Improvement to Story Event

System
System Posts: 1,031 Chairperson of the Boards
in MPQ General Discussion
This discussion was created from comments split from: Thinking of Quitting MPQ.

Comments

  • dlegendary0ne
    dlegendary0ne Posts: 93 Match Maker
    TeamStewie said:
     The thing that really bothers me the most is having to have to do my clears in the same big chunk of time every day. 
    This right here.  There's no flexibility at all.  There are ways to add it without breaking the game (from a design perspective at least). I even wrote a thread about it. I need this to change before I would consider competitive play again.  I really believe most players who are adults/parents would appreciate it too.
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,939 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2018
    I’m a 4* player in CL8 and yes I tend to lose to 5* rosters. I simply can’t outspeed them no matter how good I am. But then again I think that’s how it should be. A better roster SHOULD beat an inferior one and it’s really my own fault for choosing to invest in 4s over 5s. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t blame the game or curse the developers or think it’s broken. 

    In your analogy wouldn’t it make sense to separate the kids from the adults? Either have the adults forced into higher clearance levels or make the rewards significantly different enough that the adults are incentivized to play with other adults?

    Your solution is to rip out the track all together and have people running around in an empty field and given participation tropihies. We literally get those everyday in Deadpool’s Daily. And honestly if you want to clear leisurely I bet you can still get max progress now in PVE playing at your own pace. So you can still play your way. They will never put the top rewards from placement in PVE  progression. If anything they’ll just take them away. So you won’t get more, others will just get less (yourself included if you ever happen to luck into a lazy bracket). If places of power runs again I will bet you anything (I mean that) that the rewards will be watered down compared to the first run. But even if the return on investment were phenomenal I’d be pretty bored. DDQ probably has the best return on investment of any game mode, has the smallest time commitment, and I find it super boring.

    Btw, to be clear, I don’t think you should quit because you don’t like PVE and I do. This is in my mind an example of constructive criticism. While I don’t think your solution addresses your problem adequately or at best, is an over-correction, I do think it’s important for those who want to see changes voice their concern. I’m saying for those who feel the game just plain sucks and there’s no joy left, they do have a choice to play differently or quit. They have way more responsibility than the developers in determining their own happiness. 
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    Daredevil217 said:
    I’m a 4* player in CL8 and yes I tend to lose to 5* rosters. I simply can’t outspeed them no matter how good I am. But then again I think that’s how it should be. A better roster SHOULD beat an inferior one and it’s really my own fault for choosing to invest in 4s over 5s. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t blame the game or curse the developers or think it’s broken. 

    In your analogy wouldn’t it make sense to separate the kids from the adults? Either have the adults forced into higher clearance levels or make the rewards significantly different enough that the adults are incentivized to play with other adults?

    Your solution is to rip out the track all together and have people running around in an empty field and given participation tropihies. We literally get those everyday in Deadpool’s Daily. And honestly if you want to clear leisurely I bet you can still get max progress now in PVE playing at your own pace. So you can still play your way. They will never put the top rewards from placement in PVE  progression. If anything they’ll just take them away. So you won’t get more, others will just get less (yourself included if you ever happen to luck into a lazy bracket). If places of power runs again I will bet you anything (I mean that) that the rewards will be watered down compared to the first run. But even if the return on investment were phenomenal I’d be pretty bored. DDQ probably has the best return on investment of any game mode, has the smallest time commitment, and I find it super boring.

    Btw, to be clear, I don’t think you should quit because you don’t like PVE and I do. This is in my mind an example of constructive criticism. While I don’t think your solution addresses your problem adequately or at best, is an over-correction, I do think it’s important for those who want to see changes voice their concern. I’m saying for those who feel the game just plain sucks and there’s no joy left, they do have a choice to play differently or quit. They have way more responsibility than the developers in determining their own happiness. 
    Participation trophies? Strawman much? And no DDQ isn't a participation trophy, btw that's an incredibly stupid term these days, because you have to put in the effort to beat each node. You don't just show up and get rewards for zero work. Hell even in the game just joining a bracket won't get you any rewards unless you beat a mission in pve or beat someone in pvp. 
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,939 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2018
    shardwick said:
    Daredevil217 said:
    I’m a 4* player in CL8 and yes I tend to lose to 5* rosters. I simply can’t outspeed them no matter how good I am. But then again I think that’s how it should be. A better roster SHOULD beat an inferior one and it’s really my own fault for choosing to invest in 4s over 5s. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t blame the game or curse the developers or think it’s broken. 

    In your analogy wouldn’t it make sense to separate the kids from the adults? Either have the adults forced into higher clearance levels or make the rewards significantly different enough that the adults are incentivized to play with other adults?

    Your solution is to rip out the track all together and have people running around in an empty field and given participation tropihies. We literally get those everyday in Deadpool’s Daily. And honestly if you want to clear leisurely I bet you can still get max progress now in PVE playing at your own pace. So you can still play your way. They will never put the top rewards from placement in PVE  progression. If anything they’ll just take them away. So you won’t get more, others will just get less (yourself included if you ever happen to luck into a lazy bracket). If places of power runs again I will bet you anything (I mean that) that the rewards will be watered down compared to the first run. But even if the return on investment were phenomenal I’d be pretty bored. DDQ probably has the best return on investment of any game mode, has the smallest time commitment, and I find it super boring.

