More food for thought on the PvE system(s)

DTStump

All the hullabaloo about the PvE system tests and what people really want has gotten me thinking and I'd like some feedback.

Consider this:
- A given event or sub has a ceiling of points which can be obtained;
- To get good placement rewards, one has to be as close as possible to this ceiling;
- There is evidence that part of the population will do whatever is needed to approach this ceiling, including waking up at 4 AM to play or spending 6 hours grinding the same node;
- A high ceiling will not only affect the upper part of the placement rankings but also increase the effort needed to be in the top 50 or 100.
- From the devs perspective, the ceiling cannot be too low otherwise players will not spend enough;
- However, a ceiling that is too high will just make players give up on placement rewards.

A points ceiling is traditionally determined by several factors:
- Timing (potentially including rubberbanding)
- Number of full clears (defined here as beating all nodes, including essentials, exactly once)
- Scaling

These are some of the main factors that have changed from system to system when it comes to placement rewards. Scaling, while an important factor, is not really limiting the ceiling so far; the best players will always be able to beat the hardest nodes as much as necessary as of today. Let us focus on timing and number of clears.
Here's an attempt to simplify the calculation of the points ceiling:
Let "c" be the value obtained for a full clear; "t0" a time point at the beginning of a sub, "t1" = t0 + 8h, "t2" = t0 + 16h, "t3" = t0 + 24h; "f" the "final grind" needed to clear all the nodes as much as possible (e.g. to 1 point) and maximise points.

With the old system (A), the point ceiling for a 24 sub would be approached optimally by the following strategy:
t0: 1 c
t1: 1 c
t2: 1 c
t3: f
Ceiling ~= 3c + f

According to the new system (B) that was tested before the Rocket & Groot event:
t0: 6 c
t3: f
Ceiling ~= 6c + f

And finally, according to the newest system (C):
t0: 4 c
t3: f
Between t0 and t3: beat easiest node as often as possible for 20 pts.
Ceiling ~= 4c + f + 20x, where x is the number of times a human can possibly beat the easiest node within 24h.

Now, if we assume that the time needed to do 1 full clear is 20 minutes, f = 4c, and one could spend up to 6 hours beating the easiest node before his/her hands fall off:
Roughly, system A requires 140 minutes; B requires 200 minutes; and C requires 520 minutes.

In addition, if there are two 24h subs in a row, the time allocated to consecutive clears between t3 of the first sub and t0 of the second would be:
A: 100 minutes
B: 200 minutes
C: 160 minutes

I hope these models are accurate enough to draw a few conclusions with regards to placement rewards:
- C is by far the most time consuming (broken!);
- A is the least time consuming both in total minutes and in terms of consecutive minutes between subs;
- B and C provide a little more schedule flexibility than A by requiring grinds only at t0 and t3 (no t1 and t2);
- However, A can be done with more flexibility by going t0: 1c, t1: 2c and t3: f; or t0: 2c, t2: 1c and t3: f; or even t0: 3c, t3: f, with only a small loss in the number of points compared to the ceiling.

Am I thinking about this too much?

Hendross

DTStump wrote:

Am I thinking about this too much?

Yes. Get rid of rank/placement. Done.

slidecage

Okay how about this is the new PVE


NEW 4 stars

3 clears per stage get you 25 cp
4 clears per stages get you first cover for 4 star
5 clears per stages gets you 250 HP
6 clears per stage gets you 2nd cover of 4 star
7 cleras per stage gets you 3rd cover of 4 star

3 stars be more trickey

Dudemon

Uhh.. the new system has only 7 clears total. There is no "full clear" at the end. Your math is wrong.

The old system had about 9-10 clears total, plus was on a timer.

It is the old system that is "broken".

Dudemon

SnowcaTT

I suggested something similar in the "competitive" thread for the last test:

30000 - 25 CP (devs said it was three clears for the test)
??? (in between) - 1.5K ISO (rewarded to T20 currently)
??? (four clears) -
??? (five clears) -
??? (six clears) - 50 HP (rewarded to T20 currently)
??? (seven clears) -
??? (seven clears + grind) -

Honestly I'd swap the 50HP/25 CP spots (three clears/six clears)

MarvelMan

SnowcaTT wrote:

I suggested something similar in the "competitive" thread for the last test:

30000 - 25 CP (devs said it was three clears for the test)
??? (in between) - 1.5K ISO (rewarded to T20 currently)
??? (four clears) -
??? (five clears) -
??? (six clears) - 50 HP (rewarded to T20 currently)
??? (seven clears) -
??? (seven clears + grind) -

Honestly I'd swap the 50HP/25 CP spots (three clears/six clears)

While one above seemed generous, this seem stingy. Id like to see:
3x - 50HP
4x -
5x -
5.5x - 15 CP
6x -
6.5x - 1k iso
7x -
7.5x - 1k iso
8x - 10 cp
8.5x - 1k iso
9x - 10 cp

Meander

Going 7/7 on all nodes for multiple 3* and 4* covers seems a bit too easy.

