New character release with the new PvE system

Polares

Well, 'at long last' we had the first PvE event for a new featured release with the new PvE system and I guess it is time to see if the new system is better or worse (at least for us forum players, it would be interesting to see some numbers from the whole game community of the game).

For me, it is much worse than the old system, the 3-4h play runs needed now to get top20+ (I was 11 in third slice, for just 140 points AAAARGGH) are unacceptable. Also, Devs sold this new system as 'Play whenever you want' but this is nothing like this, there is one particular way of playing that is the most efficient, EXACTLY AS BEFORE. Then, the time requirement is bigger and almost not time slice is good for anybody (see the other thread), because it is very hard to accommodate 4h in one seat.

Scaling is still broken, 5s are very good, but having to play with the same 2 chars (and it is going to be like that for a while, because it is going to be very hard to cover max any of my other 5s) against 430 level enemies all the time is not that fun. We are getting punished for improving our roster... AGAIN.

So going forward for me, I dont care about placement anymore, I will platy as I used to, or whenever I feel up to it. I will do the 6 clears to get all the iso and that's it. If I manage to be top100 cool, if not who cares. I have NEVER missed one new release for the last two years, we will see what happens in the future, but If I start to miss on those, they game might be dead for me...

MOVE PvE to PROGRESSION ONLY ASAP !!!

PS: Dont include in the new system things like fixed order of rewards, or enemies with 13 covers. These changes could be easily implemented too in the old 8h refresh system so I dont think they should be related with the poll.

Edit: Please if you state your opinion in the thread also say your placement and slice

DTStump

As much as I hated the system change, seeing that now I need to play more to get top 50 rewards (cf. below), I'm actually pretty reluctant in joining in on the "progression only" mantra.

If the devs ever listen to it, they could screw things up even more. Like creating an impossible gauntlet-style format where only 1% of the playerbase can actually get to the best/meaningful rewards. Or just eliminating the placement rewards instead of transferring them to the progression rewards.



I used to get sub top 50 rewards very regularly with 4 full clears per day. Now, in the same kind of bracket (same slice, about the same start time), I definitely need 5 full clears. My solution to that: whereas in a 3 day event I'd go 4 clears + 4 clears + 4 clears and reap 3 top 50 rewards for the subs as well as the overall top50, I now typically go 5 + 5 + 2 to get two sub top50 rewards and overall top100, unless I'm feeling like grinding more than before (say, 5 + 5 + 5). So the change is not ideal for placement, but I adapted.

carrion_pigeons

Everyone keeps arguing that the new system is worse because they place worse in it. That isn't a good argument. You're placing worse because more people are competing, which as far as the devs are concerned is *great*. Absolutely ideal.

So it doesn't make sense to use this argument. I'm sure you all can come up with arguments that make good sense from a design perspective for why a less popular design is better, but that isn't what this argument does.

DTStump

carrion pigeons wrote:

Everyone keeps arguing that the new system is worse because they place worse in it. That isn't a good argument. You're placing worse because more people are competing, which as far as the devs are concerned is *great*. Absolutely ideal.

So it doesn't make sense to use this argument. I'm sure you all can come up with arguments that make good sense from a design perspective for why a less popular design is better, but that isn't what this argument does.

The argument that it is somehow more "democratic" to have people grind more to achieve the same results is a pretty bad one. The average effort needed has increased for top 10, top 20, top 50, top 100, top 200.

I'm not placing worse because more people are competing. I'm placing worse because the target has moved, and to get the same spot as in the past, I need more hours of play. That is true for everybody.

EDIT: as stated before in another thread, top 50 rewards are still only available to 50 people per bracket. This system is NOT allowing more people to be competitive.

fmftint

This one's really hard to pin down to better/worse. Let's look at the real numbers
Old
1 full point hit every 8 hours then a 6x grind to 1 point, total 9 hits/node and sub transitions of 6x grind then 1 hit on the new sub, 7 solid clears

New 4 full point hits at the start then 4x grind to 1 point, total 8 hits/node and sub transitions of 4x grind then 4x on the new sub, 8 solid clears


The old format was actually 1 more hit/sub (9 vs 8) with 1 less hit/transition (7 vs 8). The real difference is the scaling cap

Polares

carrion pigeons wrote:

Everyone keeps arguing that the new system is worse because they place worse in it. That isn't a good argument. You're placing worse because more people are competing, which as far as the devs are concerned is *great*. Absolutely ideal.

