Idea for avoiding burnout.

Clintman

KevinMark wrote:

I hate the fact that I can't win any 3* covers from PvP anymore. Today I didn't feel like starting up MPQ even but just holding out for the end of Season 1. If they don't change things, I will quit the game. Even if I don't quit, I don't think I will grind like this in Season 2. I might end up leaving my alliance because I don't want to to hold them back.

Sorry to hear that Kevin,
The unfortunate thing is that with the changing meta of the game you might have to adjust your expectations. D3 is evolving the game as they go, and while things are different, more of the changes are good. The real thing to ask yourself is whether or not you have fun playing the game itself. The rat race they introduced is distasteful but the game itself is still fun.

reckless442

Phantron wrote:

If you're not competing for the sake of competing it is really okay to do poorly once in a while or even skip an event. The season 1 prizes are made to be pretty unexciting on the individual level, and at the alliance level all but the alliances on the borderline usually know pretty well where they'll end up. Borderline alliances have it harder but that's life.

And if you're competing for the sake of competing then there's nothing D3 can do to change that. Even if they moved some events off seasons total they'll probably be the ones that feature the cover you actually want. Don't count on a Loki event that awards Ragnarok to not be part of the seasons bracket. The whole point of having a seasons bracket is to make otherwise throwaway tournaments valuable. If something offered HT or Falcon or better yet Nick Fury as a reward (even if it's just for #1) there's already going to be ample participation.

At any rate people should also ask themselves what does it mean to be competitive? Do you want to be competitive while spending no money compared to those who do? I don't really expect to keep up without spending money because if spending money doesn't offer a big advantage, why would anyone ever spend money in the first place? Likewise I've been hammered in the recent Doom/Loki/Rag events which featured my weakest heroes and it took way more effort than usual to even get a top 25 when your featured character is level 35/18/35, and that's really okay too. It's my choice to not spend my iso8 on those characters and it should be harder to do well. I generally cleaned up in the events that had a character where I have at level 100+ (and I have quite a few of those), and just because none of them were featured recently doesn't mean it's some kind of crime against humanity.

You're ignoring the burn-out factor. Right now, most of my alliance members are discussing how we can take it easier in season 2 because we are burnt out. We have people who have considered leaving the alliance or even the game entirely because of the stress of trying to compete, not because they are being pressured by other alliance members, but simply because they don't want to seem like freeloaders. That's no good for the game or the alliance system.

What Clint is proposing is a happy medium between encouraging competition and letting players get breathers between events. It also may provide greater opportunities for mid-level players to get key covers that, as many of us recognize, the veterans with fully covered line-ups are hoarding because they need the season points.

djpt05

Clint

Thanks for expressing the frustrations that my alliance and I have been feeling ever since the first Falcon tournament.
I've known you from FB rewards since I joined in November and I have always appreciated your impact on the forums.

djpt

Clintman

djpt05 wrote:

Clint

Thanks for expressing the frustrations that my alliance and I have been feeling ever since the first Falcon tournament.
I've known you from FB rewards since I joined in November and I have always appreciated your impact on the forums.

djpt

That is very kind of you, thank you.

Unknown

The easiest solution to Seasons would be to have only a certain number of events count in a season...Let's say there are 10 events in a season, your season score is your 8 top scores from those 10 events, this allows you to "skip" 2 events or not do as well as you'd like due to personal reasons and still be able to score fairly high..It wouldn't be that difficult to implement and it would prevent burn-out, which I and many others are currently suffering from...

Unknown

WilliamK99 wrote:

The easiest solution to Seasons would be to have only a certain number of events count in a season...Let's say there are 10 events in a season, your season score is your 8 top scores from those 10 events, this allows you to "skip" 2 events or not do as well as you'd like due to personal reasons and still be able to score fairly high..It wouldn't be that difficult to implement and it would prevent burn-out, which I and many others are currently suffering from...

Still would have the problem of feeling like you letting alliance down in the particular event. Doesn't fix the whole problem.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

I don't get why the guys who take the game too seriously are always posting about how D3 should make them take the game less seriously. This is purely your own problem. All it'd take is for one of the top 3 alliances to walk away and accept that they will have 150 less HP per person. Wait, you can't just give up because you're too competitive? Then don't cry about the pressure of being hyper competitive.

It sounds like you don't think Clint has a good idea because he is a member of SHIELD.

Spoit

Bugpop wrote:

Phantron wrote:

I don't get why the guys who take the game too seriously are always posting about how D3 should make them take the game less seriously. This is purely your own problem. All it'd take is for one of the top 3 alliances to walk away and accept that they will have 150 less HP per person. Wait, you can't just give up because you're too competitive? Then don't cry about the pressure of being hyper competitive.

It sounds like you don't think Clint has a good idea because he is a member of SHIELD.

Nah, he can be perfectly contrarian to other people too

HairyDave

reckless442 wrote:

It also may provide greater opportunities for mid-level players to get key covers that, as many of us recognize, the veterans with fully covered line-ups are hoarding because they need the season points.

