen a single person in this thread (or the various others) argue that Cryptic does not have the right to change whatever they want to within the game. The question is whether the manner in which such changes have been done is the right way to treat your customers. (There is also a question as to whether this change is even a good one in terms of game balance, but there are other threads for that.)
I realize that there is a self-selection bias in the way the remaining players feel about such things. For example, when Lockboxes were first introduced, there was a huge uproar and a large exodus of players. There has been a (perhaps diminishing) uproar and exodus of players with each iteration of "release overpowered P2W item and later nerf without compensation". The players that stick around are more likely to be accustomed to being treated poorly and defend the process. In that respect, perhaps all of this is a good long-term strategy for the company after all, as long as the players that are conditioned to being treated poorly and defend it are spending enough to make up for those who recognize they're being treated poorly and leave.
Let me try to refocus the discussion with some things to think about:
Is there a pattern of "pay-to-win" items being offered for sale and then nerfed months later?
Is there a pattern of "forced obsolesence" of pay-to-win items, i.e. the old version is devalued as a new & improved item is offered for sale?
If so, who benefits from these patterns? Who is harmed?
Is it a good business practice to continually "burn" the customers that pay for these things?
Is it reasonable for microtransaction items to be retroactively and majorly devalued by the development team months after purchase (edit to add: "without some form of compensation")?
Can these situations be reasonably avoided by industry-standard development/testing practices?
If not, is it ethical to be offering these via microtransaction/pay-to-win at all?
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
Is there a pattern of "pay-to-win" items being offered for sale and then nerfed months later?
Is there a pattern of "forced obsolesence" of pay-to-win items, i.e. the old version is devalued as a new & improved item is offered for sale?
If so, who benefits from these patterns? Who is harmed?
Is it a good business practice to continually "burn" the customers that pay for these things?
Is it reasonable for microtransaction items to be retroactively and majorly devalued by the development team months after purchase (edit to add: "without some form of compensation")?
Can these situations be reasonably avoided by industry-standard development/testing practices?
If not, is it ethical to be offering these via microtransaction/pay-to-win at all?
Rather than reply to all of this in another longwinded post allow me to counter with 2 questions of my own.
From the cash perspective, if Plasma Beam were removed from this conversation then would there be a real conversation left afterwards?
From the cash perspective, if Plasma Beam were removed from this conversation then what, exactly, are you "paying to win?"
Again, I have not seen a single person in this thread (or the various others) argue that Cryptic does not have the right to change whatever they want to within the game. The question is whether the manner in which such changes have been done is the right way to treat your customers. (There is also a question as to whether this change is even a good one in terms of game balance, but there are other threads for that.)
I know that no one has argued about it. I'm just offering my perspective about how such things have to be expected, and that changes can happen to anything at anytime for any aspect of the game. I also mentioned my opinions about how disclaimers have to be put up for anyone wanting to purchase vehicles.
I realize that there is a self-selection bias in the way the remaining players feel about such things. For example, when Lockboxes were first introduced, there was a huge uproar and a large exodus of players. There has been a (perhaps diminishing) uproar and exodus of players with each iteration of "release overpowered P2W item and later nerf without compensation". The players that stick around are more likely to be accustomed to being treated poorly and defend the process. In that respect, perhaps all of this is a good long-term strategy for the company after all, as long as the players that are conditioned to being treated poorly and defend it are spending enough to make up for those who recognize they're being treated poorly and leave.
Please refrain making Stockholm syndrome references. It's insulting for anyone who have decided to stick around till this day after this supposed "large exodus".
Also, what exactly is "pay-to-win" in this game's context? No gameplay content in the game is designed in a way to suggest that putting on a piece of Legion's gear is something mandatory in order to succeed. I hardly see vehicles as pay-to-win considering their seriously limited use. Overpowered upon release? Sure. Mandatory to have in order to succeed? No.
If it has to do with PVP then maybe the PVP veterans could offer their feedback on whether stuff like Legion's gear or vehicles are absolutely crucial to winning matches.
Comments
In other news Sterga wins internet with this comment.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Whenever you make a purchase for a virtual item ingame, especially combat-related ones like vehicles, you're not actually buying ownership rights to them, you're paying for access rights. It's not actually yours in a physical sense. The vehicle you bought is still property of Cryptic like every other piece of virtual property as stated in the TOS. You only paid for the rights to use them while the game service is still running. When and if the game service ends one day, you don't get to actually keep your them, even if it's a digital commodity.
Since they're still property of Cryptic, it means that they will be subject to changes and balance fixes like every other piece of content in the game. I get how people can be upset since it's easy to treat your vehicle like you actually own it only to get it modified undesirably later on, but I think that's the wrong way to view them in terms of ownership or actual lack of. They should put disclaimer notices in the Z-store to to clearly indicate that any purchased vehicles will be subject to balance fixes at a later time. At least that allows for the player to make a better informed decision before actually buying a vehicle.
I know previously I mentioned about compensations and how refunds are not reasonable. I retract that statement and think that refunds should be considered since such disclaimers haven't been used up till now.
A tiny, tiny minority of CO players actually use the forums. Why not just quit the forums but keep playing CO
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
Stop trying to trick other players into giving up on the true end game of champions online just so you can have an edge in hero games you savvy savvy gamer you u3u
PS - OG gangsta grove street mac-10 ride or die box truck
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
Again, I have not seen a single person in this thread (or the various others) argue that Cryptic does not have the right to change whatever they want to within the game. The question is whether the manner in which such changes have been done is the right way to treat your customers. (There is also a question as to whether this change is even a good one in terms of game balance, but there are other threads for that.)
I realize that there is a self-selection bias in the way the remaining players feel about such things. For example, when Lockboxes were first introduced, there was a huge uproar and a large exodus of players. There has been a (perhaps diminishing) uproar and exodus of players with each iteration of "release overpowered P2W item and later nerf without compensation". The players that stick around are more likely to be accustomed to being treated poorly and defend the process. In that respect, perhaps all of this is a good long-term strategy for the company after all, as long as the players that are conditioned to being treated poorly and defend it are spending enough to make up for those who recognize they're being treated poorly and leave.
Let me try to refocus the discussion with some things to think about:
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
Rather than reply to all of this in another longwinded post allow me to counter with 2 questions of my own.
From the cash perspective, if Plasma Beam were removed from this conversation then would there be a real conversation left afterwards?
From the cash perspective, if Plasma Beam were removed from this conversation then what, exactly, are you "paying to win?"
Join Date: Aug 2009 | Title: Devslayer
I know that no one has argued about it. I'm just offering my perspective about how such things have to be expected, and that changes can happen to anything at anytime for any aspect of the game. I also mentioned my opinions about how disclaimers have to be put up for anyone wanting to purchase vehicles.
Please refrain making Stockholm syndrome references. It's insulting for anyone who have decided to stick around till this day after this supposed "large exodus".
Also, what exactly is "pay-to-win" in this game's context? No gameplay content in the game is designed in a way to suggest that putting on a piece of Legion's gear is something mandatory in order to succeed. I hardly see vehicles as pay-to-win considering their seriously limited use. Overpowered upon release? Sure. Mandatory to have in order to succeed? No.
If it has to do with PVP then maybe the PVP veterans could offer their feedback on whether stuff like Legion's gear or vehicles are absolutely crucial to winning matches.