POLL & PETITION: Removal Of Placement Awards in PVE

TLCstormz

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.

That was like.....SO unnecessarily "extra".

veny

No reward is better than placement reward? Am i dumb or 75% of participants of poll dont uderstand the point of this idea?
I mean yes, i would like to see more rewards in progress, more bonuses (completely clearing nodes etc.) but removing placement rewards? Why ? Oh i get it, you dont manage to get in top 100 when new 4* is announced... i see. Well, ask for 4* as reward for getting specific amount of points. But do not try to remove placement reward completely- it makes no sence, its not nessessary and its actually not the real subject of change...

Uber303

i like the system as it is, general rule of thumb is, if it aint broke don't fix it.

If a new format was to be incorporated then it should be in a new event that happens, for a few days or so in a month.

amusingfoo1

I said no, but only because I don't think it'll make any difference. They set where the progressions are, probably based on what percentage of people they want getting them. Which would be an identical situation to where we are now, just less honest about it.

Phumade

Uber303 wrote:

i like the system as it is, general rule of thumb is, if it aint broke don't fix it.

If a new format was to be incorporated then it should be in a new event that happens, for a few days or so in a month.

I think this is actually probably the smartest way to tinker with the reward formats

Tryke

Just something for everyone voting to keep in mind:

Progression includes 25 CP (formerly LT), which is akin to having a 4*, 1.25 classics, with a chance for a 5* roll. Before you vote yes or no, consider that you essentially already have a 4* or better cover in progression.

OneLastGambit

veny wrote:

No reward is better than placement reward? Am i dumb or 75% of participants of poll dont uderstand the point of this idea?
I mean yes, i would like to see more rewards in progress, more bonuses (completely clearing nodes etc.) but removing placement rewards? Why ? Oh i get it, you dont manage to get in top 100 when new 4* is announced... i see. Well, ask for 4* as reward for getting specific amount of points. But do not try to remove placement reward completely- it makes no sence, its not nessessary and its actually not the real subject of change...

It's ridiculously easy to make t100 in any event. Bracket snipe and presto you'll prob make t25. I finished 5th for those falcap covers in last heroic and missed the first sub entirely and most of the second. In a progression based system I couldn't do that and would have to rely on My roster strength only

I make t100 for every new character release and I still think making pve progression based is better. Make the event like gauntlet and you'll probably find less people obtain 4* covers, not more.

CNash

I'm going to attack this another way and ask: why don't the developers want people to play with their new characters?

Unless they're in the upper echelons of MPQ in terms of available time and roster strength, the average player is not going to be able to use a 4* character effectively for many months after their release. What's the point in putting all that effort into designing the character, creating their art, working out game balance in their abilities, and then having big marketing pushes, articles on Marvel.com, splash screens in the game, etc.... if the vast majority of the userbase either cannot obtain the character in the first place, or cannot get enough covers to make them useful?

I think the answer to this question is that new characters in this game are not meant to be used immediately, and that all of their advertising and hype is disingenuous. New characters are simply commodities, or "pawns" in the meta-metagame that's running in the offices of Demiurge and D3: how do we keep the game alive and making money for us? Everyone wants new characters, right? A new character release drives player engagement. People will spend money to buy HP to roster them, grind story event and PVP missions incessantly to place high enough to get their covers.

It's not that they don't want people to play with new characters... it's that they don't care if people do or not, because their primary function is to keep people playing the game, and their utility as usable characters in the game is secondary until maybe six to eight months after their release. The only time this gets flipped is if the character has an immediate and unintended effect on the metagame - for example, characters getting "nerfed" shortly after release because one of their abilities produced a combo that would be disproportionately effective.

Thus, scarcity must be maintained. Turning PVE into another form of PVP helps drive scarcity by encouraging players to fight over limited rewards. That's the bottom line. It's cynical, but I suspect more or less true. But it won't ever be confirmed by the developers - on the whole, neither company's representatives have ever chosen to divulge anything relating to the game's monetization, and are reluctant to even state that it's a factor in their design decisions when we all know that this must be the case.

veny

OneLastGambit wrote:

It's ridiculously easy to make t100 in any event. Bracket snipe and presto you'll prob make t25. I finished 5th for those falcap covers in last heroic and missed the first sub entirely and most of the second. In a progression based system I couldn't do that and would have to rely on My roster strength only

I make t100 for every new character release and I still think making pve progression based is better. Make the event like gauntlet and you'll probably find less people obtain 4* covers, not more.

