Point thresholds for awarding required essential chars in PVE

13»

Comments

  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2017
    MarkersMake said:
    It was a very specific point, McG. Phumade was arguing that the gating of "non-trivial" rewards behind an essential node was at issue. I was pointing out an existing example of such "gating". 

    Again, context. 
    So what exactly is the "gated" content you refer to? The fact that the essential 4 is higher in progression? That isn't gated, it's just inconvenient for those who don't have it. It's still easily attainable for many, many people.

    Is it that if you don't have it, your competitiveness is hampered for that single event? Well, that's just the unfortunate unfairness that life occasionally throws at you. If the greatest injustice someone's life faces is whether or not they can compete in a match-3 game, I think they've got a pretty fortunate existence.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    It would be faster for you to go read the actual post and the conversation in which it occurred. 

    Let me know when you have done so. 
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    MarkersMake said:
    It would be faster for you to go read the actual post and the conversation in which it occurred. 

    Let me know when you have done so. 
    Nah. I'm good. I really don't care to go digging through even more of this kind of nonsense.

    The fact that any argument is being made about anything being "paygated" when the singular example that can be pointed at to start it is ONE node with a chunk of iso that otherwise has no actual content involved, or even any actual effect on the rest of the event it is part of, is silly. If you're making a case about vaulted characters being a "gate", well, jumping into a game later doesn't make it a "gate". It means you walked into something mid-stream, and those who jumped in early got whatever extra the game provided between when they started and anyone who started later.

    Plenty of games cycle their content and "vault" older materials all the time. If some new player doesn't like jumping in to what is now essentially somewhere around "MPQ 1.8" right now, they won't play very long. And if that happens and players begin to hemorrhage left and right with no new blood coming in and continuing to play/spend, I bet the devs would make a point to figure something out to retain those people at a higher rate. We're now two full months into the current state of vaulting and there hasn't been any kind of panicked "Oh lord, we've killed our cash flow and have to roll some or all of these changes back" response from the development side of things. That would lead me to believe that they've seen minimal, if any, noteworthy harm from all of it, and whatever their long-term plan is will continue along as they've drawn it up for now.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2017
    New McG said:
    MarkersMake said:
    It would be faster for you to go read the actual post and the conversation in which it occurred. 

    Let me know when you have done so. 
    Nah. I'm good. I really don't care to go digging through even more of this kind of nonsense.

    /shrug, don't be surprised when you jump into a conversation between other people and don't understand what's going on, then.
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    MarkersMake said:
    New McG said:
    MarkersMake said:
    It would be faster for you to go read the actual post and the conversation in which it occurred. 

    Let me know when you have done so. 
    Nah. I'm good. I really don't care to go digging through even more of this kind of nonsense.

    /shrug, don't be surprised when you jump into a conversation between other people and don't understand what's going on, then.
    Given that you seem to be trying to make a point that exists in a different thread and not this one, perhaps I'm not the one who should figure out what this threads's conversation is about.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    LOL. 

    Spud took a quote that I literally made in another thread and interpreted it incorrectly. I corrected him. 

    I honestly have no idea what you are doing. You do have my opinion on vaulting pants-on-head backwards, though. 
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    MarkersMake said:
    New McG said:
    Killians8 said:
    The problem here isn't the progression design at all. It's ridiculous expectations to be able to play everything without doing the meta-progression through months of progress and earning those covers when your resources and roster warrant it. 

    I toiled for several months before being able to access the extra 3* and 4* nodes and it was a joy whenever I finally had events where I had all three essentials. Don't underestimate the loss achievement earned by this "gimme gimme" perspective. 

    For once D3 isn't the problem here, it's feelings of entitlement and lack of discipline.


    "But I've been playing three whole months, why can't I compete with people who have put literally thousands of hours of playtime into the game? This is outrageous!"
    Good wording here. 

    Why can't new players *compete*? I'm not asking you to hand them the win - just to be able to compete roster vs roster against everyone else and see who comes out on top. 

    The winners of the previous PVE presumably already have a stronger roster. They won the last event, there's probably a 90% chance they'll win this one too, because they have a strong roster. 

    So why do they also need a 2-4 day (depending on the length of the event) head start on that essential node too? Who is entitled here, exactly? 
    They already do compete. How many times have people brought up the fact that people with lesser rosters place higher then them?  Or the discussions on soft capping? 

    Due to the way brackets work, scaling, etc. it can be a crapshoot for some people. But if you follow the meta, put in the time, and maybe get some lucky token pulls, you are going to do well. This game is a marathon, not a sprint, and the argument can be made just as easily for those that put in that extra effort should get a little extra out if it. 
    From my experience placement in a PvE event (to a lesser extent PvP, but it still applies) has less to do with your roster and far more to do with time:
    - Are you able to play in the key time spots in any of the brackets (if no, then you'll never place top 10 PERIOD.  I've never placed T10 and it's because none of the PvE timeslots work with my schedule).
    - Are you able to devote 3 or more hours to the game everyday (or at least every day of said event)?

  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    New McG said:
    MarkersMake said:
    New McG said:
    MarkersMake said:
    It would be faster for you to go read the actual post and the conversation in which it occurred. 

