Fun/Challenging v. Impossible/Frustrating

Colognoisseur

Over the two years of playing MPQ there are two words i fear when the devs utter them, "fun" and "challenging". What tends to follow is something which is neither adjective.
The devs have confused those words with the reality of what they send to us is almost always near "impossible" and "frustrating" relying on luck to get through.
Before tonight the pinnacle of this kind of thinking was the first run of Galactus.Now this PvE test has taken over that spot
I don't know where the idea that having every battle be on the edge of disaster with one unlucky cascade or a color starved board being the reason you win is what they consider "fun".
I don't know why they can't move us through intermediate steps instead of turning everything up to 11 and sitting back with the "you're supposed to lose" mentality.
At least for me luck is not "fun"; strategy is. Having most of my roster neutered by scaling is not "challenging" it is frustrating.

For what seems the umpteenth time would you please please please beta test your new "fun" and "challenging" ideas with some real players.

Okay I'm done pummeling the expired equine.

wirius

Most people misunderstand and think its one aspect or another that makes a game...."Engaging". Engagement of the player is really what every game should shoot for. Sometimes this engagement is empowerment, sometimes its challenge, sometimes its grinding etc.

fight4thedream

Colognoissseur, while I understand the sentiments of your OP I honestly don't think you are being fair.

The first Galactus run was not a test; this one is. Furthermore, communication about what to expect and the design goals of this test were clearly communicated beforehand. The Galactus event was teased but the "you were supposed to lose" surprise wasn't revealed until after the fact.

Also, while the difficulty has certainly been ramped up, I don't think it has reached the level where every match is determined by board luck, at least not initially (I guess we will see how far scaling goes up as we progress). Then again, I know that you and I have different approaches to PvE: from what I remember, you have a more refined approach that utilizes a variety team compositions and strategies while I take a more Wham!Bam!ThankYouM'am! approach that is all about the speed i.e. I will almost always bring my most powerful characters to make short work of those trivial nodes and everything else that stands in my way.

In that regard, it certainly seems clear that this version of PvE does not promote roster diversity.

But returning to my point, while it's fine to be critical of the devs definition of "fun" and "challenging", please keep in mind that this is a test and they are looking over the feedback provided. So the better and more informative the feedback we give, the better they can address the issues with this test, specifically, and with PvE, in general. Or at least one can hope.

And on a side note, I remember when you first mentioned "beta testing" with real players and fully support it. I think you would make an awesome beta-tester but that's just my

PeterGibbons316

The biggest miss is the time commitment. We went from 3 clears/day to get final prog to 4+ (I think?), and the clears are now considerably more difficult.

The thinking was that it would be "easier" to hit final prog because most people aren't able to clear every 8 hours, and typically to all their play in one sitting. Since the nodes won't drop in points, they can justify increasing the final prog because now it's "easier" to complete in one sitting. The only problem is everything is much harder and it's unlikely that you will a) be able to get through 4 clears in one sitting with just 10 health packs, and b) have the additional time to since all the battles are now longer.

puppychow

I agree that the test format has been frustrating rather than fun. since the eots nodes run a lot of goon teams, I've been using obw/jean combo with a red user (psylocke, lcap, etc.) and sometimes I found myself with a board devoid of pink, blue, or gr. And you can guess the end result. While I understand that luck is a factor, the way scaling has jumped significantly mean that a poor turn of the board will result in a quick end to your match.

I believe that this new format, if implemented on a permanent basis, will result in a massive loss of sales of roster slots simply because players will only run a handful of characters in pve. If roster diversity is still an objective for the game devs, and they want to continue to get revenue from slot sales, then they need to rethink the scaling.

Finally, having spent 2 hours to do six clears of only half the nodes, a full clear down to 20 points will easily take me six hours to accomplish. Per sub. That is double my normal 3 hours per sub currently. If 6 hours is the time commitment required to get t10, then I will tender my resignation from competitive pve game play.

lukewin

I think the problem is they're unable to please everyone. And in this "test", which someone pointed out earlier (maybe on LINE), most "tests" have actually been implemented (time slices come to mind, can't think of anything else due to being half asleep), so they weren't actually "tests", it's going to be the veterans that will end up worse off than everyone else, that does see some benefit.

By continuing to scale up, until you've hit the nodes 6x, and basing the scaling off covers and levels, the matches get more challenging and less fun, since rewards are based off ranking, and you need to win those matches, to be in contention for those rewards. While it does eliminate the desire to underlevel your cover maxed characters (does it actually do this, haven't paid close enough attention to forum in past day), it punishes those that haven't leveled their cover maxed characters due to not having enough ISO to do so. In this sense, it promotes a non-diverse roster or healthpack sales.

EotS was a horrible PVE to test this out on, b/c wave nodes reward 1/1 reward, not 7/7. So there is little incentive to continue hitting them, unless you want your progression rewards or want to be in contention for placement rewards (which thankfully, isn't a highly desired 4* for a lot of vets).

