POLL & PETITION: Removal Of Placement Awards in PVE
Comments
-
They could convert the placement rewards to progression rewards and only change the current reward distribution slightly. They already have all of the points data for how much grinding people are willing to do to get 1st place, 10th place, etc. They can use that data to establish where in the progression points they would need to give out the current placement rewards.
This would have the effect of increasing rewarded covers slightly as some people would grind more to get to the fixed targets. I doubt very few people who currently do 3 clears and done would magically grind every node to 1 to get the 4* covers. For a lot of people free time or health packs would be the limiting factor.
If too many or too few covers are being handed out then they can just adjust the targets as they go.0 -
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.
Letting people get 1-3 covers for a character doesn't make the character usable so scarcity will still be a thing0 -
distribute the t50 rewards before (or just after) the current cp progression and the t10 rewards after, with the final rewards around 1.8-2x progression like the t1-2 are doing. its not that hard. up to the cp progression point or shortly after, there would be a big infusion of rewards. from there to the end they would taper off, just like the ROI tapers off for placement. but that way, if you happen to get into a bracket that has 4 top grinders, you won't be screwed by just missing it by one bad match at the end of a grind against level 395s.0
-
only way would support this
OLD WAY
the prize before CP
and the CP prize
New way
NEW 4 star events
Prize before CP becoming CP
the CP level becomes 1 cover of the 4 star'
150% higher then the CP level 2nd 4 star
200% higher then CP level 3rd 4 star
3 star events
taking unstable
28500 3 star
33000 CP
38500 2nd 3rd star
45000 3rd 3 star0 -
If I could get one 4* cover at the current 3* cover progression point, I'd be happy. I've got a glut of miserably covered 4* characters who will take an age to develop. The developers have created their own problem, expanding the star tiering without altering the reward model at a quick enough pace to accommodate this. I can see the potential issues... people who have already done the 4* building will feel narked but there's a whole load of people stuck in the middle at the moment, going nowhere.0
-
-
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.)
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.
I'm going to give a serious answer for this one. I believe this issue and 4* placement rewards are really the only two real problems left to be addressed. Over the course of 2.5 years, I honestly feel as the mpq team has done an outstanding job of gradually getting right (despite me poking the bear occasionally).
1) 1000 ppl won't get all covers.
2) it's not a zero sum game system.
3) you assume more ppl getting covers is a bad thing.
4) it's pve, not pvp. By definition, the number of ppl that qualify for rewards shouldn't matter.
5) the poll asked if rewards should be progressive, it did not ask if the it should be easy to obtain all of them. As we've seen in Ultron and galactus, it will probably take a lot of work, and there will still be a curve of those who receive rewards.
6) there should be another poll, but not to the players. I honestly would like to know the mpq expectations of how much time players should allocate to mpq to obtain top rewards in pve.
7) imho, progression rewards is the best way bring the most sanity to pve. A) mpq could set up a finite system which could limit the number of clears (maybe 5) with no long grinds.
players could fully play pve on their schedule. 0 -
TheOncomingStorm wrote:I'm going to give a serious answer for this one. I believe this issue and 4* placement rewards are really the only two real problems left to be addressed. Over the course of 2.5 years, I honestly feel as the mpq team has done an outstanding job of gradually getting right (despite me poking the bear occasionally).
1) 1000 ppl won't get all covers.
2) it's not a zero sum game system.
3) you assume more ppl getting covers is a bad thing.
4) it's pve, not pvp. By definition, the number of ppl that qualify for rewards shouldn't matter.
5) the poll asked if rewards should be progressive, it did not ask if the it should be easy to obtain all of them. As we've seen in Ultron and galactus, it will probably take a lot of work, and there will still be a curve of those who receive rewards.
6) there should be another poll, but not to the players. I honestly would like to know the mpq expectations of how much time players should allocate to mpq to obtain top rewards in pve.
7) imho, progression rewards is the best way bring the most sanity to pve. A) mpq could set up a finite system which could limit the number of clears (maybe 5) with no long grinds. players could fully play pve on their schedule.
Always welcome serious responses. I'll try to address them to spur more discussion on how a progression system should evolve.
