Story Difficulty Scaling - New Test: Meet Rocket & Groot

westnyy2

Polares wrote:

Difficulty AGAIN is wrong, and AGAIN benefits the most people not maxing their chars. If I had stopped leveling in the 170 range I would be able to use all 3s and all 4s at a very usable level, I would be able to chose between 40-60 chars! All usable. Now I could basically use my maxed 4s and 5, and in battles with three chars I could try to hide my 3s behind them (of course AoEs like muscle blue destroy me ). I lost a couple of times against jugs+muscle because any of my 4s that can deal with strikes are maxed (more iso please!?!??!!? And another antman blue as 1000 progression would be much appreciated).


So devs, I don't know what did you 'fix' this time, but IT DID NOT WORK.

Second sub was easier, but if the problem are the nodes, then fix the nodes before you change the scaling!!!!

I am really pissed, this format just benefits, the same people it has been benefiting since the beginning, I know the biggest group of players are in the 2-3 range but this is outrageous.

Couldn't agree with this more. Goon strike tiles are roughly 3500 each. One small cascade and an OML is toast. Scaling is horrible for high end rosters. Once more, why do I even have 101 characters if I can only use 3-5 for everything? My personal opinion is that too much time is being wasted on changing this aspect of the game that most people loathe to begin with. I'd rather see you working on a new game mode.

As for the 4 clears, I don't love it but it's not world ending either. Let's say that scaling is fixed and it takes me 2 hours to clear at the end of a sub and 2 hours to start the beginning of the next, that's 4 hours in one sitting devoted to PVE. I'd rather have a random clear in the morning and midday to minimize the "grindy" aspect. Also, I am now pigeon holed into 1 time slot. Living on the east coast, shard 4 is the only time that I could do 4 hours in 1 sitting without interfering with life and work. I can't be the only one with this issue. All in all it was another fail in my eyes. Please stop punishing people with higher end rosters. A challenge is one thing but this is too much.

Entropic

I'm quite enjoying this run. I mainly do PvE for the progression rewards, and they feel much more feasible with this setup. It looks like you can pretty easily hit the top progression reward without even having to grind each node all the way down. My friends who play more casually than I do also look like they'll get the progression rewards, and that's what's important to them.

My competitive placing isn't going to be as high, but that's not why I'm in PvE to begin with, so it feels fair. Players who want to spend all their free time grinding to get those top 50 and better rewards are welcome to them. The 20 point node grinding just changed the meta slightly, as previously those same people would grind the 1 pt nodes.

GritsNGravy

So I think this is a step in the right direction, but I think the biggest problem is still the optimal play requirements. Having the refresh timer tied to your last clear makes it that to compete at a high level I have to block out 2+ hours at the sub clear (1+ hour grinding at the end of a sub, then 4 clears at the start of a new one).

Ideally, the refresh timer would be set off of your first clear, then give you time through out the day to finish your other 3 clears, whatever works best in your schedule.

Daiches

There are still two main problems:

- clumped play time. You have to play at the start and at the end of the sub. This means players with less than ideal start times are at a large disadvantage. Remember there are only 5 time slices, so if none of these allow you to grind 4 hours straight, you can't compete.
It also leaves me with nothing to play in the 20 other hours, unless I want to non-stop grind a..

- 20 point node. I can't believe they missed this. I also can't believe they were immediately told by players it would be an issue and they still went through with the test.

The overal difficulty of scaling seems fine in this test though. First sub of R&G is always the hardest of the entire event due to the Hood/Maggia combo.

Can we just get this scaling in the normal event type as a test?

lockvine

Can someone clarify the point regeneration on nodes for me. I read the post from Anthony as the nodes will regenerate their points in a linear way at a rate of 1/4 the nodes total points per 24 hours. "IF" this is correct then that would mean that you should play the nodes 4x to start the timers as fast as possible. However you can play clear 5,6 and 7 at any time as long as clear 8 is as close to the end as possible.

Because on a 100 point node you will regenerate 25 points in 24 hours regardless if your are starting at the 20 point min or the 75 points after the 4th clear. (i'm also unclear at how the 20 point min instead of the 1 point min will effect this)

I'm ignoring the obvious grind the trivial node for 20 points as much as possible.

