jozier wrote: Why should those who choose to wait for an easier bracket get an easier chance at progression rewards? That's what a lot of people don't seem realize. Your bracket's rubberbanding, as long as they haven't changed the basic principle, is based on every other bracket's progress. So if you joined 24 hours after the event started, your battles would be worth a lot more points than someone who joined 24 hours earlier. But you're wishing that you got the same level of enemy they did, but for your extra points! So you get to join late, not play as much, but basically benefit from everyone else who played to rubberband to progression rewards (placement is not as big a deal because the event is bracketed to when you choose to enter with all the other johnny-come-latelies). So that's partly why a level raise is not a big deal if you truly analyze it by virtue of the progression rewards and the context of your own bracket.
thglump wrote: jozier wrote: Why should those who choose to wait for an easier bracket get an easier chance at progression rewards? That's what a lot of people don't seem realize. Your bracket's rubberbanding, as long as they haven't changed the basic principle, is based on every other bracket's progress. So if you joined 24 hours after the event started, your battles would be worth a lot more points than someone who joined 24 hours earlier. But you're wishing that you got the same level of enemy they did, but for your extra points! So you get to join late, not play as much, but basically benefit from everyone else who played to rubberband to progression rewards (placement is not as big a deal because the event is bracketed to when you choose to enter with all the other johnny-come-latelies). So that's partly why a level raise is not a big deal if you truly analyze it by virtue of the progression rewards and the context of your own bracket. So its one bad design (scaling) to counter other bad designs (brackets and rubberbanding). Get rid of those rather than ruin everything else because of it. There are no need of either, and everyone can get always same number of fights for same points. And there are better ways to ensure everyone wont have same number of points. No need of rushing and grinding. Should be more skill and risk/reward.
thglump wrote: So its one bad design (scaling) to counter other bad designs (brackets and rubberbanding). Get rid of those rather than ruin everything else because of it. There are no need of either, and everyone can get always same number of fights for same points. And there are better ways to ensure everyone wont have same number of points. No need of rushing and grinding. Should be more skill and risk/reward.
Phantron wrote: I think there should be a preset level (or lower, if the community somehow sucked enough at that mission to lower it) for all the missions you have not beat yet so you're not locked out of first time reward just for starting late. But after that it should be fair game. The scaling is quite fine. This way it lets everyone play less so you don't have a stupid arms race. What used to happen is that you THINK you're coming close to #1 by beating some mission 10 times, except the bracket leader comes back and beats the same mission 20 more times to reestablishes his unassailable lead. Now it's more like you beat it once and can't beat it again, bracket leader beats it 5 times and have an equally unassailable lead. This eliminates the pointless grinds that never actually got you closer to the bracket leader (because that guy can almost always grind when his position is in danger) and everyone can actually do something else for a change. The fact is if you can't beat the Wolverine + Daken mission now, you were never going to be anywhere close to #1 in any older system either compared to the guys who can beat it. The only difference is that you no longer have to grind out for 3 hours thinking you had a chance before reality kicks in. Not sure why people are complaining about the length of the battles. This is nothing compared to Heroic Oscorp. Wolverine + Daken does take a long time, but that's because you've to play very defensively until you have complete control. Once you hijacked a Threaten the match is over in 5 rounds, and even without using such party tricks, their 10K HP really isn't as much as it appears given that your boosted character list is actually quite good.
jozier wrote: thglump wrote: jozier wrote: Why should those who choose to wait for an easier bracket get an easier chance at progression rewards? That's what a lot of people don't seem realize. Your bracket's rubberbanding, as long as they haven't changed the basic principle, is based on every other bracket's progress. So if you joined 24 hours after the event started, your battles would be worth a lot more points than someone who joined 24 hours earlier. But you're wishing that you got the same level of enemy they did, but for your extra points! So you get to join late, not play as much, but basically benefit from everyone else who played to rubberband to progression rewards (placement is not as big a deal because the event is bracketed to when you choose to enter with all the other johnny-come-latelies). So that's partly why a level raise is not a big deal if you truly analyze it by virtue of the progression rewards and the context of your own bracket. So its one bad design (scaling) to counter other bad designs (brackets and rubberbanding). Get rid of those rather than ruin everything else because of it. There are no need of either, and everyone can get always same number of fights for same points. And there are better ways to ensure everyone wont have same number of points. No need of rushing and grinding. Should be more skill and risk/reward. Okay. So explain how you would devise a system that lacked scaling, brackets, and rubberbanding, but didn't exclusively reward the highest level player who started earliest and played the most? That was the original system. No rubberbanding, no scaling. It was a grind fest for those that had teams capable of taking on the (at the time) higher levels. It sucked.
gamar wrote: For one, create a player ranking based on "total time played" or "total amount of iso collected" or something similar, and base the bracket groupings on that ranking. If veteran players get offended that that would let new players get too much of their share of "good" rewards, have the "newbie" brackets give out mainly 2-star covers with occasional 3 stars, and the "veteran" brackets give out big-iso prizes and mainly 3-star covers, with occasional 4-stars.
