I'd like to share a concern of mine regarding monetization in Mech Arena, but more than that  too. You see, the community frequently shares their concern MA is pay to win, to no avail. Complaints about certain aspects remain ignored and unchanged. If a complaint about pay to win is acknowledged it's met with copy/paste, probably automated response. It's usually the sweeping complaint without detail as to what caused them to make it. I'm wondering if that can be called acknowledgment. It wasn't always this way. Well actually it was but someone managed to get plarium to engage just once by making the same complaint I am today. I'd like to present this occasion as well as explain why this concerns me so you may take it into consideration and hopefully change your approach. The tone of this critique should be seen as generous as possible and fair while being honest, harsh and scathing.

Going back in time on this forum to remember a community manager (then moderator) who tried (and failed miserably) to define mech arena out of being considered pay to win. In this thread where the mod in question argues an event mission which is very obviously designed to try and get you to pay isn't pay to win, they go as far as to put words in the mouth of the player and at the same time tried to dictate the definition of p2w to the player. https://plarium.com/forum/en/mech-arena/702_game-discussion/595886_plarium-any-time-someone-complains-about-p2w/

This didn't go over well, obviously, as the player asserted they know what they're talking about. As stated, players that didn't pay wouldn't get the 300 a-coins for that week if they couldn't upgrade guardian's rank twice, so they missed out. Later in the thread the player details yet another event that paywalled the weekly a-coins, except for a much higher price tag. The sort of p2p coercion that plays on fear of missing out is a big indicator of a pay to win game. Nowadays we don't have missions that directly make you pay. I'm not sure we're entirely free from soft paywalls in specialization spree. And we have soft paywalls in the new pilot prizefight. Soft paywall means any mission that isn't literally "pay us money". So the standard for hardness is diamond. A soft paywall could be as hard as leather, gold, or titanium. Upgrade rank twice is titanium. Acquire 2 epic implants is titanium.

Why did I bring this up? Well again I'd like to iterate this post isn't the first time the complaint about how you approach pay to win concerns has been made. But it's more than that. It's to drive home the point that players know what they're talking about when they make p2w complaints. Why do I want you to know this? Well maybe you already do. But this review tells me otherwise: 

i

"We still believe the favorable review score means that we're on the right track". This is such an incomprehensibly ignorant way of looking at things.  Diablo Immortal has 4.5 on the app store, 3.7 on the play store, 0.4 on MetaCritic and was for a short time the worst user-rated game of all time on MetaCritic. The place I found user reviews for MA that aren't the app store or play store is your facebook page, where your score is 3.2

I think it's important to look elsewhere to filter for reviews that are made by new players during their honeymoon phase, when the game asks them to rate it and takes them to the app/play store. 3.2 is much less favorable than 4.9 or 4.5 and says something a lot different about the track MA is on.

"But we remain vigilant about this issue going forward." I suppose that means you're still receptive to p2w concerns which is a step up from arguing with players.

But you're still arguing with players as seen here with what's almost the same copy/paste response.

i

The thread I linked involved the player detailing why in game purchases being optional is a poor excuse for your practices. If you were really vigilant about pay to win you wouldn't always be stressing how in game purchases are optional in response to monetization concerns. Re: SpongeBob mocking.

Please take our concerns more seriously. If you're already vigilant, BE MORE VIGILANT! Enough automated responses and ESPECIALLY stop arguing with players. I shouldn't even have to say that. With an ideal game players wouldn't be asking you to not try and coerce people into paying at all. Evidently plarium needs work in that departmen. Thank you for reading.