Game Difficulty!

TheOncomingStorm

babinro wrote:

The problem with DDQ is that it's a joke after a while.

Vets just cruise through DDQ to pass the time for it's rewards.
There's no skill or challenge associated with it and it simply becomes a chore over time (albeit a relaxing one).

Scaling is the only thing that prevents the Gauntlet and PvE from falling into the same problems. You don't want it to be an easy experience because it's boring and more importantly because the amount of grinding to compete with other top end players would go beyond absurdity. I think scaling has a proper place in this game even if the brackets were more specialized for player tiers than they currently are (noob and vet only). They act as a natural cut off point and ensure health packs are drained so there's no endless grind even through people with perfect rosters.

That being said there are times where scaling SHOULD NOT EXIST.
One prime example is The Guantlet.
I had 9 maxed out nodes yesterday at level 395 and this morning I have 19 at level 395. Why?
There's no reason for community scaling to impact this event.

The same goes for limited roster PvE's.
Why would you 'punish' anyone with an established roster when they can't even use it to an advantage?

I pretty much agree with you.

1. If gauntlet is scaled to my roster (meaning my roster should be able to beat nodes the way that they are scaled), then why does scaling increase for all my nodes when I beat one. The event was designed for me to beat that node. I beat that node like the event was intended by the game design. However, then scaling skyrockets for my other nodes.

2. Again the same problem with gauntlet that never gets addressed. Because beating nodes increases scaling, we're lucky to play through it once. We are not able to reasonably replay the nodes to get the other rewards out of them.

3. While I agreed scaling should be higher to keep the even interesting, too often I find the beginning scaling for the hardest nodes are about what the scaling should be closer to the end of the event than the beginning. Nodes (even hard ones) should start out reasonably beatable, then go up as the event goes.

4. Community scaling? Why is this still a discussion? Why is it still here? No one (and I mean no one thinks this is a good idea or makes any sense). Players should not be penalized for other players (especially when those other players are less skilled and playing sub-optimally). Also, it's nice someone else can boost to heck and only use their best team to repeatedly beat a node to a pulp, but I should not be forced to the same measures do to my scaling being adversely affected by their illadvised actions. If someone wants to play poorly, penalize them with their scaling, not everyone else. This by far the most perverse aspect of this game. The fact this is still here is a huge indictment of decision-making on this issue. They might have a really good rational and well reasoned reason for community scaling, but whatever reason that is, it is not translating into player gameplay experience they way they think it is. In other words, it might be a great concept in some game theory; however, in practice, it is really just tiny kitty'd up.

Unknown

babinro wrote:

The problem with DDQ is that it's a joke after a while.

Vets just cruise through DDQ to pass the time for it's rewards.
There's no skill or challenge associated with it and it simply becomes a chore over time (albeit a relaxing one).
Scaling is the only thing that prevents the Gauntlet and PvE from falling into the same problems. You don't want it to be an easy experience because it's boring and more importantly because the amount of grinding to compete with other top end players would go beyond absurdity. I think scaling has a proper place in this game even if the brackets were more specialized for player tiers than they currently are (noob and vet only). They act as a natural cut off point and ensure health packs are drained so there's no endless grind even through people with perfect rosters.

That being said there are times where scaling SHOULD NOT EXIST.
One prime example is The Guantlet.
I had 9 maxed out nodes yesterday at level 395 and this morning I have 19 at level 395. Why?
There's no reason for community scaling to impact this event.

The same goes for limited roster PvE's.
Why would you 'punish' anyone with an established roster when they can't even use it to an advantage?

DDQ might be a joke when you've got a roster full of viable 3*s & 4*s. For those with 1*s & 2*s, it's a reason to remain hopeful and keep opening up the game.

I still consider it a small miracle every time my "2*s that could" survives it, and the pay-outs are far from amusing. They're the only tangible progress some players get on a semi-consistent basis.

Kind of hoping D3 keeps this "problem" around for a long, looong time, because while the vets might not need or actually enjoy it, I'd suspect there a few non-vets who do...

Just sayin'.

DBC

throvolos

udonomefoo wrote:

emaker27 wrote:

A guy/gal with a max character of 70 (1 cover 4*) was able to beat 100% of the third gauntlet part. Should that be expected of any game?

Can we go back to this part? Is this a rumor you heard, because I'm having a really hard time believing this.

