Story Difficulty Scaling - New Test: Meet Rocket & Groot

Ducky

I have a simple question. Why do you insist on the nodes stopping at 20 points instead of 1? This is going to cause a lot of your high end PvE players to hit those trivial nodes all day, or worse, they'll create a bot and cheat.

Azoic

3 clears for full progression is great. Anytime I want and I can get that 25 cp eventually. Awesome for old character pves.

Now...new characters. You still haven't done the math on this commitment.

So an event starts, you will be "forced" to do 4 clears right then, depending on roster, 1.5-2 hours probably. The sub is ending, so you will then need to do another 4-6 clears (not sure yet how the points will be regenerated at that point with the change). So another 1.5-3 hours. But then the next sub starts, so you need to do the 4-clear grind again. So about 3-5 hours of straight mpqing in between subs if you want decent placement awards. Now imagine playing the full 7-day events. Two hours to start, 18-30 for between subs, and the 1.5-3 at end, so a total of 21.5 to 35 hours for the week. Seriously? Come up with a better model.

I don't think these "tests" are at all indicative of how the playstyles will work out, since they don't have a character people even want. I usually join and hit a few nodes for iso. For new characters, I imagine myself and many others will simply try to "snipe" an event and limit all this grinding D3 is trying to push on people. Thus, I imagine events will fill a lot slower as more and more people try to wait for brackets to fill to limit how much time they have to invest in this ridiculousness.

fmftint

20 point minimum pretty much wrecks this test.

Play all nodes 4x, play easiest node infinite, end of sub grind remaining nodes 4x

Nodes need to bottom out @1 or 0, or lock after 7x hits

Vhailorx

Just a comment on the tone of player responses in this thread.

We players strongly expressed several complaints about the previous tests. The 20 point minimum was not (as I recall) one of the top complaints (though it was mentioned a bit). We spent much more time pointing out the problems with scaling, too many clears being necessary for optimal scoring, the lack of trivial nodes, and the overly high prog rewards.

It remains to be seen if this new test is successful, but all of those complains have theoretically been addressed if not solved.

It is very true that the 20 point minimum may cause problems at the top of each bracket. Pve should not be a test of who can grind 20 point trivial nodes fastest. So if the final scores are all bunched up and trvial grinding is meaningful, then we should get agitated.

For now I think we should thank demiurge for at least trying to address our earlier complaints, and then point out the potential problems (like the 20 point issue) as points of interest to watch during the upcoming test. We shouldn't declare that the devs are idiots and the 20 point minimums have broken the game.

Ducky

Vhailorx wrote:

Just a comment on the tone of player responses in this thread.

We players strongly expressed several complaints about the previous tests. The 20 point minimum was not (as I recall) one of the top complaints (though it was mentioned a bit). We spent much more time pointing out the problems with scaling, too many clears being necessary for optimal scoring, the lack of trivial nodes, and the overly high prog rewards.

It remains to be seen if this new test is successful, but all of those complains have theoretically been addressed if not solved.

It is very true that the 20 point minimum may cause problems at the top of each bracket. Pve should not be a test of who can grind 20 point trivial nodes fastest. So if the final scores are all bunched up and trvial grinding is meaningful, then we should get agitated.

For now I think we should thank demiurge for at least trying to address our earlier complaints, and then point out the potential problem (like the 20 point issue) as points of interest to watch during the upcoming test. We shouldn't declare that the devs are idiots and the 20 point minimum shave broken the game.

The 20 point nodes weren't an issue since none of the nodes were truly trivial and grindable. If they are now, that's a major problem. My roster can often kill trivial nodes on turn 1. Imagine how often I could farm a 20 point node in just an hour.

Vhailorx

Not disagreeing that it's a potential problem ducky, just suggesting that it's too early to declare the test doa.

Let's point out the problem, do the test, watch the scores, and then complain loudly if 20 point grinding for 2+ hours was necessary to win the event.

Also, simple solution is to make trivial nodes worth zero points after the rewards are mined out.

Ducky

Vhailorx wrote:

Not disagreeing that it's a potential problem ducky, just suggesting that it's too early to declare the test doa.

Let's point out the problem, do the test, watch the scores, and then complain loudly if 20 point grinding for 2+ hours was necessary to win the event.

