POLL & PETITION: Removal Of Placement Awards in PVE

Azoth658

Hi All,

I've seen many posts after the latest PVE tests and thought it would be good to have a straight forward poll on one of the regularly mentioned suggestions for PVE improvements.

Namely changing PVE from a PVP style event with placement rewards into something similar to Ultron, Galactus and Gauntlet and each PVE being progression based only with the current rewards tiered into a progression based system perhaps with alliance progression.

Anyway the question is simple the execution is a different matter. Would you like to see PVE remove placement rewards and make it a progression based reward system only. (This assumes the placement rewards would be added to the progression system rather than simply losing the rewards).

Phumade

These question are disingenuous in the sense that what is really being asked is:

Do we go from a reward system that only gives 16 4* covers per 1000 people (top 10 gets 1 cover, top 5 gets an additional 1 cover, Top 1 gets a bonus 1 cover for a total of 16 release 4*)

or to a reward system that potentially gives out 1000 4* covers per 1000 people (In a progression system, everyone can earn a 4* cover by cross the finish line.)

Of course, everyone would prefer a reward system that gave out more rewards. and under a progression system, potentially 800X more 4* covers than previously awarded.

If you want to make this question meaningful, just up the rewards a little bit more to say 20 covers, and describe a reward system that allocates it.

Then I can give you a useful opinion on whether I think system a or b is better.

stowaway

I'd rather see a hybrid system, where the covers are rewarded for progression, and HP and Iso are rewarded for placement.

Tenaciousdecaf

My yes is conditional on the premise that the HP, ISO, Tokens and Covers gained via both daily and final placement are also incorporated into the progression reward structure.

hodayathink

Tenaciousdecaf wrote:

My yes is conditional on the premise that the HP, ISO, Tokens and Covers gained via both daily and final placement are also incorporated into the progression reward structure.

Yeah, I doubt that would happen. When people ask for the removal of placement rewards in PvE, for the most part what they're really asking for is to add 4* covers to the progression levels, because the truth is that the people who are complaining about it are usually the people that are trying to grind their way into the top 10.

Phumade

hodayathink wrote:

Yeah, I doubt that would happen. When people ask for the removal of placement rewards in PvE, for the most part what they're really asking for is to add 4* covers to the progression levels, because the truth is that the people who are complaining about it are usually the people that are trying to grind their way into the top 10.

Potentially, there is a very interesting discussion to be had on a "Progression system that gave exactly 16 4* covers" per 1000 participants. I would be very excited to participate in that discussion. Maybe its looks like the 2nd run of Ultron where only 2 alliances out of the 5000 accomplished the task.

There was a gauntlet test that gave a bonus 10 pack to the 1st 3 players to finish gauntlet. Is that more fun or less fun? I dunno, but that is a worthy discussion.

Would I support support expanded rewards? sure, but lets cap it at an arbitary number and then make the discussion about how we allocate those covers vs. Who's in favor of expanded rewards?

emaker27

Phumade wrote:

These question are disingenuous in the sense that what is really being asked is:

Do we go from a reward system that only gives 16 4* covers per 1000 people (top 10 gets 1 cover, top 5 gets an additional 1 cover, Top 1 gets a bonus 1 cover for a total of 16 release 4*)

or to a reward system that potentially gives out 1000 4* covers per 1000 people (In a progression system, everyone can earn a 4* cover by cross the finish line.)

<snip>

That's what PvE is by definition. It's not a competition between other players (PvP). And to combat your potential issue of giving out too many awards, that's fought with difficulty. In order to hit the max progression award, the later matches are tough so only 3*, and then 4*, and then 5* can beat them. This would also allow each player to get rewards in line with their roster strength.

Twysta

Phumade

emaker27 wrote:

Phumade wrote:

These question are disingenuous in the sense that what is really being asked is:

Do we go from a reward system that only gives 16 4* covers per 1000 people (top 10 gets 1 cover, top 5 gets an additional 1 cover, Top 1 gets a bonus 1 cover for a total of 16 release 4*)

or to a reward system that potentially gives out 1000 4* covers per 1000 people (In a progression system, everyone can earn a 4* cover by cross the finish line.)

<snip>

That's what PvE is by definition. It's not a competition between other players (PvP). And to combat your potential issue of giving out too many awards, that's fought with difficulty. In order to hit the max progression award, the later matches are tough so only 3*, and then 4*, and then 5* can beat them. This would also allow each player to get rewards in line with their roster strength.

As I posted right above, I would support expanded rewards. But pick an arbitrary number. 20 cover, 50 covers, 100 covers? Then lets make the discussion about how we allocate those covers.

