PVE tapping

1356

Comments

  • JRYUART
    JRYUART Posts: 95 Match Maker
    If the points are used as a tiebreaker, why not just keep halving the point values per match won past 7 clears and having that add to the overall score -  1pt -> .5 -> .25 > .125 ... Etc .  for each additional clear (but keep the points refresh rate the same ?  This would create a risk vs reward type scenario where tapping would still exist for the sake of the pretty rare case of tie breaking but the player has to decide when the most optimal time to start tapping would be before its not worth the additional pts/trouble .  Points reflected on the leaderboard would only show if they have made it to the next round number but behind the scenes, I can't imagine it would be hard for them to know empirically who the winner actually is once everything is tallied up.  It certainly would be discouraging to be tapping and not know how much further along you are than the others in your bracket but anything to win right?
  • JRYUART
    JRYUART Posts: 95 Match Maker

    Daiches said:
    JRYUART said:
    If the points are used as a tiebreaker, why not just keep halving the point values per match won past 7 clears and having that add to the overall score -  1pt -> .5 -> .25 > .125 ... Etc .  for each additional clear (but keep the points refresh rate the same ?  This would create a risk vs reward type scenario where tapping would still exist for the sake of the pretty rare case of tie breaking but the player has to decide when the most optimal time to start tapping would be before its not worth the additional pts/trouble .  Points reflected on the leaderboard would only show if they have made it to the next round number but behind the scenes, I can't imagine it would be hard for them to know empirically who the winner actually is once everything is tallied up.  It certainly would be discouraging to be tapping and not know how much further along you are than the others in your bracket but anything to win right?
    There is no need for such a tiebreaker as there already exists a tiebreaker.
    First to a score gets first in case of a tie. 
    I agree, that's how it should be.  However, haven't the the devs used the tiebreaking excuse to justify the existence of repeatable nodes in general?

     I would love nothing more than to make it all about who is fastest and use asynchronous, individual clearance speed as the determining factor of who wins placement and progression rewards tied into overall node completion. 
  • Daiches
    Daiches Posts: 1,252 Chairperson of the Boards
    JRYUART said:

    Daiches said:
    JRYUART said:
    If the points are used as a tiebreaker, why not just keep halving the point values per match won past 7 clears and having that add to the overall score -  1pt -> .5 -> .25 > .125 ... Etc .  for each additional clear (but keep the points refresh rate the same ?  This would create a risk vs reward type scenario where tapping would still exist for the sake of the pretty rare case of tie breaking but the player has to decide when the most optimal time to start tapping would be before its not worth the additional pts/trouble .  Points reflected on the leaderboard would only show if they have made it to the next round number but behind the scenes, I can't imagine it would be hard for them to know empirically who the winner actually is once everything is tallied up.  It certainly would be discouraging to be tapping and not know how much further along you are than the others in your bracket but anything to win right?
    There is no need for such a tiebreaker as there already exists a tiebreaker.
    First to a score gets first in case of a tie. 
    I agree, that's how it should be.  However, haven't the the devs used the tiebreaking excuse to justify the existence of repeatable nodes in general?

     I would love nothing more than to make it all about who is fastest and use asynchronous, individual clearance speed as the determining factor of who wins placement and progression rewards tied into overall node completion. 
    And every single time we explain to them how their own game works in reality. 
    Our feedback is noted and promptly ignored.
  • GreenyBoy
    GreenyBoy Posts: 21 Just Dropped In
    SnowcaTT said:
    Let's go a step further. All rewards as progression. Get rid of placement.

    Problem solved.
    100% agree. I'm so tired of playing with r&g/Gamora/Thanos in CL7 to have a chance at placement (only if 5* guys don't play it ofc...)

