Does the stack contribute to grind burnout. Shorten it?

nwman

Okay, in story mode, or PVE. The stack is the number of plays on a full node / pin before points go to 1

I like this game, and when playing story mode the first play through is always fun. You don't get the 20 ISO reward, and it seems a bit fresher the first time on each story imo.

While I'm not a huge fan of the 8 hour refreshes they are manageable. (There is only 1 time slot that doesn't require me to wake up in the middle of the night)

What really burns me out on this game is the grind at the end of subs to place well. Enemy of the state with survival nodes really highlighted this to me, as the time required was even higher in that event.

If each play through on a sub event takes 25 - 45 minutes depending on if you wipe, your teams, and luck, would you like to see the stack (number of plays before points go to 1) reduced, or does it feel like the number is right?

I personally would like to see it reduced, just by 1 to start, if I can save 1 play through a day on average that only nets me 180- 200 iso I am going to be happier and less burnt out.

What does everyone else feel?

Bowgentle

I still think the first iteration of TAT was perfect in that regard - two stacks, down to 1 after that.

Of course that PVE had so many other problems so most likely they'll never go back to analyze it again.

tanis3303

Yessssss! OMG, yes. I don't mind the first clear. I don't mind trying to hit the next one in exactly 8 hours. I don't mind the third one 8 hours later. But playing those same nodes 6 more times before the sub ends, then starting a new sub immediately after? No. Just no.

Orion

tanis3303 wrote:

Yessssss! OMG, yes. I don't mind the first clear. I don't mind trying to hit the next one in exactly 8 hours. I don't mind the third one 8 hours later. But playing those same nodes 6 more times before the sub ends, then starting a new sub immediately after? No. Just no.

Exactly. And you have to make sure you leave enough left in your tank to be able to finish the first clear the next sub. I remember running out of health packs and all of my essentials being dead so I couldn't do any of their nodes.

Lemminkäinen

I voted yes but I'm left wondering that if the stack was only two, then would you get a situation where you have several people doing essentially "perfect" runs and the points differences between the top would be miniscule (you would end up grinding for single points)?

simonsez

I hope everyone who's voting "shorten the stacks" has a **** roster, because that's the option that will help those people's speed clears dominate PvE.

Orion

Lemminkäinen wrote:

I voted yes but I'm left wondering that if the stack was only two, then would you get a situation where you have several people doing essentially "perfect" runs and the points differences between the top would be miniscule (you would end up grinding for single points)?

I wouldn't make it only 2, I'm just thinking less than 6. 4 is probably a good compromise. You don't want everyone to be able to able to grind it all down to 1.

Whub Whubz

But why straight to 2? Try 5 collect data .

wymtime

simonsez wrote:

I hope everyone who's voting "shorten the stacks" has a **** roster, because that's the option that will help those people's speed clears dominate PvE.

I voted yes because I just don't grind the nodes down to 1. I play as efficiently as possible and aim for top 50 in PVE. If top 20 is possible sweet, if not oh well. The grind at he end of subs would just burn me out. If this was reduced I would probably score higher I. PVE for the same amount of work. I am voting shorten because I am Lazy. In fact I might not vote at all because I am just the Lazy durring the offseason right now.

Vote yes for lazy!!

firethorne

Can I vote neither?

Yes, there is a clear problem, but timing or scaling are all ineffective Band-Aids on the flawed design.

The fix is to take a PvE where your outcome is completely dependant on how much someone else grinds and BURN IT TO THE GROUND! How about this crazy idea? If you pass the nodes, you win. Viva DDQ! Viva Gauntlet! Viva Growth Industry! Dump the grind fests of any length in the garbage.

Linkster79

The real question is why are players grinding story event missions? Again another thread about story missions that has been created by one big broken system.

As I have said numerous times, abandon leaderboards, keep competitiveness to the PvP arena and let story based events be a do at your leisure thing. How long has the Prologue had any love shown to it? Heck not even love but any attention at all? It is almost as if whoever at D3 was in charge of that area was sent to Coventry.

slidecage

tanis3303 wrote:

Yessssss! OMG, yes. I don't mind the first clear. I don't mind trying to hit the next one in exactly 8 hours. I don't mind the third one 8 hours later. But playing those same nodes 6 more times before the sub ends, then starting a new sub immediately after? No. Just no.

im guessing very few do that (at least in my brackets) What i do is hit each nod twice (gives you a 16 hour reset) and then grind

Idea
start at 2pm 16 hour reset wil be 6am

2pm hit all nods twice
work from 5 to 11 --- sleep up at 7am
7am start grinding nods for 90 mins or so
10am Check to see if any nods are worth playing and see rank ---if need pts play 30 mins if not stop

work from 11 to 2
Repeat

Good enough to hit top 50 (top 20) all of the time

GrumpySmurf1002

For me, it's less about the stack size (though that helps, so I voted yes) and more about the ridiculous refresh schedule that locks you into playing at exact times.

