Can we please get more rewards added to the PVE

Unknown

Lanko8 wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

I won't get in on the good/bad roster vs casual/hardcore thing, 'cause like you said, it's semantics. However...

simonsez wrote:

if PvP progressions aren't tuned such that most people clear the max level, PvE progressions shouldn't be tuned that way either

...I politely disagree.

PvP is a competition. Everyone isn't supposed to win everything.

PvE should be "Player vs Environment/Enemy". It shouldn't be inherently be a competition, so everything being earnable by all players that put forth reasonable effort is realistic in my opinion.

Not true. I know you are talking about progression rewards, but PVE IS a competition between players. Sure, i can't lose points but neither can the other players. That guy got 2.000 points? I need to get 2.100 and so on.
It's funny, because that's how PvP would be if you couldn't lose points.

True PVEs are Gauntlet, DDQ, Ultron and recently, Growth Industry.
You play them without having to worry about what other people are doing. And even then sometimes people don't get all the rewards as well, specially in Gauntlet/Ultron. And even a dev came to give tips about how to beat GI.

I think they could start thinking about removing the placements in PVE or running more no-placement events. Just hope they don't do more events like Ultron...while the boss battle is fun, the rest of the event is a distasteful grind.

for noncompetitions see Gauntlet, Growth Industry, Ultron. Even then D3 tried to make gauntlet a competition once, rofl

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

PvE should be "Player vs Environment/Enemy".

But it's not. So until it is, this is a silly and completely invalid basis for an argument.

GothicKratos

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

PvE should be "Player vs Environment/Enemy".

But it's not. So until it is, this is a silly and completely invalid basis for an argument.

So instead let's argue to make it even less like it should be?

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

So instead let's argue to make it even less like it should be?

No, instead we can argue about this whole idea of what it "should be". There are plenty of people, eg those who finish T10 in every event, who think it "should be" exactly as it is. Just because there's a segment of people who don't care to put in the work to rank highly, doesn't mean they become the arbiters of what PvE "should be".

GurlBYE

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

So instead let's argue to make it even less like it should be?

No, instead we can argue about this whole idea of what it "should be". There are plenty of people, eg those who finish T10 in every event, who think it "should be" exactly as it is. Just because there's a segment of people who don't care to put in the work to rank highly, doesn't mean they become the arbiters of what PvE "should be".

I wonder where in any post anyone said you'd 'work' any less 'hard' for the same rewards as others.

All it'd take is observing on average how much it took players to reach top 10 of the past god knows how many pve's there are and set the goals based around that.

Rank, that word in particular, doesn't work in a PVE structure. Rank instantly denotes competition between players.

No one is saying that current top pve people would get less awards infact, give them more. Just make it so that I'm not literally better off entering a pve 6 days late then playing towards my personal goals.

snlf25

Kirestananderson01 wrote:

just make max progression much harder to hit than it currently is. That also works.

Thumbs down on that one. I'd like to see something generic after the final progression like 500 iso every extra thousand points or something of that nature. It would encourage late bloomers to join events from the start because who doesn't need iso? I'd also like to see the 7 day events saved for 4*s and I think every 4* deserves its own event. Don't want to see new 4* prizes for the 250th run of Prodigal Sun. They should be special!

GurlBYE

snlf25 wrote:

Kirestananderson01 wrote:

just make max progression much harder to hit than it currently is. That also works.

Thumbs down on that one. I'd like to see something generic after the final progression like 500 iso every extra thousand points or something of that nature. It would encourage late bloomers to join events from the start because who doesn't need iso? I'd also like to see the 7 day events saved for 4*s and I think every 4* deserves its own event. Don't want to see new 4* prizes for the 250th run of Prodigal Sun. They should be special!

How about no 7 day events.

darkmagearcanis

If we are talking more reward for the amount of grind that we do. Could we not ask to have more rewards per node instead with better drop rates?

Edit: And for the love of Odin. can we stop with the 20 iso drops, something such as 50 iso would suffice.

snlf25

I think 7 days is okay for a new 4*, it gives it a certain gravitas.

GothicKratos

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

So instead let's argue to make it even less like it should be?

