Ways to Make PVE More Fun...

bk1234

Ok, we get it -- despite our MANY, MANY, MANY please for more story mode -- it isn't coming. What we get now are PVE events. For the most part, I like PVE events -- I'm a Story Mode player so this is a natural fit for me.

The problem with PVE right now is that it's the same thing over and over and over for like MONTHS. It occurred to me today, as I'm still sulking from a PVE event I don't see myself enjoying ever, that there's definitely room to make PVE awesome.

Here are a couple ideas:

1. Either / Or objectives -- same difficulty level, same number of points. It would allow us to play the event one way, and then play it a completely different way on subsequent turns through (as we are all aware we shuffle through it several times).

2. Rotating objectives (this was actually Alve's idea)-- ie they change each time the event is repeated. This would be super cool. When I gave up on 3.1 Sunday, I decided to make up my own objectives and had a lot of fun just playing different decks through it.

3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell.

Since being mad is a moot point because no one at Hibernum cares -- let's come up with some ways to make this event, which we are going to have to play at least 8-10 more times more fun.

Whatcha got?

buscemi

bken1234 wrote:

3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell.

This intrigues me. PW specific goals, like 'play X werewolves' or 'play X zombies' have so far often been too limiting as far as deckbuilding goes, but I could definitely get behind an objective like 'Be Liliana1', or 'Be a mono-colored PW', or even just color a node in an event, so that only PWs of that color may be selected for it.

bk1234

buscemi wrote:

bken1234 wrote:

3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell.

This intrigues me. PW specific goals, like 'play X werewolves' or 'play X zombies' have so far often been too limiting as far as deckbuilding goes, but I could definitely get behind an objective like 'Be Liliana1', or 'Be a mono-colored PW', or even just color a node in an event, so that only PWs of that color may be selected for it.

Or color specific -- like bring X creatures back from the graveyard, or play X ally tokens.

James13

FWIW, I really enjoy the PvE events. *shrug*

Mana Burn

More Heroic Encounters.
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=58942

aenigmaeffect

I really like the either/or idea!

Another take of the ideas would be like many other mobile games, where as you complete an objective, a new one comes up the next time. Since we all play through multiple times, this would be a fresh take each play through.

The only issue would be that you'd have to retune your deck each time (which I guess is the point), but if the event runs too long (like this time... I just wanted it to end!), it's a LOT of deck shuffling/tuning. (Hence the repeated request for deck slots).

This "when you complete one you go to the next objective" should primarily be for PvE (with multiple tries), since PvP has too many ranking implications. (But I guess it could help ddifferentiate players at the top, as long as there's a way to skip an objective after you try it once to not make the rich richer kind of way).

KragHavok

I wonder if the Valentine's Day event is a test of the idea of limited PW opponents. As I recall, I only fought against reds with my reds. Seems like that could at least be extended to the node colors.

Mainloop25

I like this idea, but I wish we had more nodes to play these different ideas. In a coalition event you are playing for your other team mates as much as yourself, so messing around and not getting extra objective points adds up.

I like OGW events because after I get my prizes, I like to see if I can beat the bosses using unorthodox decks/planeswalkers. If they brought back Avacyn as Story Mode with unlimited nodes for crystals as rewards, like original story mode, that would make me very happy.

bk1234

Mainloop25 wrote:

I like this idea, but I wish we had more nodes to play these different ideas. In a coalition event you are playing for your other team mates as much as yourself, so messing around and not getting extra objective points adds up.

I like OGW events because after I get my prizes, I like to see if I can beat the bosses using unorthodox decks/planeswalkers. If they brought back Avacyn as Story Mode with unlimited nodes for crystals as rewards, like original story mode, that would make me very happy.

If I remember correctly, the original OGW event had color mastery.

What about bonus points each subsequent round if you win with a different PW?

Mainloop25

That would be nice, but again, with 8 hour refreshes, the amount of enjoyment you can get out of it is a bit limited. I like the thinking though!

