Keep the new rewards system?

Chirus
Chirus Posts: 191 Tile Toppler
in MPQ General Discussion
I'm honestly a pretty big fan of making full progression 50 wins instead of 75. It makes PVP feel less time-consuming and kinda hits the perfect goldilocks zone between "fun" and "a job" for me. While this might be a one-time bug, I wonder what others think of this. Does anyone have reservations about decreasing the progression requirements permanently? I think a lot of PVE-only players would come out of the woodwork and this could potentially liven up the PVP pool if the bar to entry was lowered some, and this would be an excellent way to do it.
«134

Comments

  • St_Bernadus
    St_Bernadus Posts: 640 Critical Contributor
    I think it is an error that it is in Icebreaker but possible that they were considering a new rewards structure.

    I don't know any reason any player would not be happy about it.
  • ThisisClemFandango
    ThisisClemFandango Posts: 854 Critical Contributor
    Hope it's permanent. Makes pvp less of a hellish slog for players with less developed rosters
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    Based on reddit, the reduction of wins is an error. That's one error that I've never seen before. It affects almost all win requirements of most of the rewards.
  • TheEyeDoctorsWife
    TheEyeDoctorsWife Posts: 829 Critical Contributor
    HoundofShadow said:
    Based on reddit, the reduction of wins is an error. That's one error that I've never seen before. It affects almost all win requirements of most of the rewards.
    Either I’m misinterpreting posts here or someone is lying . It looks like what I’m reading is contradictory, I guess I’ll just have to wait and play the game .
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    If in doubt, follow the admin. Someone got the wrong info off discord. :D
  • MadScientist
    MadScientist Posts: 317 Mover and Shaker
    The error is the Venom cover instead of the Iceman cover. The win amount change is not.
  • Alfje17
    Alfje17 Posts: 3,859 Chairperson of the Boards
    More rewards for fewer wins is a-OK by me, usually only play to 13 wins, so I might be motivated to push a bit more.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    Chirus said:
    I'm honestly a pretty big fan of making full progression 50 wins instead of 75. It makes PVP feel less time-consuming and kinda hits the perfect goldilocks zone between "fun" and "a job" for me. While this might be a one-time bug, I wonder what others think of this. Does anyone have reservations about decreasing the progression requirements permanently? I think a lot of PVE-only players would come out of the woodwork and this could potentially liven up the PVP pool if the bar to entry was lowered some, and this would be an excellent way to do it.

    Is there any reason why players would not prefer to see this new reward structure remain?  It seems all upside. . .
  • Omegased
    Omegased Posts: 606 Critical Contributor

    Vhailorx said:
    Is there any reason why players would not prefer to see this new reward structure remain?  It seems all upside. . .
    yea agreed. in what universe will anyone say "i'd like to grind out 50% more wins for the same rewards". like, sure we all like the game, but c'mon.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    Of course no one would complain about that. You've already pointed out the real problem:  If players can prove that they won't complain if 50% reduction in progression time also results in 50% reduction in progression+placement rewards, the dev won't have much problem doing so. Unfortunately, 48 hour sub prove that players will complain even if they need to hit each node once, mainly due to "drop in daily earnings".

    The difference in reduction of playtime between pvp and pve is heaven and hell. In pvp, regardless or which scl level you choose, you will be given the same difficulty level. The nodes get tougher the higher you climb and which slice you choose affects how fast you get attacked relentlessly.

    In pve, majority of the nodes are goons. Players can sleepwalk through these nodes if they have the appropriate rosters and they choose the appropriate scl level. On top of that, choosing scl 1 will give you enemies in scl 1 range and choosing scl 10 gives you scl 10 difficulty.

    The dev already has an answer for those who want to reduce their playtime in pves: play lower scl. Unfortunately many refused due to "reduce rewards". This is just a classic case of wanting the best of both world, or someone wanting their cake and eating it too. I don't think human greed is an easy problem to solve. If it's so simple, we won't be seeing corruptions all over the world.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    Nowadays, the world is filled with impatient, self-entitled people or people who overestimate their own worth. When they bring this attitude into any place or into a F2P game, we see this kind of unrealistic requests.

    Wanting to reduce your playtime by up to 50% and expecting to get the best reward in the game is a case of wanting your cake and eat it. 

    Currently, players can reduce their playtime (apart from not playing or playing casually) by hoarding for 550 Okoye or playing lower scl like 9. I use 450 SC to clear scl 10 (non-wave nodes) in about 23 minutes and top players are taking 16-18 minutes to clear them. Reducing playtime in pves by 50% will simply have a negative impact on in-game resources. The ex-dev has reduced playtime by about 20-30 minutes in scl 10, and apparently, it's still not enough.

