Challenging? Or Rage inducing? A question of philosophy

Chirus

Sometimes I question if MPQ game designers understand the difference between the two. Do they want their games to provide an overall sense of satisfaction after designing reasonable challenges? Or do they want their players to finish each play session in high stress, high agitation mode? I think Galactus round 1 was clear evidence that they can't distinguish between the two ("you're supposed to lose" mentality). Today's DDQ is a step further to illustrate this point. This was one of those cases where even players with a fully covered starlord had trouble beating. But this is a question that covers a larger picture than either of these two events. It's the philosophy behind MPQ game design. So what if I miss one quest? There are others to come in the future that I'll eventually be able to beat, win covers, etc. The bigger problem is the spirit behind the design of obstacles. This directs how all future game design implementations will go and if "rage-inducing" is their philosophy, then we have a much bigger problem to address than a few anomolous quests. So which will it be, d3? Satisfying challenges? Or I-want-to-throw-my-phone after every session, even after winning?

eaise

For a regular business I'd agree that d3's way of doing things is bad. But for a f2p game devs need to make you HAVE to spend money. Even a majority of the whales didn't have star Lord at level 270. But because of today's DPD they pushed them up. Meaning they used their reserve ISO and will likely have to buy more later. One of my alliance mates bought an extra SL cover so he could win.
There is still a fine line that d3 has to walk to ensure they don't make players hate the game so much that they quit. (galactus round 1 was so stupid. But they fixed it for round 2) but they need players to get frustrated some so they will be more likely to spend money.

Example:
You are frustrated because you can't hit 1K or 1300 in PvP event. You whale Jean and HB. Now you can do much better in PvP. You are no longer frustrated and d3 got money

TxMoose

eaise wrote:

For a regular business I'd agree that d3's way of doing things is bad. But for a f2p game devs need to make you HAVE to spend money. Even a majority of the whales didn't have star Lord at level 270. But because of today's DPD they pushed them up. Meaning they used their reserve ISO and will likely have to buy more later. One of my alliance mates bought an extra SL cover so he could win.
There is still a fine line that d3 has to walk to ensure they don't make players hate the game so much that they quit. (galactus round 1 was so stupid. But they fixed it for round 2) but they need players to get frustrated some so they will be more likely to spend money.

Example:
You are frustrated because you can't hit 1K or 1300 in PvP event. You whale Jean and HB. Now you can do much better in PvP. You are no longer frustrated and d3 got money

spent 2500hp for a slightly better chance at a random LT??? dang. need to talk to them about ROI lol

Chirus

eaise wrote:

For a regular business I'd agree that d3's way of doing things is bad. But for a f2p game devs need to make you HAVE to spend money. Even a majority of the whales didn't have star Lord at level 270. But because of today's DPD they pushed them up. Meaning they used their reserve ISO and will likely have to buy more later. One of my alliance mates bought an extra SL cover so he could win.
There is still a fine line that d3 has to walk to ensure they don't make players hate the game so much that they quit. (galactus round 1 was so stupid. But they fixed it for round 2) but they need players to get frustrated some so they will be more likely to spend money.

Example:
You are frustrated because you can't hit 1K or 1300 in PvP event. You whale Jean and HB. Now you can do much better in PvP. You are no longer frustrated and d3 got money

You see, I don't buy that excuse so much anymore because the main income for d3 isn't cover purchases, it's roster slots. If a single cover purchase was worth such a significant income for the company, they may as well force the issue and remove all ability to earn covers outside of the players who score first in every event. That'll really increase sales yeah?

I really tire of people who say game design is intentionally frustrating so d3 could increase revenue through health pack purchases . Really? In direct challenge to anyone who poses this same argument as you, I'd like some hard numbers on how much income d3 actually makes off of small things like single cover purchases and health packs/iso purchases. It may seem like a significant amount, but if so, the bean-counters referenced by IceIX would be more hesitant of pushes that allow such things to be given more freely. As evidenced by their recent increase in health packs from 5 to 10 and increase in 4 star cover availability, I really don't think they're a significant source of income. Not enough to be the hinge around their game design philosophy.

GuntherBlobel

The OP asks a great question, which I don't think Demiurge spends enough time asking themselves.

eaise wrote:

Example:
You are frustrated because you can't hit 1K or 1300 in PvP event. You whale Jean and HB. Now you can do much better in PvP. You are no longer frustrated and d3 got money

^ This explains why things are the way they are, for sure.

