This pve sucks

Hulk11

I'm getting atrocious pulls from the grinds for the short events. Basically waste of time there, just to boil down to maybe getting a gamora, cmon. Sure if I had the latest and greatest I would be further up but that doesn't change the fact the pulls for how many days suck. I've hardly taken part in any pvp cause of this dumb system barrage in pve now. This pve **** needs to be separate from pvp, wth? The mixing with the pvp cycles with those events relying on the pve, really? Also how can we even call this pve to begin with? This is exacty like pvp, just minus direct "retaliations". So instead of retaliating, by playing some more, we retaliate in pve, by playing some more. Bravo. Aweful pve system. This is still the pvp system of play, why would you ever want that in your game?

Unknown

I'm against 2.5 hour refresh timers. Been posting about them for months. However, the current pve system is the fairest as far as greater rewards for the ones that play harder. Do I like the system? No. But it's the least arbitrary one.

Unknown

Pretty easy to get top 150 for the gamora cover without endless grinding. System is lame that you have to participate for another char you wont max out anytime soon just to be able to participate in the next pve, but oh well.

The blade cover at 40k was a nice reward.

simonsez

Hulk11 wrote:

This is exacty like pvp, just minus direct "retaliations".

That's like saying dancing is exactly the same as boxing, except no one tries to hit you in the face (except for that time when I had too many margaritas, but I digress... )

Unknown

On a sub-based PVE, u don't have to grind every 2.5 refresh, that's awful.
Try this :
> join in the mid time, i.e : sub 1.5D, then join @20hrs mark.
> Keep last 3-4 nodes closed, grind the rest nodes 3x each, it will refresh around 8hrs.
> This way u only need 3 cycle = 2x 8hrs + 1 on final 4hrs.
> 4hrs enough to replenish healthpack to be used on the last 2 hours.
> on last 2 hours, repeat step 2 + open n grind last nodes.
Guarantee min top 50 (usually more, top 10 possible tho).

Besides PVE is good event for 2* to get 3* covers.

EDIT : Agree if u'r talking bout "Unstable ISO-8", "TaT" and any type of "Heroic".. those pve's sucks.

Hulk11

simonsez wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

This is exacty like pvp, just minus direct "retaliations".

That's like saying dancing is exactly the same as boxing, except no one tries to hit you in the face (except for that time when I had too many margaritas, but I digress... )

This is a good point in a competitive sense (but I think you meant something different), like a dance-off and a boxing match. They are different but they would still be competitive. As far as the pve side of things I don't see it as a part of the game that needs to have any competitive part to it. This should at best be like some kind of raid mode, where you pair up with players and defeat the a.i system. While challenging maybe, it's not a competitive source unless your keeping scores amongst the players you played with. Mixing that with facing off against other players defeats the idea of playing against the ai. This makes it a lot like the pvp modes in this game especially since we really never face off against other players like hearthstone. Maybe if the pvp side was playing against other players I could see the differences here, but since it's not, it's far too similar. There would need to be an expansion in the real pve that is always available to play or allowing people to the play released pve on their own time, not playing against other peoples scores. That needs to stay in the pvp lobbied modes.

Unknown

I think the only way they could change PVE to make it less off a grind and different from PVP would be to make ALL PVE work like the Gauntlet does. No repeatable nodes, all nodes worth the same amount of points, no rank rewards and only progression rewards. Then make the top progression reward for one/some/all of the nodes the new character.

kalex716

My biggest complaint is i keep friggin crashing in the middle of matches!

Unknown

Alexraven wrote:

I think the only way they could change PVE to make it less off a grind and different from PVP would be to make ALL PVE work like the Gauntlet does. No repeatable nodes, all nodes worth the same amount of points, no rank rewards and only progression rewards. Then make the top progression reward for one/some/all of the nodes the new character.

There are other non-competitive PVE formats that have been suggested as well. My personal favorites are the alliance-based ones. For example, you could have say 10 nodes with 5 player openings. Each player can claim an opening within a node and then whatever character gets used is locked there (as in you can't use it in other nodes while the current one is active). Then, for the other 4 openings within that node, any characters you used can't be used by your other teammates. So not only are you trying to coordinate which characters you have that are best fitted for a given node, but then you also need to coordinate with your teammates to make sure their calculations are also doable. And then each fight at that node whittles down an overall node health.

The benefits are numerous. You can coordinate node grinding with your alliance so you only have to grind certain nodes where you'll have a strong team instead of all nodes (wherein you can just contribute what you can). It also promotes the need for a deep and varied roster. And you can get "progression" rewards as well as when you clear a node you get some big prize. And then prizes at the end of each sub are based on the number of nodes your alliance cleared.

fmftint

Riggy wrote:

Alexraven wrote:

I think the only way they could change PVE to make it less off a grind and different from PVP would be to make ALL PVE work like the Gauntlet does. No repeatable nodes, all nodes worth the same amount of points, no rank rewards and only progression rewards. Then make the top progression reward for one/some/all of the nodes the new character.

There are other non-competitive PVE formats that have been suggested as well. My personal favorites are the alliance-based ones. For example, you could have say 10 nodes with 5 player openings. Each player can claim an opening within a node and then whatever character gets used is locked there (as in you can't use it in other nodes while the current one is active). Then, for the other 4 openings within that node, any characters you used can't be used by your other teammates. So not only are you trying to coordinate which characters you have that are best fitted for a given node, but then you also need to coordinate with your teammates to make sure their calculations are also doable. And then each fight at that node whittles down an overall node health.

