MPQ Developer Q&A February & March 2023 (ANSWERS)

245

Comments

  • IceIX
    IceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 4,322 Site Admin

    @Mrcl25 said:

    @Bzhai said:

    @IceIX said:

    @justsing said:
    Well, the devs totally ignored my question about Kang's insta-win power lol...

    @S0kun said:
    12. @Glockoma [Official Forums]
    Question: Where’s this game heading? Passive has to be trumped by previous passive. Active has to have a passive component to nullify the previous passive. QoL aside, what mission distances the game from the rabbit hole the previous developers failed upon?

    Answer: We've been having a lot of discussion about that, and what a lot of it comes down to is "speed meta". Whenever we open up the game to a non-speed related gameplay, creativity opens up from the player base. PVP is 100% speed meta. PVE is as well if you're after T10. But events like Boss Battles and Puzzle Ops we suddenly see people taking their time and having novel solutions to gameplay, AND opening up their rosters. That's not to say that speed isn't fun. It is! But it results in a specific metagame and roster that runs counter to much of what Puzzle Quest should be, and it's something we're actively discussing how to tackle.

    If you're trying to get away from "speed meta", then why did you guys give Kang an insta-win via his Away power?

    Not mutually exclusive, and fixing speed meta isn't a silver bullet "just change this" thing anyway. Sure, alternate win conditions CAN make things faster when you can manufacture that condition. But it doesn't mean that this win condition means that speed meta is now more locked in.

    It's gonna get worse when supports become easier to level. Everyone will be able to access level 5 supports and one-turn wins will be more common. The speed meta will become speedier.

    Not saying that the changes to support is bad, it definitely is a welcome change. But you can't deny that the current point system and placement rewards will always force players to gravitate towards speed metas. If you really wanna move away from this, you need to address this flawed system in pve.

    My question "Why can't PVE rewards, both individual and for the alliance, be distributed by progression only, like in boss events? Let the more competitive part of the game to PVP." wasn't answered, so probably they have nothing to say about that subject at this time.

    Because players value placement as a competitive aspect. Sure, there are MORE players that are of that mind in PVP, but it's a not uncommon thing in PVE either. People like seeing their names at the top of the boards.

  • Punisher5784
    Punisher5784 Posts: 3,845 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited March 2023

    @IceIX said:

    @Mrcl25 said:

    @Bzhai said:

    @IceIX said:

    @justsing said:
    Well, the devs totally ignored my question about Kang's insta-win power lol...

    @S0kun said:
    12. @Glockoma [Official Forums]
    Question: Where’s this game heading? Passive has to be trumped by previous passive. Active has to have a passive component to nullify the previous passive. QoL aside, what mission distances the game from the rabbit hole the previous developers failed upon?

    Answer: We've been having a lot of discussion about that, and what a lot of it comes down to is "speed meta". Whenever we open up the game to a non-speed related gameplay, creativity opens up from the player base. PVP is 100% speed meta. PVE is as well if you're after T10. But events like Boss Battles and Puzzle Ops we suddenly see people taking their time and having novel solutions to gameplay, AND opening up their rosters. That's not to say that speed isn't fun. It is! But it results in a specific metagame and roster that runs counter to much of what Puzzle Quest should be, and it's something we're actively discussing how to tackle.

    If you're trying to get away from "speed meta", then why did you guys give Kang an insta-win via his Away power?

    Not mutually exclusive, and fixing speed meta isn't a silver bullet "just change this" thing anyway. Sure, alternate win conditions CAN make things faster when you can manufacture that condition. But it doesn't mean that this win condition means that speed meta is now more locked in.

    It's gonna get worse when supports become easier to level. Everyone will be able to access level 5 supports and one-turn wins will be more common. The speed meta will become speedier.

    Not saying that the changes to support is bad, it definitely is a welcome change. But you can't deny that the current point system and placement rewards will always force players to gravitate towards speed metas. If you really wanna move away from this, you need to address this flawed system in pve.

    My question "Why can't PVE rewards, both individual and for the alliance, be distributed by progression only, like in boss events? Let the more competitive part of the game to PVP." wasn't answered, so probably they have nothing to say about that subject at this time.

    Because players value placement as a competitive aspect. Sure, there are MORE players that are of that mind in PVP, but it's a not uncommon thing in PVE either. People like seeing their names at the top of the boards.

