For what reason can someone upvote the new pve changes

antreas1911

I am a long time player (reaching day 880) and i play competitively both pvp-pve.
I tested today's pve and the only things that changed are these two.

1. Trivial nodes became much much harder.
2. Optimal grind requires 12 cleans instead of 7.

These 2 combined mean that now it is required double effort and time.
And the worst part is that the rewards remain exactly the same.

Double time (maybe more than double), costs more (in hp for health packs or iso for boosts) and exactly same rewards.

My question is exactly what the title says.
Who can benefit from these changes?

JVReal

99% of the population that don't optimal grind and don't shoot for Top 10 benefit from this.

the only reason the extra grinds and cool-down are even there are for those that are obsessed with the "need" to grind.

For 99% of the population: No need to do that immediate clear when sub starts, you can start late! Can't clear all 10 nodes at once? Do a couple at a time in your spare time. Double clear your favorite ones without penalty to get the reward you want out of it (CP). Want to sleep? Now you can!

For it to succeed, they need to get the scaling right. Hopefully they can tweak the scaling in this test each sub until they get it right by the end.

antreas1911

Since the nodes started giving 7 rewards i never did an optimal grind, even in the last one with new character.

I still did 7 clears in all nodes whenever i liked, sometimes 7 in a row. Never lost sleep for a game.
And i still got top 10 in all of them.

So my question remains, who can benefit.

Vhailorx

for the 99% percent of players that didn't try for top 50 placement, the old scoring system was no impediment. It was easy to play less than optimally and get top 100 in everything by a new character release event.

Yes, most discussion of these changes is concerned with changes at the top of end of play. That's because most people who aren't at the top end of play never interact with the silly quirks of the scoring system that make a marginal difference at the top.

JVReal

Vhailorx wrote:

for the 99% percent of players that didn't try for top 50 placement, the old scoring system was no impediment. It was easy to play less than optimally and get top 100 in everything by a new character release event.

Yes, most discussion of these changes is concerned with changes at the top of end of play. That's because most people who aren't at the top end of play never interact with the silly quirks of the scoring system that make a marginal difference at the top.

In the last event, I had no intention of getting top 100, but I wanted Progression. I missed it by 550 points because of diminishing points from multiple clears. My life schedule didn't allow me to have optimal clears, but I did have time at the end of the last day, and with the diminishing returns, I missed maxed progression. I would have benefited from this PVE format by not having diminishing returns on the sub that I actually had time to clear. I still would not have placed top 100, but I would have had my 25 CP and bought a LT to have a 4* to build my roster.

Vhailorx

JVReal wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

for the 99% percent of players that didn't try for top 50 placement, the old scoring system was no impediment. It was easy to play less than optimally and get top 100 in everything by a new character release event.

Yes, most discussion of these changes is concerned with changes at the top of end of play. That's because most people who aren't at the top end of play never interact with the silly quirks of the scoring system that make a marginal difference at the top.

In the last event, I had no intention of getting top 100, but I wanted Progression. I missed it by 550 points because of diminishing points from multiple clears. My life schedule didn't allow me to have optimal clears, but I did have time at the end of the last day, and with the diminishing returns, I missed maxed progression. I would have benefited from this PVE format by not having diminishing returns on the sub that I actually had time to clear. I still would not have placed top 100, but I would have had my 25 CP and bought a LT to have a 4* to build my roster.

Wait, we can use anecdotal edge-cases to justify sweeping changes? Awesome! Back in 2015, I finished 22nd in the JG release event. If we changed the rules to give me an extra 4000 points at the start of each event, I would have gotten an extra JG cover way back then. I would support that change! Obviously, your situation sucks. I have finished just short of my personal goal and it is heartbreaking. My own "counterexample" is a reduction to the absurd, but I think it illustrates the problem with your argument.

No matter how the system is organized, there will always be someone who finishes just outside whatever prize tier or prog total she or he wanted. That's inevitable. It doesn't change the fact that optimal play was only necessary under the old system if you wanted to finish top 50 or higher. outside of that top 5%, frequent daily play without regard for refresh times was more than enough to get the top prog reward. It sucks that you could only play at the end of the past event. but life will always get in the way for somebody and even the new system will require a minimum playtime investment for prog rewards.

JVReal

Vhailorx wrote:

JVReal wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

for the 99% percent of players that didn't try for top 50 placement, the old scoring system was no impediment. It was easy to play less than optimally and get top 100 in everything by a new character release event.

Yes, most discussion of these changes is concerned with changes at the top of end of play. That's because most people who aren't at the top end of play never interact with the silly quirks of the scoring system that make a marginal difference at the top.