Ditto. I have a few lvl 140 3stars, a bunch of under-100 3stars, a bunch of 70ish twostars, and a single 4star over 170. I feel like I'm in that no-man's land of not having any maxxed out characters and I feel like I'm constantly getting screwed in PvE.

I got lucky with cascades on the first two dots of the third gauntlet. After that, I could not get past any dots without "drop all whales on 'em" with Deadpool. I never got past the fourth dot, after numerous tries.

Stax the Foyer

MarvelDestiny wrote:

I agree with you Moon. I'll make a suggestion here that I've already made a couple times before:

D3 should code in player-set difficulty levels. The coding for this is not rocket science, simply implement a variable multiplier applied to scaling/mmr, progression pts, iso/hp rewards, etc. (The concept is simple but I grant that combing through all the code to find every instance is, well, daunting...) D3 could even make money on the idea by making level changes cost hp.

This kind of option would keep players in the game longer resulting in increased profits. The only downside I can see is possible player abuse but an easy fix is to only enable level changes between seasons.

I am, of course, making a lot of assumptions about the logic of the code. This may not be feasible but it certainly seems like an easy feature to implement.

I like the idea of a scaling-based multiplier for rewards, as well. Even if it's not something that the player can select themselves, it'd be great to have the ISO won at the end shown, and then a big shiny "x 2.4" or similar pop up afterwards and scale your ISO reward up, proportional to the increased difficulty from scaling. Affecting PvE/PvP points gained from nodes would probably be inconsistent with the current game design, but you could definitely do it for earned ISO and HP from nodes.

One problem with the current PvE scaling implementation (one of them) is that the difficulty scales while the rewards stay constant. Nobody complains that enemies in an RPG get harder as you get stronger, because the harder enemies give you better rewards. Especially with the variable scaling that you'll see across an alliance, and the stickiness of nasty scaling, it makes sense to earn something extra for dealing with 395 nodes, and a reward multiplier does that without impacting the ranking reward structure.

It would make the bitter pill of being stuck with persistent scaling a little less bitter, and would give more ISO to the people who need it more.

ballingbees

I have previously suggested that PVE is a fair playing ground, where every roster of any shape or size can compete on an equal footing. And in saying so, invited my fair share of derison and ridicule. Now I have an established 3* roster, and experienced the famed Scaling for myself, I still stay by my previous comment.

As a 1* player, the featured at lvl130 can just about carry you through all nodes based on match damage alone.
As a 2* player, scaling is not too bad, and the 2* cast have a good synergy among them. Using the 3 featured 2* characters can carry you through all the nodes. Easier if you have a transitioning roster of some usable 3* at a similar level.
As a 3* player, scaling is way harder. But you do have a much larger cast to pick from to tackle each specialty node, or at the very least, there are more characters to spread out the damage. Goon node? Bird man, you're on. Hood node? Fist, you're up. Fist node? Hulk, smash. A 1*/2* player does not have the luxury to pick from such a large cast to compete. Yes the nodes are harder, but a full 3* cast can manage it just fine.

I cleared the first edition of Gauntlet as a 2* player (used 2X superwhales). Cleared the 2nd edition as a transitioner (used 4X superwhales). Just cleared the latest edition using a full 3* cast (used 1X superwhales).
I've won PVEs as a 1*, 2*, and a 3* player. It comes down to whether you decide to commit the time to grind out the nodes. "Scaling" is a handy excuse I'm tempted to use for myself when the grind is simply unappealing, although I know it is still doable if I really want to.

PVP is a completely different monster. No beginner can or should be able to touch the top rewards, that's where it rewards you for developing your roster. PVE is where everyone can play, I don't see why a beginner should be denied the chance to enjoy the PVE experience, having already been shut out of half of the game (PVP) to start with.

emaker27

udonomefoo wrote:

emaker27 wrote:

A guy/gal with a max character of 70 (1 cover 4*) was able to beat 100% of the third gauntlet part. Should that be expected of any game?

Can we go back to this part? Is this a rumor you heard, because I'm having a really hard time believing this.

Here's your proof.... First person on the scoreboard and first page of their roster.
http://i.imgur.com/2zTvvTs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6dbXvMI.jpg

emaker27

ballingbees wrote:

I have previously suggested that PVE is a fair playing ground, where every roster of any shape or size can compete on an equal footing.

