[Megathread] Marvel Heroes 2016 Online

[Fenixdown]

As someone in beta and someone who is an avid Marvel fan, I am also on the forums and I know what their reasoning for the "hero token" change is. In short, they want more people to buy packs and not simply buy G's to get the select few heroes they want to play.

As it stands now, just from beta testing, it appears that the top 5 most played heroes are as follows. Keep in mind that some heroes from launch are still not in the beta, so it's only a limited sample size. This is based on character feedback posting (based off of poll results only, though posting totals would give a similar result).

1. Spider Man (376)
2. Thor (261)
3. Cyclops (244)
4. Iron Man (240)
5. Storm (235-starter option)

The bottom five looks like this, however.

5. Wolverine (165)
4. Punisher (142)
3. Captain America (140)
2. Black Widow (101)
1. Black Panther (96)

You look at that differential between the most played character currently in beta and the least played. That's bordering four TIMES the playtime of Spider Man to Black Panther. Now Gazillion put time, money, and effort into both of these characters...so why is nobody playing Black Panther? It's a waste of resources to make one of the most iconic members of the Avengers?

So now Gazillion is faced with a situation. It seems very few people "like" Black Panther, for whatever reason. They would either have to a. give incentive to players to play Black Panther by making him so cheap he's practically free, b. make the cost of Spider Man so extreme that he's not four times more played than Black Panther simply because he would cost so much, or c. scrap the wasted time and effort they put into Black Panther and attempt to place a new hero into the game, starting from scratch.

So, what do they do? Those options all seem dreadful and not intelligent from a business perspective. Instead, they give you more reason to want to buy packs by ensuring that you're not 100% guaranteed to get the select few heroes you want from the store, while at the same time giving the casual player who don't wish to spend a lot of money (or perhaps even any money at all) on the game the chance to get characters like Thor and Iron Man and Spidey at higher than a 0.01% drop chance off of bosses only.

I will admit that they system needs tweaking (the chance to get new heroes from dropped tokens should remain, but if you buy a token with G's depending on what tokens will cost I think it should have a higher guarantee of giving you a new character). As I currently stand I will begin the game with at least four heroes (Thing, Cable, Cyclops, and Jean Grey), and before the game goes live I intend to buy with G's at least one more (I will definitely buy Human Torch). However, one thing that the token does do is it "equalizes" the cost of each hero, meaning that they don't have to put such massive gaps in the prices of characters simply because they are "fan favorites". Think of it in a different spectrum. Imagine if you went to McDonalds and had an option of a Big Mac or a DQPwC. Both are the same weight, have the same ingredients, ect...but the Big Mac is like $5.50 while the DQPwC is like $1.50 simply because way more people buy Big Macs. It's the same as it stands now with the in-game store. Besides which, the token system also gives more justification for all of the premium packs to have the same cost, because now heroes cost the same amount.

I see the reasoning behind the change, but I will not disagree that it needs modification. Overall, it makes sense from their perspective. However, since when can the players ever see things from the perspective of the game developers.

[unholytestament]

The most popular hero is played four times as much as the least.

I fail to see the problem.

[ProphetFlume]

I'm not sure what to think of that approach. In Ultimate Alliance Spider-Man was the first character I picked, but as I got farther and tried other heroes I realized how boring his moveset was (aside from swinging around). I gradually went through all the heroes and ended up with a group of characters that I wasn't a big fan of but whose moves I loved. Also if human torch is the same in this as UA he might end up as my favorite.

When one of the biggest features is the sizable roster I don't see why the play gap between characters is an issue. Maybe look into the lower played ones to see if it's a moves problem and, if not, try hosting things to encourage people to give those less played characters a try: every third day can be dedicated to a certain character and anyone can trial them, or give extra bonuses for playing them that day, etc.

[Fenixdown]

I tested Black Widow and with her it's not a moves problem. I definitely loved her playstyle, she reminded me a lot of D3 demon hunter with her ranged capabilities and her tumbles and flips to get out of melee combat. From what I've read of Black Panther his moves are very good, as well.

