Argument for removing refresh timers in PvE

13»

Comments

  • cyineedsn
    cyineedsn Posts: 361 Mover and Shaker
    What I got from reading your proposal, is that whoever wants to grind the most through diminishing returns wins, and that prospect scares me. You should NEVER underestimate how cutthroat and life-destroying things will get when you give people a competitive scoring system where you can grind to infinity. Am I not understanding something here?
  • Zen808
    Zen808 Posts: 260
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't the OP basically proposing taking that ungodly grind in the last couple hours of the sub, and spreading it out over the course of 24 hours?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    808SpicyToro wrote:
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't the OP basically proposing taking that ungodly grind in the last couple hours of the sub, and spreading it out over the course of 24 hours?

    That my understanding as well.
  • DCUDCU
    DCUDCU Posts: 131 Tile Toppler
    Drummerboycroy wrote:
    DCUDCU wrote:
    FWIW, I did a clear of Hulk sub 2 today in 22 minutes. So this 1 hour thing I don't know what is with that.

    I realize this is going to be shocking and likely a bit confusing, but perhaps it's because everyone else in the world doesn't have the same roster you have?

    I know, I know, insanity.

    DBC

    I agree..but it used to take 40 minutes at most. And now with 10 health packs..you don't have to be ask risky going into fights.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    808SpicyToro wrote:
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't the OP basically proposing taking that ungodly grind in the last couple hours of the sub, and spreading it out over the course of 24 hours?
    It doesn't spread it out, it just makes all 24 hours equally an ungodly grind if you want to get to the top. The winner will no longer be the person who puts in 1 hour every 8, then 2 at the end (4-5ish total), but whoever puts in the most hours total every 24. Given how competitive some people are, that will probably be around 10-15 hours, more when it is a new 4 star.
  • optimus2861
    optimus2861 Posts: 1,233 Chairperson of the Boards
    TxMoose wrote:
    ok, then it is just who has the best roster and the most time - that is not what pve is for. it is to ease **s and transitioners into *** land.
    Unfortunately, it really isn't. Story Events, which are really just PVP in PVE clothing, are D3's preferred avenue for introducing new characters into the game, whether they be 3* or 4*. They want players engaged for days & days, checking the leaderboard at each clear, pushing each other hard because only X% of the players can win the new shiny.

    Easing ** players into *** land is DDQ's role. And thank goodness for that, because I'd have quit a long time ago otherwise.
  • Buret0
    Buret0 Posts: 1,591
    Goobady wrote:
    808SpicyToro wrote:
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't the OP basically proposing taking that ungodly grind in the last couple hours of the sub, and spreading it out over the course of 24 hours?
    It doesn't spread it out, it just makes all 24 hours equally an ungodly grind if you want to get to the top. The winner will no longer be the person who puts in 1 hour every 8, then 2 at the end (4-5ish total), but whoever puts in the most hours total every 24. Given how competitive some people are, that will probably be around 10-15 hours, more when it is a new 4 star.

    Again, there are ways around this.

    Under the current system (assuming you don't grind the first node 780 times for one point each time) how many clears is currently optimum? Initial + 8 hour + 16 hour + ~23 hour + ~1 hour grind? How many times do you need to play a single node in the last ~hour to make it worth a single point?

    I wasn't proposing a finished product, I was proposing the basis for removing the hamster wheel requirement of optimal play.

    As I stated, you could simply make the new maximum number of clears = current optimal number of clears. That way optimal play would take exactly the same number of clears, but you could do them in the first hour the event opens or the last hour the event is open. Or you could make the maximum number of clears slightly higher or lower, since you are no longer reliant on the hamster wheel timers.

    Again, if you make the tie-breaker first to clear, you give the advantage to those who grind early, which isn't the intention, so you could just randomly break ties or give everyone who achieved the maximum number of clears the top prize. If 30 people all finished the (exceedingly more difficult) 110 nodes, give them all the top prize. Since I'm already recommending that progression rewards be given more priority than the placement rewards, it shouldn't be an issue. Then the next best score would be 31st, because 30 people had better scores. And if five people all got that score, they all get 31st place. It isn't that hard to make the standings show T1.....T31....37, 38, T39...

    I'm not trying to make more work for people, I'm just trying to bring parity between those who have 16 hours of their day where they can't play MPQ and those who are able to schedule their lives around MPQ. The sub-event is 24 hours long, but with the timers in place, it isn't really a "24 hour window" in which you can compete, it is a series of 8 hour sub-events.

    Considering most people are supposed to sleep for about eight hours and work for eight or more hours, can't MPQ forgive us for not having flexible schedules and give us just as many points for clearing 16 times in the last hour as someone who did 16 clears interspersed over the course of the day? The amount of effort wasn't any different, just the flexibility of the player.
  • Arimis_Thorn
    Arimis_Thorn Posts: 541 Critical Contributor
    There's a feeling to push yourself to do better with respect to placement, and a feeling that you can see yourself progressing in the game.

    There's also a feeling of the taking something that is supposed to be fun and turning it into a **** job.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    To the OP, I'm for removing the refresh timers, but it would need an entire overhaul of the scoring system...

