PvE on a Schedule - What’s the fix?

The rockett

So I just talked to a good friend that tracks all of the flips for all the slices in SL 9.  Now he might have this for all SL from SL 7 to SL 9.  I know others have said this, but there are not enough players to add more brackets.  This is how many brackets in just SL 9 for HOD.

Slice 1:  5 brackets

Slice 2:  2 brackets

Slice 3:  3 brackets

Slice 4:  3 brackets

Slice 5:  5 brackets

As you can see, this would spread more people out and therefore you might not even get a flip in some of these slices.  This would not be a good thing.  Now you could say more people would move up to 9, but I don't think that would be the case. 

Smart80

The rockett said:

So I just talked to a good friend that tracks all of the flips for all the slices in SL 9.  Now he might have this for all SL from SL 7 to SL 9.  I know others have said this, but there are not enough players to add more brackets.  This is how many brackets in just SL 9 for HOD.

Slice 1:  5 brackets

Slice 2:  2 brackets

Slice 3:  3 brackets

Slice 4:  3 brackets

Slice 5:  5 brackets

As you can see, this would spread more people out and therefore you might not even get a flip in some of these slices.  This would not be a good thing.  Now you could say more people would move up to 9, but I don't think that would be the case. 

Could you compare these numbers to same data from a couple pve before HoD, to possibly compensate for people fleeing cl9 because of (1) unappealing 5ess, (2) no tapping to safe them or (3) forseeing problems with inhuman royal family...

Daredevil217

Bowgentle said:

God, no.

Instead of annoying some people like it is now, you'd annoy ALL THE PEOPLE?

Not a good idea.

I need to be able to plan my PVE times, settle for ONE time.
The last thing I want is to have a varying schedule for PVE.

Absolutely agree. Unless it was a once a year shift around DLS time I say no to this idea. I like knowing when PVE ends so I can work it into my schedule accordingly. Plus can you imagine all the threads/posts bugging Brigby for updates on start

Nick441234 said:

This was meant under a progression based system so placement was irrelevant. 

I believe I quoted the wrong person (fixed).  My response was about the internal clock being used to time clears and that timing being how we determine placement.  That's the idea I hate.

I also hate all rewards being tied to progression, but I've already laid out my reasons for that, and others have as well several times.

The rockett

Smart80 said:

The rockett said:

So I just talked to a good friend that tracks all of the flips for all the slices in SL 9.  Now he might have this for all SL from SL 7 to SL 9.  I know others have said this, but there are not enough players to add more brackets.  This is how many brackets in just SL 9 for HOD.

Slice 1:  5 brackets

Slice 2:  2 brackets

Slice 3:  3 brackets

Slice 4:  3 brackets

Slice 5:  5 brackets

As you can see, this would spread more people out and therefore you might not even get a flip in some of these slices.  This would not be a good thing.  Now you could say more people would move up to 9, but I don't think that would be the case. 

Could you compare these numbers to same data from a couple pve before HoD, to possibly compensate for people fleeing cl9 because of (1) unappealing 5ess, (2) no tapping to safe them or (3) forseeing problems with inhuman royal family...

I will see if i can get get the data of Web.  Then the question will be about GR as the 5E. 

I should also say that the last bracket in all slices would have between 1 to 999 people.  

Quebbster

ZeroKarma said:

Quebbster said:

Nick441234 said:

OJSP said:

Considering we have been trialling the points system a lot, I actually think there's no harm in trialling more time slices. All the arguments about whether having more time slices is good or bad for the game is all conjectures.

I think they should just pick one 3 day event, one 4 day event and one 7 day event spread in a couple of months and trial 6 slices spread 4 hours apart. Why multiple events including a 7 day event? It would give people an idea on how to plan their week ahead. If the developers think they are giving out inappropriate amount of rewards, then consider the trial a fail and scrap the idea. At least we could say that we've tried it.

However, I think we should address one issue at a time. If the issue with tapping is not resolved, then opening more slices would likely lead to more tappers spreading to different brackets. And, it's not actually a fix for playing on a schedule.

The 5pm time slice flips two times maximum in most events. That clearly shows that its largely inconvenient for most people who play this game. Simply push it back a few hours and make it more convenient for more players. No harm in a 9pm & 11pm slice. Most people would appreciate that. 

It's impossible to know which time slice you are talking about since we don't know what time slice you are in. I know the second slice ends in 5PM GMT, so it could be that one. The third slice ends at 5PM EST, so that's also a possibility. The last slice ends at 5 PM too in some islands in the Pacific ocean.