I'm glad someone with an opposing view chimed in! I have some more questions.

Is this the first game you've encountered with this set up?
In light of a 1* player being able to win on match damage and 3* players needing to do more to win, do you think the rewards should be the same for everyone?

And for me personally, I acknowledge the advantage in PvP (I get attacked a little less) but since the MMR changes I'm playing maxed teams from the very start. Due to that I barely touch PvP.


Slightly off topic

---

My biggest problem is that rather than fix root causes of issues, they are fixed other ways.
1. Shield hopping a problem? Instead of limiting total shield purchases, implement a timed system.
2. People are tanking to lower MMR (because they want an easier time)? Instead of compromising and giving them a little easier time from the start, get rid of MMR completely and make it difficult.
3. People are scoring too many points (because everyone loves points)? Instead of changing reward tiers or having a percentile reward system, change a bunch of things around scoring; shields, points earned/loss, MMR...
4. People are going into prologue to heal? Instead of reducing heal times, implement "burst of healing"
5. Beginners want to compete without getting crushed by vets, and vets want to compete without seeing beginners beat them? Instead of separate events, implement an everyone is on equal footing approach.

When players game the system this much, they are doing it for a real reason. They get more enjoyment after they're done jumping through those hoops. Sometimes I think that's missed on people in general. So ideally the game maker would succeed in finding a compromise instead of cutting off the workaround.

"Destiny" comes to mind when they got rid of the treasure cave and how not to fix the issue. "GTA Online" also comes to mind when they changed how much money you could earn for easy missions, BUT they also increased money earned across the board. That's the ideal fix. They understood why players were spamming certain missions and compromised.

tl;dr Game makers should seek understanding of why users play the way they do and implement a compromise when that conflicts harshly with their own thoughts.

Malcrof

emaker27 wrote:

udonomefoo wrote:

emaker27 wrote:

A guy/gal with a max character of 70 (1 cover 4*) was able to beat 100% of the third gauntlet part. Should that be expected of any game?

Can we go back to this part? Is this a rumor you heard, because I'm having a really hard time believing this.

Here's your proof.... First person on the scoreboard and first page of their roster.
http://i.imgur.com/2zTvvTs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6dbXvMI.jpg

Similar one in my bracket, except that to go along with the 1 - 3 cover 4*'s, they have about 30 fully covered characters @ lvl 70......

ballingbees

emaker27 wrote:

I'm glad someone with an opposing view chimed in! I have some more questions.
Is this the first game you've encountered with this set up?

I must admit that it is

In light of a 1* player being able to win on match damage and 3* players needing to do more to win, do you think the rewards should be the same for everyone?

Honestly I do not have a strong opinion on this particular aspect. I was leaning towards having fair rewards for everyone willing to put in the effort to win it. However there are some good points raised by others on segregation of prizes, which make good sense too.

Digressing, this past Gauntlet was a bit more fun for me, as I now have more characters viable than before. A 1* player may be able to match damage his way through that Daken/Cage/UltronPrime node. I had to plan out the match and Loki them at just the right time. It takes more effort, but the victory was very satisfying.

And for me personally, I acknowledge the advantage in PvP (I get attacked a little less) but since the MMR changes I'm playing maxed teams from the very start. Due to that I barely touch PvP.

After (finally) having a roster able to dabble in PVP, I now understand why veterans were shunning PVE in favour of PVP. It is indeed more rewarding versus time spent, and the effort to gain top prizes, though still difficult, makes it logical to upgrade your squad and makes it feel all worthwhile. It's two very different playgrounds, and I'm actually glad that they have very different formats, so there is a choice available (whether today you feel like being screwed by scaling, or by MMR).

Unknown

I think a lot of these changes are in place because they are attempting to cater to vets.
1. Shield hopping. As opposed to nuking shields, they've integrated it into their system. With the new point loss system in PVP they're basically telling people, "If you want to play high level, you have to shield hop." This benefits the high level players who were already shield hopping.
2. PVE, is made difficult so that there is still a challenge at the highest levels, gauntlet absurdly so.

Honestly, I think they've done a good job of sharding people, the only problem being that people in competitive shards complain about how easy the weaker shards have it without realizing the whole system and realizing that those people will get moved up next event. With a weaker roster, you can get ok rewards some of the time, or great rewards very rarely.