    Let me know when you have done so. 
    Nah. I'm good. I really don't care to go digging through even more of this kind of nonsense.

    /shrug, don't be surprised when you jump into a conversation between other people and don't understand what's going on, then.
    Given that you seem to be trying to make a point that exists in a different thread and not this one, perhaps I'm not the one who should figure out what this threads's conversation is about.
    OK, you win. 

    I just checked the other thread. You were not only participating in the thread right when I made that quote, you actually responded to fightmastermpq, who was directly responding TO MY EXPLANATION OF EXACTLY WHAT THAT POST MEANT. 

    I mean, there's just no point in responding to you, is there? 
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    broll said:
    Spudgutter said:
    MarkersMake said:
    New McG said:
    Killians8 said:
    The problem here isn't the progression design at all. It's ridiculous expectations to be able to play everything without doing the meta-progression through months of progress and earning those covers when your resources and roster warrant it. 

    I toiled for several months before being able to access the extra 3* and 4* nodes and it was a joy whenever I finally had events where I had all three essentials. Don't underestimate the loss achievement earned by this "gimme gimme" perspective. 

    For once D3 isn't the problem here, it's feelings of entitlement and lack of discipline.


    "But I've been playing three whole months, why can't I compete with people who have put literally thousands of hours of playtime into the game? This is outrageous!"
    Good wording here. 

    Why can't new players *compete*? I'm not asking you to hand them the win - just to be able to compete roster vs roster against everyone else and see who comes out on top. 

    The winners of the previous PVE presumably already have a stronger roster. They won the last event, there's probably a 90% chance they'll win this one too, because they have a strong roster. 

    So why do they also need a 2-4 day (depending on the length of the event) head start on that essential node too? Who is entitled here, exactly? 
    They already do compete. How many times have people brought up the fact that people with lesser rosters place higher then them?  Or the discussions on soft capping? 

    Due to the way brackets work, scaling, etc. it can be a crapshoot for some people. But if you follow the meta, put in the time, and maybe get some lucky token pulls, you are going to do well. This game is a marathon, not a sprint, and the argument can be made just as easily for those that put in that extra effort should get a little extra out if it. 
    From my experience placement in a PvE event (to a lesser extent PvP, but it still applies) has less to do with your roster and far more to do with time:
    - Are you able to play in the key time spots in any of the brackets (if no, then you'll never place top 10 PERIOD.  I've never placed T10 and it's because none of the PvE timeslots work with my schedule).
    - Are you able to devote 3 or more hours to the game everyday (or at least every day of said event)?

    Agree completely.  
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    MarkersMake said:
    LOL. 

    Spud took a quote that I literally made in another thread and interpreted it incorrectly. I corrected him. 

    I honestly have no idea what you are doing. You do have my opinion on vaulting pants-on-head backwards, though. 
    Yeah, I'm the confused one about what thread I'm in and topic I'm debating (sarcasm)

    I'm done arguing with you, because you keep changing what you are talking about, and I'll even quote you again, just because it's fun "there's just no point in responding to you, is there?"
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    MarkersMake said:
    New McG said:
    MarkersMake said:
    New McG said:
    MarkersMake said:
    It would be faster for you to go read the actual post and the conversation in which it occurred. 

    Let me know when you have done so. 
    Nah. I'm good. I really don't care to go digging through even more of this kind of nonsense.

    /shrug, don't be surprised when you jump into a conversation between other people and don't understand what's going on, then.
    Given that you seem to be trying to make a point that exists in a different thread and not this one, perhaps I'm not the one who should figure out what this threads's conversation is about.
    OK, you win. 

    I just checked the other thread. You were not only participating in the thread right when I made that quote, you actually responded to fightmastermpq, who was directly responding TO MY EXPLANATION OF EXACTLY WHAT THAT POST MEANT. 

    I mean, there's just no point in responding to you, is there? 
    And I assume in that thread, I was talking about what that thread was talking about. This thread spun off in a new direction, and now you want to redirect and refer to previous threads about quasi-related topics. Have fun with that.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2017
    Spudgutter said:
    Where the comment came from, sure. So then Phumade made a new post, quoted it, and started this discussion, specifically titling it about the point threshold in pve. 

    Context is important, but so is staying on topic. 

    Once again, it comes down to personal opinion. I think, compared to how it was when I first started playing, the game does a much better job handing out rewards these days. I think *that* context is important to the conversation. 
    Here, Spud. I'll clarify what I meant there, and what I mean overall.  Here's the TL;DR:

    • putting nodes/rewards behind a required cover that can't be directly earned/awarded could be considered a paywall, philosphically speaking
    • the actual node/reward isn't worth getting upset about, even if you are concerned about the precedent
    • I disagreed with some of Phumade's supporting arguments in the post quoted in the OP
    • vaulted essential characters are a problem, because they put a far greater percentage of new players at a competitive disadvantage than older players experienced
    • one solution is to flip the placement/progression rewards
    • the only downside is that placement winners would lose their headstart advantage, and that's no big deal
    • if you're going to flip the rewards when vaulted characters are essentials, you should just flip them for all events
    • this solves the issue the OP brought up (when to award covers in progression)
    • an edge case for new releases exists - covers should probably be awarded day 1 in that case


    The full explanation:

    Phumade made the argument (in the other thread) that there was a problem with putting a node behind an essential required character. Specifically that people had a random 10% chance to get the character, and the only way to increase their odds was to buy tokens - hence, "paywall" (i.e. it hadn't been directly "earnable" because D3 didn't give out a 5* cover as a node reward).  