It really comes down to popularity, but what unholy fails to realize is that this is a Free To Play game that has to have a way to make money. If you make the heroes priced according to popularity, you don't make much money because people a. won't buy the cheaper heroes unless they are just buying them because they are cheap and b. won't buy the more expensive heroes because they are likely too expensive.

The new system allows all the heroes to be priced equally. This also gives equal value to the packs, which honestly is something that is sort of a quiet gripe of mine from beta so far. Let's take two premium pack offers as an example.

http://presale.marvelheroes.com/inde...mium-pack.html

Includes : Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Ms. Marvel

Collective current in-game store cost : 4,240 (estimated $42.40 value)

http://presale.marvelheroes.com/inde...mium-pack.html

Includes : Spider Man, Punisher, Black Panther, Wolverine

Collective current in-game store value : 3,140 (estimated $31.40 value)

Two packs each costing $60 and one has an estimated $11 in overall higher value. Why? Because right now, characters are having cost based on popularity. Which means the person who buys the Marvel Knights pack because they like the Marvel knights is getting less actual in-game value than the person buying Avengers Assemble. I had to use two packs that have all four characters currently in the beta, so these were the two best examples.

Now, while you think there's no issue with that, Gazillion sees it differently and I would agree with that view. One of the #1 biggest "arguments" that pops up in the beta forums is overall effective value of what players spend on the game. As an example, many people came out and complained about the Valentine's Day promotion that was done because they had bought their packs before the promotion was announced and felt cheated. So, Gazillion made the promotion retroactive from any purchase that happened before it was started. However, then Ultimate Pack buyers came out (while it was in very small numbers, granted) and complained that THEY weren't getting anything given to them.

It's a very hard scale to try and balance when your paychecks are what is being used to gain access to new characters. Imagine, if you would, that WoW used a similar system. Let's say you had to "unlock" new classes by either a. having an incredibly low chance to find them in the game from raid bosses or b. buying them from the Blizzard Store. Now, let's say that the most popular class is paladin. Maybe it is or it isn't, but let's use that. And let's say least popular is druid. Now, Blizzard in beta with this new system sees everyone buying paladins and hardly anyone buying druids. As a game that is making their profit primarily off of these purchases, they have to come up with a way that will be best for everyone involved to make both of these classes equally profitable. Now, would you rather a. have an item that randomly gave you a new class, giving you a chance at the one you want and costs the same amount of money to buy, or b. buy the class outright at three to four times the value of another class simply because that's what the popularity deems it to be worth? People will gripe because the class is some variation of too overplayed, too overpriced, too under or overpowered, ect.

Again, the system needs tweaking so it can be a better benefit to everyone. However, that being said, the system is a much better start than what is currently in play. This is a game, after all, that is fueled by what people SPEND on it. If people aren't spending because stuff is too expensive, and it happens to be the stuff they want to play, they won't spend anything, period. This gives an equally cost effective way for any player to have a chance to play the characters they enjoy most, and at the same time gives people the chance to try out characters that maybe they would not have bought initially.

[Razael]

Wow wow hold up. Did you just say Black Widow plays like a DH? Nice =D

[notorious98]

*snip*

Two things.

#1 Has the NDA been lifted? Because you seem to be giving a decent amount of information that you probably shouldn't be if it hasn't.
#2 The random hero token is still a bad idea. Here's what it comes down to. Make the least playable characters as the lowest priced. As it is, the most played (by your list) are also the most expensive (Storm aside).

What it really comes down to is that people should be allowed to play whoever they want if they're willing to shell out the cash. Pigeonholing them into purchasing a starter or premium pack isn't the right way to go about business. Money is money and you'll find that people are more willing to part with their money if they're given the freedom of choice. There are a slew of other options they could have come up with that isn't random hero tokens.

[Kiry]

As far as I'm aware the NDA has not lifted. That said, I'm sure there was a lot seen and heard at Pax this weekend.

