Tapping.....

Sm0keyJ0e

Daredevil217 said:

tiomono said:

And tapping is equally available to all players. So it is a level playing field.

Truth.

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Because "time invested" does not take into account roster growth, which is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME. There is no end game--you play to grow your roster and advance. Advancement in the game is in strength of roster. A stronger roster can clear PVE faster. Is this deal? I dunno--would prefer a mix of roster development and skill. But that doesn't exist.

In every RPG I've ever known, and MPQ classifies itself as such, you play to grow your roster so you can defeat tougher enemies and win more rewards. 

It should not be based solely on time invested, which is what tapping currently is.

Your awesomely awesome roster enables you to tap faster and thus get more points than someone with a lesser roster in the same amount of time.

Should it be a level playing field? I'm being honest. Should everyone in the game have the ability to earn all the rewards by simply investing the most time? If so, we need to remove clearance ranks and open the flood gates and let's get our 24-hour tap-a-thon on, because that's what it will become/is becoming.

This is a silly debate. Time invested != get all the thingz. If what I outlined above happened (or continues to happen), everyone who spends even a nickel on this game would leave.

tiomono

CharlieCroker said:

It isn't hypocritical at all.  They tested win based PvP - flaws were pointed out from the start and our feedback seemed to be ignored until, for whatever reason, after a full season of the madness/misery they reverted back to progression based.

They tested PVE without tapping - on these forums at least the test was generally well received.  Successful tests should be more likely to be implemented, unsuccessful or flawed ones should either be abandoned or, if it's a route the devs feel they need to go down, adjusted. 

I would love dev insight into the win based test. Explaining both why they decided to try it and why they stopped exploring it without trying to adjust or fine tune it.

Honestly I do feel tapping is nuts and needs removed. I just think it is absurd to claim it's not fair or that it takes no skill or that it's cheating. It is something that is currently possible within the game without exploiting anything.

Yes the devs said that is not their intent, but until they change it it is what it is. So people need to stop trying to shame or talk down to people that decide to put in the work to earn higher rewards.

tiomono

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Daredevil217 said:

tiomono said:

And tapping is equally available to all players. So it is a level playing field.

Truth.

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Because "time invested" does not take into account roster growth, which is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME. There is no end game--you play to grow your roster and advance. Advancement in the game is in strength of roster. A stronger roster can clear PVE faster. Is this deal? I dunno--would prefer a mix of roster development and skill. But that doesn't exist.

In every RPG I've ever known, and MPQ classifies itself as such, you play to grow your roster so you can defeat tougher enemies and win more rewards. 

It should not be based solely on time invested, which is what tapping currently is.

Your awesomely awesome roster enables you to tap faster and thus get more points than someone with a lesser roster in the same amount of time.

Should it be a level playing field? I'm being honest. Should everyone in the game have the ability to earn all the rewards by simply investing the most time? If so, we need to remove clearance ranks and open the flood gates and let's get our 24-hour tap-a-thon on, because that's what it will become/is becoming.

This is a silly debate. Time invested != get all the thingz. If what I outlined above happened (or continues to happen), everyone who spends even a nickel on this game would leave.

I don't tap or even place top 50 typically. So what does a roster look like from your typical effective tapper? If all tappers have the same time available to them what determines who taps more? A stronger roster?

The devs are looking into the issue. When they have a solution THEY are happy with, it will change. 

Spudgutter

ZeroKarma said:

Spudgutter said:

LifeofAgony said:

I’m totally comfortable losing to people when it’s an even play fielding.  If my best placement is t10 on a level field, then so be it.  But without tapping, t5 was never a question for me.

And I'm totally comfortable losing to people who put in the extra effort than i am (my best placement is top 50 with or without tapping).  

Honest question, why do you think your perception is worth more than mine?

Both sides have stated their take on the issue ad nauseam.  But it really boils down to this, doesn't it?  Some people care, and some people don't

To add to it, think about when they ran a test for PVP to wins based.  Again, a situation that benefited some, and held back the rewards of others.  If you believe their statements and that a test shows they are trying to improve a system, then why were so many people (including those against tapping) against it?  