That's my main problem with the whole Season issue at the moment. I am firmly in the middle of 2-3* country and the only reliable way of getting further is placing well in events - which had become incredibly difficult of late with the bracket changes and my MMR (I'm still not sure what going on with that).

But what if D3 ran parallel events? Identical in all respects except that one would count towards your season tally and the other wouldn't. You'd be free to compete in both, but without season points on offer maybe there's less incentive for top-tier players to go all out for the win and let the less experienced players have a crack at some decent rewards.

Seasick Pirate

KevinMark wrote:

I hate the fact that I can't win any 3* covers from PvP anymore. Today I didn't feel like starting up MPQ even but just holding out for the end of Season 1. If they don't change things, I will quit the game. Even if I don't quit, I don't think I will grind like this in Season 2. I might end up leaving my alliance because I don't want to to hold them back.

This is SO true and I didn't realize it until the Ragnarok event was ending. I spent a long time building up to my 2-star roster and worked hard to receive the 3-stars I have. But recently, the 3-star rewards from events have been too hard for me to obtain and it's very frustrating. I'm playing more than I ever did before but receiving fewer rewards overall. It really makes the game less appealing to play when thinking of it that way. Not to mention today's weather was gorgeous – I don't regret spending the day outside instead of fretting over this game.

I'm waiting to see what happens at the end of Season 1, how Nick Fury is implemented, and what Season 2 will involve before deciding this game's fate.

Unknown

HairyDave wrote:

reckless442 wrote:

It also may provide greater opportunities for mid-level players to get key covers that, as many of us recognize, the veterans with fully covered line-ups are hoarding because they need the season points.

That's my main problem with the whole Season issue at the moment. I am firmly in the middle of 2-3* country and the only reliable way of getting further is placing well in events - which had become incredibly difficult of late with the bracket changes and my MMR (I'm still not sure what going on with that).

But what if D3 ran parallel events? Identical in all respects except that one would count towards your season tally and the other wouldn't. You'd be free to compete in both, but without season points on offer maybe there's less incentive for top-tier players to go all out for the win and let the less experienced players have a crack at some decent rewards.

They certainly could do something like A/B brackets. You can join A and compete for the standard rewards and season points. You can join "hard mode" bracket B and compete for same ISO and HP rewards, progression rewards, and in lieu of the covers that you'd probably sell, a 25% bump in season points earned in that event. Or the covers, no HP/ISO and the bump in season points. It certainly seems better than the 'bracket of dooooooom' approach that seems to have been stealthily snuck in there.

It might unbalance the season standings, but it might also let 2* transitioning people get covers without having to try and reach 900-1000 points.

Spoit

j12601 wrote:

HairyDave wrote:

reckless442 wrote:

It also may provide greater opportunities for mid-level players to get key covers that, as many of us recognize, the veterans with fully covered line-ups are hoarding because they need the season points.

That's my main problem with the whole Season issue at the moment. I am firmly in the middle of 2-3* country and the only reliable way of getting further is placing well in events - which had become incredibly difficult of late with the bracket changes and my MMR (I'm still not sure what going on with that).

But what if D3 ran parallel events? Identical in all respects except that one would count towards your season tally and the other wouldn't. You'd be free to compete in both, but without season points on offer maybe there's less incentive for top-tier players to go all out for the win and let the less experienced players have a crack at some decent rewards.

They certainly could do something like A/B brackets. You can join A and compete for the standard rewards and season points. You can join "hard mode" bracket B and compete for same ISO and HP rewards, progression rewards, and in lieu of the covers that you'd probably sell, a 25% bump in season points earned in that event. Or the covers, no HP/ISO and the bump in season points. It certainly seems better than the 'bracket of dooooooom' approach that seems to have been stealthily snuck in there.

It might unbalance the season standings, but it might also let 2* transitioning people get covers without having to try and reach 900-1000 points.

Adding in season point boosts is getting awfully close to P2W

Unknown

just chiming in to echo the sentiment that the season has made the game feel ultra grindy. t he good news is that im caring less and less about not playing and i can see myself just stopping my play aftet another few weeks. i didnt play the Rags tourney in full bc im just tired of it and it totally tanked my season 1 score. im not huring my alliance bc i still score well, but its liberating to know that im no longer competing for the top prizes.

marv

Unknown

HairyDave wrote:

reckless442 wrote:

It also may provide greater opportunities for mid-level players to get key covers that, as many of us recognize, the veterans with fully covered line-ups are hoarding because they need the season points.

That's my main problem with the whole Season issue at the moment. I am firmly in the middle of 2-3* country and the only reliable way of getting further is placing well in events - which had become incredibly difficult of late with the bracket changes and my MMR (I'm still not sure what going on with that).

But what if D3 ran parallel events? Identical in all respects except that one would count towards your season tally and the other wouldn't. You'd be free to compete in both, but without season points on offer maybe there's less incentive for top-tier players to go all out for the win and let the less experienced players have a crack at some decent rewards.

Yeah, that sucks right now. I have no interest in any 2* by now, so the new changes to pvp rewards just make me sell more covers. Tokens went from "good" to "mostly disappointing".

