Speed and New Releases

124678

Comments

  • Mrcl25
    Mrcl25 Posts: 138 Tile Toppler
    abmoraz said:
    Remove placement awards and you solve the problem.  Your awards are then entirely progress driven based on "what you do", not "what you do in comparison to everyone else."  Speed then only becomes a factor in how much time you spend playing each day.
    It isn't needed to remove placement awards, just make placement not be dependent on speed. Give points for achieving certains goals, like: finish fights without losing health or losing less than x health points; finish fights in less than x moves; use specific characters in certain nodes; win fights collecting x ap points; extra points for match 5; there are endless possibilities. People will have 24h to clear all nodes, and whoever has more points at the end gets first place. 

    This way you can still have placement, people can play at any time during the day, can play at their own pace, and can use more varied teams without being penalised for it.
  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Mrcl25 said:
    It isn't needed to remove placement awards, just make placement not be dependent on speed. Give points for achieving certains goals, like: finish fights without losing health or losing less than x health points; finish fights in less than x moves...
    In other words, you'd need speed?
  • JHawkInc
    JHawkInc Posts: 2,605 Chairperson of the Boards
    Dormammu said:
    Mrcl25 said:
    It isn't needed to remove placement awards, just make placement not be dependent on speed. Give points for achieving certains goals, like: finish fights without losing health or losing less than x health points; finish fights in less than x moves...
    In other words, you'd need speed?
    No, because none of those things are dependent on time. You could play during your lunch break at work, and not be penalized for putting the game down until after dinner that evening. You could take time to think about the moves you make, instead of having to make them quickly because you're on the clock.
  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 3,239 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2019
    JHawkInc said:
    Dormammu said:
    Mrcl25 said:
    It isn't needed to remove placement awards, just make placement not be dependent on speed. Give points for achieving certains goals, like: finish fights without losing health or losing less than x health points; finish fights in less than x moves...
    In other words, you'd need speed?
    No, because none of those things are dependent on time. You could play during your lunch break at work, and not be penalized for putting the game down until after dinner that evening. You could take time to think about the moves you make, instead of having to make them quickly because you're on the clock.
    Speed is more than just clock time. It's also turns too as in number of turns to win. This matters a lot because each extra turn the AI gets when it has tile movers increases the chance of a lucky cascade that does tons of extra damage either though match damage or enemy firing powers. In cases of passives like 3* Fist, Medusa, Carnage, Kitty it can lead to lots of extra damage due to attack tiles.

    This is why Grocket is so prized because he dramatically lowers the chances of bad cascades against you plus all the passive damage I mentioned. Unless of course you are running a true healer like OML or Okoye.

    KGB
  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 3,239 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2019
    JHawkInc said:

    And then, completely outside of game mechanics, there's the issue of animations. We're playing a licensed game, where the primary draw is the array of characters from Marvel comics, but being competitive in the game encourages you to turn off animations, and strip as much of the "Marvel" out of "Marvel Puzzle Quest" as you possibly can. Wouldn't it be nice if speed weren't a factor, and people could play with animations and see the characters that are the main draw of this game? Or maybe choose whether or not to use them based on how they want to use their free time, instead of being compelled to do so by the game?

    It'd just kinda be nicer if the game weren't so anchored to speed and people could be competitive while playing at the times of day they want, and with more choice in how they want, instead of having high placement funneled into one tiny meta.
    This is a User Interface issue. Something I repeatedly cut-and-paste the same thing in every survey the game gives out.

    As a 4* player I can hit T20 in PvE in slacker brackets with nothing close to optimal play so I tend to play with animations on because I like them. Same with PvP until I hit my float point around 700 at which point speed is necessary because I want to avoid being hit if I'm pushing to 900 so animations go off.

    But back to the UI. They need to do a lot of things there like dramatically speed up the AI turns (ie Mindless ones and so on). I personally don't want the AI turn taking more than 1 second worth of super fast animations of tiles/powers/damage etc because by then I'm ready to move again. Players should be able to select speeds of full AI turns in seconds based on their preference (1 to say 5). They also need to streamline repeat battles in PvE so we don't need so many clicks to repeat a battle with the same team. So much could be done there.

    Doing things like that saves time in real life which is more important the speed for placement. Then slower teams become way more viable to use regularly.

    KGB
  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2019
    To me SPEED and EFFICIENCY are the same thing when it comes to the theoretical 'win in X amount of turns' or 'win with X amount of health' scenarios. In ether of these situations I'm going with the fast meta characters over someone with massive AP costs.
    JHawkInc said:
    It'd just kinda be nicer if the game weren't so anchored to speed and people could be competitive while playing at the times of day they want, and with more choice in how they want, instead of having high placement funneled into one tiny meta.
    I think this is something we can all agree on - every one of us. But I don't think having placement removed from PvE is suddenly going to make the so-called 'slow' characters any more popular or viable. Optimal/fast clears in PvE is just one small slice that contributes to the need-for-speed meta.

