Changing PvE event rank prize system - good idea, bad idea?

Joker117

Well the last pve people went way far beyond the prizes given by the game to get DEADPOOL ... I believe it went to 10k pts and ppl went wayyyy higher (horrible memory just remember I finished all prizes basically right away lol) .

I say meet us in the middle ..after the end if we play all the lvls in order it reboots them to almost full pts ..,have huge prizes for those who grind so hard /even mystery prizes for the f of it while having reg prizes within a decent reach .

Unknown

Right now PvE isn't very different than if hitting your hit on the wall increases your score and the harder you do it the better your score is.

You know what would've stopped this? Scaling. Having level 395 enemies would be like bashing your head against a spike wall and even the craziest guy tend to stop pretty quickly, but people complain about scaling and now they wonder why everyone seems to be able to easily grind an event that features enemies no higher than about level 150 while you've level 166-256 characters. I don't know why they haven't introduced ideas like server-based refresh time or scaling based solely on the number of points you have, or does scaling work this way? Not that we're ever told about how things like scaling worked.

Joker117

Btw try n make the poll more clear ?

Unknown

Ariakos wrote:

My opinion is that PvE should have always been more about progression rewards and less about ranking. Ranking prizes is what makes PvE events just overly stretched PvPs. Granted that you compete against static AI teams and not other player teams but nevertheless you have to compete against other players also to get those juicy ranking rewards. Not my idea of player vs. enviroment.

I completely agree. For example, the Deadpool PvE is pretty much something I find as an ideal PvE event. Decent progression rewards with high placement covers being a mere bonus. Also, it is only 2.5 days and not an entire week with very poor progression rewards until the very high and grinded end.

Joker117

Chaotic Ryu wrote:

Ariakos wrote:

My opinion is that PvE should have always been more about progression rewards and less about ranking. Ranking prizes is what makes PvE events just overly stretched PvPs. Granted that you compete against static AI teams and not other player teams but nevertheless you have to compete against other players also to get those juicy ranking rewards. Not my idea of player vs. enviroment.

I completely agree. For example, the Deadpool PvE is pretty much something I find as an ideal PvE event. Decent progression rewards with high placement covers being a mere bonus. Also, it is only 2.5 days and not an entire week with very poor progression rewards until the very high and grinded end.

What of it was a week and had huge or rewards like 125000 (was that the big # for one pve?) was storm 3* pr even 200,000 was a black DEADPOOL ?

Worst part is they probably would of made money in the short term off that for everyone competing but lost money in the long run in diff ways .

Katai

Agreed. PvE really should just award tokens for the ranking, and the premiere character should be for progression (I would say 1 for completing the 7 days story event, and addition for deep regression rewards).

Seriously, grinding out the PvE ranking is the least efficient way to gain covers. PvP events last 2 days, and I can consistently get 2 or 3 covers from them. PvE lasts 6 to 8 days, and I MAYBE might be able to get 2 covers.

FaerieMyst

I'm fine the way it is. Sometimes I want the prizes and I seriously work it. Other times I do the minimum I need to for my alliance. Either way, I get lots of ISO for leveling up characters - and I really like that.

For those that argue they want a PVE where they don't have to grind . . . you never have to grind. You never have to try to win. You can just play and enjoy the play. That's a personal choice. I like having the option to go either way.

Unknown

It needs to change so that it doesn't reward grinding every 2 hours and 24 minutes or similar timer. I guess the only problem with making it ALL progression is twofold:

1) Historically they are awful at judging how people will score. We've seen many events where the top end of the progression is hilarious far out of reach even for hardcore players, and also events where the top end of the progression award is passed by most people well before the end of the event.

2) People are still competitive, and many would like SOME way to judge their PvE performance against other people.

Certainly there's a good argument for making the covers progression only, and then tokens for those who want to grind and compete, but they can only do that if they get confident in their ability to judge how many players are likely to reach each cover.

Unknown

No PVE would make 2* to 3* transition infinitely longer. That make spending real money the only option to play. Thats NOT a way to attract new customer.

If you remove ranking and only put it progression, then that means inorder to achieve the top progression, you would definitely need to grind every 2.5 hours for the whole event duration. With scaling, that would probably mean worst then what the current system has.

Unknown

FaerieMyst wrote:

I'm fine the way it is. Sometimes I want the prizes and I seriously work it. Other times I do the minimum I need to for my alliance. Either way, I get lots of ISO for leveling up characters - and I really like that. For those that argue they want a PVE where they don't have to grind . . . you never have to grind. You never have to try to win. You can just play and enjoy the play. That's a personal choice. I like having the option to go either way.