    Btw, to be clear, I don’t think you should quit because you don’t like PVE and I do. This is in my mind an example of constructive criticism. While I don’t think your solution addresses your problem adequately or at best, is an over-correction, I do think it’s important for those who want to see changes voice their concern. I’m saying for those who feel the game just plain sucks and there’s no joy left, they do have a choice to play differently or quit. They have way more responsibility than the developers in determining their own happiness. 
    Participation trophies? Strawman much? And no DDQ isn't a participation trophy, btw that's an incredibly stupid term these days, because you have to put in the effort to beat each node. You don't just show up and get rewards for zero work. Hell even in the game just joining a bracket won't get you any rewards unless you beat a mission in pve or beat someone in pvp. 
    Of course you have to beat the nodes, lol. I know how it works. If you have the required characters it’s about as close to a participation trophy as there is in the game (with the exception of Crash, which is a challenge).  In fact some vets have talked about implementing some kind of skip tax so they can skip it and still get rewards. Others talk about having their young children play the nodes for them. It’s really that easy. I get the appeal of progression-only PVE for those who want it. I’m just some of us like the competitive aspect of PVE. Under the current system, those who want to be competitive can, while max progress can be easily achieved with very casual, grind at your own pace play.  I’ve mentined the fact that you can play progression-only under the current system several times now and you’ve yet to comment on it. I’ve also mentioned that we already have several untimed, play at your pace modes including prologue, DDQ, wins-based PVP, Shield Training, and boss events. I just don’t think the entire game needs to go that route. 
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    Daredevil217 said:
    shardwick said:
    Daredevil217 said:
    I’m a 4* player in CL8 and yes I tend to lose to 5* rosters. I simply can’t outspeed them no matter how good I am. But then again I think that’s how it should be. A better roster SHOULD beat an inferior one and it’s really my own fault for choosing to invest in 4s over 5s. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t blame the game or curse the developers or think it’s broken. 

    In your analogy wouldn’t it make sense to separate the kids from the adults? Either have the adults forced into higher clearance levels or make the rewards significantly different enough that the adults are incentivized to play with other adults?

    Your solution is to rip out the track all together and have people running around in an empty field and given participation tropihies. We literally get those everyday in Deadpool’s Daily. And honestly if you want to clear leisurely I bet you can still get max progress now in PVE playing at your own pace. So you can still play your way. They will never put the top rewards from placement in PVE  progression. If anything they’ll just take them away. So you won’t get more, others will just get less (yourself included if you ever happen to luck into a lazy bracket). If places of power runs again I will bet you anything (I mean that) that the rewards will be watered down compared to the first run. But even if the return on investment were phenomenal I’d be pretty bored. DDQ probably has the best return on investment of any game mode, has the smallest time commitment, and I find it super boring.

    Btw, to be clear, I don’t think you should quit because you don’t like PVE and I do. This is in my mind an example of constructive criticism. While I don’t think your solution addresses your problem adequately or at best, is an over-correction, I do think it’s important for those who want to see changes voice their concern. I’m saying for those who feel the game just plain sucks and there’s no joy left, they do have a choice to play differently or quit. They have way more responsibility than the developers in determining their own happiness. 
    Participation trophies? Strawman much? And no DDQ isn't a participation trophy, btw that's an incredibly stupid term these days, because you have to put in the effort to beat each node. You don't just show up and get rewards for zero work. Hell even in the game just joining a bracket won't get you any rewards unless you beat a mission in pve or beat someone in pvp. 
    Of course you have to beat the nodes, lol. I know how it works. If you have the required characters it’s about as close to a participation trophy as there is in the game (with the exception of Crash, which is a challenge).  In fact some vets have talked about implementing some kind of skip tax so they can skip it and still get rewards. Others talk about having their young children play the nodes for them. It’s really that easy. I get the appeal of progression-only PVE for those who want it. I’m just some of us like the competitive aspect of PVE. Under the current system, those who want to be competitive can, while max progress can be easily achieved with very casual, grind at your own pace play.  I’ve mentined the fact that you can play progression-only under the current system several times now and you’ve yet to comment on it. I’ve also mentioned that we already have several untimed, play at your pace modes including prologue, DDQ, wins-based PVP, Shield Training, and boss events. I just don’t think the entire game needs to go that route. 
    How is DDQ a participation trophy to you but regular pve events aren't with Thorkoye or a Grocket team? How is DDQ boring and a chore but not most events that get played over and over again? Can I play multiple subs of progression only on the same day in the current system? No? Then it sucks compared to a system that I want that's in the vein of the gauntlet event. 
  • fmftint
    fmftint Posts: 3,653 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2018
    TeamStewie said:
    It would be nice to have a non-timed pve option available that just has progression rewards like PoP. The thing that really bothers me the most is having to have to do my clears in the same big chunk of time every day. 
    Story mode is only time critical of you're a competitive player. If you're only interested in progression rewards you can literally play whenever
  • AardvarkPepper
    AardvarkPepper Posts: 239 Tile Toppler
    Daredevil217 said:
    I’m a 4* player in CL8 and yes I tend to lose to 5* rosters. I simply can’t outspeed them no matter how good I am. But then again I think that’s how it should be. A better roster SHOULD beat an inferior one and it’s really my own fault for choosing to invest in 4s over 5s. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t blame the game or curse the developers or think it’s broken.
    You take full responsibility for the fact that the current structure awards 4*s at a much faster pace than 5*s?