    When you play lower scl, you are still building your roster. It's not just as fast as you believe. I play scl 9 regularly and seldom play scl 10, and I'm still catching up with latest releases. So, it's not compulsory to play scl 10 to catch up. On top of that, players can use polaris/R4G to get t10 in scl9 without bracket sniping.



  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2022
    The game is (theoretically) entertainment. I don't see anything wrong with players wanted to get more enjoyment-per-time-spent (or less time-spent-per-enjoyment for those who are busy). 

    Obviously, d3/bcs would struggle to make payroll if everyone got every new characrer to 550 with a roster slot at the instant of release, so asking for that would be foolish for players. 

    I don't see, however, how it is at all entitled for players to want to play with the hot new 5*s less than 6 months after they release (without spending several hundred $ on cp).
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2022
    I won't called that entitled then. In this scenario, we are talking about (theoretically) reducing pve playtime by 50% while earning the same amount of progression rewards. That has to do with setting realistic expectation. There's nothing wrong with wanting to spend less time on a game but expecting a game studio to change the game structure so that it fits your personal lifestyle or goals isn't realistic.

    I'm going to assume wanting to play with new hot 5 means playing with a champed version. If not, there's a 1/1/1 version to play with in pvp. Or maybe they could bring back Introducing...  Or you could team that character with Odin.

    Wanting to champ a 5* within 6 month means that you couldn't champ the 5* within the 3 months while it was in LT. If you got it to a total of 11 or 12 covers before it leaves LT, then it's possible you could champ that character within 6 months (via sharding). If we are talking about anything fewer than 11, it starts to be a little unrealistic, unless the dev gives every 5* a feeder immediately after they leave LT. In that case, including sharding, you could champ it even with 9 or 10 covers or potentially even at 8 covers within 6 months. 

    Given the current situation in the game, expecting to champ a 5* consistently within 6 months while you have fewer than 11 covers when it leaves LT is unrealistic.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    I won't called that entitled then. In this scenario, we are talking about (theoretically) reducing pve playtime by 50% while earning the same amount of progression rewards. That has to do with setting realistic expectation. <snip>

    I'm going to assume wanting to play with new hot 5 means playing with a champed version. If not, there's a 1/1/1 version to play with in pvp. Or maybe they could bring back Introducing...  Or you could team that character with Odin.

    Wanting to champ a 5* within 6 month means that you couldn't champ the 5* within the 3 months while it was in LT. If you got it to a total of 11 or 12 covers before it leaves LT, then it's possible you could champ that character within 6 months (via sharding). If we are talking about anything fewer than 11, it starts to be a little unrealistic, unless the dev gives every 5* a feeder immediately after they leave LT. In that case, including sharding, you could champ it even with 9 or 10 covers or potentially even at 8 covers within 6 months.

    Given the current situation in the game, expecting to champ a 5* consistently within 6 months while you have fewer than 11 covers when it leaves LT is unrealistic.

    I was speaking off the top of my head, so you are right to note that ~3 months is a better timeframe for champing 5*s than 6 months, given the LT rotation schedule. But that kind of misses the point I was trying to make, which is that:

    (1) 75 matches for the top prog reward (which is less than a single LT pull per event) was always absurdly high, and even 50 matches is a pretty significant burden (given that high end players might typically be doing 3x pvp events a week, plus ~50x pve matches a day, plus ddq, PLUS any special events or lightning rounds.  That's an awful lot.

    (2) Getting 11-13 covers for every 5* in the ~3.5 months between release and leaving the LT pool was, under the Demi-run economy, an overly burdensome task for the vast majority of MPQ players, requiring either significant f2p grinding (more than 1 hour a day every day), or huge sums of money (since making 5* progress requires cp that cannot be purchased efficiently).

    There's nothing wrong with wanting to spend less time on a game but expecting a game studio to change the game structure so that it fits your personal lifestyle or goals isn't realistic.

    Or alternately I could argue that D3/BCS persisting with a system that imposes a very heavy burden on players at a time when the game and playerbase is stagnating (not sure if we players have numbers on that, but I infer it the general lack of dev work for the last 12 months and demi walking away from the game) isn't realistic. . .



  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2022
    I didn't disagree with reducing wins for pvp. So, what they have done (reducing wins from 75 to 50 wins) does not affect the entire group of players. It affects only those who play for wins. I certainly do not benefit from this change because I'm hitting 1200 in ~20 wins and I don't do full progression for my alt.

    You are playing a F2P game. Their business model has always been you either play hard (time) or spend hard (money). No norm dev will create a F2P game where you don't have to play hard/spend hard and yet can progress as fast those who play hard. F2P business model has been working (well) for decades, regardless of how much you hate these business models. And Diablo Immoral under Blizzard has also joined this. 