I'd suggest

3x- additonal cover
4x- 25
5x- 100
6x- cover
7x- 5k
8x- next color cover
9x- 3rd color cover

I think a progression system is needed, but the answer shouldnt be "hand anyone and everyone 3x 4 covers"

Calnexin

You lost me at the math.

I get the gist, though. The devs are deciding between a rock and a hard place, here. Mandating a schedule as in A is not all that popular, but it works for the vets. However, it shuts out anyone who can't drop their work/life to play every 8 hours. C still takes more time overall, which isn't as stringent but even more time consuming for the average gamer. It also doesn't necessarily solve the problem - "play when you want" still leaves you in the dust when your competition is grinding 20 point nodes ad infinitum.

They're trying to hit a sweet spot - one where people who work and have disposable income will be able to enjoy the game and feel compelled to contribute monetarily, but which doesn't alienate the dedicated fanbase who have supported the game thus far. ie, they're trying to optimize the monetization of the game. Reasonable, considering the game is 2 years old and most games would be looking at a bona fide sequel right about now. Milk the property for all you can unless you can somehow elevate it to WoW status and make a career out of it.

I'm not sure that sweet spot exists, though. Moving toward C seems to annoy the players who are used to A, and being as old as it is I don't know if there's enough new blood out there to make C monetarily viable.

Suddenreal

Meander wrote:

Going 7/7 on all nodes for multiple 3* and 4* covers seems a bit too easy.

I think a progression system is needed, but the answer shouldnt be "hand anyone and everyone 3x 4 covers"

I'm a 2* to 3* transgressor and I agree, you should have to work for your 4* (even if this means it'll be harder for me to get it, but hey, it's just a reminder that I'm casual or at least should be).

But one thing I would like to add. It seems everyone seems to throw in three or four star covers, while forgetting the purpose of the covers in the progession and placement table. The ones in the progression table are the ones you can use in that event, while the ones in the placement table are for the next event. So, I would only put in two four star covers for this event in that table, and a two star, three star and a four star for the next event. I know, I know, a lot of end level players on the forums who don't like two stars, so just replace the second (useless since you can't use it in this or the next event) two star with the next event two star.

As for the rest:

3x- cover for the next event
4x- 25
4.5x- 100
5x- cover for this event
6x- cover for next event
7x- 5k
8x- 2nd color cover for next event

UncleSmed

I find it odd that the people saying the system isn't beneficial are the ones who can do a 20 minute clear under the current pve system.

3-4 transitioning with 2 useless 5's and approaching 30 champed 3's and only a couple of usable 4's.

Doing a full clear takes longer than 20 minutes.

Until vets start looking at models where they take into account time to clear for people who aren't running oml and the boosted 4 of the event, i can't take it any more seriously than d3's attempts.

At least they let me play when i can, not every eight hours on the eight hours.

DTStump

UncleSmed wrote:

I find it odd that the people saying the system isn't beneficial are the ones who can do a 20 minute clear under the current pve system.

3-4 transitioning with 2 useless 5's and approaching 30 champed 3's and only a couple of usable 4's.

Doing a full clear takes longer than 20 minutes.

Until vets start looking at models where they take into account time to clear for people who aren't running oml and the boosted 4 of the event, i can't take it any more seriously than d3's attempts.

At least they let me play when i can, not every eight hours on the eight hours.

Since the main objective of the model was to compare systems using a standardized value in minutes for a full clear, the conclusions remain pretty much the same if you replace 20 minutes with 40.

Hell, I can't do most full clears in 20 minutes. It was just an example.

EDIT: by the way, you can play every 24h in the old system too (which I did mention in my post!). It will just be more difficult to be in the top10. But is that even a concern for casual players?

UncleSmed

Mebbe.. i snuck in a top 10 on the Drax release for most of the event.
Was pushed down to top 25 in the last day and had to work..

You can casual but play well.