I am not saying you are wrong or anything, it's just that if you identify a single end time as problematic without giving us a bigger Picture it is hard to suggest any Changes. Any Changes will make things better for some and worse for some. Even people within the same time zone have very different availability and may prefer different slices.

So....it’s 5 o’clock somewhere?

It's usually 5 o'clock somewhere, yes. Excellent summary.

animaniactoo

The rockett said:

So I just talked to a good friend that tracks all of the flips for all the slices in SL 9.  Now he might have this for all SL from SL 7 to SL 9.  I know others have said this, but there are not enough players to add more brackets.  This is how many brackets in just SL 9 for HOD.

Slice 1:  5 brackets

Slice 2:  2 brackets

Slice 3:  3 brackets

Slice 4:  3 brackets

Slice 5:  5 brackets

As you can see, this would spread more people out and therefore you might not even get a flip in some of these slices.  This would not be a good thing.  Now you could say more people would move up to 9, but I don't think that would be the case. 

Actually, your data here proves the opposite of your conclusion to me.

There are currently 18 brackets worth of people distributed across a spread that many people are choosing a non-optimal time for. There is room for an entire extra time slice if some people move from the two most populated slices while leaving plenty for those slices. While adding only a single 1-999 bracket.

Now it is true that you can't predict what the distribution is going to be - nothing says it would even be probable to work out to 3/2/3/4/3/3. BUT, it is probable that it would not be worse than 4/1/3/2/6/2. In which case, at least testing it is worthwhile to find out.

The data we would actually need to make a determination on this is the bracket population in each SCL AND how long a player currently lasts in that SCL. If there's an SCL that's underpopulated, it might make that particular SCL more rewarding than intended, but it could be a worthwhile tradeoff for resolving something that's proved to be an issue for many people over the course of the game (and therefore in most of the other SCLs)

The Viceroy Returns

Daiches said:

You are misremembering what Mag2 did. His change was from placing 5 blue tiles to 3 on his purple ability.
Unless you are talking about a version before I started 1240 days ago? The first nerf Mag2 got was the move to equip only 2 AP boosts instead of 3, so that he needed an extra match 3.
As for Winfinite, I remember fighting the example I gave of 392 Maggia during the PX release event

Was talking about the original 3 Star Magneto, not 2.

3 Star had a totally different power set:
- Blue = Place 2 Blue tiles anywhere for only 5 AP
- Red = Similar to current Red, but significantly weaker damage and tile destruction but it was only 2 AP!!!
- Purple (yes, Purple, even though his Match Damage was Yellow) = Similar to current Blue, but did more damage

It's probably in his Character post if you track back far enough (maybe didn't transition over into this forum, not sure how far back this goes).  Sometimes original versions of characters are left on their pages somewhere for history.

This led to the famous "Patchneto" teams.  Strike tile generation back then was not nearly as prevalent, and Patch's were among the best.  So you'd cast Patch's Green, then go crazy with Magenot's Blue, making Match 5's all over the place.  Giving them Strike tiles with Patch's Green didn't matter, as you could just replace them with basic Blue tiles with Magento, or just get several free turns on a row with Blue Match 5''s and take them out before they even got a chance to use them.

Good times...

The rockett

animaniactoo said:

The rockett said:

So I just talked to a good friend that tracks all of the flips for all the slices in SL 9.  Now he might have this for all SL from SL 7 to SL 9.  I know others have said this, but there are not enough players to add more brackets.  This is how many brackets in just SL 9 for HOD.

Slice 1:  5 brackets

Slice 2:  2 brackets

Slice 3:  3 brackets

Slice 4:  3 brackets

Slice 5:  5 brackets

As you can see, this would spread more people out and therefore you might not even get a flip in some of these slices.  This would not be a good thing.  Now you could say more people would move up to 9, but I don't think that would be the case. 

Actually, your data here proves the opposite of your conclusion to me.

There are currently 18 brackets worth of people distributed across a spread that many people are choosing a non-optimal time for. There is room for an entire extra time slice if some people move from the two most populated slices while leaving plenty for those slices. While adding only a single 1-999 bracket.

Now it is true that you can't predict what the distribution is going to be - nothing says it would even be probable to work out to 3/2/3/4/3/3. BUT, it is probable that it would not be worse than 4/1/3/2/6/2. In which case, at least testing it is worthwhile to find out.

The data we would actually need to make a determination on this is the bracket population in each SCL AND how long a player currently lasts in that SCL. If there's an SCL that's underpopulated, it might make that particular SCL more rewarding than intended, but it could be a worthwhile tradeoff for resolving something that's proved to be an issue for many people over the course of the game (and therefore in most of the other SCLs)

Nobody expect D3/Demi have this info and I would not except it given out. 

