@Sekilicious said: Skittle daddy and KGB’s rosters are developed to the point any MMR should consider locking them into SCL10, lol.
While I would gladly welcome being locked into CL10 (it's all I've played for over two years now), there would need to be some careful definition, of what is a 4* player and what is a 5* player. Even your example above said CL10 would be for "baby champed 5s", of which I obviously have zero. Others with zero 5* champs and a top character level of 360 could see CL10 as an unbearable punishment.
I understand your and Daz's primary goal is to prevent players from "playing down" (as opposed to "punching up"), but there is some danger in rigidly book-ending player's overall access based purely on an algorithm's perceived strength of their roster. CLs levels can be blocked out in PVP because, as we all know, "CL doesn't affect the difficulty of the opponents". PVE does, however, so the player needs to be given that choice; up or down.
@DAZ0273 said: @Sekilicious said: Skittle daddy and KGB’s rosters are developed to the point any MMR should consider locking them into SCL10, lol. Well I didn't want to say so but...
@DAZ0273 said:
Well I didn't want to say so but...
I'd be OK with that only if Polaris/Grocket were automatically boosted for every PvE event to help my poor 4* roster complete
I pretty much play CL10 in all but Simulator and Cosmic Chaos which are brutal on 4* rosters when the boost list isn't great. And by brutal, I mean eats tons of health packs. If the game changed the rules on health pack usage to use your 10 free ones before my stored supply I would not care as much but since it doesn't, I avoid CL10 for those events.
KGB
Hey all, thank you for the great discussion! Let me try to respond to some of the points made.
@Bowgentle said: Forcing players to play at specific times is a core design element of F2P games. They're not going to get rid of that.
I'll disagree here. There are varying degrees of "play at specific times". I don't have a wide breadth of experience with mobile and F2P games, but I've played some. The closest to MPQ that I have played is Gems of War which is also a match-3 game and pretty successful too (released a year after MPQ). For the most part, you can play when you want. Events last a day or a week and you can use your sigils (equivalent of "do your hits") anytime within that period (think DDQ). More casual games like Candy Crush rope you back in constantly throughout the day by having "lives" that regenerate so you can play more. Point is there are many ways to get you sucked into a match-3 game.
@skittledaddy said: While I would gladly welcome being locked into CL10 (it's all I've played for over two years now), there would need to be some careful definition, of what is a 4* player and what is a 5* player. Even your example above said CL10 would be for "baby champed 5s", of which I obviously have zero. Others with zero 5* champs and a top character level of 360 could see CL10 as an unbearable punishment. I understand your and Daz's primary goal is to prevent players from "playing down" (as opposed to "punching up"), but there is some danger in rigidly book-ending player's overall access based purely on an algorithm's perceived strength of their roster. CLs levels can be blocked out in PVP because, as we all know, "CL doesn't affect the difficulty of the opponents". PVE does, however, so the player needs to be given that choice; up or down.
@skittledaddy said: While I would gladly welcome being locked into CL10 (it's all I've played for over two years now), there would need to be some careful definition, of what is a 4* player and what is a 5* player. Even your example above said CL10 would be for "baby champed 5s", of which I obviously have zero. Others with zero 5* champs and a top character level of 360 could see CL10 as an unbearable punishment.
Agree with this 100%. I like the idea of MMR in PVE in theory, but we should look at how MMR as used in PVP as a cautionary tale. How many times have we seen newer players "screw up" their PVP by putting ISO into a 1-cover 5*, or by champing the "wrong" 1st 5* (looking at you Dr Strange )? If we lock them in to a specific level for PVE where they're overmatched, they're also screwed with no hope of recovery through PVE or PVP. If the devs can overhaul MMR to somehow distinguish between a good and bad level X character, then maybe it can be implemented. And as noted, a good 4* roster can definitely "punch up" and handle SCL10 so it is not fair to lock them out. A bad 4* or 5* roster will have a hard time even with SCL8.
I do think the current system of allowing high-level players to compete in low SCLs is a little broken but I don't think it's a major problem. They get much fewer rewards in exchange for an easier time and that seems fair enough. I don't believe my proposal will somehow bring out more 550/450 players in droves to SCL9 and below. It's nothing to be afraid of for lower-level rosters IMO.