My opinion is, companies such as these and others have to find a way to make both the fans happy and make money. Personally, I have no problem paying for a game or a service providing I perceive a value I'm getting for it. I think companies/people should be paid for what they are providing.

F2P games have it rough, they have to make money, yet walk that line of being "too greedy". I think Gazillion made some mistakes, but they are trying to listen to fans and trying to make amends. There are some companies that don't go that extra mile.

[Fenixdown]

Yes, the NDA is indeed still in effect, so I'm keeping things as close to generalized on the topic as I can.

While I could agree that "pigeon-holing" someone into buying a pack is not the wisest business strategy, at the end of the day the game has to make money, and the breadwinner for the game is the characters and costumes. There has to be a way to make those profitable and at the same time make them equally cost effective to all the players. As it stands now there's a huge disparity between a lot of characters, and I view that as being worse as Player A only pays amount X for their favorite character, while Player B pays Y for their favorite character, and at the end of the day neither is "more powerful" in the grand scheme of things than the other.

Like, if let's say I had to pay $15 for Hulk and you had to pay $5 for Captain America, I'd be under the expectation that Hulk costing more also meant that I was gaining more benefit from him. Sadly, that is not entirely the case, as the game is striving for character balance. So I'm paying $10 simply for the "advantage" of playing a different set of pixels. That will drive many people away from the game if their favorite characters are more expensive than other characters at no additional benefit. Honestly, I even gave the feedback that I would not spend the asking price of a character I playtested because I did not feel he was worth that value as the game, and that character, were currently designed...and he's one of my top 3 all-time favorite characters.

However, with this new system in place, I can get that same character at the same cost as you can get, say, Hulk, or Spider Man, or even Thing or Cable or Scarlet Witch. Some kinks are still in the system, as I don't think it should give less of a chance to get new heroes the more heroes you have. Instead, perhaps it should just have a lower chance to drop the more heroes you have, but still give you new heroes before beginning to increase Ultimate Power levels on existing ones. I will probably leave that in feedback someplace tomorrow for them to hopefully notice.

You are right that there is a lot to try and balance out in a F2P model, but the big thing that would hurt this game in the long run is people's perceptions of the cost efficiency. If your favorite hero is more expensive than others, you're either a. just going to bite the bullet or b. not play the game anymore. They don't want people to go to option B. The token system makes option A. far more appealing to everyone, especially the way it sounds that the overall system will work.

[unholytestament]

The "they're a business so they have to make money" excuse doesn't excuse pulling such dick maneuvers. It's perfectly possible to make money without pissing off your customers.

In fact, I think Gazillion was well aware this would piss of their customers. Why else would they wait to reveal how this would all actually work until after they had a release date (and had apparently also gone back on their word once or twice on how the ultimate founders pack would work)? I've lost count how many games I've tested that had the general idea of how their payment options were going to work in the testing phase, long before release was openly being discussed, with the only thing left to iron out were exact prices. There's really no excuse for such a huge bomb like this to be dropped so close to release.

[xxf2dxx]

They need to add in a mute button for just Iron Man. That asshole makes WAY too much noise.

[notorious98]

While I could agree that "pigeon-holing" someone into buying a pack is not the wisest business strategy, at the end of the day the game has to make money, and the breadwinner for the game is the characters and costumes. There has to be a way to make those profitable and at the same time make them equally cost effective to all the players. As it stands now there's a huge disparity between a lot of characters, and I view that as being worse as Player A only pays amount X for their favorite character, while Player B pays Y for their favorite character, and at the end of the day neither is "more powerful" in the grand scheme of things than the other.

Like, if let's say I had to pay $15 for Hulk and you had to pay $5 for Captain America, I'd be under the expectation that Hulk costing more also meant that I was gaining more benefit from him. Sadly, that is not entirely the case, as the game is striving for character balance. So I'm paying $10 simply for the "advantage" of playing a different set of pixels. That will drive many people away from the game if their favorite characters are more expensive than other characters at no additional benefit. Honestly, I even gave the feedback that I would not spend the asking price of a character I playtested because I did not feel he was worth that value as the game, and that character, were currently designed...and he's one of my top 3 all-time favorite characters.

