@entrailbucket said: The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning.
This is why I would mess with the points system to make mindless play unproductive - if you can lose score by not paying attention and not reacting to events then you've gone a long way to making it harder to win the metagame purely by organisation and timing.
Also yes to the not swapping alliances thing - that is pure cowdung.
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue? Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue. Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes. Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed. A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization. Yeah...the problem there becomes the amount of developer effort required. They can't just spin up another Prologue-sized event once a month (or even once a year) because they don't have the capacity for it. Allowing us to reset the prologue, with increased scaling and better rewards, would probably be relatively simple. But someone would have to lay out each pass, and we'd be unlikely to get infinite passes on it.
@entrailbucket said:
@Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue? Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue. Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes. Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed. A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization.
@Blackstone said:
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue?
@Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion?
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot.
@Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though?
@Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing.
I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on.
But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals.
PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though.
Maybe PVE still has an answer though?
After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too.
The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7.
Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot.
How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion?
Like the Prologue?
Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue.
Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes.
Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed.
A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization.
Yeah...the problem there becomes the amount of developer effort required. They can't just spin up another Prologue-sized event once a month (or even once a year) because they don't have the capacity for it.
Allowing us to reset the prologue, with increased scaling and better rewards, would probably be relatively simple. But someone would have to lay out each pass, and we'd be unlikely to get infinite passes on it.
I guess that leaves me asking the question: what could actually improve the game?
I'm fine with explanations of why certain ideas won't work, but is there anything that might actually have a chance of working?
And I don't think the top 1% being upset is enough to avoid changes that would improve things for the rest of us. I recognize they are a boon to the game as a whole, but they will be able to adjust to changes better than anyone because they have more resources, both in game and within their top guy communities to work out new strategies. This isn't a knock on the top players/alliances, it's just recognition that they wouldn't really be hurt by things that improve the game, even if it meant they needed to change things up to adjust.
I guess that's my whole point here. What is something that could be added or changed that would improve enjoyment of the game?
@Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue? Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue. Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes. Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed. A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization.
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue?
@Blackstone said: How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion?
They run something like this at the end of every season called Puzzle Gauntlet. It's untimed, you can play nodes as much as you want and there are milestone rewards for completing the 2 sections plus the 2 1v1 battles. Yeah, the win conditions are different from PvE/PvP (your different levels of play) but if you just wanna try out teams or match gems because you are bored, it's already there for you.
They also have Shield Sim if you wanna try out non-meta teams in 3v3 mode.
Your suggestion basically just gets players spending more time on the game because they will chase these extra rewards in the same way so many players chase all these event quests they are adding. Not sure things that take up more time are high on players list of wants.
KGB
I really don't mean to be Negative Nancy!
I've just been around forever, and a lot of these ideas are ones that've come up often over the years, and that we've gotten answers to before.
I absolutely agree that they shouldn't cater to the top 1%. If it's better for the 99%, they should do it (that includes me, although I don't get top 1% placement).
As far as what can be done/is possible, you need to consider the fact that the dev team is very small (however small you think it is, it's 10% of that) and they spend a TON of their time working on new characters. New characters are what keeps the lights on in terms of revenue. The Marvel license is extremely expensive -- it's their biggest expense by far. They can't slow the pace of new characters ever, because they need the money.
So you're really looking at smaller changes, unfortunately. Character balance would help. Being able to reset the Prologue would actually be pretty cool.
Other things, they've already done. Rewards are MUCH more generous across the board. DDQ exists (it didn't always) and it's been expanded.
I think the question for you is, what problems exist that you think they should try to solve? Rather than thinking about solutions directly, it might be better to think about what's not great first, then think about how the problem might realistically be addressed.
@Scofie said: @meadowsweet said: 1) More PVE events that aren't time-based: start your slice at X time, grind at the start & end of each 24 hours for the next few days, then hope some people in your slice have a life where they prioritize family, friends, or a career over MPQ placement so you can get the good rewards. > Mod mode off I like the idea of non-time-based PvE. I guess my questions would be: why the "start and end grind" model? Why not fastest 4 or 6 clears in one hit?