Like sure, it'd be great if I only had to clear 27 nodes instead of 54, but having to do any number at exactly 9pm every day for 7 straight wears on you.

The Ultron event is a better mechanic overall, where you have 8 hours to do a full clear, but that can be done anytime in that 8 hours without penalty.

I'd much rather see that system implemented on a lower scale (no alliance locking, no 'Ultron Prime' sub for the true rewards) than have them work on the scheduled number of nodes.

TxMoose

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

...where you have 8 hours to do a full clear, but that can be done anytime in that 8 hours without penalty.

I'd much rather see that system implemented on a lower scale (no alliance locking, no 'Ultron Prime' sub for the true rewards) than have them work on the scheduled number of nodes.

that would be a great step in the right direction. I always figured do away with them altogether but this is something I could support as well. have 3 - 8hr chunks where you have to do your clears within those chunks but not tied to the timer and doesn't matter if you stack one at the end of a timer and one at the beginning of the next timer. with 24 hr subs that could take it down to 2 chunks of playing a day - sub flip and some time in the middle refresh. that would work great for lunch/evening clear schedule.

evil panda

There's a phenomenon at work here that when you make a maximum level much easier to attain for a group of people, you will have a hell of a time ranking them later

Unknown

I realize this borders on heresy, but how about we just make PvE more like, well, PvE?

Non-competitive, grind as much or as little as you want, same progression awards, or even add a higher award to line up with the placement rewards?

If I was choosing to grind or not grind 2, 3, or 4X beyond the final progression for the "big placement" prize, MPQ would be immeasurably more enjoyable for me...

Time limits would still potentially sell health packs for D3, tokens could potentially help sell covers, and players could eat, sleep, work, live, and play games like fully-functioning human beings.

That couldn't be bad, could it?

DBC

Lidolas

Why is there no option to increase the stack size?

Zen808

You can make Top 50 without getting anywhere near grinding the stacks to 0, so reducing the number of stacks will affect less than 5% of the population.

Also, reducing stacks will reduce the number of points available for your second, third hits, etc. This might actually have the unintended side-effect of having to play more nodes in order to hit certain goals for the rest of the non-crazies.

I still think that getting rid of the refresh altogether and letting people space out their grinds is a better solution.

Unknown

808SpicyToro wrote:

You can make Top 50 without getting anywhere near grinding the stacks to 0, so reducing the number of stacks will affect less than 5% of the population.

Also, reducing stacks will reduce the number of points available for your second, third hits, etc. This might actually have the unintended side-effect of having to play more nodes in order to hit certain goals for the rest of the non-crazies.

I still think that getting rid of the refresh altogether and letting people space out their grinds is a better solution.

Quoted from above: "...reducing the number of stacks will affect less than 5% of the population"

If I'm reading you correctly (and perhaps I'm not), are you saying that 95% of the people playing MPQ can "make top 50 without getting anywhere near grinding the stacks to 0?"

Side note: I tend to agree with the "getting rid of the refresh altogether and letting people space out their grinds," part, but I'm not sure how D3 would implement the change...

DBC

GurlBYE

firethorne wrote:

Can I vote neither?

Yes, there is a clear problem, but timing or scaling are all ineffective Band-Aids on the flawed design.

The fix is to take a PvE where your outcome is completely dependant on how much someone else grinds and BURN IT TO THE GROUND! How about this crazy idea? If you pass the nodes, you win. Viva DDQ! Viva Gauntlet! Viva Growth Industry! Dump the grind fests of any length in the garbage.

The correct answer to this multiple choice.

All the op does it make it easier for people with stronger rosters to clear faster.

As long as the pve rewards are competition, theres not really an idea that fixes this. It almost becomes catch 22. You want to place in the sub to better your roster, so you can compete in pves but the people with better rosters will always clear faster and more efficiently then you.

GrumpySmurf1002

simonsez wrote:

I hope everyone who's voting "shorten the stacks" has a **** roster, because that's the option that will help those people's speed clears dominate PvE.

If a **** roster has a 10 second advantage per battle, then more battles helps them.