Can we still call PVE a P2W event?

FaustianDeal

I was having a problem this morning answering that question and I could only say 'no'. So I thought I would throw it out to the broader community...

How can a P2W player, through the direct application of MONEY, 'win' in this PVE format? Or do I have to use some definition of 'winning' that doesn't involve 'placement in the event'?

If this is already 'asked and answered' I apologize for the repetition.

Spoit

Buying healthpacks and AP all boosts

SnowcaTT

Well, since you have to be at your device EVERY three hours for SEVEN days, you pay through wasted life to win at PVE.

Unknown

PvE is only P2W in the sense you might be able to pay someone to play for you while you're asleep.

Konman

PVE is not isolated from the rest of the game. You just spent a **** ton on covering and leveling your XForce...you can use that XForce anywhere you want now....you paid for your Xforce, now you're winning matches in PVE.

san

Phantron wrote:

PvE is only P2W in the sense you might be able to pay someone to play for you while you're asleep.

You know that you have a mental health issue when...

wymtime

Phantron wrote:

PvE is only P2W in the sense you might be able to pay someone to play for you while you're asleep.

Or if you convice your wife to wake up at 3:00 am to clear the nodes for you
I can't remember who did that, but I am guessing she is not doing that again.

Unknown

wymtime wrote:

Phantron wrote:

PvE is only P2W in the sense you might be able to pay someone to play for you while you're asleep.

Or if you convice your wife to wake up at 3:00 am to clear the nodes for you
I can't remember who did that, but I am guessing she is not doing that again.

I'm thinking he paid for that, one way or another.

FaustianDeal

I was thinking about the new PVE countdown timer on the node points and it feels like it has only further entrenched PVE as a 'grinders-only' event...

In the old 5-plays/12-hours model (with the 2:24 counter)... you could 'pre-play' 5 times before a 12-hour break and get 300% of the value of the nodes. In the new 4-plays/12-hours model for Elektra (with the 3:00 counter) - you are only able to 'pre-play' 4 times, and will only receive 250% of the points for the nodes. In the final calculus maybe it doesn't matter, because the people who maintain schedule were getting 500% before and only get 400% now, so people who choose to sleep can still get 62.5% of the points instead of 60% in the old model...

This same net-loss of available points probably has a much larger impact on the final 90 minutes of an event. On one hand we can assert that it is easier for a leader to defend their lead, but the leads that are being built in this event are simply too large to overcome.. isn't that demoralizing? Rubber-banding exists to keep it 'fun' and 'interesting' until the very end. But the only way my bracket gets interesting again is if the current leaders succumb to the negative effects of sleep-deprivation several hours before the event closes.

Did we really hate rubber-banding so much that we are okay with turning PVE into a death-march?

Hulk11

I don't like this idea too much, but the idea of some sorta of sheild in pve might be what we need for now. But rather than protecting yourself, it's a score booster of some sort, regardless if you buy it you will get a higher score, and help players at least through progression rewards.

Unknown

Assuming the nodes are not on trivial difficulty beating them 3 times in one session is likely the limit of what you can do. Under the old system that'd be (1+0.8+0.6) / 3 = 80% of the available points in a roughly 8 hour period. Now it is (1+0.75+0.5)/3 = 75% of the available points in an 9 hour period, though in a 6 hour period that'd be 1.75/2 = 87.5% of the total points so depending on how your schedule works out and whether it is even possible to beat all the nodes 3 times on 5 health packs.

That said as long as you allow the option of doing 100% there are going to be people doing that unless the nodes get significantly harder and fighting level 395 would get kind of old. The only alternative would be no TU/no boosts and maybe that'll slow people down, but even then it's hard to see the strongest PvE rosters getting slowed down until things get past the level 300 range, so it's a mess either way. You would need significantly less levels if you put certain restriction on rosters but of course that's not exactly a popular option either.

FaustianDeal

The grinding element is made sillier by the flavor text of the story (which I am usually to sick of to read). After beating the last node in Wakanda doesn't Moonstone basically say something to the effect of "let's not belabor the point when there are lots of other SHIELD bases to hit."?

Point belabored... I have had the opportunity to see/skip that flavor-text ~8 times in the last 30 hours.