However, challenge is not synonymous with frustration as far as I'm concerned. The designers never forget to include a little (sometimes a lot of) frustration into their design. And they often forget to include challenge.

Today's DDQ 4* is a great example of how these two things can actually impact each other. I'm not even tempted to spend $ on Starlord covers to reduce frustration, because even if I had a playable SL, it wouldn't make the "challenge" any more interesting. Basically, the Devs are asking me to spend money to play this node (which is fair), but I'm not actually interested. There are more fun ways to play MPQ.

GuntherBlobel

Chirus wrote:

You see, I don't buy that excuse so much anymore because the main income for d3 isn't cover purchases, it's roster slots. <snip> I really don't think they're a significant source of income. Not enough to be the hinge around their game design philosophy.

You're right about Health Pack purchases and Roster slots. But we do know that the Devs are very interested in cover purchases. IceIX has spoken to that: they know that 4* cover rewards drive 4* cover purchases, for example. When they ran the 4* Deadpool (X-Force) node to see how people reacted to the node with a commonly under-covered character, you better believe that was to generate data on engagement and, more importantly, cover sales.

4* DDQ is clearly set up to drive 4* cover sales. The 1v1 setup is almost transparent in nature. I don't think you should be so skeptical.

optimus2861

eaise wrote:

For a regular business I'd agree that d3's way of doing things is bad. But for a f2p game devs need to make you HAVE to spend money.

Again... Future Fight. That game never makes you feel like you HAVE to spend money.

It makes you WANT to spend money.

The difference may be subtle, but it's very real, and clearly D3 doesn't give a damn about it.

Vinmarc43

A hard battle is a hard battle, it`s suppose to be challenging but my rage comes when you get these periods of non stop CASCADE nonsense that drives me to crush my computer mouse to pieces, this is probably the worst thing about this game, it just kills me and wish this game would shut down forever. They should reduce the cascade probability a bit.

And for DDQ legendary battles, preventing us from having at least one Team-up when the computer has one, now that's frustrating, especially if you lose because of it.

XandorXerxes

I just can't imagine how angering someone to make them spend money is a good model. It involves always pissing off your customer base to make them pay money. Frustrated you can't PVP? Spend money. Frustrated you can't DDQ? Spend money. I've found that it's much healthier to just avoid things that frustrate you for no real reason - and this game has fast been approaching that threshold for me.

I don't think the casino analogy is fair. Opening tokens is the closest thing to a casino that we have. Casinos aren't designed to anger you, they're designed to make you think that it's entirely possible and that next time it could be you. There's no $$ threshold then you win, which is where this game is heading. Also at a casino you could at least get some food or a show. They also have some games that involve some skill. Heck, if you lose bad enough they'll comp your room. MPQ just gives you Moonstone and silly cascades.

wirius

Well its a free to play. You have to understand, largely the game isn't designed for you to win, its designed for you to LOSE. This ensures that only a few people win, keeping the covers rare, making people want to buy power, and thus when you DO win, you have the illusion that you triumphed do to something you did, even though a bot could take your place and probably play better than you.

The only exception to this is Deadpool daily. As long as they retain things like this in their game, they can keep the other negative free to play aspects, make their money, and people are happy. The issue right now is the 4* transition, which feels just horribly inefficient, time wasting, and unrewarding.

GurlBYE

Maybe the teams size is different but its just a crazy contrast between future fight and here.
I know I keep mentioning it, but it's sort of a hey, wow that game is not only taking my time but also making me more willing to spend money, while this one barely gets my google survey money without me wincing a bit.
They even recently re-adjusted a currencies value, (something in that game that is similar to what iso does in this one) to a more reasonable price as the game grows.

To the arguments free to play is supposed to make you spend money, well yeah it is. The issue is even people who spent money on this game end up unhappy.
Spending money in free to play games is usually a way to gap over that frustration point and get to the entertaining bit faster.

Packs- pricey and entirely random, and you'd still need slots if you manage to get characters you don't have
Characters- Unless its 4 star, it won't be long before they're outdated. They created a decent amount of fear of the average person spending 100 bucks on a character, for the character to be nerfed with x-force and some other favorites, only to release obviously more powerful characters later.
Iso- Waste of money. Especially since outside of pvp it just makes everything scale with whatever you leveled up.
Hero points- Either buying jean grey, hulk buster or iceman, or slots for other characters you'll only use when they are boosted, or forced upon you.

