PVE Scaling Feedback & New Test : Unstable Iso-8
Comments
-
Smudge wrote:I haven't joined the new test PvE yet (probably joining slice 4), but my concern is that they will take the play time stats that were "positive" from the EotS test, the current ISO test, and the intervening Venom Bomb and Heroic events, and say...
"We saw positive increases in playtime for Enemy of the State and Unstable ISO-8, and we saw a marked drop in the playtime overall for both the Venom Bomb event and the Heroic event. As such, the new system will be implemented as is."
This despite announcements of another test to follow, simply because the two intervening events were every bit as horrendous as the test events. That is what worries me - Venom Bomb is tough enough as it is, and the Heroic with its limited roster... they both discourage a lot of people from playing based on forum feedback, so I hope they are not collecting data on the events between the tests for comparison.
Not to mention Easter was in the timeframe, which would probably screw up any comparitive numbers even with all other things being equal.
And beyond that, the very act of them actively telling people, "Hey, go test this!" will make the numbers atypical. So, the very idea that they're using to this as some sort of metric, pro or con, makes me think they have no clue what they're doing.0 -
Malcrof wrote:My subs are starting out much higher than in EoTS.. Easy nodes at the level of the 2nd clear of the hard nodes in EoTS.. In EoTS i had 2 champed boosted 4*s, this event i have none.. and levels are still pretty insane.
The only saving grace is that there are lots of goon only nodes
Are you referring to the beginning of EoTS or the last nodes. When Wolverine was reintroduced into the event, my scaling jumped considerably for the remaining subs.0 -
How about instead of having "easy nodes" and "hard nodes" we have "easy clears" and "hard clears"? Like, the first time through the whole sub, the mobs are capped at level 50-100 or whatever, and then with each clear apply a multiplier so they approach, say, 150% of the player's roster strength. That way if I only want to play nodes up to 100% strength, I can do the first four clears and quit (and that should get me to progression), but if I want to grind out placement, I have to fight through tougher matches across the board.0
-
they could add 50 levels per clear (or some percentage between top difficulty and starting levels) and cap based on our roster strength. I'm all for that. clear most of the rewards with reasonable effort and those that was to grind placement will have a challenge ahead.carrion pigeons wrote:How about instead of having "easy nodes" and "hard nodes" we have "easy clears" and "hard clears"? Like, the first time through the whole sub, the mobs are capped at level 50-100 or whatever, and then with each clear apply a multiplier so they approach, say, 150% of the player's roster strength. That way if I only want to play nodes up to 100% strength, I can do the first four clears and quit (and that should get me to progression), but if I want to grind out placement, I have to fight through tougher matches across the board.0 -
Please make the next test a non-competitive real PvE with more progression rewards to make up for the loss of placement rewards.
I'm not a fan of almost all aspects of the game being PvP.0 -
People were playing the event more... better win rates."David wrote:Moore"]
Here’s the good word from Anthony at Demiurge:-
“First of all, I’d like to thank everyone that participated and provided feedback on the Enemy of the State event we ran last week. In general,
They did not say more people played, so please stop implying that.
More participation is never bad when you are trying to gather a data set. Yes it was possibly due to higher Max Progression, but it could also be due to a feeling of more flexible playtime. Not sure how you would determine which it was attributed to.
Better win rates is better than more people wiping. I wiped more in Venom Bomb than I did in EotS.
That said, some interesting information would be:
How many people who joined the event played more than the first sub?
What was the average number of clears per sub that were done?
How many people who wiped on a node played that node again after the first clear?
What were the biggest jumps/drops in scoring? (How many go past progression, and how many try for top 10?)0 -
Scaling is still way too damn high. My nodes have gone UP from EotS (yes, including the subs where OML was available). So much for having easier fights.0
-
FYI, it looks like they changed the loaner node to behave like all the rest instead of starting the countdown right away0
-
How about making easy, moderate and hard nodes so player could choose which difficulty he wants to play. With each difficulty, enemies get stronger, but player get +20% points more than from easy node (on easy 100%, on moderate 120% and on hard 140%). Plus, for killing moderate node, player will get additional 100 ISO8 and additional 250 ISO8 for completing hard node (up to 7 times as for usual rewards).carrion pigeons wrote:How about instead of having "easy nodes" and "hard nodes" we have "easy clears" and "hard clears"? Like, the first time through the whole sub, the mobs are capped at level 50-100 or whatever, and then with each clear apply a multiplier so they approach, say, 150% of the player's roster strength. That way if I only want to play nodes up to 100% strength, I can do the first four clears and quit (and that should get me to progression), but if I want to grind out placement, I have to fight through tougher matches across the board.
This feature could actually have more pros, than usual ballance, because:
- Players can choose whether they want easy node or bigger rewards
- Having strong deck will allow us to get max points faster
- Additional ISO 8 rewards will provide additional ISO we all need, but its mainly aimed at those able to do moderate/hard nodes (which should be players with 3* maxed who need to upgrade their 4* covers).