    What you are proposing doesn't alleviate the problem, it actually makes it worse! What you will get is everyone grinding because they can score the same points and this will lead to greater stress on the servers.

    The overhaul points rewarded needs to be based on several factors

    1. How successful you are in clearing the node, e.g. more point for less overall (real) damage taken by your team..
    - this will add more value to protect tile users and healers

    A node should be given a base value based on it's difficulty like it currently is. A your score is then multipled against this.
    E.g. if your team takes no damage you get 100% of the node's value, if your team is wiped you get 0% (nothing)


    2. Based on a mean average of attempts on a node. Due to the randomness of the board distrubution, the first point will result in very different results, we all know what a good starting board can be like for us and also equally what a bad one can be too. Thus for a node, several attempts could be made (with a maximum of for example 5 attempts), but only your top 3 scores count! Kinda as a bonus, if a player wants to replace one of the five scores they have, they could potentially spend HP to reset that that score and allow another attempt. Further attempts will cost exponentially more HP with each additional score replacement! (to reduce the potential impact of a pay to win situation)


    E.g. on exponential HP node score attempt replacement/reset cost.
    1st time .... 1 hp
    2nd time ... 20 hp
    3rd time.... 400 hp
    4th time .... 16,000 hp
    5th time ..... 320, 000 hp
    At this point it's at a ridiculous value that very few people except perhaps hackers or billionares would even attempt


    3. The number of free attempts (and replacement attempts) can be done at any time during the sub, you are not penalised for doing them all right at the start or all right at the end or inbetween

    4. The contributing overall and sub event scores, will be based off your top 3 scores.

    The problem with this method is it is a little complicated for a new player to understand. However it would remove the stupid all-in final grind fest towards the end of a sub and perhaps reduce the amount of stress on the servers towards the end of a very popular event!

    The secondary problem is programming this and the kinda numbers you want to attribute to success
  • Buret0
    Buret0 Posts: 1,591
    skydivearcher wrote:
    1. How successful you are in clearing the node, e.g. more point for less overall (real) damage taken by your team..
    - this will add more value to protect tile users and healers

    Punishes cascades, punishes transition players, and causes people to just rely on certain team combinations instead of using whatever team they want to use. Also, they took away prologue healing because they didn't want people to sit there healing up at the end of a battle... this just makes it mandatory to do so.

    I will use the PX infinite combo to do some quick clears, but there are also times when I want to throw away a team just for fun and because I know I'm not punished for it.

    Like Ragnarok + 2 Storm + 2 Mags is a fun little team to use from time to time, but not something I would use if I was being punished for imperfect play.

    Carnage and Sentry would be riding the bench all the time instead of sometimes coming in to pinch hit on a node or two.

    You can't favor speed in completion or perfection in play unless the developer actually comes out and says that is what they are trying to reward. My system takes away the hamster wheel, you have just designed a completely new system that ignores some of the core concepts the designers are working from.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Incorrect, you actually won't be able to get a 100% score unless it's a goon node, because you will always take match up damage from villian/hero.

    Plus this does not favor speed players, because speed players will go all out damage! at the expense of protecting themselves. In most cases you will actually be less efficient score wise if you just go in there nuking like crazy... It will more than likely make a player think more about what matches they make and what to let the AI do. cause in the current scoring climate I don't care how much damage I take as long as I generate enough AP to nuke down the enemy

    What my proposed scoring system doesn't favor is carnage or sentry, basically anyone who can self harm your own team. As you will be constantly hurting your score.

    My original post/reply about the scoring system had the option of picking a greater difficulty than the default node but for more base points. These nodes the increased difficulty would almost certainly guarantee you taking greater match up damage.

    The healing thing is difficult to explain...

    Lets say you walk into a match at 100% health and take 30% damage before firing off a heal which heals you to 90% of your total health and you finish in that state. You score would be 70% regardless of the fact you finished at 90%!

    Now if you took damage down to 70% (30% damage) healed back up to 90% and took damage that took you all the way down to 60% (additional 40% damage), and then healed all the way back to 100%, Your score will still be 70%

    Now why I am saying healing is more important in this scenaro is if it wasn't for healing. in the second example if it wasn't for healing you would have took 70% damage finishing the match at 30%, thus your score in this case would be 30% instead of 70%! That's what I mean by establishing a greater importance to heal characters..

    Now the thing with transition players, is this has to be resolved with better bracketing for those players. It's a bit silly to see a new player completely outscoring a a 4* veteran. It gives a player no reason to improve their roster! I've said this else where!
  • Kolence
    Kolence Posts: 969 Critical Contributor
    Buret0 wrote:
    skydivearcher wrote:
    1. How successful you are in clearing the node, e.g. more point for less overall (real) damage taken by your team..
    - this will add more value to protect tile users and healers

    Punishes cascades, punishes transition players, and causes people to just rely on certain team combinations instead of using whatever team they want to use. Also, they took away prologue healing because they didn't want people to sit there healing up at the end of a battle... this just makes it mandatory to do so.
    1. Cascades. I think there would be enough games played during an event that luck would more or less even out for everyone. I could have a better score in one sub because of great cascades, only to suffer in the next from bad boards.
    2. Transition players. As I understand it, starting levels for a weaker roster are lowered accordingly. The same handicap could be implemented for a new system, whether it is health loss, number of turns to win the fight or any other.
    3. Relying on the same teams. I'd like to see some kind of achievements system mixed with this, for team composition, powers used, AP spent etc, the more the better. Then you have 9 nodes in a sub with 4-6 stacks, and say 100 different achievements that give a few extra points to try an sqeeze into your allowed matches each sub.
  • GurlBYE
    GurlBYE Posts: 1,218 Chairperson of the Boards
    optimus2861 wrote:
    TxMoose wrote:
    ok, then it is just who has the best roster and the most time - that is not what pve is for. it is to ease **s and transitioners into *** land.