    Adjust rewards and have a PvE with progression rewards only would be awesome, freedom to play with what characters you want plus at the time you want.
  • JRYUART
    JRYUART Posts: 95 Match Maker
    Daiches said:
    JRYUART said:

    Daiches said:
    JRYUART said:
    If the points are used as a tiebreaker, why not just keep halving the point values per match won past 7 clears and having that add to the overall score -  1pt -> .5 -> .25 > .125 ... Etc .  for each additional clear (but keep the points refresh rate the same ?  This would create a risk vs reward type scenario where tapping would still exist for the sake of the pretty rare case of tie breaking but the player has to decide when the most optimal time to start tapping would be before its not worth the additional pts/trouble .  Points reflected on the leaderboard would only show if they have made it to the next round number but behind the scenes, I can't imagine it would be hard for them to know empirically who the winner actually is once everything is tallied up.  It certainly would be discouraging to be tapping and not know how much further along you are than the others in your bracket but anything to win right?
    There is no need for such a tiebreaker as there already exists a tiebreaker.
    First to a score gets first in case of a tie. 
    I agree, that's how it should be.  However, haven't the the devs used the tiebreaking excuse to justify the existence of repeatable nodes in general?

     I would love nothing more than to make it all about who is fastest and use asynchronous, individual clearance speed as the determining factor of who wins placement and progression rewards tied into overall node completion. 
    And every single time we explain to them how their own game works in reality. 
    Our feedback is noted and promptly ignored.
    Honestly, I really don't think the player base would be upset at all if they slowed down the pace of new releases for a bit so that they can fix a lot of longstanding issues such as the tapping , cheating , game balance , etc.  They set their release  release schedule to be extremely aggressive when it really doesn't have to be, especially with so many outstanding things that need to be addressed.  We need more things like the recent QoL UX update for mobile users, which was a welcome addition, not new toons every couple of weeks that we will eventually put in the situational-use only pile.  
  • Sm0keyJ0e
    Sm0keyJ0e Posts: 730 Critical Contributor
    aesthetocyst said:

    Before it was rudely interrupted, I ran a poll about feelings about tapping recently. And 40% of players copped to tapping at least some. But it was all 'incidental' tapping ... tapping to add a few points, to redeem time remaining, to serve as a distraction while time ran down.

    I would venture to guess that 98% of that 40% are tapping due to others tapping. Remove the mechanic and that 98% don't care that tapping is gone.
  • CharlieCroker
    CharlieCroker Posts: 254 Mover and Shaker
    Sm0keyJ0e said:
    aesthetocyst said:

    Before it was rudely interrupted, I ran a poll about feelings about tapping recently. And 40% of players copped to tapping at least some. But it was all 'incidental' tapping ... tapping to add a few points, to redeem time remaining, to serve as a distraction while time ran down.

    I would venture to guess that 98% of that 40% are tapping due to others tapping. Remove the mechanic and that 98% don't care that tapping is gone.
    This.  I'll tap if I finish clears early, but only because I know others will be doing it and it'll hurt me if I don't too.  It's tough to time the end grind perfectly.
  • veny
    veny Posts: 834 Critical Contributor
    I dont get is...
    Basically, you want to punish the few % of people who have enough time to play?
    Do you realize that the rewards are pathetic compared to the amount of time invested?

    PvE seems like the least broken system in game (except for DDQ) - i would rather pay attention to super annoying PvP, SHIELD simulator and the fact that collecting dozens of covers is still pointless (colectors are not being rewarded for owning collection of 160+ covers, that are just rotting without being actually used in fights, WHICH is partially solved by SHIELD simulator, that totally kills all its benefits with level requirements and the low frequency)
  • veny
    veny Posts: 834 Critical Contributor
    aesthetocyst said:
    veny said:
    I dont get is...
    Basically, you want to punish the few % of people who have enough time to play?
    Do you realize that the rewards are pathetic compared to the amount of time invested?

    PvE seems like the least broken system in game (except for DDQ) - i would rather pay attention to super annoying PvP, SHIELD simulator and the fact that collecting dozens of covers is still pointless (colectors are not being rewarded for owning collection of 160+ covers, that are just rotting without being actually used in fights, WHICH is partially solved by SHIELD simulator, that totally kills all its benefits with level requirements and the low frequency)
    "Least" broken? ha! I agree that you don't get it.

