You are going to lose... eventually

13»

Comments

  • TxMoose
    TxMoose Posts: 4,319 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.
    personally I enjoy being 'strategic' with my entire roster, not with just my champed 4s. there was a pve recently with px either essential or boosted (don't remember, but no winfinite) and I successfully got to green checks on all my nodes during my grind (5X for the way I play) on 2 health packs. that took a ton of strategy and took most of my roster to do, and it was very satisfying and lucrative (t10 sub, iso, progression progress, etc). now I'm limited to ~10-15% of my roster and nearly every match requires health packs. forcing you into brute force mode from the get-go isn't strategy...
  • Slarow
    Slarow Posts: 204 Tile Toppler
    TxMoose wrote:
    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.
    personally I enjoy being 'strategic' with my entire roster, not with just my champed 4s. there was a pve recently with px either essential or boosted (don't remember, but no winfinite) and I successfully got to green checks on all my nodes during my grind (5X for the way I play) on 2 health packs. that took a ton of strategy and took most of my roster to do, and it was very satisfying and lucrative (t10 sub, iso, progression progress, etc). now I'm limited to ~10-15% of my roster and nearly every match requires health packs. forcing you into brute force mode from the get-go isn't strategy...

    I agree. After playing, I am still of the same opinion that this is the way to go, in that eventually the nodes will progress to the point you cannot beat them, however I think the current starting point is too high. They should start lower and get higher faster, hitting the same level by ~ the fourth replay.
  • Xenoberyll
    Xenoberyll Posts: 647 Critical Contributor
    Ruibarian wrote:
    I think a lot of people here are missing the obvious solution: Make PvE actually PvE and stop giving out the end rewards based on how many players you're ahead of... That's just PvP where you're fighting the same teams. If everything was a progression reward like Gauntlet, we wouldn't have to care about whether or not someone was burning health packs to get to first place.

    That's one fix that is often suggested, often hoped for and completely ignored by d3. They're probably afraid of giving out 'too many' free covers
  • Slarow
    Slarow Posts: 204 Tile Toppler
    Xenoberyll wrote:
    Ruibarian wrote:
    I think a lot of people here are missing the obvious solution: Make PvE actually PvE and stop giving out the end rewards based on how many players you're ahead of... That's just PvP where you're fighting the same teams. If everything was a progression reward like Gauntlet, we wouldn't have to care about whether or not someone was burning health packs to get to first place.

    That's one fix that is often suggested, often hoped for and completely ignored by d3. They're probably afraid of giving out 'too many' free covers

    No one who proposes it ever proposes the mechanism by which they maintain the current 1% of the population getting 4* covers (10% for new 4*'s).

    They just want D3 to give everything away, and get upset at the fact that D3 is a business that has to pay its employees by creating scarcity which drives purchases. If you don't like that fact, then make your own development company and don't charge for your product.
  • elusive
    elusive Posts: 261 Mover and Shaker
    To be blunt, I find the idea of relying on strategy in a match-3 game to be asinine. All it takes is one cascade - which happens all too often - to completely ruin any "strategy" you may think you have. The ones who talk about "strategy" are typically the ones who spent a lot of money and time to get 4 and 5 star teams who can cheese through most of the matches.
  • Xenoberyll
    Xenoberyll Posts: 647 Critical Contributor
    Slarow wrote:

    No one who proposes it ever proposes the mechanism by which they maintain the current 1% of the population getting 4* covers (10% for new 4*'s).

    They just want D3 to give everything away, and get upset at the fact that D3 is a business that has to pay its employees by creating scarcity which drives purchases. If you don't like that fact, then make your own development company and don't charge for your product.

    They know how much you can score in each event. Take the percentage you want of that score, done.
    your argumet is ridiculously overboard. Even if they made it easy to reach the top 3 covers for a new release event, people would still have only 3 covers. That's far from giving everything away and ruining their income. How much can you do with 3 covers? Not much, except maybe it would make people BUY more...crazy thought, huh?

