I only see two options for 7 day PVEs

Omega Red

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

I bring the point of event quality because for me that's important and determines whether I play or not. They could run heroics with five stars as rewards and you wouldn't see me play hard for them. I just dislike those events that much. Boss battles on the other hand you'll see me always going hard regardless of rewards because I enjoy playing them and helping alliance mates.

You can see this as seven day events giving half or as short events giving double. Glass half full or glass half empty. Yes, some events are more generous than others. For me that's irrelevant because I don't feel obligated to play every event in every format so I can maximize my reward income. This is not a job for me and I don't judge rewards in terms of "compensation" and "work" as you do.

Progression rewards are incentives to play. Placement rewards are incentives to play competitively. INCENTIVES, not currency. While you can measure the value of a given cover in terms of the time and effort it takes to earn, it's not a fixed value and there's no reason why it should be normalized. You are not entitled to 25 hp every X days just because most of events are short and give you that regularly.

I want more rewards as much as anyone but not at the expense of losing or redesigning long events which I appreciate for flavour, change of pace and the chance they provide shorter events to take a break and remain fresh.

It feels like again you're misunderstanding the thrust of the argument.
You're debating about the individual worth of certain events. It's a personal argument that you play what you want to play. And that's great! You do you and all that, if that's how you get your enjoyment from the game, then more power to you. However, that's an argument that's not fully representitive of the debate at hand.

I don't play every PvE either. And yeah, if they added a 5* reward to heroics I'd be very tempted to play them more often. But, again, your argument is less about a fair effort:reward ratio and more about "Some events just aren't fun". And that's a point I agree on, some events could be changed to make them more enjoyable, especially the heavilly Dark Avengers laden ones.

The fact that you openly say the idea of effort:reward is irrelevent to you means you're not fully a part of the main argument. I'm aware how patronising that sounds, but my point isn't "Little boy, go home", so I hope you don't think that's what I mean. You raise an important point that some events aren't fun, but that's a point for another thread because it's not what we're wanting changed in *this* thread.

As for the entitlement argument, I'd ask why not? You've yet to address my key issue which is why getting precisely half the rewards from a 7-day event compared to two PvE events run in the same time is a fair and acceptable way to play? You say you like Prodigal Sun. Me too. But wouldn't it be better to play that event and get more out of it? This isn't an entitlement issue, it's an effort:reward relabancing issue.

I want more rewards as much as anyone but not at the expense of losing or redesigning long events which I appreciate for flavour, change of pace and the chance they provide shorter events to take a break and remain fresh.

This bit confuses me though. Who said anything about *changing* the event? No-one here is saying that when the rewwards are double they should also change how the event is played. No-one here is saying "It's a 7-day event, ergo we should have to clear each node 12 times instead of 6!" or anything like that. We're simply saying we should have an equalised reward compared to the shorter events. Some people are saying ditch 7-day events all together and I wholly disagree with that. I wonder if these people were around when they squished Hulk into a 4 day time frame with each sub event completing within 12 hours. It was horrendous. I absolutely don't want that, I simply want the event to remain exactly as it is in structure and manner of play, but with a better progression structure to reflect the length of time put into such events.

You can't discuss amount and quality of rewards without discussing how attractive the event itself is. Why? Because both are incentives to play. Peggy as reward is good incentive. Deadpool vs MPQ is good incentive. Mr. Fantastic plus heroic? Bad incentive. When you talk about effort/reward balance you have to take in account these things as well. For me, max progression in prodigal is much easier to obtain than max progression in heroic, based solely on the fact that playing prodigal is actually fun for me while playing heroic is a chore. So, even though it takes more playing time for the same reward, it's actually easier for me because I feel much more inclined to play it over a shorter event I don't like.

Why I argue over this? Well, there have been suggestions to split seven-day events in two parts (effectively making them play like three, four day sprint events) or just ditch them altogether. I like seven-day events for the reasons I exposed earlier and I would hate to see them go because somebody really thinks he's being robbed of 25 hp and a couple of covers.

