Missing the new system already on pve

GrumpySmurf1002

Slarow wrote:

mohio wrote:

Especially true if you are able to space out your clears throughout the day.

Thats the whole point! What people don't understand is that spacing out your clears throughout the day IS THE PROBLEM that many of us face. So saying "it's exactly the same, especially if you spread out your clears" indicates that you completely missed the entire point of this thread. The new system is a huge advantage to those of us for whom timing every 8 hours is a huge burden.

And what you're being countered with is that unless you're competing for top placement, spacing out your clears is only a psychological problem. Progression and decent placement are both easily achieved with the same effort, regardless of which system you're playing in.

Slarow

Stax the Foyer wrote:

The best alternative is, I think, is to have the covers given out at increasingly high progression rewards that, based on prior results, would be expected to yield the desired distribution.

Except that the progression on any given event is drastically different based on many factors, including the selection of boosted chars, the reward, the length of the event, the type of event, the presence of a new character, etc... It would be impossible to hit 1% ever, since the value would be fluctuating so much. One event 20% would get it, another none would get it. It would be a nightmare to try to pick the right progression value, and everyone would complain about it even if they got it right on the 1% nose.

GrumpySmurf1002

Phaserhawk wrote:

What is the formula to get to max progression? That's my question

All you really need is the node values for each sub and the progression number. Strangely it's never been tracked in the event threads (that I'm aware of at least).

Slarow

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

And what you're being countered with is that unless you're competing for top placement, spacing out your clears is only a psychological problem. Progression and decent placement are both easily achieved with the same effort, regardless of which system you're playing in.

And that statement is false, as I expanded on here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42430&start=80#p505751

jobob

mohio wrote:

Having 6 clears worth of 100% points frees your mind to not feel pressured to get them in at any given point in time, which is why people are feeling like the new system is better, even if they are actually doing more work for the same rewards they were getting before

I am glad you put it like this, because it's a point I haven't heard made exactly that way yet, and I think it helps narrow down why people fall into different camps.

Maybe it does come out to "more work," when work is defined as time spent playing the game. I am okay with trading "more work" for more flexibility. I have a full time job and 2 kids... I simply can't do clears every 8 hours, but I can grind for 3 after they go to bed. Also (and I don't see this discussed) after a single clear, I can play ANY node or skip any node with little to no penalty, until of course I hit 7 clears. I play PVP competitively, so the goon nodes are a nice change of pace and the new system gives me the flexibility to hit progression almost solely by playing goon nodes. That's worth something to me.

Finally, as I stated above... It's about how you define "work." For me personally, trying to arrange my schedule around finding time for clears every 8 hours IS work, even if it doesn't fall into your definition of time spent in the game.

GrumpySmurf1002

Slarow wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

And what you're being countered with is that unless you're competing for top placement, spacing out your clears is only a psychological problem. Progression and decent placement are both easily achieved with the same effort, regardless of which system you're playing in.

And that statement is false, as I expanded on here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42430&start=80#p505751

Which I already countered as well, as there's nothing about your statements that read as true either.

You just keep saying "I have to play for the timer in the old system" when everyone and their uncle is telling you otherwise.

jobob

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

Slarow wrote:

mohio wrote:

Especially true if you are able to space out your clears throughout the day.

Thats the whole point! What people don't understand is that spacing out your clears throughout the day IS THE PROBLEM that many of us face. So saying "it's exactly the same, especially if you spread out your clears" indicates that you completely missed the entire point of this thread. The new system is a huge advantage to those of us for whom timing every 8 hours is a huge burden.

And what you're being countered with is that unless you're competing for top placement, spacing out your clears is only a psychological problem. Progression and decent placement are both easily achieved with the same effort, regardless of which system you're playing in.

I understand what you are saying... but maybe I can make the point another way:

Throw out the "ease" or "difficulty" of hitting progression. Unless I am way off in my math, hitting progression becomes IMPOSSIBLE sooner with the old system than the new. Is that an accurate statement?

carrion_pigeons

Slarow wrote:

Then propose an alternate method to limit the amount of covers given out to 1% of the population. No one ever proposes a system that will work, they just complain about the current system.

Why is this a necessary prerequisite for a design to be acceptable again? It seems to me the game would work fine if covers were given out to 25% of the population. Better, in fact, given that the top 1% can't even get enough Iso to use those covers in the first place. Let the top rewards be sufficient Iso and call it a day?

