Keep the new rewards system?

WilliamK1983

https://youtu.be/5QzUyLRbUV8

HoundofShadow

There are some players who actually like that because it doesn't have all the roster slot pressure  and RNG, but those were reviews back in 2015/2016. The content is old but what I meant is a console version that has up to date content (2021).  An up to date console version of MPQ will solve majority of the complains about the game.

As for feedbacks, I'm not putting down feedbacks. As a matter of fact, without feedbacks, the game won't be where it is today. When I'm talking about managing expectations, I'm focusing about how players respond to dev not implementing stuff exactly the way they want it. Let's use feeders as an example.

The common requests are:
All Classic 5* should have feeders. (Currently, a total of 17 5*, including KK + 3 Latest don't have feeders.)
All Latest 5* leaving LT should have feeders.

If you remember, when almost all 5* got feeders during Shardmas, it didn't went the way players expected. The ex-dev wanted tradeoff for making almost all 5* have feeders. And we had meltdowns from players and months of zero feeder followed that incident.

With the new dev team taking over, they mentioned that they want to avoid Shardmas 2.0 and it looks like they are still unsure about making all Classic 5* have feeders immediately. The best way out of this as of now is that all new characters will be feeders. However it doesn't solve both requests above, and 

This is where managing expectations is important. If players continue to insist that all 5* should have feeders (immediately) (without tradeoffs) and then berate the dev for not doing so, then they will be unhappy and frustrated for maybe the rest of their MPQ experiences. If players prepare for themselves the reality that the way dev implement important changes will be a watered down version of it, then they will perhaps be less angry and slightly happier.

Lastly, there are huge differences between feedbacks and demands.

If I give a company feedback, I don't expect them to implement my feedback exactly as I recommended, and I don't expect them to implement it at all. I'll feel good if they implement it but if they don't, it's fine because they have to consider other factors as well.

If I give a company feedback, and if they don't implement my feedback or they don't implement it the way I wanted it to be, I get angry and berate them, and keep insisting them that they do things my way, then it's not a feedback anymore. It's a demand. 

This is why managing expectations is important. 

DAZ0273

How did we get from keeping new PvP rewards to 5* having feeders? Have I missed a page somewhere?!?!?!?

Godzillafan67

HoundofShadow said:

There are some players who actually like that because it doesn't have all the roster slot pressure  and RNG, but those were reviews back in 2015/2016. The content is old but what I meant is a console version that has up to date content (2021).  An up to date console version of MPQ will solve majority of the complains about the game.

As for feedbacks, I'm not putting down feedbacks. As a matter of fact, without feedbacks, the game won't be where it is today. When I'm talking about managing expectations, I'm focusing about how players respond to dev not implementing stuff exactly the way they want it. Let's use feeders as an example.

The common requests are:
All Classic 5* should have feeders. (Currently, a total of 17 5*, including KK + 3 Latest don't have feeders.)
All Latest 5* leaving LT should have feeders.

If you remember, when almost all 5* got feeders during Shardmas, it didn't went the way players expected. The ex-dev wanted tradeoff for making almost all 5* have feeders. And we had meltdowns from players and months of zero feeder followed that incident.

With the new dev team taking over, they mentioned that they want to avoid Shardmas 2.0 and it looks like they are still unsure about making all Classic 5* have feeders immediately. The best way out of this as of now is that all new characters will be feeders. However it doesn't solve both requests above, and 

This is where managing expectations is important. If players continue to insist that all 5* should have feeders (immediately) (without tradeoffs) and then berate the dev for not doing so, then they will be unhappy and frustrated for maybe the rest of their MPQ experiences. If players prepare for themselves the reality that the way dev implement important changes will be a watered down version of it, then they will perhaps be less angry and slightly happier.

Lastly, there are huge differences between feedbacks and demands.

If I give a company feedback, I don't expect them to implement my feedback exactly as I recommended, and I don't expect them to implement it at all. I'll feel good if they implement it but if they don't, it's fine because they have to consider other factors as well.

If I give a company feedback, and if they don't implement my feedback or they don't implement it the way I wanted it to be, I get angry and berate them, and keep insisting them that they do things my way, then it's not a feedback anymore. It's a demand. 

This is why managing expectations is important. 