Dragon_Nexus

Omega Red wrote:

You can't discuss amount and quality of rewards without discussing how attractive the event itself is. Why? Because both are incentives to play. Peggy as reward is good incentive. Deadpool vs MPQ is good incentive. Mr. Fantastic plus heroic? Bad incentive. When you talk about effort/reward balance you have to take in account these things as well. For me, max progression in prodigal is much easier to obtain than max progression in heroic, based solely on the fact that playing prodigal is actually fun for me while playing heroic is a chore. So, even though it takes more playing time for the same reward, it's actually easier for me because I feel much more inclined to play it over a shorter event I don't like.

Why I argue over this? Well, there have been suggestions to split seven-day events in two parts (effectively making them play like three, four day sprint events) or just ditch them altogether. I like seven-day events for the reasons I exposed earlier and I would hate to see them go because somebody really thinks he's being robbed of 25 hp and a couple of covers.

Again...Yet again...I don't want the events removed. I don't even want them shortened or changed in any way. I am simply saying the rewards in progression should reflect the time spent on a singular event. And yet you seem to want to include a whole bunch of other factors that are utterly irrelevent to the argument. Things like "How much incentive is there to play an event" or "How fun is the event".

Those don't matter to *this argument*. All that matters is whether the progression rewards on a basic level, regardless of which specific covers are up for grabs, are balanced compared to other events. And currently they are not. If a 7 day event, for example, gave away 5000 ISO, 500 HP, two 3* covers, one 4* cover and 25CP and yet two small events run in the same time frame gave a total of 10,000 ISO, 1000 HP, four 3* covers, two 4* covers and 50CP...that's unbalanced! That is literally all my argument is. Bring the rewards up to match the equivilent 3 or 4 day events.

archmag wrote:

That's ok. It's just my opinion, I get that it won't be popular because I don't ask for extra reward and most people want extra reward for the same work.

Yes, because of lower reward. It's one of the criteria on how to separate event from others. Another one you mention later - it's Heroics. If all events reward the same it will be harder to choose which one to skip because then you will know that you are losing a lot. So it will lead to playing all events and eventual burn out.

I am not refusing to improve, I don't want it to change based on your arguments. I don't see equalising rewards as improvement. You get more income, but the same can be acomplished by increasing reward everywhere. If your problem was difference in rewards there would be two solutions suggested: either increase reward for 7 days, or decrease reward for 3/4 days. I don't see you suggesting 2nd solution, so the problem is not in inequality, it's in low reward overall. So you just take this situation and suggest "let's increase reward" and support it by false argument "different reward is bad".

]I get into 7 day event and get 100% reward. Then I get into 4 day event and get 150% reward for the same effort. I am happy. You look at 4days as norm, I look at 7days as norm. If all days reward 150%, then 150% becomes the new 100%. If all days reward 100% it is boring.

It's like with happiness. It's impossible to feel happy if you are always at the same enjoyment level. It just gets stale. To actually feel happy there should be ups and downs so that you can have comparison.

That first point "I get that it won't be popular because I don't ask for extra reward and most people want extra reward for the same work." you've lost me there. If you were at work and did a 5 hour shift and got paid $50, is it churlish to expect to be paid $100 for 10 hours work? We're asking for equality. Doubling the rewards for a 7-day event is not "more rewards for the same work" by any stretch.

And again, the point of burn out...I don't see how that factors. That's entirely a thing a person chooses to do. If you don't want to play an event...don't play it. It's just as simple as that, I cannot understand why that factors into the idea of improving the progression rewards for long events. "Because people will feel more compelled to play them" well maybe learn to exercise a little self restraint? I know I sound flippant here but I genuinely do not understand how this argument stands.

And yes there are two options, increase the rewards for one style or decrease for the other. Absolutely, we could do either. But why on Earth would you argue for *fewer* rewards? Seriously, why? Given the strides the game has made to make itself more rewarding with shield ranks and clearance levels and championing and all of that why would we say "You know what Demiurge, you're being too generous. There never was an ISO shortage, we were just being greedy, you really should halve those rewards for short events ". Of course not, the balance should always be about buffs, not nerfs.