Kojubat

Smart80 said:

ZeroKarma said:

Smart80 said:

ZeroKarma said:

I had a discussion with alliance mates and the general feeling is that PvE now is better than it ever has been.

- Play time has dramatically decreased
- playing in a chunk once a day on a timer compared to 3 or even 8(!) times a day on a timer
- no rubberbanding
- no roster-based death scaling
- better rewards 

That isn’t to say it couldn’t be better. But the evolution has been step-by-step and has been very positive. I am ok with continuing that trend.

Agree.

possible next step: shift slice times from event to event, like they do with mid week end pvp, compared to the other 2.

it wont be good for everyone each event, but all will get ideal times once every events. And will take some getting used to it, instead blindly picking slice, but in the end could be fair for all i think.

I’d be fine with an additional slice or two if that makes sense. Not sure about a complete shift back and forth because it would confuse the heck out of a bunch of people and you risk alienating a large base that is ok with the timing and depending on the slices, benefitting a small group of people.

Bowgentle said:

God, no.

Instead of annoying some people like it is now, you'd annoy ALL THE PEOPLE?

Not a good idea.

I need to be able to plan my PVE times, settle for ONE time.
The last thing I want is to have a varying schedule for PVE.

Just to be sure, i didnt mean varying times within an event, just from event to event. Between the time preview pops up and start of the event, you would have plenty time to pick a time. It doesnt have to be all that confusing. In pvp it isnt, is it?
Having said that, I do prefer stready planning as well.

So I’m playing little devil’s advocate, being quite content with current setup actually... mainly just spitballing an option, but first impressions arent very good.. lol

Additional slices will cause waiting longer for flips and less of them, so reward wise it wont matter much probably..

I would find the most difficult piece of varying start times is the event following a character release. There already is an issue (not having a required character) going from a later slice to an early slice in this situation, but a person makes that decision/mistake in a consistent environment currently.

animaniactoo

The rockett said:

animaniactoo said:

The rockett said:

So I just talked to a good friend that tracks all of the flips for all the slices in SL 9.  Now he might have this for all SL from SL 7 to SL 9.  I know others have said this, but there are not enough players to add more brackets.  This is how many brackets in just SL 9 for HOD.

Slice 1:  5 brackets

Slice 2:  2 brackets

Slice 3:  3 brackets

Slice 4:  3 brackets

Slice 5:  5 brackets

As you can see, this would spread more people out and therefore you might not even get a flip in some of these slices.  This would not be a good thing.  Now you could say more people would move up to 9, but I don't think that would be the case. 

Actually, your data here proves the opposite of your conclusion to me.

There are currently 18 brackets worth of people distributed across a spread that many people are choosing a non-optimal time for. There is room for an entire extra time slice if some people move from the two most populated slices while leaving plenty for those slices. While adding only a single 1-999 bracket.

Now it is true that you can't predict what the distribution is going to be - nothing says it would even be probable to work out to 3/2/3/4/3/3. BUT, it is probable that it would not be worse than 4/1/3/2/6/2. In which case, at least testing it is worthwhile to find out.

The data we would actually need to make a determination on this is the bracket population in each SCL AND how long a player currently lasts in that SCL. If there's an SCL that's underpopulated, it might make that particular SCL more rewarding than intended, but it could be a worthwhile tradeoff for resolving something that's proved to be an issue for many people over the course of the game (and therefore in most of the other SCLs)

Nobody expect D3/Demi have this info and I would not except it given out. 

I agree - but that's why I'm saying that based on the info we *do* have, it's certainly worth testing. The argument against it would solely be info that we don't have our hands on and are unlikely to get.

In the meantime, based on the info we do have (and I believe it's also tracked for SCL 7 and SCL 8 - can you get that info? It would at least get us more of a picture), I continue to advocate for making an adjustment to the current system to address something that has been brought up repeatedly as an issue for a significant minority of the players.

fight4thedream

First, I want to thank @ZeroKarma for taking the initiative to start this discussion as I think it is an important one. Now on to the problem at hand: the current PvE format. While I have quite a few ideas on how to improve the overall PvE experience for the player base, in keeping with the OP's third concern I will try to limit myself to the tools already available in-game (although ideally I would love to start from square one).

The Problem with PvE

Before I begin, it is essential that we understand the flaws with the current system. Mainly:

*time slices limit the amount of participants who are able to play optimally and therefore competitively. 