@Scofie said:
@meadowsweet said: 1) More PVE events that aren't time-based: start your slice at X time, grind at the start & end of each 24 hours for the next few days, then hope some people in your slice have a life where they prioritize family, friends, or a career over MPQ placement so you can get the good rewards.
>
Mod mode off
I like the idea of non-time-based PvE. I guess my questions would be: why the "start and end grind" model? Why not fastest 4 or 6 clears in one hit?
I proposed this some time back: https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/87707/proposal-for-play-when-you-want-pve
I consider myself a pretty good PVE player, but I absolutely hate having to schedule my life around it.
@KGB said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue? Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue. Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes. Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed. A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization. They run something like this at the end of every season called Puzzle Gauntlet. It's untimed, you can play nodes as much as you want and there are milestone rewards for completing the 2 sections plus the 2 1v1 battles. Yeah, the win conditions are different from PvE/PvP (your different levels of play) but if you just wanna try out teams or match gems because you are bored, it's already there for you. They also have Shield Sim if you wanna try out non-meta teams in 3v3 mode. Your suggestion basically just gets players spending more time on the game because they will chase these extra rewards in the same way so many players chase all these event quests they are adding. Not sure things that take up more time are high on players list of wants. KGB
@KGB said:
I'm aware of PG. I enjoy PG.
My suggestion was just an idea meant to move the conversation. People mentioned wanting variety without time based play, I responded with something that might fit.
But it was only an idea to expand on a possibility for what others said they would want. Basically a "will this meet that need" kind of thing.
If the answer is no, ok. Great. But are there other ideas that would meet the need?
I have no delusions that I have the answers to improving the game. And I have no issues with you telling me why an idea won't work. But do you have an idea that will?
@entrailbucket said: I really don't mean to be Negative Nancy! I've just been around forever, and a lot of these ideas are ones that've come up often over the years, and that we've gotten answers to before. I absolutely agree that they shouldn't cater to the top 1%. If it's better for the 99%, they should do it (that includes me, although I don't get top 1% placement). As far as what can be done/is possible, you need to consider the fact that the dev team is very small (however small you think it is, it's 10% of that) and they spend a TON of their time working on new characters. New characters are what keeps the lights on in terms of revenue. The Marvel license is extremely expensive -- it's their biggest expense by far. They can't slow the pace of new characters ever, because they need the money. So you're really looking at smaller changes, unfortunately. Character balance would help. Being able to reset the Prologue would actually be pretty cool. Other things, they've already done. Rewards are MUCH more generous across the board. DDQ exists (it didn't always) and it's been expanded. I think the question for you is, what problems exist that you think they should try to solve? Rather than thinking about solutions directly, it might be better to think about what's not great first, then think about how the problem might realistically be addressed.
@entrailbucket said: I really don't mean to be Negative Nancy!
Honestly... I just thought there was an imaginative, creative player base that would enjoy theory crafting what they'd like to see in the game. I even assumed people would grab ideas in other comments and expand on them.
If they need to focus on characters, then we can focus on characters instead of modes. But it's the a way to balance the characters with what we already have.
... Prologue... If it could be reset with increasingly difficult enemies, I'd play it.
Also, it wasn't my intent to call you negative. You just have knowledge of a certain level of play and I wanted to get your input on what might work, beyond just why other things won't work.
I see!
Maybe...it'd be better if I shut up on this particular topic. Saying something won't work just because it hasn't worked, or hasn't happened, in the past, goes against what you're trying to do here. And what you're trying to do here is a good idea!
@Borstock said: @Bowgentle said: @dxanders said: @Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0. I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model. You would also lose the complete player base because you won't be able to bring over your current status. Yeah, game sequels are never played by the same players who played the first game, and are always financial failures. 🙄
@Borstock said:
@Bowgentle said: @dxanders said: @Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0. I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model. You would also lose the complete player base because you won't be able to bring over your current status.