    Anyone can roll into a PvE, and, assuming their roster is a sufficient match for their chosen SCL, they can turn the competition for an entire event in their bracket into a joke.

    And no one can stop them other than joining in and trying to out-ridiculous them.

    There's literally no in-game risk to it. It's a guaranteed win. That's an exploit.

    The equivalent in PvP would be hacking to have a roster far higher level than anyone else to as to be effectively untouchable, or somehow hacking the game to be able to play while still shielded, or somesuch. Those hacks would result in sandboxing.

    Even given oneself unlimited HP for shields and hacking the cooldowns would not be sufficient, so long as you could be attacked.

    Even the bracket size is less broken in PvP. Twice as many brackets, half the chance of being bracketed with a tapper.

    As for "enough" time to play, that translates to being willing / able to devote unlimited time to the game, which the devs have at least paid lip service to not wanting to encourage.
    What exploit? They dont need heals? They dont spend time in it?
    I am playing PvE SCL 9, figting 70k HP heroes in 5* node. I am doing all nodes 4 times every sub. It takes me approx. 90 minutes every day, and now i am 90th. Everyone who spend more time, waste more heals, naturally deserves better reward.
    What else is the competition you are talking about?

    Btw. that locking nodes after 10 attempts is ridiculous - i think we already had this system and as far as i remember, the result was DOZENS of players complaining they have the same amount of points, taking f.e. 1st - 30th place BUT with different rewards.
    30 people in Top 30 - all with same points, one getting rewards for being 1st, some for being 2nd - 5th, others for 5th - 25th and rest for 25th - 50.
    SAME AMOUNT OF POINTS.

    If i understand this correctly (i am really not very sure, since this is pure boring grind - not sure who would want the reward at such a cost of time spent... unless they are using some kind of bot/autoclicker - THAT would be an expoit), you want to change system that is "exploited" by few individuals who spend dozens of hours to get reward, that is meant to be for the best players (which means for the most active or the best grinders). THAT is what competition is about.

    I cant imagine any fair alternative that could eliminate the problem you see, without removing the competition or the placement rewards completely (which would be bad for all of us).
  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 587 Critical Contributor
    veny 
    I cant imagine any fair alternative that could eliminate the problem you see, without removing the competition or the placement rewards completely (which would be bad for all of us).
    Seriously dude, why bother participating in a conversation if you don’t understand it/pay attention.

    If points are equal, whoever finishes the grind first wins. Is that difficult to understand?
  • veny
    veny Posts: 834 Critical Contributor
    Rod5 said:
    veny 
    I cant imagine any fair alternative that could eliminate the problem you see, without removing the competition or the placement rewards completely (which would be bad for all of us).
    Seriously dude, why bother participating in a conversation if you don’t understand it/pay attention.

    If points are equal, whoever finishes the grind first wins. Is that difficult to understand?
    Yes, it is difficult to understand how this system could be better in large scale...

    We are complaining about tappers who are influencing, i dunno, top 10 positions with their extreme grind.
    On the other side we would like to have system that would influence ALL players, and instead of heavy grind, we want to prefer quick grind, that means:
    - Starting as soon as possible (discriminating steam players over android/iOS players since mobile is much more... mobile platform and precise timing is much easier with it - may be irelevant, but it is something for you to think about)
    - Using strong combos like Thanos, Gambit etc.
    - Using maxed characters with high rarity.

    So, instead of grind to win, you want pure pay to win... and instead of competition you miss so much, the only criterion will be how quickly you finish the game (oh god, imagine game issues like connectivity - not always happens to everyone, especially with different time brackets).

    Do i understand it correctly? I dunno, i feel more and more confused, since from my understanding, you actually want to break a system that is almost perfect.
  • CharlieCroker
    CharlieCroker Posts: 254 Mover and Shaker
    Keep the current system, but have all nodes decrease to 0 after 7th clear.  That way if you finish early you can go back and clear nodes for 1-2pts each but it eliminates tapping.

