"You're supposed to lose."

irwando

Please fire your game designer immediately and hire someone who knows what they are doing. That is if you even have a designer.

Designing a game where "you're supposed to lose" is just awful. You're telling us we're supposed to lose each around, resulting in us wiping 3 characters 6 times each? So now I'm down 18 characters, 10 I can heal, so still down 8. And now in my down time I'm supposed to play the other anniversary events without any health packs or the 8 characters that are down?

This is the flat out dumbest explanation ever for a design choice, if it was even that. The absolute ignorance of D3 to good game design and ways to keep your player base happy continues to astound me.

Reasons #53 to never put any money into this game again.

Unknown

yup. Add it to the fire, one of the dumbest things i've ever read

ICEx's post I mean, not yours

this is spot on stupid game/event engineering +100. EVERYONE hates it, so they decline to comment.

We hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate

your stupid anniversary event

/kefka

Phillipes

absolutely worst event in 2 - years history of this game !!!!!!!!!!!

Phillipes

Do you developers realize that people are CHEATING in order to win atleast some battles??
Without it, do you realize players have exactly 3 turn to down Galactus?
How much damage can be done from player side to Galactus (Im talking about all his health now).

When you told us in Q&A video that Galactus event is fun, were you high ?????????

Unknown

Please stop creating new threads to repeat what other people have said.

It's winnable but very difficult. There are people in my alliance still downing him reliably in Round 7. My roster is out of its depth, but that's OK, I have barely finished 3 star transition (depending on how you define transition).

A game where you are guaranteed a win is not worth playing.

TLCstormz

I Disagree / Down Vote

OneLastGambit

Grantosium wrote:

Please stop creating new threads to repeat what other people have said.

It's winnable but very difficult. There are people in my alliance still downing him reliably in Round 7. My roster is out of its depth, but that's OK, I have barely finished 3 star transition (depending on how you define transition).

A game where you are guaranteed a win is not worth playing.

Yes but a game where you are guaranteed defeat is also not worth playing. It wouldn't be as bad if the progression awards for people who only make it to round 4 we're worth it but they're all anniversary tokens which despite looking all good and shiny are actually just standard tokens. Definitely not worth using all your health packs for.

And the idea of quitting so you don't die? Is stupid, there are no other games where this tactic is viewed positively never mind encouraged

Unknown

OJSP wrote:

Grantosium wrote:

It's winnable but very difficult. There are people in my alliance still downing him reliably in Round 7. My roster is out of its depth, but that's OK, I have barely finished 3 star transition (depending on how you define transition).

Are you sure no one is force closing the app to gain advantage?

Can't be sure, of course. I'd like to believe though.

OJSP wrote:

A game where you are guaranteed a win is not worth playing.

I'm not so sure this is true for everyone..

You're probably right! However, that discussion would mean going into definitions of what defines a game. If the game is rigged is it still a game? What is reward without risk? etc

I do agree with most people that the difficulty could be notched down a bit, but I'm nowhere near as outraged as most people seem to be, which leads me to think that the drop in difficulty I would like is much less than the average person's desired difficulty drop.

Food for thought:

If you condition a player-base to become accustomed to a 'hamster-wheel' of easily winnable matches for rewards whose only cost is time investment, and gradually drive off players who would rather be challenged will you inevitably be left with a player-base who are reluctant to be challenged?

GuntherBlobel

Grantosium wrote:

OJSP wrote:

A game where you are guaranteed a win is not worth playing.

I'm not so sure this is true for everyone..

You're probably right! However, that discussion would mean going into definitions of what defines a game. If the game is rigged is it still a game? What is reward without risk? etc

I do agree with most people that the difficulty could be notched down a bit, but I'm nowhere near as outraged as most people seem to be, which leads me to think that the drop in difficulty I would like is much less than the average person's desired difficulty drop.

Food for thought:

If you condition a player-base to become accustomed to a 'hamster-wheel' of easily winnable matches for rewards whose only cost is time investment, and gradually drive off players who would rather be challenged will you inevitably be left with a player-base who are reluctant to be challenged?

I like this line of thought! Certainly, a lot of people were excited about Galactus, expecting generous rewards for time spent. Others were expecting another challenging Ultron-like puzzle to solve. Honestly, most MPQ players probably fall into both categories.

For me, the most fun match would be one in which neither win or loss was a certainty. I consider a bit of luck to be a fun addition to any skill game, but I think every player has their threshold. I'm not much into chess, nor to I play dice; I like games in which you strategize and then role the dice. I think MPQ fits in this category nicely (although I would like more puzzles).

Unfortunately, as I've progressed throgh Galactus Hungers, the role of dumb luck has crossed my acceptance threshold. It's not about challenge or difficulty. I simply don't like starting a match just to see if I got a good board. It feels like I'm just rolling dice (or pulling a slot machine lever).

Time-investment players aren't getting the rewards they want and puzzle players aren't finding fun matches to play. And now everyone's pissed...

simonsez

Grantosium wrote:

A game where you are guaranteed a win is not worth playing.

