If he pays me a hundred quid then I will change my mind and join his crusade!
@DAZ0273 said: PvE does not favour my schedule at all. I do not like PvE. I take breaks as I see fit or go nuts as suits me. I am also not going to tell people what they can or can't do with their hard earned $ £ or whatever. But a system where you pay for earnable rewards seems inherently anti-gaming to me to the point where I find it leaves a bit of a taste in the mouth that isn't pleasant. Sort of like having somebody assemble a jigsaw puzzle for you so you can say "Look at my great picture!" Obviously "Pay to win" is already and has always been a thing but at least you have to actually win. "Pay to not even compete" - I dunno, it just doesn't seem right but at the end of the day I guess revenue flows would be king.
@DAZ0273 said: PvE does not favour my schedule at all. I do not like PvE. I take breaks as I see fit or go nuts as suits me. I am also not going to tell people what they can or can't do with their hard earned $ £ or whatever. But a system where you pay for earnable rewards seems inherently anti-gaming to me to the point where I find it leaves a bit of a taste in the mouth that isn't pleasant. Sort of like having somebody assemble a jigsaw puzzle for you so you can say "Look at my great picture!"
Obviously "Pay to win" is already and has always been a thing but at least you have to actually win. "Pay to not even compete" - I dunno, it just doesn't seem right but at the end of the day I guess revenue flows would be king.
I think you are misconstruing the intent of Skindo's proposal. They have specifically stated that a player would still need to play the event to full progression in order to receive the rewards that they are effectively prohibited from receiving because they are unavailable to play at the allotted times.
So it's not "pay to not even compete" so to speak, but rather an acknowledgement by the dev team that "We're sorry we don't provide a time slot that works for you, here is another route to those rewards."
Will there be players who can compete but for one reason or another prefer to go the Battle Pass route? Sure. But why begrudge those players specifically?
Do you take umbrage at players who buy all the support offers in order to get a leg up on the competition? Are you upset by buy clubs, where various players from different alliances join together to maximize their own personal rewards rather than share the reward with their own teammates, the very people who help them win these competitions? How about players who "bracket snipe", purposely avoiding joining earlier brackets so they can have an easier time getting better placement?
I just find it strange that what would essentially be a supplementary service for those who are either unable or don't wish to play at the allotted slice times would somehow cause you distress when those rewards are still available to be attained through competitive play without purchasing the Battle Pass as opposed to all the in-game offers that are effectively only available through purchase.
Well that escalated quickly.
@fight4thedream said: @DAZ0273 said: PvE does not favour my schedule at all. I do not like PvE. I take breaks as I see fit or go nuts as suits me. I am also not going to tell people what they can or can't do with their hard earned $ £ or whatever. But a system where you pay for earnable rewards seems inherently anti-gaming to me to the point where I find it leaves a bit of a taste in the mouth that isn't pleasant. Sort of like having somebody assemble a jigsaw puzzle for you so you can say "Look at my great picture!" Obviously "Pay to win" is already and has always been a thing but at least you have to actually win. "Pay to not even compete" - I dunno, it just doesn't seem right but at the end of the day I guess revenue flows would be king. I think you are misconstruing the intent of Skindo's proposal. They have specifically stated that a player would still need to play the event to full progression in order to receive the rewards that they are effectively prohibited from receiving because they are unavailable to play at the allotted times. So it's not "pay to not even compete" so to speak, but rather an acknowledgement by the dev team that "We're sorry we don't provide a time slot that works for you, here is another route to those rewards." Will there be players who can compete but for one reason or another prefer to go the Battle Pass route? Sure. But why begrudge those players specifically? Do you take umbrage at players who buy all the support offers in order to get a leg up on the competition? Are you upset by buy clubs, where various players from different alliances join together to maximize their own personal rewards rather than share the reward with their own teammates, the very people who help them win these competitions? I just find it strange that what would essentially be a supplementary service for those who are either unable or don't wish to play at the allotted slice times would somehow cause you distress when those rewards are still available to be attained through competitive play without purchasing the Battle Pass as opposed to all the in-game offers that are effectively only available through purchase.
@fight4thedream said:
Do you take umbrage at players who buy all the support offers in order to get a leg up on the competition? Are you upset by buy clubs, where various players from different alliances join together to maximize their own personal rewards rather than share the reward with their own teammates, the very people who help them win these competitions?
I don't consider that I am misconstruing anything. Just because I don't like the idea does not mean it is causing me "distress".