Also, simple solution is to make trivial nodes worth zero points after the rewards are mined out.

But why even have nodes stop at 20 pts? It wasn't necessary before. Why now? I'd like to know the dev's thought process behind it and that's why I asked.

If they think it's necessary to leave at 20 to help differentiate between players because scores are going to be so close, then there is a problem fundamentally with the way they are designing their content.

Stax the Foyer

Vhailorx wrote:

Just a comment on the tone of player responses in this thread.

We players strongly expressed several complaints about the previous tests. The 20 point minimum was not (as I recall) one of the top complaints (though it was mentioned a bit). We spent much more time pointing out the problems with scaling, too many clears being necessary for optimal scoring, the lack of trivial nodes, and the overly high prog rewards.

It remains to be seen if this new test is successful, but all of those complains have theoretically been addressed if not solved.

It is very true that the 20 point minimum may cause problems at the top of each bracket. Pve should not be a test of who can grind 20 point trivial nodes fastest. So if the final scores are all bunched up and trvial grinding is meaningful, then we should get agitated.

For now I think we should thank demiurge for at least trying to address our earlier complaints, and then point out the potential problem (like the 20 point issue) as points of interest to watch during the upcoming test. We shouldn't declare that the devs are idiots and the 20 point minimum shave broken the game.

Actually, I'm disappointed by how few of the complaints have been addressed. The return of trivial nodes is good (which is probably why it was listed three separate times in the original announcement), and the legendary token progression is at an appropriate and well-defined level. Those are both positive changes. Nothing else seems to be better, though.

In response to complaints that the optimal grind had been made worse, the optimal grind appears to be set at a level that's still worse than the old PvE. Unless something has been poorly explained, you've made the top end worse.

The scaling system is at best a question mark, but the scary kind of question mark given recent scaling changes. Even if it works out well, though, the best you'll be able to say is that it normalizes difficulty, and that's got its own issues.

In addition, none of the fundamental PvE complaints have been addressed or even acknowledged, that I can see. The one-size-fits all, PvP-in-disguise PvE system is something they should be looking to replace, not to revamp.

You know what kind of PvE would really allow players to play whenever they want? One-time nodes, or nodes with a fixed number of wins required and scaling after each win. Scale things up however you want, but shift PvE rewards to progression, and eliminate the grind altogether.

TheOncomingStorm

Just adding my thanks for the communication. Hope people don't shoot the messenger so we can have this more often.

Vhailorx

Stax:

There are absolutely many problems with the pve setup (rewards are too low, pve is really just pvp, etc).

But we already knew from previous tests that those issues weren't on the table. Demiurge has clearly indicated (by its prior tests) that rewards and the fundamental PvP nature of story mode aeren't being tested. They still need to be addressed, but they are outside the scope of this test.

The optimal schedule for competitive scores has been (potentially) improved in this 4th tedt in that the number of clears before point decay begins is lower (4 instead of 6). That is an improvment (though we need to see the test before we can say if it is actually an improvement).

Demiurge is trying to change the way one portion of the game works, we didn't like their first few attempts. And they have now announced a new test that 1st least seems targeted at most (if not all) of our concerns. That's a good thing. It certainly doesn't solve every problem in the game, but the rest wasn't meant to do that. I don't even know if the test will be succesfull. And if it fails we should say so. But we shouldn't bash it beforbeit even starts because it didn't solve problems that it wasn't designed to solve.

(and fwiw, I would love pure prog-based pve)

Stax the Foyer

Vhailorx wrote:

Stax:

There are absolutely many problems with the pve setup (rewards are too low, pve is really just pvp, etc).

But we already knew from previous tests that those issues weren't on the table. Demiurge has clearly indicated (by its prior tests) that rewards and the fundamental PvP nature of story mode aeren't being tested. They still need to be addressed, but they are outside the scope of this test.

The optimal schedule for competitive scores has been (potentially) improved in this 4th tedt in that the number of clears before point decay begins is lower (4 instead of 6). That is an improvment (though we need to see the test before we can say if it is actually an improvement).

