Even the winners usually don't feel that great

mjh

The state of the rash of character releases and PVE scaling/grinding couldn't be summed up better than this

Jonny1Punch wrote:

"Even the winners usually don't feel that great".

This is a terrible way for your player base to feel, and D3 is not listening. They did back-to-back character releases before I felt they learned their lesson from the backlash, but no. I'd like some communication as to what is happening, on a long weekend of all times.

Right now I am looking at this:



The problem and the proposed solution. Two PVEs that are introducing two characters that I do not have or for

no, 3900 is not a lot, after 2 slots you're almost under 2000 which leaves you not much to hop with. 172k to level a 3*, let's not even talk about 4s

Wrap it all up in the time spent to acquire them through ridiculous scaling and alliance hopping for t50 and there is nobody who can keep this up for long.

This is clear indication that the guys at D3 do not play this game, like really play it.

I would like some communication as to what the thought process behind these 2 back-to-back character releases is.

dkffiv

If you search for most recent red posts they all are directed at either patch notes or the meme contest. Don't hold your breath on a response.

https://youtu.be/if27InJBtEI?t=4m17s
Nobody wins in the dairy challenge.

acescracked

I understand your pain cause I feel the pressure also. But....

People are playing these events and competing hard. You personally can get off the hamster wheel. In pve I always felt I needed top 10, then top 50. ISO8 I finished like 60th with not that much effort. I only got one cover + alliance reward cover and I feel much better.

Just because you and I don't t like the frequency of events and new covers others might like it just fine. The thing is, currently people who want to play hard all the time can and you and I can just decide to play very little or not at all. No matter if it stays the way things are now or go way down someone will be unhappy (or happy, whatever the case may be).

dkffiv

acescracked wrote:

I understand your pain cause I feel the pressure also. But....

People are playing these events and competing hard. You personally can get off the hamster wheel. In pve I always felt I needed top 10, then top 50. ISO8 I finished like 60th with not that much effort. I only got one cover + alliance reward cover and I feel much better.

Just because you and I don't t like the frequency of events and new covers others might like it just fine. The thing is, currently people who want to play hard all the time can and you and I can just decide to play very little or not at all. No matter if it stays the way things are now or go way down someone will be unhappy (or happy, whatever the case may be).

On the flip side the game can't really handle it either. The solution to "too many characters" was to remove a large chunk of them for months at a time. New players complain about roster costs and they keep adding 2 a month (and these players either have to sell their low # covers or buy more slots hoping they get more eventually). More characters also means longer periods of time between when they're featured again in PvE or PvP.

Unknown

Winning is overrated, but it still beats losing.

acescracked

dkffiv wrote:

acescracked wrote:

I understand your pain cause I feel the pressure also. But....

People are playing these events and competing hard. You personally can get off the hamster wheel. In pve I always felt I needed top 10, then top 50. ISO8 I finished like 60th with not that much effort. I only got one cover + alliance reward cover and I feel much better.

Just because you and I don't t like the frequency of events and new covers others might like it just fine. The thing is, currently people who want to play hard all the time can and you and I can just decide to play very little or not at all. No matter if it stays the way things are now or go way down someone will be unhappy (or happy, whatever the case may be).

On the flip side the game can't really handle it either. The solution to "too many characters" was to remove a large chunk of them for months at a time. New players complain about roster costs and they keep adding 2 a month (and these players either have to sell their low # covers or buy more slots hoping they get more eventually). More characters also means longer periods of time between when they're featured again in PvE or PvP.

This isn't pokemon, ya don't have to collect em all . I sold 2* ms marvel to make room for khan.

dkffiv

acescracked wrote:

This isn't pokemon, ya don't have to collect em all . I sold 2* ms marvel to make room for khan.

Don't you remember how the first set of characters to be vaulted were arguably the best ones and they didn't come back for months? Transition players got kicked pretty hard on that one. Thor Wolverine Punisher Torch are gone, hope you like Colossus Beast and Doc Oc if I recall. Don't bother collecting the good ones, take these.

Unknown

dkffiv wrote:

acescracked wrote:

This isn't pokemon, ya don't have to collect em all . I sold 2* ms marvel to make room for khan.

Don't you remember how the first set of characters to be vaulted were arguably the best ones and they didn't come back for months? Transition players got kicked pretty hard on that one. Thor...ess? Wolvypoo LittleBunnyPunPun Torch are gone, hope you like AnIron...Man TinyBlueKitty and Doc Oc if I recall. Don't bother collecting the good ones, take these.

So far as new characters go you obviously would spend more effort on the characters that seem stronger than the weak ones. If we're talking about vaulted character no longer obtainable at all, that's not nothing to do with the grinding nature of PvE as you indeed have a situation where you cannot get a certain character even if you autowin everything. Even for someone like Thor, I'm pretty sure most people got their covers via the 1000 PvP progression so sure having those 3 covers the first time Thor was available helps a lot, but it's still about a month head start even if you started with nothing compared to the guy who started with 1/1/1 (and most don't have that from one event) and then just work his way via PvP progression.

dkffiv

Phantron wrote:

So far as new characters go you obviously would spend more effort on the characters that seem stronger than the weak ones. If we're talking about vaulted character no longer obtainable at all, that's not nothing to do with the grinding nature of PvE as you indeed have a situation where you cannot get a certain character even if you autowin everything. Even for someone like Thor...ess?, I'm pretty sure most people got their covers via the 1000 PvP progression so sure having those 3 covers the first time Thor...ess? was available helps a lot, but it's still about a month head start even if you started with nothing compared to the guy who started with 1/1/1 (and most don't have that from one event) and then just work his way via PvP progression.

