QOL Suggestions

Phumade

HoundofShadow said:

Doing that is as good as gaming the system.

It’s just gaming the system in a different way to benefit a different tier of player.  It sorta irrelevant in the sense that bigger tier rosters can almost always emulate a smaller rosters playstyle.

fundamentally should players be rewarded for time spent in matches, # matches played, size of chars used?  Size of bench roster?  Number of powers casted?   

In terms of PVP, the only things that matter is 1.  Your free time to engage the game, 2.  Do you have and understand all the information available (in game and out). 3.  Do you have a sufficient roster to execute (and I’ve seen plenty of small rosters place high in scl10.

I am not against change, it invigorates new gameplay/combinations and encourages new strategy.  

Just don’t expect that any new gameplay changes to meaningfully alter which rosters and alliances dominate placement leaderboards.

Phumade

The one QoL change I would like to see is 

For players to lock In a set of 5-8 chars for duration of pvp.  You can choose any 8 you want, but your stuck using those chars for that event.

in QoL focused The sense that it’s easier roster mgmt for players to switch combos etc.

but also strategic in the sense that players need to account for all phases of an event such as climbing through a big A team clog (strategy focused teams that exploit a synergy). Walrus phase (where you might use big tanky defensive teams) grill combos,  hopping teams, and placement sniping teams.

jsmjsmjsm00

I think a lot of this discussion lost sight on what a quality of life change is. It's fine to have big ideas, but if it is changing anyone's performance, laddering, rewards, or resource usage then it is not a QOL change; it is just a change. QOL changes are things that affect ease of use not results.

If the idea is to change PvP so you or your alliance can climb more easily, that's not QOL. 

Phumade

itsuka7 said:

I would love the following:

1. Please devs, consider making two seperate pvp games (technically copies, so not a huge amount of extra work). One that resembles the current one where player, alliance and shield status can be checked for room play. I know some players like that sort of play a lot, let these rooms compete. But also, one pvp game where pvp battles are completely anonymous and where casual pvp players can have fun just playing against whatever team regardless of player or alliance, and without being accused of friendly fire, when all they want to do is get a couple of wins and a few shards in ranking. Having these two player communities in one pvp game is torture for both groups - the room players cannot comprehend why casual players would attack someone without doing a full check on opponent and shield status, and casual players don’t comprehend why they should bother to look at names at all, as they are simply looking at fun or easy teams to beat. Players can enter only one of these versions and it counts for the whole season.

2. We need two cmd layers, so that the top cmd can remove cmd status from assistant cmd (to kick them if necessary). If the top cmd has stopped playing, a sub cmd should be able to take over the top position after 30 days of inactivity. It will not stop all cmd problems, but it will at least solve half of them.

For issue #2 just email customer support.  They have always been willing to remove/demote the original founder if they haven’t been active.  You might have a special edge case problem, but overall I’ve never heard of any issues with gettting inactive commanders removed to facilitate alliance mgmt.

HoundofShadow

All QoLs are for selfish reasons, rather than for the good of the game. What's QOL to one might not look like one for another.

For example, making it easier for Line players to coordinate and jack up points in pvps is bad for majority of the players because it means they don't have a fair chance to get top 10 placements. Line players are already controlling top placements in seasons and pves for years and these unfair practices should be dealt with as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, the dev should remove names/alliance names from pvps and allow other players to get top placements organically. By organically, I meant getting top placements without any coordinations. However, it might make it harder to catch hackers.

Bowgentle

HoundofShadow said:

All QoLs are for selfish reasons, rather than for the good of the game. What's QOL to one might not look like one for another.

For example, making it easier for Line players to coordinate and jack up points in pvps is bad for majority of the players because it means they don't have a fair chance to get top 10 placements. Line players are already controlling top placements in seasons and pves for years and these unfair practices should be dealt with as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, the dev should remove names/alliance names from pvps and allow other players to get top placements organically. By organically, I meant getting top placements without any coordinations. However, it might make it harder to catch hackers.