@wymtime said: I want to say this is a very well thought out proposal. I actually like this very much since there are a lot of times I can’t close or open optimally. I do see an issue with how many players would be stacked together. Basically 1-100 could in theory be within a couple of points of each other. With the way top alliances work I can see it being frustrating for the current top players and top alliances. Overall well thought out
@wymtime said: I want to say this is a very well thought out proposal. I actually like this very much since there are a lot of times I can’t close or open optimally.
I do see an issue with how many players would be stacked together. Basically 1-100 could in theory be within a couple of points of each other. With the way top alliances work I can see it being frustrating for the current top players and top alliances.
Overall well thought out
Thank you! I tried to address the possibility of ties with point #10 (increasing speed of timers). In theory, it should spread out the points more. Also, with no particular incentive for an ultra-competitive player to get into the early brackets, we might see them spread out more over later brackets. (I do know some players pre-join anyway out of habit.) We might see the same thing I've seen with PVP where high-level players are spread out, and experienced players try to figure out when is the best time to join for easier competition. Would be nice if the brackets were somehow randomized, but the current system works well enough IMO.
I came up with a slight variation to my idea. We could start all the timers and start the points ticking down for all nodes, as soon as the first node is hit in the sub. This still has the major benefit of taking away the need to do the grind at the start and end of the sub. You can do the grind any time within the 24 hours where you can find 15-45 minutes (depending on your roster strength) of free time. (In my original proposal, you can spread the time throughout the day.)
Current players can keep using the optimal order of nodes that they're used to; you will still want to do the highest scoring nodes first since they lose points faster. (Similar to the current system, where you want the highest scoring nodes' timers to start sooner since they gain points faster.) Health packs will be used up at the same rate as the current ystem. This still eliminates some of the "catch up" mechanism in current PVE, where you can overtake a "faster" player if they make a mistake in overclearing, or if they started too early or too late in the end grind.
But I think this might be a more reasonable compromise that'll be easier for most to accept. And most importantly, it preserves the adrenaline rush of the current PVE system which is what excites many players.
Thoughts on this v2 proposal?
@KGB said: @DAZ0273 said: @Sekilicious said: Skittle daddy and KGB’s rosters are developed to the point any MMR should consider locking them into SCL10, lol. Well I didn't want to say so but... I'd be OK with that only if Polaris/Grocket were automatically boosted for every PvE event to help my poor 4* roster complete I pretty much play CL10 in all but Simulator and Cosmic Chaos which are brutal on 4* rosters when the boost list isn't great. And by brutal, I mean eats tons of health packs. If the game changed the rules on health pack usage to use your 10 free ones before my stored supply I would not care as much but since it doesn't, I avoid CL10 for those events. KGB
@KGB said:
You have that "poor 4* roster" by choice. Don't softcap, then expect sympathy for it.
If you liked this PVE proposal and want to let the devs know about it, I would really love it if you let them know in the November Q&A. You don't have to ask it as a question (thanks @Mrcl25 for already asking ) but you can mention something in the "Note to team" question on the Google Form. Thanks!
I will let the devs know this is a bad way to go.
@Bowgentle said: @KGB said: @DAZ0273 said: @Sekilicious said: Skittle daddy and KGB’s rosters are developed to the point any MMR should consider locking them into SCL10, lol. Well I didn't want to say so but... I'd be OK with that only if Polaris/Grocket were automatically boosted for every PvE event to help my poor 4* roster complete I pretty much play CL10 in all but Simulator and Cosmic Chaos which are brutal on 4* rosters when the boost list isn't great. And by brutal, I mean eats tons of health packs. If the game changed the rules on health pack usage to use your 10 free ones before my stored supply I would not care as much but since it doesn't, I avoid CL10 for those events. KGB You have that "poor 4* roster" by choice. Don't softcap, then expect sympathy for it.
@Bowgentle said:
Lol... someone flagged you for that ?
@killahKlown said: I will let the devs know this is a bad way to go. @killahKlown said: This taking away half of the strategy and thus half of the fun from pve. No thanks. Speed is part of the game yes, but it's only half the battle. Theres a whole strategy involved in clear order, grind order,, and grind time. If pve becomes ALL about speed it loses much of its appeal. Pass
@killahKlown said: I will let the devs know this is a bad way to go.
@killahKlown said: This taking away half of the strategy and thus half of the fun from pve. No thanks.
Speed is part of the game yes, but it's only half the battle. Theres a whole strategy involved in clear order, grind order,, and grind time. If pve becomes ALL about speed it loses much of its appeal.