You either accept that they are trying to make the game better and more fair (get rid of tapping and make pvp wins-based) or you would rather people who put in extra effort get extra rewards (tap to your hearts content and use battle chats to get thousands of points in PVP).  

I think you're conflating issues that are apples and oranges. 

1) If you are a top-tier player who complained about win-based PvP (me! me! me!), it's because it turned PvP into a long grind. It enabled people to make progression more easily UNLESS they had a high roster and wouldn't hit the required number of wins until they got to 2000 points. What it took to get progression was divorced from what it took to get placement. So.....the goal was the same. Less grinding!

2) I have heard people say why tapping is ok because people spent a lot of time on the game, but none that really explains why eliminating it would be a bad thing. The only real argument is about time slices, and that's a completely different issue! 

3) What is completely ironic is that there are not any tappers on here defending tapping! Spudgutter, if you are only a T50 player then you aren't affected by tapping, and you surely aren't tapping. 

Check my other response, it was less about conflating the two issues and more about me noticing what i perceive as hypocrisy.

1.  I was also impacted negatively by wins based, but i can see past my own roster to recognize that making the 4* transition easier, if only by a small amount, is probably good for the long term health of the game.  Again, my point wasnt that the wins based test was perfect(far from), just that there was in fact a test.  

2.  I agree, but still comes back to: why does the opinion of one person have more weight than another?  

3.  This ties into number 2.  I'm top 50 because my life doesn't suit the slice times.  But just because someone else is able to play optimally and i dont, it doesnt mean i think the whole thing should be changed. 

Also, thank you for agreeing that top 50 is not impacted by tapping.  80-90% of pve is not impacted by tapping.  Why should they even be spending the time fixing something that so few people benefit from?

HoundofShadow

As you can see... Solving problems, creating new contents, and coming up with solutions aren't easy for the developers because it is virtually impossible to satisfy every players' expectations, and they have to juggle with the expectations of the executives or higher management as well.

Whatever the developers do, there will be players who are not going to be satisfied with their decisions/solutions. Unfortunately, some group(s) of players have to adjust and live with it... Are you unfortunate enough to be that group of players? 

Is it probable that it's not that the developers don't want to solve those  problems and implement solutions immediately, but they have to take into accounts of many other factors, other priorities and restrictions given by the top management, other possible implications and effects of the solutions that players don't care about at all?

Dogface

Someone with a good roster (i must assume) here claimed he/she finished first clears in 23 minutes. It takes me a lot longer. 
So at least a better roster diminishes the time needed to play. So in the current setup, assuming we end up with the same amount of points (let's say i did an extra clear to make up the difference), that person would rank higher.
If tapping were eliminated (and i don't care either way) said person would rank high(er) in less time. I can easily see why they prefer that. 
The problem imo is they need a way to determine placement and it's just not ideal. Without placement the (increased) strength of your roster would show in how much less time you need to clear it. Your gain is in time saved. 
Without placement you'd have all 24 hours to do your clears. No stress, no time slice anxiety.
Maybe it would lessen the urgency and/or competition and with that probably the want or need to spend (so obviously not going to happen).
But i'd like to see a trial run without placement, with more prizes in progression. Top progression would be x amount of clears, but since clears don't need points you can tackle them at any time you want (within the daily timeframe ofc).

Spudgutter

CharlieCroker said:

It isn't hypocritical at all.  They tested win based PvP - flaws were pointed out from the start and our feedback seemed to be ignored until, for whatever reason, after a full season of the madness/misery they reverted back to progression based.

They tested PVE without tapping - on these forums at least the test was generally well received.  Successful tests should be more likely to be implemented, unsuccessful or flawed ones should either be abandoned or, if it's a route the devs feel they need to go down, adjusted. 

they tested wins based for a full season.  they told us ahead of time that they were testing a full season.  they didn't ignore feedback, they just didn't stop the test halfway through because people had complaints.  I'm glad they didn't stop!  i want them to have the most complete and accurate data as possible.  

as to the reaction to both tests, i think we can agree that reactions on the forum have to be taken with a giant grain of salt.  Hyperbole, sarcasm and confirmation bias are everywhere.  

aesthetocyst said:

Spudgutter said ... Why should they even be spending the time fixing something that so few people benefit from?