Slarow

jobob wrote:

mohio wrote:

Having 6 clears worth of 100% points frees your mind to not feel pressured to get them in at any given point in time, which is why people are feeling like the new system is better, even if they are actually doing more work for the same rewards they were getting before

I am glad you put it like this, because it's a point I haven't heard made exactly that way yet, and I think it helps narrow down why people fall into different camps.

Maybe it does come out to "more work," when work is defined as time spent playing the game. I am okay with trading "more work" for more flexibility. I have a full time job and 2 kids... I simply can't do clears every 8 hours, but I can grind for 3 after they go to bed. Also (and I don't see this discussed) after a single clear, I can play ANY node or skip any node with little to no penalty, until of course I hit 7 clears. I play PVP competitively, so the goon nodes are a nice change of pace and the new system gives me the flexibility to hit progression almost solely by playing goon nodes. That's worth something to me.

Finally, as I stated above... It's about how you define "work." For me personally, trying to arrange my schedule around finding time for clears every 8 hours IS work, even if it doesn't fall into your definition of time spent in the game.

This pretty much 100% sums up my feelings on why the new system is superior to the old one. In the new system, I have the ability to sit down at any point during the day (which is usually when the kids go to bed) and bang out my entire days PVE playing without losing out to the guy who could play less time as me, but at "optimal" times throughout the day.

mohio

To follow up on what jobob says above...I think where the new system shines is precisely in situations where you can handle certain nodes for whatever reason (roster limitations or they're goons) but not others. In the new system now you can hit that node 6 times in a row, and even though it will scale up quite a bit, you at least wind up with 6x total points from that node. In the old system, if you do that, you only wind up with 3.5x total points (looking at all done in one sitting). So, in the new system you are able to supplement your full clears with additional hits on the easier nodes in order to make it so you don't have to hit the harder ones quite as many times.

To slarow again...my point is that if you're just looking at requirements for progression, they are for all intents and purposes equal if you only have one play session and do it all at once. The increase in required points will offset the points you "gained" from always having 100% instead of 5/6, 4/6, 3/6, etc. If you have more time to play then progression shouldn't be an issue, but yes, the new system might favor you since your 5th and 6th hit will be for 100% points as opposed to 33% and 17%. I only threw in the "especially if you can space out any clears" to highlight the fact that if you could space them out it's likely easier (in game time considerations) under the old system than it is under the new system.

Also since I never actually said - I too prefer the new scoring system since I rarely ever want to grind for top rewards, and it allows me the flexibility to play a little at lunch or over breaks and then a lot after my family goes to sleep, and I don't have to worry as much about which time slice I'm in and staying up late or getting up early or scheduling breaks to hit refreshes right on time. The scaling however can go tinykitty itself...I'm another one with a handful of maxed/champed 4* that thinks the scaling goes a bit too high.

GrumpySmurf1002

jobob wrote:

Throw out the "ease" or "difficulty" of hitting progression. Unless I am way off in my math, hitting progression becomes IMPOSSIBLE sooner with the old system than the new. Is that an accurate statement?

It's impossible to say for sure because this makes the assumption that the 25CP progression level is going to stay static. In other words that Juggernaut Heroic in the 'new system' would still be set at 43k. It's not unreasonable to think that number becomes 50k or 60k if the first 6 clears are all worth the same.

As I said, unfortunately no one (that I know of) is tracking node values/sub totals for past events to accurately compare to the test values.

What I can tell you is that 'play when you want' works perfectly fine in the old system. That's been my strategy for PvE for I don't know how long now. If I make an honest effort (actually do several clears of each sub), I've never missed a progression. T50 or T100 placement then takes care of itself.

Slarow

carrion pigeons wrote:

Slarow wrote:

Then propose an alternate method to limit the amount of covers given out to 1% of the population. No one ever proposes a system that will work, they just complain about the current system.

Why is this a necessary prerequisite for a design to be acceptable again? It seems to me the game would work fine if covers were given out to 25% of the population. Better, in fact, given that the top 1% can't even get enough Iso to use those covers in the first place. Let the top rewards be sufficient Iso and call it a day?