If you can find in my post where I begrudge others having anything then I must missed that myself. I believe I said that it is not for me to tell others how to spend their hard earned dosh.
Skindo wishes to pay to avoid competing for placement awards. That is "Pay to not compete" in my opinion. I stand by my assessment. If others feel otherwise well they don't need to listen to anything I say. I, looking at the idea as a proposition see only bad things in it but as it is only a "for instance" I can't say that I am right. Something about it sits wrong with me. If you or others desire such a thing, knock ya self out.
Edit: To add - I think what jumps out at me is that this seems a "slippery slope" but that is just a feeling. I am not categorically saying that would be the result.
My apologies. It seems I'm the one who misconstrued your statement about "an unpleasant taste in the mouth" as distress rather than as simply "distaste".
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. I can respect that.
@Bowgentle said: Well that escalated quickly.
It did feel a bit like I was getting shot at, lol!
@fight4thedream said: My apologies. It seems I'm the one who misconstrued your statement about "an unpleasant taste in the mouth" as distress rather than as simply "distaste". Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. I can respect that.
@fight4thedream said: My apologies. It seems I'm the one who misconstrued your statement about "an unpleasant taste in the mouth" as distress rather than as simply "distaste".
When you introduce a revenue stream into something like online gaming, it is going to be very difficult to row back on it if it proves popular and once that happens, it gets the bean counters thinking "well if they will pay for that then what else will they pay for"?
It has often been said that MPQ is one of the best games playable because you can progress in a reasonable manner without HAVING to pay. Sure, paying for stuff speeds things up and we should all try and contribute to the game financially but then what is next? If we can pay for the things we don't have time to do in PvE then why not in PvP? Why not just pay a fee and we auto-complete Boss Events for those who can't reach/complete Round 8? It is all money in the Devs pocket after all and why should players care if other players pay? Until the paying players get bored, the easy revenue stream dies and the players who were supporting MPQ have walked away because they have nothing left to play for.
All of the above seems like a Doomsday scenario and might be complete nonsense but I just find alarm bells ringing.
I think it is a great idea. I wouldn't purchase it personally, but if it keeps the revenue flowing and the game growing then to my mind it can't be a bad thing. I can understand the frustration of people for whom the slice start/ends aren't favourable, and why it would be appealing to both this crowd and the people who want to experiment and use the other 95% of their roster in PVE without placement penalty. We already have VIP, plus a myriad of other ways to spend money on the game, so I'm not sure why there is concern that this is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back and opens the floodgates of pay to win offers. Change isn't always bad.
Change isn't always bad and choice is often good, all of that is true.
Some people play the game with animations switched off on a race against a clock. Some players play the game with animations on and drive looking at the sights.
As long as one doesn't ruin anything for the other then kumbaya.
Wouldn't the top competitive players also pay for the battle pass (in addition to winning every event), further increasing the gap that OP was trying to close? Or should the extra rewards only be available to players who don't compete? How would you decide who's eligible to buy the rewards?
Also...they already sell special offers that are typically way better than the placement rewards from a PvE. Why not just buy those?
@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?
@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?
you're missing a huge point of Kang. you're thinking from the offensive mindset. The AI (which needs to get dumbed down) will never play Kang the way we will. On defense, Kang is easy to take down especially if you take him first. My old pvp roster can take him easily, even when he is boosted. So - NO, he is not insta-win. and stop taking things away that give me joy. Its the only team that can poof the obnoxious Chasm teams. Why aren't you talking about nerf'ing chasm?
Kang moves just as fast as Shang, and he is soft on defense as well. but no one says to nerf him. Same with Okoye. Don't speak for others, as Kang was the only thing that made me survive PVP Sim this season. Which i haven't played since chasm came out.
Devs, still waiting on chasm nerf, when is it coming? I despise matches that take more than 10min in pvp.
@illusionist_KA 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? you're missing a huge point of Kang. you're thinking from the offensive mindset. The AI (which needs to get dumbed down) will never play Kang the way we will. On defense, Kang is easy to take down especially if you take him first. My old pvp roster can take him easily, even when he is boosted. So - NO, he is not insta-win. and stop taking things away that give me joy. Its the only team that can poof the obnoxious Chasm teams. Why aren't you talking about nerf'ing chasm? Kang moves just as fast as Shang, and he is soft on defense as well. but no one says to nerf him. Same with Okoye. Don't speak for others, as Kang was the only thing that made me survive PVP Sim this season. Which i haven't played since chasm came out. Devs, still waiting on chasm nerf, when is it coming? I despise matches that take more than 10min in pvp.