Yes, it definitely appears to be the case that there will never be a shardmas again. Which I'm fine with. It also appears that every new 4* will feed a 5*. As you've noted, they are way behind the curve and releasing them on a 1:1 schedule ensures that they'll always be adding feeders for classics.  If the goal is to catch up (it might not be and it doesn't need to be), then 4s could be both primary and secondary 5* feeders where there exists a fellow 4* with the same secondary 5* feeder.  Presuming they don't keep the current model of giving fewer shards/covers for the secondarily fed 5*, new 4s could instead feed two 5s at equal measure... maybe at least until there are only the latest six 5s at which point they could switch it back to single-feeding so that a newly released 4* doesn't feed the newly released 5*. But that's all conjecture and possibility. 

I'm fairly certain that everyone here on the forums has very well managed expectations. At this point, they're probably lower than you think. If the reddit people are rabid, then you need to quell them.

DAZ0273 said:

How did we get from keeping new PvP rewards to 5* having feeders? Have I missed a page somewhere?!?!?!?

Hound is making lots of arguments that no one is really arguing against. It feels like a gacha conversation all of a sudden.

Bad

Actually indeed is a gacha conversation.
We can provide the best feedback we can, and it will be good for the game. 
Former devs(half of the current ones) seemed to appreciate it, although actually my feeling was (if you asked about my impressions)that they wanted it for to design better characters exclusively. 
Still is a relationship about mutual interest.
New devs right now seem a lot more interested than former ones on hearing us, and they promise big things (sadly there are summer holidays messing around).
Still, of course, is a gacha game conversation and we will obtain things to a limites point, which possibly will piss off many players. 
Still it's great to have an open channel of communication as many other games don't have it (remember the all powerful Blizzard and his implicit message " take it or leave it").
P.S: I have to say all this open communication saves me a lot of effort on to speculate, and it's something I am not used yet.

Blergh

I think the reduced time questions in PVE stem from having to play on a schedule not just players wanting more rewards for less time.

Why'd anyone play a game whose mechanics they hate solely for the rewards?  

Humans are terrible at communicating and figuring out what makes them feel bad.

They have to clear the sub at a certain time and it becomes a task on their to-do list. Clear subs at 22.00.  And if their schedule is thrown out by a late meeting after work, having to cook dinner, the dog escaping or whatever. This makes this task an inflexible time drain just when you need to do other things - as life is chaos. And it gets expressed as I wish it took less time to clear as I have other things to do right now. 

And there are pressures from meeting expectations and goals set by your alliance. No one wants to let their friends down. 

It's not about wanting to reduce their time in the game. It's that the game is demanding their time just when they need it to do real-life stuff. 

It is mostly because language is hugely context-based and what we are doing at the time changes the words we use. 

So it does become a strain on time due to scheduling conflicts. Especially when you are chasing placement. I think that kind of creates the player wanting to be rewarded more too. As the bad feelings generated by the schedule are lessening the dopamine hit from the rewards and achievement. 

Phumade

The real problem with console is that the rankings and placement were completely separate from the mobile playerbase.

Key point to remember
1.  Accommodating different play formats is great as long as its part of a unified single playerbase account.  Yes, I know we can't easily swap between pc and mobile apps.  but clients feed into the same backend, and pc players know they are competing against mobile and vice versa.  ***Regardless of whether you like the PC UI or Mobile UI better, you fought and interacted the same players.

I would love to see a console version and would happily engage if they had a common userbase and I could interact with my alliance friends.  Otherwise the console version is like maintaining an alt account that can't report on flips and or what players are active/climbing.

HoundofShadow

I think it's common to see multiplayer mode in most games nowadays, so it shouldn't be a problem.

For players who don't play pves competitively, they can play in any timeslice actually. 

Anyway, the other point is, some players seem to have a lot of anger against the ex-dev team. Over the years, these are the kind of names given to ex-dev team: moneygrab, out of touch, greedy, stingy etc and we have players calling for them to be fired just because the dev didn't do things their ways, or we have players disrespecting the dev with their words. 

If players can't manage their expectations and also their emotions because of their differences with the dev, the above scenario will still happen with the new dev team. The last thing we want to see is the new dev team communicating lesser and lesser just because of a few angry players constantly berating them for not doing things the way they want it to be done within a certain timeframe.

So far, we have been really nice to each other (dev and players). However, the real test comes this September when Hero Points crunch and 15 minutes DDQ starts rolling into the game. This is where things could be heating up.

DAZ0273

HoundofShadow said:

I think it's common to see multiplayer mode in most games nowadays, so it shouldn't be a problem.

For players who don't play pves competitively, they can play in any timeslice actually. 