As for your percentages that's a very forced perspective on the situation. I'd counter by asking would you not be happy if 150% became the norm? Why are you happier to get less reward on certain events? The short events aren't happy bonuses to your play time, they're not a sign of the devs being really generous and providing you with extra stuff. They're a symptom of the "one size fits all" approach they've adopted for a long time and it needs to change.

So yes, I am absolutely arguing that the 7-day events are often less attractive due to rewards and that that is a problem they can very easilly fix. Double the rewards and the problem is solved, just like that.

archmag

You are comparing it to work, but this is not a work. At work I expect to be paid the same amount per hour. Here I would better have different rates so it does not feel the same as work at least.

Point about burn out was just an example that unequal rates are not an actual problem. Unequal rates have some positive effects too.

I would not argue for fewer rewards. I also would not argue for more reward and base it on unequality. If you feel that Iso is short, ask for global increase to solve the problem of Iso shortage, not base it on imaginary problem of unequal rewards. But if you say that you are trying to solve the problem of inequality, there are two equal solutions - increase and lower and then it would be fair to suggest both.

For me short events are like events with extra rewards. If 150% becomes the norm I won't be happier, because it will become the norm, so there would not be days with extra rewards. Why not suggest double iso to become the norm? How can you play normal events and not complain about them if there exist events from time to time with double iso rewards?

So yes, I am absolutely arguing that the 7-day events are often less attractive due to rewards and that that is a problem they can very easilly fix. Double the rewards and the problem is solved, just like that.

It does not matter how attractive they are. People play them because time is limited and you need all iso you can get. So there is no problem to solve.

Dragon_Nexus

archmag wrote:

It does not matter how attractive they are. People play them because time is limited and you need all iso you can get. So there is no problem to solve.

And...how is the lack of ISO problem not solved by increasing the rewards for long events?

And yes, I keep using work analogies when trying to explain this and it muddies my message...I have to stop doing that.
Okay, think of it like this. You go to school with three friends. Every day a bully walks up to you and kicks you in the shin. You tell him it's not fair and he tells you he *could* stop, or he could kick the shins of you and your three friends as well, either way that makes things more fair.

Now why on Earth would you select the second option? That is my point. Why if there are two options and one of them is incredibly negative would you choose the one that doesn't benefit anyone in any way? This is like bonkers news articles that in the name of "fairness" speak to a calm, sensible person first and then speaks to a man who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Just...don't speak to that guy, he contributes nothing.

I don't see how this problem is imaginary, as you claim. Can you not see the basic imbalance with the rewards? The sum total of rewards for a 7-day event is less than the sum total of a 3-day and 4-day run back to back. How is that imaginary?

OneLastGambit

Why does everyone think the rewards are the same?

7 day have more iso, more cp (due to more nodes) more tokens and more HP due to more subs.

7 day events don't bother me...48 hour subs do

archmag

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Okay, think of it like this. You go to school with three friends. Every day a bully walks up to you and kicks you in the shin. You tell him it's not fair and he tells you he *could* stop, or he could kick the shins of you and your three friends as well, either way that makes things more fair.

Again good example of wrong identification of the problem. The problem here is that he hit's you, not that he hit's you three unequally. Better analogy would be if he hits you 3 times, and your friends 1 time. And you make a suggestion to hit you 1 time too instead of 3 saying that it's unfair. When actually you should have asked to hit you all less without mentioning fairness at all, because it is not important here.

I don't see how this problem is imaginary, as you claim. Can you not see the basic imbalance with the rewards? The sum total of rewards for a 7-day event is less than the sum total of a 3-day and 4-day run back to back. How is that imaginary?

I see imbalance, I don't see a problem in it. So what if reward is different? Did you sign a document that says that you will get a certain amount of reward/hour? It's how you look at imbalance that matters. I look at it as extra reward during short events, you look at it as lowered reward during long events. I am happy with them and don't see a problem, you are dissappointed with them and complain. If you use your favorite analogy with jobs - there are jobs that reward for completing a contract, not with per hour payments. And those reward differently for each contract. You don't just skip low payment contract, and complain about them, you do as many of them as you can.