    If you're not a developer for MPQ, that's not really something you can take responsibility for.
    scottee said:
    Jexman said:
    I know, but it's a thin hope in light of a preponderance of evidence that the devs would rather lose the vets and get new people who will be happier with the ludicrous number of 4*s without pushing for any changes. Don't change the game, change the players, in other words.
    It'd be near impossible to get a mass influx of new players for a game this old. There's no momentum. Even if they did an advertising blitz like it was a brand new game, new players would start and figure out the hill is to big to climb within the first two weeks. Sure, some would stick, but not the masses. Too much dilution to see any meaningful progress. You need the F2P players to tell all their friends, but no one's going to do that with the HP block needed for roster slots.

    If you eliminated roster slot costs, magically solved dilution, and somehow made 5*s look attainable to mid level players, MAYBE you could get a small influx of new players.
    None of that would be true if the game were changed and there weren't a "big hill to climb".  And really, there isn't that big a hill to climb.  A F2P can be in the 3*-4* transition in a month.  Sure that means not collecting many of the 3*s, but it's about playing smart and pushing to get the most rewards for the least time spent in-game.  The same is true for any game that offers a lot of choices (even if many of those choices are "bad" choices for those that know the system, they're still "choices" that can confuse new players).

    I'm not discounting what you're saying, and there are real barriers to new feature implementation.  But if your job depended on the continued success of a product, and if your bosses didn't have a vested interest in seeing the product expire, well, what's your conclusion?  Someone somewhere is going to try to do something, and just because some things don't come out particularly well doesn't mean they were inherently bad ideas.

    Take for example outfits.  I mean yeah okay personally I am not caring for the outfits as implemented.  But say you had McFarlane art for Spiderman, that could be different.  I'm not saying increased sales would justify the cost, but you can see where the conceptualization for something like outfits could have been different to the implementation.  Same for supports.  In both cases what we have are additional ways for players to spend money in-game without feeding into character glut, and doesn't that show the developers are paying attention to what players are saying, even if the actual implementation might not be quite what some want?

    Let's be realistic, if the devs were to implement these suggestions, they will likely see their revenues and profits slashed by 30%-50% every year. But many don't care.The only thing many in here care is "When is the devs going to implement all my suggestion(s)?"
    Let's be realistic, as you might say.  Who is responsible for communicating what they want to the developers?  Whoever thought that an idea they had was a bad one?  Busting on members of the community for making suggestions or wanting things implemented their way is not going to accomplish anything productive, am I right?  And who's to say but that maybe someone will suggest a good cost-effective idea that will make both developers and players happy?

    ==

    The way I see it, the devs have the tiger by the tail.  That's an analogy; it's dangerous to hold on to a tiger's tail but if you let go then who knows what might happen?  Right now we have a game that has a lot of improvements over original implementation (at least to my mind) - 24 hour timers in PvE, champion rewards, saved covers.  But the core structure of the game's reward system hasn't changed, and having an ever-increasing pool of characters yet having relatively few of those characters being relevant (in terms of developing a roster to earn the best rewards in the least amount of time) has led to dilution, new players feeling lost &c.

    But what are the devs to do?  If they keep trying to tack features on like outfits and supports, they're still not changing the core structure, and not addressing those core issues.  But if they do change the core structure they risk angering veterans that in some cases have spent years or thousands of dollars on the game as it is.  So they can anger their existing playerbase and see an immediate drop in income for *potential* increase in business?  Remembering that playerbase that is angry about changes will give negative reviews so decrease chances of new players picking up the game?

    As I see it, though (and this is an uninformed perspective as I don't have the metrics) - although I could say that forum opinions are a vocal minority (which is probably true), I think in general having ever increasing numbers of characters of various tiers while only relatively few of those characters remain relevant in terms of earning rewards is a bad thing.  New players are confused, veteran players feel they're not making any progress despite their huge investments (I mean really now, if you're in the 4*-5* transition what do you care if you earn another 4* cover so get a character from level 300 to 301?   no, you probably only care to the point that you're building up Thor, Okoye, or whatever particular 5* you're building).  So if it's bad for both new players and for veterans, then what?  Well even though it is ALSO bad to make changes, as I wrote, at some point it'll come down to someone will realize that they have to make the changes while the game is still relevant, as opposed to waiting until the playerbase is totally tanked and has left the game, then making changes too late.  Well that's just my opinion. 
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,939 Chairperson of the Boards
    shardwick said:

    How is DDQ a participation trophy to you but regular pve events aren't with Thorkoye or a Grocket team? How is DDQ boring and a chore but not most events that get played over and over again? Can I play multiple subs of progression only on the same day in the current system? No? Then it sucks compared to a system that I want that's in the vein of the gauntlet event. 
    In pretty much every response I’ve sent to you I’ve stated that you can play progression-only now, and you ignore it, even when pointed out directly.  That’s all I’m saying at this point because it’s clear you’re just picking and choosing small things in my wall of text to harp on and missing my main points. Which is fine, but I’m not going to continue to engage in it either. Plus other people further down explain it better anyway. 