Thats my idea of how ballance should be taken care of.0 -
I think we're onto something here. The idea of relative scaling based on your roster never made sense to me and seems to be what many people complain about. I mean, if you've spent months/years developing a really strong roster, shouldn't the same fights GET easier?veny wrote:
How about making easy, moderate and hard nodes so player could choose which difficulty he wants to play. With each difficulty, enemies get stronger, but player get +20% points more than from easy node (on easy 100%, on moderate 120% and on hard 140%). Plus, for killing moderate node, player will get additional 100 ISO8 and additional 250 ISO8 for completing hard node (up to 7 times as for usual rewards).carrion pigeons wrote:How about instead of having "easy nodes" and "hard nodes" we have "easy clears" and "hard clears"? Like, the first time through the whole sub, the mobs are capped at level 50-100 or whatever, and then with each clear apply a multiplier so they approach, say, 150% of the player's roster strength. That way if I only want to play nodes up to 100% strength, I can do the first four clears and quit (and that should get me to progression), but if I want to grind out placement, I have to fight through tougher matches across the board.
This feature could actually have more pros, than usual ballance, because:
- Players can choose whether they want easy node or bigger rewards
- Having strong deck will allow us to get max points faster
- Additional ISO 8 rewards will provide additional ISO we all need, but its mainly aimed at those able to do moderate/hard nodes (which should be players with 3* maxed who need to upgrade their 4* covers).
Thats my idea of how ballance should be taken care of.
I think D3 should:
1. Get rid of the placement rewards in PvE - It's the reason people grind in the first place. Take that away and you could do away with the timers and all of the arcane gatekeeping mechanics that are currently in place. Then it would truly be "Play when you want" instead of "Play as much as you can until you hit the timer".
2. Create several tiers (or one really big tier) of progression and allow players to choose what difficulty/tier they want to play at - If you revamp the progression tier so there is 1 cover for each tier, you could then have the players choose how strong THEY think their roster is and play according to that scaling. Over time as your roster gets stronger, the same tier of difficulty would get easier. But by that point, you should probably be aiming for the next higher tier. If each difficulty setting has tier-appropriate rewards, then the players would be happy and the devs wouldn't have to implement strange algorithms to dynamically calculate scaling on an individual basis.
The key to #2 is that the rewards should really be appropriate for that level. We've seen the ISO cost increase when going to the next star level. If the tiered progression rewards increase accordingly (4* star difficulty would give more ISO rewards than 3* difficulty, etc.), then you'd solve that issue too. And if someone were to over/underestimate their roster compared to the difficulty setting they pick? Well, they'll either breeze through that event or get clobbered and probably not get max progression and know that they should pick one of the other levels for next time. If there's no placement rewards anymore, it doesn't affect anyone else if people go for intentionally easier/harder difficulties.
And when you introduce yet another tier of characters? Just create a new difficulty level with the enemies scaled accordingly.0 -
Just to add a thought re: timing. This PVE is overlapping the end of the PVP season. Like others, I found the EotS test made it hard to focus on PVP because it ate so many health packs. But I figured I could make up for that later, and I have. But others may be in crunch time for hitting season goals and not play this PVE. Plus not playing for all the other reasons (poor rewards, frustration/pessimism, fatigue with PVE after the last few events). Anyway, I am sure there is a reason for what they are doing that we can't know.0
-
Sweet Shuma-Gorath when will they get it through their heads?
Nodes. Do. Not. Need. To. Scale. Up. Every. Fight.
The deterrent to the game being "too easy" (lol) is the huge amount of time to grind all the nodes 6x, along with the fact that they are ALREADY tuning half/more than half the nodes to be challenging.
They are scaled already devs! Just quit while you are ahead!0 -
So, it still totally sucks. I thought the original system couldn't get much worse, but I was wrong. Just keep at as it has been, or better yet, make everything gauntlet style like a real PVE event should be.0
-
Sambuca wrote:I think we're onto something here. The idea of relative scaling based on your roster never made sense to me and seems to be what many people complain about. I mean, if you've spent months/years developing a really strong roster, shouldn't the same fights GET easier?
I agree nodes would be harder, but player will get more ISO and more points so he finish the event (propably) faster and with more rewards.
Point is, difficulty would be optional.0 -
Add a daily gauntlet...
3-5 nodes per day, have the enemy team combinations generated randomly. Rewards can be 1cp a taco token and some ISO for completion.
Done. Now leave our PvE alone.0 -
OK, after one clear, there are only two possibilities:
1) This change is a deliberate, malicious intent to slow down player progression and increase player use of resources.
2) The people making this game fundamentally misunderstand it's appeal.
If you think you're making a game that appeals to people because of it's challengeing, puzzle-based, match-3 RPG gameplay, then you've been making some very bad decisions over the past few years. Because you've built a game that not only penalizes players for losing, but penalizes them for taking damage while winning. Over the years, many of the player strategies for avoiding this penalty - true healing, various infinite combos - have been drastically reuced or eliminated. So when I win a tough fight, I don't feel like I've been challenged, I feel like I've been suckered into using three health packs.