I think there is a great disscussion to be had on how to make progression system that allocates those rewards. But asking do we prefer a system that gives 16 cover or potentially 1000 covers is just pandering to the masses.

Azoth658

Good points already made. I struggle to articulate exactly my thoughts but when 4* was a super powerful and the strongest characters I understand their reluctance to give these away. But now that there are no further 3*s being added and 5* is becoming the meta surely giving away more 4* tokens to all isn't a huge issue.

Let's say each event of 4 days gave away 3 4* tokens through progression and 25CP (random 4 or 5*); and let's also say that they rotated this guaranteed 4* every event just like the 3* characters.

With over 25 4* characters already it would take 400 days before you cycled back to the first 4* the devs used. Now if you could earn 3 covers one of each it would take you 5 events of that character to earn all their covers. So assuming you only played PVE and didn't get lucky in a LT then it would take 2000 days minimum to max the covers on one 4*.

Now I did point out that the execution of a new system for progression only, would have to be carefully thought out but it could be as simple as you design the PVE to start with very trivial nodes and you repeat and they get harder and are worth more points similar to the new system. But the key thing is they start for level ones (a 5* player would smash through them with very little time etc).

Your roster strength is then the only thing that makes you able to score the highest rewards on the progression bar. Your a 1* player then you can progress through the nodes once and they are worth little so you get the 2* characters. 2* player can complete twice maybe 3 with champs and get 3* rewards etc. The CP at the end is only for 4* and 5* teams to buy LT every event.

This would then stop new players like one of my alliance members having a 2* team and an OML sitting on their roster. No more crazy scaling because you wanted to roster a strong character etc.

This wouldn't fix the PVP problems but I can see a lot more happy PVE players.

hodayathink

emaker27 wrote:

Phumade wrote:

These question are disingenuous in the sense that what is really being asked is:

Do we go from a reward system that only gives 16 4* covers per 1000 people (top 10 gets 1 cover, top 5 gets an additional 1 cover, Top 1 gets a bonus 1 cover for a total of 16 release 4*)

or to a reward system that potentially gives out 1000 4* covers per 1000 people (In a progression system, everyone can earn a 4* cover by cross the finish line.)

<snip>

That's what PvE is by definition. It's not a competition between other players (PvP). And to combat your potential issue of giving out too many awards, that's fought with difficulty. In order to hit the max progression award, the later matches are tough so only 3*, and then 4*, and then 5* can beat them. This would also allow each player to get rewards in line with their roster strength.

Isn't that one of the biggest complaints about the new PvE tests right now, though? That things are getting too hard on the last few playthroughs? I don't think that complaint would change very much just because they added a 4* reward to the progression.

Phumade

Azoth658 wrote:

1. But now that there are no further 3*s being added and 5* is becoming the meta surely giving away more 4* tokens to all isn't a huge issue.

2. Now I did point out that the execution of a new system for progression only, would have to be carefully thought out but it could be as simple as you design the PVE to start with very trivial nodes and you repeat and they get harder and are worth more points similar to the new system. But the key thing is they start for level ones (a 5* player would smash through them with very little time etc).

3. Your roster strength is then the only thing that makes you able to score the highest rewards on the progression bar.

I fundamentally don't disagree with your points and assertions, but I think you should split this discussion into the above 3 points, and look at them independently.

1. Should 4* drops be looser. Sure. How much so, I dunno? Post an analysis that says X number of covers per 1000 players should result in this distribution in the active player base. No meaningful disagreement here.

2. The real challenge here is do my 4* have to grind a trivial node 5 times before I need to pay attention to how I play? The current pve test is asking that same question. get rid of the mindless grind of easy nodes and replace it with a frustrating grind of hard nodes. My personal feeling is less easy nodes, and less hard nodes. I'd rather play a node 5 times and the last hit at 5 should be at legendary skill with a 1% completion rate. What i don't want to see happen is that I have to spend more time on harder nodes.

3. Ultimately, is allocating rewards based on roster strength a reasonable and viable way to distribute awards? I tend to think not. Thats just the rich getting richer and your only rewarding people for participating in the event. People cannot make relative progress against other players when rewards are fundamentally based on roster strength. For those players who are over 40, you might have remembered a chess like game called archon. in that game, there was a power that basically collapsed the board to a 1 v 1 battle where health was directly correlated to the number of pieces that were still alive on the board. Thats what roster strength rewards effectively encourage. Just add up the levels in your roster and give prizes to who ever has the highest number.

These questions are actually very interesting to discuss and we should focus on balancing roster strength vs. luck vs. ability to build a synergizing team that maximizes your strengths and exploits your opponents weaknesses.

