New Mission Difficulty Test: Enemy of the State *Updated

PeterGibbons316

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

When the preview is up, we will all get to see progressions, placements, everything. All this rage, and no-one even knows what the event looks like yet. For all we know, it may end up being the best test yet. It appears either way that this is going to be a very lucrative event.

Within seconds of the PvE test announcements being made, the community has been able to point out a glaring flaw in the design of these tests.

In this one, it's the way the MPQ scoreboards handle ties. In the previous one, it was the ability to grind nodes for additional points. And yet, significant time is spent designing, programming, and running these test events, with flaws that should have been immediately obvious.

Of course, through all the PvE tests, one constant has remained, and that's that principle that only one in every 100 players deserves to win a 4* ranking award. It's now probably easier for the average transitioning player to cover a given 5* than it is to cover a given 4*.

I think a lack of faith in the design and direction of the game is pretty understandable at this point. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Someone pointed out why this might not be that obvious of a flaw, let me see if I can dig it up.....

Stax the Foyer wrote:

If you have to use the phrase "the first 15 times they are beaten" at any point in the description of a game, something has gone terribly wrong.

We'll have to see how players react, but my guess is that not very many people are going to complete all nodes in a sub, and there were be very few races to the top for anymore than top 1-2.

I'm not completely against it yet, but we will see how many people are completing everything. I've always felt that PvP was to test your roster, and PvE was to test your will - this change fits with that. If there are a large number of people that complete all nodes in this test their solution will be to increase the number of clears from 7/9/11/15 to....something even higher until they get to the point where placement is determined entirely by number of battles fought, not how quickly or how close to a schedule people fight them.

Malcrof

Please go back on topic, posts about progression only may be moved to a new thread to continue discussion.

Vhailorx

Malcrof wrote:

Please go back on topic, posts about progression only may be moved to a new thread to continue discussion.

Progression only is a relevant topic for this thread. Devs are testing a new scoring system for pve rewards. Players should be allowed to discuss the merits and flaws of that scoring system relative to alternative systems (and it's pretty clear that the majority of forum members favor progression only pve).

As for this test: remember that one time when the gauntlet awarded 10- packs for the top 10 finishers in each sub? Didn't the player base hate that? I know I hated it.

I am very pleased that dev team is willing to test really significant changes to the pve scoring system. But thenbotton line is that any system that includes placement awards will result in an optimal play schedule (especially when ties go to the faster player). So if the dev goal is to let players play in their own schedule, then the only solution is progression only.

I get that placement rewards drive up matches played per event without sending more rewards out the door. So I see the appeal to the devs' finances. But if that is their priority, then they should just admit that optimal scheduled are here to stay.

Perhaps some dev resources could be spent on figuring out to gate pve prog rewards with difficulty, rather than a placement scheme? That sort of hating seemed to work pretty well with civil war. Finishing 14-16 round was hard and only the elite could do it. But not too many people were upset because the cover rewards for alliances that finished 5-13 rounds were adequate.

The Bob The

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"...

Ah yes, the Zimbardo test. I look forward to the Milgram test, in which you decide how far to jack up the other players' scaling.

Tryke

Finite points so we added more rewards! All the crit boosts you'll ever need!

MissChinch

They're circling... I want to believe they're getting closer to a better PvE format, but they're making it hard for me to give em the benefit of the doubt...


I think the fear of a giant tie clogging up the leaderboard is grossly overstated. Clearing each node 7 times now, even in a horribly inefficient time scheme will more often than not put me in contention for top 50 in vet brackets. I dont see how adding harder scaling is going to make people want to play more.

EotS is a pretty reviled event, however I think the new limited number of clears that yield points works best in an event with waves in it... Wave nodes have the possibility of being only partially completed for fractional points, so of the set of people that play every node until they're not worth any points, the ones that performed best in the wave nodes will outscore those that left points on the table. Its a very small instance where the event places skill over grinding, however I'd like to see a "mulligan" button for an extremely bad starting board, or maybe a character with a passive that they can fire once before any moves are made that generates a new starting board.

Even though I dont think ties will be nearly the problem others are predicting, I dont see why the devs do so much to remove the time factor and yet dont change rankings and associated rewards to allow ties. There is absolutely no way to achieve the necessary organization to have everyone sandbag the event and all tie for first... if 1000 people COULD do that, they all deserve way more than a little HC and a few 4* covers IMO.

If the concern is for bracket sniping, then just split existing brackets when ones maxed out instead of starting a fresh one, even number rankings go into their own 500/1000 bracket ready to accept new members, odds go in their own. It destroys the "bracket sniping game" but has positive impacts on everyone else playing the event, and IMO is a much more fair way of handling it.

This will likely be unpopular, but if theyre going to keep this high number of available clears per node, then I'd like to have them count attempts, not victories... Someone clearing without a loss should definitely be raised above someone that threw multiple losses in there.

I think getting away from the time dependency is a good thing, now they just have to allow ties to really get away from it... I think upping the number of clears is a bit of a screwgie... cant tell if they're actually getting better or worse with these tests, will be interested to see this one play out.

IamTheDanger

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.