If this is correct then getting the 4 clears in is crucial but then you can play up to three more times whenever it is convenient for you and use your health packs effectively. This also means you would just have one final clear and 4 initial clears at the flip instead of 4 final clears and 4 initial clears at the flip.

I'm looking for feedback on this. Is this correct?


EDIT: My math is wrong guys. You do always regenerate the 25 points but those points carry through each additional clear. Example

Clear Points Points
1 100 100
2 100 100
3 100 100
4 100 100
5 100 75
6 75 50
7 50 20
8 20 45
645 590

The latter you play 5 on the more points you will get because they carry through part of those points to the next clear.

san

Feedback re. difficulty test.

This was by far the most enjoyable PVE as of late. Difficulty did not scale out of control. There were some challenging nodes. There were some easy ones too. The 24h refresh was GREATLY appreciated, speaking from the perspective of someone with a family and little time to "chase the clock" for the "perfect" 8h refresh.

Thank you!

TxMoose

san-mpq wrote:

Feedback re. difficulty test.

This was by far the most enjoyable PVE as of late. Difficulty did not scale out of control. There were some challenging nodes. There were some easy ones too. The 24h refresh was GREATLY appreciated, speaking from the perspective of someone with a family and little time to "chase the clock" for the "perfect" 8h refresh.

Thank you!

the 'perfect' schedule here is 3-4 hours of solid play at the end of a sub and the beginning of the next. if you aren't doing that, you aren't playing optimally here either. sorry, but as someone with a family too, my 3-4 hours of play spread over 3 times during the day is far preferable than stacked all together for one sitting.

Sambuca

I tried to do the optimal play for this new format, but I FELL ASLEEP while playing the game. That's how boring it was to do 4 clears at the beginning of the sub. No, it's not difficult at all, I can easily clear the nodes now. However, my concentration tends to waver around the 25th or 30th board. And now that I have accomplished my 4 clears, I'm bored sitting around waiting 24 hours for the points to regen on the nodes before hitting them again.

I think a lot of people are liking this iteration of the PvE tests because they can reach the progression awards really easily, but this format makes competitive play even worse than before.
Successful placement seems to boil down to:
1) how much time you have
2) how many cover-maxed but not-level maxed characters you have.

Playing the PvE story mode feels like an arduous chore instead of a fun diversion. I guess I'll go back to PvP so I can play against teams with 2 5*s and 1 2*.

Bryan Lambert

Sambuca wrote:

I think a lot of people are liking this iteration of the PvE tests because they can reach the progression awards really easily, but this format makes competitive play even worse than before.

The problem with PvE placement rewards is that ultimately, people will play as much as possible up to whatever artificial limit is set. This PvE proves it. People will grind trivial nodes ad infinitum for 20 points.

In many ways, the only good thing the old system's 8 hour clock did was provide a (very relatively speaking) low upper threshold on how much playing was possible. Unfortunately, that restriction also affected the other 950-990 people in the bracket, limiting when and how they could play. Take away that artificial barrier and a horde of crazy people fill the gap, playing as much as they possibly can, because if they don't, someone will play more and take their 4* cover from them.

So the question at hand seems to be can they tweak things so that the experience of ranks 1,000-50 are improved, while raising the bar of how much any theoretical player CAN grind points in PvE as little as possible. Well, and the other question at hand is why convincing 2% of the playerbase to devote hours of their lives to speed up their progression is the user experience they're shooting for.

I don't know if there's a solution that lets people outside the top 50 play a moderate, reasonable amount on their schedule and doesn't allow the top 50 to rip each other to shreds hoping for a few more points to slip into that top prize bracket. But at least this iteration is closer.

san

TxMoose wrote:

the 'perfect' schedule here is 3-4 hours of solid play at the end of a sub and the beginning of the next. if you aren't doing that, you aren't playing optimally here either. sorry, but as someone with a family too, my 3-4 hours of play spread over 3 times during the day is far preferable than stacked all together for one sitting.