The only real way of getting 3* covers without spending a buttload of HP now is to place well in PvP or PvE, but now PvP is hard enough that I can't guarantee a 3* cover, and pretty much impossible to get the second one. Luckily my alliance has been able to rank top 100 so that's 2 covers at least, and that means you need to be in a 20 slot alliance to have any hope of progression.

And they keep messing with PvE so it's hard to tell if you can go well, with scaling starting to affect me as well.

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

j12601 wrote:

HairyDave wrote:

reckless442 wrote:

It also may provide greater opportunities for mid-level players to get key covers that, as many of us recognize, the veterans with fully covered line-ups are hoarding because they need the season points.

That's my main problem with the whole Season issue at the moment. I am firmly in the middle of 2-3* country and the only reliable way of getting further is placing well in events - which had become incredibly difficult of late with the bracket changes and my MMR (I'm still not sure what going on with that).

But what if D3 ran parallel events? Identical in all respects except that one would count towards your season tally and the other wouldn't. You'd be free to compete in both, but without season points on offer maybe there's less incentive for top-tier players to go all out for the win and let the less experienced players have a crack at some decent rewards.

They certainly could do something like A/B brackets. You can join A and compete for the standard rewards and season points. You can join "hard mode" bracket B and compete for same ISO and HP rewards, progression rewards, and in lieu of the covers that you'd probably sell, a 25% bump in season points earned in that event. Or the covers, no HP/ISO and the bump in season points. It certainly seems better than the 'bracket of dooooooom' approach that seems to have been stealthily snuck in there.

It might unbalance the season standings, but it might also let 2* transitioning people get covers without having to try and reach 900-1000 points.

Adding in season point boosts is getting awfully close to P2W

From what I got he is suggesting a parallel event that instead of giving covers as a reward, gives more points for the season. Alliances competing for the season would get more points and don't waste rewards they don't need, while people who need the covers would go for the other event that has a lesser effect on season standings. I'm assuming these events are mutually exclusive, otherwise hardcore people would just do both.

Spoit

sup123 wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Adding in season point boosts is getting awfully close to P2W

From what I got he is suggesting a parallel event that instead of giving covers as a reward, gives more points for the season. Alliances competing for the season would get more points and don't waste rewards they don't need, while people who need the covers would go for the other event that has a lesser effect on season standings. I'm assuming these events are mutually exclusive, otherwise hardcore people would just do both.

Yeah, and if you think alliance drama is bad now, imagine how it'll be when people do the sin of entering a tournament for covers the need, rather than buying the covers and going for the boosted points one for their alliance

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

sup123 wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Adding in season point boosts is getting awfully close to P2W

From what I got he is suggesting a parallel event that instead of giving covers as a reward, gives more points for the season. Alliances competing for the season would get more points and don't waste rewards they don't need, while people who need the covers would go for the other event that has a lesser effect on season standings. I'm assuming these events are mutually exclusive, otherwise hardcore people would just do both.

Yeah, and if you think alliance drama is bad now, imagine how it'll be when people do the sin of entering a tournament for covers the need, rather than buying the covers and going for the boosted points one for their alliance

But then the rest of the playerbase isn't lumped together in the pissing contest while some people can still be ultra-competitive if they want, I think that's the point.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

WilliamK99 wrote:

The easiest solution to Seasons would be to have only a certain number of events count in a season...Let's say there are 10 events in a season, your season score is your 8 top scores from those 10 events, this allows you to "skip" 2 events or not do as well as you'd like due to personal reasons and still be able to score fairly high..It wouldn't be that difficult to implement and it would prevent burn-out, which I and many others are currently suffering from...

Still would have the problem of feeling like you letting alliance down in the particular event. Doesn't fix the whole problem.

An enhanced version of this idea that solves both problems: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7236#p137240

Short version:

The Mental Health Break Rule:

Only the top 80% of a player's individual event scores are counted toward their total season score
and...
Only the top 80% of an alliance's members' scores are counted toward that alliance's total for a particular event.

HairyDave

sup123 wrote:

Spoit wrote:

sup123 wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Adding in season point boosts is getting awfully close to P2W

From what I got he is suggesting a parallel event that instead of giving covers as a reward, gives more points for the season. Alliances competing for the season would get more points and don't waste rewards they don't need, while people who need the covers would go for the other event that has a lesser effect on season standings. I'm assuming these events are mutually exclusive, otherwise hardcore people would just do both.

Yeah, and if you think alliance drama is bad now, imagine how it'll be when people do the sin of entering a tournament for covers the need, rather than buying the covers and going for the boosted points one for their alliance

But then the rest of the playerbase isn't lumped together in the pissing contest while some people can still be ultra-competitive if they want, I think that's the point.

Pretty much

I wouldn't make them mutually exclusive though for precisely the reason Spoit made - people who need covers have the opportunity to win them and compete for season points at the same time. I'm not going to suggest doing both would be easy but locking you out of either seems harsh.

yogi_

Nice post Clint, you make some good points.