Anyway, the other point is, some players seem to have a lot of anger against the ex-dev team. Over the years, these are the kind of names given to ex-dev team: moneygrab, out of touch, greedy, stingy etc and we have players calling for them to be fired just because the dev didn't do things their ways, or we have players disrespecting the dev with their words. 

If players can't manage their expectations and also their emotions because of their differences with the dev, the above scenario will still happen with the new dev team. The last thing we want to see is the new dev team communicating lesser and lesser just because of a few angry players constantly berating them for not doing things the way they want it to be done within a certain timeframe.

So far, we have been really nice to each other (dev and players). However, the real test comes this September when Hero Points crunch and 15 minutes DDQ starts rolling into the game. This is where things could be heating up.

Are these things really true anymore? There were isolated incidents but most of those were years ago. You always get the odd idiot popping by the forum to have a pop but by and large this place gets by with minor need for moderation by a very good moderator in F4tD. I think we have mostly civil conversations with minimal fuss, don't we? Raking up old stuff seems quite bizarre to me. You mention it is a small minority of players most who I rarely ever see here much anymore but keep on insisting that these (and others?) are just waiting to turn on the Devs at the first chance? I mean is there a secret mob forming at Reddit or on Discord? Look - if I am going to need a flaming torch can I at least get some advance notice? Do you know how much wood costs these days?!?!? And petrol? I am not sure I can afford to make fire!

Bad

You just kindly let those persons berate a bit without answering nothing.
A week later all those pissed off comments will get insightfuls per dozens.
2 weeks later collective bombing review. 
3 weeks later the flame torch will be really short, you will need a flamethrower.

Blergh

HoundofShadow said:

I think it's common to see multiplayer mode in most games nowadays, so it shouldn't be a problem.

For players who don't play pves competitively, they can play in any timeslice actually. 

Anyway, the other point is, some players seem to have a lot of anger against the ex-dev team. Over the years, these are the kind of names given to ex-dev team: moneygrab, out of touch, greedy, stingy etc and we have players calling for them to be fired just because the dev didn't do things their ways, or we have players disrespecting the dev with their words. 

If players can't manage their expectations and also their emotions because of their differences with the dev, the above scenario will still happen with the new dev team. The last thing we want to see is the new dev team communicating lesser and lesser just because of a few angry players constantly berating them for not doing things the way they want it to be done within a certain timeframe.

So far, we have been really nice to each other (dev and players). However, the real test comes this September when Hero Points crunch and 15 minutes DDQ starts rolling into the game. This is where things could be heating up.

The problem isn't that it is multiplayer. The problem is it requires you to play at the opening of a sub and the closing of a sub day in day out to achieve placement. So you're playing two events in one block of time - it is almost clear time multiplied by two. How many multiplayer games do you play that has that kind of rigid structure?

The majority I pick up tend to have an on-demand model. Especially mobile gaming which is designed to be more on-the-go feel. Clear one multiplayer event, stop. Go have a cup of tea and a sarny. Dip into the second leg of the multiplayer section with no repercussions for grabbing lunch. 

Sometimes they have a special raid or something that is time-locked, but it tends to be infrequent. 

Most tend to have events that can be done anytime within the window of the event. Kind of like boss events in MPQ where you can hit anytime in an eight-hour window. Has anyone ever complained about time being an issue with them? And most develop systems to enable players to form raid parties and stuff on the fly to avoid this problem - Diablo Immortal for example.

I can't think of another game that is so tightly scheduled consistently - especially when you look at Versus too, which has an entirely separate schedule if you use shields - due to length and cooldown. 

So, yes lots of multiplayer games, but all their mechanics are designed to be flexible - and dipped into on-demand. When the player wants to play. 

It doesn't set up a daily routine for the player to follow. They never present you with a choice of whimsically going out with your mates on short notice and screwing over your alliance friends or fulfilling the commitment you have with your alliance and missing out on real-life fun. 

This will only result in a player being frustrated about the game.

And sure, if you are not playing competitively, you can play anytime you like. But are the non-competitive players voicing concerns over the time it takes to clear and rewards not being fulfilling enough? If so, why - what is driving that behaviour? That seems kind of odd. 

And if not, what relevance do they have in this discussion? Are you suggesting that they get rid of the competitive angle altogether? If so, aren't you the one advocating for a single-player console version? And how'd that impact the business model here - how much spending is driven by the competitive nature of the game? 