Yeah! Lets bring back baking!

This decision affects everyone who plays pve. Pretending it doesnt is simplistic.

i call shenanigans.  we can argue about how many people it affects, but no way 100% are affected.   i play the same way pretty much every event, and my placement is in the same area pretty much every event, even the tapping test event.  

251st through 999th are not impacted by tapping.  anyone placing that low is going for progression or less and out.  that there alone disproves your statement.  i would gamble that tapping doesn't even start having an impact until you crack top 20, at best, imo.

ZeroKarma

Spudgutter said:

CharlieCroker said:

It isn't hypocritical at all.  They tested win based PvP - flaws were pointed out from the start and our feedback seemed to be ignored until, for whatever reason, after a full season of the madness/misery they reverted back to progression based.

They tested PVE without tapping - on these forums at least the test was generally well received.  Successful tests should be more likely to be implemented, unsuccessful or flawed ones should either be abandoned or, if it's a route the devs feel they need to go down, adjusted. 

they tested wins based for a full season.  they told us ahead of time that they were testing a full season.  they didn't ignore feedback, they just didn't stop the test halfway through because people had complaints.  I'm glad they didn't stop!  i want them to have the most complete and accurate data as possible.  

as to the reaction to both tests, i think we can agree that reactions on the forum have to be taken with a giant grain of salt.  Hyperbole, sarcasm and confirmation bias are everywhere.  

aesthetocyst said:

Spudgutter said ... Why should they even be spending the time fixing something that so few people benefit from?

Yeah! Lets bring back baking!

This decision affects everyone who plays pve. Pretending it doesnt is simplistic.

i call shenanigans.  we can argue about how many people it affects, but no way 100% are affected.   i play the same way pretty much every event, and my placement is in the same area pretty much every event, even the tapping test event.  

251st through 999th are not impacted by tapping.  anyone placing that low is going for progression or less and out.  that there alone disproves your statement.  i would gamble that tapping doesn't even start having an impact until you crack top 20, at best, imo.

By that same token, 99% of the people in the game were unaffected by cupcakes, but they were killed because they..... well, still not sure on that.

Dogface

I can state that i'm completely unaffected by cupcakes. Snickerdoodles, however ...

Michaelcles

Surprised by the pro-tapping posts.  I figured they would be too busy tapping.

Spudgutter

ZeroKarma said:

Spudgutter said:

CharlieCroker said:

It isn't hypocritical at all.  They tested win based PvP - flaws were pointed out from the start and our feedback seemed to be ignored until, for whatever reason, after a full season of the madness/misery they reverted back to progression based.

They tested PVE without tapping - on these forums at least the test was generally well received.  Successful tests should be more likely to be implemented, unsuccessful or flawed ones should either be abandoned or, if it's a route the devs feel they need to go down, adjusted. 

they tested wins based for a full season.  they told us ahead of time that they were testing a full season.  they didn't ignore feedback, they just didn't stop the test halfway through because people had complaints.  I'm glad they didn't stop!  i want them to have the most complete and accurate data as possible.  

as to the reaction to both tests, i think we can agree that reactions on the forum have to be taken with a giant grain of salt.  Hyperbole, sarcasm and confirmation bias are everywhere.  

aesthetocyst said:

Spudgutter said ... Why should they even be spending the time fixing something that so few people benefit from?

Yeah! Lets bring back baking!

This decision affects everyone who plays pve. Pretending it doesnt is simplistic.

i call shenanigans.  we can argue about how many people it affects, but no way 100% are affected.   i play the same way pretty much every event, and my placement is in the same area pretty much every event, even the tapping test event.  

251st through 999th are not impacted by tapping.  anyone placing that low is going for progression or less and out.  that there alone disproves your statement.  i would gamble that tapping doesn't even start having an impact until you crack top 20, at best, imo.

