Option to respec character levels (i.e. de-leveling)

Unknown

Finding three heroes with a proper mix of match damage so that high HP characters can protect weaker support characters is one of the core principles of team construction in game. Unfortunately, the dial for match damage only goes one way: up, with character level. Giving players the option to respec their characters through de-leveling would allow existing rosters to be adjusted as the metagame evolves. This would be particularly useful in light of the rapid pace that new characters are introduced. Trying to make a new beefy hero tank for your older heroes can be all but impossible sometimes if their match damage did not line up correctly.

A respect option for levels cannot be completely free of course as it could introduce tedious level management. Such a feature should also account for lost revenue the developers would have earned from players who purchase roster slots and covers to setup duplicate characters. I think it would be reasonable to assume that the lost revenue is not very large however, so the corresponding cost of respecing levels need not be too high. Perhaps it would be sufficient to allow de-leveling of characters with no refund of their iso-8 cost. This would open up another iso-8 drain in game and help replace the lost revenue. If the developers were feeling really generous, an iso-8 refund for de-leveling could be made in proportion to the marginal change in the iso-8 sell price of the character.

dkffiv

Vynyv wrote:

Finding three heroes with a proper mix of match damage so that high HP characters can protect weaker support characters is one of the core principles of team construction in game. Unfortunately, the dial for match damage only goes one way: up, with character level. Giving players the option to respec their characters through de-leveling would allow existing rosters to be adjusted as the metagame evolves. This would be particularly useful in light of the rapid pace that new characters are introduced. Trying to make a new beefy hero tank for your older heroes can be all but impossible sometimes if their match damage did not line up correctly.

A respect option for levels cannot be completely free of course as it could introduce tedious level management. Such a feature should also account for lost revenue the developers would have earned from players who purchase roster slots and covers to setup duplicate characters. I think it would be reasonable to assume that the lost revenue is not very large however, so the corresponding cost of respecing levels need not be too high. Perhaps it would be sufficient to allow de-leveling of characters with no refund of their iso-8 cost. This would open up another iso-8 drain in game and help replace the lost revenue. If the developers were feeling really generous, an iso-8 refund for de-leveling could be made in proportion to the marginal change in the iso-8 sell price of the character.

A better option is to allow us to lower the priority on match damage. will denote match damage I chose to lower priority.

Take for instance:

Falcon
79
70
61

CapAm
79
70
61

OBW
55
49
43

The lower priority toggle can take place on the raise level/character stats sheet. Make a check box for their 3 main colors. In this instace Falcon tanks nothing, CapAm takes yellow + red, OBW takes all 3 of her colors (even though priority was lowered on black, if no other characters have it as their main she must tank it). Your match damage will suffer as a result of not using the highest ones possible but at least you can bring support characters without them getting murdered. The downside is that you won't be able to spread out damage in a match being unable to allow a character to jump to the front (unless they have priority on the secondary colors).

If I hit on all 3 of their blues, Falcon would tank it as he has the highest match damage and all 3 of them chose to defer.

Unknown

I appreciate the proposal, but a priority toggle would require numerous concerns to be addressed first:

• Does lower priority also lower actual match damage? Keep in mind that line clears from match-4/5's or abilities that destroy tiles will not necessarily use the damage of the tile owners.
• If the damage is not lowered, you can create highly unintuitive situations where downing an enemy results in the opposing team gaining damage. Match-4/5's and tile destruction abilities will also be dealing uncharacteristically high damage in comparison to simple match damage.
• If the damage is lowered, how would you communicate this clearly on the current interface without requiring players to carefully inspect each opponent they are facing?
• If the damage is lowered, will the low priority character still match with lower damage when the higher priority character is downed?
• How would this priority toggle interact with abilities that target the strongest color?
• How would you resolve conflicts between multiple characters with lowered priority?
• etc.etc.

While the priority toggle seems attractive, it will require a considerable amount of developer time and resource to implement correctly. The amount of complexity that such a system will inject into the game can be off-putting to players as well. Priority toggles also have the potential to greatly increase the amount of micromanagement necessary for optimal play. When grinding PvE events is already such a soul crushing endeavor, giving the player an option to conserve health packs by constantly adjusting the match priority of their team before a battle will just encourage even more tedium.

In contrast to a priority toggle as you suggest, an option to de-level characters is simple for players to understand, will not negatively impact the gameplay experience by introducing more micromanagement options, and will be easy for the developers to implement by adding a single button to the character sheet with a pop-up window for confirmation.

dkffiv

Vynyv wrote:

I appreciate the proposal, but a priority toggle would require numerous concerns to be addressed first:

• Does lower priority also lower actual match damage? Keep in mind that line clears from match-4/5's or abilities that destroy tiles will not necessarily use the damage of the tile owners.
• If the damage is not lowered, you can create highly unintuitive situations where downing an enemy results in the opposing team gaining damage. Match-4/5's and tile destruction abilities will also be dealing uncharacteristically high damage in comparison to simple match damage.
• If the damage is lowered, how would you communicate this clearly on the current interface without requiring players to carefully inspect each opponent they are facing?
• If the damage is lowered, will the low priority character still match with lower damage when the higher priority character is downed?
• How would this priority toggle interact with abilities that target the strongest color?
• How would you resolve conflicts between multiple characters with lowered priority?
• etc.etc.

While the priority toggle seems attractive, it will require a considerable amount of developer time and resource to implement correctly. The amount of complexity that such a system will inject into the game can be off-putting to players as well. Priority toggles also have the potential to greatly increase the amount of micromanagement necessary for optimal play. When grinding PvE events is already such a soul crushing endeavor, giving the player an option to conserve health packs by constantly adjusting the match priority of their team before a battle will just encourage even more tedium.

