In PVE, is there a reason for a timer after 4 clears?

tchipley

Question is in the title. But I don't see the purpose of the timer and diminishing returns after the 4 clears.
I usually read complaints about it being a grind. Would it not be better to award points for all the clears and then lock the node?
I don't find it particularly competitive or enjoyable to optimize. It seems very artificial to me.

JHawkInc

tchipley said:

I usually read complaints about it being a grind. Would it not be better to award points for all the clears and then lock the node?

That turns it into a race, and the first person to complete all the nodes wins. If anything, it makes it even MORE of a grind for placement.

They tried it once, and it was awful.

Dragon_Nexus

It's a result of the system being designed for placement.

The optimal strategy with PvE is to do 4 clears of each normal node, 2 clears of a survival node and a single clear of a yellow required-character node. This activates the timer.

Then right before the event ends, do three clears of everything so they're no longer worth any points. The yellow nodes will depend on the event. Some need to be hit once a day until the final day, others need to be hit three times before the sub event closes.

If they just did 4 hits then lock the whole thing it would turn the event into even more of a race to the finish than it already is. It would cut down on rewards, too.

Phumade

actually I would be okay with eliminating the diminishing nodes.  Let pve be what it is.  A speed race for the fastest rosters.  It could be as simple as the fastest to do 7x at the start or by the finish.


Truthfully with optimal strategy pretty much mastered, its just a race event anyway.

tchipley

Thanks for all the excellent and fast answers. 

Brigby

Phumade said:

actually I would be okay with eliminating the diminishing nodes.  Let pve be what it is.  A speed race for the fastest rosters.  It could be as simple as the fastest to do 7x at the start or by the finish.


Truthfully with optimal strategy pretty much mastered, its just a race event anyway.

One challenge with it being purely a race though is time zones. We have numerous "time slices" to try and remedy that, but if Story Events become purely about speed, then we'd ideally need to have one designated to each time zone, in order to be fair.

Now, I'm no developer, but I speculate that having potentially 24+ end times would mean the servers would probably not be too happy running so many instances at the same time.

chris0001

Brigby said:

Phumade said:

actually I would be okay with eliminating the diminishing nodes.  Let pve be what it is.  A speed race for the fastest rosters.  It could be as simple as the fastest to do 7x at the start or by the finish.


Truthfully with optimal strategy pretty much mastered, its just a race event anyway.

One challenge with it being purely a race though is time zones. We have numerous "time slices" to try and remedy that, but if Story Events become purely about speed, then we'd ideally need to have one designated to each time zone, in order to be fair.

Now, I'm no developer, but I speculate that having potentially 24+ end times would mean the servers would probably not be too happy running so many instances at the same time.

The servers have "a hard time" as it is.....LOL

broll

Brigby said:

Phumade said:

actually I would be okay with eliminating the diminishing nodes.  Let pve be what it is.  A speed race for the fastest rosters.  It could be as simple as the fastest to do 7x at the start or by the finish.


Truthfully with optimal strategy pretty much mastered, its just a race event anyway.

One challenge with it being purely a race though is time zones. We have numerous "time slices" to try and remedy that, but if Story Events become purely about speed, then we'd ideally need to have one designated to each time zone, in order to be fair.

Now, I'm no developer, but I speculate that having potentially 24+ end times would mean the servers would probably not be too happy running so many instances at the same time.

Honestly how is that different than what we have now?  Right now we have two speed races, start and finish, then you'd only have one.  I'm not suggesting that this is a good suggestion but it's no worse (and possibly better) than what we have now.  Regardless there aren't enough time slices for it be anywhere close to fair anyways so...

Daredevil217

I like the “double race” because there is a skill involved that allows slower rosters to beat faster ones. The “it’s JUST a race narrative” is one of the biggest misconceptions in PVE. If that were true then I would not be able to beat out MANY of the 5* rosters that I did as a 4* player. Sometimes they mistime grinds and I finish mine with seconds to spare only to move up a couple places. It’s inevitable that when I played I’d always clear slower than people ahead of me but inch ahead during the end grind. Now I understand that it is “their race to lose” and that’s the privilege that comes with having a better roster than me. But creating that second “race” means timing is super important and adds an interesting layer to the whole thing that id hate to see gone (I know I’m probably in the minority, just giving a different perspective). 

IceIX

Not only would you need new time zones, you'd also have to have constant re-creation of shards, since it would mean that if you didn't start at the very beginning of a slice you could happen into a shard that's literally impossible to place in just because you got unlucky and got put into a shard that got filled and completed before you popped in. That'd be pretty sub-optimal.

For that sort of system to be fair you'd either need to just time everyone and put up times as placement (which has a host of its own problems) or make some kind of appointment gaming where a shard would fill to 1000 people and *then* open for everyone at that same time. The problem there is that at the start shards fill fairly quickly so you'd be waiting a few minutes, maybe a half hour. Later on, you could sign up and never get a shard or have a push notification coming in a few hours later. Hope you're ready! Hope you have push notifications on! That's got its own issues.