So it doesn't make sense to use this argument. I'm sure you all can come up with arguments that make good sense from a design perspective for why a less popular design is better, but that isn't what this argument does.

Maybe in other threads people is complaining about that, but I think nobody here did it (at least yet ). But yeah I agree this is not the problem or the argument anybody should use to say this system is worse.

In my personal case, I finished like before, top20 is usually my goal, top10 has always been too crazy for me. So in both systems I have finished with the same placement. The problem for me is that now I have to work more to get the same result.

Using fmftint calculations we get:

One clear more than before + much higher scaling = much more work than before for the same placement.

Bowgentle

Polares wrote:

One clear more than before + much higher scaling = much more work than before for the same placement.

The fact that you have to use "work" when describing a match 3 game is pretty telling.
Effort needed is extremely out of whack with rewards earned.

Myself, I won this PVE, which hasn't happened since the Baglord release 18 months ago.

But with the high scaling and insane time requirement I hated most of it.

3 hr end grind (to account for accidents against level 416 enemies) plus 90-120 minutes opening grind is crazy.

JFisch

I participate in the 12:00 PM Eastern time slice for PVE. When PVE starts, I typically wait until sometime between 2:30-3 PM to start on the first day to ensure I'm in the second or third vet bracket, as that group feels far less competitive for top 100 than jumping straight in.

Under the previous system, I would do an afternoon clear, wait 8 hours, do an evening clear, sleep, do a morning clear (typically 10 hours after my evening clear), then immediately grind as I tend to finish matches a little slower. Not 100% optimal, but close. I always finished at least top 50, usually top 20. If I really pushed, I'd usually flirt with top 10 but come in 11th or 12th.

For this past PVE, I played all the full point matches between 12-2:30 pm. The following morning, I played 4 more matches of each node between 8 am and 12 pm. Again, not 100% optimal, but close.

I finished 7th, with over 1,000 points more than the 11th place finisher.

Easiest top 10 finish ever.

I can't say that I enjoyed having to play 33 matches in a row in the afternoon, but being able to take the entire evening off made up for it and the morning grind was a wash for me. It didn't feel like significantly more work. And while I'm sure it always has been the case, knowing that everyone had the same number of clears (8 or 6 depending on node type) took away all the anxiety. I knew that if I worked the system and did the clears, I'd get my covers. And I did. With 30-60 minutes off each morning before the sub reset.

Fightmastermpq

I took 2nd with 87k - my best ever finish for a release event.

"Play when you want"
I work during the day and rarely have time to play for more than a couple minutes while at work. So under the old 8h system I almost never played optimally. I would have to do multiple clears for fewer points when I had time, or let nodes sit full during my work day. I typically would clear once at sub open, then 6 times at sub close for all green check marks, and hit final progression usually at the open of the final sub for a T50 finish/T100 for release events. Now I seem to be able to hit final progression a little easier, since I get full points for clears more often.

Competitive Play*
As I said above - my schedule never allowed me to really play competitively. 90% of my play happens in the 4-5 hour window between the time my kids go to bed and the time I go to bed. Under the new system however this is perfect. I do wish the time slices were adjusted a bit, but I found myself doing 4 clears at sub open (11 pm to 1am for me) and then 4 more clears at close (8:30-11). It's still a 4.5 hour commitment for however many nights the subs run, but that actually works for me, and I was able to play competitively where previously I could never find the time to clear mid-day.

Scaling
The scaling is rough. I wiped twice on that last IW node - all level 415 for me. But I knew it was going to be tough which is why I started about 30 minutes early in case this happened. IW actually saved me two other times by going invisible and finishing off Cyclops. So the scaling is kind of over the top, but my roster can handle it - still got everything to 1 without having to buy any healthpacks.

