GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: "You are supposed to lose" worked so well with Galactus that they rolled it back immediately. I'd like to think they're not so dense as to go back to that well, although I do agree that appears to be the plan.
Polares wrote: "You have to lose"? I don't want to play a game to lose
Vhailorx wrote: And that might be fine if: (1) the devs were up front about that design choice
"David wrote: Moore"] The main things we are trying to accomplish with this change are ... making missions more about completing challenging-but-fun missions rather than playing missions quickly, at set times during the day. ... Our goal with this change is to make Story events more about beating challenging missions rather than having to beat missions quickly at set intervals during the day.
Slarow wrote: GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: "You are supposed to lose" worked so well with Galactus that they rolled it back immediately. I'd like to think they're not so dense as to go back to that well, although I do agree that appears to be the plan. Polares wrote: "You have to lose"? I don't want to play a game to lose I never said "You have to lose" or "You are supposed to lose", I only said you are going to, and you need to learn to avoid losing. You need to adjust and not take on fights you can't win. That is a shift in strategy for MPQ, but it is a good one, as it replaces the "strategy" of "fight every 8 hours then grind down at the end".
Slarow wrote: Vhailorx wrote: And that might be fine if: (1) the devs were up front about that design choice They were, but people didn't listen: "David wrote: Moore"] The main things we are trying to accomplish with this change are ... making missions more about completing challenging-but-fun missions rather than playing missions quickly, at set times during the day. ... Our goal with this change is to make Story events more about beating challenging missions rather than having to beat missions quickly at set intervals during the day.
JVReal wrote: Strategy implies that there is a way to win, albeit difficult. By implying you are supposed to "not win"... then there is no strategy to win it... ergo no strategy... and it fails as a strategy game.
JVReal wrote: Notice the key words... beating. They want you to win, but be challenged. That's not what you are describing sir.
XandorXerxes wrote: JVReal wrote: Notice the key words... beating. They want you to win, but be challenged. That's not what you are describing sir. Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "challenge." If 99% of the time you are going to win the bouts and the placements are determined by who can most reliably hit the 8-hour mark and grind down at *just* the right time, you could say that it is a "challenge" insofar as it's a contest. It's certainly not challenging in terms of difficulty. Increasing your chance to lose is exactly what makes something more "challenging" in terms of difficulty. The winning position is changing from "who times everything exactly right" to "who can beat the most nodes." I'm sure many of the top people will be able to beat all of them, and it will go back to the timing - which is a shame for them, really - but from a person who has to work 9-5 most days, this new method will be a breath of fresh air. Health packs, imo, are a broken system and need their own rework.
Slarow wrote: JVReal wrote: Strategy implies that there is a way to win, albeit difficult. By implying you are supposed to "not win"... then there is no strategy to win it... ergo no strategy... and it fails as a strategy game. No, Strategy implies the better you do, the further you go. If everyone could beat every mission (as was true of the previous setup), then there is no strategy other than the meta-strategy of 8 hour cycle and grinding. There has to be a point at which people will lose for strategy to actually mean anything. The further along you get, the better your strategy was.
Slarow wrote: I never said "You have to lose" or "You are supposed to lose", I only said you are going to, and you need to learn to avoid losing. You need to adjust and not take on fights you can't win. That is a shift in strategy for MPQ, but it is a good one, as it replaces the "strategy" of "fight every 8 hours then grind down at the end".
Slarow wrote: And you are going to need to learn to avoid losing by being strategic. Something you have never needed to do before in PVE. I think everyone is missing the point with the PVE changes. Everyone is used to "play at optimal times, win basically every fight, and get a good placement". The only "Strategy" was timing your playing and winning fast. Losing never happened. The new scheme means that you are going to lose, and people need to adjust to that. Those who are talking about the game now requiring you to grind each node 11 times in a row are missing the point. You won't be able to grind 11 times in a row, because the nodes will get so hard that you will run out of health packs before this happens. The strategy now is to fight smart, take on teams that you can defeat, and if you can't defeat them don't try or end up losing your health packs. The barrier you run up against now isn't 8 hour timing or 1 point nodes, the barrier is teams you can't defeat or ones who actually cost you your health packs. Consequently, those who fight smarter, or have better equipped rosters, are those who will make placement rewards. Previously, the game rewarded those who could grind optimally every 8 hours. Now it rewards actual in-game strategy (team choices), not meta-strategy. The trade-off is that you are going to have to get used to losing more often, and learn to avoid it strategically.
rawfsu wrote: Just out of curiousity, since it's a good while before I play EotS, has anyone who has posted so far started the event? Maybe I'm in La La Land, but if the nodes are going to start off at a set difficulty, what difficulty do they start at? Then the follow-up question is, how high did the difficulty jump after beating that node the second time and each time after that? I just feel there's a lot of speculation and disaster scenarios being spread, but it doesn't sound like anyone has actually played the event to see what it's like.
OJSP wrote: I agree with your view entirely. I wanted to post something similar, but decided not to because the point might get lost to some people. I just want to add, basically, with the newly proposed system, once you're leading the pack in the first 3 hours of the sub (assuming you've cleared all the nodes 7 times), you'll win the sub if you could grind the last 2 hours of the event (or as long as you started later than your competitors). So, anyone who's willing to buy health packs during the beginning of the sub will likely win the sub and subsequently the event. Just pick a slice where you're available to play for one block of 5-6 hours.. then you're good. That's the strategy.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: <br abp="858"><br abp="859">So the new strategy is to stop playing when it's too hard and let others with the pockets to buy health packs at will just keep accumulating points and price you out of placement?<br abp="860"><br abp="861">That's the new 'strategy?'
Slarow wrote: Again, that assumes that you can defeat the max leveled node. Doesn't matter how many health packs you throw at the game, if the node is too hard, it is too hard. You can't buy your way out of it.
OJSP wrote: I don't need to assume. So far, I've taken 1st place in EotS twice. First time, no Charlie's Angels, with 3* roster. Second time, with Charlie's Angels (winning 3 4* Thor covers). Unless they've changed the characters in some of the nodes, I don't need a different team. Problem is, sometimes with Charlie's Angels, you'd take a lot of hit that you need to use health packs.
OJSP wrote: Slarow wrote: The difficulty is increased with this change, that's the whole point and what people are complaining about. Your assumption is that you will be able to defeat the highest difficulty in the new setup. It will be harder to start, and get even harder each time you defeat a node. Look, I've already said, with Charlie's Angels, it doesn't matter how high your enemy levels are.. you could beat the Gauntlet enemies at level 395 with a 166 SW, 140 GSBW and 166 Prof X. It doesn't matter how strong they are, if they can't get any move except the first one. So, I'm going with my original opinion, that unless they change the opponent in this event, you could beat all of them with Charlie's Angels. It only loses to Jean Grey and the insane match damage of 5*s. It will cost a lot of health packs and take a long time. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. Let me know who wins your bracket at the end of the event.
Slarow wrote: The difficulty is increased with this change, that's the whole point and what people are complaining about. Your assumption is that you will be able to defeat the highest difficulty in the new setup. It will be harder to start, and get even harder each time you defeat a node.