Kahmon

IceIX said:

Not only would you need new time zones, you'd also have to have constant re-creation of shards, since it would mean that if you didn't start at the very beginning of a slice you could happen into a shard that's literally impossible to place in just because you got unlucky and got put into a shard that got filled and completed before you popped in. That'd be pretty sub-optimal.

For that sort of system to be fair you'd either need to just time everyone and put up times as placement (which has a host of its own problems) or make some kind of appointment gaming where a shard would fill to 1000 people and *then* open for everyone at that same time. The problem there is that at the start shards fill fairly quickly so you'd be waiting a few minutes, maybe a half hour. Later on, you could sign up and never get a shard or have a push notification coming in a few hours later. Hope you're ready! Hope you have push notifications on! That's got its own issues.

Actually, this sounds great.
1) Same points for 1 to 6 clears with same increasing difficulty we currently have.
2) Time each fight with all times added to a cumulative total.
3) Leaderboard would be mostly the same total points, but use lower cumulative times to differentiate.
And this last one should be implemented for ALL events...
4) In case of exact tie: Award both the same placement rewards.
It sucks to finish 11th when you have same points as the person who finished 10th.

Being able to play when convenient for us, but still pressed for speed, would be a major QoL improvement.

Zalasta

Or we could just eliminate placement rewards altogether. Despite showing placement in DD, there aren't any placement rewards. Placement rewards turns PvE into PvP.

I miss the days of 4 clears to max progression.

abenness

Daredevil217 said:

I like the “double race” because there is a skill involved that allows slower rosters to beat faster ones. The “it’s JUST a race narrative” is one of the biggest misconceptions in PVE. If that were true then I would not be able to beat out MANY of the 5* rosters that I did as a 4* player. Sometimes they mistime grinds and I finish mine with seconds to spare only to move up a couple places. It’s inevitable that when I played I’d always clear slower than people ahead of me but inch ahead during the end grind. Now I understand that it is “their race to lose” and that’s the privilege that comes with having a better roster than me. But creating that second “race” means timing is super important and adds an interesting layer to the whole thing that id hate to see gone (I know I’m probably in the minority, just giving a different perspective). 

Yep, being able to beat out better rosters simply through daring to wait longer for the final grind is exhilarating (when it comes off). Also heartbreaking when you mis-time and miss a clear of the final wave node, or don’t realise how brutal the 5e node can be in scl 8 and 9, or get your 40th win in pvp just seconds after the event finishes.

This is an emotional response, and feeds into my overall enjoyment of the game, and also my engagement with the community For if we all suffer together it brings us closer, and I’m always sure I can do better next time...

Reecoh

If you really need to keep some kind of time requirement in PVE and stacking actual play time is problematic then how about this:

Each event is open for 24 or 48 hours like now. The pins could still have points that apply to progression as today, though just basing it on total pins cleared would work too.

For placement:

S = Timestamp the first clear start.

E = Timestamp the last clear end.

Calculate EventTime as E - S.

Then given N number of possible clears for the entire event you rank folks first by number of clears completed, then by elapsed time. I.E.

1st place is N clears at shortest EventTime.

2nd place is N clears at second shortest EventTime.

down to

X place is N clears at longest EventTime.

(X + 1) place is (N - 1) at shortest time.

down to

Y place is (N - 1) at longest time.

on down to the person who cleared the least pins and at the slowest EventTime.

You could still split folks into groups of 1000 of course like today, but no one would be penalized for joining that shard late. The big difference here is that the folks who get farther along progression get better placement, regardless of time spent. In other words, folks who do all of the clears but take all day to do it would be better placed than folks who don't do all of the clears even if they are super quick. I'd be OK with this because it prioritizes the play over the speed.

This would eliminate the need for set start/end times and lets folks do their clears in a block that makes sense for them. Only difference is it's all in 1 event rather than split between the end of one & the beginning of another.

I'd imagine you could even eliminate time slices totally and just leave the event open for 36 hours or whatever it works out to now with this system.

PiMacleod

Reecoh said:

If you really need to keep some kind of time requirement in PVE and stacking actual play time is problematic then how about this:

Each event is open for 24 or 48 hours like now. The pins could still have points that apply to progression as today, though just basing it on total pins cleared would work too.

For placement:

S = Timestamp the first clear start.

E = Timestamp the last clear end.

Calculate EventTime as E - S.

Then given N number of possible clears for the entire event you rank folks first by number of clears completed, then by elapsed time. I.E.

1st place is N clears at shortest EventTime.

2nd place is N clears at second shortest EventTime.

down to

X place is N clears at longest EventTime.

(X + 1) place is (N - 1) at shortest time.

down to

Y place is (N - 1) at longest time.

on down to the person who cleared the least pins and at the slowest EventTime.

You could still split folks into groups of 1000 of course like today, but no one would be penalized for joining that shard late. The big difference here is that the folks who get farther along progression get better placement, regardless of time spent. In other words, folks who do all of the clears but take all day to do it would be better placed than folks who don't do all of the clears even if they are super quick. I'd be OK with this because it prioritizes the play over the speed.