@illusionist_KA said:
1) I was not even talking about PVP, as Chasm has made me stop playing PVP. 2) Chasm has already been asked about in several past Q&As and forum threads. Why should I waste my question on him? 3) Where did I say I was speaking for others?
@entrailbucket said: Wouldn't the top competitive players also pay for the battle pass (in addition to winning every event), further increasing the gap that OP was trying to close? Or should the extra rewards only be available to players who don't compete? How would you decide who's eligible to buy the rewards? Also...they already sell special offers that are typically way better than the placement rewards from a PvE. Why not just buy those?
@entrailbucket said: Wouldn't the top competitive players also pay for the battle pass (in addition to winning every event), further increasing the gap that OP was trying to close? Or should the extra rewards only be available to players who don't compete? How would you decide who's eligible to buy the rewards?
I see what you mean and yeah that would go against the spirit of the idea. The way I interpreted it was the Battle Pass would grant access to high end rewards for reaching full progression only and theoretically not issue anything if you placed in the top 10. So in the instance you were to play an event competitively or luck into an easy bracket and place well, you would only receive the set of rewards once, not double dip.
So I guess the system would have to check what rewards you earned first and then issue anything you may have missed.
As far as value in comparison to what else is offered, it sounded like the OP was thinking of in terms of a monthly subscription at a price point comparable to the Battle Pass offered in other games. I am not familiar with the pricing of Battle Passes but I think it is meant to be of greater value than what is normally offered.
Under normal circumstances, I probably wouldn't pay for such a service but I understand it's meant to address the problem with time slices and may appeal to some players who feel locked out of competitive play or would like to try out different teams for fun without having to worry about missing out. I would prefer they just revamped PvE but that's a different story.
Many BP typically costs ~$10. Some game has different tiers of BP. Looking at T20 placement rewards and using recent bundles, this T20 placement rewards (not including sub placement rewards) will easily command $80-100. If you count sub placement rewards, it's 95 HP x 6 days x 7 events = 3990 HP. Add in 130 x 7 and the total HP for T20 sub and main placements are 4900HP. 4900 HP alone is approximately $29.
If PVE needs to stay competitive, then just get rid of time slices. Give every player the chance to be competitive by allowing them to play at any time during a 24h sub. There have been multiple suggestions about how to do this over the years.
@Mrcl25 said:
Guess what - it'll be the same players on top, no matter what system, time slices, whatever.
I'm not aware of any game that lets...er...losers (non-winners? how can I say this in a non-prejudicial way?) buy "catch-up" rewards at some kind of discount. Typically battle passes are available to everybody and give everyone the same stuff. Also typically, the most competitive players buy them to get an edge.
On value, BCS has actually lowered prices on most stuff a great deal -- I know there are players out there who want 13 5* covers of their choice for $1.99, and consider anything less than that a terrible value, but that's just unrealistic.
The best fix for PvE is to get rid of time slices and use a global bracket. Extend t10 rewards to t200 or whatever based on the number of players. You could start and finish whenever you wanted within a 24hr period, and a global bracket would eliminate "bracket snipers" -- either start at the beginning of the event and play it all, or lose.
Provided they can code that properly... A global bracket is a neat idea. Simply extend T1 to T5 and T20 to T10 and T10 to T50.
T1 placement = first 5 players T5 placement = 6th to 25th player T10 placement = 26th to 50th player
I've bracket sniped before to see if those non-first bracket players are much slower/less competitive than those in first bracket and it's pretty true.
I don't think I've problem hitting T50 in a global bracket.
You'd have to extend them way further than that to keep the same breaks, but it's just a much fairer way to do it. If you compare across brackets and slices, sometimes a score that would easily win one full bracket doesn't even crack t10 in another. If you get unlucky or you're in a slice with a bunch of grinders, you can suffer lower placement for no good reason.
@Bowgentle said:@Mrcl25 said: If PVE needs to stay competitive, then just get rid of time slices. Give every player the chance to be competitive by allowing them to play at any time during a 24h sub. There have been multiple suggestions about how to do this over the years. Guess what - it'll be the same players on top, no matter what system, time slices, whatever.
@Bowgentle said:@Mrcl25 said:
That is true at the very top, but I know a few players that would play optimally and place very well if they could choose the time to play.