The benefits are numerous. You can coordinate node grinding with your alliance so you only have to grind certain nodes where you'll have a strong team instead of all nodes (wherein you can just contribute what you can). It also promotes the need for a deep and varied roster. And you can get "progression" rewards as well as when you clear a node you get some big prize. And then prizes at the end of each sub are based on the number of nodes your alliance cleared.

what happens to players that choose not to alliance?
what happens to players with limited rosters where locking out a hero is not an option?

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

Riggy wrote:

Alexraven wrote:

I think the only way they could change PVE to make it less off a grind and different from PVP would be to make ALL PVE work like the Gauntlet does. No repeatable nodes, all nodes worth the same amount of points, no rank rewards and only progression rewards. Then make the top progression reward for one/some/all of the nodes the new character.

There are other non-competitive PVE formats that have been suggested as well. My personal favorites are the alliance-based ones. For example, you could have say 10 nodes with 5 player openings. Each player can claim an opening within a node and then whatever character gets used is locked there (as in you can't use it in other nodes while the current one is active). Then, for the other 4 openings within that node, any characters you used can't be used by your other teammates. So not only are you trying to coordinate which characters you have that are best fitted for a given node, but then you also need to coordinate with your teammates to make sure their calculations are also doable. And then each fight at that node whittles down an overall node health.

The benefits are numerous. You can coordinate node grinding with your alliance so you only have to grind certain nodes where you'll have a strong team instead of all nodes (wherein you can just contribute what you can). It also promotes the need for a deep and varied roster. And you can get "progression" rewards as well as when you clear a node you get some big prize. And then prizes at the end of each sub are based on the number of nodes your alliance cleared.

what happens to players that choose not to alliance?

The same thing that happens now - they don't get an alliance reward. However, a single unallied player would be treated as an alliance of one, and very limited rewards could be won. Or alternatively, a framework for "pugging" / sharding could be created for that event. You join an event, get put into a shard and you're stuck with 19 other random people trying to beat down uber bosses.

fmftint wrote:

what happens to players with limited rosters where locking out a hero is not an option?

Any player with at least 3 characters would be able to participate. Unless you've really screwed the pooch in this game, you're going to be able to handle that. If you can't participate on a given node, you must rely on your teammates to handle it and you just pick another node.

Regardless, that was a 5 minute design to simply show that there are alternative non-competitive pve formats that have succeeded in other games that still boost alliance play and still require significant effort on the part of the player (which in this game does translate to a certain amount of grinding). However, if the devs really want to promote roster diversity, then they need to find a format where I will not use only the best of the best in my roster.This forces that issue by creating an incentive for a deep roster.

Unknown

Riggy wrote:

However, if the devs really want to promote roster diversity, then they need to find a format where I will not use only the best of the best in my roster.This forces that issue by creating an incentive for a deep roster.

If the devs really want to promote roster diversity, they'll make it affordable to diversify your roster. $5+ per roster slot is not sustainable for some of us.

I would personally love it if The Gauntlet was the new format for all PVE from here on out. No more grinding single nodes in order to advance. Just focus purely on progress, and once you've finished all the nodes, if you want to grind for the extra rewards, you're welcome to, but it's not necessary to win anything beyond standard tokens and small chunks of ISO.

Unknown

This thread speaks to the problem "PvE" has had since the very beginning: it isn't really all that much more "PvE" than the vs. mode of the game. While the whole boxing/dance analogy/riposte was funny, "PvE" in this game really is just PvP without retaliations. Your'e still playing against AI teams and your ultimate performance is still determined by how your score matches up against the other players' in your bracket. The Gauntlet is the truest PvE in the game, and it's a good start. We need more modes that aren't directly competitive, and we need more modes that aren't time sensitive. The endless competition is tiring and unpleasant.

Dragon_Nexus

stephen43084 wrote:

I'm against 2.5 hour refresh timers. Been posting about them for months. However, the current pve system is the fairest as far as greater rewards for the ones that play harder. Do I like the system? No. But it's the least arbitrary one.

What's wrong with them, exactly? I really like them. I can do a quick burst every few hours instead of feeling the need to grind as early as possible then grind more at the end of the day.
If I'm going to work or sleep *then* I grind for a while before hand.

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

Riggy wrote:

Alexraven wrote:

I think the only way they could change PVE to make it less off a grind and different from PVP would be to make ALL PVE work like the Gauntlet does. No repeatable nodes, all nodes worth the same amount of points, no rank rewards and only progression rewards. Then make the top progression reward for one/some/all of the nodes the new character.

There are other non-competitive PVE formats that have been suggested as well. My personal favorites are the alliance-based ones. For example, you could have say 10 nodes with 5 player openings. Each player can claim an opening within a node and then whatever character gets used is locked there (as in you can't use it in other nodes while the current one is active). Then, for the other 4 openings within that node, any characters you used can't be used by your other teammates. So not only are you trying to coordinate which characters you have that are best fitted for a given node, but then you also need to coordinate with your teammates to make sure their calculations are also doable. And then each fight at that node whittles down an overall node health.

The benefits are numerous. You can coordinate node grinding with your alliance so you only have to grind certain nodes where you'll have a strong team instead of all nodes (wherein you can just contribute what you can). It also promotes the need for a deep and varied roster. And you can get "progression" rewards as well as when you clear a node you get some big prize. And then prizes at the end of each sub are based on the number of nodes your alliance cleared.

what happens to players that choose not to alliance?
what happens to players with limited rosters where locking out a hero is not an option?

Moreover, what happens to players that don't even want to play pve and still want the covers?
What happens to players who only want to play one of the nodes and get covers?
What happens to players that want to play Candy Crush and get covers?

Unknown

What happens if you want to use covers to cover your covers when the covered covers have already been covered?

nimvin

Paintsville wrote:

What happens if you want to use covers to cover your covers when the covered covers have already been covered?

Then I suggest you cover your uncovered covers before someone sees your uncovered covers.