    For example, Netmarble is very generous in handing out free stuff in their game "marvel future fight", yet they somehow avoided bancrupcy and can still pay their employees. Actually they even made top 8 in app annie's top52 revenue list 2015 ( http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-52-t ... hers-2015/ ). See d3 or demiurge on that list? There's a huge space between giving everything out free and go bankrupt and being stingy as they are right now.
  • Slarow
    Slarow Posts: 204 Tile Toppler
    Xenoberyll wrote:
    Slarow wrote:

    No one who proposes it ever proposes the mechanism by which they maintain the current 1% of the population getting 4* covers (10% for new 4*'s).

    They just want D3 to give everything away, and get upset at the fact that D3 is a business that has to pay its employees by creating scarcity which drives purchases. If you don't like that fact, then make your own development company and don't charge for your product.

    They know how much you can score in each event. Take the percentage you want of that score, done.

    I'm sorry, but that's not how math works, and your proposal of this as a solution shows that you either don't understand math, or you don't understand the issue at hand.
  • WelcomeDeath
    WelcomeDeath Posts: 349 Mover and Shaker
    Doesn't seem to follow. If having a better roster means nodes are easier, why are 2* teams in the t10?
  • Xenoberyll
    Xenoberyll Posts: 647 Critical Contributor
    Slarow wrote:
    I'm sorry, but that's not how math works, and your proposal of this as a solution shows that you either don't understand math, or you don't understand the issue at hand.

    Ignoring half my post and denying the value of the rest due to me supposedly being too dumb...classic troll 101
  • BearVenger
    BearVenger Posts: 455 Mover and Shaker
    Welcome Death wrote:
    Doesn't seem to follow. If having a better roster means nodes are easier, why are 2* teams in the t10?

    Not in my EotS bracket. Top 10 is 9 players with champed 3*s/scattered 5*s and 1 player persevering against all odds with a couple of 5*s and a few champed 4*s.
  • TxMoose
    TxMoose Posts: 4,319 Chairperson of the Boards
    BearVenger wrote:
    Welcome Death wrote:
    Doesn't seem to follow. If having a better roster means nodes are easier, why are 2* teams in the t10?

    Not in my EotS bracket. Top 10 is 9 players with champed 3*s/scattered 5*s and 1 player persevering against all odds with a couple of 5*s and a few champed 4*s.
    my bracket = 3 crazy 4* players (familiar alliances for whom $ and time don't seem to be an issue) and the rest are 3* players - lots of soft capping 4*s at 166 among the 3* players in the t10.
  • Slarow
    Slarow Posts: 204 Tile Toppler
    Xenoberyll wrote:
    Slarow wrote:
    I'm sorry, but that's not how math works, and your proposal of this as a solution shows that you either don't understand math, or you don't understand the issue at hand.

    Ignoring half my post and denying the value of the rest due to me supposedly being too dumb...classic troll 101

    The rest of your post doesn't address your incorrect statement in the first sentence regarding how to limit it to 1%/10%.

    You made two statements in your post. 1) "this is how you limit it to 1%/10%" (responding to my question) and 2) You don't need to limit it to that amount (starting a different conversation). The first sentence is the only one that addresses #1, so that is why I only addressed it.
  • Heartburn
    Heartburn Posts: 527
    Slarow wrote:
    Xenoberyll wrote:
    Ruibarian wrote:
    I think a lot of people here are missing the obvious solution: Make PvE actually PvE and stop giving out the end rewards based on how many players you're ahead of... That's just PvP where you're fighting the same teams. If everything was a progression reward like Gauntlet, we wouldn't have to care about whether or not someone was burning health packs to get to first place.

    That's one fix that is often suggested, often hoped for and completely ignored by d3. They're probably afraid of giving out 'too many' free covers

    No one who proposes it ever proposes the mechanism by which they maintain the current 1% of the population getting 4* covers (10% for new 4*'s).

    They just want D3 to give everything away, and get upset at the fact that D3 is a business that has to pay its employees by creating scarcity which drives purchases. If you don't like that fact, then make your own development company and don't charge for your product.
    ^this is stupid. how does it make sense? where is the option to buy the new hero coming out directly? you can't it is all rng. i would pay to get my favorite heroes, but they won't let me. I'm not going to throw money away for a low % of a chance to get it. stop trying to defend dumb choices.

Categories