And that is where it inevitably ends up. Arguing for more 4* rewards. If you want to argue for more 4* rewards, then do so, but it needs to be a separate discussion from moving placement rewards into progress rewards, because the argument for moving to progression only rewards falls flat on its face outside of also increasing 4* rewards, which simply isn't going to happen.

jobob

carrion pigeons wrote:

Slarow wrote:

Then propose an alternate method to limit the amount of covers given out to 1% of the population. No one ever proposes a system that will work, they just complain about the current system.

Why is this a necessary prerequisite for a design to be acceptable again? It seems to me the game would work fine if covers were given out to 25% of the population. Better, in fact, given that the top 1% can't even get enough Iso to use those covers in the first place. Let the top rewards be sufficient Iso and call it a day?

Amen to that. It seems like being more generous with covers would actually encourage the player base to try more for ISO.

...this may be a different argument for a different time, but...

I understand both camps - the 1%-ers and the "everyman." Based on my experience in MMOs, to create a game that has a stable base, encourages new players, keeps old ones, and is profitable enough to last, you have to do a few key things (okay, lots of things, but these few are important):
-Incentivize and reward the top 1% (or 5%, whatever). If there's no real reason to be top 1% vs top 25%, a big chunk of the top 25% loses interest. These are the whales that do a lot of work keeping the game afloat, and there should be a noticeable (but not insurmountable) power difference between them and the 99%
-Make the top 25% attainable and fair, so that whoever puts the time and efffort in can realistically reach it. Again, have a power difference between them and the bottom 50%
-Make the game FUN and REWARDING for the 99% (or at least the top 50%). For super-whales, being in that top 1% is typically its own reward. But you need the guys underneath them to enjoy the game and feel like it's fair, and feel like they are progressing along at a reasonable pace.

...Currently, I think the game succeeds at the first, but fails at the 2nd and 3rd.

Slarow

mohio wrote:

I only threw in the "especially if you can space out any clears" to highlight the fact that if you could space them out it's likely easier (in game time considerations) under the old system than it is under the new system.

And that is all I have been saying. The old system favors those who can spread out their playtime (the other side of this coin being that it is a disadvantage to those who cannot). The new system is better for those who aren't able to spread out their playtime.

GrumpySmurf1002

jobob wrote:

-Incentivize and reward the top 1% (or 5%, whatever). If there's no real reason to be top 1% vs top 25%, a big chunk of the top 25% loses interest. These are the whales that do a lot of work keeping the game afloat, and there should be a noticeable (but not insurmountable) power difference between them and the 99%

PvE does not currently reward the top 1% of players. It rewards the top 1% of bracket finishers. That's a massive distinction.

That can means scores ranging from as little as 100 (one of the new releases, Quake I think, had a fresh bracket open with ~45 seconds left) to 3xMax progression.

Progression would go to the top 1% of players, because it very likely be dictated by scaling. The question of which is better is reserved for the other thread on the topic.

NewMcG

Slarow wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

And what you're being countered with is that unless you're competing for top placement, spacing out your clears is only a psychological problem. Progression and decent placement are both easily achieved with the same effort, regardless of which system you're playing in.

And that statement is false, as I expanded on here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42430&start=80#p505751

Let's pose a theoretical: Say you play under the old system twice as it opens, twice 12 hours later, and then twice more two hours before the end. 6 times "whenever you want". (Rough math involved ahead.)

You'd be getting roughly 1 5/6 max clear points immediately.

12 hours later, after the values run back up some, you'd be getting about 1 2/3 max clear points.

Then the last two you'd get roughly 1 1/2 max clear points. For a total of... approximately 5 times the value of a full value clear. Or way more points than the 3+ clears typically required to hit the final progression under the old system.

As they tweak the required progression numbers in the new system, those totals will likely go up and will creep closer to requiring 4 to 5 clears to hit the CP progression, as the available points are considered into the progression values. Old system, you could afford to miss a clear, or even two and still have a great chance at hitting the 3ish required to hit final progression. New system, (with higher difficulty to boot), likely won't be quite as forgiving once it gets dialed in, and especially once they don't "forget" to turn off rubberbanding.

jobob

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

It's impossible to say for sure because this makes the assumption that the 25CP progression level is going to stay static. In other words that Juggernaut Heroic in the 'new system' would still be set at 43k. It's not unreasonable to think that number becomes 50k or 60k if the first 6 clears are all worth the same.