GoldenTalon

A way to increase difficulty could be the use of a timer. "Beat the opponent in under 3 minutes" or some similar limit.

It could then also be used in a tie breaker system as well as the point based ranking system. Any ties could be broken by those completing all battles in the least amount of time.

Having a timer tick helps creates an urgency that can lead to mistakes and thus more separation in scores.

And hopefully with the new battle log feature any cheating that has been occurring with fast matches will be found and eliminated as an issue.

This could also lead to other event types where the objective isn't points based but speed and you can create decks without secondary objective limitations.

Mainloop25

GoldenTalon wrote:

A way to increase difficulty could be the use of a timer. "Beat the opponent in under 3 minutes" or some similar limit.

It could then also be used in a tie breaker system as well as the point based ranking system. Any ties could be broken by those completing all battles in the least amount of time.

Having a timer tick helps creates an urgency that can lead to mistakes and thus more separation in scores.

And hopefully with the new battle log feature any cheating that has been occurring with fast matches will be found and eliminated as an issue.

This could also lead to other event types where the objective isn't points based but speed and you can create decks without secondary objective limitations.

This could work, when they get rid of the main method of cheating.

Astralwind

GoldenTalon wrote:

A way to increase difficulty could be the use of a timer. "Beat the opponent in under 3 minutes" or some similar limit.

It could then also be used in a tie breaker system as well as the point based ranking system. Any ties could be broken by those completing all battles in the least amount of time.

Having a timer tick helps creates an urgency that can lead to mistakes and thus more separation in scores.

And hopefully with the new battle log feature any cheating that has been occurring with fast matches will be found and eliminated as an issue.

This could also lead to other event types where the objective isn't points based but speed and you can create decks without secondary objective limitations.

Then they will need to allow us to turn off animations. Because as I recalled, I used to face off a fabricate deck and my deck was also support heavy and all of a sudden, the player used The Great Aurora. I watched the animation of one support destroyed after another. It almost drove me crazy.

Hibernum_JC

bken1234 wrote:

Ok, we get it -- despite our MANY, MANY, MANY please for more story mode -- it isn't coming. What we get now are PVE events. For the most part, I like PVE events -- I'm a Story Mode player so this is a natural fit for me.

The problem with PVE right now is that it's the same thing over and over and over for like MONTHS. It occurred to me today, as I'm still sulking from a PVE event I don't see myself enjoying ever, that there's definitely room to make PVE awesome.

Here are a couple ideas:

1. Either / Or objectives -- same difficulty level, same number of points. It would allow us to play the event one way, and then play it a completely different way on subsequent turns through (as we are all aware we shuffle through it several times).

2. Rotating objectives (this was actually Alve's idea)-- ie they change each time the event is repeated. This would be super cool. When I gave up on 3.1 Sunday, I decided to make up my own objectives and had a lot of fun just playing different decks through it.

3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell.

Since being mad is a moot point because no one at Hibernum cares -- let's come up with some ways to make this event, which we are going to have to play at least 8-10 more times more fun.

Whatcha got?

First off, it's not true that no one at Hibernum cares - we really do. There's just a limit to the amount of stuff we can do in a limited timespan.

As for your suggestions, here's how I feel/what I think.

1- Either/or objectives (I'm assuming you mean objective 2 being something and 3 being something opposite, so that both can't be completed at once) is something I always consciously never done because I felt that having 2 objectives which are completely unable to be done at the same time can feel bad for a lot of players. If it's something you guys like and want, then I can definitely do something like that in the future. I completely understand the logic behind your proposition, and I think it's interesting - I never explored that possibility but it's definitely very interesting.

2- Rotating objectives is a difficult thing because of production constraints. Let me explain - Every time we make an event, it needs to go through QA. If we change objectives, we absolutely 100% need to pass it through QA again, because it's a gameplay-related data change and things might break. Testing an event 5-6 times vs testing an event once is a huge undertaking. We have limited QA, and sometimes we have to make decisions based on the resources available to us. I will say, however, that I completely agree with the idea and it's something very interesting. I'll bring it up further to see if we can do something upstream to simplify this.

3- We did have more Planeswalker-specific objectives (Play X Vampires/Werewolves/etc) but the general reaction to this was bad because it forced deckbuilding into a situation that was much too narrow. We've loosened these objectives in Kaladesh (Energize can be done with Planeswalker abilities alone, for example, so it's easier to complete using specific Planeswalkers but not impossible if you're playing a different one provided you have some Kaladesh cards).

buscemi wrote:

This intrigues me. PW specific goals, like 'play X werewolves' or 'play X zombies' have so far often been too limiting as far as deckbuilding goes, but I could definitely get behind an objective like 'Be Liliana1', or 'Be a mono-colored PW', or even just color a node in an event, so that only PWs of that color may be selected for it.

We have and are still running events where specific Planeswalkers are required, but we currently do not have support for "Win with a specific Planeswalker"-type of objective. In PvP events, we do have nodes that are restricted to specific colors, for example, and if it's something that is wanted by you guys I have the tools to force it further. I can't really use it in PvE though, but it's something I can request and see if we can fit it in our dev schedule.

Mainloop25

Hibernum_JC wrote:

2- Rotating objectives is a difficult thing because of production constraints. Let me explain - Every time we make an event, it needs to go through QA. If we change objectives, we absolutely 100% need to pass it through QA again, because it's a gameplay-related data change and things might break. Testing an event 5-6 times vs testing an event once is a huge undertaking. We have limited QA, and sometimes we have to make decisions based on the resources available to us. I will say, however, that I completely agree with the idea and it's something very interesting. I'll bring it up further to see if we can do something upstream to simplify this.

This one I like the most because of the monotony of the PvE events after we figure out working decks for all objectives. After the 4th time you're playing the event, you're sleepwalking through them. This keeps it being a challenge for veteran players, and won't necessarily change the difficulty for those players who are just trying to win the match.

madwren

Hibernum_JC wrote:

1- Either/or objectives (I'm assuming you mean objective 2 being something and 3 being something opposite, so that both can't be completed at once) is something I always consciously never done because I felt that having 2 objectives which are completely unable to be done at the same time can feel bad for a lot of players. If it's something you guys like and want, then I can definitely do something like that in the future. I completely understand the logic behind your proposition, and I think it's interesting - I never explored that possibility but it's definitely very interesting.

Thanks for the response. I'm confused, though. Didn't Avacyn's Madness have exactly these kinds of objectives for 6 of its 9 levels?

This is the list of mutually-exclusive objectives:

Quilled Wolf: 10 or less damage, -or- 25 or more damage
Stormrider Spirit: 3 or less spells, -or- 6 or more spells
Hulking Devil: 3 or less supports -or-6 or more supports
Twins of Maurer Estate: 40 or more hp remaining -or-15 or less hp remaining
Heir to the Night: Lose 3 or less creatures -or- lose 6 or more creatures
Flameblade Angel: kill less than 4 creatures -or- kill more than 8 creatures

Personally, I LOVED these objectives. I loved that different people of different strengths and skills could pick which direction they wanted to take to tackle a difficult matchup.

Hibernum_JC wrote:

3- We did have more Planeswalker-specific objectives (Play X Vampires/Werewolves/etc) but the general reaction to this was bad because it forced deckbuilding into a situation that was much too narrow. We've loosened these objectives in Kaladesh (Energize can be done with Planeswalker abilities alone, for example, so it's easier to complete using specific Planeswalkers but not impossible if you're playing a different one provided you have some Kaladesh cards).

I much prefer "energize" to "summon X of a specific creature type." One of the biggest problems with the "summon X" is that before some late revamps, the sheer number of specific creatures was too high. Games are fast, especially in plat. Spending the entire matchup trying not to win, so that you can summon your 5th vehicle (for example), is a huge drag on player enjoyment. When the objectives were changed to "summon 2", everyone was a lot happier, because then including and casting those creature types happened much more organically as part of the play experience.

Hibernum_JC

madwren wrote:

Thanks for the response. I'm confused, though. Didn't Avacyn's Madness have exactly these kinds of objectives for 6 of its 9 levels?

This is the list of mutually-exclusive objectives:

Quilled Wolf: 10 or less damage, -or- 25 or more damage
Stormrider Spirit: 3 or less spells, -or- 6 or more spells
Hulking Devil: 3 or less supports -or-6 or more supports
Twins of Maurer Estate: 40 or more hp remaining -or-15 or less hp remaining
Heir to the Night: Lose 3 or less creatures -or- lose 6 or more creatures
Flameblade Angel: kill less than 4 creatures -or- kill more than 8 creatures

Personally, I LOVED these objectives. I loved that different people of different strengths and skills could pick which direction they wanted to take to tackle a difficult matchup.

Those objectives were designed by a different designer (Sam, who no longer works on the project, who you maybe saw in a video. Incidentally, I've never appeared in a video!) and I wasn't involved in his decisions over the design of the event. Conflicting objectives, if you guys actually find them interesting, will most likely come back in the future.

madwren wrote:

I much prefer "energize" to "summon X of a specific creature type." One of the biggest problems with the "summon X" is that before some late revamps, the sheer number of specific creatures was too high. Games are fast, especially in plat. Spending the entire matchup trying not to win, so that you can summon your 5th vehicle (for example), is a huge drag on player enjoyment. When the objectives were changed to "summon 2", everyone was a lot happier, because then including and casting those creature types happened much more organically as part of the play experience.

There was a reason why we picked exactly 5 vehicles - this sort of forces you to put 2 vehicles in your deck, although you can sort of game it through some mechanics. The problem with "Summon 2" is that while it does happen organically, it basically means "put a card of that type in your deck and put no effort towards it", which is kind of contrary to objectives. We want them to be deliberate, and that you have to put in a bit of work for them, play smartly and get them. I understand that in Platinum games go fast, but that's because you feel like you have to go fast (outside of Quick Battle, you don't have that much of an incentive to go that fast) and not because you're required to go fast.

I prefer the design of the Energize X, because you have many more ways to approach it, rather than just summon x creature types.

bk1234

Hibernum_JC wrote:

madwren wrote:

Thanks for the response. I'm confused, though. Didn't Avacyn's Madness have exactly these kinds of objectives for 6 of its 9 levels?

This is the list of mutually-exclusive objectives:

Quilled Wolf: 10 or less damage, -or- 25 or more damage
Stormrider Spirit: 3 or less spells, -or- 6 or more spells
Hulking Devil: 3 or less supports -or-6 or more supports
Twins of Maurer Estate: 40 or more hp remaining -or-15 or less hp remaining
Heir to the Night: Lose 3 or less creatures -or- lose 6 or more creatures
Flameblade Angel: kill less than 4 creatures -or- kill more than 8 creatures

Personally, I LOVED these objectives. I loved that different people of different strengths and skills could pick which direction they wanted to take to tackle a difficult matchup.

Those objectives were designed by a different designer (Sam, who no longer works on the project, who you maybe saw in a video. Incidentally, I've never appeared in a video!) and I wasn't involved in his decisions over the design of the event. Conflicting objectives, if you guys actually find them interesting, will most likely come back in the future.

First, thank you for responding JC.

This was exactly what I meant -- it made Avacyn much more difficult -- but also more challenging. If I knew I was going to finish the boss with less than 90 HP, I would extend my battle and play for the second objective (less than 8 I think) -- which made me shift and play an entirely different game with a PW I fine tuned to do something else. Same goes for Story Mode. I have actually played many of the levels with all 5 colors twice just to try to get each objective with a different color.