In contrast to a priority toggle as you suggest, an option to de-level characters is simple for players to understand, will not negatively impact the gameplay experience by introducing more micromanagement options, and will be easy for the developers to implement by adding a single button to the character sheet with a pop-up window for confirmation.

Priority is much more intuitive than de-leveling. Why would you ever want to unlevel a character in an rpg?

Lower priority lowers match damage. Very simple for the game to understand, in the example I made OBW's value would be used for all of her tiles. I am fairly certain that match 4 / tile destruction does calculate the value for each individual tile and adds them up. In my experience X-Force does a lot more damage when I use my real character rather than the loaner.

AI will never use the priority system, the whole point of the system is to allow players to choose who tanks after matching a color. For a player in this example, if OBW is downed Falcon would take over for tanking blue (much like it currently behaves. If falcon is downed in a normal match capam would take over).

As far as Surgical Strike / strongest color, it would compare your 6 match damages and pick the highest (in the event of a tie it goes down to position in the lineup like it currently does). Players could theoretically change the priority toggles to try to prevent Xforce from surgical striking a good color for their team but for me personally I don't think its worth the effort as you basically never want him getting Surgical Strike off anyway. I would much rather funnel the damage to my tanks.

If there is a conflict in the rollover it behaves like it currently does, picking position 1 or 2 depending on ties.

Salgy

dkffiv wrote:

Why would you ever want to unlevel a character in an rpg?

Only reason I can think of is wanting to correct the rookie move of overleveling an under-covered 3+* character which can affect pve scaling...

What I would like to see (hopefully on a similar enough note, not trying to derail the subject) is when you pick up a 14th or 15th cover, it moves the cover(s) you lowered in your avaliable rewards so you can try out all the different variations & determine what you feel is best...

Unknown

I will entertain this discussion some more, but please do not hit the reply button before you finish reading.

dkffiv wrote:

Priority is much more intuitive than de-leveling. Why would you ever want to unlevel a character in an rpg?

MPQ is a primarily a match-3 game, with some elements of a collectable card game, and a splash of RPG leveling. In terms of the story, de-leveling could easily be rebranded and explained away as a process that reverses or drains off the effects of iso-8 on your heroes. It is also intuitive in terms of game mechanics because its effects are clear. Players are already familiar with the benefits brought by leveling a hero up, and will therefore be able to understand the implications of de-leveling a hero without having to learn a new system.

dkffiv wrote:

Lower priority lowers match damage. Very simple for the game to understand, in the example I made OBW's value would be used for all of her tiles.

It may be simple for the game to understand once it is implemented, but how much developer time and effort will it require? Will the system be easy to understand by the players? More specifically, will it be easy to understand for players other than you?

dkffiv wrote:

I am fairly certain that match 4 / tile destruction does calculate the value for each individual tile and adds them up.

In line clears for match-4/5's, the damage for each tile cleared by the "line splash" is calculated as if it were destroyed by the character owning the tiles in the match 4/5. In your example, if Captain America made a match-4 in yellow and the line clear destroyed blue tiles, will those blue tiles deal 61 damage, or 61 damage nerfed?

Don't bother answering that by the way. In case it is not apparent yet, these are all rhetorical questions I am posing to you to point out that a priority system still needs more design work, work that you should pursue in a separate thread if you so desire.

Speaking of which, thank you for restraining yourself, Salgy.

dkffiv wrote:

In my experience X-Force does a lot more damage when I use my real character rather than the loaner.

I don't see how this is relevant to if you have different levels and covers, but you don't have to explain that.

dkffiv wrote:

AI will never use the priority system, the whole point of the system is to allow players to choose who tanks after matching a color.

This is another detailed that you did not explain in your original post. What will you say to complaints that this gives players who use the priority system no penalty in defense, while they can reap all the benefits in offense? No, don't answer that here.

dkffiv wrote:

For a player in this example, if OBW is downed Falcon would take over for tanking blue (much like it currently behaves. If falcon is downed in a normal match capam would take over).

But will Falcon still have his blue damage nerfed now that no one else has a primary blue color? No, don't answer that either.

dkffiv wrote:

As far as Surgical Strike / strongest color, it would compare your 6 match damages and pick the highest (in the event of a tie it goes down to position in the lineup like it currently does).

Please remember to include these details when you formally propose the priority system in your own thread.

dkffiv wrote:

Players could theoretically change the priority toggles to try to prevent Xforce from surgical striking a good color for their team but for me personally I don't think its worth the effort as you basically never want him getting Surgical Strike off anyway. I would much rather funnel the damage to my tanks.

There will always be players who will feel pressured to fiddle with the priorities before every battle. Game systems also have to accommodate the future growth of the game. While only X-Force currently has an ability that targets the strongest color, there could easily be new characters introduced next week that also have powers that interact with match damage. A character could just as well have an ability that targets enemies/colors that are weakest for example, or one that boosts or reduces match damage from a specific color, etc. etc. All of these would be increasingly difficult to program if they much also interact with a priority system.

Let me summarize my objection to a priority system concisely one last time:

• The devil is in the details, and the details have not been sorted out yet.
• Due to the many details, the design and programming costs are high, both for the initial implementation of the system and to keep it updated with new characters.
• Extra details make the system harder to learn for players.
• The ability to freely gain an advantage in battle will add an undesirable micromanagement burden.

I do not think the developers will be receptive to your idea given these concerns, but you are welcome to try, just in your own thread thank you.