    Easing ** players into *** land is DDQ's role. And thank goodness for that, because I'd have quit a long time ago otherwise.

    I'd say it isn't, it was more to appease players who bought roster space to slot all 40 *** stars from their release and aren't getting enough covers, if you've started to transition during the new era of 4 stars, all it is is gathering 1 cover for the 3 stars you've managed to luck your way into. so instead of a 0/0/1 *** star you now have a 1/0/1 or 0/0/2.

    Hey in about what 8 more weeks you'll get another.
  • GurlBYE
    GurlBYE Posts: 1,218 Chairperson of the Boards
    Also will everyone please stop dancing around the fact that pve shouldn't be competitive?

    Discussions would be a lot more fruitful when you start from at least that point
  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    GurlBYE wrote:
    Also will everyone please stop dancing around the fact that pve shouldn't be competitive?
    I've never danced around it. I've flat out rejected that premise. Frequently. Too frequently.
  • GurlBYE
    GurlBYE Posts: 1,218 Chairperson of the Boards
    aesthetocyst wrote:
    GurlBYE wrote:
    Also will everyone please stop dancing around the fact that pve shouldn't be competitive?

    Discussions would be a lot more fruitful when you start from at least that point

    That point has been addressed many times. And why the devs won't change many times. Which renders such discussions fantasy.

    The devs want to limit rewards. Competitiveness gives them absolute control over how many free iterations of reward X are issued. Even insanely difficult noncompetitive events do not give them the control they want. And if they offered more of them, players would complain about the insane difficulty.

    Wants of players and needs of devs are in constant tension.

    Fantasy is fun, and if wishes were fishes...
    Antman event seems like a giant flashing, hey not all pve will be competitive in the future sort of thing to me,

    but hey who knows maybe it wasn't what they wanted from the event.
  • JVReal
    JVReal Posts: 1,884 Chairperson of the Boards
    skydivearcher wrote:
    My original post/reply about the scoring system had the option of picking a greater difficulty than the default node but for more base points. These nodes the increased difficulty would almost certainly guarantee you taking greater match up damage.
    This is an interesting concept here... What if you could dial up or dial down your scaling? And your points would scale accordingly? You want to max scaling on those goon nodes and risk taking one sniper shot and dying for higher points, go for it... if the node is giving you trouble, scale it down, but take less points for it.

    You can still have refresh timers and stacks, but the insane scaling will only be there if you want it to be there... some points is better than being locked out of the node.

    I don't mind competitive PVE, having both seems fine to me. Though I like the non-competitive and no time-pressure nature of Gauntlet, I have never completed the entire thing. I am more frustrated with never being able to complete the gauntlet than having to Grind PVE and actually have a shot at the top reward... the 4* cover. At my current roster level... the Gauntlet feels like a carrot dangled on a stick that I will never get. One day, I may, but if every new release were done in Gauntlet style where I had to complete all 3 phases to get it... I would hate it worse than PVE as it stands.
  • Heartburn
    Heartburn Posts: 527
    Kolence wrote:
    Buret0 wrote:
    skydivearcher wrote:
    1. How successful you are in clearing the node, e.g. more point for less overall (real) damage taken by your team..
    - this will add more value to protect tile users and healers

    Punishes cascades, punishes transition players, and causes people to just rely on certain team combinations instead of using whatever team they want to use. Also, they took away prologue healing because they didn't want people to sit there healing up at the end of a battle... this just makes it mandatory to do so.
    1. Cascades. I think there would be enough games played during an event that luck would more or less even out for everyone. I could have a better score in one sub because of great cascades, only to suffer in the next from bad boards.
    2. Transition players. As I understand it, starting levels for a weaker roster are lowered accordingly. The same handicap could be implemented for a new system, whether it is health loss, number of turns to win the fight or any other.
    3. Relying on the same teams. I'd like to see some kind of achievements system mixed with this, for team composition, powers used, AP spent etc, the more the better. Then you have 9 nodes in a sub with 4-6 stacks, and say 100 different achievements that give a few extra points to try an sqeeze into your allowed matches each sub.
    Ideas like this might be good for a special event like professor x academy or shield tactics training events. maybe it could track total enemy damage( to separate self damage) as a negative and ending health% as a positive to even each other out. I could see a lot of retreating if you get a bad board or potential score.
    But how would it work if you brought in damaged heroes? Auto score reduction? Does true healing/fake healing differ?

Categories