By that same token, 99% of the people in the game were unaffected by cupcakes, but they were killed because they..... well, still not sure on that.

well, they killed that because they presumably are trying to control how many people get the cp reward in pvp.  we can make this assumption because they took cp out of progression during wins based.  too many people hitting 1200+ points, means people are progressing faster then the devs think they should.  since tapping just affects placement, the number of rewards handed out stay the same

HoundofShadow

I disagree with moving placement rewards to progression rewards. Just look at the top placement rewards for SCL 7 to 9. They are not going to give the rest of 950 to 990 players per slice/bracket guaranteed 3 4* covers, a few thousand iso-8, a hundred or so HP, or 1 or 2 LT.  The placement-turned-progression rewards would be bad and/or they will increase the difficulty level in such a way that only a % of the players are able to get the last 3 or 5 progression rewards.For example,

1) enemies' level would be scaled according to the top 2 or 3 characters of your roster and then an extra 50-150 levels after crossing a certain amount of progression points.

2) if you can't clear x node within y minutes or within y moves regardless of any reason, it is still considered as 1 completion and you would be awarded 0 point and lose a node reward. When you can clear the node successfully, minus 1/3 of the original node point for each of your characters that are down for whatever reason or the % of points reduced would be equivalent to the % of all three characters remaining hp over all three characters' total hp.


I'm curious. Has anyone actually done a poll asking those players affected by tappers which SCL(s) and slice they play in? I don't suppose that tapping would affect those playing SCL 5 and lower. 

Daiches

Michaelcles said:

Surprised by the pro-tapping posts.  I figured they would be too busy tapping.

They allowed themselves to type one letter between each tap, as a stretching exercise.

The rockett

Somebody in my bracket in sub 2 just tapped 1200 points over optimal. Yep. No problem here. 

The rockett

Wait. Sorry. 2100 points in that sub. 

Dogface

HoundofShadow said:

I disagree with moving placement rewards to progression rewards. Just look at the top placement rewards for SCL 7 to 9. They are not going to give the rest of 950 to 990 players per slice/bracket guaranteed 3 4* covers, a few thousand iso-8, a hundred or so HP, or 1 or 2 LT.  The placement-turned-progression rewards would be bad and/or they will increase the difficulty level in such a way that only a % of the players are able to get the last 3 or 5 progression rewards.For example,

1) enemies' level would be scaled according to the top 2 or 3 characters of your roster and then an extra 50-150 levels after crossing a certain amount of progression points.

2) if you can't clear x node within y minutes or within y moves regardless of any reason, it is still considered as 1 completion and you would be awarded 0 point and lose a node reward. When you can clear the node successfully, minus 1/3 of the original node point for each of your characters that are down for whatever reason or the % of points reduced would be equivalent to the % of all three characters remaining hp over all three characters' total hp.


I'm curious. Has anyone actually done a poll asking those players affected by tappers which SCL(s) and slice they play in? I don't suppose that tapping would affect those playing SCL 5 and lower. 

Did you read my whole post?
I suggested a prolonged progression, where max progression would be x clears of all nodes (6 in the current situation). You argue that they dont wanna give top prizes to the 950/990 which they place now. How many of those actually reach max progression now? Consider that max prog is about 66% of points now (about 4 clears of all nodes should get you there). It's a shame i cannot see the scores of a complete 1000 man bracket, but if i just look at my alliance i see scores of 100 points to 35k in the current event. So i dont see all people reaching max progression now, let alone if max progression is pushed further.
You also mention points. I eliminate points here. No placement, so no points decider needed. You either clear a node or you don't. And like now, if   fail you can try again. Since there's a fixed number of clears (and no points), there's nothing to tap for.
I didn't specifically mention scaling, but scaling could stay the way it is. Incremental until clear 4, no changes after that.
In this system you get rewarded for your effort in completing all nodes. Have a strong roster? Congrats, it will be easier/faster to finish. Have a lesser roster? Congrats, the harder/slower route to finish at least gave the same reward.