Pass
Well, I know there's very little chance of convincing you so maybe I'm wasting my time. But if you could let me know why you think this is a "bad way to go", that would be helpful so a solution can be found.
I addressed the big concern you mentioned above about strategy with my tweak to start all timers at the same time. You keep the same grind, same order, except that you can start any time. It will still keep the excitement of 15-30 minute grinds for hardcore players. There is no danger of over-clear or not having enough time to clear, so you can't make a mistake, but you can't count on somebody else making a mistake.
@Punzaman said: @killahKlown said: I will let the devs know this is a bad way to go. @killahKlown said: This taking away half of the strategy and thus half of the fun from pve. No thanks. Speed is part of the game yes, but it's only half the battle. Theres a whole strategy involved in clear order, grind order,, and grind time. If pve becomes ALL about speed it loses much of its appeal. Pass Well, I know there's very little chance of convincing you so maybe I'm wasting my time. But if you could let me know why you think this is a "bad way to go", that would be helpful so a solution can be found. I addressed the big concern you mentioned above about strategy with my tweak to start all timers at the same time. You keep the same grind, same order, except that you can start any time. It will still keep the excitement of 15-30 minute grinds for hardcore players. There is no danger of over-clear or not having enough time to clear, so you can't make a mistake, but you can't count on somebody else making a mistake.
@Punzaman said:
That gives an unfair advantage to someone that chooses to have a later start time. They know what my score is, they know how long it took me to grind. So they can manipulate their strategy based on that. They know how much of a risk they have to take or if they can just take it easy because I messed up my grind.
When all competitors start at the sane time, everyone is in the same dark.
I’ve stayed out of this discussion. I like it and I hate it. I hate it a lot more than I like it. I think it will give a lot more problems for the 75-150 players for placement. I think there will be a lot of variables in placement that you may or may not be able to account for. As an optional sub with lower rewards compared to time based subs I have no problem. If the rewards are the same as time based subs I don’t think it is fair at all.
Rationally speaking, the dev just need to know what % of the playerbase in Scl 9 and 10 play go for optimal clear and grind. From there, they can calculate what % of the playerbase benefits from this change. If it's like 10%-15%, it's an easy "no" to me at least. If 30-40% of the playerbase want to play competitively, then it might be worth a consideration. We are talking about revamping the entire pves here, and not just revamping the entire DDQ.
Why can't we have both methods? And others, too? Different events could have different scoring mechanisms. Nothing says that all PVE events need to function identically. It'd give us some variety from event to event, rather than just blowing through them all the same way every time.
It would be better for them to create a new pve with new winning criteria, rather than to touch the existing ones and potentially mess up everything. Anyway, the dev said they are going to bring back some old events in the future. Let's see if they are keen in implementing this.
Changing scoring for different events will cause confusion. Scoring needs to be consistent across all events.
@killahKlown said: @Punzaman said: @killahKlown said: I will let the devs know this is a bad way to go. @killahKlown said: This taking away half of the strategy and thus half of the fun from pve. No thanks. Speed is part of the game yes, but it's only half the battle. Theres a whole strategy involved in clear order, grind order,, and grind time. If pve becomes ALL about speed it loses much of its appeal. Pass Well, I know there's very little chance of convincing you so maybe I'm wasting my time. But if you could let me know why you think this is a "bad way to go", that would be helpful so a solution can be found. I addressed the big concern you mentioned above about strategy with my tweak to start all timers at the same time. You keep the same grind, same order, except that you can start any time. It will still keep the excitement of 15-30 minute grinds for hardcore players. There is no danger of over-clear or not having enough time to clear, so you can't make a mistake, but you can't count on somebody else making a mistake. That gives an unfair advantage to someone that chooses to have a later start time. They know what my score is, they know how long it took me to grind. So they can manipulate their strategy based on that. They know how much of a risk they have to take or if they can just take it easy because I messed up my grind. When all competitors start at the sane time, everyone is in the same dark.
@killahKlown said:
I appreciate you spelling out your concerns, that is helpful!
With my proposed system, you can't mess up your grind by over-clearing or under-clearing as in the current system (unless you do it at the end of the sub and run out of time). You can only have a lower or higher score than usual due to bad or good luck, or the aggressive use of boosts. I acknowledge this eliminates a current catch-up mechanism where you try to time your grind as close to the end as possible. On the other hand, you won't get pissed off by running out of time on the last sub. Pros and cons.