What some people here are asking for is an actual PvE, player versus environment, as opposed to what it is now which is player versus player without retaliations. You say you don't have to grind or try to win? Sure, if you don't expect to ever get any decent prizes and have your cover advancement slow to a crawl. Your argument basically comes down to "if you don't want to compete against other people then **** you". It's nice that you're cool with the status quo, but there is a portion of the population who would enjoy a game mode where they're challenged by the game itself and not chasing the scores of other people. Dismissing them entirely because they can "choose" not to play the only way that grants decent rewards is fairly myopic.

Unknown

wingdash wrote:

No PVE would make 2* to 3* transition infinitely longer. That make spending real money the only option to play. Thats NOT a way to attract new customer.

If you remove ranking and only put it progression, then that means inorder to achieve the top progression, you would definitely need to grind every 2.5 hours for the whole event duration. With scaling, that would probably mean worst then what the current system has.

Not true with "rubberbanding" in place. For pure PvE, the rubberbanding effect could be implemented by idle time accumulation. The long the nodes stays idle, the more points they accumulate.

Scaling could be done away by the number of times you beat the nodes. The more frequent you beat the nodes, the higher and faster they scale up.

The current so-called "PvE" setup encourages unhealthy and unfair competitions among players, not the environment, which is clearly not what PvE is about.

Xiltyn

Zhirrzh wrote:

It needs to change so that it doesn't reward grinding every 2 hours and 24 minutes or similar timer. I guess the only problem with making it ALL progression is twofold:

1) Historically they are awful at judging how people will score. We've seen many events where the top end of the progression is hilarious far out of reach even for hardcore players, and also events where the top end of the progression award is passed by most people well before the end of the event.

2) People are still competitive, and many would like SOME way to judge their PvE performance against other people.

Certainly there's a good argument for making the covers progression only, and then tokens for those who want to grind and compete, but they can only do that if they get confident in their ability to judge how many players are likely to reach each cover.

I agree with you on the scoring issue. For example, the DP vs MPQ event. Top progression reward was 10k, I hit that the first night. Ended up with about 35k at the end of the event and barely made the top 10.

On the opposite end, I forget the name of the event, but it had a Steve Rogers cover as the top progression reward with it needing 125k. I played every day of that event, trying to clear every node approximately every 2.5 hours, however due to scaling my maxed 2* roster didn't stand a chance for about half of the last day and I was lucky to reach 100k. But, I was still in the top 5 in that event; and the person in first place was the only one in my bracket to reach that 125k mark.

Edit: Something else I noticed from talking with my alliance members with lower level rosters, it seemed that I was earning more points per fight than them even though we were playing at the same frequency. Are the points not "normalized" so that everyone earns the same for each fight? Or could that possibly be due to slight rubber band, since it would take them longer than me on each clear because of our level difference?

atomzed

Thugpatrol wrote:

FaerieMyst wrote:

I'm fine the way it is. Sometimes I want the prizes and I seriously work it. Other times I do the minimum I need to for my alliance. Either way, I get lots of ISO for leveling up characters - and I really like that. For those that argue they want a PVE where they don't have to grind . . . you never have to grind. You never have to try to win. You can just play and enjoy the play. That's a personal choice. I like having the option to go either way.

What some people here are asking for is an actual PvE, player versus environment, as opposed to what it is now which is player versus player without retaliations. You say you don't have to grind or try to win? Sure, if you don't expect to ever get any decent prizes and have your cover advancement slow to a crawl. Your argument basically comes down to "if you don't want to compete against other people then tinykitty you". It's nice that you're cool with the status quo, but there is a portion of the population who would enjoy a game mode where they're challenged by the game itself and not chasing the scores of other people. Dismissing them entirely because they can "choose" not to play the only way that grants decent rewards is fairly myopic.

I believe that D3 fundamental premise is to cap the 3 cover rewards to top 5% of the bracket. This would ensure scarcity and retain desirability of the reward (in economic terms).

If you change the reward structure, and if D3 maintain their fundamental premise, then they will set the progression reward to be very high (such that the top 5% gets the 3 covers). Or they may increase the scaling (personal scaling).

Will that make it more fun? When the top progression reward is like 100k away and each win gives you 10 pts?

Unless D3 change their fundamental premise (which I don't think they would), changing the reward structure will not make it more fun. It will only make it feel like you are banging against a wall, and people will start complaining about how impossible the progression reward is.

Really, I see the current system as one that gives 5% population more covers. If you are in a easy bracket, you have a higher chance of getting the covers. If you are in a difficult bracket, tough, but there are still progression rewards to aim for. When you take away the current pve reward structure, you lose those chances of additional covers.