HoundofShadow

I'm not sure if you are aware of this because I didn't see you mention this: the placement rewards of 3* and 4* of a PvE are the essential characters for the next  PvE.

Let's assume that Demiurge decided to go ahead with your suggestion and run a trial for one PvE, how are they going to ensure continuity from your suggestion to the current format?
Who determines the start time for your trial? How are you going to allocate those placement rewards in to progression? Let's use a 3 days PvE, SCL 9, as an example, this is the progression rewards for SCL 9 and let's focus on the column of progression reward and SCL 9:

How are you going to slot in those placement rewards in SCL 9 (as seen in previous post) into progression rewards?

How do you decide which progression rewards to be taken out? How many rewards are there going to be? Number them. Currently, there are 30. How many clears do you need? 

Dogface

There's no need to change anything in start time. Let's take the current PVE as an example.
It's a 4 day event, with 4 separate days. 
Once you start you'll have 24 hours (just as you have now) to clear the nodes. Since the nodes are fixed in number of clears and there are no points, there's nothing to tap for, nor is there any need to race through the nodes. 
The nodes themselves also need no change. Incremental difficulty change until clear 4, same difficulty for next clears.
Right now the progression maxes out around 66% clearance. But in my proposal awards continue until true max progression, thus 100% clearance. These could include awards now awarded in placement. One could argue that 100% clearance for the last reward is too much, but if you miss an essential now or don't play all nodes, you won't rank very high in the current format.
As said before, i have no data on how many players reach 100% clearance now (not the current max prog, but all nodes at least 6 times), so i don't know how costly it would be for the devs.

In short, the pros of my proposal:
- 24 hours to clear. No need for speed. No need to time precisely when to hit clear 5 etc. No need to look for flipping brackets. Time plenty for other important things in life, like family, school, work etc.
- Tapping eliminated. Not possible and useless anyway.
- Incentive to play beyond the current max progression. 
- Effort is rewarded vs speed. Strong rosters will finish faster. Take that as a bonus.
- Going down a SCL won't bring much profit. Players can choose a SCL according to their true roster strength. 

Ofcourse, there are cons too:
- Competition gone. Who is fastest, who has the strongest roster? Who manages his time best? 
- Too many might finish all nodes, meaning more rewards to dish out. Bad for the company and some might feel cheated bc they invested a lot in their roster and want to see such represented in placement.

All in all, why not do a trial run in the near future. Otherwise there's no way of telling if it's any good.

HoundofShadow

You forgot to answer some of the questions. Let's not get ahead and talk about the pros of your proposal. I have given you data for SCL 9 that you can use to refer to. 

Lets use this scenario:

- A 3 days events of SCL 9 without tapping
- Each sub has 1 Join forces node, 4 essential nodes, 3 easy nodes and 3 hard nodes. There's a total of 11 nodes.
-Optimal clear for top placement rewards is 4+3. In a 24 hours sub, you do 74( 11 X 7-3) clears. Join forces node goes to zero on 4th clear. Multiply it over 3 days= 222 clears 

The questions are:

1) The placement rewards of 3* and 4* of a PvE are the essential characters for the next  PvE. 
Let's assume that Demiurge decided to go ahead with your suggestion and run a trial for one PvE, how are they going to ensure continuity from your suggestion to the current format? 

2a) How are you going to put those placement rewards into progression rewards? To be exact, where are you going to put the following placement rewards into progression rewards and what's the quantity that you are going to put in:

a) LT
b) 4* covers
c) 3* covers
d) Heroic Tokens
e) Elite Tokens
f) Iso-8
g) Hero Points

2b) Number them. The 30th reward is 30 CP. What's your suggestion for the above reward? Be concise with your answers.

2c) Assuming 3 days sub with 11 nodes using 7 clears. It's a total of 222 clears. The calculation is stated above. How many clear is needed for the first reward? The 30th reward? The  reward after the 30th reward for some or all of the placement rewards?

The rockett

They did a test like this already when they had to give out X-23 to all that finished the event.  Everybody was tied. They never reran this event due to way too many rewards handed out.