It doesn't affect me but the comment was directed at the supposed fact that tons of new characters is a good thing and people just like the complain. More characters means more vaulting and increases the time between when those characters show up as featured again. It makes it harder and harder for transitioning players to finish the ones they want other than figuring out a way to get 1 of each type of cover and then buying the rest with HP.

Unknown

I remember winning PvE once as #1. That felt great for about 10 seconds after the results. Then it was back to grinding.

Jonny1Punch

Thank you for the shout-out Mjh. To this day I stand by everything I wrote in that extremely heartfelt post.

However my post as well as mischiefmakers topic BOTH went green and we're still completely ignored by red.

Everyday I see people make meaningful and constructive post's,ideas and suggestions here on the forum.
Yet it all seems to be falling on deaf ears. Whether you love the current direction of MPQ or like myself are being consistently shocked and dissapointed by it...... You can't deny we deserve to have our input acknowledged and questions answered.

We provided our reasoning for expanding the 4* reward structure to at least T100. We gave good reasoning and logic that was far beyond anyone's personal agenda. So if D3 truly feels top 50 is appropriate and fair..... I would simply love to hear the logic and motive behind that. Not even to debate it or criticize. Im curious if they have a deeper meaning then what appears to be a selfish,community/player punishing,shameless and stale cash grab.

MarvelDestiny

dkffiv wrote:

Phantron wrote:

So far as new characters go you obviously would spend more effort on the characters that seem stronger than the weak ones. If we're talking about vaulted character no longer obtainable at all, that's not nothing to do with the grinding nature of PvE as you indeed have a situation where you cannot get a certain character even if you autowin everything. Even for someone like Thor...ess?, I'm pretty sure most people got their covers via the 1000 PvP progression so sure having those 3 covers the first time Thor...ess? was available helps a lot, but it's still about a month head start even if you started with nothing compared to the guy who started with 1/1/1 (and most don't have that from one event) and then just work his way via PvP progression.

It doesn't affect me but the comment was directed at the supposed fact that tons of new characters is a good thing and people just like the complain. More characters means more vaulting and increases the time between when those characters show up as featured again. It makes it harder and harder for transitioning players to finish the ones they want other than figuring out a way to get 1 of each type of cover and then buying the rest with HP.

Yep. What D3 really needs to do is get rid of vaulting entirely. It may have worked when the roster list (and player base) was smaller, but now it is just gumming up the works and frustrating all involved. As a player I would like to see the lottery system shut down. But since that isn't likely, how about expanding the token types to cover a block of characters? It can be as generic as sorting the characters into equal blocks alphabetically (5 blocks of x characters) or sorting them by type (Avenger, Mutant, Villain, etc) and then issuing tokens good for that group of characters.

Whatever they do they just need to get rid of the vaulting system.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Winning is overrated, but it still beats losing.

Does it tho? I feel like, after the week I've had trying to play this game for top 10 in Brotherhood, that top 50 would have been much much nicer.

My recent PvP performances have been 1 cover in Prof X, 3 covers in Rags (STUPID easy, like nobody cared), 3 covers in KK, and I'm betting a single cover in Kingpin. I'm not sure winning does beat losing in this context, since losing means single clears and longer breaks.

Games should not typically discourage their players from wanting to play them.

Bowgentle

MarvelDestiny wrote:

Yep. What D3 really needs to do is get rid of vaulting entirely. It may have worked when the roster list (and player base) was smaller, but now it is just gumming up the works and frustrating all involved.

There was no vaulting when the roster list and player base was smaller.
Vaulting only started a few months ago and was supposed to be the answer to the "there are too many chars in the tokens which dilutes the draw rate" problem.

I think most of us anticipated this being the first try and that an optimal solution could come eventually, but I think, as with most things MPQ, the first implementation sticks around.
Probably because revisiting this takes up valuable time they could spend working on new content.
By which I mean "new characters", which seems to qualify as "content" around here.

KrazyKeylime

i don't know why they don't do an x men pack, avenger pack and villains pack to limit heroes, also lets you focus on who you want to pull. but first they need to change pricing, plan out a future for the game, earn back out trust( but they just trigger a pretty nasty cascade with these last few changes, wheres loki when you need him?) get new content and prepare for movie tie in(still waiting for winter soldier to be playable), deal with the 4* conundrum.

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

Phantron wrote:

Winning is overrated, but it still beats losing.

Does it tho? I feel like, after the week I've had trying to play this game for top 10 in Brotherhood, that top 50 would have been much much nicer.

My recent PvP performances have been 1 cover in Prof X, 3 covers in Rags (STUPID easy, like nobody cared), 3 covers in KK, and I'm betting a single cover in Kingpin. I'm not sure winning does beat losing in this context, since losing means single clears and longer breaks.

Games should not typically discourage their players from wanting to play them.

Well, finishing #9 sure is a lot better than finishing #3 in a typical PvE event.

The general problem with PvE events is that it is uncertain where you'll end up and if you know you were going to finish #3 you can probably play at least a quarter less and still cruise to a top 10 finish so it feels like you wasted all your time. Even if they made everything progression based, assuming they're tuned with the same kind of tightness it's just unrealistic for anyone to be able to tell that a progression score of 130K is something they'll be just short by 1K with 5 days still left on the event. If you map out the number of nodes played in Iso 8 for a top 2 finish I'm sure it's well above 400 (if you play 50 games every 12 hours that's unlikely enough for top 2) so it's just way too hard to see how if you'll end up hitting what you thought you were going for. PvE events are currently way too grindy to have any kind of prediction and it's never fun to find out that you grinded all this time only to fall short. If they're more predictable like Gauntlet then at least you wouldn't have to waste your time when you can't hit whatever you're shooting for.