Hi TxMoose,

While I agree that there is a way to make this system a perfect run, for someone who goes solely after the LTs in PVE, this is ideal. It means that I can spread out my play if I wish and do a run every 8 hours (just as before, and just as you need), or I can do it all in one go, or a bit of both for my convenience. While this doesn't leave me competing for t10 rewards, I can easily manage top 100 and even top 50 with very little play. So this works for me.

On the other hand, if you go for T10 rewards regularly, this may, in fact, be an inconvenience for you. I can empathize with that. At the same time, they did ask for feedback from each of us, and given the amount of different schedules, I can't see how two individuals (even with similar situations) would be of the same opinion. I don't expect you to agree with me. It works for me and for my family, not necessarily for you and yours.

san

Sambuca wrote:

I think a lot of people are liking this iteration of the PvE tests because they can reach the progression awards really easily, but this format makes competitive play even worse than before.

Sambuca, I can definitely agree with you here. Progression is easier. Competition maybe not. However, hasn't everyone been screaming at D3 to make PVE more progression based anyways? Isn't this at least a step towards that? If progression is what folks are after, they can now obtain it easier . Problem solved?

[EDIT] Sorry for posting twice. I would have responded in a single message had I read Sambuca's post earlier. My bad.

Stax the Foyer

san-mpq wrote:

Sambuca wrote:

I think a lot of people are liking this iteration of the PvE tests because they can reach the progression awards really easily, but this format makes competitive play even worse than before.

Sambuca, I can definitely agree with you here. Progression is easier. Competition maybe not. However, hasn't everyone been screaming at D3 to make PVE more progression based anyways? Isn't this at least a step towards that? If progression is what folks are after, they can now obtain it easier . Problem solved?

[EDIT] Sorry for posting twice. I would have responded in a single message had I read Sambuca's post earlier. My bad.

Not really. Progression was always fairly low hanging fruit, because other than the 25 CP, the progression awards are almost hilariously useless. Even the 3* cover is silly compared to the virtually free 3* cover given away every day in DDQ. Making them easier isn't what the progression rewards proponents are asking for, it's making them better.

Progression award was never that hard to hit, except for the occasional event where the threshold was set painfully high. The threshold here is easier because the threshold is set to a very reasonable level. You could easily set it to about 83% percent of this threshold (2.5x full clear) under the old system and it would have exactly the same effect for non-competitive players.

Sambuca

san-mpq wrote:

Sambuca, I can definitely agree with you here. Progression is easier. Competition maybe not. However, hasn't everyone been screaming at D3 to make PVE more progression based anyways? Isn't this at least a step towards that? If progression is what folks are after, they can now obtain it easier . Problem solved?

D3 could also keep the old format and just reduce the points needed for the progression awards. If they kept this new format but set the threshold for max progression at 6-7 clears, people would totally be screaming again.

From my personal experience, I never had trouble reaching max progression. It was only placement that I would sometimes fall out of. Now, placement is even harder I am assuming because the new format does not fit my schedule as well as the old one or fits more people's schedules better. That's a point I concede, but from my perspective, these changes are worse, not better. I either play more at the end/beginning of each sub for the same rewards or play the same amount for less rewards. I don't even have a 4* roster, but the time it'll take to build one is that much longer.

san

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Not really. Progression was always fairly low hanging fruit, because other than the 25 CP, the progression awards are almost hilariously useless. Even the 3* cover is silly compared to the virtually free 3* cover given away every day in DDQ. Making them easier isn't what the progression rewards proponents are asking for, it's making them better.

Progression award was never that hard to hit, except for the occasional event where the threshold was set painfully high. The threshold here is easier because the threshold is set to a very reasonable level. You could easily set it to about 83% percent of this threshold (2.5x full clear) under the old system and it would have exactly the same effect for non-competitive players.

I should have been more clear. By progression, I meant 25 CP, which is really the only reason I play PVE in the first place. You are correct that progression rewards are a joke, even with their "updated" system (IIRC, they used to be worse). However, the 25CP does come in handy.