In the last event, I had no intention of getting top 100, but I wanted Progression. I missed it by 550 points because of diminishing points from multiple clears. My life schedule didn't allow me to have optimal clears, but I did have time at the end of the last day, and with the diminishing returns, I missed maxed progression. I would have benefited from this PVE format by not having diminishing returns on the sub that I actually had time to clear. I still would not have placed top 100, but I would have had my 25 CP and bought a LT to have a 4* to build my roster.

Wait, we can use anecdotal edge-cases to justify sweeping changes? Awesome! Back in 2015, I finished 22nd in the JG release event. If we changed the rules to give me an extra 4000 points at the start of each event, I would have gotten an extra JG cover way back then. I would support that change! Obviously this "example" is a reduction to the absurd, but I think it illustrates the problem with your argument.

No matter how the system is organized, there will always be someone who finishes just outside whatever prize tier or prog total she or he wanted. That's inevitable. It doesn't change the fact that optimal play was only necessary under the old system if you wanted to finish top 50 or higher. outside of that top 5%, frequent daily play without regard for refresh times was more than enough to get the top prog reward. It sucks that you could only play at the end of the past event. but life will always get in the way for somebody and even the new system will require a minimum playtime investment for prog rewards.

You asked who could benefit, and I stated I could. What is your problem? There is nothing absurd about my comments. Tailoring a system to appease 1% of the population is absurd.

Vhailorx

JVReal: your example was fine (though I think it missed the mark). My counterexample was the intentional absurdity. I had no intention of making a personal attack. Sorry for the confusion, post now edited. . .

To your larger point: if you don't want to see a system tailored to the interest of the top 1%, then you might want to stop playing freemium mobile games. and possibly stop living in a capitalist society (assuming you do live in one) while you are at it!

My point isn't that MPQ should cater to the whales (though they surely do), but that the marginal point increase available via optimum play is rarely meaningful past the very top of the leaderboards. When trying to go from 21st to 10th, the maximum possible number of points is a significant factor. When trying to go from 400th to 250th, the maximum possible number of points is much much less important that the amount of time available to play. So I think it's appropriate to evaluate this new point system from the perspective of top 100/top 50 players, where these changes will have the most effect.

simonsez

JVReal wrote:

99% of the population that don't optimal grind and don't shoot for Top 10 benefit from this.

I don't see how they benefit when everything is so much harder. Fewer node awards, fewer progression awards, more frustration. Your response might make sense if all they did was change the points and the timer. But it doesn't make sense given everything they threw at us.

JVReal

simonsez wrote:

JVReal wrote:

99% of the population that don't optimal grind and don't shoot for Top 10 benefit from this.

I don't see how they benefit when everything is so much harder. Fewer node awards, fewer progression awards, more frustration. Your response might make sense if all they did was change the points and the timer. But it doesn't make sense given everything they threw at us.

The failed scaling gives the whole thing a bad flavor. Too many changes were made at once. Reminiscent of the R91 changes... added champ and nerfed 3* at the same time gave the whole thing a bad flavor too.

TheDrStrange

I think people are assuming this is the way it'll work from now on. They said this was a test of the new pve format. Rather than being upset at this particular event, I'm looking at it as something to try out and give feedback on. Sounds like nodes might be too hard. Doesn't mean that's the way they'll be from now on. People shouldn't totally freak out about this as I'm seeing in multiple threads.

Druss

It benefitted me as I'm a masochist!

I love matching an invisible, constantly spamming, Lv 350 Calthrop.

The feel of using those health-packs after every battle .... pure bliss

(by the way: long time no speak OP)

JVReal

Druss wrote:

It benefitted me as I'm a masochist!

I love matching an invisible, constantly spamming, Lv 350 Calthrop.

The feel of using those health-packs after every battle .... pure bliss

(by the way: long time no speak OP)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7R0ZxNgC4

Vhailorx

TheDrStrange wrote:

I think people are assuming this is the way it'll work from now on. They said this was a test of the new pve format. Rather than being upset at this particular event, I'm looking at it as something to try out and give feedback on. Sounds like nodes might be too hard. Doesn't mean that's the way they'll be from now on. People shouldn't totally freak out about this as I'm seeing in multiple threads.

This is a good point. I think that's why most of the (IMO) most constructive posts today have started off by praising demiurge's communication. I love that they explained both their goals and the specific changes that are being implemented to meet those goals. And I like that this is a 1-event test to gather data.

