Please end level scaling in PVE

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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.

Puritas

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.

loool
so you're complaining about scaling because it's too hard and unfair and rubberbanding is stupid
and then you conclude your argument with there should be a system that rewards people more for harder fights

ok well done cap'n

Unknown

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.

Ah, but there's progression rewards, too.

Let's face it, this game really only has three "difficulties": 1) The enemy can kill me before I get my Chain/Protect off, 2) they can't, 3) I have 5 blue Spiderman.

I know how rubberbanding works in theory, but in practice it really, really, doesn't, at least for newer players... At the beginning of the event I could crank out 3-5 rounds of a mission in the same time as it takes me now to beat it once, netting me more points over time than the rubberbanding allows for... not to mention the missions with three 230-level enemies that might as well "rubberband" to a million points for all the good that'll do me.

Unknown

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.

Puritas

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.

then what's the difference in result between that and people with weaker rosters getting lower rank prizes in brackets as they are now? you lot'd all just be crying about being held back from the "good rewards", and "this game needs pay 2 win to get anywhere worth being"

Unknown

Heroic Oscorp is an example of hard missions that didn't have rubberbanding, and it was pretty hilarious when #1 has twice the points of #10. But that probably does represent the capability between the #1 guy and the #10 guy. The previous rubberbanding puts too much illusion of fairness. That is, the #1 guy who is twice as powerful as the #10 guy is never actually going to lose to the #10 guy, but he's forced to grind a lot to fend him off. In no case is a guy going to actually overtake someone who is twice as strong as him, but both of them sure can waste a lot of time before reality finally kicks in. With this system, the reality sets in considerably sooner, though the rubberbanding ensures that the progression awards are still reachable (whereas they're not in Heroic Oscorp).

Unknown

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.

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.

Moral

Rolling back 50 to 75% of the scaling every 24 hours would be nice.

It rewards people who want to grind it out and challenge themselves while allowing those with a lower frustration tolerance to come back the next day and jump back in.

NorthernPolarity

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.

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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.

Ok no brackets, no scaling, no ruberbanding, no grinding. Higher lvls will always have edge (to counter that you need brackets but not based on time of join but on rank)
System would be simple. Variable enemy levels.

Lets say enemy is lvl 50, grants 1000 points, and its repeatable 3x. So far everyone would end with same points.
If you thing you can beat stronger, you wager say 80 points. Enemy now has lvl130 and grants 1080 points. If you fail it will go back to lvl 50, and grant 920 points and you can try again.
After beating it and there is some repeats left it returns to lvl 50 for 1000 points.
And you can go crazy. Wager 500 points and fight lvl 550 if you think you can beat it.

There. You have set number of fights no matter when you join, so there can be any grinding. You set difficulty for yourself depending on you skill and roster. Good risk/reward system that can be played without stress and time constraints.

Puritas

**** how is that different from scaling
apart from adding extra confusing variables and opening the door for people to whine about cheating AI and unfair cascades ruining their progression

Unknown

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.

A newbie already has zero chance at getting a 4-star cover, and when I say "newbie bracket," I'm talking about players who are still running their Thor/Juggernaut/M Storm team and trying to BUILD their 2 star team, who wouldn't even be taking advantage of their 1-2 cover 3 star characters. Once a player has a solid 2 star lineup and can start dealing with lvl 100 enemies, the community level scaling and other problems the newbies are complaining about and veterans like won't be such a barrier.

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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

Unknown

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.

Only 2 guys can get the top reward in a 1000 person bracket. Even if you're better than 99% of the players out there, you'd still only place top 2 once every 5 tournaments. It's kind of like how they say Poker is successful because the average person thinks they're better than average. Well, apperantly here in MPQ the average person thinks they're better than 99% of the other players, including guys who clearly have superior roster/skill/time (and often all 3).

Unknown

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.

That was meant as a salve to if veteran players would object to "newbies" getting the same rewards as they do. The important difference is that newbies hate community scaling and veterans hate rubberbanding, and putting them in different brackets would decrease those problems.

Puritas

wat
only people who hate rubberbanding are low roster players who don't know who it works

ditto scaling (since this event) tbh

Unknown

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

That'd work if Heroic Oscorp lasted a month instead of 5 days. Otherwise the result is that most people never get anywhere close to the PvE progression rewards. Did anyone posting on the forum even got to the halfway point to the Wolverine X-Force covers (25K)? I hit 15K and that was helped by a rather drastic reduction in difficulty on the last day.

I think it might work if you have like paid PvE progression like paid $5 to unlock Heroic Oscorp that you can complete at your own leisure (and the mission rewards reset every 3 days or whatever), though if they're good at coming up with PvE content in general this wouldn't be needed anyway. Doing something like Heroic Oscorp should be considered a matter of desperation, not a model of something you want to do every day.