    Tony_Foot said:

    As you said I've had a great run and if they actually added a challenge to the game now people would likely complain as they are so used to playing without thinking.
    Like this! I wholeheartedly agree. People complain if the game is too challenging. I have several examples but know if I list them it will derail the thread.

    Jexman said:
    I know, but it's a thin hope in light of a preponderance of evidence that the devs would rather lose the vets and get new people who will be happier with the ludicrous number of 4*s without pushing for any changes. Don't change the game, change the players, in other words.
    They do make changes for vets. Tapping is a great example. Gambit nerf is another (though that was them cleaning up their own mess).  I do wonder how much vets spend compared to new players.  They said their #1 revenue source is roster spots and that's definitely new players.  Pretty much all vets are post-HP so don't have to spend real world cash on slots anymore.  Yes some people leave, but like I said most complain but don't.
     
    fmftint said:
    TeamStewie said:
    It would be nice to have a non-timed pve option available that just has progression rewards like PoP. The thing that really bothers me the most is having to have to do my clears in the same big chunk of time every day. 
    Story mode is only time critical of you're a competitive player. If you're only interested in progression rewards you can literally play whenever
    I've said this several times.  Others have said their QOL has improved once they stopped caring about top placement as well.  Players have options!

    Spudgutter said:

    I saw you make this claim somewhere else, but i didn't have the time to address it.  Today i do.

    You want an example of someone making a change?  Look at rocket and his campaign to get rid of tapping.  Personally, i found it pretty annoying to see all of those posts, and didn't feel it impacted me, but he saw a problem collected data, made post after post, until it was changed.  Pretty sure it was also rocket that took on the first iteration of wins based pvp, before there hybrid system.  Same thing, data collected, posts made, changes happened.

    For the cover bank saving, you saw one of their poorly implemented ideas, made the same suggestion that dozens of other people on here and discord made(let alone any number of people that don't go to either place who had the same thought but didn't type it out), and think you get some sort of credit for it?  Really?

    And vaulting.  Wow.  As one of the few vocal fans of vaulting, i assure you, there were plenty, and i mean plenty, of people unhappy with vaulting.  To my knowledge, you did not do anything special to "spearhead changes" with vaulting.  
    I totally agree on Rockett.  He's also doing it for the loaner node and is doing it for 5* feeders.  Even if I don't always agree with him or his approach (the spamming every thread one... I love the stats), I seriously love what he brings to our community.

    I don't think I deserve credit for any change in this game.  The developers do, which I don't think they get enough of.  My point was not to say "give me credit", but to say that I am not a blind supporter of the developers and will speak out on things that I feel are bad for the game.  And while my approach is different from the Racoon, I do know of some players on Line who actually "blame" me for our current dilution problem because I was "the most avid detractor of vaulting".  To be clear, I was happy with the 50/50 compromise and did not ask for THIS! But, I just made some compelling arguments as to why vaulting did not work and probably wouldn't sustain and the developers came in and actually responded to it and said that they'd be willing to make a change in the future if enough people were unhappy.  No I didn't spam every thread or do a million polls.  My approach was different but was still an approach none the less.  With cover saving Hardonic was the one with the stats that backed up why we were getting a raw deal.  I was just very vocal toward those who felt like we were being done a favor.  But really that change was implemented so quickly anyway and was a better solution than any of us could have dreamed that again, the devs deserve a ton of credit.

    AardvarkPepper said:
    Daredevil217 said:
    I’m a 4* player in CL8 and yes I tend to lose to 5* rosters. I simply can’t outspeed them no matter how good I am. But then again I think that’s how it should be. A better roster SHOULD beat an inferior one and it’s really my own fault for choosing to invest in 4s over 5s. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t blame the game or curse the developers or think it’s broken.
    You take full responsibility for the fact that the current structure awards 4*s at a much faster pace than 5*s?

    If you're not a developer for MPQ, that's not really something you can take responsibility for
    To be clear I'm saying that my roster could compete with the ones that beat me but I purposely hold it back so I can enjoy more character combos in PVP.  I take responsibility for my own fun.  And am not blaming PVE being broken for rosters better than mine beating me.  I agree with the rest of your post but its different from the point Shad and I were arguing.


  • Pants1000
    Pants1000 Posts: 484 Mover and Shaker
    edited December 2018
    TeamStewie said:
    It would be nice to have a non-timed pve option available that just has progression rewards like PoP. The thing that really bothers me the most is having to have to do my clears in the same big chunk of time every day. 
    That option is there already!  Do 5 clears at any point during the day and you’ll get full progression rewards.  Actually if you do the 5* essential you don’t even need 5 clears.  