What the hell does line have to do with pve placement.
You can't coordinate in pve, t10 alliance players usually don't wait for flips.
Also, all your hatred for the most dedicated players of the game won't change the fact that they'll place above you because in PVP their rosters are the best.
I guarantee you t5 pvp placement will be the exact same without line.
And in PVE no matter what changes come, the same people will get t10, because they're simply good at PVE.

If you want PVP without coordination, go play s2 or s5, see how you like barely breaking 1k.

Godzillafan67

HoundofShadow said:

All QoLs are for selfish reasons, rather than for the good of the game. What's QOL to one might not look like one for another.

The second statement is absolutely true because QoL is subjective; we gage it on intangibles such as our real life's circumstances and our gaming playstyle. When they introduced shards and scrapped bonus heroes, I loved it because I prefer guaranteed and controlled progress over a loot box lottery. On the other hand, a number of people still voice their displeasure with the change to this day!

The first statement is a bit disingenuous and has two points to discuss:

Going again with the second part, a number of QoL changes have occurred strictly for the good of the game (so long tapping). Improving people's experiences with the game, whether we're talking UI, drop rates, resource gathering, etc. increase use and loyalty, and could also lead to more people trying the game and continuing to play it. Was roster filtering/sorting, a QoL change that doesn't directly affect gameplay, implemented in contrast to what's good for the game?

As far as QoL changes being selfish... that's hit or miss. Of the 14 suggested changes in the original post, some don't help me, some have established contrary suggestions (e.g. "see the alliance name in PvP" vs "don't see any names in PvP"), some benefit a select group, and some would benefit all to varying degrees.

I don't think that it's selfish to want to continue to play MPQ and still engage with family, friends, events, work, etc. in the real world. Any suggestions, no matter now minute, that allow us both are good for the game. Because if I have to choose, I will sadly say goodbye to MPQ .

HoundofShadow

Top alliances shift some of their players around to maximise placements or something to that effects. I saw other players complaining about such "alliances" before. Without Line, I don't see how it's easy to do this.

Based on what I saw, there are 46x rosters getting top placements in pvps and seasons as well, and this won't be possible without coordination. 

I've been to scl 10 S2 or S5 pvps and got T5 or T10 a few times before. So, it would be fair to see this apply to other slices as well.

And I don't have any hatred towards the most dedicated players of the games. It could be due to my bluntness in writing that caused some to perceived it this way.

CreepCanRoll

PVE nodes placement and spacing.

One of the most annoying aspects of PVE is being able to quickly determine the flow of the nodes. Some of the events are fine. And yes you learn the others as you play them over and over, but for new players this is just a cluster of nodes during the grind. Having directional lines (similar to DPD) or just redoing the format altogether would be amazing. I’m looking at you Seattle.

But most importantly please review the spacing between the nodes. This is especially annoying while playing on a phone. But even using an iPad I’ve found myself accidentally hitting the incorrect node and overclearing on occasion. This practically guarantees your placement for the event is ruined. 

For example, in the current Strange Sights subs. You have the entirety of the screen to use and all the nodes are jammed together at the bottom. I accidentally hit the CN node 3 times trying to hit the hard nodes. Spread them out please!

Phumade

CreepCanRoll said:

PVE nodes placement and spacing.

One of the most annoying aspects of PVE is being able to quickly determine the flow of the nodes. Some of the events are fine. And yes you learn the others as you play them over and over, but for new players this is just a cluster of nodes during the grind. Having directional lines (similar to DPD) or just redoing the format altogether would be amazing. I’m looking at you Seattle.

But most importantly please review the spacing between the nodes. This is especially annoying while playing on a phone. But even using an iPad I’ve found myself accidentally hitting the incorrect node and overclearing on occasion. This practically guarantees you’re placement for the event is ruined. 

For example, in the current Strange Sights subs. You have the entirety of the screen to use and all the nodes are jammed together at the bottom. I accidentally hit the CN node 3 times trying to hit the hard nodes. Spread them out please!

this 1000%