Unlike the Gaurdians of the Galaxy...

GothicKratos

I'm not going to continue trying to dispute the other stuff, because it's a circular argument, that basically boils down to perception of the situation (i.e. subjective), but this on the other hand;

Mawtful wrote:

In the discussion about the test results, Miles actually states:

The main thing we were worried about is that a larger than average number of players would be able to play "perfectly" and get the maximum number of points possible. This would mean that we'd have a lot of people essentially tied for the top scores.

Tied points results in multiple rewards for that placement being given out. I hate to make this about money, but it's about money. They were worried that people would tie for the top score, and as such be required to give away a greater than normal number of 1st place prizes. I understand that, as a mod, you've got a certain duty to not discuss demiurge's financial decisions. So I'll understand if you don't want to reply to that.

This is wrong last time I checked. I can't remember if the person that reached the point keeps their position or the newest person to reach the point takes the position, but there is no legitimate ties - we wouldn't have 300 first place finished - what we would have is places 1 through 100 all having the same score, which in my opnion is pretty damn bland.

Unknown

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

Unknown

I feel like it is worth noting that this is a videogame and video games are made of code. Code takes time to write and test. They have responded on these forums saying the reason this event does not have 8hr timers is that there was not enough time to test this event thoroughly with 8hr timers before its release. I work in software development and I will tell you right now no matter what your product is you DO NOT release it before it has gone through proper testing. Code is finicky and complicated and sometimes things break that you would never expect. There is like a .000001 chance that implementing the 8hr timers just crashes the game or wipes data or whatever but you have to test it to make sure there is no such critical bug. Further events will have 8hr timers this one doesn't because manpower is a thing.

This is true for a lot of things in this game. They are trying but I think Demiurge is a small studio and they can only do so much so fast. Personally I think they are moving in a good direction even if they are doing it slowly.

rednailz

Phantron wrote:

GuiltTrip wrote:

These 4* turn alliances from social groups, that work together, into barbaric tribes that will do anything to get the scraps that get tossed to us.

That's what alliances have always been. The 4* rewards just expose the fact that people will sell you out for a cover more than usual. I always assumed their implementation of alliances is a social experiment to verify the theory about how guys will immediately stab each other in the back when you're on a deserted island is indeed true.

Sour grapes?

hex706f726368

LoreNYC wrote:

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

Really wish I could give this all my thumbs up...EVER!!

Unknown

One more thing!

Changing something like refresh times mid-event is not safe because it would cause the maximum points available to player to differ between those who played pre-and post change. If you think about other changes that have landed mid-event, they've never been changes to the event itself, but to characters or boosts or something.

Mawtful

GothicKratos wrote:

This is wrong last time I checked. I can't remember if the person that reached the point keeps their position or the newest person to reach the point takes the position, but there is no legitimate ties - we wouldn't have 300 first place finished - what we would have is places 1 through 100 all having the same score, which in my opnion is pretty damn bland.

The most recent player to reach a point value is ranked higher on the ladder than any others at that same point value. Simply put, the game has no way to display equal ranking, and so players are simply sorted by most recent. However, displayed ranking and "true" ranking can, in fact, be different. In my experience, every time that an event has ended with more than one player with the same point value, each of those players has received the same reward as the highest ranked player at that value. In other words, when the players ranked #1 and #2 both have the same point value, two first place prizes were handed out. However, no second place prize was handed out, the next reward tier was effectively #3-5. If 100 players all ended up tied for first I imagine that would translate to 100 first prize rewards, followed by the #101-200 bracket.

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

This would be a great plan for Pve, the reward system for this game needs a major overhaul

ClydeFrog76

LoreNYC wrote:

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

So many of us have been begging for non-competitive PVE for so long. It baffles me why they're so against it.

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

I personally like competitive PVEs because if I put in the effort I can rank high and win. Most of the time I don't due to to real life obligations, but it's still an option. When nodes are challenging and dare I say 'unfair', it actually makes me feel good to know that I can complete some nodes that others can not. Competitive PVE is more geared towards people who have a lot of time who really like to play the game.

A bigger problem is lack of content. All there is is the main PVP event, PVE event, maybe a lightning round, and the occasional shield sim match. If there were more different modes that could appeal to other players, then we wouldn't all be shoe horned into formats that don't fit our lifestyles and levels of commitment. It wouldn't be as bad knowing that we say couldn't rank in PVE if we could get rewards in some other format. Right now there are players who can't get rewards in any of the formats and it doesn't feel fair.

Unknown

Yeah, I don't know. My impression of this game is that they set up their events ahead of time and roll them out according to a rigorous schedule that does not allow for any deviation. Whether this is because of limited programming resources, laziness, or some byzantine intra-office content approval system is hard to say. But there have been plenty of changes that seemed to immediately be undone in the past, just because content designed before those changes was already in the tubes and wasn't modified to fit the upcoming status quo.

The TaT event times suck, but they don't suck anymore than they would have if the developers had never considered switching to 8 hour timers at all. The thing we'd hoped would happen is going to take longer to happen than we'd hoped. At least it's happening.

DrNitroman

ClydeFrog76 wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

So many of us have been begging for non-competitive PVE for so long. It baffles me why they're so against it.