    This is how I usually do PVE.  Sometimes I do a few nodes in the morning, a few over lunch break, and a few in the evening.  I’ll never get t10, but it’s more fun for me and I still get plenty of rewards.
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    dlegendary0ne said:
    Pants1000 said:
    TeamStewie said:
    It would be nice to have a non-timed pve option available that just has progression rewards like PoP. The thing that really bothers me the most is having to have to do my clears in the same big chunk of time every day. 
    That option is there already!  Do 5 clears at any point during the day and you’ll get full progression rewards.  Actually if you do the 5* essential you don’t even need 5 clears.  

    This is how I usually do PVE.  Sometimes I do a few nodes in the morning, a few over lunch break, and a few in the evening.  I’ll never get t10, but it’s more fun for me and I still get plenty of rewards.
    You could still have that and be competitive if they changed from a points based system to a timer based one.  Points are basically a reflection of how fast you  are anyway,  so if instead you time each match individually and add up the times at the end, it would be the same result except players get to start and stop as they wish and still have a chance at top placement as long as they finish before the event ends.  
    The problem that I have with that is that even though it improves over the current system and gives people more control of when they can play there's still the problem of newer players having to go up against more advanced rosters. Though I still oppose a placement system if we did keep the current one and just tweaked it a bit to be based on time like you suggested this is how I would flesh it out. So instead of having a placement system that is based on the individual that finished first, top five, top ten, ect, it could be based more like group 1 is top placement (you finish within thirty minutes), group 2 currently top 5 (45 mins), group 3 top ten (an hour), group 4 top 25 (hour and a half). People that don't do all regular clears would be put into a lesser placement group based on the amount of clears that they did and they would get their placement sub rewards at the end of the sub. Doing your four clears on all subs, or two clears for waves, would stop the timer and then you could get your placement rewards for that sub right after you finish your clears. "You finished within 30 minutes. Here are your Group 1 placement sub rewards for 'Venom Bomb: Brooklyn Bridge." Overall top placement for the event would be a combination of all subs. Finish within two hours to be in the top placement group for a four day event.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    The fact is, the devs have to cater to two group of players: competitive and non-competitive/casual.

    For non-competitive or casual players, as long as you clear the nodes a certain number of time within a 24 hour timeframe, you will get what you are aiming for in progression rewards. Placement rewards are merely bonuses for these group of players. You can read the stories, turn on animations and choose any non-essential characters that you want.

    For competitive players, they usually want to show their strengths, prove that they are on top of the world. They will use speed clearing teams. Placement rewards is one of the way to validate this. Placing first simply prove that you are the best. I don't think players who place first would want to share the same spotlight as those in 2nd, 3rd place etc. 

    Now, the problem comes in when some non-competitive/casual players want to play casually or non-competitively but they want to get similar placement rewards as the top players. This is an expectation problem. 

    As for challenging PvE, it doesn't well.. This reminds me of two new events this year:  Wakanda PvE and Places of Power. 

    1) Wakanda received so much negativity till it had been taken out of rotation. General complaints were it was a cheap way to dimish players' healthpacks and or to increase healthpack sales or the word "neutral" is not neutral enough to their liking. I find Wakanda PvE okay after a couple modifications made: AoE CD tiles became single target damage and AP steal from both parties. This PvE was different from other PvEs because you got to use the more effective team to deal with each specific scenario. Alas, it has been put out of existence.

    2) Places of Power: the main complaint was the "lack of information". The praises were for the generous rewards. The way I see this complaint about the lack of information is:

    The devs created a new maze. As with all mazes, there are treasures, trap doors, dead ends and the right path(s). What happened was that the devs told us what the treasures are, warned us that there are traps and asked us to be careful about our choices/strategies to be undertaken.

    This "lack of information" come from some or many demanding to know where the trap doors are, where the dead ends are, and what the correct path to get out of the maze are before they start playing the maze. 

  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,734 Chairperson of the Boards
    Re:  Places of Power

    On the one hand, it is true that the developers intended to have players discover the best path/approach to get the best rewards.  I actually am supportive of this idea, as something different in the game.  On the other hand, players (especially top players, ie the most vocal people) are used to this:  Play enough and you can get all the (progression) rewards you want.  Now, as we have pointed out in this thread many times, sometimes that seems overwhelming and all that, but it is undeniably true.

    So, in that environment, they dropped an event that specifically limited what you could achieve and made it impossible to collect every reward everywhere.  Which again, I think is an OK way to try to change things up in the game.

    BUT!  They could have more explicitly said this up front.  Not:  "Hey everyone, make sure you only play the hardest nodes", or "Make sure you split you alliance evenly', but something like:

    "Alliances should be careful when choosing the subchapters they play in, as it will take careful coordination to achieve the rewards you want.  You won't be able to get all the rewards!  The hardest subchapters, of course, give the best rewards."

    Is that too much hand holding?  I dunno.  But the game reward system for the event was dramatically different from any other one before.  And it seems fair to tell people to expect something different in that regard after running the same reward structure for years.

    The other big issue with Places of Power was that players were very excited to get a new event type.  It has been YEARS since anything was done to try to push the game in that regard.  And once you got started, you discovered it was pretty much the same thing as normal PVE except for removing timers.  There was also the "mini-game" of being careful about which subchapter you chose, and for commanders, pushing people to the right ones.  So that circles back around to the issue of wanting to play/finding it rewarding/etc.  Even a brand new event is still just a slightly changed version of what you've been doing all along.