Demiurge is trying to change the way one portion of the game works, we didn't like their first few attempts. And they have now announced a new test that 1st least seems targeted at most (if not all) of our concerns. That's a good thing. It certainly doesn't solve every problem in the game, but the rest wasn't meant to do that. I don't even know if the test will be succesfull. And if it fails we should say so. But we shouldn't bash it beforbeit even starts because it didn't solve problems that it wasn't designed to solve.

(and fwiw, I would love pure prog-based pve)

I agree that major changes appear to be outside the scope of this test, but two steps back and one step forward isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

Optimal progression under the new system is unequivocally worse than it is under the old system, because of the additional no-point-loss clears. That it is better than the previous test is irrelevant. If this goes live, PvE will be worse for me and many of the people I play with.

That's feedback that has been given at every stage of this testing, and is being ignored. Until it's acknowledged, I'm going to keep beating that drum. If the answer is that they don't really care about what happens in the high-end brackets, or that it's something that they don't know how to fix, that's fine, but I've see no reason so far to think that it's even on their radar.

ZootSax

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

Just adding my thanks for the communication. Hope people don't shoot the messenger so we can have this more often.

This probably can't be stated enough. There's some definite improvements with the new test as well as some reasons for concern, but the communication makes it a lot easier to get behind, even if I'm still not 100% sold.

Sluggo wrote:

I can't speak for everyone's bracket, but in my bracket with the TA Hulk rewards, I did 6 clears a day whenever I felt like it and finished top 50. It seemed clear most people in that particular bracket said "screw this, I'm not grindiing out 6 clears to start each sub", and only the most hardcore going for T10 went that route.

No offense, but I find it hard to believe that 6 clears a day wasn't typically getting you top 50 before for non-new-character releases, especially if it was spaced throughout the day at not in one sitting. In the EotS test, I played under my usual schedule (play when I can in the morning before work, a little at lunch and before bed) and spent the usual amount of time I spent on PVE to win the 25CP progression. That effort didn't even get me to the 3* progression, much less higher (much higher difficulty meant fewer clears during the same time spent) and I finished outside the Top 400 on every sub. For Unstable Iso8, I did either 4 or 5 clears (again, on my usual schedule), depending on how much time I had that day, plus grinding the CP nodes and that only put me Top 400 or Top 500 in every sub (a lot of people in the 400-500 range seemed to quit once they hit the 25CP). I did comfortably get the 25 CP progression, but I would have expected that effort would lead to better placement given the poor placement rewards. I didn't have time to play much during the third test, so I can't really comment on it.

I've never come close to Top 10 in PVE and I never play optimally, yet the new tests have generally been worse for me with regards to placement as I don't really have the time to play a lot more, which others now do for whatever reason in these tests. Maybe I've just been unlucky twice, but even Sluggo's bracket had 6 clears for only Top 50 for really lackluster rewards.

We'll see how the new test goes. Again, if the communication and feedback keeps up where it is here, I'll be more optimistic that we'll end up with something more acceptable for most people.

thanos8587

just more and more the reason to hit progression and say sayonara in every pve from now on. to get worthwhile or even medicore placement awards is going to be a full time job.

thanks but no thanks, even if it is for new four star number 67 or 39 or 52 or whatever number it is now. i just dont care anymore. ill never get the iso to level the full cover guys i have now.

mpqr7

How about addressing concerns with reward scaling? If we need to fight a 300+ team, can we please get higher rewards than the people who fight the 120+ team?

It takes such a long time to champion up my 4*s, and after I do a few more (iceman, xfdp and cyc), I won't have any more "good" ones left to champion. So it gets very hard to motivate in order to gain 350,000 iso to champion my SL / Mr. F / Falcap etc.

Eichen

Demiurge_Anthony

Thanks for taking the time to respond to our questions and concerns. Communication is always great.

Many players have requested that the reward system be changed to a purely progressive system. Is going to a progression only reward system even being discussed or talked about behind the scenes?

lockvine

I just wanted to give a hearty thank you to both David and Anthony for their increased community interaction. While we all may not agree with the changes or direction thank you for engaging and answering questions more than I have seen in the past. I personally love that you are testing different ways for the PvE system to work.

I would additionally like to see something included that allowed me to play with more of my roster instead of just my top leveled characters. Isn't that how it always goes you give extra effort and we just want more . In all seriousness thank you guys and keep up the good work.