I'm not sure how to make PVE balanced... Gauntlet is 'fun' but trying (and often failing) to beat a node with 395s and restricted-roster even 1 time can crush your spirit almost as effectively as trying to beat a level-300 2* Storm 4 times in a 60 minute window to grind a PVE node.

Unknown

Gauntlet is much easier compared to just about any PvE event because beating those nodes repeatedly is quite difficult in itself. People can finish Gauntlet in one day and certainly two on the high end using nothing more than iso 8 boosts. There's no possible way to do this in any other event because you just won't be beating enough nodes on time. Even if you started on only the last two days, the number of nodes you end up having to beat can be a staggering amount and there's a good chance you'd end up in a bracket where you already can't get top 10 which is needed for 3 3* covers like Gauntlet.

Of course, being easier here isn't exactly a bad thing. I think it might make more sense if a mission just starts with say 10 stacks of full points, levels go up by 25 or whatever each time you beat it and you got 2 days and no rubberbanding. If you're super awesome you beat it 10 times right away and you know you're first and done. If not, it's no different than the existing stuff but at least you can try to do it on your own schedule as opposed to being shackled to a certain time period. If you're confident you can finish all 10 in the last 8 hours you can do that and you'd only lose to the guys who finished earlier for the tiebreaker.

Spoit

Yeah, I dunno what their vaunted metrics say, but I doubt ANYONE really likes having to do multiple 395 nodes every 3 hours

fmftint

Spoit wrote:

Yeah, I dunno what their vaunted metrics say, but I doubt ANYONE really likes having to do multiple 395 nodes every 3 hours

probably the same players that like making difficult roster decisions

Unknown

There's no way there's this metric that says people love grinding over and over. Even with the trivial difficulty due to the scaling bug I'm still sitting at around #20 in my sub which means there are that many people that play at least as much. I don't know if they've the same bugged scaling but if not that's even more insane than it sounds. What D3 is probably looking at these behavioral and just figure 'these guys are crazy, we don't deal with crazies'. That's not completely wrong, but they need to look at the mirror themselves some time and realize that it's the game design is also bringing out the crazies. For example look at Gauntlet as a format. The absolute worst kind of crazy you could have might be someone who uses AP+3 all boosts to beat everything and then felt he needs to farm the level 395s for TUs for some other event. That's pretty crazy but still nothing compared to 'convince someone to play for you while you're asleep so you can get top 1'. Gauntlet, as a format, is inherently less crazy than any other PvE event. You can't really do crazy things there even if you wanted to. In other PvE formats you can definitely get pretty crazy, and sure D3 is saying 'so just don't be crazy?', but the crazy option shouldn't even be available in the first place.

cg2912

fmftint wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Yeah, I dunno what their vaunted metrics say, but I doubt ANYONE really likes having to do multiple 395 nodes every 3 hours

probably the same players that like making difficult roster decisions

Are they the same players/metrics who prefer buying packs w/out a guaranteed 3*?

Spoit

Getting people to play for you is not even the shallow end of the craziness it drives people too. Something something car accidents

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

Getting people to play for you is not even the shallow end of the craziness it drives people too. Something something car accidents

I'm not saying that's the limit of how crazy PvE events is but I think that alone is crazier than the entire Gauntlet event put together. PvE is simply unhealthy. Even PvP is pretty tame because PvP mostly just demands a lot of money. Well, I guess someone could need to suddenly do a shield hop while driving but that'd be your pretty standard 'don't text and drive' kind of deal so I don't think MPQ particularly stands out there.

babinro

Absolutely not.

No amount of money thrown at the game will prevent you from needing to log time into the event every 2-3 hours for days on end in order to get 1st place. You can pay money to make life a little easier and preserve health packs in PvE...but no amount of money will really let you WIN.


PvP on the other hand offers a clear monetary advantage that heavily cuts down the on the actual play time needed to do well.

UNC_Samurai

I've spent a grand total of $20, all for HP to widen my roster. Being able to add about 10-12 roster slots was a major jumpstart to transitioning into the 2* game. It's also helped me keep a wider stable of 3* characters just in case they're the required character in various rounds. I don't foresee myself spending any further, because I can now grind a little and max out the progress awards, earn a decent number of heroic tokens, and snag one of the primary reward covers (the only one I haven't snagged in the last month was the 4* Thor - I came in 51st on that ladder, which I'm still a little salty about).