New Mission Difficulty Test: Enemy of the State *Updated

12467…26

Comments

  • Lboogie
    Lboogie Posts: 55
    Again with this tinykitty...as luck would have it I currently have no expiring covers in my q. My addiction won't let me skip this event entirely so im goin once through then see how hard to nab the cp. The comment that most people " played on a schedule" made me laugh. Structure is a big part in how many people play a game. I swear each test makes me feel like my mpq retirement is comin closer. I still as I have said in each post regarding these tests enjoy story mode more than versus...
    Early reviews are in and they are not good.
    Best of luck on the test
  • Dayv
    Dayv Posts: 4,449 Chairperson of the Boards
    Is this a game mode or a behavioral experiment?

    I can see it now, the next test is going to designate one group of players as "inmates" and the other as "guards"...
  • madok
    madok Posts: 905 Critical Contributor
    DayvBang wrote:
    Is this a game mode or a behavioral experiment?

    I can see it now, the next test is going to designate one group of players as "inmates" and the other as "guards"...

    I call dibs on the guards. They have all the fun in the movies.
  • scottee
    scottee Posts: 1,610 Chairperson of the Boards
    Calm down everyone. They're only 3 more tests away from coming to the conclusion that everyone's been saying from the beginning. To get rid of placement rewards.
  • zulux21
    zulux21 Posts: 249 Tile Toppler
    I'm willing to give the test a go, but I ask one simple thing.

    remove all limits on critical boosts in general.

    If I am going to get 300 critical boosts in a single event, let me keep all of them, and when I need to kick butt use all 300 at the same time for super massive critical damage that will still likely never trigger because when ever you use critical boosts your chances of getting a 5 match to drop one seems to drop to near 0 unless you have the right team icon_razz.gif
  • Ungoliant
    Ungoliant Posts: 29
    I'm confused why higher level rosters performing better than lower level rosters is a bad thing in the Rocket and Groot test. Shouldn't that be how it works?

    Ideally, PVE should have the same rising difficulty (without insane scaling) as DDQ's model. As your roster gets better, it gets easier; otherwise why bother leveling? Why have roster/level progression if it doesn't mean a thing if your opponents out scale you?

    Curious about the test, not so hot on the grind.
  • Demolira
    Demolira Posts: 78 Match Maker
    Ungoliant wrote:
    I'm confused why higher level rosters performing better than lower level rosters is a bad thing in the Rocket and Groot test. Shouldn't that be how it works?

    I don't see anything in that initial post that said high levels performing better was a bad thing. That was the goal for the R&G test, so it was successful as far as that goes.

    The goal for this test is to address the "people were still playing according to a schedule and some players were grinding the Easy missions a lot. " issue they saw in the Rocket and Groot test.
  • Pongie
    Pongie Posts: 1,412 Chairperson of the Boards
    JCTthe3rd81 wrote:
    I just had a thought but not sure if it would even work. So I'm asking all of those that are computer experts. Would it be possible to give all ties the same reward?

    This will be open to abuse. Just imagine if the whole bracket agreed to not play or simply play the starting node. Everyone would get top prize with minimal effort. I reckon it is not that hard to get 1000 players to join and do this.
  • Piro_plock
    Piro_plock Posts: 287 Mover and Shaker
    Pongie wrote:
    JCTthe3rd81 wrote:
    I just had a thought but not sure if it would even work. So I'm asking all of those that are computer experts. Would it be possible to give all ties the same reward?

    This will be open to abuse. Just imagine if the whole bracket agreed to not play or simply play the starting node. Everyone would get top prize with minimal effort. I reckon it is not that hard to get 1000 players to join and do this.
    Oh, it is.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
  • Daiches
    Daiches Posts: 1,252 Chairperson of the Boards
    I wonder if you guys even read any feedback at all on these tests?

    You just changed the format to who ever grinds the fastest at the start of the sub wins.

    Wasn't the goal play when you want? With that many full point clears (not to mention waves), you want people to play for 5-6hours straight, then nothing for the rest of the day?

    This test better be for poor placement rewards... (Even though sub finishes are always the best part of rewards)
  • Mercalla
    Mercalla Posts: 94
    The reason lower level rosters didn't perform as well is because most of us are stuck with a 5* cover screwing up our opponent level.

