PVE Scaling Feedback & New Test : Prodigal Sun

fmftint

Keegan wrote:

fmftint wrote:

Awesome rewards for this,

104k

Test this because?

104k for 25

It's a seven day event, no one has lost their minds completely

It's previously been set at 86k, a 21% increase, with higher difficulty across the board, for the same reward

Keegan

fmftint wrote:

Keegan wrote:

fmftint wrote:

Awesome rewards for this,

104k

Test this because?

104k for 25

It's a seven day event, no one has lost their minds completely

It's previously been set at 86k, a 21% increase, with higher difficulty across the board, for the same reward

Gotcha, in following along I thought the length might have been mistaken. Thanks for the clarification!

Esheris

Pst, hey D3.

Now would be a great time to double the CP reward to 50 (Even 40 would be nice!) for a 7 day event, especially since you keep raising the progression amount.

Doing wishful thinking, but I can dream.

SnowcaTT

Vhailorx wrote:

And what I'm saying is that the changes don't even benefit non-competitive players!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only people who actually benefit from these changes are demiurge and d3, who seem likely to give out fewer CPs and sell more healthpacks.

As a casual PVP'er (at best), I'll agree with this [although I don't think it's in argument - most seem to agree it hurts both the grinders and the casuals]. These tests have been a bummer - I'm hopeful this time we'll see easy nodes again so I can grind the first 3-4 nodes for ISO using Cage/Fist, or similar teams that can survive that 6x grind 3-4x node.

The first few tests it had to be my best teams - which meant health packs for that team, but I need health packs for PVP where I can get a 4* without timing my life exclusively around node refreshes. I think I hit the LT the first time they introduced it - remembered that it sucked to push that much, and have never hit farther than the 3* reward since then.

I can certainly see how the constant grind at the end followed by the grind immediately following the opening of the new sub would be a soul-crusher to those who are used to pretty big grinds; I think it hurts both the folks aiming for T10 and the folks aiming for just the CP. I couldn't reliably get the CP from either test, since if I missed it the first 3-4 times the nodes scaled so high it was 50/50 if I could even beat them.

Less ISO, less CP - folks have asked what I wonder, why when I get a better roster am I punished? Why are you trying to slow progression further? I hope this new test fixes that, but hearing the hardest nodes won't be much easier doesn't bode well.

TheWerebison

Vhailorx wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

What you guys are saying is "I can't (and don't want) to schedule my life around MPQ and I don't like that people who can always will get better rewards than I." What we are saying is "I don't want to have to grind even more than I already do just to get the same rewards I'm getting right now and I don't like that this change at my expense is made to benefit people who are not even competing for the same rewards as me". Players act like these two statements are at odds with eachother, but they actually could be addressed at once by changing the reward scheme instead of the play-timing scheme which is what the devs have been focusing on all this time.

And what I'm saying is that the changes don't even benefit non-competitive players!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only people who actually benefit from these changes are demiurge and d3, who seem likely to give out fewer CPs and sell more healthpacks.

(sure there might be a small number of edge case rosters who see better scaling with the new system. There are also clearly several edge case rosters who see markedly worse scaling. Those edge cases seem to be a wash. and EVERYONE sees the "smoother" difficulty curve that requires top tier teams in every node)

It's so weird, though! I always did better in both tests than doing the normal way!

I guess it's like someone else said, though, it's only because people don't want to do the new test, so it's more rewarding for the people who do.

I dunno, I wish we could see what D3 sees. The game would probably improve if we, the devs and the playerbase, could work together.

Keegan

TheWerebison wrote:

I guess it's like someone else said, though, it's only because people don't want to do the new test, so it's more rewarding for the people who do.

Despite the huffing and puffing of people saying they are not going to participate, if you watch the leaderboards during the tests, you'll see (mostly) the same old faces making the t10 to t50 every time. The Alliance rankings bear this out too. These tests are during non-new character events, so the ability for the "average" player to place higher than "normal" is pretty much the same, and IIRC after the first test it was announced by D3/Demiurge that the new formats did indeed have more players participating in the event, and for longer periods.

People are going to reply to this with "Because they made us, no one liked it, it was awful..." but the fact of the matter is no one can make anyone play a match-three game, people clearly like the new system based on qualitative and quantitative feedback from far more than just here on the forums, and it might be helpful to remember that every single person plays this game differently, there is no universal standard at all.

Ducky

Keegan wrote:

TheWerebison wrote:

I guess it's like someone else said, though, it's only because people don't want to do the new test, so it's more rewarding for the people who do.

Despite the huffing and puffing of people saying they are not going to participate, if you watch the leaderboards during the tests, you'll see (mostly) the same old faces making the t10 to t50 every time. The Alliance rankings bear this out too. These tests are during non-new character events, so the ability for the "average" player to place higher than "normal" is pretty much the same, and IIRC after the first test it was announced by D3/Demiurge that the new formats did indeed have more players participating in the event, and for longer periods.