No, instead we can argue about this whole idea of what it "should be". There are plenty of people, eg those who finish T10 in every event, who think it "should be" exactly as it is. Just because there's a segment of people who don't care to put in the work to rank highly, doesn't mean they become the arbiters of what PvE "should be".

This is such an inaccurate sidestep that I'm probably just going to walk away after this post, but...

I used the phrase should be because that's what PvE is, by definition, not because I'm trying to arbitrate what something is. PvE is supposed to be a competition with the AI, not with other players, so yes, players should have to put in work to get rewards (as I said above "so everything being earnable by all players that put forth reasonable effort"), but they shouldn't have to compete against one another for them. That's not what PvE is.

As should be obvious, that's what PvP is, Player versus Player - you know, by definition, not by what somebody wants it to be - the competition with other players.

simonsez

GurlBYE wrote:

I wonder where in any post anyone said you'd 'work' any less 'hard' for the same rewards as others.

When people **** and moan about how they hate having to time clears and grind nodes, they're complaining about not having to 'work' 'hard'

jojeda654

GothicKratos wrote:

I used the phrase should be because that's what PvE is, by definition, not because I'm trying to arbitrate what something is. PvE is supposed to be a competition with the AI, not with other players, so yes, players should have to put in work to get rewards (as I said above "so everything being earnable by all players that put forth reasonable effort"), but they shouldn't have to compete against one another for them. That's not what PvE is.

As should be obvious, that's what PvP is, Player versus Player - you know, by definition, not by what somebody wants it to be - the competition with other players.

Sure, PvE should be PvE because it's called PvE. Thing is, it's not called PvE in-game.
If you look back at the Q&A vids, the devs really try hard to avoid using the term PvE. They always refer to them as Story events.
PvE is a term that playerbase adopted. And I think this is why the expectations are so misguided.
Same thing with PvP. PvP implies real time matches, yet it's called Versus in-game.
Really the main difference in both tabs is that in Story the devs set the enemy team, while in Versus the player picks them out.

I am not arguing against reworking the way prizes are distributed. I think it's awesome that after two years were finally getting new ways to win covers. (DDQ and Growth Industry being the best implementations. Ultron needing a few more tweaks.) I'm only arguing that technically, it's not called PvE.

Unknown

snlf25 wrote:

Kirestananderson01 wrote:

just make max progression much harder to hit than it currently is. That also works.

Thumbs down on that one. I'd like to see something generic after the final progression like 500 iso every extra thousand points or something of that nature. It would encourage late bloomers to join events from the start because who doesn't need iso? I'd also like to see the 7 day events saved for 4*s and I think every 4* deserves its own event. Don't want to see new 4* prizes for the 250th run of Prodigal Sun. They should be special!

they need to add a loot table to PVE nodes and "forever" progression to PVE(like Ultron, where it'd just reset)

snlf25 wrote:

I think 7 days is okay for a new 4*, it gives it a certain gravitas.

if by gravitas you mean the same amount of work for 72 more hours for a 4 day event, you right

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

I'm probably just going to walk away after this post

Please do, because as much as you want it to be true, there's nothing about the definition of a PvE that contradicts players having scores assigned and then having those scores ranked against other players. What separates PvP and PvE is the point-stealing aspect, ie whether or not your performance directly impacts other players. That's what the "vP" connotes. "vE" just means your performance isn't detracting from other players. Doesn't mean it's not meant to be competitive.

Take sports... boxing is PvP. MMA is PvP. Football is PvP. The actions you take have a direct and painful effect on your opponent. But something like golf, is PvE. Bowling is PvE. Gymnastics is PvE. Most track and field is PvE. Your performance in these sports has absolutely no effect on your competitors. Does that mean these shouldn't be competitively scored? Do we give the claret jug to the guy with the best score, or do we give a claret jug to everyone who breaks par? Do we give the gold medal to the guy who has the best long jump, or do we give one to anyone who cracks 27 feet? So please, stop these false assertions that there's something inherent in the concept of "PvE" that implies "non-competitive".

Linkster79

simonsez wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

I wonder where in any post anyone said you'd 'work' any less 'hard' for the same rewards as others.