No, you're paying extra because you choose to play that particular character who happens to be extremely popular. They already have different prices in place for different characters and different costumes. It's not exactly a stretch to think it would work the same on live.

However, with this new system in place, I can get that same character at the same cost as you can get, say, Hulk, or Spider Man, or even Thing or Cable or Scarlet Witch. Some kinks are still in the system, as I don't think it should give less of a chance to get new heroes the more heroes you have. Instead, perhaps it should just have a lower chance to drop the more heroes you have, but still give you new heroes before beginning to increase Ultimate Power levels on existing ones. I will probably leave that in feedback someplace tomorrow for them to hopefully notice.

I don't necessarily have a problem with what drops as loot. If that's how they want to structure the loot, that's perfectly acceptable. The problem I have is not being able to pay for what I want to play without being shoved into buying a starter or premium pack.

You are right that there is a lot to try and balance out in a F2P model, but the big thing that would hurt this game in the long run is people's perceptions of the cost efficiency. If your favorite hero is more expensive than others, you're either a. just going to bite the bullet or b. not play the game anymore. They don't want people to go to option B. The token system makes option A. far more appealing to everyone, especially the way it sounds that the overall system will work.

The token system doesn't make option A. It eliminates option A and forces a new option. Play the game and hope that RNG is kind to your token or don't play the game because you don't want to deal with the RNG associated with it. What in the world makes you believe somebody is more willing to hope and pray as opposed to shell out a few extra bucks? How can you qualify that as more appealing?

[ProphetFlume]

Still shocked that Cyclops is in the top 5 and Wolverine the bottom.

[IdTheDemon]

Still shocked that Cyclops is in the top 5 and Wolverine the bottom.

Cyclops was too goddamn awesome in AvX.

*Crosses both arms*

[ProphetFlume]

Cyclops was too goddamn awesome in AvX.

*Crosses both arms*

I've always loved Cyclops and hated Wolverine, I'm just not used to other people feeling that way.

[Fenixdown]

Rockjaw gave us permission to drop this on people before they make a public statement. So I won't get in trouble.

Marvel Heroes is going back to the original model of in-game store hero purchasing.

[Metta World Peace]

Rockjaw gave us permission to drop this on people before they make a public statement. So I won't get in trouble.

Marvel Heroes is going back to the original model of in-game store hero purchasing.

Well that's good to hear. Seems like Gazillion listened to their fanbase. Saw quite a bit of negative reception on that RNG token micro-transaction on other forums.

Strongly considering getting The Punisher starter pack......

And hold up, Rockjaw as in SW:TOR Rockjaw?

[notorious98]

Rockjaw gave us permission to drop this on people before they make a public statement. So I won't get in trouble.

Marvel Heroes is going back to the original model of in-game store hero purchasing.

Must have been enough people raising a stink. Good idea.

---------- Post added 2013-03-31 at 02:24 PM ----------

Well that's good to hear. Seems like Gazillion listened to their fanbase. Saw quite a bit of negative reception on that RNG token micro-transaction on other forums.

Strongly considering getting The Punisher starter pack......

And hold up, Rockjaw as in SW:TOR Rockjaw?

Yeah, it's the same Stephen Reid.

[Razael]

Rockjaw gave us permission to drop this on people before they make a public statement. So I won't get in trouble.

Marvel Heroes is going back to the original model of in-game store hero purchasing.

Thank you! =)

[Hiitsdj]

This game is pretty fun, it's not as good as I had hoped, then again, it's just the beta (or maybe even the character I picked.. deadpool)

however, it's already fully taken my interest away from WoW .. I've always said if there's ever a marvel MMO, it'll steal my heart. :3 I hope to see you guys there when it's out!

[Fencers]

Oh wow. This was sort of a let down.

Really barebones, stripped down and casual ARPG. I am not even sure if this is an actual ARPG.

Ultimate Alliance and Xmen Legends were a lot smoother in gameplay than this...

Kinda awful.