I managed to reach at 25CP and still, i was below 150th place. There was no reason to spend more hours just to get one cover. Yes, i miss Quake and Punisher, but they were not worth of effort. If there were another progress rewards? Thats a different story.

Starsaber

veny wrote:

No reward is better than placement reward? Am i dumb or 75% of participants of poll dont uderstand the point of this idea?
I mean yes, i would like to see more rewards in progress, more bonuses (completely clearing nodes etc.) but removing placement rewards? Why ? Oh i get it, you dont manage to get in top 100 when new 4* is announced... i see. Well, ask for 4* as reward for getting specific amount of points. But do not try to remove placement reward completely- it makes no sence, its not nessessary and its actually not the real subject of change...

PVE means Player vs Environment. What we have now for most "PVE" events is just another form of PVP, not true PVE.

amusingfoo1 wrote:

I said no, but only because I don't think it'll make any difference. They set where the progressions are, probably based on what percentage of people they want getting them. Which would be an identical situation to where we are now, just less honest about it.

Yes, but everyone would have the opportunity to get that many points. With the current system, players are trying to beat other players for the top reward rather than just competing against the game for them.

TLCstormz

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.

Wooooow...........what is it about someone asking life to be FAIR that gets certain human beings SO ANGRY at the very thought of doing so?????

Jesus.

Phumade

veny wrote:

I managed to reach at 25CP and still, i was below 150th place. There was no reason to spend more hours just to get one cover. Yes, i miss Quake and Punisher, but they were not worth of effort. If there were another progress rewards? Thats a different story.

This can be a bit misleading for forum readers. While I don't know your specific situation. I am going to guess at what happened.

1. You joined early in the event, prolly prejoined or 1st day.
2. You made the progession with lots of time left in the event and decided to stop.

The problem is you picked a bracket with players who have other pressing obligations beside just 25 cp.

Making progression is no minor feat, but the progression are always set relatively low. Optimal players are easily passing that number with 1 even 2 days left in the event. Talk about frustration knowing that people are still playing hard and have already wiped out the progression rewards. Its actually easy to devise a join and play strategy that gets you 25cp and top 100 placement. Most of the specialists have already discussed and talked about this very issue.

In fact, in the last heroic, 2/3 of WaG had doubled the progression award. We were thinking why don't we get a 2nd 25cp for doubling the progression.

In competitive play, there are only 2 types of players. Those who join immediately to make alliance points, and those who join late to late bracket snipe. The actuall reward structure is irrelevant, because a Top 10 alliance needs far far far more than the 25 cp progression points.

Anyone who prejoins or joins on the 1st day has already set themselves up for failure, because the specialists have to put up whatever multiple of LT to maintain their spots in alliances. Trust me when I tell you maintaining their alliance relationship is actually much more important to those players than the actual covers recieved. I did the math of 4* cover acquistion for a top 10 PVE scorer who also plays 1300 pvp. They are easily avg 1 4* cover every 2 day. One cover means very little when over time, they are selling tons of surplus 4*. Everyone knows that they will be cover maxed long before they can address level maxing and that character joins a long list of 4* that can be champed. I've got close to 10+ 4* that have to be champed before I'm thinking about Quake, and I actually think she's a top tier character.

Here is my "free advice " learned over many many many pve events. The easiest leaderboards are always mid event boards. You avoid the strongest pve grinders because, their alliance relies on them to put up a big number, and the PVP specialists are most likely to play late and speed rush. But you still have plenty of time to play casual, get the 25cp, and clear the greencheck marks.

For most of the top players, an invitation to merc for a Top 1/2 alliance means 1 thing.

10k iso. which is the only meaningful reward in the game

5000iso for alliance rewards, 2000 from selling off the 3 star covers(even if they goto champ levels, the iso over time is equivalent to selling the cover outright), 2500iso from individual placement awards for main event and sub event.

and knowledge that they will most likely get invited back to participate in the next pve event.

Phumade

My only real intent in participating in this thread was to interject some intellectual honesty about the tension between developers who need to manage and maintain a robust game economy and players who deserve the flexibility to play the game in a fashion that fits their lifestyle.

Trying to turn this into a discussion of have vs have nots is silly because the have's push for reasons that are largely independent of progression vs placement. I've said it before several times, I'm actually in favor of looser rewards. I know I'll be in the top tier under either scenario. But as someone who's spent a fair amount of time in school, it just irks me when people trivialize the situation into us vs them.

matthatter

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=41535&start=20#p499182

Here's a link to my post in a feedback post from the previous test. Not too be biased, but i see my thoughts on rewards as still pretty darn solid and fair for everyone.