Managing expectations is a two-way street. If the most invested section of your user base is telling you they feel unrewarded for the amount of effort needed - then doesn't the company need to change its expectations to maintain an engaged audience willing to invest? The company needs to manage and control those expectations as much as the customer. 

I mean the biggest outbursts in gaming have been around this issue. Cyberpunk, No Man's Sky, Alien Marines...

I can see scenarios where 'stingy' and 'moneygrabbing' would be a legitimate criticism too.

A new player comes from another Marvel game that uses the star system for tiers. They see an offer to buy a five star or legendary tokens. In most games this would be a fully useable character you just have to level up so they get it, and level. They start the game and are totally trashed. And then find out they've bought something that isn't only useless but damaged their progress in one side of the game - not enhances it. And they either have to sell their invest for little return, buy another twelve deals, or pull it organically which will take months if not years.

So, if you don't know how worthless a single five cover is, and compare MPQ to other Marvel games using similar systems, I can see how players could reach that conclusion and feel angry. 

By making the buyer more aware in these instances the company sets the expectations to have.

As for abusive players, MPQ sits at the centre of two of the most passionate  cultures - fandom and gaming. And this passion is often expressed negatively. Everyone gets it - Kathleen Kennedy, George R R Martin, Brie Larson, Chris Pratt, Alanah Pearce, Scott Cawthon, Troy Leavitt... It's not a MPQ problem. They shouldn't, but they do.

Bad

Blergh said:

And sure, if you are not playing competitively, you can play anytime you like. But are the non-competitive players voicing concerns over the time it takes to clear and rewards not being fulfilling enough? If so, why - what is driving that behaviour? That seems kind of odd. 

Yes, the answer seems simple, to not play competitive, but it's not at all.
Being a gacha game there is a strong psychological factor about the grind: I have to play that, and in that way, or I will lose those resources. It's really hard to not fall into this feeling. It's what keeps hooked on the competitive player. It's what makes the player feel better once he has cleared his daily pve nodes.
But also is a puzzle game. That rigid system is what has kept  it running for 8 years. 
To change it would cause uncertain consequences.
Still pve is interrupted during boss events and it doesn't happens anything. 
I've suggested many many times ideas for new content. I think I've suggested new content of all possible types. I.e: if there was a gauntlet running for a week, with scl implemented, no rankings, and pve interrupted for 2 days, I think it would be extremely beneficial. People would play without looking at the clock for once. Even some player could get so far as to play without meta characters, just for the joy to play.
It's up to the devs, anyway.
There is a lot of work to do, and to rebalance a lot of characters not released to be fast in a game where 80% of the content is focused on speed. 
If all that work gets done some day the game would experiment an awesome progress.
But it's a lot of work and former devs couldn't afford to do it.
I hope new devs could.

Blergh

Bad said:

Blergh said:

And sure, if you are not playing competitively, you can play anytime you like. But are the non-competitive players voicing concerns over the time it takes to clear and rewards not being fulfilling enough? If so, why - what is driving that behaviour? That seems kind of odd. 

Yes, the answer seems simple, to not play competitive, but it's not at all.
Being a gacha game there is a strong psychological factor about the grind: I have to play that, and in that way, or I will lose those resources. It's really hard to not fall into this feeling. It's what keeps hooked on the competitive player. It's what makes the player feel better once he has cleared his daily pve nodes.
But also is a puzzle game. That rigid system is what has kept  it running for 8 years. 
To change it would cause uncertain consequences.
Still pve is interrupted during boss events and it doesn't happens anything. 
I've suggested many many times ideas for new content. I think I've suggested new content of all possible types. I.e: if there was a gauntlet running for a week, with scl implemented, no rankings, and pve interrupted for 2 days, I think it would be extremely beneficial. People would play without looking at the clock for once. Even some player could get so far as to play without meta characters, just for the joy to play.
It's up to the devs, anyway.
There is a lot of work to do, and to rebalance a lot of characters not released to be fast in a game where 80% of the content is focused on speed. 
If all that work gets done some day the game would experiment an awesome progress.
But it's a lot of work and former devs couldn't afford to do it.
I hope new devs could.

I am not campaigning for changes. Or saying the system is an evil that needs to be eradicated.

In all honesty I have no idea how they could reform it without losing something. 

I am just saying it is the reason that a lot of players want quicker clear times and feel frustrated with the game is the scheduled they have to play to. It's an unavoidable consequence. 