    Characters with bloated AP costs are never going to be in style. Does that mean they're unusable? No. Does that mean a player is a fool for liking them and using them based on other aesthetic reasons? No. It simply means they are somewhat of a disappointment to a large segment of players. Namor has been at the top of everyone's request list for years. He's literally one of Marvel's oldest and most classic of characters, dating back to WWII when Marvel Comics was known as Timely Comics. His arrival to MPQ should be an awesome thing... except it's not.

    He kinda sucks.

    The rift between the top and bottom characters at each star tier is remarkably large. What I was trying to say in my original post is that it doesn't have to be that way, but for it to change the developers need to recognize the culture (or meta) they have created and stop releasing new characters so far outside of that culture. There's nothing wrong with trying to shrink some of these lousy AP costs and allowing characters to play a bit more briskly.
  • Yepyep
    Yepyep Posts: 954 Critical Contributor
    This is, overall, the best and most insightful thread I think that I have ever seen on this board. Thanks for getting it started, @Dormammu. There is a wealth of clever ideas and time-tested suggestions for improvement that have been generated; the game's developers would be foolish not to pay very close attention. It is invaluable to have so much creativity DONATED by those who know the user-face of the game best: it's players.
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    To me, the problem started when they removed the random node rewards and made max progression a standardized 4 clears per node. That basically made max progression a requirement. I can't imagine leaving those rewards on the table, but before max progression was defined like that I rarely, if ever, reached it. Not much they can do about it now, we are all stuck clearing 70+ nodes per day or whatever.
    My suggestion, give a score boost for using a wider variety of the roster. If more points can be earned for a node by changing characters, then speed would be neutralized a little. Ideally making max progression obtainable with less clears, while also changing the fight for placement.
  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Expecting wide, sweeping changes to PvE is unrealistic. Suggesting the removal of placement from PvE (something I'd endorse) isn't going to happen. PvE events have had competitive placement since launch (5+ years for those of you counting) and it's not going away. We're not going to see crazy win clauses like 'use X amount of characters' or 'get points for only losing X percentage of health'. That would be overly complicated, both to develop and track as a player as well; placing highly in PvE is already complicated enough to the layman.

    And none of that would change the fact that a slow stinker of a character like Namor is a slow stinker.
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    Boo you're no fun. Yea, I don't expect changes, but so what? I wanted to offer a creative solution that doesn't change things wildly and does incentivize roster diversity, but lets just **** on Namor some more.
    I don't even feel he's that bad, using his loaner. Purple is decent when it hits, black is very bad, green is meh. Its not like he's getting outclassed by his 2* and 3* loaner pals.
  • PiMacleod
    PiMacleod Posts: 1,786 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    Straycat said:
    Not much they can do about it now, we are all stuck clearing 70+ nodes per day or whatever. 
    I wish we didnt just accept this.  What is so wrong with asking them to scale it back to one less clear per node?  If they are adding more events, like supports, that run concurrent with other events, why not ask they give us a break?
    Exactly.  I've seen a lot of people on the forums defend topics of discussion based on "we shouldn't just accept it", or some iteration of it.

    Sure, it's the norm.  Does it have to be?  Not one bit!  We talk of UI changes, less time per AI turn, and even prize changes, but for some reason, shaking up the standard 4-clears for all nodes is not possible?!  Its not like we're asking them to change a match 3 game into a CCG.  We're asking for things that everyone is already asking for... changes to a system that we've gotten so numb to that we accept it as the norm.

    So, yes -- I say introduce "point multipliers per Story event".  Example "clear a match with Namor = points for that match are 1.3X".  "Clear a fight using only boosted characters = points for that match are 1.2X".  Etc.  Etc.  And then *gasp* let the players stack them!
    I used Namor and the other two were boosted!  I got both multipliers!

    You could leave placement awards alone, if you wanted, using this idea.  You could leave progression awards alone too.  If using these ideas brings about more character usage, still gives us our progression awards that (let's be honest here) people would complain about if they didnt get them, doesnt raise the bar to get them, and possibly makes it so we could use LESS clears to reach our max progression...  wouldnt everyone win?

    This is just one way it could work.  Sure, speed helps.  But if you're gaining multiplied points per match, while I'm using standard meta teams the whole way, well, it could even out, or even fare better for the one using these "challenges", depending on what multipliers they hand out.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm sure they can scale back to 4 clears, but are the players willing to accept lesser rewards? The reason why they increased the number of clears from 4 to 5 is because they increased the amount of rewards as seen here:

    https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/64725/update-to-progression-rewards-in-story-events-5-18-17

  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    PiMacleod said:
    So, yes -- I say introduce "point multipliers per Story event".  Example "clear a match with Namor = points for that match are 1.3X".  "Clear a fight using only boosted characters = points for that match are 1.2X".  Etc.  Etc.
    This starts getting us back into Heroic Event territory, which were nixed for a reason. One of the reasons players complained is they didn't have the needed characters to effectively compete.

    We need to be careful what we wish for. Look at SHIELD Training - everyone praised and welcomed it until the devs started requiring newish-released 4-stars as essential to complete it. Then we all started complaining.
  • PiMacleod
    PiMacleod Posts: 1,786 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm pretty sure there'll be outrage if anything gets reduced.  Keep in mind that while we say "X clears required", it's actually based on points.  It just so happens that 4 clears per node for the entire event gets you max progression.  That's of course by design.