    I agreed with him.  That's a problem, at least as a matter of principle and precedent.  But it's not like they locked an entire PVE behind having that character (at least not this time).  It's one node, and a 5k ISO reward.  The actual impact on game "fairness" is incredibly small. There are bigger fish to fry than this, even if this is a precedent worth noting.

    Phumade, in an attempt to strengthen his argument, actually weakened it.  He made reference to "non-trivial rewards" and that there should be at least a "75%" chance that an average player could have earned the 5* cover, rather than just the 10% chance on the token.  

    I thought those were weak points, and I addressed both of them in the post that Phumade quoted in the OP of this thread.  First, that the total ISO rewards for the first few days clearing of the Essential node add up to about 3000 ISO on average, which is close enough to 5k ISO to ask where the line is between a "trivial" and "non-trivial" reward. Second, that someone without that essential cover would indeed be locked out of that essential node for those first few days - and that there was not a 75% chance of them being able to earn the cover in the previous PVE.  

    Is that a paywall? It matches the criteria Phumade had set out, with comparable restrictions and comparable stakes.   So that means that the Starboard node isn't a precedent; that there is indeed a long-standing precedent of this type of "paywall" in the game, and Phumade hasn't exactly been railing against it in the past.  One important difference that Phumade and Fightmaster noted was that you can directly earn the 4* cover as a placement prize, whereas you could only earn a *chance* at the Star-Lord cover through the token.

    Now you may ask do *I* think it's a paywall? No, I don't, but that's not really relevant to the point I was making in that post (which was that Phumade's additional supporting arguments were actually not strong arguments).  I stated exactly that in the posts immediately following that one.  McG responded to Fightmaster's response to that explanation, but apparently didn't read any of that (hence his confusion in this thread).

    So that brings us here.  Phumade quoted me in the OP, bringing up the issue of at what point should progression 4* covers be awarded in a PVE event (because unless you placed high enough to win them in the previous event, the prizes from the essential node are locked away from a player UNTIL the point at which they earn the cover through progression). 

    Phumade was questioning what point would be early enough in the PVE that the average player would still be able to place in the top 50.  How many clears of that essential node can an average player be locked out of and still be competitive for that t50 spot?

    I brought up my quote from *another* thread, in which the topic was whether it was fair to new players for PVE events to have vaulted characters as essentials.  THAT poster argued that they shouldn't use vaulted characters as essentials because there is only 1 (realistic) way for new players to earn that cover (t10 (top 1%!!!) placement in the previous PVE), which makes it almost a guarantee that new players will be non-competitive in that event.  

    So what, right? They're new, pay their dues, earn their way, build their roster, etc.  Except that's not how it was for everyone else - they could have earned those covers through "lucky token pulls".  So 99% of new characters will be disadvantaged whenever a vaulted character is an essential, whereas maybe only 70% of newer players in the past were thusly disadvantaged, because they had other ways to get that character.

    I thought it was a problem too, but rather than excluding vaulted characters from being used as essentials, my solution was to simply flip the prizes for placement and progression.  It was a solution proposed specifically for vaulted characters.  But if you are going to flip the prizes whenever a vaulted character is an essential, you should probably just make it a universal policy for all PVEs.  

    So what's the downside to doing that? The ONLY downside is that the extra advantage that players got from winning the cover as a placement prize (the multi-day head start in the next PVE on those essential nodes) would be gone. 

    So why did I bring up the quote from that other thread? Because if you flip the prizes, you can avoid the issue of what point level you should award the 4* cover almost entirely. Everyone will be on exactly the same footing. As OJSP asked though - what about new releases? And I responded "day 1, but only after all other nodes are cleared 4x", because it seemed stupid to award it any later.  If you did, you would have an essential node that literally nobody could complete, because nobody at all could earn it in any way until day 2/3/etc.  And since it's a release event, and the entire point is to get that cover in as many hands as possible, awarding it early shouldn't *really* be that big a deal.

    So that's what I said, when I said it, what I was talking about at the time, and exactly what I meant by it. I think that's a fairly clear explanation (and god help us all if anyone wants further detail), so I'm calling it a day. 


    Phumade's other post is waaaaaay past its expiration date, so I'm not going back there, and this one is getting pretty ripe as well. So in light of that, I'm not going to be responding to this thread anymore, although I'd be happy to discuss any or all of these topics in other threads.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    They are just here to troll.  They don't want to actually address the numbers, nor stay current on the topic at hand.  I've already acknowledge their concern, and all they want to talk about is how the thread is timing wasting, but they don't actually bring anything new to the discussion.  You've said your peace just ignore them

Categories