And saying it is a multiplayer and that you can just not play competitively doesn't really mitigate that in anyway. The former ignores the fact most multiplayers don't function this way while the latter is irrelevant as they are not the people complaining about time.

No system is perfect. This is just one of the flaws of this one. 

TheEyeDoctorsWife

Yes the answer is that simple , unless you’re a player who lacks basic common sense. But for the vast majority ( I presume 97% since I’m not competitive and can still finish top 3-4% in SCL 10 just using common sense ) of players, we just enjoy the game more than rewards. There’s a player in my alliance playing 4.5 years and he’s still collecting and playing the 4* tier. Vast majority of my alliance is similar. Maybe 4 chase placement rewards. I know I’ll get a lot of pushback because I’m not a dork with spreadsheets spending half the day on Lime or Readit. So obviously I must be clueless not being in that cartel. But to most players this game is merely a distraction in our leisure time . 

StanleyBurrell

I’m not always a fan of the set times I have to play but I’m quite sure I wouldn’t want to play without the competitive aspect either. More boss events would help with the “optimal play” burnout tremendously and yes at the highest level of the game burnout is a very real thing. PvP I honestly couldn’t care less about, it’s a necessary evil if you want outpace the treadmill slightly but if the rewards were available elsewhere to help me “keep up or stay ahead” I’d go that route in a heartbeat.

HoundofShadow

I saw the comment asking the dev team to be fired in the past recent months. It was in one of the 4*/5* character threads. The reason why we haven't seen more of such comments yet is because the real test for the new dev team has yet to arrived. We are still in the Orientation phase and the first term begins in September.

Brigby was a nice and helpful moderator but there were players who were unhappy with him because he doesn't come back with clear answers about questions being asked. And this bring us to "solving problems" in MPQ. If the new dev team doesn't "solve" problems within a certain timeframe set by those players, you'll definitely see more of the above comments in the future. One of the favourite neutral answers that the ex-dev give goes something like "We're looking at it." or "We're still thinking about it." And those (veteran) players don't like that kind of answers. If the dev does give answer but it's not the answer that they want to hear, we'll get "out of touch" comments directed at them.

As for mob, I believe they (those in Line) can do it if they want to. Shardmas review bombing was a good one. Posting cheating videos in here and in reddit simultaneously and revealing to players in reddit on how to cheat was another coordinated way of pressuring the dev to do things within the timeframe they want.  

As for woods, fuels, and fire, things are getting more expensive (~20-30% increase) for everyone  However, high unemployment rates and recession will bring down the price of all these goods. Pick your poison. 

HoundofShadow

Difference in Business Models
When I brought up console version of MPQ, I'm looking it at from a business/monetisation model point of view. Console version will be able to solve almost all the problems players have with MPQ because of the way it monetises or recognises revenues. Gacha games are designed to create those psychological gaps and hamster wheel behaviour every day. How game developers monetises game affect how they design games.

Just look at what the Diablo game designers said.

Diablo IV will feature a different set of monetization systems than those found in Diablo Immortal, according to Blizzard. “To be clear, D4 is a full-price game built for PC/PS/Xbox audiences,” said Diablo franchise general manager Rod Fergusson following the game’s latest showing during Microsoft’s Summer Game Fest presentation on Sunday.

Blizzard has similarly promised to support the recently released Immortal for a while but is doing so through an in-game marketplace where players can purchase optional cosmetics, an “empowered” battle pass and “eternal orbs,” a premium currency that can be exchanged for the game’s controversial “legendary” crests. 

There's a third monetisation model and it's a monthly subscription service, which would likely be 9.99/month. How many of you would continue playing MPQ if you are required to pay 9.99/month but most of the serious problems like roster slots,  pullrates and specific playtimes are removed? Many players who have caught up and stopped paying would probably quit the game.

Comparison of difference gameplay
I'm not sure what other Marvel Games you are comparing to. For MCOC, players are also required to collect and allocate resources to power up and unlock all abilities of your characters. They don't give you a fully powered and max levelled characters with abilities when you draw them from token. They give you a base stat with base power, depending on what star level you drew.   Marvel Battle Lines, which is a card game (now defunct), also requires you to collect multiple cards of the same type to strengthen your characters. 

The word useable is subjective. A one cover 5-star is worthless to 5* players but based on what some players in reddit are saying, even a one cover 5-star is very helpful in pve. PvP-wise, it's actually useful in a certain way. If one cover 5-star is useless, new players won't be complaining about getting paired up against new players with lowly covered 5*. What you are expecting is a new player can buy a 5* bundle and skip the entire 1* to 4* tier. If this happens, what's the point of the rest of tier. This is as good as P2W. Whoever bought 5* bundle wins the game.