@Bowgentle said:
@dxanders said: @Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0. I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model.
@dxanders said:
@Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0.
I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model.
You would also lose the complete player base because you won't be able to bring over your current status.
Yeah, game sequels are never played by the same players who played the first game, and are always financial failures.
🙄
How many sequels to F2P gacha games are there? Maybe there's a reason for that.
@entrailbucket said: As far as what can be done/is possible, you need to consider the fact that the dev team is very small (however small you think it is, it's 10% of that) and they spend a TON of their time working on new characters. New characters are what keeps the lights on in terms of revenue. The Marvel license is extremely expensive -- it's their biggest expense by far. They can't slow the pace of new characters ever, because they need the money.
So you're saying there's 0.3 FTEs working on the game? Yeah, sounds about right.
I'd like a reward tweak somehow. For me, shards are not a very fun or even remotely fast at building a 5 star. I know they are trying to make some changes to classics, but still not enough right now. I've said it before that my silver surfer looks pretty sad, and I've been playing longer than 5s have existed.
My idea was something like making it easier to get to 13 covers, but once you hit that level the advantage disappears (thus not allowing easy 550 builds). Right now, I feel punished because I missed out on electro, so I'm pushing all my resources and shards towards getting her to a playable level. So, a mechanism where, if you choose a character that you own less than 13 covers for (or the equivalent amount of shards), the shards come at a higher rate or higher amount.
It would require a mechanism to prevent saving 80 covers just waiting for a champ, and same thing with shards. I obviously haven't worked it all out, but it's a thought
@Captain_Trips88 said: I would like to see more done to make affiliations actually count for something and to bring rewarding game play to using teams that should work well together - if I'm taking a team of X-Men into battle together I should be getting some perk for doing so. It kind of feels that the foundations of this have been laid with all the additional affiliations added but at the moment we've just seen minor bits on powers that might do an extra little bit of damage against a certain affiliation. That's great but irrelevant against 80/90% of the roster. I'm thinking things like - using 3 characters with the same affiliation grants % damage increase/reduction across everything, or grants 1 additional AP per match (match 3, get 4 AP) due to the team working better together etc. Each affiliation could have its own perk that is somewhat themed. These could then stack if you have multiple affiliations all represented. I guess it would be like having the perks of supports but at a team level? It might not make much of an impact on the meta teams, but could vary things up nicely
@Captain_Trips88 said: I would like to see more done to make affiliations actually count for something and to bring rewarding game play to using teams that should work well together - if I'm taking a team of X-Men into battle together I should be getting some perk for doing so. It kind of feels that the foundations of this have been laid with all the additional affiliations added but at the moment we've just seen minor bits on powers that might do an extra little bit of damage against a certain affiliation. That's great but irrelevant against 80/90% of the roster.
I'm thinking things like - using 3 characters with the same affiliation grants % damage increase/reduction across everything, or grants 1 additional AP per match (match 3, get 4 AP) due to the team working better together etc.
Each affiliation could have its own perk that is somewhat themed. These could then stack if you have multiple affiliations all represented. I guess it would be like having the perks of supports but at a team level?
It might not make much of an impact on the meta teams, but could vary things up nicely
When affiliations became more prevalent, I thought something like this is where it was headed.
Certain characters get buffs, from their powers, when teamed in affiliations, but it always leaves me wondering if those characters end up being under powered outside of those affiliations.
@entrailbucket said: I see! Maybe...it'd be better if I shut up on this particular topic. Saying something won't work just because it hasn't worked, or hasn't happened, in the past, goes against what you're trying to do here. And what you're trying to do here is a good idea!
@entrailbucket said: I see!
Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, I wouldn't want you to shut up either way.
I feel like we've both been playing this game for a decade with different perspectives/goals. I collect things in game, but I've never felt the need to be overly competitive.