Pylgrim

OneLastGambit wrote:

veny wrote:

No reward is better than placement reward? Am i dumb or 75% of participants of poll dont uderstand the point of this idea?
I mean yes, i would like to see more rewards in progress, more bonuses (completely clearing nodes etc.) but removing placement rewards? Why ? Oh i get it, you dont manage to get in top 100 when new 4* is announced... i see. Well, ask for 4* as reward for getting specific amount of points. But do not try to remove placement reward completely- it makes no sence, its not nessessary and its actually not the real subject of change...

It's ridiculously easy to make t100 in any event. Bracket snipe and presto you'll prob make t25. I finished 5th for those falcap covers in last heroic and missed the first sub entirely and most of the second. In a progression based system I couldn't do that and would have to rely on My roster strength only

I make t100 for every new character release and I still think making pve progression based is better. Make the event like gauntlet and you'll probably find less people obtain 4* covers, not more.

Sooo what you are saying is that the proposed change will be fairer, making the better rewards go to the people with better rosters (and such, the ones who need them most) rather than to those than can game the timing system regardless of their roster? I wonder why the majority of people want such change

Sluggo

With all the talk about altering PVE events, there's a suggestion I'm surprised I've never seen on these forums.

A lot of the complaints against the current PVE format is that some players would like story mode rewards to be based purely on progression, ditching placement rewards altogether. Like the occasional gauntlet events. As if there's some arbitrary rule that says MPQ can only have one or the other at any time.

Why not have both, all the time?

What I'm saying is, at any given moment, always have a "pure PVE" gauntlet event running concurrent with standard-issue "story" events with progression and placement rewards.

We know the functionality for this already exists. Whenever gauntlets run, they usually overlap story events for a few days. Same for special events like Ant-Man and Uncredible Chulk. Story events can run side-by-side with gauntlets. Just run more gauntlets!

This addresses two huge issues:

• First, players who dislike grinding for placement rewards will always have a pure PVE event they can play at their own pace. No timers, no competition for placement. (I think gauntlet rewards also need to be improved, but that's a separate issue.)
• Then, for players desperately pleading for more ways to generate ISO, boom! More content to get ISO from.

What would it take to make this happen? The main obstacle I can see is the likely need to create a few more gauntlet events. I'm sure players wouldn't want to see the same three subs with the same 54(?) trios week after week. But I can't imagine that would be anywhere nearly as complex as creating a story event. (Honestly, I would assume it's almost trivial if they have a template for the gauntlet, but I can't know that for sure.)

From all the talk here about people who dislike grinding PVE events for placement, wouldn't this be a welcome addition?

dkffiv

viewtopic.php?p=499839#p499839

I am completely against full time Ultron / Galactus events. They force you to play every event or let your alliance down. Switching to the format I propose would keep rewards in line with the current system but give more freedom in when you can play.

Sluggo

dkffiv wrote:

I am completely against full time Ultron / Galactus events. They force you to play every event or let your alliance down. Switching to the format I propose would keep rewards in line with the current system but give more freedom in when you can play.

I don't know if this was meant to be a response to my post, but I was not suggesting full-time Ultron/Galactus events that require Alliance participation. I was referring to the vanilla PVE "Gauntlet" event, which is a simple string of 50+ PVE nodes.

Adding more of those alongside story events seems like a really easy way to (a) get more content into the game, (b) give players an avenue to PVE without worrying about placement rewards, and (c) offer players more chances to get ISO. And you don't have to take anything away.

Aidonis

My thoughts as a vet who almost never gets above top 300 in a PvE.

Meh.

This whole game has kinda meh'd out for me. I still play it, it's still relatively fun, but grinding for hours just doesn't do it for me.

PvP is totally over for me, has been for about 3 months now. I hit 850 and the 5 star wall hits. I can't reliably beat oml above 6 covers consistently and I'm not going to spend money on health packs, so there ya go.

I do however play every PvE. I try my best to get every cp, as it's really my only source of progression. Unless I happen to join a PvE late and get a bunny slice, which is rare. Personally, I'd like to see a week long gauntlet that I could slowly roll through. The only thing that ever chaps me about the gauntlet is getting to the last required node and having it be the 4 star I didn't get in the last PvE. Always a nice sack tap right at the end.

None of this is whining, just what the game has become for me.

Cheers!