XandorXerxes wrote: That's the strategy that's been in place, not the new one. Maybe if you were a PvE only player, you might be surprised by that - but that's the definition of how PvP works, and I've skipped your name enough times to recognize you as a PvP player. There are always going to be players at a disadvantage - we usually call them Steam players, har har /sob - and people with less cash to spend will almost always have to be better to overcome those who are flush with cash when it comes to competitions where money can affect the outcome.
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.
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.
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.
firethorne 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. Yeah, the last time they pulled this, "You're supposed to lose" ****, the forums were on fire for days. Yet, now they do it again.
JVReal wrote: Maybe they did want the scaling to be too high to do an end of sub grind...but if they wanted to deter that... why not eliminate it? What if they were full points for 7 rounds, then only 20 points after that? Will people feel obligated to grind for 48 full hours because there is no refresh timer forcing them to break for efficiency? That would be a more interesting test to me than this scaling one...
Polares wrote: I love Dark Souls games, you die a lot, but it is a fair game, you lose because you made a mistake, not because the game 'cheated' you,
wymtime wrote: The biggest thing that is happening in PVE is the devs have gotten rid of the trivial nodes. These battles will now be harder and more difficult to grind down. The higher scaling nodes will have more health and the reality is players will just use more IM40/cap or 4thor, or winfinity, or 4thor Loki storm combos. The harder nodes will be at higher levels and will encourage players to use cheep combos. The old trivial nodes will be about depth of your roster so you don't have to use your A team all the time. I get what the devs are doing with wanting to eliminate to trivial nodes and the fact that there is no timers is good. my question is what is going to happen to soft cappers or intentionally have kept their rosters low for PVE? Since lower levels are going to scale up faster it sounds like they are going to be really punished. The other people being punished are transitioners who are getting their first or second 4* to 270. These players will start out at much higher scaling and will have much less depth to play with. Worst of all is the rewards are exactly the same. Harder nodes same rewards. So now players will boost on the old trivial nodes and cause the transition to take longer. If the ISO rewards were much higher going forward it might be worth the difficulty
OJSP wrote: Dauthi wrote: I agree with Slarow on the new dynamics of PVE, and as I stated before it actually feels like puzzle quest. It's not this new approach to a challenging PVE that is broken, it's a combo which can virtually win any battle. The initial Galactus event should have proven that since you instantly died in (3?) turns, yet players were winning with this combo. The harder the challenge the more broken "Charlie's Angels" (Professor X, Grey Suit Black Widow, and Scarlet Witch) are. If the ISO gains were increased as levels increased, this is a better model for PVE in my opinion. I didn't use Galactus Hungers part 1 as an example, because: 1. our alliance only got to round 6 2. to reliably beat Galactus, you'd need to force close the app in round 6 or 7.. which I wasn't prepared to do.. and, 3. In round 8, I believe having Hulk instead helped? I know in part 2, I used Hulk, Storm and Luke Cage from round 1 to round 8 without losing even once. I never really enjoyed using Charlie's Angels. Nowadays, I'm using other teams that are faster and more sustainable. Typically, I'd use 12-15 characters per event. In the first sub of EotS, I've done 1 clear and got the 2 CPs in 45 minutes, with 3 health packs in total. I only had 2 leftover from the last event. However, I only used 6-7 characters in total (including the Essential ones), none named Prof X, GSBW or SW. I played the hardest node 4 times to get the CP and the Ghost Rider essential 3 times. Wolverine never had any opportunity to Slash my team even once. If I tried using the other characters I used in this event before, they wouldn't last very long. I think it won't be much of a problem grinding the nodes 6 or 7 times if I wanted to buy some health packs. There's just too many Caltrops. It's either that, or taking an Adamantium Slash or two. Also, I've decided even before knowing about the changes and the fact that the CP is at 156k, that I'm not going to play the survival nodes more than once per sub. Observing my leaderboard, the leader is probably on their 4th clear of the nodes with just over 10000 points. Their roster is predominantly championed 3*s, with 3 5*s (270,270,255) with 3 covers at most and one 4* at 250. Our usual bracket winner who has 3 maxed championed 5*s and a full 4* roster, is 4th with 8451. I'm guessing a player with mainly 3* characters have more options to beat their opponents than a player with max & championed 5* and 4*s.