You're right... I can't predict the future. But for me, this argument is a bit of a non-starter:

1) It seems to be based on the feeling that "If D3 feels the rewards are too easy" they will move the goalposts. Even if I concede that point, a lot of people ITT are making the exact opposite argument- that hitting progression actually requires MORE work. It seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" argument:

"I like this new system because it seems easier to hit progression.
"It's not ANY easier, it's harder. And D3 is going to change the rewards anyway, because it's easier."

2) It also seems to be based on D3 being stingy and wants to make rewards harder in the new system. If we're going by that assumption, why are we also assuming that they will only try to make the rewards harder to obtain in the NEW system? Couldn't they just as easily move the goalposts for the old one as well?

What I can tell you is that 'play when you want' works perfectly fine in the old system. That's been my strategy for PvE for I don't know how long now. If I make an honest effort (actually do several clears of each sub), I've never missed a progression. T50 or T100 placement then takes care of itself.

I get that, and I get that the system works fine for you. Now let me tell you about my personal experience... I haven't missed many progressions, but of the ones I have, there have been a handful of times where I have sat down on the final day with a good 2-3 hours left to grind and come up just short of the progression mark because all my nodes were near worthless 6-7 plays in. Now, who is to say that D3 wouldn't change rewards with the new system, or that I wouldn't have been able to clear fast enough, or that I woudln't have been struck by lightning. But at least I would've had a shot.

jobob

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

jobob wrote:

-Incentivize and reward the top 1% (or 5%, whatever). If there's no real reason to be top 1% vs top 25%, a big chunk of the top 25% loses interest. These are the whales that do a lot of work keeping the game afloat, and there should be a noticeable (but not insurmountable) power difference between them and the 99%

PvE does not currently reward the top 1% of players. It rewards the top 1% of bracket finishers. That's a massive distinction.

That can means scores ranging from as little as 100 (one of the new releases, Quake I think, had a fresh bracket open with ~45 seconds left) to 3xMax progression.

Progression would go to the top 1% of players, because it very likely be dictated by scaling. The question of which is better is reserved for the other thread on the topic.

Then we disagree on a fundamental level. In an individual event, sure, a well-timed bracket snipe is totally different than being the best of the best. But over the course of the season, when you add up the progression rewards, the many more clears from a top player, the alliance rewards (which most of the top 1% will be competing for as well)... then, yes, I would say it rewards the top 1% of PVE players.

GrumpySmurf1002

jobob wrote:

I get that, and I get that the system works fine for you. Now let me tell you about my personal experience... I haven't missed many progressions, but of the ones I have, there have been a handful of times where I have sat down on the final day with a good 2-3 hours left to grind and come up just short of the progression mark because all my nodes were near worthless 6-7 plays in. Now, who is to say that D3 wouldn't change rewards with the new system, or that I wouldn't have been able to clear fast enough, or that I woudln't have been struck by lightning. But at least I would've had a shot.

FWIW, your situation above reads very similar to mine. 90% of my play comes after kids go to bed.

I get what you guys are saying, but there's nothing about either test so far that gives me the impression things will be any easier to play casual.

Stax the Foyer

Slarow wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

The best alternative is, I think, is to have the covers given out at increasingly high progression rewards that, based on prior results, would be expected to yield the desired distribution.

Except that the progression on any given event is drastically different based on many factors, including the selection of boosted chars, the reward, the length of the event, the type of event, the presence of a new character, etc... It would be impossible to hit 1% ever, since the value would be fluctuating so much. One event 20% would get it, another none would get it. It would be a nightmare to try to pick the right progression value, and everyone would complain about it even if they got it right on the 1% nose.

There'll be variance, but remember that you're looking at people willing to put in a full grind from the beginning of the event. The variance would probably be a couple of percentage points at most for the top rewards. They already have experience setting progression awards for major releases via the Ultron and Galactus events, and they have a bunch of prior results to draw on that can be correlated to events and boosted characters.

In a perfect world, they'd set the point levels, and then make a post-event adjustment if at least X% didn't get a particular award, moving the target for that award down to whatever point. If a few too many people get it, that's a happy accident that keeps people engaged, and rewards the most dedicated players. You could even scale points for future subs based on the results from the early subs (looking more than one sub ahead). Sort of global rubberbanding.

People who prefer the old system don't do so because they love point decay. They do so because the new system has a much higher ceiling for maximum performance. A lack of point decay would be a great thing to build into whatever PvE revisions they make. However, there are too many other flaws in the implementations of the PvE changes that we've seen so far for competitive players to be happy with it.