*the emphasis of speed above all else severely devalues a majority of characters and skill sets and goes against the dev team's stated goal of roster diversity. 

*bracket sniping. Gives players "in the know" an unfair advantage to gain better rewards than those players who have put in more time and effort,  and perhaps performed better in an event.

*emphasis on competition alienates the casual player and does little to encourage them to spend money on the game.

While the current PvE test is certainly a step in the right direction, I think we can all agree that the design fundamentals of the PvE are still rather flawed. For those of you, which includes myself, that can usually play optimally I ask that you consider how enjoyable an experience PvE would be if you could not find a time that worked with your schedule and how it would affect your overall enjoyment of the game.

I think asking "Why limit user engagement to six time slices?" and consider its potential financial disadvantages is a legitimate question and criticism of the current system. 

I can't speak for everyone but if I were aware that I couldn't compete for top rewards simply because the start/end times didn't match my lifestyle, I know I would be much less inclined to spend a lot of money. 

Fight's Proposed Solution

The most obvious solution, at least to me, is to make PvE non-competitive. In the Story Event Trial Run thread, I made suggestion on how to achieve these.  In short, I would like to see them adopt a skill-based personal progression point system. Under such a system, you are not competing with anyone but yourself. Instead of speed, your point totals are determined by a base factor and then increased by various multipliers.  Here's the full spiel for those that are unfamiliar and curious:

Ironically, as someone who does play PvE competitively, I have always wished they would make it non-competitive. Not because I don't enjoy a good race because I do but in terms of game play experience and balance, PvE should be the one arena where people are encouraged to move out of their comfort zone and use more of their roster. It's why some people have been asking for the return of heroics.

I personally would like to see them adopt a skill-based personal progression point system. Under such a system, you are not competing with anyone but yourself. Instead of speed, your point totals are determined by a base factor and then increased by various multipliers.
So for example, the base point factor would be overall team health points + value of the node on completion of a node. And then, let's say there are five types of multipliers: 

1. Use of event boosted character: 2 x base points

2. Completed node in:
1 turn: x 3
3 turns: x 2
6 turns: x 1.5

3. Friendly tiles on board at match end
6 or more tiles: x 3
5 friendly tiles:  x 2.5
4 friendly tiles:  x 2
3 friendly tiles:  x 1.5

4. Single target damage threshold in one attack:
Damage over 40,000: x 3
Damage over 35,000: x 2
Damage over 25,000: x 1.5

5. Star level of each non-downed member of  team:
1* character:  x 4
2* character:  x 3
3* character: x 2
4* character: x 1.5 

So for example to illustrate:

Player One
Team: 5* Captain America, 3* Sam Wilson (boosted for event), 1* Hawkeye
Complete node with all members active, 7 friendly tiles on board, highest single attack 16,120
Number of turns to complete match: 17
Total health at end of match: 49,650
Value of node: 850
Base total value: 50,500
Boosted character x 2
6 or more friendly tiles: x 3
1* character: x 4
3* character: x 2
Total points: 2,424,000

Player Two
Team: 5* Thanos, 4* Carol Danvers (boosted for event), 5* Black Bolt
Complete node with all members active, one friendly tile on board, highest single attack 25,422
Number of turns to complete match: 6
Total health at end of match: 160,758
Value of node: 850
Base total value: 161,608
Boosted character x 2
completed node in 5 turns: x 1.5
Damage: x 1.5
4* character: x 1.5
Total points: 1,090,854


At CL9 Personal sub progression final progression goal for
sub 1 would be: 25,000,000 points
sub 2 would be: 30,000,000 points
sub 3 would be: 40,000,000 points
Event final progression goal at CL 9  would be: 95,000,000 points

So once you hit the sub 1 final progression goal you can stop, knowing you are on pace to reach the event progression.Or if you think you will be busy over the next day or two you can keep at it to pad your score. In that instance, you won't get anymore sub or node rewards but you can still work on event progression rewards.

This, of course, is just an example. The devs could tweak it using bonus points instead of making everything a multiplier and what not. For example, Player One could get a bonus 5,000 points added to their point base level for using an "All team Cap" team.
Obviously, the devs would also want to adjust point values on node sets, being sure to make the hardest nodes both challenging enough and rewarding that people would prefer to test their skill there rather than "tap" easier nodes for easy points. Also utilizing the current CL system, the lower levels would offer lower kinds of rewards but would be much more forgiving while the higher levels would offer better rewards but require higher level of skill and a deeper roster to achieve final progression.

Additionally, such a move would in fact significantly lessen the use of 5* Thanos as his Court of Death would prevent players from benefiting from the non-downed star level character multiplier. 

