Even Out Subs

broll

So I've been thinking a lot about how PvE is structured and how much time it takes up. One possible improvement that occurred to me. Why not make the point value equal across all subs? If you have a 7 day event and you're busy and miss the last 2 days of it, you're probably out of luck on both placement and progression. However if you miss the first 2 day, you can still do reasonably well in both because the back half weighted much more heavily. Why should the later ones be weighted more? It really doesn't make sense. If all subs were equal it would feel less restrictive that you have to play certain nights.

Maybe it's just me but anyone else for this idea?

Fightmastermpq

The later subs are worth more points so that people don't give up on events and continue to play until the end which also keeps the event competitive.

broll

So it's another flaw with 'competitive PvE' then. Still don't like it but that makes sense.

Calnexin

Fightmastermpq wrote:

The later subs are worth more points so that people don't give up on events and continue to play until the end which also keeps the event competitive.

The counterpoint to that is that it allows bracket sniping. In a 7-day event, you can easily miss the first full sub and still make progression. For people who want an advantage at placement, they wait until all the motivated players have filled their brackets and hop in with more casual players who are just picking up the game after a few days off.

thanos8587

its just their old design concept. rubberbanding used to make it even easier to score points later in the event and the farther behind you were.

it makes sense to even things out now, especially eots, but thats probably why it wont happen. its easier for them to just rerun an event rather than overhauling it to make sense today.

cooperbigdaddy

I understand that they want people to keep playing the whole event through.

BUT

If you miss the last day (or 2 for a 7 day-er) then you can't do much progression at all. WHILE if you miss the first day (or 2 for a 7 day-er) then you can still do a LOT of progression.

Isn't that kinda weird? It's still people not playing the whole event.

Magic

Playing all nodes 4 times only doesn't allow you to miss a day at the start or the end. I guess with the current system you can probably not play first day of 7 day event but not 3-4 day event. However keeping the higher points at the end allows you to play less at the start (like clearing the nodes 1-2 times not 4 i life happens) and playing till you score 1 on the last day should be enough to get progression.

So the current system allows for a bit of "time off" but it has to come at the start of event. I am fine with that.

What I would like to see as a quality of life change is the number of clears lowered. For a test - 3 clears of each node should give max progression and 5 should be max for points (after that 1 point only.... preferably not rising at all - staying at 1 point when it gets there). That way players would still play for 40 minutes but not 1 hour to clear PvE day. I would be fine if the scaling for this is at 2-3-4 of the current system.

broll

cooperbigdaddy wrote:

I understand that they want people to keep playing the whole event through.

BUT

If you miss the last day (or 2 for a 7 day-er) then you can't do much progression at all. WHILE if you miss the first day (or 2 for a 7 day-er) then you can still do a LOT of progression.

Isn't that kinda weird? It's still people not playing the whole event.

Yes, this is my point.

Magic wrote:

So the current system allows for a bit of "time off" but it has to come at the start of event. I am fine with that.

My point was that it would be nice if the 'time off' was more user discretion, then only being the first few days. I was really disappointed when the Strange event didn't allow for this. If when you choose your path you were choosing low/mid/high points that would give you the freedom of if they were all the same.

cooperbigdaddy

Yeah, I agree with you broll. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

firethorne

Fightmastermpq wrote:

The later subs are worth more points so that people don't give up on events and continue to play until the end which also keeps the event competitive.

And explain to me again why PvE events need to be competitive at all.

broll

aesthetocyst wrote:

No. PvE is plenty monotonous, this would make it more so.

Granted it might be more "fair", not disadvantaged those that can't play a particular day or two out of a 3-, 4-,or 7-day span.

How would evening them out make it more monotonous? I would argue that my suggestion would make it less monotonous. If you feel obligated to play on a day that you really don't have time to play, the game feels like a job. Giving people more options to play the way they want should decrease the feeling of monotony. Also if this allowed you to skip days easier, it would allow for people that have the time to focus PvP on certain days easier. Being able to break it up by more jumps between PvE and PvP would also break up monotony.

fanghoul

firethorne wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

The later subs are worth more points so that people don't give up on events and continue to play until the end which also keeps the event competitive.

And explain to me again why PvE events need to be competitive at all.

It enables there to be a flexible additional level of rewards, which is determined by the player base's enthusiasm. If I've already made max progression, then I have some additional rewards available to me if I keep playing.

You could just make the progression reward chain longer, but eventually you're always either going to run into the situation where 1) your run out of progression rewards, and even though there's more points to earn and people are frustrated that there's no rewards for playing, or 2) there's more rewards that you can earn, and then people are frustrated they can't get everything.

So the competitive aspect means 1) there's always more rewards that might be earned by playing more but 2) it's never impossible for at least 1 dedicated player per slice to earn them.

It's a bit frustrating, since you don't know the number of points you need to get the rewards, and the points needed vary from slice to slice, but there's never going to be a system where people have no complaints.

JVReal

I want them to give us back the day off between PVE events.

I enjoy running a marathon, but I want to hit a finish line and rest at some point... not the finish line be the starting line to the next race...

firethorne

fanghoul wrote:

firethorne wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

The later subs are worth more points so that people don't give up on events and continue to play until the end which also keeps the event competitive.

And explain to me again why PvE events need to be competitive at all.

It enables there to be a flexible additional level of rewards, which is determined by the player base's enthusiasm. If I've already made max progression, then I have some additional rewards available to me if I keep playing.

You could also keep playing on the PvP tab.

You could just make the progression reward chain longer, but eventually you're always either going to run into the situation where 1) your run out of progression rewards, and even though there's more points to earn and people are frustrated that there's no rewards for playing, or 2) there's more rewards that you can earn, and then people are frustrated they can't get everything.

So the competitive aspect means 1) there's always more rewards that might be earned by playing more but 2) it's never impossible for at least 1 dedicated player per slice to earn them.

So as long as we have a system where someone by definition must come in first, someone will come in first. It is a fun tautology, but hardly an argument for why such a competitive system is better than the alternative. And it is even less of an argument for the original post's argument to even out subs. Some dedicated player will still come in first regardless of daily point totals.

It's a bit frustrating, since you don't know the number of points you need to get the rewards, and the points needed vary from slice to slice, but there's never going to be a system where people have no complaints.

So, we then need to adhere to a false dichotomy then? There are options between the current system and an unachievable nirvana. Namely, one where you would at least know the number of points required to get the rewards.