    There were also some complaints that the story suggested a need to protect all the places, while actually doing that would have been a way to really cut your rewards.

    Note:  Whatever form the next raid event takes, players should absolutely set expect lesser rewards, or be (very?) disappointed.  Which I'm sure will happen anyway...but the devs are usually extra generous with the first run of an event and then pull back rewards in subsequent runs. (see Strange Sights, for example)
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2018
    For the one year or so in this forum, my impression, based on the players' responses to events, new features, towards devs' responses and the devs' mistakes made, is that I find many in here to border on the line of being perfectionists.

    1) zero tolerances for mistakes

    2) perceived superior abilities than the devs in terms of creating/updating/managing MPQ or coding abilities, or ability in making "all" the players happy.

    3) Things must go only their way. The devs must follow their suggestions. Only their solutions are correct.  Common attitudes are (not exact words): this is so easy to implement. All they need to do is change a few lines of codes. I don't understand why it's taking a long time."

    Over the years, the devs / the managers have come up with features (Compensations? Pay raises?) that improved the players' experiences by miles. The thing is, the better rewards (think along the line of double iso-8, generous LTs/ 4*covers/ Crash) the devs gave to the players, the bigger their appetites grew.

    This cycle could be generally summarised as:

    Let X be an event with perceived good rewards.

    1. X happened (on special events).

    2. Players are happy.

    3. Players expect X to happen again on certain occasion or expect X to happen frequently.

    4a. X didn't happen as expected. But Y (old events or new events) happened on that occasion. However, Y doesn't give perceived better rewards than X. Players are unhappy.

    4b. X happened again. Players are happy. As time goes by, players expect better rewards than X for the same or lesser effort. It doesn't happen or it happened but it requires more effort. Players are unhappy. 

    This also reminds me of feeders for 5*:

    1) 5-stars feeders: When 5-stars feeders were announced last year, the replies were appreciative and respectful. As time goes by and more feeders were announced, the replies started becoming toxic, sarcastic and demanding due to the choice of "logical" feeders. Now, the devs are expected to give every 5-stars feeders (old or new) immediately because the feeder cycle is too slow. Next, the devs are expected to increase the number of feeder from 1 feeder per 5* character to 2 per 5* characters. 

    As for Places of Power, this "perfectionist behavior" in here led to unhappiness with the way the amount of information was given out in Places of Power. I think the devs want the players to have fun coming up with plans to tackle the missons. That could be why they didn't revealed every details. They had revealed how many points are needed for the last rewards, how many nodes there are and number of clears for each node that earns points. If they were to reveal how many points were given by each node, it's simply a game of mathematics: 

    1) add up all the points and multiply by 4.
    2) divide the number of points in the last rewards and divide it by Step 1. This gives you the number of required players in each node to get all the rewards.

    My conclusion is that many in here can't accept imperfection: they have to play the perfect/optimal game. This led to unhappiness and maybe anxiety.



  • AardvarkPepper
    AardvarkPepper Posts: 239 Tile Toppler
    @HoundofShadow Sure there are some toxic posters, but that's as it goes.  No point in generalizing all posters to be that way.

    Say you meet a black person, and the black person likes apples.  Does that mean all black people like apples?

    No, that's just silly.

    Then suppose you happen to be in a group of people.  Then suddenly you start talking about black people and apples.

    That's a bit odd.

    Likewise on a forum, there can be toxic posters, but generalizing all posters as being toxic is also silly.  Dwelling on it and going on about it in unrelated threads is out of place.  Mind I think it would be fine to make another thread about being polite in forums, but that's not what we're seeing here.

    If someone's being toxic, just call them out for being toxic, then everyone can try to move on.  If toxicity persists, a mod can step in.  When there's toxicity, call it out on a case by case basis, rather than just bringing up negativity time and again.  That's how it's done.

    But instead, if there's a conversation going and you shunt the conversation into talk about toxicity without naming anyone specific, what is that really?  That's irrelevant to the topic being discussed, detracts from the subject, and neither contributes to nor refutes differing viewpoints.  Even if specific parties and specific phrases were identified, the underlying points a poster makes still aren't refuted by calling them toxic.

    All calling anyone toxic does is create a dichotomous position in which people are attacking one another, putting an end to conversation.  I think that's best not done.  Rather, if one does find something offensive, call it out as politely as one can and try to move on, dwelling not on the toxicity or perceived bad manners, but on the point being made.  If someone feels strongly negatively about something and they express themselves in such a manner, well, one can acknowledge the strength of sentiment without going deeper into negativity.

    Indeed, if I were to dwell on toxicity, I could say @HoundofShadow that you're trying to troll the board and start flames and disputes by derailing threads and going on about negativity.  But rather than rejecting what you're saying and calling you a troll, I'll acknowledge yes, there are negative posters, yes, it's a matter that should be considered, but no, that it doesn't belong in every thread, and no, calling others negative doesn't refute others' points or their reasons for making their points.

    Doesn't that seem a lot better to you? That is, @HoundofShadow, their points aren't negated by their negativity and toxicity any more than *your* point that posters should make an effort to remain reasoned and polite is negated by *your* negativity.