Varg138

"David wrote:

Moore"]Demiurge_Anthony is hoping to be able to schedule some time to join in the thread and answer a few questions tomorrow.

I'm sure I won't be around when (if) he does join the thread, but can someone who is around when he does drop in please point out that this still does not fix the MAJOR issue with PVE; that there are placement rewards instead of just progression?

Combing through this thread, people are going back and forth about optimal play time with this new format, that 8 hour refreshes work best for placement, and on and on. I honestly don't give a tinykitty about scaling anymore...players have asked for progression based only for SO LONG, and they continue to ignore it. Events like Civil War and Galactus are actually enjoyable; alliance members work together for a common goal. PVE as it is is not enjoyable, and given the limited play modes there are in the game, when half of your entire platform is despised and seen as a chore, you need to think about that.

wymtime

Varg138 wrote:

"David wrote:

Moore"]Demiurge_Anthony is hoping to be able to schedule some time to join in the thread and answer a few questions tomorrow.

I'm sure I won't be around when (if) he does join the thread, but can someone who is around when he does drop in please point out that this still does not fix the MAJOR issue with PVE; that there are placement rewards instead of just progression?

Combing through this thread, people are going back and forth about optimal play time with this new format, that 8 hour refreshes work best for placement, and on and on. I honestly don't give a tinykitty about scaling anymore...players have asked for progression based only for SO LONG, and they continue to ignore it. Events like Civil War and Galactus are actually enjoyable; alliance members work together for a common goal. PVE as it is is not enjoyable, and given the limited play modes there are in the game, when half of your entire platform is despised and seen as a chore, you need to think about that.

from a personal perspective I like the galactus events and the civil war events and think there should be more of them. I will also say I like the fact that there is placement rewards along with progression rewards. Having placement rewards allows me to win covers that others don't because I was able to play more optimally or just more. It rewards me for playing more.

I will also say this there can be a better balance and suggest an alliance based progression system in PVE to take up some of the placement rewards. This is a way to balance progression with placement but still rewards those who want placement and want a competitive PVE.

dsds

What a great compromise for players and developers. Now they can still make money on health packs because let's be realistic, most people will use health packs to do the 4 clears at the beginning. But less grinding for us.

The minimum of 20 pts is good I think. It generates more revenue, and it's such a small amount. This is the only way to break ties unfortunately. Also I can see how much money it generates. You grind like crazy to be top player and exhaust all your health packs. Then you have to buy more health packs for the initial 4 clears immediately after. Loads of money to be made. Heck if you made the easy nodes have minimum of 1 point instead of 20, you would even make more loads of cash. Easy nodes will not take any hp off of teams with OML. Hard nodes stand a chance since the cascades sometimes are ridiculous!

Heck just nerf old man logan already, we know it's going to happen. The only reason you are not doing that right now is because he is still a huge money maker, but when his odds drop, I am thinking that is when the nerf will happen. OML is not good for business. He reduces the number of health packs needed per clear and is way OP. It creates an imbalance in the force

firethorne

Varg138 wrote:

I'm sure I won't be around when (if) he does join the thread, but can someone who is around when he does drop in please point out that this still does not fix the MAJOR issue with PVE; that there are placement rewards instead of just progression?

Combing through this thread, people are going back and forth about optimal play time with this new format, that 8 hour refreshes work best for placement, and on and on. I honestly don't give a tinykitty about scaling anymore...players have asked for progression based only for SO LONG, and they continue to ignore it. Events like Civil War and Galactus are actually enjoyable; alliance members work together for a common goal. PVE as it is is not enjoyable, and given the limited play modes there are in the game, when half of your entire platform is despised and seen as a chore, you need to think about that.

And, though I don't thing I should have to add this, in light of the Gauntlet scaling that didn't seem to be an issue to them until we pointed it out, I wanted to be clear. If devs retool toward progression rewards, these also need to be worth the effort. I wouldn't be surprised if they designed something curse of the monkey's paw style, granting the wish in the worst possible way, with rewards that still remained attainable by a tiny amount of players. Having to run winfinite with a fat stack of whales to actually scrape by every single event would be horrible.