The appeal of the game is the treadmill of progression. The gameplay is what we have to do to stay on that treadmill. You look at this forum and you will see people doing things they do not enjoy in the slightest because it's the only way to get the stuff they need to progress. People want more covers for their characters and more levels for their characters and unless you're deliberately looking to see how much you can ask of your hardcore players before they stop bothering, none of these tests are particularly helpful.
Was this first clear better than Enemy of the State? A little. It still took longer. It's tough to gauge the actual drop in difficulty, though, because goon nodes either go well and you take almost no damage, or go badly and you take all the damage. The lower progression total is nice, but if, in the end, I'm still playing more for the same rewards - more time, more health packs, more effort - then ultimately, my takeaway is that you're trying to hurt my experience, because I have to spend more time on "challenge" in a game that punishes the player for being challenged, and I'm not progressing any faster because of it.
But this kind of thing has been said over and over again with almost no response or reaction, so I have to assume that it's an intentional design choice.0 -
I am worried only because I pulled 1 more cover for OML, so he's 1/2/0, but 255. I also pulled a few more 4* covers and leveled a couple of my 4*'s since the beginning of EotS.
My scaling seemed spot on with EotS, so I'm wondering how much my cover growth will scale me up this time in comparison.
I'll be starting slice 4 tonight.0 -
Bryan Lambert wrote:OK, after one clear, there are only two possibilities:
1) This change is a deliberate, malicious intent to slow down player progression and increase player use of resources.
2) The people making this game fundamentally misunderstand it's appeal.
If you think you're making a game that appeals to people because of it's challengeing, puzzle-based, match-3 RPG gameplay, then you've been making some very bad decisions over the past few years. Because you've built a game that not only penalizes players for losing, but penalizes them for taking damage while winning. Over the years, many of the player strategies for avoiding this penalty - true healing, various infinite combos - have been drastically reuced or eliminated. So when I win a tough fight, I don't feel like I've been challenged, I feel like I've been suckered into using three health packs.
The appeal of the game is the treadmill of progression. The gameplay is what we have to do to stay on that treadmill. You look at this forum and you will see people doing things they do not enjoy in the slightest because it's the only way to get the stuff they need to progress. People want more covers for their characters and more levels for their characters and unless you're deliberately looking to see how much you can ask of your hardcore players before they stop bothering, none of these tests are particularly helpful.
Was this first clear better than Enemy of the State? A little. It still took longer. It's tough to gauge the actual drop in difficulty, though, because goon nodes either go well and you take almost no damage, or go badly and you take all the damage. The lower progression total is nice, but if, in the end, I'm still playing more for the same rewards - more time, more health packs, more effort - then ultimately, my takeaway is that you're trying to hurt my experience, because I have to spend more time on "challenge" in a game that punishes the player for being challenged, and I'm not progressing any faster because of it.
But this kind of thing has been said over and over again with almost no response or reaction, so I have to assume that it's an intentional design choice.
0 -
Bryan Lambert wrote:2) The people making this game fundamentally misunderstand it's appeal.
Seriously, this deserves more than just the single upvote I'm able to give it. The whole post is very well said and I agree 100%, but #2:) rings true in so many ways. It seems that the team that makes the game is playing a completely different game than the rest of us. Maybe it's even fun for them. But for us, the people that probably play the game the most out of their entire user base, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT FUN!! We don't want every fight to be so difficult that only our best teams have a shot at taking it down. We don't want every mode to be a battle vs the entirety of the player base. PvP is fine for that, that's what that mode is, and it's fine. PvE needs to move toward the Gauntlet side of things, where winning X number of battles = actual progress/rewards.
Look, y'all are willing to try new things. Try true PvE. Just once. Just try it. Run an event like The Hunt, move all the rewards from progression to various levels of a progress ladder, set total number of points that can be earned so that everything CAN be won, even if its at absurd levels of playtime and just see what happens. Or try this idea I layed out awhile back of a type of event currency to let players choose their own path to progression thru an event: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31383&hilit=a+new+way+to+PVE
Trying something different is fine, but this is NOT what players want to see. And please, don't take the raw data of "people are playing more and winning more" as a sign that we're enjoying ourselves. We're not. We're playing because A:) you asked us to test it, and B:) we have NO other way to earn the currency necessary to progress our rosters. We're winning more because losing is literally the worst thing you can do in this game, so we're either using the same team that we know can win over and over and over again or broken infinite combos so that we can minimize the penalty of succumbing to the insane "challenge" you insist on forcing down our throats. We've tried this, we hate it. Try something else. Please, for the love of Odin.0 -
tanis3303 wrote:
Look, y'all are willing to try new things. Try true PvE. Just once. Just try it. Run an event like The Hunt, move all the rewards from progression to various levels of a progress ladder, set total number of points that can be earned so that everything CAN be won, even if its at absurd levels of playtime and just see what happens.
I don't disagree that they should remove placement rewards from PVE, but to be fair, they have tried it once and that's how the Gauntlet came about.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.6K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.5K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 496 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.3K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 98 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 417 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 293 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements