Is it time to overhaul the PvE placement system?

mega ghost

As things currently stand, I think PvE placement requirements take the fun out of this portion of the game. If you need to optimally grind every node 6+ times simply to break into the top 100 for a chance at a new character release cover, that's extremely tedious and feels like work. No one is entertained by hideous amounts of grinding.

Points should not be awarded based on the number of times you've played something, but based on how well you've performed. I recommend that D3/demiurge should devise a new system in which clearing the node gives you a base number of points (the sum of which will allow you to meet progression benchmarks), and bonus points are awarded for a wide variety of other factors: the number of turns you took to complete the match, the amount of damage you took, the amount of damage you dealt, how many enemy attacks or countdowns you let go off, strings of combos (i.e. using several attacks in a row), having each character on your team fire a power, etc. They could even add bonus points for specific targets, i.e. "In this match, bonus points are awarded for each enemy special tile you've matched away or destroyed."

This way you're being rewarded for play strategy and encouraged to try different things and use characters that aren't featured or boosted, and not just being rewarded for mindless repetition at the sacrifice of your personal life, responsibilities, or sleep.

Nodes can still offer multiple clears for those that want to pick through them, but points would only be awarded for the first clear; everything past that will just be for rewards. The bonus points should also obviously be diversified and devised in a way to allow multiple paths to achieving them, that way specific characters aren't the only or best options to accruing them (thereby limiting your roster choices, or penalizing you for not having that character.)

DapperChewie

That sounds like a pretty big overhaul of how the game works, and also sounds like a system that would mean the rich get richer.

I'd much prefer the current system, but reward t50 players with 4* covers. That's really all I want.

Or, dump pve placement completely, and replace with expanded progression rewards. 4 clears is same as usual. But then 5, 6, and 7 clears get you more covers, including the featured 4 and the next 4. Inbetween, give ISO and HP and CP rewards. Keep alliance placement as is though. Make the nodes continue to get tougher after 5 clears, so it's not so easy to get the top tier rewards.

And for the love of tinykitties everywhere, get SCL8 and 9 out there.

mega ghost

DapperChewie wrote:

That sounds like a pretty big overhaul of how the game works, and also sounds like a system that would mean the rich get richer.

I'd much prefer the current system, but reward t50 players with 4* covers. That's really all I want.

Or, dump pve placement completely, and replace with expanded progression rewards. 4 clears is same as usual. But then 5, 6, and 7 clears get you more covers, including the featured 4 and the next 4. Inbetween, give ISO and HP and CP rewards. Keep alliance placement as is though. Make the nodes continue to get tougher after 5 clears, so it's not so easy to get the top tier rewards.

And for the love of tinykitties everywhere, get SCL8 and 9 out there.

I'm also into this! Expanded progression rewards would absolutely take some of the frustration out of the grinding and the sting out of inevitably not placing or just missing placement in a tier.

Additionally, I'd be open to my above-mentioned suggestion (i.e. bonus points based on play strategy) not being applied to all PvE, but perhaps just certain events for more diversity in the game.

mega ghost

aesthetocyst wrote:

Hmmm. Raft of placement threads.

Goah, did a new release PVE end last night by any chance? If so, time to set my watch.

Haha, I don't often aim for placement rewards in PvE, but when it's a character I really want rostered I try for top 100 to get one of their covers. On the first day of Deadpool vs. MPQ I didn't play optimally because I was very busy with personal obligations and in a couple of nodes only hit 5 clears (but most got 6 clears.) On the second day I did play optimally and all nodes got 6 or 6+ clears. Even with the dedicated timesink and tedious grinding (read: it was no fun at all), I ended somewhere in the Top 200 and was nowhere near that single Coulson cover. I can't check for the specifics because of the server issues, but to me that's ridiculous and just poor game design.

DFiPL

mega ghost wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

Hmmm. Raft of placement threads.

Goah, did a new release PVE end last night by any chance? If so, time to set my watch.

Haha, I don't often aim for placement rewards in PvE, but when it's a character I really want rostered I try for top 100 to get one of their covers. On the first day of Deadpool vs. MPQ I didn't play optimally because I was very busy with personal obligations and in a couple of nodes only hit 5 clears (but most got 6 clears.) On the second day I did play optimally and all nodes got 6 or 6+ clears. Even with the dedicated timesink and tedious grinding (read: it was no fun at all), I ended somewhere in the Top 200 and was nowhere near that single Coulson cover. I can't check for the specifics because of the server issues, but to me that's ridiculous and just poor game design.

I did 6-7 clears on sub 2, but only 4 on sub 1, because of an unexpectedly long work shift and personal obligations.

Still finished 67, so I got my cover. Good enough.

mega ghost

DFiPL wrote:

mega ghost wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

Hmmm. Raft of placement threads.

Goah, did a new release PVE end last night by any chance? If so, time to set my watch.

Haha, I don't often aim for placement rewards in PvE, but when it's a character I really want rostered I try for top 100 to get one of their covers. On the first day of Deadpool vs. MPQ I didn't play optimally because I was very busy with personal obligations and in a couple of nodes only hit 5 clears (but most got 6 clears.) On the second day I did play optimally and all nodes got 6 or 6+ clears. Even with the dedicated timesink and tedious grinding (read: it was no fun at all), I ended somewhere in the Top 200 and was nowhere near that single Coulson cover. I can't check for the specifics because of the server issues, but to me that's ridiculous and just poor game design.

I did 6-7 clears on sub 2, but only 4 on sub 1, because of an unexpectedly long work shift and personal obligations.

Still finished 67, so I got my cover. Good enough.

How on earth... what SCL were you playing on? I almost always go with SCL 8 so I assume that's where I was now.

Borstock

If you're going to have placement rewards at all, it is going to have a time element. There's no way around that. And when the competition is fierce between a lot of people, the margin for error will be slim. It's like a NASCAR race. You spend many hours racing and then the difference of a few seconds is the difference between first and 15th. It is what it is. There's no way this game can support a system that can evaluate how well a player chooses their moves when so many different teams are used, with different powers, at different levels, and as long as random boards are a thing. They also can't convert to a system where it's just based on how many times you clear, because you'll get people whining that the player who played for 15 hours ruins everything.

Honestly, the only alternative I can see is one that increases the number of times you have to play a mission in order to grind it properly. As it stands right now, you basically have to be on in one specific 2-4 hour block. If you miss the front or back end of that block once, the negative impact on your placement is severe. If you had to play... say... 6 times at optimal intervals to maximize scoring, in the event that you missed 1 interval, you'd theoretically not see such a dramatic penalty because it would be likely that most of the other players would also not be available at all of their 6 timeslots. On the other hand, you'd have even more people screaming that they could never be on 6 times, and it's much easier to schedule one large chunk of time that they can strategically choose for when they are most likely to be free.

Or they can just get rid of placement rewards altogether, but I don't see why one would expect them to do that, since competition is something that encourages spending.

Realistically, no tweak will make everyone happy, and people just need to get over the fact that the time element exists. You're not entitled to finish in the Top 10 every time just because you cleared 7 times at around the right intervals. There are probably 50 other people who did the same thing you did. There has to be a way to distinguish between them.

elwhiteninja

I think the OP has a point on two things pve is too grindy and a "puzzle" mode would interesting. D3 has taken a few strides to take the grind out but as long as there is a competitive side of pve there will be grinding. Personally I love the co-op pve as well as gauntlet it's nice to have less pressure to play all the time. I have a personal life but also want that cover so I grind.

I may be a minority but I would love pve to be the no pressure side that would take longer but have guaranteed rewards and pvp to be faster/competitive/risky. Pve could contain very hard nodes still but if it had a non-competitive time limit it would give time to attack it as we see fit. I love the change to ddq as I get 5 days to try if I have a low covered 4star.

Tl:Dr I would be in support of the grind going away

stochasticism

aesthetocyst wrote:

Hmmm. Raft of placement threads.

Goah, did a new release PVE end last night by any chance? If so, time to set my watch.

For 2 weeks, right?

Omega Red

As long as the game is competitive there will be people playing it hardcore at a very high level. And no matter what system we have, the hardcore people will push the envelope as far as they can, bringing frustration to the general player base who want to obtain the same reward for less effort.

Crowl

They need to be a bit less stingy with new releases, but the only change I would really like to see would be for them reduce the importance of speed in the game as it drastically limits team selections.

veny

Placement system fulfills its role perflectly i think - it is all about competition and gridning just to become the best.
What i would add is progression rewards for sub missions - current system rewards your progression for whole campaign, which is limited (limit is reasonable, both generous and relatively simply achievable).

I think this could help many people because grinding above max progress loot is not very rewarding (because of both lack of progress loot and poor rewards from nodes) and as you said, mostly its not enough for getting good placement rewards.

Briefly said, there is huge gap between max progression loot and reasonable potential placement loot. And in this gap players may sink dozens of hours without actually getting anything (5th and 6th completion of node gives little ISO and some random boost, and yet these nodes contain the toughest foes).
Adding new progression rewards would solve it but i dont think it is a good idea, same as moving tiers up.

Aweberman

mega ghost wrote:

DFiPL wrote:

mega ghost wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

Hmmm. Raft of placement threads.

Goah, did a new release PVE end last night by any chance? If so, time to set my watch.

Haha, I don't often aim for placement rewards in PvE, but when it's a character I really want rostered I try for top 100 to get one of their covers. On the first day of Deadpool vs. MPQ I didn't play optimally because I was very busy with personal obligations and in a couple of nodes only hit 5 clears (but most got 6 clears.) On the second day I did play optimally and all nodes got 6 or 6+ clears. Even with the dedicated timesink and tedious grinding (read: it was no fun at all), I ended somewhere in the Top 200 and was nowhere near that single Coulson cover. I can't check for the specifics because of the server issues, but to me that's ridiculous and just poor game design.

I did 6-7 clears on sub 2, but only 4 on sub 1, because of an unexpectedly long work shift and personal obligations.

Still finished 67, so I got my cover. Good enough.

How on earth... what SCL were you playing on? I almost always go with SCL 8 so I assume that's where I was now.

It's less about which SCL you're playing and more about getting in early after a bracket fills. Joining later in the event is usually a good way to find less competition. Intel is needed to do this effectively on a consistent basis, and there are LINE rooms to facilitate it (and a Google Sheet with this info compiled, but I'm uncertain as to whether I should share that).

Though, of course, playing in SCL 8 is usually much harder than others. I'm level 79, but I usually play in SCL 7.

ClydeFrog76

Five people ain't got no life outside of matching gems.

Borstock

aesthetocyst wrote:

Borstock wrote:

If you're going to have placement rewards at all, it is going to have a time element. There's no way around that.

Not so, dear sir. There are several ways to determine placement. Speed and timing are only one.

The devs could, for instance, decide to stop rewarding mindless quantity of work done fastest, and reward instead quality of work.

A quality approach would need no time element, other than the start and end of the event/subevents themselves.

As an illustration .... careful, this post is awfully old and dusty now ... here's a suggestion.

How do you rate a team that competes using no boosts and three max champed 5* characters versus a team of one barely champed 4* character plus two champed 3* characters that uses boosts? How do you factor in scaling and random boards? This mobile game doesn't have the firepower to evaluate the skill involved in every possible combination of boosts, teams, boards, and levels. The pinball method solves none of these issues. It does turn the game into an entirely different game.

mega ghost

Why do my threads keep getting moved to the 'Suggestions and Feedback' forum to die, when essentially 95% of the 'General Discussion' topics could technically be placed here as well?