Whether it's possible or not isn't the point. I apologize for not explaining it clearly. I tend have a problem explaining things sometimes. My point was that if there is a set amount of points you can get, then there will be a lot of ties for first. My question was if it is easier to give tie scores the same reward or just get rid of placement, programming wise.

With more nodes giving more rewards then there are going to Be a lot of players grinding it all for the iso and rewards. Even if they don't care about placement, they will still tie for 1st if they clear everything.

There are times, (non release events), where I'll play an event and stop after clearing each node 7 times just to get the rewards. But if doing that gives you the max amount of points as well it can be problematic.

Gmax101

For me there are probably three pieces of information that would make this easier to judge and therefore either be excited about or dread.....

1) Where is the 25cp progression set?
Last test they clearly stated 3 clears gets you the reward... its useful info for planning effort

2) Define "extra rewards"?
I think everyone expects more critical boosts and 70 but what if we instead get a couple of extra 250 or 500 , or even extra , rewards, also the fact that CP might get buried under 14 other rewards that need to be randomly one to earn it.

3) How are WAVE nodes impacted?
Do they have to be cleared multiple times or can we get away with just one? are there rewards for each clear.

Thing is, lets just say the extra rewards are awesome and we actually get rewarded for clearing the nodes... suddenly the fact that we can, IF we want to, clear all the nodes multiple times is less of an issue.

Granted the whole "What happens in a tie for placement" also needs to be answered, but that doesn't hugely bother me. I usually hit top 100 and am happy with that. I don't think there is much chance of that being a tie realistically.

generalTsobot

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.

This is the underlying issue with trying to (re)design the current Story Mode format to eliminate/minimize playing on coordinated schedules: As long as Story Mode has placement rewards, no matter how lucrative or miserable, you will have players trying to win them. Players will always find the optimal way to play Story Mode in order to place as high as possible. The only way to truly reach the goal of "players playing when they want" is to eliminate placement rewards in Story Mode.

Polares

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

Man after reading this sentence I thought two things, first they don't understand how a game should work. You improve your characters and the the game gets easier? Yeah this is how all RPG-like games except this one work (even games with variable difficulty or where difficulty scales with your current level or your current point in the story of the game). Maybe it is for a reason...

Then the second was, high level rosters perform better? Maybe it is because we are the most dedicated players!! You should know that already!! Players are tired of these stupid tests, just the most stupid, I mean dedicated players, like me , keep playing. And also it was even having a higher level of difficulty for the higher level rosters !!! With this tests, 4, 4 - 5 and 5 teams have a harder time than teams soft capped at 166 !!!! You should know that already too!!!


Man I am going to love this EotS with my OML locked away 5 of the 7 days, but with the event using the level of my OML for the difficulty of the event, specially with those extra levels of difficulty !!!


So please devs stop these tests, leave the system as is or move to a progression system, but stop hurting your player base.

fmftint

Man I am going to love this EotS with my OML locked away 5 of the 7 days, but with the event using the level of my OML for the difficulty of the event, specially with those extra levels of difficulty !!!

This

Stax the Foyer

MissChinch wrote:

I think the fear of a giant tie clogging up the leaderboard is grossly overstated. Clearing each node 7 times now, even in a horribly inefficient time scheme will more often than not put me in contention for top 50 in vet brackets. I dont see how adding harder scaling is going to make people want to play more.

EotS is a pretty reviled event, however I think the new limited number of clears that yield points works best in an event with waves in it... Wave nodes have the possibility of being only partially completed for fractional points, so of the set of people that play every node until they're not worth any points, the ones that performed best in the wave nodes will outscore those that left points on the table. Its a very small instance where the event places skill over grinding, however I'd like to see a "mulligan" button for an extremely bad starting board, or maybe a character with a passive that they can fire once before any moves are made that generates a new starting board.

I agree with you on this with respect to EotS, but I think that's a problem with the test. Most events don't have wave nodes to provide this separation, so the test won't show the extent of this problem. When there's an event without wave nodes, ties (at any break point, not just at the top) become much more likely.

MissChinch wrote:

If the concern is for bracket sniping, then just split existing brackets when ones maxed out instead of starting a fresh one, even number rankings go into their own 500/1000 bracket ready to accept new members, odds go in their own. It destroys the "bracket sniping game" but has positive impacts on everyone else playing the event, and IMO is a much more fair way of handling it.

I like this idea a whole lot. This would be a fantastic change. It would naturally divide brackets based on performance in that particular event, which is far better than the random but permanent initial bracket sorting we get permanently.

You might have people joining near the end of the event to force bracket splitting and help out their alliancemates, but that's not really a bad thing. Still the same number of rewards being given out, it's just distributed much more appropriately.

MissChinch wrote:

This will likely be unpopular, but if theyre going to keep this high number of available clears per node, then I'd like to have them count attempts, not victories... Someone clearing without a loss should definitely be raised above someone that threw multiple losses in there.

I understand the appeal of this approach, but I don't think there's a good way to implement it. As you mentioned, starting boards are a big deal, especially for nodes like the infamous carnage node in Venom Bomb. Penalizing people for missing a clear amplifies this issue even more, in a way that puts people in a permanent hole when it comes to placement rewards. It also makes it even more critical that every event is balanced to be fair to people across four or five roster tiers, which is almost an impossible target to hit.