I'm with you for more non-competitive content!
To be fair they're not completely against it: They released the Gauntlet (that is based on the progression only as asked by LoreNYC) and some news leaked about a new game mode - daily PvE - maybe non-competitive too (?)

daibar wrote:

A bigger problem is lack of content.

More content would be an elegant solution to content everyone with competitive and non-competitive content. More, when there will be so much content per day that we - the more addic.. erm involved players - will be forced to choose which event to play, then the intensity of competition could be more reasonable, some tier transition more doable without all the veterans competing!

MojoWild

What really bugs me about this post is that "Guardians" is misspelled.

As far as the post, the progression rewards is a huge improvement. And they're putting 8 hour refreshes back in after this event. Simmer down.

Edit: I was thinking of pvp progression rewards not the standard pve 4* reward that you should have to work for...

Unknown

MojoWild wrote:

What really bugs me about this post is that "Guardians" is misspelled.

Jesus, now I feel like a total mouth-breather for not having noticed. Good catch.

NorthernPolarity

Phantron wrote:

I can understand as a policy they would like to get this right, but I think it's pretty ironic that players perceive D3 only adding changes in the middle of an event when it benefits them, and let's say this is true so that we have any benefit to D3 >>> any negative impact to player base. Well, changing the refresh to 8 hours in the middle of the event is generally viewed as a positive benefit to the player base, but what negative benefit could it have for D3? So should still be a no brainer to make the change in the mid event, no? Well, in a less cynical world, I'd assume D3 makes any change they feel is 'good for the game' even if player's perception of that change is bad during mid event. Well, I think there's a fairly obvious consenus that everyone thinks the 8H refresh is good for the game, so why not roll out this change mid event? I suppose it's possible that changing refresh to 8 hours is way more complicated than it sounds, but that'd have to be some pretty bad programming to change a variable that should not have any dependence to the rest of the game. You'd think whether the refresh time is 3 minutes, 3 hours, or 3 days, it's still just a number.

Literally every single change that happened in the past midevent, people complaining the hell out of, screaming at demiurge "**** why did you do this wait until the **** end of the event". You cant be like "oh if this change is generally positive its fine to change" because if something unexpectedly goes wrong its going to be a shitstorm. For example, lets say that it happens, and the % on your timer remains the same, so your previous planned 2 hr refresh now becomes 8 hrs. Sometimes the expectations and behavior of the people on this forums is just baffling.

udonomefoo

LoreNYC wrote:

The only problem with pve is the reward structure and ranking players in it

3 hours 8 hour or whatever is really a non issue if the rewards were for accomplishing a task rather than who can do it the most and when they do it

They should put all the pve rewards in progression and that way people get the reward if they play and if they join with 20 minutes left on the last day, then they don't. Its really simple and no there's nothing wrong with giving out covers to a majority of the players when you need 13 of them to complete a character

This a million times. I realize I'm just a crybaby transitioner, but I currently have 26 3 characters and the highest covered is Hulk with 5 (who just got vaulted, thanks guys!). Just pulled my 10 pack and got 4 Moonstones, 4 OBW's (already maxed) and 2 other 2 stars I can't use.

KrazyKeylime

Quebbster wrote:

brisashi wrote:

They are catering to the whales of the game, while further ostracizing casual players.

It might make them a little money now but it will likely reduce the player population eventually, and a game like this grinds to a halt without a good sized player base.

Just to play devil's advocate a little, I have to point out that D3 is a business and they should cater to their paying customers. F2P players like myself don't bring them any revenue, all we do is at best keep the paying customers motivated to pay more.

Would you buy something if the game was better developed, split into tiers separating developing player on their different transitions, more player friendly, better token odds(1 in 4 of getting featured character, i have yet to receive a single featured character from all the tokens i have gotten in events in my 316 days of playing) , with better character testing and balance creating multiple combinations that are top tier or work very well together, Taking initial feedback from the community as part of the development process before implementing a change, with devs more interested in making a better game for each player and preferring to tweak existing models unless a significant amount of player base requested a complete overhaul?
i am no whale but i would chuck a wad of bucks at this sort of game

Unknown

Progression-based PvE has a bad history in this game. They tried it with the first Heroic Oscorp, and everyone was really excited--but they botched that event in a dozen ways and they've not tried it that way again. To give you some idea: the major buffed character was Daredevil, even though most of the opponents were goons and this was before his abilities were proactive at all...the scaling was so out of whack in that even that people were hit with deadly matches across the board the instant it opened...the top progression rewards (one each of X-Force's covers) were at such astronomical values that it was questionable that a player playing optimally (which in those days meant clearing all nodes down to 1 in succession every 8 or 12 hours) could even reach them all. There were plenty of rumors about players reaching them, but I don't know of any forumites who have ever come forward and claimed that they did.

Unsurprisingly, this version of Heroic Oscorp was universally panned and never came back in that incarnation. My impression is that the developers read this as a failure of Progression-based PvE, even though it was really a failure of obscene scaling, poor character availability, and inhuman progression targets. The Gauntlet (beloved by everyone) is a great example of successful progression-based PvE; I wonder if it isn't the terrible ghost of Heroic Oscorp past that prevents us from getting more.

edit: corrected a historically inaccurate statement