In short, D3 wants to make the rewards attractive, hence they need to cap the number of covers they give out. If they take the bracket rewards away, they have to set the progression reward at a high level such that only top 5% players make it. That would make the pve even *less* fun

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

I believe that D3 fundamental premise is to cap the 3 cover rewards to top 5% of the bracket. This would ensure scarcity and retain desirability of the reward (in economic terms). If you change the reward structure, and if D3 maintain their fundamental premise, then they will set the progression reward to be very high (such that the top 5% gets the 3 covers). Or they may increase the scaling (personal scaling).Will that make it more fun? When the top progression reward is like 100k away and each win gives you 10 pts?

You're spot on about their current business model, but you're making a bunch of assumptions there, mostly that they're incapable of finding a balance between their ideal number of covers rewards and creating a fun experience. You may be right, they haven't proved particularly adept at such matters, but that doesn't mean it's an impossible challenge. It's called good design.

atomzed wrote:

Unless D3 change their fundamental premise (which I don't think they would), changing the reward structure will not make it more fun. It will only make it feel like you are banging against a wall, and people will start complaining about how impossible the progression reward is.

Fundamentally changing the premise is exactly what I'm proposing they should do. There's no reason why there can't be a non-competitive, player versus environment side of the game that gives out decent rewards for a reasonable amount of challenge and time invested. There are plenty of ways to make it profitable and self-limiting while still being fun for people who don't always want to be competing against other people for rewards. There is a difference between can't and won't. I agree with you completely that they almost certainly won't. But that doesn't mean they can't, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to ask for it if it's something we want (and many people do).

Unknown

Baltias wrote:

wingdash wrote:

No PVE would make 2* to 3* transition infinitely longer. That make spending real money the only option to play. Thats NOT a way to attract new customer.

If you remove ranking and only put it progression, then that means inorder to achieve the top progression, you would definitely need to grind every 2.5 hours for the whole event duration. With scaling, that would probably mean worst then what the current system has.

Not true with "rubberbanding" in place. For pure PvE, the rubberbanding effect could be implemented by idle time accumulation. The long the nodes stays idle, the more points they accumulate.

Scaling could be done away by the number of times you beat the nodes. The more frequent you beat the nodes, the higher and faster they scale up.

The current so-called "PvE" setup encourages unhealthy and unfair competitions among players, not the environment, which is clearly not what PvE is about.

There wont be any rubberbanding since everyone will stop right after they got the top progression reward(which isnt hard in dp event). Players probably wont grind either because people would rather save their heals for pvp event and not continue playing pve.

Pve would go down the drain and d3 would need to raise the points for higher/top progression reward. This then result in more grind, more scaling and the cycle keep continue until lvl 395 pve nodes. Then everyone would complain agai

Kelbris

AardvarkPepper wrote:

If you want high PvE event rank prizes, you need to grind *constantly* over a period of a couple days, like doing a run through every 2.5 hours or so.

It strikes me this is unhealthy.

Yes, competition is optional; you don't have to do it, and additional incentive makes sense. But I think there's a line, and that Marvel Puzzle Quest has crossed that line.

To use a metaphor, I understand the Guinness Book of World Records does not have a "heaviest pet" category, because recognizing such a category could result in people deliberately overfeeding pets and damaging their health. There's a lot of issues involved there and here, but this is roughly what I'm talking about.

I understand not everyone is going to share my opinion, and some are going to straight out disagree, and even some that think the current PvE event rank prize system should be changed may have different reasoning. I'm interested in hearing other perspectives regarding PvE event rank prizes.

Perhaps instead of having events that use aggregate score over a period of one to three days, players may be allowed to activate a two-hour timer (or other time period) during which they can try to score as many points as possible, with players being allowed to activate the timer, say ten times for more tries at a higher score.

Or maybe players are *supposed* to be speed-running through PvE events, building speed running rosters, and setting alarm clocks to wake them up every hour and a half (hour of play, hour and a half of sleep), etc.

(edit) fixed poll, thanks for posting. Also changed poll so people can change their vote if they feel like it. (/edit)

I play less than 5 times per sub ( regardless of length) and consistently place in the top 50 overall. You just need to be able to play fast. It cuts down on your play time immensely. Being able to get 15-20 matches in during the last hour helps.

Let the crazies play every 2.5 hours. They'll play slower than you at the end due to scaling.

atomzed

Thugpatrol wrote:

atomzed wrote:

I believe that D3 fundamental premise is to cap the 3 cover rewards to top 5% of the bracket. This would ensure scarcity and retain desirability of the reward (in economic terms). If you change the reward structure, and if D3 maintain their fundamental premise, then they will set the progression reward to be very high (such that the top 5% gets the 3 covers). Or they may increase the scaling (personal scaling).Will that make it more fun? When the top progression reward is like 100k away and each win gives you 10 pts?