gamar wrote: jozier wrote: thglump wrote: jozier wrote: Why should those who choose to wait for an easier bracket get an easier chance at progression rewards? That's what a lot of people don't seem realize. Your bracket's rubberbanding, as long as they haven't changed the basic principle, is based on every other bracket's progress. So if you joined 24 hours after the event started, your battles would be worth a lot more points than someone who joined 24 hours earlier. But you're wishing that you got the same level of enemy they did, but for your extra points! So you get to join late, not play as much, but basically benefit from everyone else who played to rubberband to progression rewards (placement is not as big a deal because the event is bracketed to when you choose to enter with all the other johnny-come-latelies). So that's partly why a level raise is not a big deal if you truly analyze it by virtue of the progression rewards and the context of your own bracket. So its one bad design (scaling) to counter other bad designs (brackets and rubberbanding). Get rid of those rather than ruin everything else because of it. There are no need of either, and everyone can get always same number of fights for same points. And there are better ways to ensure everyone wont have same number of points. No need of rushing and grinding. Should be more skill and risk/reward. Okay. So explain how you would devise a system that lacked scaling, brackets, and rubberbanding, but didn't exclusively reward the highest level player who started earliest and played the most? That was the original system. No rubberbanding, no scaling. It was a grind fest for those that had teams capable of taking on the (at the time) higher levels. It sucked. For one, create a player ranking based on "total time played" or "total amount of iso collected" or something similar, and base the bracket groupings on that ranking. If veteran players get offended that that would let new players get too much of their share of "good" rewards, have the "newbie" brackets give out mainly 2-star covers with occasional 3 stars, and the "veteran" brackets give out big-iso prizes and mainly 3-star covers, with occasional 4-stars.
jozier wrote: Ah, so in the current system, a newbie has a slim chance of getting a 3-star cover or even a 4-star cover. In your system, they have an even slimmer chance at a 3-star cover and zero chance at a 4-star cover, because they get shunted out of the tournament in favour of a 2 star tournament. And there's no way to progress except for play the game a ton or collect tons of ISO. That system is terrible, just fyi.
NorthernPolarity wrote: jozier wrote: Ah, so in the current system, a newbie has a slim chance of getting a 3-star cover or even a 4-star cover. In your system, they have an even slimmer chance at a 3-star cover and zero chance at a 4-star cover, because they get shunted out of the tournament in favour of a 2 star tournament. And there's no way to progress except for play the game a ton or collect tons of ISO. That system is terrible, just fyi. I think when he refers to newbies, he refers to the 1* players that are transitioning into 2* covers who do not need 3*/4* rewards. The "veteran players" probably include the guys with maxed out 2* covers looking for 3* covers.
jozier wrote: Okay. So explain how you would devise a system that lacked scaling, brackets, and rubberbanding, but didn't exclusively reward the highest level player who started earliest and played the most? That was the original system. No rubberbanding, no scaling. It was a grind fest for those that had teams capable of taking on the (at the time) higher levels. It sucked.
pandaberry6 wrote: You can't please everyone but the developers are trying to create a system that is fun and fair for as many players as they can. They want to make as many people happy as they can but there are the furthest extremes of players that are likely to feel neglected. From one extreme (the player with almost every character maxed) to the other extreme (a new player who is still struggling through the prologue) there are players who will not fit the systems design. But the system is continuing to change and finding ways to reward players at every level. I am just enjoying the ride. Lots of goodies up for grabs as always and even if I do not get the prize I want this time, I know there will be more chances in the near future to try again. And maybe in the future, my playing style will better fit the tourney's point system. As others have said, MPQ is a marathon not a sprint.
jozier wrote: NorthernPolarity wrote: jozier wrote: Ah, so in the current system, a newbie has a slim chance of getting a 3-star cover or even a 4-star cover. In your system, they have an even slimmer chance at a 3-star cover and zero chance at a 4-star cover, because they get shunted out of the tournament in favour of a 2 star tournament. And there's no way to progress except for play the game a ton or collect tons of ISO. That system is terrible, just fyi. I think when he refers to newbies, he refers to the 1* players that are transitioning into 2* covers who do not need 3*/4* rewards. The "veteran players" probably include the guys with maxed out 2* covers looking for 3* covers. That doesn't change anything from the current structure. Instead of finishing top 45, you finish lower and get your 2* covers. But in his system, you'd be prevented from progressing through artificial measures as opposed to your luck and skill.
LoreNYC wrote: It's really simple Jozier. Make it a pve reward system instead of a pvp reward system. Progression but not ranking. No rubberbandinding. No scaling up to 230 half way into the event New people shouldn't be able to get the best reward right off the bat with a higher success rate than established players who have put in time doing all the prior content. Start with easy enemies, sure, and each reset make them harder. But no one should get screwed out of an event because by the time they get back from work the community scaled them through the roof. The vast majority of the people playing this prefer something to play on their time rather than when someone halfway around the world might kick off the start. This event granted started out better than the last two so we can give it a chance but it's not enjoyable when luck has more of an impact than strategy. Atleast we can kill normal and heroics this time around for atleast part of the event