    Players also hate seeing their PvE placement bumped because the time slices do not fit in with life. PvP has a leaderboard without the need to play at a specific schedule.

    Personally I went from consistently placing T50 down to T200 in PvE because work has been busy. Yet my PvP placement of T50-100 hasn't changed because I can play whenever I have time.

    At the very least, it'd be nice if time slices were revisited. This game is very unfriendly to the EST zone. This was specifically a question a player asked that was not addressed.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards

    They answered the question about adding more time slices in the one of the previous Q&A. I think the answer was that they weren't planning to add more timeslices.

  • Mrcl25
    Mrcl25 Posts: 138 Tile Toppler

    @IceIX said:

    @Mrcl25 said:

    @Bzhai said:

    @IceIX said:

    @justsing said:
    Well, the devs totally ignored my question about Kang's insta-win power lol...

    @S0kun said:
    12. @Glockoma [Official Forums]
    Question: Where’s this game heading? Passive has to be trumped by previous passive. Active has to have a passive component to nullify the previous passive. QoL aside, what mission distances the game from the rabbit hole the previous developers failed upon?

    Answer: We've been having a lot of discussion about that, and what a lot of it comes down to is "speed meta". Whenever we open up the game to a non-speed related gameplay, creativity opens up from the player base. PVP is 100% speed meta. PVE is as well if you're after T10. But events like Boss Battles and Puzzle Ops we suddenly see people taking their time and having novel solutions to gameplay, AND opening up their rosters. That's not to say that speed isn't fun. It is! But it results in a specific metagame and roster that runs counter to much of what Puzzle Quest should be, and it's something we're actively discussing how to tackle.

    If you're trying to get away from "speed meta", then why did you guys give Kang an insta-win via his Away power?

    Not mutually exclusive, and fixing speed meta isn't a silver bullet "just change this" thing anyway. Sure, alternate win conditions CAN make things faster when you can manufacture that condition. But it doesn't mean that this win condition means that speed meta is now more locked in.

    It's gonna get worse when supports become easier to level. Everyone will be able to access level 5 supports and one-turn wins will be more common. The speed meta will become speedier.

    Not saying that the changes to support is bad, it definitely is a welcome change. But you can't deny that the current point system and placement rewards will always force players to gravitate towards speed metas. If you really wanna move away from this, you need to address this flawed system in pve.

    My question "Why can't PVE rewards, both individual and for the alliance, be distributed by progression only, like in boss events? Let the more competitive part of the game to PVP." wasn't answered, so probably they have nothing to say about that subject at this time.

    Because players value placement as a competitive aspect. Sure, there are MORE players that are of that mind in PVP, but it's a not uncommon thing in PVE either. People like seeing their names at the top of the boards.

    Fair enough, but is it the majority of players that prefer PVE to remain as it is, with all the inherent problems to the current system (having to schedule your life around the available time slices, having to use only the same meta teams, etc., or else be content in not getting the best rewards and slow your progress)?

    Why not make a test event to gauge the players reaction? Run a progression only event, who knows, maybe even be one of the old 7 day events, but without placement or time slices.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited March 2023

    You've shown that this is a perception problem. In your suggestion, you would rather do away with placement rewards and play for full progression only. You can already do it now. Anytime. Without scheduling your life around it. You just can't get past this psychological barrier you're putting in front of you. If not, you're pressured by your alliance to do that.

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,241 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:
    At the top end, PvE is about 1000x more competitive than PvP. Almost everyone at the top of PvP leaderboards is cooperating with each other to get there, and many of the placements are worked out in advance/politicked.

    It's always been pretty funny that the PvP mode in this game is essentially co-op and the PvE mode is totally cutthroat competition.

    This. It really makes no sense whatsoever. The old Devs tried to kill co-ordination by squashing cupcakes but the players are like Sentinels, they just adapt.

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards

    Different strokes for different players.
    Easy 1200, 35 shields for placement? Go S1, 3 or 4.
    Want placement? S2 or S5, but don't forget to bring a competitive roster.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards

    For S2/S5, I can only make it to T5 or T10 by shield hopping or spending 1270 HP. It was fun to challenge myself to get 500 shards via placement and progression for new 5*. Now, I can't be bothered to do that since covers/shards are easily available.