TL/DR Summary
This is an incredibly complex topic with lots of unintended consequences. We shouldn't trivialize the issue by asking placement or progression. And the answer is CLEARLY between 1 and 1000 covers. hahaha.
All I really want is clear, consistent, and transparent information on how I am going to be treated by the game and its developers. If I know that, I can set and fulfill my own expectations of my gaming experience.
1.) What's your planning metric or assumption on how many covers should go out? The answers is between 1 and 1000, but the devil is in the details.
For discussion's sake lets just say the crossing the threshold granted the participant an OML cover and that threshold was set low so that everyone got it. At some level, the content in this game isn't designed for every participant to have a max level OML/Phoenix cover. More importantly, if every player had Top tier rosters, developers would have to go back and retune probably 99% of the content in the game to accommodate that level of roster awesomeness. Flooding covers isn't really an ideal situation because of the very real potential to have rework a significant amount of content.
Macro economics is not a considered a simple well understood topic. Nobel prizes are given out in this field of study. Game economies are probably even less understood because there are artificial constraints and I'd bet that companies don't really have conferences that share proprietary data that models what happens when high tier characters are flood in the wild.
I think this is area ripe for serious discussion because the problems are immense. I only need to point to Diablo's game economy to show you an example of the law of unintended consequences.
2. That is a fair and valid view. Games can be either either cooperative or competitive. But fundamentally, the developers need to make that decision, and players need to either accept that rationalization or move on to a different game. You can already see the tension in how PVP is currently being played. 1/2 the player base thinks CC is the best thing since slice bread, 1/2 the player base doesn't and the developers sorta pander to both view points. This creates mixed messages in how the development occurs and features are rolled out. There was tremendous apprehension when they rolled out the MMR change in magnetic mayhem precisely because people didn't know they would be affected. Is cc dead? How high should I level OML but still avoid the guys with maxed champed OML/phoenix. At what level does the wall of 4* appear. etc...
I really don't have an issue with MPQ transitioning to non competitive. (in fact the s5 check room would certainly tell you that I bake consistently at all point levels and all times both near and far to event end. I think the health of S5 depends on having a strong core of players who cooperate to build points for the economy.)
3. On this point, I go back to my response to on point one. Without a full understanding of developer goals, its next to impossible to determine what is the appropriate number of 4* covers that should be released into the wild. At what point should 5* covers be loosen? We have poor data to model this question, and unless we have more examples from both MPQ and other game companies, I don't think we can develop a well thoughtout and reasoned answer.
4. Ultimately its the developers that have to make that determination. Unless we all want to take a vote and "open source" the game and its underlying economics and come up with a steering committe ala "Linux". Even where that to occur, I think there is inherent confusion on what players think should happen and or how other participants to act. I'm was not surprised to read a previous forum post where a person legitimately thought PVE stood for "Player vs. Everyone". I realized at that moment, we (players and developers ) do not necessarily agree on how the game should be run (see the post on "grind vs GRIND")
5. Absolutely agree, I think it trivializes the issue to say merely placement or progression? A lot of discussion has happen on this topic. Superficially, we already raised some really thorny questions is just the spitball responses mention in this thread. I'd love to hear from some economic grad students who can comment with real world examples of how this aspect of the game could evolve.
6. I learned and confirmed a stunning fact over the last new character pve event. The elite 5* players actually spend the least amount of time playing pve. Its the poor 3* transitioners who are stuck playing 4.5+ hours a day to advance their rosters. I personally think 2hrs a day for PVE should be the avg time that a competitive player should invest in the game per day. If you want to have your mind blown, talk to the 5* power alliances to find out how much time they actually play in events. I don't think the player base or the developers really understand the implications of that statement. More analysis needs to be done here.
7. What does sane pve really mean? The elite players are spending less than 3hrs a day in a new character event. Should we be catering to their time commitments? Probably not, do we develop additional constraints to shorten the time requirements for less experience players at the expense of elite level players? This is a complex topic that requires alot of careful consideration.
My critique of the original question still stands. How many covers are should be release? How should they account for that fact in their game economy models? If I was a game producer, I wouldn't sleep very well if I couldn't predict with some certainty on what my reward structure should look like. The answer of between 1 and 1000 isn't really satisfactory without some meat on the bone.
