Ok, new PvE is bad but can we save it?

elwhiteninja

I think everyone agrees this new method is terrible but thereally are some really good concepts.

*play when you want to is brilliant
*scalling tweak while a bit too strong is a good idea
*upfront communication always a huge plus

What is bad :more grinding than before, players want less grinding more diversity and more purpose.

*Grinding: 11 plays for optimal is a bit rediculous for that many players throughs it better be easy fast nodes that allow for experimental tactics.
Scaling could be used very constructively here with exponential growth so first X play throughs are easy then they get dramatically harder as grind increases or dramatically lower the number for optimal. 3 sounds good to me this allows grinders to do thier thing and casuals to have a shot at t100
*diversity, herein lies the problem with pve aka story because most of them are tied to a story we face the same villains over and over, the simulator is always one of my favorites because it's diverse.
*purpose, grinding needs purpose, sure covers at the end are a purpose but unless the above is addressed we need reasons to do this grind. Higher iso drops, covers etc

Uninspired

I'm thinking you could solve some problems by creating a hybrid scaling/timer model. Basically, like the test, every win increases the difficulty and doesn't change the points. However, after 8 hours, the scaling goes back to base. This means that you could still get 3-4 clears (i.e. progression) at the base difficulty if you spread out the timing, so it solves the frustration of ever increasing difficulty for people who don't care about placement. If you can't handle the 8 hour schedule, the difficulty from early, suboptimal clears should still be manageable.

For those trying to get maximum points, the idea is that the scaling increase is pretty significant, so doing six straight clears should be impossible because the difficulty gets too high. I think doing two straight clears should be average, three is a beatable challenge, but 4 is difficult (like, Mr F vs, Dr Doom DDQ difficult). You might get 4 with boosts, but 5 should be a severe challenge, and 6 impossible (maybe even via new mechanics, like giving AP boosts to the opponent). Since nodes will scale down in difficulty as time goes by, the optimal score goes to whoever can clear node 6 first, since that starts the timer. Also, as with the current test, after beating it the 6th time, the difficulty stops going up, and instead the score goes down with a recharge timer. This sets the difficulty equal to that after two clears for the final grind, assuming you clear once after the node opens. So there is still incentive to be able to clear at sub start for optimizers, but no need to grind all at once.

I like this idea a lot because it preserves the play when you like aspect. More importantly, it creates challenging nodes that players who like a challenge can try in order to get a step ahead, but if you fail, you aren't shut out completely, but youjust try later when it's easier. This will hopefully encourage players with deep rosters to find a creative way to beat a node. The biggest problem I see with this is winfinite. If you really can beat even an "impossible" node with winfinite, then creates challenges for this or any other difficulty based placement model.