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,241 Chairperson of the Boards

    I used to blissfully unaware play S2 but not at that time having a 5* roster I guess I just got completely ignored, lol!

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited March 2023

    @HoundofShadow said:
    For S2/S5, I can only make it to T5 or T10 by shield hopping or spending 1270 HP. It was fun to challenge myself to get 500 shards via placement and progression for new 5*. Now, I can't be bothered to do that since covers/shards are easily available.

    Hopping OR spending 1270 HP?
    Is that the protection money you pay to bucket?
    That's pretty cheap for t5, you need to raise your prices @entrailbucket

  • Skindo
    Skindo Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    edited March 2023

    Because players value placement as a competitive aspect. Sure, there are MORE players that are of that mind in PVP, but it's a not uncommon thing in PVE either. People like seeing their names at the top of the boards.

    If the argument is that people want to see their names on the scoreboard, why not restructure the reward system so that the really strong rewards are progression based. I would not care about T10 if I could get my covers and shards through progression. Give the T10 finishers some basic or heroic tokens and they get to see their name in lights, but others of who don't care about that can then play the game on our schedule. Moving away from PVE placement having such strong rewards and moving them to progression could help immensely with mitigating the speed meta worry (and waiting for bracket flips). The most fun I have in the game is when I don’t have the 5* essential so I can’t make placement. Then I can play on my own schedule and explore the massive and cool 4* roster without penalty. When I do have the essential, the T10-20 placement is such a boost to my roster progress (I am still in 4* land), that I generally go for placement over fun. That is, I go for placement when I can schedule around it. As is noted in the Q&A, PVP is already a place for speed, so why not shift decent PVE rewards to not being tied to time? As is also noted in the Q&A, ignoring speed opens up creativity from the player base; but it also opens it up to the character designers. If players are not as focused on speed for PVE, you can then design some characters more specifically for PVE without as much worry that the player base will generally ignore the character because they won’t shift the meta. It would encourage many of us to mess around with weird teams and characters in one of the main parts of the game (i.e., not just the monthly Boss Battles and Puzzle OPs).

  • dianetics
    dianetics Posts: 1,629 Chairperson of the Boards

    Progression already gives good rewards.
    Top 20-100 also gives good rewards.

    The top tier 1-20 get the best. If you give those top end players some heroic tokens nobody will push to get top placement. It’s just the way it is.

    You can still push pretty good with a select few 4s and a 5. The fatter your roster the better your options.

    If they remove the placement rewards you should expect the actual reward output to be reduced as well.

    It’s not a perfect system, but it’s much better than the old system in place, and there have been virtually 0 better suggestions for a replacement. (There was one thread, but placement was still based on speed).

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards

    The biggest spenders are competitive in PVE.
    If you remove the reason to be competitive, why spend?
    Not going to happen.

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,241 Chairperson of the Boards

    The MPQ console game is basically a progression system and it is tedious. I'm not even competitive but I think progression only PvE would kill the game. Why even bother having PvE events? You might as well just create a straight line that you slowly inch up every day you play unlocking small increments as you go.

    They need to fix PvP first so it isn't one giant stitch up and is more a free for all but I wouldn't hold my breath. Supports and the MMR change obviously to be seen in action but I don't see how it will greatly impact any of the collusion aspect.

  • Scofie
    Scofie GLOBAL_MODERATORS Posts: 1,345 Chairperson of the Boards

    ** Mod mode off**

    I played competitive PvE for the first time in forever for Webbed Wonder. I might finish T50. It's more fun, there's the adrenaline from trying to speedrun it, but I had no idea just how difficult it is to get it right and the impact on my real life. Ultimately, I'll get 10HP, 500 Iso and 25 4* shards more than taking it easy at my usual slice. That level of reward difference spread across 1000 players isn't helping anyone. But the process of getting there is much more rewarding for me than the actual rewards.

  • dianetics
    dianetics Posts: 1,629 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited March 2023

    I just want to add in a bit here. In cl10 the t20 are time sensitive placements. If you are you going for t100 as long as you get all of your clears you will be fine.

    When I get bored I use my old farming teams and still make t100 in the most competitive slice.

    If you get your 5 clears on every node you will land t100.
    In cl10 the most competitive is t20 and t50 is semi-competitive (less time reliant). I don’t have a recent insight on cl9 sorry.