There was a brief discussion of a very similar topic in the MPQ community room on the service we don't mention. In it, we speculated that the developers are really focused on the nuts and bolts of making an application that doesn't crash at launch. i.e. they are much more focused on trying to stamp architectural problems like the visual description bugs of "easy", "trivial", "hard" than they are on modeling the consequences of a complex economic system.
And between you and me, if they had a post doctoral understanding of economics they would probably be working at the Federal reserve vs a match 3 game developer.0 -
I don't have a problem with there being a competitive game mode where players get much better rewards than me. That isn't my problem with placement design.
My problem with placement design is that the average (i.e. top 500) player gets nothing. I mean, he gets ~500 Iso, but that's it. That reward is *miles* worse than any other prize support in the game. If a casual player logs in and asks "what should I do today?" the answer is basically "anything but PvE" because if you spend your time in the game playing PvE, you will either see actually no progression of any kind, or else you will have to grind for at least 6 hours per week (which is more than double what the average player actually spends, based on looking at point totals around 500 on the ladder.0 -
Azoth658 wrote:(This assumes the placement rewards would be added to the progression system rather than simply losing the rewards).
So basically 'who wants to vote themselves more free stuff'?
I'm quite impressed with the people who voted no to that. If you want rid of placement rewards then fine vote on getting rid of them. But this isn't a vote on that, this is a vote on 'free stuff for me'. Which will never be implemented.
Everyone who wants one can gets the new character who is a feature in upcoming events so nobody has to buy packs to get the character they are missing. Extra HP pour into everyone's account as they get maximum rewards from every event and sub. How does the game actually make money again?0 -
I'll paste here what I posted in an old thread regarding how to avoid everybody accessing all rewards if we go all-progression.If all rewards are given by progression (adding the current placement rewards in the scheme, somehow), the fact that scaling makes the event roughly equally difficult for people at all stages would mean that /everybody/ could possibly get all the rewards. However that's not a good thing. 2* and 3* transitioners don't need 4*s and in fact, in several cases I've seen starry-eyed inexperienced players roster useless 4*s instead of the much more relevant characters in their own tier, to give an example of why it is a bad thing.
Rewards still need to be gated somehow and I think the best model we have in the game to follow is the Gauntlet, i.e. gating rewards by level-based difficulty. Scaling would have to be almost entirely abandoned, giving nodes a mostly static value according with points rewarded and a limited amount of replayable, untimed, full-points refreshes. That way, a 2* player would only be able to get so many points and the progression scale can be manipulated to give 2* transitioner-relevant rewards at that amount of points. And so on for each tier. Something like this:
1* Tier 2 "trivial" nodes (level 20-60)
Low grade (minimal grinding): 70 Iso, Standard token, 1* cover
High grade (maximum grinding): 250 Iso, 2* cover, 25 HP, heroic token, 1 CP
2* Tier 2 "easy" nodes (level 60-120)
Low grade: same as previous tier high grade rewards.
High grade (maximum grinding including previous tier nodes): 500 Iso, 3* cover, 50 HP, event's vault token, 3 CP
3* Tier 3 "normal" nodes (level 120-240)
High grade: 1k Iso, 4* cover, 100 HP, event vault tokens, 10 CP
4* Tier 2 "hard" nodes (level 240-400)
High grade: 5k Iso, 4* covers, 250 HP, Legendary token, 25 CP
5* Tier 1 "insane" node (level 400-600)
High grade: 20k Iso, Legendary tokens, 1k HP, 100 CP0 -
I dont see why pve rewards arent all like the gauntlet. You get as far as your roster can take you and are rewarded appropriately.
2* players who put in work get 3* covers and so on up the reward tree. Instead of now depending on what bracket you fall into.
It shouldn't be covers feo everyone but it should be aomething everyone feels they can achieve in there own time if they put the effort in.
Its ridiculous that i can grind as long as time allows me but due to real life schedule not be able to compete for top prizes due to people who have can optimal grind. Im punished because in my timezone im working or sleeping when i should be grinding.0 -
Phumade wrote: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.
Why would you be bothered? If everyone is able to obtain those covers then why is that a negative for you?
People who say this idea is bad are clearly the type that want to keep the lower level players in the lower level so they can remain higher level.