The fundamental issue, of course, is and always will be the ranking rewards system in an environment where they try to have a level playing field for people with drastically different rosters. Their apparent commitment to that model means that for all the effort they're putting into these tests, there's never going to be any real change. It just slightly rearranges who gets the rewards.

Keegan

Gmax101 wrote:

1) Where is the 25cp progression set?
Last test they clearly stated 3 clears gets you the reward... its useful info for planning effort

The last test set max progression at four clears of each node, each sub.

The current system guarantees you will hit max progression with three full point clears of each node, each sub, every event. You can always plan max.

PeterGibbons316

Polares wrote:

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

Man after reading this sentence I thought two things, first they don't understand how a game should work. You improve your characters and the the game gets easier? Yeah this is how all RPG-like games except this one work (even games with variable difficulty or where difficulty scales with your current level or your current point in the story of the game).

This is why so many people complain of lack of new content. As you progress through a good game the game continues to be challenging for you. The difference though is when you add more people into the game at varying levels of progress. In most RPGs a low level player cannot compete with or play alongside a higher level player as the content at that point is too difficult for them. MPQ sort of does this with PvP, but with PvE they have made it so that players of all levels can compete somewhat equally. This is great for creating a fun casual environment where people can progress through the game at their own place.......which is exactly why PvE should not have competitive placement rewards. If they are going to continue to make PvE competitive then they need to add some type of content that is non-competitive yet allows players to make guaranteed progress regardless of what the rest of the playerbase is doing.

amusingfoo1

DFiPL wrote:

So lemme get this straight. New players and those with weaker rosters get locked out of playing sooner because the nodes they can handle tap out on rewards and being worth points sooner than the harder ones do? Way to help them earn the resources they need to take on those harder missions.

I'm still working my way through this thread, but wanted to say this before I forget it. To make this work, don't make the node rewards random. Make iteration x give prize y. For everyone.

Bryan Lambert

What's telling to me about this test, and all the other tests, is something that's pretty much been an issue for the entire history of this game:

There's no great answer to the question "what does it mean to be good at Marvel Puzzle Quest" and there's REALLY no answer to the question "what makes one person better than another person at Marvel Puzzle Quest"?

Every version of Story mode they've tried has used a different metric for sorting out who's better. We know this because as soon as the new rules are posted the "optimal strategy" appears within a half dozen posts, and it's different each time. But none of them have anything to do with player skill. It's all about how much they play, or when they play, or what bracket they end up in, or some combination of the three mixed in with the various random non-skill elements of the game like 5* roster strength, starting boards, and cascades.

So it's still so weird that advancement and rewards in a game that clearly struggles to define what "competition" even means are given out largely based on competition. DDQ helped with this, improved progression rewards helped with this, non-competitive CP rewards help with this, but if your game is over two years old and you're still taking seemingly random stabs at what competition should be, maybe you should rethink having your game be competitive.

amusingfoo1

DreadPirateW wrote:

If what you're suggesting is true and that's the plan, to have only the best rosters be able to complete it all, then most players scoring placement rewards won't need the covers they get. If you need 5* characters to win 4* covers and 4* characters to score 3* covers, then forward progression is over.

Hope you're wrong!

Still working my way through, but another thought I don't want to lose. If you make the game scale deliberately beyond most rosters, many people will be unable to get the cp from the node rewards (just because it comes up on take 7, or 8, or 9 of that node). A number of people see that slow trickle of cp as their only progression into 4* land. That's not good.

amusingfoo1

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.

Huh? It only takes one random jumping in to throw the whole thing off. Even ignoring that, you need a reliable, real-time coordinating medium. LINE isn't it; it has a room limit of 199 or 200.

jackstar0

Do we have any indication what the prizing will be for this EOTS run? Because had it been Jean/IF, I bet they'd have seen some participation. If it is weak on the placement prizing, I would expect play to go down again in the face of this test's design.

While play might have gone down during R&G... maybe enjoyment went up... was there ever a survey about that?

MissChinch

Stax the Foyer wrote:

MissChinch wrote:

This will likely be unpopular, but if theyre going to keep this high number of available clears per node, then I'd like to have them count attempts, not victories... Someone clearing without a loss should definitely be raised above someone that threw multiple losses in there.

I understand the appeal of this approach, but I don't think there's a good way to implement it. As you mentioned, starting boards are a big deal, especially for nodes like the infamous carnage node in Venom Bomb. Penalizing people for missing a clear amplifies this issue even more, in a way that puts people in a permanent hole when it comes to placement rewards. It also makes it even more critical that every event is balanced to be fair to people across four or five roster tiers, which is almost an impossible target to hit.

I can agree with that... I dont have particularly strong feelings on this point, just would like to see some element of skill or difficulty substituted in for the requirement of a lot of time at specific intervals when it comes to the top 10-20. This way would generate a TON of bad feelings.

I would like to see a new char with a passive that would allow you to take a mulligan or two on the starting board...