Dragon_Nexus

san-mpq wrote:

However, hasn't everyone been screaming at D3 to make PVE more progression based anyways? Isn't this at least a step towards that? If progression is what folks are after, they can now obtain it easier . Problem solved?

If they wanted to do that, the idea's simple.
4 clears, after that nodes are worth 0 points. Have the sum total of the points be about 10% more than the final progression reward in case you miss a clear or two. Give us more rewards to compensate for the lack of placement and a 4* cover at the end.

That's if you want to be basic about it.

You could have levels tailored to your roster.
Final reward - 2*s. For rosters of level 0-50, enemies are level 5-70.
Final reward - 3*s. For rosters of level 40-150, enemies are level 20-180.
Final reward - 4*s. For rosters of level 100-250, enemies are level 50-300.
Final reward - 4* Plus legendary token. For rosters of level 200+, enemies are level 200 minimum.

I'm making numbers up as I go, but I imagine you get an idea of the structure at least. This way you enter a difficulty with a reward you want. Risk vs reward. I'm not busting my hump for 3-7 days just to finish 21st place and not get the 4* I need. I leap into the fight and go for that 4* cover, getting it by the end if I manage to do the 4 clears a day every day. Also you're encouraged to level up your roster because if you want that 4* cover your level 130 softcapped roster probably won't cut it.

Minimal scaling just so if you enter for the 3* prize with a level 80 team you're not getting stomped by level 180 AI (using my above example).

sinnerjfl

san-mpq wrote:

TxMoose wrote:

the 'perfect' schedule here is 3-4 hours of solid play at the end of a sub and the beginning of the next. if you aren't doing that, you aren't playing optimally here either. sorry, but as someone with a family too, my 3-4 hours of play spread over 3 times during the day is far preferable than stacked all together for one sitting.

Hi TxMoose,

While I agree that there is a way to make this system a perfect run, for someone who goes solely after the LTs in PVE, this is ideal. It means that I can spread out my play if I wish and do a run every 8 hours (just as before, and just as you need), or I can do it all in one go, or a bit of both for my convenience. While this doesn't leave me competing for t10 rewards, I can easily manage top 100 and even top 50 with very little play. So this works for me.

On the other hand, if you go for T10 rewards regularly, this may, in fact, be an inconvenience for you. I can empathize with that. At the same time, they did ask for feedback from each of us, and given the amount of different schedules, I can't see how two individuals (even with similar situations) would be of the same opinion. I don't expect you to agree with me. It works for me and for my family, not necessarily for you and yours.

You can already reach progression easily with the 8h timer. Just because the little numbers goes down doesnt mean you can't play anymore.

Jam_Adams

Bryan Lambert wrote:

Sambuca wrote:

I think a lot of people are liking this iteration of the PvE tests because they can reach the progression awards really easily, but this format makes competitive play even worse than before.

The problem with PvE placement rewards is that ultimately, people will play as much as possible up to whatever artificial limit is set. This PvE proves it. People will grind trivial nodes ad infinitum for 20 points.

In many ways, the only good thing the old system's 8 hour clock did was provide a (very relatively speaking) low upper threshold on how much playing was possible. Unfortunately, that restriction also affected the other 950-990 people in the bracket, limiting when and how they could play. Take away that artificial barrier and a horde of crazy people fill the gap, playing as much as they possibly can, because if they don't, someone will play more and take their 4* cover from them.

So the question at hand seems to be can they tweak things so that the experience of ranks 1,000-50 are improved, while raising the bar of how much any theoretical player CAN grind points in PvE as little as possible. Well, and the other question at hand is why convincing 2% of the playerbase to devote hours of their lives to speed up their progression is the user experience they're shooting for.

I don't know if there's a solution that lets people outside the top 50 play a moderate, reasonable amount on their schedule and doesn't allow the top 50 to rip each other to shreds hoping for a few more points to slip into that top prize bracket. But at least this iteration is closer.

Bryan - DUDE. this^

this is literally in words what i have felt about these new tests, but just couldn't quite convey...