Omega Red

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Again...Yet again...I don't want the events removed. I don't even want them shortened or changed in any way. I am simply saying the rewards in progression should reflect the time spent on a singular event. And yet you seem to want to include a whole bunch of other factors that are utterly irrelevent to the argument. Things like "How much incentive is there to play an event" or "How fun is the event".

Those don't matter to *this argument*. All that matters is whether the progression rewards on a basic level, regardless of which specific covers are up for grabs, are balanced compared to other events. And currently they are not. If a 7 day event, for example, gave away 5000 ISO, 500 HP, two 3* covers, one 4* cover and 25CP and yet two small events run in the same time frame gave a total of 10,000 ISO, 1000 HP, four 3* covers, two 4* covers and 50CP...that's unbalanced! That is literally all my argument is. Bring the rewards up to match the equivilent 3 or 4 day events.

Your anal fixation is such a good example of tunnel vision. You keep arguing that there's inequity and I argue that I don't care because I still prefer to play the less rewarding event because it gives me other type of value (entertainment, isn't that why we are all here?) that you dismiss with such arrogance. We are discussing value and balance here. Apparently you are here strictly to collect hp, covers and iso and you could not care less what event you play. I'll suggest they run just heroics for you so you can maximize your income. We'll see how you feel about that after a month.

There are rewards that are easier to win than others. Four star progression at PVE? Much easier to win than four star progression at PVP, but also takes more time. I've had pvp's where I won the four star progression in less than an hour. Based in your logic I demand that PVE gives me just as many four stars per hour spent. That would be at least two covers per sub! Yeah, awesome! Let's do it!

Each event is different.

Each run of same event is different (rosters have progressed, different toons boosted, etc).

There isn't a single reward in this game that can be earned with the same exact amount of time or effort in two different events or actions.

I can live with that. Looks like you can't.

Dragon_Nexus

OneLastGambit wrote:

Why does everyone think the rewards are the same?

7 day have more iso, more cp (due to more nodes) more tokens and more HP due to more subs.

7 day events don't bother me...48 hour subs do

We're talking progression. The long events don't have more HP due to subs because you're beating 7 subs...which is true if you play a 7 day event or a 3 day and 4 day back to back. You don't get more CP you get less because there is only 25CP up for grabs from progression whereas two events would net you 50 in the same time frame.

The only extra you get from a 7-day event is more tokens for a singular vault, that much is true. You can pull more from the vault in a 7 day event, but this leaves your rewards down to chance.

archmag

OneLastGambit wrote:

Why does everyone think the rewards are the same?

7 day have more iso, more cp (due to more nodes) more tokens and more HP due to more subs.

It's about progression reward/day only. Rewards from the nodes are the same/day as in both types you complete 1 node per day. But progression reward is different. In 3/4 day events you get 1 4*cover and 25CP from progression in 3/4 days, in 7day events you get the same in 7days.

7 day events don't bother me...48 hour subs do

These ones I like. I would not want more of them as I still want rewards, but I like to rest on them for a day occasionally. Only 6 clears in 2 days instead of 1.

Dragon_Nexus

Omega Red wrote:

Your anal fixation is such a good example of tunnel vision. You keep arguing that there's inequity and I argue that I don't care because I still prefer to play the less rewarding event because it gives me other type of value (entertainment, isn't that why we are all here?) that you dismiss with such arrogance. We are discussing value and balance here. Apparently you are here strictly to collect hp, covers and iso and you could not care less what event you play. I'll suggest they run just heroics for you so you can maximize your income. We'll see how you feel about that after a month.

There are rewards that are easier to win than others. Four star progression at PVE? Much easier to win than four star progression at PVP, but also takes more time. I've had pvp's where I won the four star progression in less than an hour. Based in your logic I demand that PVE gives me just as many four stars per hour spent. That would be at least two covers per sub! Yeah, awesome! Let's do it!

Each event is different.