    Devs, Mods, Admins, RNGeesus, anyone.. Could we get a comment on the work being done to help newer players handle the scaling opponent level? It was stated that it was being looked at a few months ago, but nothing since. We need help!!

    https://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=45373
  • Thevipper
    Thevipper Posts: 90
    Nothing on placement or progression icon_rolleyes.gif well I guess till then I might icon_arrow.gif but i dont know i think ill just be happy with grockets progresion and placement.

    they are wanting us to play more and not on a scheduale okay then lock points 6 rewards 6 clears then lock out. get a calculator and add max progession needed - the req 4 star for a 4 star progesion reward then add the cp for rest of the points and add tiered scailling and call it a test for the scailing (you need lv x 2 star for this etc) till you get it right where you want it add more clears or
  • OneLastGambit
    OneLastGambit Posts: 1,963 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pongie wrote:
    JCTthe3rd81 wrote:
    I just had a thought but not sure if it would even work. So I'm asking all of those that are computer experts. Would it be possible to give all ties the same reward?

    This will be open to abuse. Just imagine if the whole bracket agreed to not play or simply play the starting node. Everyone would get top prize with minimal effort. I reckon it is not that hard to get 1000 players to join and do this.

    The classic social psychology "prisoners dilemma" discussion.
  • Figure15
    Figure15 Posts: 284 Mover and Shaker
    Of course humans are not rational and easily 10 (1%) will break ranks.
  • halirin
    halirin Posts: 327 Mover and Shaker
    Figure15 wrote:
    Of course humans are not rational and easily 10 (1%) will break ranks.
    Pretty sure that people would defect from collusion because they ARE rational.
  • Chipster22
    Chipster22 Posts: 299 Mover and Shaker
    "David wrote:
    Moore"]Hi everyone,
      “During the Meet Rocket & Groot event, we saw that people were playing less overall and higher-level rosters were performing better than low-level rosters. However, we saw that people were still playing according to a schedule and some players were grinding the Easy missions a lot. In Enemy of the State, we will be running the new mission difficulty again but with a few changes to help address playing at specific times and players grinding Easy nodes.

    I took this to mean that the previous tests were successful in meeting their goals of having people play less and having higher level rosters do better than lower level rosters. Not that they are upset over these things.

    However they were upset with people playing the easy missions over and over.
  • Dayv
    Dayv Posts: 4,449 Chairperson of the Boards
    halirin wrote:
    Figure15 wrote:
    Of course humans are not rational and easily 10 (1%) will break ranks.
    Pretty sure that people would defect from collusion because they ARE rational.
    On top of that, you have to somehow make sure that *only* colluding players enter the bracket. You combine the patience and timing of bracket sniping with the coordination of 1000 players all ready to act simultaneously. If even one non-colluding player joins, it's game on as usual.

    Basically, this would never, ever work at this kind of scale. Ten-player brackets, maybe.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    aesthetocyst wrote:
    scottee wrote:
    Calm down everyone. They're only 3 more tests away from coming to the conclusion that everyone's been saying from the beginning. To get rid of placement rewards.

    Aww cmon now. That would be too drastic. What they could do to water down the competition is to replace the top 100 placement rewards with serialized tokens. The top 100 players each get a shot at the top 100 reqard packages. 2 lucky winners get the deluxe bundle of 3x 4* covers and 3x 3* covers; 3 almost as lucky winners get 2x 4* covers and 3x 3* covers .... Etc, etc ...

    Cmon....players love RNG. This preserves the cover distribution micromanagement and takes pressure off the grind.

    I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not... The last thing this game needs is more RNG. Get rid of placement in pve all together, otherwise it isn't really pve...
  • Quebbster
    Quebbster Posts: 8,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    Welcome Death wrote:
    slidecage wrote:
    if they go to a pure progression only Does that mean slices will be removed?

    I wouldnt think so, people still need a reasonable end time to suit them.
    In this model a reasonable start time is probably more important than a reasonable end time since the sooner you can do your grind, the better. But slices absolutely should stay.
  • Crowl
    Crowl Posts: 1,581 Chairperson of the Boards
    ThatOneGuyjp189512 wrote:
    "higher-level rosters were performing better than low-level rosters"

    OH GOD NO! we can't have this! we can't players think they're progressing against the new people! it's not like they spent a bunch of time and money to get ahead of the game and make it seem like they're progressing! /sarcasm

    I think you are reading into that quote something that wasn't there, in previous tests they had stated that it was actually a problem that low-level rosters were having an easy time of it and the above quote might simply be acknowledging that they think they have mostly got that part right now.

Categories