Yes, and clearly the only two possible options are "guaranteed wins" and this shitfest.

xdogg

I guess I missed the part in school where getting beat up was supposed to be fun

Marty17

Phillipes wrote:

Do you developers realize that people are CHEATING in order to win atleast some battles??
Without it, do you realize players have exactly 3 turn to down Galactus?
How much damage can be done from player side to Galactus (Im talking about all his health now).

When you told us in Q&A video that Galactus event is fun, were you high ?????????

I dunno, I don't see it as cheating but damage limitation. If they see it as cheating they really need to re-evaluate how we should able to beat Galactus than LUCKING out the matches.

Unknown

It would not be against the model "You're supposed to lose" if it had some changes. As you will probably lose, you should not lose blood.With this I could play the other events normally. Also the exclusion of pve made a lot of people migrate to other games because it has no mission here to play.

Pylgrim

We're supposed to lose? Oh that's a relief! If the event was designed with the player losing quite a lot, I'll just keep playing (and losing) happily, knowing that, when the event ends, I will get all the rewards, including the 3 Cyclops covers and the Legendary token... after all, I'm playing exactly as they intended, each node and subsequent Galactus fight once every 8 hours, winning or (more likely) losing! Right? For sure the rewards were placed taking that in account.

This is really good to know. Now I can be sure that at the end of 4 days of frustration, anger and bafflement, at least I will not be disappointed with the rewards or anything!

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

Grantosium wrote:

A game where you are guaranteed a win is not worth playing.

Yes, and clearly the only two possible options are "guaranteed wins" and this tinykitty.

That's exactly what I want though, obviously.

I want a game where I open it and get everything, all at once, with a big "participation ribbon" across the screen that tells me what a special, special boy I am.

Oh wait, no. I guess I want more a "game." You know, like something I can, oh, I don't know, PROGRESS at, hit MILESTONES, feel like I'm somehow getting BETTER AS I PROGRESS.

I honestly feel like I'm doing as well as I've been doing overall lately DESPITE what D3 expects for me. How sad is that?

MPQ has now apparently degenerated to the point where we have spokespeople coming right out and saying, in writing, that they HOPED we would die almost instantly, use health packs (Wow. Really? We're saying that out loud now? And that's STILL OK with some people?), and then die almost instantly AGAIN? Over and over and over and over again? And we STILL have people attempting to somehow defend THIS?

Seriously, some days.

DBC

OneLastGambit

Pylgrim wrote:

We're supposed to lose? Oh that's a relief! If the event was designed with the player losing quite a lot, I'll just keep playing (and losing) happily, knowing that, when the event ends, I will get all the rewards, including the 3 Cyclops covers and the Legendary token... after all, I'm playing exactly as they intended, each node and subsequent Galactus fight once every 8 hours, winning or (more likely) losing! Right? For sure the rewards were placed taking that in account.

This is really good to know. Now I can be sure that at the end of 4 days of frustration, anger and bafflement, at least I will not be disappointed with the rewards or anything!

Almost posted this myself, it's quite a glaring contradiction. If we are supposed to lose them Why are the rewards based on winning?

Surely if the goal is to lose then after sacrificing my characters 60-70 Times I should get some progression rewards?

The fact the rewards are based on WINNING simply highlights that what was said is not accurate. The statement should is really just an incomplete one... It should say

"You are supposed to lose, that way we can make far more money than ever before."

Or perhaps modified to say

"We wanted you to lose"

loroku

OP is right.

"You're supposed to lose" leads to an experience that just isn't fun.

What's right, wrong, challenging, not challenging, etc., etc. - all that aside: at the end of the day, it isn't fun. Period.

emaker27

1. This too shall pass.
2. You're supposed to lose.

I can't wait for #3!

Dragon_Nexus

Posted this in IceX's thread, but I'll post it here, too.

IceIX wrote:

You're supposed to lose your Health Packs on Galactus, rather than against the minions like on Ultron.

This line right here? This is why there's a problem.
You're meant to use up all of your health packs headbutting the brick wall of Galactus until you knock it down. Or have brain damage.

Why not design it so that when his black fires off you're just knocked out of the fight with your guys at the health they were? That way after three rounds with him I'm not out of health packs. That way if I would actually kind of like to do some PvP afterwards I'm not completely screwed?

Unknown

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Posted this in IceX's thread, but I'll post it here, too.

IceIX wrote:

You're supposed to lose your Health Packs on Galactus, rather than against the minions like on Ultron.

This line right here? This is why there's a problem.
You're meant to use up all of your health packs headbutting the brick wall of Galactus until you knock it down. Or have brain damage.

Why not design it so that when his black fires off you're just knocked out of the fight with your guys at the health they were? That way after three rounds with him I'm not out of health packs. That way if I would actually kind of like to do some PvP afterwards I'm not completely screwed?

I think you're confusing this game with, well, every other game you've ever played.

DBC