The goal is to tune each CL level where the "ideal" roster for that level would be able to achieve final progression at 5 clears to allow room for experimentation and player error. 

I think such a system would be a lot more fruitful than simply making PvE a race because it encourages players to consider their roster options more carefully. I imagine the forum would see an increase in discussion about the best teams to deal with each event as boosted characters will figure much more prominently in scoring and we would have to re-evaluate the worth of characters as now you are going to have a meta-focused on preserving health points and friendly tile production. 

Of course the devs could find another measure for determining base level points but I think you get what I mean. Anywhoo, that's my 2 cents on the subject. 

But to be brief, basically instead of speed, the devs find a base point level, I chose overall team health + node point value, and then apply bonus points (+) and multipliers (x) to the base score to achieve a final score point total. I think shifting to this skill-based multiplier system will add value to certain skills that tend to get undervalued such as shields and burst health and can be utilized in a way that encourages players to think about winning in different ways besides simply downing the enemy quickly. 


Now there are those that have voiced opposition to the notion of non-competitive PvE based mainly on three arguments:


1. That such a move would necessitate a reduction in rewards

2. That everyone wins the same rewards 

3. There is no financial incentive to make PvE non-competitive

I disagree and believe there is a way to make the shift while keeping rewards distribution relatively similar to the current distribution system. Currently there are four reward channels tied to PvE (not including the shield agent rewards triggered when you spend money on the game):

1. Node rewards
2. Personal Progression rewards
3. Rank rewards
4. Alliance rewards

Under a skill-based multiplier system, we can basically keep the first two reward channels as they are but we will have to replace the second two with something comparable. Under my current train of thought, I think this can be achieved by either extending personal progression rewards or introducing skill points progression path and by introducing a node performance evaluation reward system. So basically:

1. Node rewards
2. Node performance evaluation reward system
3. Extending Personal Progression rewards (base level + skill based performance points)
4. or separate skill points progression path

The Node Performance Evaluation Reward System

After completion of a node, we get a screen that shows our points being added to our overall score. With the new system, this screen will also show your overall performance evaluation by first showing the node score added with your overall team's health at the end of the match. Then bonus points for reaching certain criteria, say like using only X-men or an essential character for the event, are added to the score and then multipliers are applied, say having a non-downed 2* character on the team gives your score a x3 multiplier. After everything is calculated, you are given rewards by hitting a certain point threshold, for example every 1,000 points generates a node reward up to a limit of 6. 

These rewards are all RNG based, and the quality of rewards available will be based on the difficulty of the node.

So for example
Easy nodes drop rate: Standard tokens 50%, 70 Iso 25%, 10HP 10%, 100 Iso 10%, Elite tokens 5%
Medium nodes drop rate: ST 45%, 10HP 20%, 70 Iso 10%, Elite tokens 10%, 250 Iso 10%, Event token 5%
Hard nodes drop rate: 10 HP 20%, Elite tokens 20%,, Iso 250 20%, Event token 10%, Heroic tokens 20%, 50 HP 5%, 1 CP 5%

"Boss" nodes drop rate: Event tokens 20%, Heroic tokens 20%, 50 HP 20%, 500 Iso 20%, 100 HP 10%, 4* cover for event 5%, 3 CP 4%, 1 LT 1%

Additionally, to prevent farming, a player will only be permitted to attempt a node 7 times. The first 4 attempts are "on the house". The last three the player will have to spend HP to unlock the node. 

By completing all the nodes 4 times, a player should be able to acquire base Progression rewards just as they can now and also the node rewards and perhaps even further depending on their ability to maximize points. 

The Node Performance Evaluation Reward System, along with the extension of Personal Progression awards, should help compensate for the loss of alliance and rank rewards and additionally entice players to use their HP to continue to unlock nodes and try for better rewards since they should see a steady HP flow. 

Since health points are one of the factors to determine base score, players will also feel compelled to heal up their team after each hard node attempt to maximize possible rewards so HP should also see an increase in sales.

Obviously rewards should be adjusted for each CL, meaning 1-3 offers lower level rewards, 4-6 mid level rewards and 7-9 high level rewards. And of course, difficulty should increase with each CL and with each completion of node.


The "Boss" Node

Is the ultimate node of the event where the player faces off against a boss/or bosses for the best rewards. The difficulty of the boss is dependent mainly on 2 factors: 

1. Clearance Level
2. The number of times the player has completed the node

Take for example, Carnage. 

At CL 1-3. His red power is deactivated, low health. Still somewhat challenging for newer players but relatively manageable.