    The idea I proposed above was a way to squeeze more points per fight.  More points = less fights needed to hit max progression.  You could opt to forget the challenges, just run your meta team,  get max progression that way.  Or, do the challenges, run less fights over the course of the event, and still make progression.  Depending on the challenges and the multipliers presented per challenge, the speed may increase, due to points gained.  Win win.

    I still dont see why anyone cant shake or disturb our norm.  But what I'm proposing is an addition of a feature so that theres another way, that wouldnt necessarily involve meta teams, and still get the job done in a timely manner.
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    HoundofShadow said:
    I'm sure they can scale back to 4 clears, but are the players willing to accept lesser rewards?


    Yes, if they changed the reward structure so that all the cp isn't at the end. If 3 clears got you most of the cp, I would probably be cool stopping there. As is, 5 clears gets me 40 cp, anything less only gets me 10.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    PiMacleod said:

    So, yes -- I say introduce "point multipliers per Story event".  Example "clear a match with Namor = points for that match are 1.3X".  "Clear a fight using only boosted characters = points for that match are 1.2X".  Etc.  Etc.  And then *gasp* let the players stack them!
    I used Namor and the other two were boosted!  I got both multipliers!

    I agree with dormammu from earlier in the thread, you are wading into a weird territory where they have to add all sorts of new code, and it just isnt feasible.

    This is a simple fix.  Take the amounts earned for the first three clears off all nodes, across the whole event.  Add them together.  That is now max progression.  Super simple.  You can now play less the entire event.  If you miss a day due to irl stuff, it is easier to still get the max.  If you are missing an essential, it is easier to get the max. 

    The problem is that there is no downside to this.  Almost every change they incorporate, they find some way to make it one step forward, two steps back.  They just wont do this because someone in charge of maming decisions over there has decreed it that we must pay a penalty in order to get a bonus.  Aside from ddq, i am having a hard time thinking of a purely positive thing that didnt have some reasonable negative item attached to it. 
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2019
    The speed game is for competitive players. Casual players can be happy by ignoring placement rewards and just playing how they like. But the enticing extra rewards and seeing other people's progress may turn a casual player into a competitive one. Plus, casual players already chase after the fastest teams/characters anyway because they're the best. 

    Something I've said long ago is that the top rewards are designed to be hard. So hard that it pushes people to their limit and only the most dedicated, addicted, smartest or big spenders get those rewards. If all rewards were easy to get, then everyone would be at the same level and there's no incentive to try harder or spend. By making rewards have a spectrum of difficulty, it creates a spectrum of roster strengths because everyone will not put in the same amount of effort or money.  So, people would do well to accept the rewards their level of effort will give them and not complain that some rewards are too hard.  

    Is playing 74 PVE battles per day (7 clears) too much for a casual player? Definitely. Is playing 51 PVE battles per day (5 clears) too much for a casual player? Probably. So, I would say max progression rewards are not meant for casual players. Is it really hard to get a 5* support? Heck yeah, but that reward is intended for the top 0.1% of players. But.........the gambling RNG aspect of the game could give that reward to a "lesser" player, which gives everyone hope. This isn't true of 5* champs though, that doesn't happen by chance, but dedicated play and a wise use of resources. 
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    edited February 2019
    bbigler said:
    The speed game is for competitive players. Casual players can be happy by ignoring placement rewards and just playing how they like. But the enticing extra rewards and seeing other people's progress may turn a casual player into a competitive one. Plus, casual players already chase after the fastest teams/characters anyway because they're the best. 

    Something I've said long ago is that the top rewards are designed to be hard. So hard that it pushes people to their limit and only the most dedicated, addicted, smartest or big spenders get those rewards. If all rewards were easy to get, then everyone would be at the same level and there's no incentive to try harder or spend. By making rewards have a spectrum of difficulty, it creates a spectrum of roster strengths because everyone will not put in the same amount of effort or money.  So, people would do well to accept the rewards their level of effort will give them and not complain that some rewards are too hard.  
    That argument may have worked two or three years ago, but with literally 100 unique 4* and 5* (counting the limited as well), there are just too many characters to stay in this mindset.  

    Just quick and dirty back of the napkin math, taking out the limited and 5*, you have 76 different 4* that require 13 different covers to champ.  Assuming zero cover waste, that is 988 different covers.

    Cl9 will get you about 100+ cp and 2-4 4* covers from progression.  Lets say you do well, get 120 per week from playing and 4* covers from progression, and pull from classic tokens.  That equals 10 covers a week.  Almost 2 years just to champ all of them.  Just to champ them.  Not including all the additional 4* that get added during those 99 weeks, or the fact we are talking cl9 or that 140+ pulls will be 5*.  Scale it back to cl7 or 8 and it is even worse.

    I'm sorry, this game asks for a lot of play time in order to get rewards, i don't think it is out of bounds to ask for the amount time to be reduced.  They want to make extra money?  Fine, listen to the costume threads frm the number of people that will pay .99-4.99 for a costume.  Monetize the little stuff, for small amounts, and watch the money roll in.

Categories