    Tiebreaker (if necessary and it will be rare) is whoever reaches a score first, same as in PvP.  It really isn't rocket science.
  • veny
    veny Posts: 834 Critical Contributor
    aesthetocyst said:

    veny said: ...  locking nodes after 10 attempts .... i think we already had this system and as far as i remember, the result was DOZENS of players complaining they have the same amount of points, taking f.e. 1st - 30th place BUT with different rewards.

    No we haven't. Not in my time played. Within those confines, you're hallucinating/rambling.

    There are several events where at different points players have the same score because it isn't over yet. There are a few where they end with identical scores. There has been 1—Gauntlet—in which players that finished all had the same score, and there were placement rewards, but it was understood that time was the tiebreaker. The complaints were centered on having placements in a Gauntlet at all, not about time being a tiebreaker.


    We had a system where nodes could be done 6 times and that was all - they were locked after that so no more points (this was later removed because there were players with same points but different placements which caused an uproar).. 
    And as far as i remember, gauntlet never had placement rewards.

    But yeah, maybe my memory is flawed... it happened years ago.
  • chaos01
    chaos01 Posts: 316 Mover and Shaker
    veny said:
    aesthetocyst said:

    veny said: ...  locking nodes after 10 attempts .... i think we already had this system and as far as i remember, the result was DOZENS of players complaining they have the same amount of points, taking f.e. 1st - 30th place BUT with different rewards.

    No we haven't. Not in my time played. Within those confines, you're hallucinating/rambling.

    There are several events where at different points players have the same score because it isn't over yet. There are a few where they end with identical scores. There has been 1—Gauntlet—in which players that finished all had the same score, and there were placement rewards, but it was understood that time was the tiebreaker. The complaints were centered on having placements in a Gauntlet at all, not about time being a tiebreaker.


    We had a system where nodes could be done 6 times and that was all - they were locked after that so no more points (this was later removed because there were players with same points but different placements which caused an uproar).. 
    And as far as i remember, gauntlet never had placement rewards.

    But yeah, maybe my memory is flawed... it happened years ago.

    There was a single time when the Gaunlet had placement rewards. There was a large amount of whining and it was never run that way again. 
  • veny
    veny Posts: 834 Critical Contributor
    Well, that may be the event i was talking about... not sure what even exactly it was.
    Still i am pretty sure there were some testing that didnt allow doing nodes after full clearing.
  • scottee
    scottee Posts: 1,610 Chairperson of the Boards
    Just flatten the top rewards. Take the current prizes for 1st-5th place, average them out, and give the same prizes for all top 5 spots. The only thing to fight for is between 5th and 6th place, where tapping would be much less prevalent. Done and done.
  • Kolence
    Kolence Posts: 969 Critical Contributor
    edited November 2017
    veny said:
    aesthetocyst said:

    veny said: ...  locking nodes after 10 attempts .... i think we already had this system and as far as i remember, the result was DOZENS of players complaining they have the same amount of points, taking f.e. 1st - 30th place BUT with different rewards.

    No we haven't. Not in my time played. Within those confines, you're hallucinating/rambling.

    There are several events where at different points players have the same score because it isn't over yet. There are a few where they end with identical scores. There has been 1—Gauntlet—in which players that finished all had the same score, and there were placement rewards, but it was understood that time was the tiebreaker. The complaints were centered on having placements in a Gauntlet at all, not about time being a tiebreaker.


    We had a system where nodes could be done 6 times and that was all - they were locked after that so no more points (this was later removed because there were players with same points but different placements which caused an uproar).. 
    And as far as i remember, gauntlet never had placement rewards.

    But yeah, maybe my memory is flawed... it happened years ago.
    I seem to remember one of the test pve's ending with many players finishing with the exact same maximum points score. But that time the nodes didn't recharge points over time, no? 

    Just adding points recharging is pretty much all the tie breaking that's needed. And making them recharge faster than people are able to tap fixes the rest.

Categories