At CL 4-6. His red power is active but does reduced damage, mid level health. 

At CL 7-9. His red power is fully active, high health. Similar to 5* Thor after going below 50% health, he destroys red, green and black tiles. At CL 7, he destroys 2 tiles, At CL 8 3 tiles, At CL 9 5 tiles. Additionally, he has a stun counter condition. If stunned, Carnage's symbiote automatically one shots a random member of your team.

We already have something akin to this for Webbed Wonder and Strange Sights. Ultimately, every event should have a boss battle and each boss should have a different kind of counter-stun condition. 

Thanos for GotG events: Counter stun condition, halves the health of your team/or does 20,000 AOE damage

Dr. Octopus: Stuns your team for one turn and places four tentacle tiles on the board. 2 of this tentacle tiles make matches while he his stunned, while two other tentacle tiles blocks damage from matches you make.

Green Goblin: Places six different bombs over the board when stunned. The CDs are not affected by his being stunned and countdown to three.

And so on.

I have never been a fan of the stun immunity that Boss characters automatically get and under this system I do believe it would be unnecessary. I guess they could keep it for a couple of bosses if they feel it necessary but the ultimate design goal should be something akin to BSSM and Kaecilius. Not every 5* character will be a meta character but under this system you can create value by giving a 5* character an ability to counter a boss type counter so a player can better maximize points. 

Since stunning a boss will come at a cost, characters with AP denial abilities like Archangel might see a rise in value. 

I guess it's perhaps best to illustrate what I am talking about:

CL9 Boss node 1,000 points: Carnage

Carnage lvl 450 ~ 

1st attempt
Team: 5* Thor, 5* Archangel (Boosted), 1* Hawkeye

Strategy: The goal here is to make sure Carnage doesn't use his red to down 1* Hawkeye since 1* characters will net your team 4x multiplier. Arch will tank most colors except yellow. Chase red, black and green and yellow. Once you have enough black, wait until 1. Carnage is close getting enough red, or 2. Carnage is about to go below 50% health. 

Complete node with all members active, 9 friendly tiles on the board (Arch's 1 black CD and the rest thanks to Carnage) , highest attack 32,000. 
Number of turns to complete match: 13
Total team health at end of match: 138,000
Value of node: 1,000
Base total value: 139,000
Boosted character x 2
6 or more friendly tiles at end of match: x 3
Damage: x 1.5
1* character: x 4
Total points: 5,004,000

At CL9 node performance rewards are distributed for everyone 1,000,000 points so this first go around, the player nets 5 rewards, earning: Event Token, Event Token, 50HP, Heroic Token, 100 HP,  Heroic Token

Now let's take it up to the final attempt

Carnage lvl 650

Team: 5* Thor, 5* Archangel (Boosted), 4* America Chavez

Strategy: At this point, the player realizes that keeping a 1* on the team isn't viable as Carnage is likely to get enough red at least once two down not only the 1* but potentially the whole team. Instead the player opts to use 4* America Chavez to generate critical tiles to speed up downing Carnage before he can get enough red.

Complete node with all members active, 10 friendly tiles (Arch's 1 black CD, Thor's 3 protect tiles and 6 friendly tiles generated by Carnage), highest attack 32,000.
Number of turns to complete match: 11
Total team health at end of match: 112,000
Value of node: 1,000
Base total value: 113,000
Boosted character 2x
6 or more friendly tiles at end of match: x 3
Damage: x 1.5
4* character: x 1.5

Total points: 1,525,500

Reward: Event token

Ideally, a roster running just 450 characters without the boosted character should be able to get 4~5 rewards the first 3 goes, 2~3 the next 2 attempts and 1~2 the final attempt. 

The New Progression Rewards system

My idea is to just extend the current progression rewards but factor in the potentially point earnings of a CL 9 roster. Obviously, with multiplier in effect the old progression system will be a piece of cake for those that know how to use the system but at least in the beginning the dev team should keep the current progression model as it is until people have adjusted to the new point system. 

With the new system, it will be possible to earn: 1 event 10 pack, 10 CP, 1 featured 4* character cover and 1 LT. The event 10 pack should placed at a point progression that covers two types of players, :

1. The casual player will have just completed all 4 free node clears in each sub and the boss battle and realize if they just play a few more nodes they will be able to get the 10 pack to encourage them to use HP to unlock nodes

2. The optimal player will have reached the 10 pack midway through the event and is making progress toward the 4* character cover and possibly the LT.