However, I don't think it's at all wrong to go on to point out the many problems:

(1) This is a poor test scenario because too many changes have been implemented at once. it will be very hard to sort out what change caused what effect.

(2) the scaling changes seems very aggressive (by report, I haven't started yet myself), and erasing the trivial nodes is a terrible idea

(3) doubling the number of clears necessary for an optimal score is also a terrible idea,

(4) extending both the length/difficulty of matches, as well as the number of matches necessary to achieve high placement, while NOT increasing the rewards is the most terrible-est idea. . .

It's always important to keep criticism constructive and on point (even if it is harsh), so I don't endorse personal attacks on the devs. But I think it's totally appropriate for the players to loudly voice their complaints now before these changes become permanent.

Polares

simonsez wrote:

JVReal wrote:

99% of the population that don't optimal grind and don't shoot for Top 10 benefit from this.

I don't see how they benefit when everything is so much harder. Fewer node awards, fewer progression awards, more frustration. Your response might make sense if all they did was change the points and the timer. But it doesn't make sense given everything they threw at us.

Exactly, absolutly NOBODY benefits from this change. Maybe if it was just the way points regenerate, but combined with the new difficulty? Nobody.

I am still processing how devs don't have a clue of how their game works, and what these changes mean. The other option is that they just want to make life for their players harder.

Vhailorx

Polares wrote:

simonsez wrote:

JVReal wrote:

99% of the population that don't optimal grind and don't shoot for Top 10 benefit from this.

I don't see how they benefit when everything is so much harder. Fewer node awards, fewer progression awards, more frustration. Your response might make sense if all they did was change the points and the timer. But it doesn't make sense given everything they threw at us.

Exactly, absolutly NOBODY benefits from this change. Maybe if it was just the way points regenerate, but combined with the new difficulty? Nobody.

I am still processing how devs don't have a clue of how their game works, and what these changes mean. The other option is that they just want to make life for their players harder.

I hate to be conspiratorial, but you are right that the obvious gap between the stated goals and the new changes is striking. Given the aggressive monetization of the game, it is always tempting to consider the underlying financial motives of dev choices. So it may be true that the devs want to give players more freedom about when they play, BUT they also want players to buy more healthpacks. Or they also want to reduce the number of players that are acheiving the max prog reward routinely because too many CPs are going out the door 'for free.'

I find that scenario easier to believe than: demiurge actually thinks these changes will achieve their stated goals.

carrion_pigeons

I haven't actually started playing yet, but I anticipate that I am way more likely to hit progress now that I can do it in one sitting or two without having to schedule my life around it.

I might be wrong, but if I am it'll be because of the scaling changes, not because of the new structure for this PvE. So I expect to benefit from the new PvE changes.

simonsez

TheDrStrange wrote:

I think people are assuming this is the way it'll work from now on. They said this was a test of the new pve format.

Someone else pointed out in the big thread that every test they've run previously was a precursor of a rollout. He's probably right, because I can't think of any gameplay test that resulted in, "sorry, that was a bad idea. You won't see that again". That's what has me worried.

simonsez

carrion pigeons wrote:

I haven't actually started playing yet, but I anticipate that I am way more likely to hit progress now that I can do it in one sitting or two without having to schedule my life around it.

I might be wrong, but if I am it'll be because of the scaling changes, not because of the new structure for this PvE. So I expect to benefit from the new PvE changes.

You can't separate the two. In the devs' mind, this isn't two tests running concurrently. It's a two-pronged approach to try to get people to stop grinding. Lord knows why they thought this was the best approach.

CrookedKnight

People upvoted the post because it sounds like a great change unless you regularly go for top 10 (which, by definition, a very small percentage do). The reception only turned universally negative 12 hours later when the event started and they saw the insane level scaling.

Vhailorx

simonsez wrote:

In the devs' mind, this isn't two tests running concurrently. It's a two-pronged approach to try to get people to stop grinding. Lord knows why they thought this was the best approach.

Is this really an attempt to stop grinding? There's no way any rational developer would think "I want to stop people grinding. You what I'll do? I will change the scoring system so that significant point rewards are available over the first 11 matches rather than just the first 8, and then I will ensure that the maximum possible score can be achieved by playing straight through any given event, from beginning to end without interruption. That will definitely keep people from ginding!"

I think it's an attempt to stop people from having to grind on a particular schedule (and possibly also to increase revenue as per my earlier post in this thread).

It's a terrible attempt because:

(1) it just makes people grind on a different, particular schedule; and

(2) demiurge just tossed in a whole bunch of additional changes that almost double the number of matches necessary to get a top score and increased the difficulty of all matches on average.