Alot of the Titans matchups have actually been very intriguing and insightful. Many of the battles require you to acquire a specific amount of X ap and Y ap while denying the opp C ap and d ap. plus you need fire your powers in a specific order.

This is where we should focus our discussion. Even adding in the element of, is this battle consistent with comic lore is valuable and useful

Azoth658

Phumade wrote:

Azoth658 wrote:

1. But now that there are no further 3*s being added and 5* is becoming the meta surely giving away more 4* tokens to all isn't a huge issue.

2. Now I did point out that the execution of a new system for progression only, would have to be carefully thought out but it could be as simple as you design the PVE to start with very trivial nodes and you repeat and they get harder and are worth more points similar to the new system. But the key thing is they start for level ones (a 5* player would smash through them with very little time etc).

3. Your roster strength is then the only thing that makes you able to score the highest rewards on the progression bar.

I fundamentally don't disagree with your points and assertions, but I think you should split this discussion into the above 3 points, and look at them independently.

1. Should 4* drops be looser. Sure. How much so, I dunno? Post an analysis that says X number of covers per 1000 players should result in this distribution in the active player base. No meaningful disagreement here.

2. The real challenge here is do my 4* have to grind a trivial node 5 times before I need to pay attention to how I play? The current pve test is asking that same question. get rid of the mindless grind of easy nodes and replace it with a frustrating grind of hard nodes. My personal feeling is less easy nodes, and less hard nodes. I'd rather play a node 5 times and the last hit at 5 should be at legendary skill with a 1% completion rate. What i don't want to see happen is that I have to spend more time on harder nodes.

3. Ultimately, is allocating rewards based on roster strength a reasonable and viable way to distribute awards? I tend to think not. Thats just the rich getting richer and your only rewarding people for participating in the event. People cannot make relative progress against other players when rewards are fundamentally based on roster strength. For those players who are over 40, you might have remembered a chess like game called archon. in that game, there was a power that basically collapsed the board to a 1 v 1 battle where health was directly correlated to the number of pieces that were still alive on the board. Thats what roster strength rewards effectively encourage. Just add up the levels in your roster and give prizes to who ever has the highest number.

These questions are actually very interesting to discuss and we should focus on balancing roster strength vs. luck vs. ability to build a synergizing team that maximizes your strengths and exploits your opponents weaknesses.

Alot of the Titans matchups have actually been very intriguing and insightful. Many of the battles require you to acquire a specific amount of X ap and Y ap while denying the opp C ap and d ap. plus you need fire your powers in a specific order.

This is where we should focus our discussion. Even adding in the element of, is this battle consistent with comic lore is valuable and useful

Ok on point two what if each time you beat the node the reward improved along with the difficulty not just in points but also in iso etc? Would you still be adverse to the design if this was implemented?

Point three I do have to disagree with you. With the current system it is simply luck that might improve one player over another faster and generally those players earning top 10 or top 100 spots are either players with super weak rosters or super strong. You'd still have this system within pvp.

I think the frustration with many players is that there is no certified way to progress into four star land. At least with three stars they introduced ddq in which you only had to have one power and you could earn a new power of a character. We do not have the same for 4*. Every five days you have a chance to earn a lt but only if you have a fairly strong version of a specific 4*. Don't get me wrong I think the crashs are awesome as they really are great 1v1 battles and it'd be good to see something similar incorporated elsewhere. But the current placement reward system means if you are a new player you can hit top ten easily and earn a 4*. That's like playing an rpg normally and going wow I just skipped 50 levels in one battle.

Anyway I've got diverted somewhat the core here is that people don't want to feel pressured on pve to earn top tier rewards. It's not people wanting to not work for them but instead not working super hard for a non guaranteed win. You can see it in so many comments in the discussion threads. If people have to fight super hard to get top placements they give up. Yet when a gauntlet is on and player knows they will struggle many push for those top rewards because no one is going to block them other than scaling lol.

carrion_pigeons

This sounds great, but of course D3 would just put the good rewards at completely unattainable point thresholds, barring truly insane grinding.

D3, if you ever read this and decide to act on it (pfft), please note that the entire premise of the question is that *we want PvE to play like a single player game*. The problem with PvE right now is that the people who are least responsible with their time remove access to a feeling of progression for everyone else. Replacing that with a points system that replicates the same problem does not fix anything. Make it so significant progression rewards are the benefit of playing the game in a normal way, instead of an abnormal one.

Phumade

Azoth658 wrote:

Ok on point two what if each time you beat the node the reward improved along with the difficulty not just in points but also in iso etc? Would you still be adverse to the design if this was implemented?