As for the implementation differences of gameplay between mobile games, game designers have their own way of designing games, and just because other game designers  things a certain way (that fits you) doesn't mean that every game developer need to follow suit. Those raid systems are more commonly seen in traditional RPG games that have mages, creatures and monsters. Think Diablo and WoW. What percentage of Marvel games has raid systems? Expecting a game (of one genre) to function similarly to another game (of another genre) is an expectation problem. If you want MPQ to function and play like other games that you've played before, wouldn't it be easier to quit MPQ and play those Marvels Games that fit your specific criteria?

 
Time/money investment
As for feeling unrewarded, this is subjective because it depends on whether the goals and timeframe players set for themselves are realistic. The rewards in MPQ is more or less fixed. If you want to estimate how fast you progress, you could multiply those rewards and use the result to estimate how far you can progress on a monthly or yearly basis based on which milestones you decided to stop playing at. If you hardly play pvps or don't play pvps and expect to progress as fast those players who play both modes, then it's an expectation issue.

TheEyeDoctorsWife

Based on your theory of a fixed extrapolation of progression, I’ve played 3.5 years this week, and if my goal is to just champ all 5* by non competitive play , I will need 6.5 years more to catch up and 450 the entire 5* tier. A decade total of daily play . I’m hoping nothing major changes like the release of 6*. Then I’d quit rather than chase a dangling carrot for life. 

HoundofShadow

That's why setting realistic expectation and realistic goal is important. For example, if a player played MPQ casually or non-competitively for 5-6 years and his earn rate is only 1.5 to 2 LT a day but his expectation is that he should be able to catch up to all Latest 5* or he should be to  champ all characters because he has already played 5 years, then it's an expectation problem. 

The top players are earning an average of ~4.5 to 5 LTs or its equivalent a day. I earn ~3.2 LTs a day. If you want to champ all Latest 5* consistently, shards aside, you need to earn ~3 LT a day. Using the above example again, if you're earning 1.5 LT to 2 LT a day, and you also expect to champ all 5*, then it's an expectation problem. If your solution is simply not to play/pay more or play as hard as those top players, but to expect the dev to increase the rewards such that you are champing all latest 5* consistently, then you'll have an uphill battle. In order to fulfill your request of champing all 5*, the dev need to increase the number of CPs by 50-75 per day permanently to fulfill casual/non-competitive players who want to champ all 5* easily within a certain timeframe. If that happens, top players would also be earning 7-8 LTs a day instead. Then, the resources economy would be messed up.

Blergh

TheEyeDoctorsWife said:

Yes the answer is that simple , unless you’re a player who lacks basic common sense. But for the vast majority ( I presume 97% since I’m not competitive and can still finish top 3-4% in SCL 10 just using common sense ) of players, we just enjoy the game more than rewards. There’s a player in my alliance playing 4.5 years and he’s still collecting and playing the 4* tier. Vast majority of my alliance is similar. Maybe 4 chase placement rewards. I know I’ll get a lot of pushback because I’m not a dork with spreadsheets spending half the day on Lime or Readit. So obviously I must be clueless not being in that cartel. But to most players this game is merely a distraction in our leisure time . 

If you want less push back, dropping the passive aggressive tone might help. People tend to get upset when you say they lack common sense or you call them a dork.

Congrats on the top 30. But that hasn't been my experience as a more casual player.

In the current event (name escapes me, sorry) I am playing sub optimally. Complete the nodes within few a hours of the start. And a fourth usually with about six hours left on the clock is giving me a top 100-200 finish. And that tends to be pretty consistent.

It's usually a lot worse when I am all over the place with playing nodes. Hitting four times mid sub or something. Or just clearing the rewards at the end or whatever.

Only event I've broke past top 50 in the last year was Hulkings release. And that required optimal play. Three right at start. Two within an hour of close (don't have the greatest of rosters, so takes me a while). I also sniped a fresh bracket, so had a head start over most of the optimal players in the first sub.

In terms of pure match 3 gameplay mechanics I prefer Candy Crush and Gems of War to MPQ. Greater puzzles, interesting challenges and greater variety in goals/tasks. Deeper match systems too in a lot of ways. 

I think the only thing MPQ does better is the competitive element.