Doing something with color mastery was also brought up. This could be a really cool way to get extra points above normal objectives.

The problem with PVE events is that they go so long each time and they run for a couple months, we just go through the motions. Ask me in 5 years and I will be able to tell you both of Aj decks and my Ob deck for FS from heart. I'd love to be FORCED to break outside of my shell.

Right now we don't do that because our coalition depends on us.

THEMAGICkMAN

JC, what's your opinion on luck based objectives? Like the 5 round win in pvp, or certain objectives in RatC. I think objectives should show your deck building prowess and skill in game, not whether or not RNGesus shines his light upon you. That should be your #1 priority when making objectives. "How much luck is required to get objective X". This means you would need to test an objective multiple time, with different decks and strategies.

madwren

Hibernum_JC wrote:

Those objectives were designed by a different designer (Sam, who no longer works on the project, who you maybe saw in a video. Incidentally, I've never appeared in a video!) and I wasn't involved in his decisions over the design of the event. Conflicting objectives, if you guys actually find them interesting, will most likely come back in the future.

I think that Avacyn's Madness ranks very near the top for many of the people I know. Not only were the decks challenging--Persistent Nightmare is still giving them to us--but the ability to shoot for one objective, only to find you had to pivot, was a welcome change of pace. It gave agency to the player. Contemporary objectives, on the other hand, remove agency from the player by focusing much more on randomness. Sure, there are elements of randomness in "Cast 3 or less spells" and "cast 6 or more spells", but it's a completely different animal than "win in 5 rounds", or "take 10 or less damage", where simply having a bad opening gem layout can cause you to lose the objective without having made a single match.

Hibernum_JC wrote:

There was a reason why we picked exactly 5 vehicles - this sort of forces you to put 2 vehicles in your deck, although you can sort of game it through some mechanics. The problem with "Summon 2" is that while it does happen organically, it basically means "put a card of that type in your deck and put no effort towards it", which is kind of contrary to objectives. We want them to be deliberate, and that you have to put in a bit of work for them, play smartly and get them. I understand that in Platinum games go fast, but that's because you feel like you have to go fast (outside of Quick Battle, you don't have that much of an incentive to go that fast) and not because you're required to go fast.

I prefer the design of the Energize X, because you have many more ways to approach it, rather than just summon x creature types.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind it. Perhaps instead of "fast", I should have said "platinum games utilize cards of high power level, which necessarily cause larger swings and often faster results." However, the speed of the game is inherently higher than that in silver, at least. I play in both, and play similar strategies in both, and there's a marked difference.

I'll have to disagree, though. The "summon 2" objectives allowed you to maintain a viable deck while still fulfilling objectives. You still had to slow your roll, you still had to play smartly, and you still had to know when to cast them and when not to cast them. You can't drop your Olivia on turn 3 if you don't have your other vampire in hand, or you'll lose the objective. You had to play patient and smart.

The best objectives are those that foster player agency and allow freedom in deck construction. 8 eldrazi, 5 vehicles? Those don't. Give us card rarity restrictions, or block restrictions, or spell/support/creature restrictions. One of my favorite aspects of Showdown was having to come up with a no-spell deck for white Hulk and Gorger, and I enjoyed the "less than 2" aspects of Emrakul's Corruption as well. They leave you with a wide range of potential decks and creative ideas.

By comparison, 5 vehicles is busy work. I donno. I could obviously be wrong. But a lot of people I talk to/read have just decided to not even bother because it's so tedious.

Ohboy

Hibernum_JC wrote:

I understand that in Platinum games go fast, but that's because you feel like you have to go fast (outside of Quick Battle, you don't have that much of an incentive to go that fast) and not because you're required to go fast.

That's not quite true is it? Not the way tie breaks are broken. At least one game per node, we're required to go as fast as we can.

That said, I do appreciate the subtle changes you've made to make this less of an issue.