People are going to reply to this with "Because they made us, no one liked it, it was awful..." but the fact of the matter is no one can make anyone play a match-three game, people clearly like the new system based on qualitative and quantitative feedback from far more than just here on the forums, and it might be helpful to remember that every single person plays this game differently, there is no universal standard at all.

Or people had to play the event more just to get the same rewards we usually get...

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation in regards to players enjoying the event, ya know.

Keegan

DuckyV wrote:

Keegan wrote:

TheWerebison wrote:

I guess it's like someone else said, though, it's only because people don't want to do the new test, so it's more rewarding for the people who do.

Despite the huffing and puffing of people saying they are not going to participate, if you watch the leaderboards during the tests, you'll see (mostly) the same old faces making the t10 to t50 every time. The Alliance rankings bear this out too. These tests are during non-new character events, so the ability for the "average" player to place higher than "normal" is pretty much the same, and IIRC after the first test it was announced by D3/Demiurge that the new formats did indeed have more players participating in the event, and for longer periods.

People are going to reply to this with "Because they made us, no one liked it, it was awful..." but the fact of the matter is no one can make anyone play a match-three game, people clearly like the new system based on qualitative and quantitative feedback from far more than just here on the forums, and it might be helpful to remember that every single person plays this game differently, there is no universal standard at all.

Or people had to play the event more just to get the same rewards we usually get...

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation in regards to players enjoying the event, ya know.

I know, which is why I said "based on qualitative and quantitative feedback from far more than just here on the forums." They've run what, two, three surveys in addition to the data they can pull and the comments gathered here?

And there are comments from players here that say they like the new format, a sentiment that is ignored and "everyone hates it" when it suits one's position.

jackstar0

Boy those rewards/progression #s are laughable. I can't imagine nearly as much participation.

Will they factor that into their testing data? I do wonder...


Along those lines, will we ever see a test of a new progression rewards structure? Especially for 7-day events?

wymtime

jackstar0 wrote:

Boy those rewards/progression #s are laughable. I can't imagine nearly as much participation.

Will they factor that into their testing data? I do wonder...


Along those lines, will we ever see a test of a new progression rewards structure? Especially for 7-day events?

Maybe in 2020 when they run the Howard the duck PVE for a 2nd time

Vhailorx

TheWerebison wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

What you guys are saying is "I can't (and don't want) to schedule my life around MPQ and I don't like that people who can always will get better rewards than I." What we are saying is "I don't want to have to grind even more than I already do just to get the same rewards I'm getting right now and I don't like that this change at my expense is made to benefit people who are not even competing for the same rewards as me". Players act like these two statements are at odds with eachother, but they actually could be addressed at once by changing the reward scheme instead of the play-timing scheme which is what the devs have been focusing on all this time.

And what I'm saying is that the changes don't even benefit non-competitive players!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only people who actually benefit from these changes are demiurge and d3, who seem likely to give out fewer CPs and sell more healthpacks.

(sure there might be a small number of edge case rosters who see better scaling with the new system. There are also clearly several edge case rosters who see markedly worse scaling. Those edge cases seem to be a wash. and EVERYONE sees the "smoother" difficulty curve that requires top tier teams in every node)

It's so weird, though! I always did better in both tests than doing the normal way!

I guess it's like someone else said, though, it's only because people don't want to do the new test, so it's more rewarding for the people who do.

I dunno, I wish we could see what D3 sees. The game would probably improve if we, the devs and the playerbase, could work together.

better for whom? remember that the freemium games are different from "traditional" retail games. when the customer pays everything up front, the devs that want to stick around have a clear incentive to make the experience enjoyable enough to justify subsequent purchases of later products. But with freemium games, the devs are trying to design a game that is compulsively fun, but also frustrating enough that players are willing to spend money to avoid the frustration (awww, your guy is dead and you have no more healthpacks. too bad. you can wait 35 minutes for your next health pack. . .or you can spent a few bucks and keep playing right now!).

So it's likely that player and dev collaboration is only possible to a certain point beyond which the parties' interests diverge too much for any real cooperation. I think that's why the devs talk about things like "fun" and "challenge" when they make player-unfriendly changes; they don't want to just say "we need to sell more consumable digital goods this quarter"!

(incidentally, this is why I absolutely loved it when IceIX just out and out said that the devs knew roster slots prices were an issue for the players, but they were a key revenue pillar so any changes had to be approved by the 'beancounters'. It was one of the most honest bits of communication we have ever received from the devs. I didn't love the news, but I respected the fact that they just told us. And it wasn't the end of the world. Roster slot prices were capped higher than players wanted, but they were finally capped.)

p.s. the devs basically admitted that vet engagement was down by saying that scaling was harder for high-level rosters than anticipated. The know they have pushed the vet/competitive community too far, so each subsequent test has been a tiny walk back. they will continue walking the scaling changes back until player uproar dies down. the scoring changes are probably here to stay and I don't expect any comment on them from the devs any time soon.

seekie

Put bagtastic as reward and nobody want to play, put top tier hero and everyone say burn the dev for forcing to grind the test PvE. Sometimes I feel sorry for them (the dev that is)

Keegan

OJSP wrote:

Keegan wrote:

TheWerebison wrote:

I guess it's like someone else said, though, it's only because people don't want to do the new test, so it's more rewarding for the people who do.