Plenty of other feedback I will provide coming up, but if this does get implemented, there needs to be a lot of changes to it as it stands. There being a timer after 6 hits, removes the play on your own schedule, which was one of the stated goals. That timer and the regenerating points, means that there will be an optimal way to play, which is a lot tougher than the current optimal way to play. If people weren't playing for ranks for rewards, than there'd be no need for an optimal way to play, that was related to time constraints.

franckynight

First " easy"node.. Wave with 2 wolv appearances.. Shuriken 2k/red cds 10k.. Adamantium 10k.. Lvl 315-345.. Second clear.. Same nodes lvl 341-386.. Nuff said (fight 4 the dream.. Stop dreaming plz)

Miztiq

I'd be interested to hear what kind of rosters are having problems with this. I have lots of champed 3*s, most of the 4 stars but none usable (1-6 covers), and 2 "lucky" 5*s (sitting at 255). Have only done 2 clears but I've found it much easier than the previous PVE, so wonder if the previous scaling had me punching above my weight class, and have the sort of roster that benefits under the new system.

Of course it may get nasty at later levels, and it's a pain that the CP might now be unattainable if it doesn't show up til the last clear.

Also a bit weird that you now have nodes that are either good for points, or rewards, but not both, and it's a bit hard to keep track of the former since there's no way of seeing how many times they've been cleared.

ammenell

franckynight wrote:

First " easy"node.. Wave with 2 wolv appearances.. Shuriken 2k/red cds 10k.. Adamantium 10k.. Lvl 315-345.. Second clear.. Same nodes lvl 341-386.. Nuff said (fight 4 the dream.. Stop dreaming plz)

wth? whats your roster like if that is your first node?

i play with maxed 3*s, no 5*s, most 4*s undercovered and still at lvl70, highest is hulk with 178.
last node (wolverine with two hands ninjas) is lvl 262 after the 6th clear.

my scaling is ok for me. but after the second CP i see no reason to play 10minute-nodes for the same reward i get for 1minute-nodes in other game modes.

Polares

The biggest problem with the scaling in this test is that it doesn't address what it was supposed to do, fix scaling levels. It basically has made it even worse!

Scaling for me (player with a good team of 4s building his first 5s) was much better in last events, with max scaling for chars around 320 and 350 for goons. In this event it has raised again the maximum levels, and not just for the hardest nodes, it has skyrocketed the difficulty of the essential nodes, now very close to the hardest node.

And these changes has made once again for players with 94 level teams have a much easier time (!!!!!), so again, why the hell should I level my chars if my life is far easier when not doing so? Where is the progression ?!?!?!?

Then removing the easy nodes was stupid. And even more stupid was not changing the rewards of these nodes.

zeeke

Scaling is pretty bad with my 8 championed 4s. Especially since I can't use Logan.

However I think all of the problems with scaling and timers and so forth comes back to the competitive nature of "PVE".

Please just incorporate the placement rewards in progression and be done with it. Just make the required points sobering similar to what it takes now (6-7) clears and we can all decide when to play and how much.

elwhiteninja

Yeah I'm done with this event already. After grinding through I am in a good position but I can't justify the time sink. I like covers but this is too much. I like the idea of 24 hrs timers but 6 full clears first is too much. The scalling has not been an issue for me running with Im40, jean grey and xpool but the stupid time sink is wayyyyy too much. I did get to watch 4 episodes of daredevil while doing it but I'm done

Test=fail

Good ideas but need major tweaks. Or if you want to do this start the nodes off crazy weak so the grind is much fasterrington I can't spend 4 hours a night looking at my phone

xdogg

I have to agree with Colognoisseur, I don't
know where the devs get their idea of what is 'fun', I do not enjoy something getting harder and harder for less and less rewards, the only way I would consider this 'fun' is if I had unlimited health packs.

GrumpySmurf1002

The biggest thing that I've seen so far (and disclosure, I haven't started this deity forsaken thing yet), is the whiff on this:

As your roster gets stronger, you'll see enemies that are relatively easier. (Their levels will still increase, but more slowly than yours do

From all accounts those with the strongest rosters are having the most brutal of times, while low-level players are finding things much easier. That would be the opposite of the above effect.

As I said elsewhere, Simulator is more like what the scaling should look like. Easy nodes, essentials are medium, hard nodes get brutal (like fighting a 325 Switch-Iceman-Thing team). Gauntlet subs have similar ideas behind what scaling should look like.

How they've created those two events and then adjust things to this is dumbfounding.

Now all that said, while this is a 'test' (the structure will be the norm eventually), scaling is an 'easy' fix. Tweak some formulas or whatever, and it can be brought into normalcy. The other factors (time commitment, 11 clears for 7 rewards) won't get fixed, and those are arguably way worse for the greater good.

JackTenrec

As far as I can tell, the changes really only benefit those who are playing for leaderboard placement. The huge progression targets I saw suggest that some amount of grinding is going to be necessary to hit the CP reward, and grinding increases difficulty level. Those who played easy nodes for rewards will also see more difficulty (and even worse now that the trivial nodes have been bumped up in level).

My suggestion to balance different playstyle goals is this:

1) Make the number of times a node is replayable without points drop equal to the number of rewards attached to the node. While a node is at full points, do not scale the level of opponents.