    So let's all just try to move on, and not go on about negativity - or at least, if politeness and manners *is* a matter of concern, not to derail every thread but create another thread for discussion of forum manners.
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    AardvarkPepper said:
    shardwick said:

    The problem that I have with that is that even though it improves over the current system and gives people more control of when they can play there's still the problem of newer players having to go up against more advanced rosters. Though I still oppose a placement system if we did keep the current one and just tweaked it a bit to be based on time like you suggested this is how I would flesh it out. So instead of having a placement system that is based on the individual that finished first, top five, top ten, ect, it could be based more like group 1 is top placement (you finish within thirty minutes), group 2 currently top 5 (45 mins), group 3 top ten (an hour), group 4 top 25 (hour and a half). People that don't do all regular clears would be put into a lesser placement group based on the amount of clears that they did and they would get their placement sub rewards at the end of the sub. Doing your four clears on all subs, or two clears for waves, would stop the timer and then you could get your placement rewards for that sub right after you finish your clears. "You finished within 30 minutes. Here are your Group 1 placement sub rewards for 'Venom Bomb: Brooklyn Bridge." Overall top placement for the event would be a combination of all subs. Finish within two hours to be in the top placement group for a four day event.
    1)  Some players would deliberately change their timing so they would place higher in lower brackets
    2)  Veterans with developed rosters would still have an advantage

    How is the proposal functionally different to what we already have?  Veterans with developed rosters that care to make the effort to play optimally still get top tier rewards; players with less developed rosters that play optimally still earn less, and those that don't play optimally still earn less.

    HoundofShadow said:

    The fact is, the devs have to cater to two group of players: competitive and non-competitive/casual.

    For non-competitive or casual players, as long as you clear the nodes a certain number of time within a 24 hour timeframe, you will get what you are aiming for in progression rewards. Placement rewards are merely bonuses for these group of players. You can read the stories, turn on animations and choose any non-essential characters that you want.

    For competitive players, they usually want to show their strengths, prove that they are on top of the world. They will use speed clearing teams. Placement rewards is one of the way to validate this. Placing first simply prove that you are the best. I don't think players who place first would want to share the same spotlight as those in 2nd, 3rd place etc. 

    Now, the problem comes in when some non-competitive/casual players want to play casually or non-competitively but they want to get similar placement rewards as the top players. This is an expectation problem. 

    As for challenging PvE, it doesn't well.. This reminds me of two new events this year:  Wakanda PvE and Places of Power. 

    1) Wakanda received so much negativity till it had been taken out of rotation. General complaints were it was a cheap way to dimish players' healthpacks and or to increase healthpack sales or the word "neutral" is not neutral enough to their liking. I find Wakanda PvE okay after a couple modifications made: AoE CD tiles became single target damage and AP steal from both parties. This PvE was different from other PvEs because you got to use the more effective team to deal with each specific scenario. Alas, it has been put out of existence.

    2) Places of Power: the main complaint was the "lack of information". The praises were for the generous rewards. The way I see this complaint about the lack of information is:

    The devs created a new maze. As with all mazes, there are treasures, trap doors, dead ends and the right path(s). What happened was that the devs told us what the treasures are, warned us that there are traps and asked us to be careful about our choices/strategies to be undertaken.

    This "lack of information" come from some or many demanding to know where the trap doors are, where the dead ends are, and what the correct path to get out of the maze are before they start playing the maze. 

    I think that's a misread on the situation.  Top ten placements earn significantly better rewards; the other lines are what - top twenty, fifty, and hundred.

    As I see it, it really doesn't have much to do with beating your chest or whatever.  The fact is, players are spending a great deal of time to earn rewards, and if they're going to get another 3* or 4* out of it, they want that 4*.  You spend a load of time on something, you want it to be productive time.  I think that's natural and expected.

    So if you have a schedule that precludes playing at fixed times every day, all right, maybe you won't break top 100.  But if you CAN play at fixed times every day, it's a question of do you want top 100 or do you not want top 100, do you choose to play at those fixed times or not?  Do you want aggregate rewards for placing top 100 vs not top 100 or top 50 vs not top 50, multiplied by the number of events there are in a year?  Then consider how much time you're already putting into the game.  Trying to earn better rewards just makes sense, if you've been working the same job for five years without any pay raises though you're a reliable productive employee that has suggested and seen implemented cost-saving measures to a company, then you're in a position to seek higher compensation.  Is it a competitive testosterone thing to ask for a raise, or just something you should naturally do to increase your marginal utility?

    But then players are blamed for having unrealistic expectations?  Come on now.  So let's say that players early in the 3*-4* transition (more specifically, that chose NOT to collect a LOT of 3*s) look at the leaderboards, see that players with developed 5* rosters are the ones that place top ten.  Then realistically what?  Realistically?  Well they come to the understanding that with the way the game is structured and that players play, and the way the rewards system works - if they really look into it - they understand that they are pleb trash that can break top 100 (again, only because much of the playerbase is indifferent), but they CANNOT break top twenty (unless the stars align, so to speak).