Despite the huffing and puffing of people saying they are not going to participate, if you watch the leaderboards during the tests, you'll see (mostly) the same old faces making the t10 to t50 every time. The Alliance rankings bear this out too. These tests are during non-new character events, so the ability for the "average" player to place higher than "normal" is pretty much the same, and IIRC after the first test it was announced by D3/Demiurge that the new formats did indeed have more players participating in the event, and for longer periods.

People are going to reply to this with "Because they made us, no one liked it, it was awful..." but the fact of the matter is no one can make anyone play a match-three game, people clearly like the new system based on qualitative and quantitative feedback from far more than just here on the forums, and it might be helpful to remember that every single person plays this game differently, there is no universal standard at all.

With your roster, I'd be surprised if you're in a vet bracket. (Unless you've developed your roster drastically in 3 weeks or this post that I quoted doesn't actually represent your roster very well. You've only just joined the forum recently (playing MtGPQ first) The level of competition for top 10 in your bracket is probably different to others who have played longer and have a stronger roster.

Re: Not leveling up isn't always soft-capping
by Keegan » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:42 am

All of this even applies to new players who can't even dream of having a roster they can soft cap. It's 30k iso for me to take 2* Thor from 62 to something like 86 alone. Think I'm going to care about lvl 14 2* Cap sitting on the bench with four blue covers and nothing else? Not worth leveling right now at all, but definitely not worth selling.

Edit: I actually found your roster in a post from 10 days later.. you have a 2* champion roster, with a lvl 103 Cap Marvel as your highest levelled character.

I'm in solid 2* champ land, definitely playing in veterans' brackets (you're number one in my bracket, actually )

https://mpq.gamependium.com/rosters/Justaroster/

Keegan

OJSP wrote:

Keegan wrote:

definitely playing in veteran's brackets

That's quite impressive actually.. I don't think I moved to a vet bracket that quickly.

Thank you. Credit goes to the fantastic guides and advice here, particularly mining LRs for iso and 2* covers.

Well.. this event's an exception.. I really want that (currently 1/5/5).. You won't be seeing me anywhere in the top10 for Prodigal Sun.. or any events with 4*s I don't need anymore. I'd normally just play to get all the green ticks and possibly top50 placements for the HP.

I get it, and this will be true for most all events - everyone's motivation is intrinsically different and expectations are best served if that's kept in mind. It'll save a lot of frustration and anger towards developers. Well, maybe not when Chulk is the top award, cuz even I slacked to stick with the Colossus placement and not waste the HP on a roster spot or the time trying to get Chulk.

Der_Lex

You know, between these tests and the increase in points needed to hit progression (webbed wonder is particularly ridiculous), the devs should probably come straight out and say that they'd rather get rid of pve entirely, instead of passive-aggressively discouraging people to actually play the game mode like this.

Whoever thought that three full clears per 24 hour sub was not more than enough time invested in the game for progression should probably consider a different line of work. Although in this game, he'll probably be promoted to lead designer or something, because 'you're supposed to lose' is considered a valid design philosophy.

Pylgrim

TheWerebison wrote:

I dunno, I wish we could see what D3 sees. The game would probably improve if we, the devs and the playerbase, could work together.

*Loud gasp* How DARE you speak such anathema, you filthy heathen? Everybody knows that the world of the gods must be completely separated from the sphere of the cash-apes and that the only communication allowed between both worlds must be one-sided via the one anointed messenger, at the neckbreaking speed of bureaucracy.

WEBGAS

6 clears plus the final grind is......TOO MUCH!!!!

This should be a fun game not a second job.
Furthermore, after 7 clears it gives no rewards, so what is worth?

Why don't you simply understand this?
Do you really want an unhappy fan base?

Don't pull the rope any further or it will be broken

Crowl

First impression of the new test, it is a step in the right direction on the 'trivial' nodes as my first one was lvl 96 rather than 200+, but since they increase per clear (looks like about 10%) that still isn't enough of a drop for those first three nodes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them being as low level as they were under the older system.

For the trivial nodes they should be something like 40, 50 and 60 to start out and increase 5 per clear, you would still have a marginal increase in challenge per clear, but they would still be fairly classed as trivial.

CrookedKnight

Yay, Trivial fights are back! With champed Red Hulk and Hulkbuster on my roster, the easiest fight in the first sub started at level 109, and the hardest (Crossfire) at 198. At this rate even with a bunch of clears the easier fights won't get into overscaled territory, while the harder fights will start to get nasty as the scaling crosses the normal level cap. Definitely a tinykitty sight better than the first two trials, and at least potentially something I could live with long-term!

SolidQ

WEBGAS wrote:

after 7 clears it gives no rewards

Devs think we need lesser rewards