I appreciate your insight and have no interest in an echo chamber. Need to know what won't work so if we get to something that will, it is apparent.
It feels like big changes are out of reach, and smaller changes... Character balance New power mechanics New content - enemies, themes Rewards tweaks Etc ... Are the way forward as far as effective/possible to implement changes.
I thought I would chime in, I’ve played the game on and off since 2013:
Problem #1 - scheduling your life around the time slices of the game: We need either more time slices and smaller brackets OR no time slices at all. With the latter, you would rank and reward at the end of the whole event and rewards would need adjusting.
Problem #2 - PVE is a mindless grind for most players, so change it up by swapping out the enemies. Use the entire roster of characters and force players to figure out how to beat them.
Problem #3 - it’s too hard to get 4* and 5* supports! Either give out more tokens or increase the odds. Why hasn’t this been done already?
On a side note: the devs should not ignore the wants and needs of the top 1% because they are the ones funding this game. I don’t think most people realize how much money they really spend; it’s nuts in my opinion.
So, the devs need to walk the line of catering to casual, free competitive and spending competitive players. Keep in mind that players may change groups also.
How would we ever know there was a board meeting? Trust the calendar? We would turn up and it would be like "Oh we did that back in July".
@DAZ0273 said: How would we ever know there was a board meeting? Trust the calendar? We would turn up and it would be like "Oh we did that back in July".
An updated calendar is your pitch then.
@Blackstone said: @DAZ0273 said: How would we ever know there was a board meeting? Trust the calendar? We would turn up and it would be like "Oh we did that back in July". An updated calendar is your pitch then.
I would say "Put this on the schedule!" and then see if the meeting overlapped with PvE.
@bbigler said: I thought I would chime in, I’ve played the game on and off since 2013: Problem #1 - scheduling your life around the time slices of the game: We need either more time slices and smaller brackets OR no time slices at all. With the latter, you would rank and reward at the end of the whole event and rewards would need adjusting. Problem #2 - PVE is a mindless grind for most players, so change it up by swapping out the enemies. Use the entire roster of characters and force players to figure out how to beat them. Problem #3 - it’s too hard to get 4* and 5* supports! Either give out more tokens or increase the odds. Why hasn’t this been done already? On a side note: the devs should not ignore the wants and needs of the top 1% because they are the ones funding this game. I don’t think most people realize how much money they really spend; it’s nuts in my opinion. So, the devs need to walk the line of catering to casual, free competitive and spending competitive players. Keep in mind that players may change groups also.
@bbigler said: I thought I would chime in, I’ve played the game on and off since 2013:
I never suggested they should be ignored. I did suggest they should be treated liked adults capable of adjusting to change for the better, but others don't seem to think that's the case.
For your problem #1: What are the new time slices? Or what are you replacing the timed placement mechanic with if you remove the slices?
@DAZ0273 said: @Blackstone said: @DAZ0273 said: How would we ever know there was a board meeting? Trust the calendar? We would turn up and it would be like "Oh we did that back in July". An updated calendar is your pitch then. I would say "Put this on the schedule!" and then see if the meeting overlapped with PvE.
@DAZ0273 said:
It does... In fact it'll be mandatory to play while attending the meeting. Then, when someone complains about something they don't like fixing that issue will become the priority of the meeting.
@Blackstone said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blackstone said: @DAZ0273 said: How would we ever know there was a board meeting? Trust the calendar? We would turn up and it would be like "Oh we did that back in July". An updated calendar is your pitch then. I would say "Put this on the schedule!" and then see if the meeting overlapped with PvE. It does... In fact it'll be mandatory to play while attending the meeting. Then, when someone complains about something they don't like fixing that issue will become the priority of the meeting.
Hmm. Sounds promising. Not sure they are gonna be thrilled with my "What if we replaced Mindless Ones with clowns instead" idea but I will take a chance to argue it!