    Edit** webbed wonder is very amenable to speed teams like warhulkoye. It’s not the bar but the outlier.

  • Skindo
    Skindo Posts: 11 Just Dropped In

    Daredevil, on the point of fairness, what many can’t do is CHOOSE their work schedule. So some people have slices that fit their schedules, others do not. That is simply to point out that I don’t think fairness is a strong argument from either side. But I also think you are missing something in the choices you present because I think you are coming from CL 10.

    I do understand that people enjoy speeding through the game and playing competitively, and my guess is that this becomes more fun for high level players and those who have been playing for years and have really strong rosters. With a crazy roster it is likely fun to try to compete with others at a high level and I will admit that since I am not at the endgame, I had not given that argument enough credit. (Note: I’m assuming anything before 5* is early-game, early 5* land is mid-game, and the 550 crowd are endgame. I am not sure if that is how others think of it, I just want to be as clear as possible). I am not at the endgame, the slices are not a great fit for my schedule, and I like trying out teams rather than zooming with the same meta team. My point isn’t that I can’t ever make placement (I just have to get up earlier than I otherwise would or stay up later than I should), it is merely that there are disincentives for playing PVE for the puzzle aspect rather than the speed aspect, and I think the disincentives are stronger the weaker your roster is. Missing several 4 covers hits hard in early-game. E.g., I hope to have Shang in workable shape by the time I hit CL 10, so I have had Colleen favorited from the day she could be favorited, and I have had Psylocke favorited from the day she was announced as a feeder for Colleen. I still only have Colleen at 282. The three covers I got from T10 in the last event were a huge boost to her progression. My point with that is that even when all of your resources are going toward a particular 4, the pace is slow. No matter who you choose to favorite, that leaves 130+ fours who are not being focused. This affects your ability to do the other stuff in the game like Crash or essential nodes. So the choice isn’t as simple as choosing to enjoy PVE or choosing to try to place; it is also: if I choose to enjoy PVE the way I want to, I also limit the other things I can do in the game and the more I do this, the longer I am locked out of those things. This is one thing that likely will not affect endgame players, which might be why it was missed above.

    You all may be right that losing comp PVE would make them less money or even kill the game. I think you would know better about the endgame dynamics since I am not there. Without player feedback and metrics, I won’t argue the game will be better off. Feedback and metrics for a progression only event may not be worth the risk to the devs, and I get that. But I think you are all pointing to what my initial point was. Players don’t necessarily like competition, they like incentives. It is not really seeing their names on the scoreboard and competing for the sake of competing (like you see in some competitive shooters where you might get a title of “predator” or “top 500” but little else), it is getting the rewards tied to it. And just as you want the rewards for playing the game the way you enjoy playing it, I want the same (even if that might never happen). I will also say that once I am out of CL 9 and I am able to do things like Crash regularly, I will likely stop trying for placement and really play around with teams because I won’t have as much disincentive to do so. But the way the game is currently set up might drive more early game players away before they can get to CL10.

    I do think there is one other thing they could try that would leave the comp element and incentives while not disincentivizing slow play, though it might not be a popular solution. They could make a monthly battle pass (say, instead of the current VIP) that would get you the T20 rewards for the events during the month as long as you made full progression in those events. If it was not overly expensive (i.e., I would likely pay what I pay for battle passes on PC games), I would pay for that. Some events I might even still push for T10, but mostly I would just happily chill with the 2 covers and 125 shards that that T20 would get me in CL 9). They could still offer better rewards for 1st-10th, free rewards for those who make placement, and have alliance placements to keep the top players spending and the comp aspect of the game going. They could still make the claim that you don’t have to spend money to get the possible rewards; but they would get more money out of people like me, and I would get the convenience of not needing to schedule around the game to get some of the better the placement rewards and being able to mess around with different teams in PVE. Again this might not be ideal (“throw money at it” often isn’t the best way), but I would like to try to find a solution that might satisfy both the players who like speed and those who want to slow things down.

  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards

    At the end of the day, it's about patience. Milestone rewards can already let players cover one 5* of their choice from zero cover to 13 covers. You just need to set a realistic timeframe for yourself instead of rushing through the tiers, and giving yourself unrealistic timeframe. A player, who follow the player's guide, can cover three latest 5* in a year to 1.5 years.

Categories