Say there are 2 players vying for T5 (one is T5, other is T6) with a large margin of points (practically unsurmountable) going into the final sub. In the current PVE system, T5 can take it easy on the final sub and be less aggressive. In my proposed system, same thing. It doesn't matter who goes first if the margin is large enough.
But say it is within reach for T6 to overtake T5. In the current PVE system, T5 can't take it easy and T6 has to be a little more aggressive with their grind timing and boosts. In my proposed system:
You are right, generally going later has an advantage. I don't mind giving those players that can go later (probably the same current hardcore players that can do the grinds at particular times) a little bit of an extra advantage. This system can actually create some interesting dynamics and mind games between players trying to set their level of aggression based on a close rival's score and who goes first. Again, pros and cons!
We could also institute a scoreboard blackout until the last hour of the sub. But that will be so boring if you can't immediately see how you did in relation to others. I think your concern about advantages/disadvantages of going first/last is a real concern, but it affects a small % of players around reward boundaries and it is not relevant all the time.
@skittledaddy said: Why can't we have both methods? And others, too? Different events could have different scoring mechanisms. Nothing says that all PVE events need to function identically. It'd give us some variety from event to event, rather than just blowing through them all the same way every time. @HoundofShadow said: It would be better for them to create a new pve with new winning criteria, rather than to touch the existing ones and potentially mess up everything. Anyway, the dev said they are going to bring back some old events in the future. Let's see if they are keen in implementing this. @dianetics said: Changing scoring for different events will cause confusion. Scoring needs to be consistent across all events.
@skittledaddy said: Why can't we have both methods? And others, too? Different events could have different scoring mechanisms. Nothing says that all PVE events need to function identically. It'd give us some variety from event to event, rather than just blowing through them all the same way every time.
@HoundofShadow said: It would be better for them to create a new pve with new winning criteria, rather than to touch the existing ones and potentially mess up everything. Anyway, the dev said they are going to bring back some old events in the future. Let's see if they are keen in implementing this.
@dianetics said: Changing scoring for different events will cause confusion. Scoring needs to be consistent across all events.
For sure, we can't have the a single PVE event with players able to choose their scoring system; they are not compatible and scores aren't comparable. But wow, it's a great idea to use this new system with old/returning or even new PVE events!
@dianetics said: I’ve stayed out of this discussion. I like it and I hate it. I hate it a lot more than I like it. I think it will give a lot more problems for the 75-150 players for placement. I think there will be a lot of variables in placement that you may or may not be able to account for. As an optional sub with lower rewards compared to time based subs I have no problem. If the rewards are the same as time based subs I don’t think it is fair at all.
I wish we were able to see the scoreboard from top to bottom in each bracket. What are the players in the 75-150 range like? Full progression and stop? Empty out the score of each node but do it whenever they want?
My guess is that for a normal bracket (not a super late flip) there's a lot of high scores near the top, and a steep drop down to the more casual players. This new system will push all scores higher and it will give the current high-level players more competition. The curve will be more gradual and you will naturally have lower ranges occupied by players with weaker rosters or slower players. If 75-150 is occupied only by "just full progression" they may have to do more to keep their current placement. On the other hand, maybe they are "just full progression" players because they aren't able to compete at the higher levels anyway. I don't have hard data on how people current play PVE and the reasons they play the way they do.
@Punzaman said: I wish we were able to see the scoreboard from top to bottom in each bracket. What are the players in the 75-150 range like? Full progression and stop? Empty out the score of each node but do it whenever they want? My guess is that for a normal bracket (not a super late flip) there's a lot of high scores near the top, and a steep drop down to the more casual players. This new system will push all scores higher and it will give the current high-level players more competition. The curve will be more gradual and you will naturally have lower ranges occupied by players with weaker rosters or slower players. If 75-150 is occupied only by "just full progression" they may have to do more to keep their current placement. On the other hand, maybe they are "just full progression" players because they aren't able to compete at the higher levels anyway. I don't have hard data on how people current play PVE and the reasons they play the way they do.
In the first sub 75-150 is not just full progression players. If I get lazy I will drop to top 100, but this is still well beyond just full progression. Probably the 110-125% range.
I love this idea! I’ve always wanted a mode where you play endless waves. Instead of 3 waves of three, make it 100 waves of three and see how long you can last. Maybe up the levels each wave until they’re level 600 or something at the final wave.
Endless wave node will work if aps are reset for every wave.