Obviously ISO and HP will be sprinkled between these 4 new goal posts. The LT should only be reachable by the most dedicated who have to the roster to rise to the challenge, basically meaning most player will need the 5* essential character for the HP boost and essential multiplier, although there is a small window for those creative enough and willing to take the risk.

The Financial Stakes

I think I have demonstrated how this non-competitive PvE model is just as likely, if not more so, to encourage players to spend hero points and hopefully invest a little here and there in the game. The devs will have to open up the HP flow just a bit to make sure the new format is not too HP restrictive and to avert being accused of going to P2W model. 

The goal is to get casual players in the habit of spending just enough HP that there are almost close to the goal and just a little more HP will help them reach that. 

Additionally under the current model, only a handful of players actually have a shot for the best rewards. With this PvE format, everyone has a chance. 

Perhaps the biggest criticism will be "I don't want more RNG" in the game and that is understandable. But as the OP stated, the devs need to make money somehow, and I feel the model I propose accomplishes this and helps resolves a lot of the outstanding issues with current PvE format. There are plenty of other successful puzzle games that are non-competitive, I don't see why MPQ should be any different.

Finally, I would like to just state for the record that these are not original ideas but based of my experience playing other mobile games, mainly Duel Links and Puzzles & Dragons. 

Also, since I didn't get a chance to respond to @entrailbucket, it's true that any model proposed will have an optimal method that will eventually be discovered and become the meta. But it's my hope that by mixing up a variety of factors like boosted characters, boss battle types and what not, we can gain a greater semblance of variety than the one we currently lack at the top end of the player base.

If you are still with me, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on the issue. I look forward to reading your comments and critiques.

HoundofShadow

My perception is that it's still mainly about players who thinks that the time slices available are not good/perfect/advantageous enough for them, and they perceived that if they could get a better/perfect time slice, they could have gotten the top placement rewards instead of top 20, 50 or 100 placement rewards. This could be one of the reasons why we have people petitioning for full progression rewards and shifting placement rewards into progression for every PvE. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen unless D3 decided that they have made too much profits (not sales/revenues) from the players. Let's take a look at the top placement rewards for SCL 9:

7000 iso, 175 HP, 2LT, 3 ET and 2 HT + previous rank covers. Can you imagine everyone in SCL 9 getting these extra rewards as part of progression? Every players would be happy of course. If you reduce the rewards, the top players won't be happy. 

I think another problem is some players throwing words like "many players" or "most players" combined with <insert perceived positive benefits to the players or D3> in their pitch to support their proposed change. If you can quantify the number of players that your "many" and "most" refers to, it would be helpful to you. If you can't quantify it, you are making things up. 

fight4thedream

HoundofShadow said:

My perception is that it's still mainly about players who thinks that the time slices available are not good/perfect/advantageous enough for them, and they perceived that if they could get a better/perfect time slice, they could have gotten the top placement rewards instead of top 20, 50 or 100 placement rewards. This could be one of the reasons why we have people petitioning for full progression rewards and shifting placement rewards into progression for every PvE. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen unless D3 decided that they have made too much profits (not sales/revenues) from the players. Let's take a look at the top placement rewards for SCL 9:

7000 iso, 175 HP, 2LT, 3 ET and 2 HT + previous rank covers. Can you imagine everyone in SCL 9 getting these extra rewards as part of progression? Every players would be happy of course. If you reduce the rewards, the top players won't be happy. 

I think another problem is some players throwing words like "many players" or "most players" combined with <insert perceived positive benefits to the players or D3> in their pitch to support their proposed change. If you can quantify the number of players that your "many" and "most" refers to, it would be helpful to you. If you can't quantify it, you are making things up. 

I'm afraid I don't fit into that assumption. The time slices actually work out fine for me for the most part. I enjoy the game for what it is but I am not afraid to imagine that it could be so much more. 

Nick441234

OJSP said:

Nick441234 said:

The 5pm time slice flips two times maximum in most events. That clearly shows that its largely inconvenient for most people who play this game. Simply push it back a few hours and make it more convenient for more players. No harm in a 9pm & 11pm slice. Most people would appreciate that. 

I assume you're talking about slice 2 (5pm GMT).. Actually it's a good slice to play if people live in East Asia and West part of Australia.

Well still, considering how few times it flips, its clearly a small percentage of people who it works for. 

Nick441234

Quebbster said:

Nick441234 said:

OJSP said:

Considering we have been trialling the points system a lot, I actually think there's no harm in trialling more time slices. All the arguments about whether having more time slices is good or bad for the game is all conjectures.