Everyone tries to guesstimate their business practices and praise them but for what.


It feels like the game never really fosters good will, or even actively wants you to play it for long stretches.

Also a lot of you need to play more free to plays of the variety beyond puzzles.

GurlBYE

The one situation where money and this game come into the mix for me is that I'd easily bet if it weren't attached to a wildly popular company like marvel, most wouldn't touch it.

SnowcaTT

Galactus 1 (expect to die!) vs. Galactus 2 (you can do it, but it might be slightly tough!) is an excellent example. Many, many threads of frustration here in run 1 - many less in run 2.

Unknown

I think this is more of a problem with the base format of MPQ, in that you CAN'T make anything actually challenging, because Luck will always be a factor.

And if Luck is a legit factor, it's pretty darn near impossible to have a satisfying loss because you can always blame Luck for it, even if skill is a pretty darn big factor.

That's why the most satisfying events are ones where you win non-stop, and the competitions that drive people (PVE and PVP) are not about "who can win the nodes" because mostly everybody can do that, but who can win the most nodes, and win them the fastest. Losing a match in PVE or PVP is seen more as a terrible disaster moreso then the result of a challenging fight.

The only way to change that would be to make the board-drops cheat a heck of a lot more. Either to get rid of cascades in it's entirety (which would still give AI colors for it's powers at random), or actively cheat in favor of the player (Which is what it usually takes for players to see it as "fair". And people have been accusing the AI of cheating in these games long before Puzzle Quest became F2P)

Either way, it's not a game that supports challenging fights at all, unless you're willing to accept some of that frustration of luck.

itstime1234

colwag wrote:

I think this is more of a problem with the base format of MPQ, in that you CAN'T make anything actually challenging, because Luck will always be a factor.

And if Luck is a legit factor, it's pretty darn near impossible to have a satisfying loss because you can always blame Luck for it, even if skill is a pretty darn big factor.

That's why the most satisfying events are ones where you win non-stop, and the competitions that drive people (PVE and PVP) are not about "who can win the nodes" because mostly everybody can do that, but who can win the most nodes, and win them the fastest. Losing a match in PVE or PVP is seen more as a terrible disaster moreso then the result of a challenging fight.

The only way to change that would be to make the board-drops cheat a heck of a lot more. Either to get rid of cascades in it's entirety (which would still give AI colors for it's powers at random), or actively cheat in favor of the player (Which is what it usually takes for players to see it as "fair". And people have been accusing the AI of cheating in these games long before Puzzle Quest became F2P)

Either way, it's not a game that supports challenging fights at all, unless you're willing to accept some of that frustration of luck.

There is a difference between requiring a bit of luck but much more skill compared to playing and hoping for the best of the best possible boards, meanwhile boosting yourself up the ying yang.

Galactus 2, heck even some of the hard nodes in PVE will result in wipeouts quite often but can be won. This was just idiocy when you super charge one of the best solo fighters against the worst 4* who at best is a complimentary fighter with very little solo utilization. Throw in a nice 1500 damage team up and this is the anger level you get.

Want challenging, look at invisible woman vs quicksilver. Obv a good board was necessary but victory could be accomplished. This time, only the strongest of the strong starlords have any chance whatsoever.

Unknown

itstime1234 wrote:

There is a difference between requiring a bit of luck but much more skill compared to playing and hoping for the best of the best possible boards, meanwhile boosting yourself up the ying yang.

Galactus 2, heck even some of the hard nodes in PVE will result in wipeouts quite often but can be won. This was just idiocy when you super charge one of the best solo fighters against the worst 4* who at best is a complimentary fighter with very little solo utilization. Throw in a nice 1500 damage team up and this is the anger level you get.

Want challenging, look at invisible woman vs quicksilver. Obv a good board was necessary but victory could be accomplished. This time, only the strongest of the strong starlords have any chance whatsoever.

I don't think those are good examples because they just sound like, well, easier versions of challenging nodes, which resulted in more people winning.

Like...

If talking about a "Fair" challenge, come up with one compared to Galactus where only 57 alliances beat it or whatever. Or however many people would beat this Star Lord DDQ.