    So then consider alliance membership, long term personal expectations.  So - realistically - as you put it, players realize they either need to spend a lot of money, or grind countless hours to collect a lot of indifferent characters that don't earn them rewards, and though they could rotate Essential Characters through roster slots so earn higher points and get better Progression rewards, there are serious barriers to progression.

    So either new players feel lost because they don't know how to progress effectively, they just know 5*s are rare and there's a huge imbalance of power.  Or new players DO know how to progress effectively but realize they're plebs and they will BE plebs for a long time.

    Where in there are unrealistic expectations?  The game is what it is.  If some players are dissatisfied with the rate of progression, again - for a veteran that's well into the 4*-5* transition, such concerns are incomprehensible because what does a long-time veteran with a developed 5* roster care if they get another random 4* cover?  At that point it's about maintaining the grind, not making progress, which is an entirely different matter than what newer players face.

    As far as demanding to know where dead ends and trap doors are before playing the maze - of course!  For goodness sake, what do you expect in a game in which there are alliance-based prizes?  If you screw up and don't know what you're doing, you let your whole alliance down!  Is that a matter of unrealistic expectations, or is that just how it is?

    So rather than blaming the players, I'd say - think about the system, think about the natural dynamics that occur because of the system structure, then think, is it really players that are to blame for acting in a fairly reasonable and predictable manner, or the developers for not fixing a system that, though fairly well considered in some aspects, directly causes player dissatisfaction in some areas?  Oh, you can't make everyone happy, and making changes involves real work, and there's the consideration of monetization.  But what I'm getting at isn't about blaming developers, it's to say look here's these real systems here's natural and predictable behavior, here is natural and predictable dissatisfaction, and why is it that players should be blamed for being dissatisfied when it's perfectly natural they be dissatisfied?  It's natural, nothing to do with spoilsport unrealistic players, you k

    Your only opponent is time. If you finish your clears in a certain amount of time then you would get top rewards along with everyone else in your bracket that did the same. Think of it like earlier video games like GoldenEye that let you unlock things if you could beat a level within a certain time. Not everyone was able to unlock the golden gun. No need for bracket rooms to help you get into a pretty dead bracket anymore. To address your issue on roster strength lower clearance levels could have easier time limits since they would just be using weaker characters. 
  • Ptahhotep
    Ptahhotep Posts: 428 Mover and Shaker
    I don’t attempt to clear pve optimally, but I do clear it fully, going some way past full progression. This usually gives me a top 100 finish, however in some new release events I don’t even manage to finish high enough to get a cover for the new character. I would like to see a cover for the new character added to the progression rewards in release events. This could either be in place of or subsequent to the current final 25cp reward.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,734 Chairperson of the Boards
    So this new thread is "Improvement to Story Event".  It seems like that means progression rewards to most, so here are some thoughts.

    Honestly, I don't think we can expect the idea of placement to entirely disappear under the current environment.  It's been mentioned for years, and we actually have a lot more progression gameplay and rewards than we used to.  Placement is also a way to measure roster progress once you can actually defeat all the nodes in all the SCLs, so I think it serves a valuable function.

    Progression options:
    1.  As already stated multiple times:  You can play Story in a casual, whenever you want manner and get all the progression prizes.  You could even clear 7 times and choose some days to play more and others to play less, since you'll be ahead of progression if you do more than 5 clears a day.  

    2.  Boss and other alliance events (Raids) are being run more than ever before.  These are all progression only and offer a fairly casual, mostly not-time-sensitive way to play PVE.  This is a good change over past event scheduling.

    3.  The Gauntlet is often mentioned as a possibility by players.  I'm not sure that the work needed to make that relevant in the current game environment would be justified.  But:  a lot of players want to see it, so maybe reworking it in the current design or making mini-Gauntlets would be fun.

    Lastly:  Dilution is real, and often we ask for a DDQ redesign to reward a 4* cover....perhaps one or more of these could be used instead.  It seems to me (but what do I know?) that repurposing some existing events with a reward tweak would be a low-cost way to implement some more progression-based content.

    4.  We do get Shield Training run every time a 4 is released, which offers a 4* cover if you have the right group of people leveled.  There could be a non-new release version (Sparring Arena?) which offers a Vintage 4, maybe/hopefully one that is coming as an essential in the near future.  Or tie the reward to a feeder announcement.  Perhaps you tone down the level requirements for this version, and/or always run this version with characters that have been previously required.  Maybe it could be run it on the off weeks (not a new 4) or during the 5* release.

    5.  There are a number of progression only events that could be run more.  Growth Industry.  The Agent Coulson event that gave a cover for him.  The Amadeus Cho event that gives one of his covers.  System Reboot.   Take these and change the rewarded character.  These could also be run in off weeks, and reward an upcoming 4E, to help players grow their existing character or possibly roster one.  A lot of these events are roster-scaled and offer both a challenge for players to overcome while giving you some roster progress without worrying about timing or a huge additional amount of grinding.

    The fact is that the 4* mountain is getting harder to deal with all the time, Limited releases notwithstanding.  Finding more ways to help players feel like they can catch up / stay afloat is a good thing for the game.  A few extra 4* covers a month isn't going to break the game's economy at this point with the 4* bloat.  (962 covers needed for all 74 non-limited 4's, and counting, to get to 13 covers.)

Categories