Thevipper

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

san-mpq wrote:

However, hasn't everyone been screaming at D3 to make PVE more progression based anyways? Isn't this at least a step towards that? If progression is what folks are after, they can now obtain it easier . Problem solved?

If they wanted to do that, the idea's simple.
4 clears, after that nodes are worth 0 points. Have the sum total of the points be about 10% more than the final progression reward in case you miss a clear or two. Give us more rewards to compensate for the lack of placement and a 4* cover at the end.

That's if you want to be basic about it.

You could have levels tailored to your roster.
Final reward - 2*s. For rosters of level 0-50, enemies are level 5-70.
Final reward - 3*s. For rosters of level 40-150, enemies are level 20-180.
Final reward - 4*s. For rosters of level 100-250, enemies are level 50-300.
Final reward - 4* Plus legendary token. For rosters of level 200+, enemies are level 200 minimum.

I'm making numbers up as I go, but I imagine you get an idea of the structure at least. This way you enter a difficulty with a reward you want. Risk vs reward. I'm not busting my hump for 3-7 days just to finish 21st place and not get the 4* I need. I leap into the fight and go for that 4* cover, getting it by the end if I manage to do the 4 clears a day every day. Also you're encouraged to level up your roster because if you want that 4* cover your level 130 softcapped roster probably won't cut it.

Minimal scaling just so if you enter for the 3* prize with a level 80 team you're not getting stomped by level 180 AI (using my above example).

I like those lvls better than what i proposed

Pylgrim

Broken broken broken this test is broken.

Yes, please spare me the deluge of casual, progression-only player opinions. I know that you are having the time of your life and that you hope that we competitive players just shut it so we won't mess this up for you. Sorry but no, we won't be the expendable sacrifice for your convenience.

I started the grind for the first sub with two hours to go and managed to finish grinding all nodes to 20 with half an hour to go. This placed me in the top 20 instead the top 10 I'd usually get, so I bit down and started grinding the easiest 20 point node. Only after 20 minutes of doing so (around 35 times), I breached top 10. I kept doing it for the last 10 minutes and I noticed as I did that the people just below were doing it as well. i.e. if I stopped, I'd have lost my top 10 position. I hope I don't have to tell you how tedious and soul-deadening it was. But more importantly? Now the people that placed top 20-30 in that first sub know that they will have to up their game and grind a 20 point node to death if they want to place top 10, they effectively force us all to escalate our playing time and so it will go until only the craziest 10 are willing to keep going. I am already several positions down from the position I had at this point yesterday. And then you have to suspect that some people are using bots because a difference of 8k points on a 20 basis is too insane to contemplate.

Worst thing is to suspect that when devs look at this they most likely won't go "hmm this suggests that our whole reward scheme is flawed like players have been telling us for months" but rather "quick, what is one easy little thing that we can switch off that will stop this from happening? oh right, the trivial nodes, let's make them harder again."

lemieux2005

I don't think I can look past the two biggest downsides to the new system: to score optimally for placement, you have to a. play at least twice as much every 24 hours compared to the old system, and b. you have to immediately complete four clears of each sub.

Under the old system, i would be able to clear each sub three times per day (once in the morning, once at lunch time & once in the evening). Each clear would take approximately 25 minutes (for a total of an hour & a half per day). I was always able to finish between 60th & 150th place & still earn the 25 cp progression reward. I also greatly prefer being able to spread out my play time as opposed to having to play for 2 plus hours straight.

Under the new system, to reach the same placement, i now have to spend close to four hours each day as opposed to the hour and a half i spend now to earn the same rewards. Why would anyone want to play twice as much for the same rewards?

For the Rocket & Groot event, i have played the same way i would under the old system, making 3 clears each day (every 24 hours). I am currently in 423 place. I already play this game more than i should. The increased demands would likely cause me to reconsider whether i even want to play anymore. For a new character release, the new system is going to place insane demands on the player base.

There is a large contingent of players who thoroughly prefer the old system. To cater to the entire player base, the safest solution would be to offer people the opportunity to play both systems. Have one set of subs under the old system, & one set of subs under the new system. This would allow everyone to pick a system that works with their respective lives & playstyles.