    I'm not sure what kind of grinding requires more than 1 hour of pves everyday, unless you are playing for fun using different teams or you are taking on something more than your roster can handle. For example, you are a 4-star player with champed Polaris + with a few cover BRB playing scl 10 spending 1 hour to grind pve. In this particular scenario, it's not the dev problem that the 4-star players are spending 1 hour to clear pve.  It's the player's problem. SCL 10 was meant for veteran players to challenge their roster, not for 4* players to finish as fast a 5* players with the "right" 5*.

    To summarise, I disagree with (young) casual players (playing partial game mode/partial progression) progressing as fast as competitive players or players who play hard because it simply doesn't make sense. If you don't want to put in the work to get the best and fastest progression, then you need to set a realistic goal with a realistic timeframe.
  • Godzillafan67
    Godzillafan67 Posts: 616 Critical Contributor
    HoundofShadow said:
    [snip]
    I'm not sure what kind of grinding requires more than 1 hour of pves everyday, unless you are playing for fun using different teams or you are taking on something more than your roster can handle. For example, you are a 4-star player with champed Polaris + with a few cover BRB playing scl 10 spending 1 hour to grind pve. In this particular scenario, it's not the dev problem that the 4-star players are spending 1 hour to clear pve.  It's the player's problem. SCL 10 was meant for veteran players to challenge their roster, not for 4* players to finish as fast a 5* players with the "right" 5*.
    [snip]

    You see me! Champed but sub-300 Polaris, 1/3/2 BRB and 3/5/2 Kitty vs SCL10 for all the 5* covers!!

    With that team, SCL10 takes about 1.5-2 hours. It doesn't matter what SCL10 was intended to be or who it was intended for, it gives the best rewards for those who are starting the 4* to 5* transition. Is it the dev's problem or my problem that I didn't wait until I was a veteran player? Is it my fault that I wasn't a veteran player by SHIELD Rank 120? Que sera, sera.

    P.S. I'll soon have a champed Shang-Chi and am already mostly using him instead in PvE. It's faster, but I don't have any fellow 5* characters to support him. Playing SC is a lot more fun though!
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,351 Chairperson of the Boards
    Godzillafan67 said:
    HoundofShadow said:
    [snip]
    I'm not sure what kind of grinding requires more than 1 hour of pves everyday, unless you are playing for fun using different teams or you are taking on something more than your roster can handle. For example, you are a 4-star player with champed Polaris + with a few cover BRB playing scl 10 spending 1 hour to grind pve. In this particular scenario, it's not the dev problem that the 4-star players are spending 1 hour to clear pve.  It's the player's problem. SCL 10 was meant for veteran players to challenge their roster, not for 4* players to finish as fast a 5* players with the "right" 5*.
    [snip]

    You see me! Champed but sub-300 Polaris, 1/3/2 BRB and 3/5/2 Kitty vs SCL10 for all the 5* covers!!

    With that team, SCL10 takes about 1.5-2 hours. It doesn't matter what SCL10 was intended to be or who it was intended for, it gives the best rewards for those who are starting the 4* to 5* transition. Is it the dev's problem or my problem that I didn't wait until I was a veteran player? Is it my fault that I wasn't a veteran player by SHIELD Rank 120? Que sera, sera.

    P.S. I'll soon have a champed Shang-Chi and am already mostly using him instead in PvE. It's faster, but I don't have any fellow 5* characters to support him. Playing SC is a lot more fun though!
    You go, matey. Hound has always been a bit of a snob. 😉
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    That's not the point. You are bringing a level 300+ (defensive) team into scl 10 where the enemy levels are between 500 to 650. Naturally, it's going to take a long time (1-2 hours, assuming 3+2). With Polaris +R4G, you can finish scl 9 sub using ~25 minutes clear and ~25 minutes grind. If getting an extra 200 or more 5* shards and a couple 4* cover is more important than having an extra hour in your life per day, then it's a choice you or other players in similar situation chose to make. If someone in such similar situation (spend 1-2 hours in scl 10) and similar roster expect the dev to shave off 50% of playtime for full progression in scl 10 for them, then it doesn't make sense. ~30 minutes clear are achieved by 5* (meta) rosters. If a 4* players using defensive teams start clearing scl 10 in 30 minutes, then something is wrong with the game, unless the dev creates scl 11. But history is going to repeat again anyway because you or other (4*) players are going to jump to scl 11 and spend maybe 2-3 hours instead.

    I play scl 9 most of the time and I probably played fewer than 20 or 30 runs of scl 10 pves since its existence. While I miss out on those extra shards and covers in scl 10, which result in slower progress, but it's a tradeoff everyone has to make. 


Categories