This would eliminate the need for set start/end times and lets folks do their clears in a block that makes sense for them. Only difference is it's all in 1 event rather than split between the end of one & the beginning of another.

I'd imagine you could even eliminate time slices totally and just leave the event open for 36 hours or whatever it works out to now with this system.

Can someone find a flaw with this?  I ask because it's not glaring to me.  

Also, the idea of having a placement structure change, that allows us to play a bit more casually, while still placing for rewards as usual, is intriguing.  

I do understand that there will be naysayers, as that is the way of the internet... however, if there is a solid argument against it, I'm listening.

Daredevil217

PiMacleod said:

Reecoh said:

If you really need to keep some kind of time requirement in PVE and stacking actual play time is problematic then how about this:

Each event is open for 24 or 48 hours like now. The pins could still have points that apply to progression as today, though just basing it on total pins cleared would work too.

For placement:

S = Timestamp the first clear start.

E = Timestamp the last clear end.

Calculate EventTime as E - S.

Then given N number of possible clears for the entire event you rank folks first by number of clears completed, then by elapsed time. I.E.

1st place is N clears at shortest EventTime.

2nd place is N clears at second shortest EventTime.

down to

X place is N clears at longest EventTime.

(X + 1) place is (N - 1) at shortest time.

down to

Y place is (N - 1) at longest time.

on down to the person who cleared the least pins and at the slowest EventTime.

You could still split folks into groups of 1000 of course like today, but no one would be penalized for joining that shard late. The big difference here is that the folks who get farther along progression get better placement, regardless of time spent. In other words, folks who do all of the clears but take all day to do it would be better placed than folks who don't do all of the clears even if they are super quick. I'd be OK with this because it prioritizes the play over the speed.

This would eliminate the need for set start/end times and lets folks do their clears in a block that makes sense for them. Only difference is it's all in 1 event rather than split between the end of one & the beginning of another.

I'd imagine you could even eliminate time slices totally and just leave the event open for 36 hours or whatever it works out to now with this system.

Can someone find a flaw with this?  I ask because it's not glaring to me.  

Also, the idea of having a placement structure change, that allows us to play a bit more casually, while still placing for rewards as usual, is intriguing.  

I do understand that there will be naysayers, as that is the way of the internet... however, if there is a solid argument against it, I'm listening.

What if you have a bad connection or accidentally get knocked off line.  One glitch and there goes any shot at top placement.  And you don't just slip a spot or two, but all the way down to the back of everyone who got full clears.

But "wait" you say, they just won't count it unless you actually finish the match.  Then I promise you top tier people will keep restarting until they get a super good board and super fast times on each node.  Not clearing in one match? Just restart until I get it just right.

This was all off the top of my head after reading just now and giving two seconds of thought.  I'm sure if people put more thought into it, they could find more problems and exploits.  For all the complaining people do on here, I still maintain PVP is mostly fine the way it is.  I would love if they lowered the number of clears, and I'm with Rockett on making the team-up node a one and done, but as far as the double race, I've already described why its not a bad system.

Malcrof

The Gauntlet, no race, no timers, just rewards.

JackTenrec

Malcrof said:

The Gauntlet, no race, no timers, just rewards.

I'm at the point where I would endorse this if rewards were rebalanced so that Gauntlet wasn't a ridiculous Sahara of resources (which additionally is impossible to complete if you're missing any essentials at all).

Jaedenkaal

JackTenrec said:

Malcrof said:

The Gauntlet, no race, no timers, just rewards.

I'm at the point where I would endorse this if rewards were rebalanced so that Gauntlet wasn't a ridiculous Sahara of resources (which additionally is impossible to complete if you're missing any essentials at all).

I'd be very surprised indeed if "no placement rewards" and "Sahara of resources" weren't intentionally tied together. See also: Boss Events.

WEBGAS

Brigby said:

Phumade said:

actually I would be okay with eliminating the diminishing nodes.  Let pve be what it is.  A speed race for the fastest rosters.  It could be as simple as the fastest to do 7x at the start or by the finish.


Truthfully with optimal strategy pretty much mastered, its just a race event anyway.

One challenge with it being purely a race though is time zones. We have numerous "time slices" to try and remedy that, but if Story Events become purely about speed, then we'd ideally need to have one designated to each time zone, in order to be fair.

Now, I'm no developer, but I speculate that having potentially 24+ end times would mean the servers would probably not be too happy running so many instances at the same time.

The answer is to make PVE with progression rewards only, just like they did with Places of Power. No grinding, every player could play whenever he feel the need, during the 24h of each sub, without thinking this game is like a second job anymore.

Reecoh

Daredevil217 said:

What if you have a bad connection or accidentally get knocked off line.  One glitch and there goes any shot at top placement.  And you don't just slip a spot or two, but all the way down to the back of everyone who got full clears.

But you wouldn't need to be making that last clear anywhere near the end of the slice. If you join an hour after it opens and take an hour to do all of the clears with a bump off line on the last one, you have 22 hours to reconnect and finish it.