Have the same success rate, but make it fair.

...unless you think the low success rate is the problem but that just turns it into "Then make it easier"

itstime1234

colwag wrote:

itstime1234 wrote:

There is a difference between requiring a bit of luck but much more skill compared to playing and hoping for the best of the best possible boards, meanwhile boosting yourself up the ying yang.

Galactus 2, heck even some of the hard nodes in PVE will result in wipeouts quite often but can be won. This was just idiocy when you super charge one of the best solo fighters against the worst 4* who at best is a complimentary fighter with very little solo utilization. Throw in a nice 1500 damage team up and this is the anger level you get.

Want challenging, look at invisible woman vs quicksilver. Obv a good board was necessary but victory could be accomplished. This time, only the strongest of the strong starlords have any chance whatsoever.

I don't think those are good examples because they just sound like, well, easier versions of challenging nodes, which resulted in more people winning.

Like...

If talking about a "Fair" challenge, come up with one compared to Galactus where only 57 alliances beat it or whatever. Or however many people would beat this Star Lord DDQ.

Have the same success rate, but make it fair.

...unless you think the low success rate is the problem but that just turns it into "Then make it easier"

Invisible woman vs quicksilver was def not easy. Many of the others were not easy like XFDP vs XFW yet this is by far the most angry anyone has been.

You don't have the stats to say what is fair and what is not much like I don't, so to dismiss what I view as fair is ridiculous. Show me where stats are posted on the percentage who beat each of these events. This one is def idiotic to say the least.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why the outcry is so much more in this event vs every other event. Seeing as how you do not have perfect information is come up with a more constructive analysis.

Crowl

itstime1234 wrote:

Invisible woman vs quicksilver was def not easy. Many of the others were not easy like XFDP vs XFW yet this is by far the most angry anyone has been.

That is the only one that I have actually won, if you played well then you could still win with an under-covered IW, whereas in all the others they would eventually chip away your health even if you denied them the AP for their big moves.

Crowl

GuntherBlobel wrote:

You're right about Health Pack purchases and Roster slots. But we do know that the Devs are very interested in cover purchases. IceIX has spoken to that: they know that 4* cover rewards drive 4* cover purchases, for example. When they ran the 4* Deadpool (X-Force) node to see how people reacted to the node with a commonly under-covered character, you better believe that was to generate data on engagement and, more importantly, cover sales.

4* DDQ is clearly set up to drive 4* cover sales. The 1v1 setup is almost transparent in nature. I don't think you should be so skeptical.

If cover sales can be driven by anything, it just seems so weird that they would not make the first cover you win be a 1/1/1 so people can try all three powers outside of a loaner and would be a bit more likely to consider buying covers, unlike now where you could easily have 4-5 covers each on two powers and still have 0 on the other.

Unknown

itstime1234 wrote:

Invisible woman vs quicksilver was def not easy.

No, but it did feel like an interesting puzzle. I won that one on my last move by using blue to lock just the right tiles to force a board shuffle before he killed me. And this was after a nerve-racking 20 minutes of deny-this-match, oh-can't-let-him-get-that-blue-he's-got-too-many-locked-tiles, target-green-perfectly-to-knock-out-locked-tiles etc.

That battle was my absolute favorite of the series yet, because it was an actual *strategy puzzle* rather than "opposition gets one power (or a decent board) and you're dead".

wymtime

With game design and challenges it is really a matter of how hard can you make the game while keeping your player base engaged. If you want an extremely simple but horrifically challenging game try geometry dash. On the lite version there are currently like 8-9 levels. I am on the last level and have tried it over 100 times and I have only achieved 60% of the level. In fact each level I have had to play over 100 times to clear it. The frustration that game has caused me. I hav wanted to throw my iPad, I have swore out loud, and I have wanted to uninstall the game. I see how I failed and say I should never have missed that jump. What do I do? I try again.
The difference with MPQ is the limited resources and time you have to achieve really difficult challenges. When you lose in MPQ it cost you health packs and points. The frustration that comes from MPQ can also be from things outside of your control like getting hit while you hop. MPQ is more time and resources based game and is built on competition. This means when you lose it really hurts. The challenge is how do they make something challenging for the majority, but not super easy. How do they tie in game, or marvel themes to tell a story. Overall sometimes it is just not your fight and you just need to skip that battle.