When people **** and moan about how they hate having to time clears and grind nodes, they're complaining about not having to 'work' 'hard'

I do work hard. On average 60 hours a week hard, which is why I am a casual player. It is in yours and some others interest for a higher reward tier, most likely at the cost of bottom to mid level tier. However it is in mine and others best interests to keep progression as is and let the rest of you to fight over ranking rewards. Until leaderboards are made redundant (which they should be) the only change that I would like to see is a small increase in the 20 iso wooden spoon.

GothicKratos

simonsez wrote:

Take sports... boxing is PvP. MMA is PvP. Football is PvP. The actions you take have a direct and painful effect on your opponent. But something like golf, is PvE. Bowling is PvE. Gymnastics is PvE. Most track and field is PvE. Your performance in these sports has absolutely no effect on your competitors.

What? No. If you're playing competitive sports your competing versus the other players, whether that be directly on a court, or indirectly through progress/score. That's the point. You're competing with another person. Your interpretation of what PvE is, is well, just that - an interpretation.

PvP literally means player versus player - it doesn't matter if you're facing them down face-to-face like a MOBA, FPS, or Fighting game, or if you're facing off indirectly like in Leaderboard schemes (i.e. comparing scores, efficiencies, speed, etc) or the faux-PvP we,and other games, have (where you're gauged on how efficiently you can perform versus how efficiently other players can perform). You're pitting against the performance of another player.

PvE literally means Player versus Environment. PvE is basically traditional gaming - Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy, Dark Souls - how hard can you stomp the AI (and sometimes it's obstacles or allies). Think Angry Bird, think Tap Titans, think Candy Crush - yes, some of these games have leaderboards, but you're not rewarded with anything but gloating rights for top placement.

simonsez wrote:

Do we give the claret jug to the guy with the best score, or do we give a claret jug to everyone who breaks par? Do we give the gold medal to the guy who has the best long jump, or do we give one to anyone who cracks 27 feet?

You create a difficulty curve. Players that can trump the difficulty curve get all the rewards (think the Gauntlet). Additionally, we already have built in methods to grind for rewards, so there's that too - can't beat the final boss, well you can grind other nodes and still get rewards - you know, kinda like it is now, but without the stress to compete with out players.

tanis3303

GothicKratos wrote:

You create a difficulty curve. Players that can trump the difficulty curve get all the rewards (think the Gauntlet). Additionally, we already have built in methods to grind for rewards, so there's that too - can't beat the final boss, well you can grind other nodes and still get rewards - you know, kinda like it is now, but without the stress to compete with out players.

Or this: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31383

I'm gonna keep suggesting this, because while yes, I totally stole it from Record Keeper, I still think it's a fantastic idea for MPQ.

Technically, Simon isn't wrong here. Nowhere did D3 or Demiurge ever say that Story mode isn't supposed to be competitive. We the players adopted the term PvE on our own, who are we to say it wasn't D3's intention to have their entire game be a world wide competition (minus DDQ/Growth Industry of course). But while he's not wrong, that doesn't stop me from wanting it to NOT be that way. Something like the FFRK-type of system would still let folks compete...with themselves! Can you grind down enough nodes to get everything? GO, GO, GO!! ...But it also gives the rest of us a decent shot at some goodies, and it lets us play for them on our own schedule.

You could even address the issue of players intentionally gimping their rosters to make Story events easier by locking the most points under static "Hard" nodes. I'm saying start them at lvl 200+, regardless of your roster. Can't beat them? Get stronger, try next time. There's still enough available points to get good stuff without the hardest nodes, but only the strongest players are going to have a shot at literally everything on offer.

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

PvE literally means Player versus Environment.

If you don't think that's EXACTLY and LITERALLY what golf is, sorry, can't help you...

udonomefoo

All those sports analogies don't work because they are competitions of skill. In this game, pve is not (for the most part) a competition of skill, it's a competition to see who can dedicate the most time to the game.

TxMoose

I've posted other places that I would prefer a progression only pve. keep current progression as-is and incorporate all of the placement awards into progression past the current progression level going out about 2 to 2.5X what current progression is. maybe total of 3x progression for the t1-2 awards. not sure how they could do it but they need to do away with the refresh timers too. obviously that would make grinding scores that much easier, but its kinda silly to be tied to the 8hr timer.