Each run of same event is different (rosters have progressed, different toons boosted, etc).

There isn't a single reward in this game that can be earned with the same exact amount of time or effort in two different events or actions.

I can live with that. Looks like you can't.

Look...I have tunnel vision because this topic is about a specific issue. This topic is about the rewards for 7-day progression. THAT is the issue. I have tunnel vision because I'm trying to stay on topic and not bring in a bunch of meaningless outside arguments like how fun an event is or what have you. You say you don't care about that...FINE! Then leave the debate because this obviously doesn't concern you! This is like people debating about how to decorate a room and you walk in and argue vehemently that as long as there is a sofa in the room you don't care what it looks like...and when people try to talk about the colour of the walls you say "But guys...what kind of SOFA are we going to have?" It's completely irrelevent to the conversation at hand.

Again, as I said before, if you don't care about the progression and only care about your own enjoyment factor in an event, then more power to you, and I'm being completely scincere there. If you're having fun then I'm honestly glad to hear it! That's good. But your contentment doesn't add anything to this debate.

I'm leaving this thread now, I feel this three-way argument over semantics is getting no-where since I honestly cannot understand why anyone's arguing with me over not wanting more ISO or HP or CP or covers during these long events. It's bizarre to me. And since I'm spending a lot of time trying to dissect your points and understand your position and admittedly failing to do so I want to just leave this as it is. This is getting far too heated and I don't want it to turn vitriolic so I'll simply stop here. This is one impasse we're clearly not going to resolve.

On the other hand...thanks to both you and archmag for not resorting to insults during this and engaging in a healthy discourse.

Dormammu

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

I honestly cannot understand why anyone's arguing with me over not wanting more ISO or HP or CP or covers during these long events. It's bizarre to me.

I wouldn't stress out too much over it, based on the poll results it looks like most people agree with you.

ClydeFrog76

OneLastGambit wrote:

Why does everyone think the rewards are the same?

7 day have more iso, more cp (due to more nodes) more tokens and more HP due to more subs.

7 day event, 7 subs, 1 lot of progression rewards

versus

3 day event, 3 subs, 1 lot of progression rewards
PLUS
4 day event, 4 subs, 1 lot of progression rewards

See that? It's the same amount of days, the same amount of subs, but one whole extra helping of progression rewards.

Beastwood

Rewards aside 7 day events are mind numbing...

Same roster for a week, same general battles for a week, whole week of missing nodes (and therefore rewards) if you don't have specific essentials, Placement requires a 7 day commitment which granted i have a huge advantage over a lot of people because i am at that point where life is pretty vacant at the mo but its massively harsh on people with work etc but even for me 7 day is a long slog to keep hitting up nodes at the optimal times if i didn't enjoy being competitive then I'd pretty much say you're doing a side job on MPQ.

I can understand why people may like 7 day events, but for me I'd rather get the choice to sign up for a single 7 day event or opt to hit a 3 n 4 day event for the week one option or the other and let them balance out rewards if they feel to ie match up the 7 dayer to the 2 shorter events or whatever works.

3/4 days just works for me and that's not even based on rewards i didn't even really notice the difference until i read this thread and actually thought about it, i just like the quicker turn around as it feels better to me after a few days to have a fresh set of required chars, fresh set of boosted etc to decide weather to shoot for placement or not based on whats at the top, its easier to run for it over 3 days than slog it out over 7 it can get really mundane where as 3 it doesn't drag out long enough to hit that point.

I'd personally vote to remove 7 day but i don't believe in removing something people enjoy because i don't so i always feel there should be choice, cater for the different sides of the coin it shouldn't come down to one side having to accept the other side and vice versa.... much like how people don't like Placement and want it removed where as i enjoy it and don't want it removed.
However it is how it is for now and i have to lump it like people have to lump placement etc not enough hands to code all the different things lol

and in general i think the 7 dayers are a deliberate time sink anyway to slow down the rate of gaining 4 star from placement a smidge, usually always some kind of time sink somewhere so i doubt it would be changed as it's probably working as a set of brakes as intended