Point three I do have to disagree with you. With the current system it is simply luck that might improve one player over another faster and generally those players earning top 10 or top 100 spots are either players with super weak rosters or super strong. You'd still have this system within pvp.

The legal community has this saying "reasonable minds may differ". Ultimately, its not that big of a deal to me and my roster. Propose a test, and lets run it for a day. I'd be happy to comment on my experiences. Otherwise, I'll let other people make the pro con argument.

On point 3, I had the privileged to compete against an elite 5* roster in a new character pve. The speed advantage is astounding. The amazing part is that the perceived favorite actually finished 6th overall (I finished 3rd behind another 5* roster and a roster thats similar but arguably weaker than my roster). Whatever system is developed needs to implement some element of chance that allows for that type of disruption or their needs to be enough margin in the system so that a superior player can out play or out maneuver a 5* roster. Otherwise, the results are really predetermined and we are just going through the motions. Specifically, in Punisher pve , anyone in my bracket could credibly argue that number 2 decisively outplayed me and deserves the bonus cover (yeah, number 2 had a similar roster and it was a well earned win). But I would argue back that, if you had given me a champed OML phoenix combo, I would have decisively beaten number 1. Thats why I don't like the idea of relating roster strength to rewards. That's not fair to a 3* player who can push me into making timing and clearing mistakes because he's breathing down my neck in the leaderboard.

I've definitely lost events to weaker rosters, because they kept up the pressure all event and "cracked" my strategy with intense time pressure. Thats a fun loss and I never get embarrassed losing to a worthy opponent.

SnowcaTT

https://www.d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.p ... 4&p=497580

Less than a month ago, 130 to 8 said yes.

Slarow

71 people have voted yes so far. Can a single one of them propose a solution that would maintain scarcity and distribute 4*'s to the top 1% (or 10% in new releases)?

No?

Then the answer will stay the same, and placement is here to stay. Scarcity is required, or the developers make no money, and the game goes bye bye. If you have a problem with this, then create your own mobile game and give away all rewards to everyone.

[Edit] Mods please move this over to the suggestion forum so it can die with all the other similar suggestions.

CrookedKnight

That's simple -- only award 4* covers at progression levels higher than the current 25 CP target. When I play a PvE that isn't a new character release, I get to the final progression and stop, which often means I do perhaps five or six fights in the final sub beyond my first clear (depending on how lucky I am getting the node-reward CP). I still finish reliably in the top 150, often top 100. By setting a guaranteed 4* cover there, you're already restricting it to ~10% of players. Higher target = fewer people get it. Not complicated.

antreas1911

I answered no.
I play pve only for the iso, i don't care about placement.
One day or another the top 10 covers will be obtained via pvp or token draws.

So why i voted no?

As i said i play for the iso. I clear all nodes 7 times (or 6 if the one remaining is the stupid critical boost). i dont do perfect grinds every 8 hours, i might clear nodes 7 times in a row if i have available time.

This way i hit top50 in every single sub event and many times even top10.
That is 1000 iso, 50 or 100 hp and 1 cp extra every day.

If pve becomes gauntlet - like i will lose those numbers above.

slidecage

I said no and the people who are voting YES do not even know what they are voting YES for..


SO you want to remove placment rewards... Okay 95% voted yes... Okay we will remove placement rewards and go progression only


YOU WILL HAVE TO GRIND EVERY NOD 10 times to get 1 4 star
you will have to grind every NOD 15 times to get 2 4 star covers
you will have to grind every nod 25 times to get 3 4 star covers


what you dont llike that i thought you voted you wanted progression only rewards



your just kidding yourself thinking they are giong to give you 4 star covers at low cost

Azoth658

Slarow wrote:

71 people have voted yes so far. Can a single one of them propose a solution that would maintain scarcity and distribute 4*'s to the top 1% (or 10% in new releases)?

No?

Then the answer will stay the same, and placement is here to stay. Scarcity is required, or the developers make no money, and the game goes bye bye. If you have a problem with this, then create your own mobile game and give away all rewards to everyone.

[Edit] Mods please move this over to the suggestion forum so it can die with all the other similar suggestions.

Hi Slarow,

That scarcity is the issue and why it is 90% for changing the system.

There is absolutely no way to buy the new covers you need now that CP are required for boosting covers. (apart from metal mega mega mega whales). So by limiting people getting characters they don't have they are actually harming themselves more.

It's too soon for another poll but I bet if you asked the player base if they would pay to buy hero coins to add a new four star to their roster that they really want they would. The only time I've spent money on the game has been to buy hero points to expand my roster.

How is not giving players characters they don't have increasing spending?