Dauthi wrote: I agree with Slarow on the new dynamics of PVE, and as I stated before it actually feels like puzzle quest. It's not this new approach to a challenging PVE that is broken, it's a combo which can virtually win any battle. The initial Galactus event should have proven that since you instantly died in (3?) turns, yet players were winning with this combo. The harder the challenge the more broken "Charlie's Angels" (Professor X, Grey Suit Black Widow, and Scarlet Witch) are. If the ISO gains were increased as levels increased, this is a better model for PVE in my opinion.
Vhailorx wrote: You are wrong dauthi. Only hulk or force quitting worked in rounds 7 and 8 of galactus. Galactus killed everyone on round 3 unless you removed 3+ countdown land he spawn 3 or 4 every turn). So he would kill everyone before switch's countdown would go off. Force quitting allowed players to restart every match, at the price of a few healthpacks. And using hulk might let you win straight up becuae each countdown did enough damage to trigger his passive. Then you have to hope that the tiles spawned enough match-5s to get gsbw/Prof X rolling. But it wasn't 100%
OJSP wrote: Dauthi wrote: Check the top people in your bracket. They should have either 5*s or a underleveled Professor X to use the charlies angels combo. I've done that.. it would just make my post longer. But, since you've asked:
Dauthi wrote: Check the top people in your bracket. They should have either 5*s or a underleveled Professor X to use the charlies angels combo.
OJSP wrote: Dauthi wrote: I agree with Slarow on the new dynamics of PVE, and as I stated before it actually feels like puzzle quest. It's not this new approach to a challenging PVE that is broken, it's a combo which can virtually win any battle. The initial Galactus event should have proven that since you instantly died in (3?) turns, yet players were winning with this combo. The harder the challenge the more broken "Charlie's Angels" (Professor X, Grey Suit Black Widow, and Scarlet Witch) are. If the ISO gains were increased as levels increased, this is a better model for PVE in my opinion. I didn't use Galactus Hungers part 1 as an example, because: 1. our alliance only got to round 6 2. to reliably beat Galactus, you'd need to force close the app in round 6 or 7.. which I wasn't prepared to do.. and, 3. In round 8, I believe having Hulk instead helped? I know in part 2, I used Hulk, Storm and Luke Cage from round 1 to round 8 without losing even once. I never really enjoyed using Charlie's Angels. Nowadays, I'm using other teams that are faster and more sustainable. Typically, I'd use 12-15 characters per event. In the first sub of EotS, I've done 1 clear and got the 2 CPs in 45 minutes, with 3 health packs in total. I only had 2 leftover from the last event. However, I only used 6-7 characters in total (including the Essential ones), none named Prof X, GSBW or SW. I played the hardest node 4 times to get the CP and the Ghost Rider essential 3 times. Wolverine never had any opportunity to Slash my team even once. If I tried using the other characters I used in this event before, they wouldn't last very long. I think it won't be much of a problem grinding the nodes 6 or 7 times if I wanted to buy some health packs. There's just too many Caltrops. It's either that, or taking an Adamantium Slash or two. Also, I've decided even before knowing about the changes and the fact that the CP is at 156k, that I'm not going to play the survival nodes more than once per sub. Observing my leaderboard, the leader is probably on their 4th clear of the nodes with just over 10000 points. Their roster is predominantly championed 3*s, with 3 5*s (270,270,255) with 3 covers at most and one 4* at 250. Our usual bracket winner who has 3 maxed championed 5*s and a full 4* roster, is 4th with 8451. I'm guessing a player with mainly 3* characters have more options to beat their opponents than a player with max & championed 5* and 4*s. Lopan15 wrote: If I don't use winfinite IM40/Lcap or Bobby/Jean, I get beat down hard. Even with those teams I'm wiping a third of the time. (How many times can I get a yellow starved board when using IM40? 6 nodes in a row.). 6 times in a row is a lot.. but I'm puzzled, you've worded it as such you're using IM40 with Lcap in one team and Bobby/Jean in another? I think you're close to making a very strong team there.. (and I think we've got a very similar scaling)
Lopan15 wrote: If I don't use winfinite IM40/Lcap or Bobby/Jean, I get beat down hard. Even with those teams I'm wiping a third of the time. (How many times can I get a yellow starved board when using IM40? 6 nodes in a row.).
"OJSP wrote: 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.
Vhailorx wrote: Dauthi, I don't see how that changes the basic facts. In the first run of galactus, the only way to reach the final level was to (1) use a variation of a winfinite team (sometimes you could also win with xfw + if if you could get enough so to start a board shake cycle), AND (exploit mechanics of the game when you got bad luck. It was a terrible design choice. "Your supposed to lose" is a bad design when the game rewards only happen if you win AND there are significant play-gate penalties for losing.
Slarow wrote: 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.