You're spot on about their current business model, but you're making a bunch of assumptions there, mostly that they're incapable of finding a balance between their ideal number of covers rewards and creating a fun experience. You may be right, they haven't proved particularly adept at such matters, but that doesn't mean it's an impossible challenge. It's called good design.

I'm saying this in a genuine and non sarcastic manner.

If you believe that D3 are incapable of positive improvements, and believe they "won't change" (your words), why are you still trying to lobby for a change?

My interpretation is that you think they "would" change, if enough ppl speak up. Hence you are trying to speak up.

Look, I prefer a less grindy pve (I'm in banes), I prefer to get more rewards too (who doesn't?). But I recognise that their fundamental premise needs to be maintained to ensure that there is something for ppl to strive for.

Thugpatrol wrote:

atomzed wrote:

Unless D3 change their fundamental premise (which I don't think they would), changing the reward structure will not make it more fun. It will only make it feel like you are banging against a wall, and people will start complaining about how impossible the progression reward is.

Fundamentally changing the premise is exactly what I'm proposing they should do. There's no reason why there can't be a non-competitive, player versus environment side of the game that gives out decent rewards for a reasonable amount of challenge and time invested. There are plenty of ways to make it profitable and self-limiting while still being fun for people who don't always want to be competing against other people for rewards. There is a difference between can't and won't. I agree with you completely that they almost certainly won't. But that doesn't mean they can't, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to ask for it if it's something we want (and many people do).

A better alternative has to be proposed if you want them to change their business model and fundamental premise. The change proposed by the OP do not justify such a change, imho.

One idea I can think of is to introduce other "chase equipment", like legendary items e.g. Capt Shield that can be equipped. Introducing another item type will generate more scarcity and maintain the health of the "economy" (use loosely since there's no p2p transaction).

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

I'm saying this in a genuine and non sarcastic manner. If you believe that D3 are incapable of positive improvements, and believe they "won't change" (your words), why are you still trying to lobby for a change? My interpretation is that you think they "would" change, if enough ppl speak up. Hence you are trying to speak up.

What I said was your assumptions seemed based on their inability to find a workable balance between profit, rewards, and fun, and that they don't have a good track record, but I never said they were completely incapable of anything positive. I'm on record in another thread that I very much liked the Deadpool event and felt it was a move in a better direction in terms of quality content. If I didn't think this game could improve I likely wouldn't be here anymore. I voice my opinion because I have one that I feel strongly enough to share. If I convince a few people to see things my way, so much the better. If the powers-that-be are influenced in any way by what happens here I'd be surprised, but it's not impossible, and I still feel enthusiastic enough to make an effort.

atomzed wrote:

A better alternative has to be proposed if you want them to change their business model and fundamental premise. The change proposed by the OP do not justify such a change, imho. One idea I can think of is to introduce other "chase equipment", like legendary items e.g. Capt Shield that can be equipped. Introducing another item type will generate more scarcity and maintain the health of the "economy" (use loosely since there's no p2p transaction).

I'm not fully endorsing the original post as the be all and end all of ideas. I've made suggestions before. I threw out a few thoughts here already one page back. I've talked in other places about including some kind of real PvE modes and suggested there are plenty of ways they could monetize it, be it buy-ins or even a subscription model. Plenty of suggestions have been made here and in other places by myself and others. This isn't the first time this topic has come up, just the most recent. Do I think any of that is likely? No, not really. But like I said before, it's not impossible. Stranger things have happened. Hence the distinction between can't and won't. They can, but they won't. Something has to change their mind. Maybe this is the first step. Who knows. But tossing around ideas on the internet is free, so what the hell.

atomzed

Thugpatrol wrote:

I'm not fully endorsing the original post as the be all and end all of ideas. I've made suggestions before. I threw out a few thoughts here already one page back. I've talked in other places about including some kind of real PvE modes and suggested there are plenty of ways they could monetize it, be it buy-ins or even a subscription model. Plenty of suggestions have been made here and in other places by myself and others. This isn't the first time this topic has come up, just the most recent. Do I think any of that is likely? No, not really. But like I said before, it's not impossible. Stranger things have happened. Hence the distinction between can't and won't. They can, but they won't. Something has to change their mind. Maybe this is the first step. Who knows. But tossing around ideas on the internet is free, so what the hell.

My impression is that D3 does listen, though whether they have the resources to implement the changes, and whether things happen fast enough... is another matter entirely.

I have learnt to be patient