Giving everyone the chance to earn those rewards is by far and away the most fair system0 -
if anything this system benefits high level players since they'll be the only ones able to obtain 4* rewards as a weak roster won't be able to.
It also completely eliminates bracket sniping too0 -
I would say no. The reason why is the tests they have been running for PVE. Do you really think if it would go straight placement rewards it would be easier to earn covers? Look at the way the gauntlet and boss battles are run. The difficulty goes up exponentially throughout the event. In order to keep everyone from getting the covers the scaling of each node will be going up. People complain about seeing high level teams in PVP and can't progress. Now you will see PVE with with more extreme levels that you have to grind to earn covers.
I do think you can add alliance progression rewards for ISO, HP, and CP in PVE and for season scores. That would encourage more people to play PVE. Could they add a couple more events like the gauntlet absolutely. A change of pace is good and fun. Making the whole system about progression instead of placement is not a good idea. When the game is about progression only more players will stop when the going gets tough. When it is about placement more players will fight through tough battles for the alliance and placement. If PVE was all about progression there would be more people giving up 1/2 through. Also look at all the PVE alliances. With progression only they would die. What would be the point in being in a great PVE alliance if you are not going to be rewarded for everyone doing well in PVE?
All progression is a good change of real answer is adding alliance progression rewards to the placement so the weight of placement is lower. 2nd dump the MMR test they are doing in PVE and the no refresh of nodes and start over on the MMR. The new test is just painful.0 -
Only realistic way D3 can implement this is compensating loss of placement covers with event vault tokens for progression. I vote against this idea, since i'm 1%er that always makes top5.
0 -
OneLastGambit wrote:Why would you be bothered? If everyone is able to obtain those covers then why is that a negative for you?
People who say this idea is bad are clearly the type that want to keep the lower level players in the lower level so they can remain higher level.
Giving everyone the chance to earn those rewards is by far and away the most fair system
Lets be upfront and honest about this issue. Its not a negative for me and my roster. My roster will be able to compete very effectively under any system or format that is proposed.
The people who are frustrated are the ones who have seen and experienced many many many changes in this game that were rushed and not well considered.
-- I need only mention the nerf to XFWolverine and Thoress. If those characters were introduced today, not many people would have said "OP", "God Mode", "end the reign of terror"
The fundamental error that people make is assuming that progress is made against a static environment. It is not, True progress is measured by how much better your roster improves against the theoretical median player. One friend left the game around the time Falcon was released. It was a very successful roster with all of the available 4* character. That roster would now be considered sub-par and bottom 25% of what is used by active players. Please don't try and measure your success based on what "he who shall not be named" roster's look like.
It seems to me that many people already have "chances" to earn those rewards, the real issue is what is the most flexible distribution system that allows players to change their playstyle to fit a changing schedule.
Honestly, even it you eliminated "essential" lockout it wouldn't change who was making T10 in a meaningful way.0 -
stowaway wrote:I'd rather see a hybrid system, where the covers are rewarded for progression, and HP and Iso are rewarded for placement.
This is how I would prefer to see it, there is nothing wrong with some placement rewards, but for pve the primary rewards should be from placement.0 -
Every PvE event does award 25 CP for maximum progression, which can be thought of as 1.25 4* covers. If every player achieved this, that would be 1250 4* covers. This makes the 16 covers awarded by placement seem less of a big deal. Of course, a big advantage of the placement awards is that they're for a known hero and you can earn duplicates, but I still don't think making it possible to earn a 4* through progression would actually change things that much. The majority of players don't bother to get the 25 CP, so I would imagine most players also would not reach the 4*.
If you are still worried about it, another option would be to give out more event tokens instead of 4* covers themselves. For a vault event, you have a 1/20 chance (I'm counting the LT) of hitting a 4* with a token, so if they give all 1000 players a token that's roughly like handing out 5 4* covers. So let's add 5 event tokens to the progression rewards per player. If every player earned these, that would be equal to 25 4* covers which would be a boost, but I'm guessing not every player is going to reach all the progression rewards.
The token method does make it more RNG based to get a new character which I'm sure people would be upset about, but maybe they'd be okay with it if their general progression became faster because of less grinding needed.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.9K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K 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
- 13.7K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 508 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 424 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 300 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.7K 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