2) Make the CP progression reward target equal to (or less than) the points per node times the number of times a node is replayable.

PeterGibbons316

JackTenrec wrote:

2) Make the CP progression reward target equal to (or less than) the points per node times the number of times a node is replayable.

Are you saying that you should need to get every reward from every node to get the CP? That would take 7 clears on each sub and be WAY more than the current requirement.

IMO final progression should be attainable with 1.5-2 hours of play/day. In the old system it was 3 clears throughout the day, or 4 clears all at once - with each clear taking about 30 minutes. In this new system I believe it also takes about 4 clears/day but the difficulty is ramped up so high that each clear takes progressively longer requiring a longer time commitment to hit final progression.

JackTenrec

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

Are you saying that you should need to get every reward from every node to get the CP? That would take 7 clears on each sub and be WAY more than the current requirement.

My bad. I was guessing based on the point totals I was looking at for the current EoTS that the targets were set based on replaying each node to the point where points reductions start. I've never been able to hit the final progression target under the old system (since I really only have time to do two clears with maybe a bit of CP grinding), so I have no idea how many times you ordinarily had to complete each node to hit progression.

GrumpySmurf1002

JackTenrec wrote:

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

Are you saying that you should need to get every reward from every node to get the CP? That would take 7 clears on each sub and be WAY more than the current requirement.

My bad. I was guessing based on the point totals I was looking at for the current EoTS that the targets were set based on replaying each node to the point where points reductions start. I've never been able to hit the final progression target under the old system (since I really only have time to do two clears with maybe a bit of CP grinding), so I have no idea how many times you ordinarily had to complete each node to hit progression.

Current system you need to clear roughly 3x full node points.

nwman

This change seems to have had the biggest negative impact on their most loyal paying customers.


If the developers don't see or understand this, then they deserve what's coming.

Colognoisseur

fight4thedream wrote:

Colognoissseur, while I understand the sentiments of your OP I honestly don't think you are being fair.

The first Galactus run was not a test; this one is. Furthermore, communication about what to expect and the design goals of this test were clearly communicated beforehand. The Galactus event was teased but the "you were supposed to lose" surprise wasn't revealed until after the fact.

Also, while the difficulty has certainly been ramped up, I don't think it has reached the level where every match is determined by board luck, at least not initially (I guess we will see how far scaling goes up as we progress). Then again, I know that you and I have different approaches to PvE: from what I remember, you have a more refined approach that utilizes a variety team compositions and strategies while I take a more Wham!Bam!ThankYouM'am! approach that is all about the speed i.e. I will almost always bring my most powerful characters to make short work of those trivial nodes and everything else that stands in my way.

In that regard, it certainly seems clear that this version of PvE does not promote roster diversity.

But returning to my point, while it's fine to be critical of the devs definition of "fun" and "challenging", please keep in mind that this is a test and they are looking over the feedback provided. So the better and more informative the feedback we give, the better they can address the issues with this test, specifically, and with PvE, in general. Or at least one can hope.

And on a side note, I remember when you first mentioned "beta testing" with real players and fully support it. I think you would make an awesome beta-tester but that's just my

While the test was what occasioned me to start this thread, and I realize this is a test, the concept of "fun" and "challenging" is more what I am commenting on.

This group of devs over and over; test or no test, have used these words and what often comes after these words is not "fun". It has been a consistent theme from the very first time a Heroic PvE was run and the day before they were telling us how much "fun" it would be. When they introduced rubberbanding to make PvE more "fun" and they created a situation where the later you played the more "fun" you had overtaking those who had consistently played. When they introduced PvE timers which could be anything from 2h52m, 3h, 8h, or 12h but there was no way of knowing until you watched the stacks refresh; yeah that was "fun". Community scaling that was going to make things more "fun" and "challenging". For Galactus 1 "You're supposed to lose" isn't that "fun" and "challenging"?

My point is when the devs say "fun" run for the hills.

To answer the specific question about this test. Yes it has removed that which I find fun about PvE; the ability to play a lot of my roster matched to the level of the node. It is how I can judge whether new combinations are good enough to be added to the list. With this level of scaling there are only six characters I can use out of 92 eligible (Wolvies locked out). In a normal PvE I use somewhere from 24-30 characters from my roster. having to play the same few teams is just boring and with my scaling there is no "Wham! Bamming!" any node. Which makes going through a 6X grind right at the beginning boring. At least when this came at the end of a sub the pain was over. Now you have to do it at the beginning and the end of a sub.

While I would love to be a part of any beta testing team I am content that the mods play at a high enough level that they are a sort of de facto set of beta testers. I suspect that you and the other mods can give them valuable insight that they can't get from the ones who play on the dev team. If they would run these kind of changes just by the mods I think some of the obvious flaws could be detected before being released.

SnowcaTT

I mentioned in the scaling test thread this is "paygate", and it's a huge bummer.

I -like- playing the game. But with extreme difficulty, you must use your best team(s) [only!], and as soon as you are out of health packs you are at that gate. Pay for health packs, or stop playing. It has turned the game into more of a timed pay-to-play.

I'd much rather have fun. Give me 70 easy nodes over 10 hard nodes I have to do seven times each.