Overall I think I prefer the new system. It's less intrusive on my life, and even though the scaling is tougher, my roster can handle it and I am now allowed to compete for top placement if I wish. Also, if I'm not playing competitively (typical for me) the reward structure allows me to bail out on a tough node once I get the CP instead of having to potentially bag my head against a wall for 7 clears of it.


*For the record, I agree with most on here that competitive play should be reserved for PvP and PvE should transition to all progression rewards.

GrumpySmurf1002

I finished 4th, slice 4. About 30 seconds late to finishing 2nd (stupid Loki slowed me down massively during last wave node clear). Based on this one event, I didn't see anyone who is suddenly competing for T10 or T20 that wasn't before. I saw all the same names I usually see at the top of my bracket (and saw the same thing from others in my alliance who posted theirs).

As far as my personal experience, I bracket shopped, joined late morning on Saturday. For me this is the key component, I was able to do the stupid back to back grind just once on a convenient Saturday night, and finish Sunday with only the final grind.

Comparing to normal effort, the scaling extends the final grind and the switch to 24h timers extends the beginning grind. So instead of maybe grinding from 9pm - 11:30pm in the old system, it's now 8pm - 12:30am. That's just not really an acceptable trade off with other real life commitments.

mohio

Polares wrote:

So going forward for me, I dont care about placement anymore, I will play as I used to, or whenever I feel up to it. I will do the 6 clears to get all the iso and that's it. If I manage to be top100 cool, if not who cares.

I reached this conclusion a while ago, as new release characters, while interesting, don't get covered quickly (thanks RNG!), don't get leveled past the point they can win their DDQ (cause who has the iso?), and aren't relevant past the next PvE/release PvP (because the game is all about 5* now).

As for this past event, I joined s4 on sub2 after a new bracket opened. For the two subs I played, I played "optimally" in the beginning (i.e. did my 4 clears quickly, finished t20 each time), but then only "grinded" for about an hour, so I finished about 30th. I'm totally fine with this result. About 2.5 hours a day isn't too bad for max progression and t50 rewards. I'm mostly just interested in the CPs and iso, so I'm maybe not the target of this poll, but that's my experience at least.

edit to add: In my experience the 6 clears for all the iso (7 on the easy nodes if I'm bored), is more than enough for t100 and usually t50. In a Heroic event you might even crack t10. So, that's what I aim to do, since I'd like the full set of 3* rewards for my championed 3*.

WEBGAS

Polares wrote:

MOVE PvE to PROGRESSION ONLY ASAP !!!

TOTALLY AGREE....PROGRESSION REWARDS ONLY!!

By the way I succeded to rank no.9 (this time) but it has been absolutely insane. I had to play 5h straight on saturday (two and half hour for the final grind of sub 2 and two and half hour for unlock 3rd sub nodes)...
And it has been possible only because on saturday I don't work.
On sunday 3h of playing for the final grind...
My head was spinning: I won't do it anymore!

wymtime

I finished top 20 in this PVE and when I played it was a grind. I will also say I really did not play optimally and still got top 20. I started on Friday morning and did 4 full clears and 2 clears on wave nodes. I then did the final 3 clears at the end of the sub 1 and 1/2 hours. I then did one clear went to bed and did 3 clears in the morning. I did the same for sub 3. The biggest benefit of this system was I was able to play before my kids got up and then spend the whole day with them and not have to worry about getting in a clear.
Overall I would still like to see a progression only style for new events as it will truly let players play when they want. I was really surprised I got top 20 only doing clears to get all node rewards.

Meander

I hit top 10, and haven't done that for awhile. Usually am more top 20. That being said, I didnt find it an improvement, but more status quo. You play more, you get more. Would fully support full progression model with true 'play when you want' (see the EoTS test where they gave out the X-23 covers to those at max prog)

beyonderbub

wymtime wrote:

The biggest benefit of this system was I was able to play before my kids got up and then spend the whole day with them and not have to worry about getting in a clear.