I think they should just pick one 3 day event, one 4 day event and one 7 day event spread in a couple of months and trial 6 slices spread 4 hours apart. Why multiple events including a 7 day event? It would give people an idea on how to plan their week ahead. If the developers think they are giving out inappropriate amount of rewards, then consider the trial a fail and scrap the idea. At least we could say that we've tried it.

However, I think we should address one issue at a time. If the issue with tapping is not resolved, then opening more slices would likely lead to more tappers spreading to different brackets. And, it's not actually a fix for playing on a schedule.

The 5pm time slice flips two times maximum in most events. That clearly shows that its largely inconvenient for most people who play this game. Simply push it back a few hours and make it more convenient for more players. No harm in a 9pm & 11pm slice. Most people would appreciate that. 

It's impossible to know which time slice you are talking about since we don't know what time slice you are in. I know the second slice ends in 5PM GMT, so it could be that one. The third slice ends at 5PM EST, so that's also a possibility. The last slice ends at 5 PM too in some islands in the Pacific ocean.

I am not saying you are wrong or anything, it's just that if you identify a single end time as problematic without giving us a bigger Picture it is hard to suggest any Changes. Any Changes will make things better for some and worse for some. Even people within the same time zone have very different availability and may prefer different slices.

Yes, I'm referring to the second slice. It flips so few times compared to the other slices so it would appear that its not much use to people, no matter where in the world they are. 

Smart80

Fight4thedream

• No competition would be real boring I think
• No alliance competition at all? 
• RNG based node rewards, even to get tokens seems a real bad idea.
• Not sure i understand the scoring factors, but starting health should be as high as possible, to up health pack sales? Bye bye Thor/DD...
• Paying to play more than 4 nodes?

I apologize for not reading on past the “boss node” part, but this sounds absolutely horrible.

LXSandman

Hey fight,

  That post was pretty amazing.  I would suggest you make a whole new topic just so it gets the reading it should.  I think it's a good idea, but I feel like it might be too complicated for casual players to understand.

  The dev's want to maximize casual players, and if they don't understand how the point system works they will probably play less.

  I like it though!

IceHockey333

HoundofShadow said:

I think another problem is some players throwing words like "many players" or "most players" combined with <insert perceived positive benefits to the players or D3> in their pitch to support their proposed change. If you can quantify the number of players that your "many" and "most" refers to, it would be helpful to you. If you can't quantify it, you are making things up. 

That is actually the main problem of most of the gnashing of teeth that pervades a message board about a game.

People assume that everyone else feels the same way they do, that the game will die unless their personal tastes are met.  They don't ever seem to be able to shake that and be realistic about the actual conditions of the community at large.

Not a problem, just the way things are.

fight4thedream

Smart80 said:

Fight4thedream

• No competition would be real boring I think
• No alliance competition at all? 
• RNG based node rewards, even to get tokens seems a real bad idea.
• Not sure i understand the scoring factors, but starting health should be as high as possible, to up health pack sales? Bye bye Thor/DD...
• Paying to play more than 4 nodes?

I apologize for not reading on past the “boss node” part, but this sounds absolutely horrible.

No worries! I am probably not explaining it very well but we all have our personal tastes and interests. Actually I do believe Thor would do quite well under this system but part of the goal is to diversify the 5* so that you have some that are PvE specific and some that are PvP specific and a few that do well with both. 

Also to be clear, you wouldn't be paying for 4 nodes. You would have access to all nodes. You would only be able to make 4 attempts on each node and then you would have to start paying for the last three. I figured if people are willing to shield in LRs and in SIM early in the season, there will definitely be people willing to pay to unlock a node for more chances at better rewards.

LXSandman said:

Hey fight,

  That post was pretty amazing.  I would suggest you make a whole new topic just so it gets the reading it should.  I think it's a good idea, but I feel like it might be too complicated for casual players to understand.

  The dev's want to maximize casual players, and if they don't understand how the point system works they will probably play less.

  I like it though!

Thanks for the kind words! That is actually something I am also concerned about. After hearing why 1*Spidey got changed, it definitely is a legitimate issue. However, my hope is that since 1* get automatically get 4x multiplier with use and since the calculations are displayed at the end of clearing the node that casual and newer players would be eased into understanding the basic scoring system. 

It's one of the reasons I felt it imperative to keep the basic progression rewards as is so that they don't feel they are missing out on their rewards. Additionally, the lower CL levels should have a relatively easier time at hitting goal posts than the higher levels, although that will vary with each players roster and know-how. 

But it is true, that it could be potentially confusing if not implemented and explained well.

acescracked

PVE should have 2.5 hour refreshs.