This. So much this. Play with kids, work a 9-5 job, have the whole day free, switch to pvp, climb in shield simulator. For whatever reason this new pve style works for me AND I'm placing higher. Finished 12th in wasp release pve. Started slice 5 at the very start and did clears as optimally as I could. By the 3rd sub, I did take some losses from the nodes so that may have slowed me down and bumped me out of the top 10 this time. I'm easy enough but so far with the same amount of effort, the new pve system is showing better results for me based on MY life and playing style. I also understand that what may be optimal for me may not work for others. I'll continue this way and hope they don't change things until I also grab the upcoming new characters in August.

ViralCore

Talk to me when you're facing level 550 professor x, cyclops and jg. All of them do over 20k damage per ability. This scaling is ridiculous.

carrion pigeons wrote:

Everyone keeps arguing that the new system is worse because they place worse in it. That isn't a good argument. You're placing worse because more people are competing, which as far as the devs are concerned is *great*. Absolutely ideal.

So it doesn't make sense to use this argument. I'm sure you all can come up with arguments that make good sense from a design perspective for why a less popular design is better, but that isn't what this argument does.

Bryan Lambert

The problem, ultimately, is D3's decision to limit a single new character cover to 10% of players.

It was a problem before, when only the 10% of players who (myself included) could take advantage of the 8 hour timer system got the new cover.

It's a problem now, when only the 10% of people who can play the nodes the most times get the new cover.

The amount of playtime required to get into the top 100 for Was was WAY over what was required under the old systm. The gap narrows the farther up the charts you were trying to get under the timers, but As someone who's settled for around 90th place in every new release PvE since they put the rewards at the top 100, I can tell you that in all but the most competitive brackets, three full clears plus CP grinding would do the job. A less than optimal bracket might mean some point-hunting in the last hours of the last sub just to stay above the cutoff, but that was it.

For Wasp, to score I believe 87th place, I had to 7x clear all trivials, and, averaging things out, 5x clear all the other nodes. For a single new cover. Not an experience I enjoyed, not an experience I expect to repeat.

We don't even need a progression-only system to fix this. Put 25CP at three full point clears of every node. Put one new release cover at 4 full clears of every node. Take it away from the top 100 placement. Yes, technically speaking, you'll be giving out a lot more of a single 4* cover. But you've spent the last year devaluing a single 4* cover, so it really won't be that bad.

simonsez

carrion pigeons wrote:

I'm sure you all can come up with arguments that make good sense from a design perspective for why a less popular design is better

The "less popular design" is currently leading this poll 59% vs. 22%, so stop pushing this fiction of yours.

And you've already heard the argument, but you choose to ignore it. Optimal play that requires 5 consecutive hours of gameplay disqualifies the new format from being a "better" design.

amusingfoo1

I like the fixed order and have mixed feelings about the "play when you want" implementation. But I hate the scaling; the enemies just have so many hp that nodes take forever. Clears are taking me close to twice as long.

This was the first release in a long time that I didn't finish top-10 (and I've done top-2 several times in there), aside from Kate, where I slept through an entire grind. I was still top-20, but getting my lowest scores in a long time (actually, it was also my first time out of the top-10 in HoD).

The Herald

simonsez wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

I'm sure you all can come up with arguments that make good sense from a design perspective for why a less popular design is better

The "less popular design" is currently leading this poll 59% vs. 22%, so stop pushing this fiction of yours.

And you've already heard the argument, but you choose to ignore it. Optimal play that requires 5 consecutive hours of gameplay disqualifies the new format from being a "better" design.

How much of the new time sink style is down to the scaling though? Getting the old system back for the same issue to hit it would be just as problematic.

MarvelMan

amusingfoo1 wrote:

I like the fixed order and have mixed feelings about the "play when you want" implementation. But I hate the scaling; the enemies just have so many hp that nodes take forever. Clears are taking me close to twice as long.

This was the first release in a long time that I didn't finish top-10 (and I've done top-2 several times in there), aside from Kate, where I slept through an entire grind. I was still top-20, but getting my lowest scores in a long time (actually, it was also my first time out of the top-10 in HoD).

I have mixed feelings about the fixed loot table. I like that I dont get the CP on my 7th clear....but I want that Crit boost before my 7th.

Seriously though, I feel like there is something missing in knowing the exact order Ill get things. But Ill deal with it to not get the cp on my 7th clear of Px/JG/4Cyc at lvl 400+.