Pve scoring - Prodigal Sun vs Thick as Thieves

atomzed

I observed that TaT was very different from Prodigal Sun (PS) in PVE scoring system.

TaT -
1) Subs scores will eventually lead to opening up of new nodes in main bracket.
2) Rubberband was very strong in this event. The points you gained in sub were essetially worthless; you could wipe out days of progress relying on RB alone.

PS -
1) Subs scores opened up new nodes in sub only.
2) Rubberband was super weak, partly because the main bracket did not have any nodes at all. That also means that whatever points you gained from grinding in subs remain an advantage.

I also observed that in both events there were complaints about the scoring. In TaT, there are complaints about days of grinding in subs were pointless as it is only the last 2 hours that were important (as RB will take care of the point deficits). On the other hand, i also remembered seeing people complaining about PS, that because the RB is so weak, if they missed out 1 sub, they are unable to catch up at all.

This puts D3 in a Catch-22 situation. If they use the TaT scoring system, 1 group will complain.If they use the PS scoring system, the other group will complain.

Of couse, it doesn't have to be a choice between TaT or PS, as the scoring can be a combination of the 2. But i think we should give our feedback to the dev on which scoring system we like better.

If possible, please reply by including your answers to the following questions.
1) Which event scoring system, PS or TaT do you like better? Why?
2) If you can make tweaks to the scoring system, what would you do?

scottee

My only comment is that, yes, people complain no matter which way it is. And I'm now convinced that if this were a tic-tac-toe game that simply rated people by wins and loses, they'd still complain. That is all.

Unknown

I got first on both events and TaT was way dumber than Prodigal Sun.

The partial refresh thing needs to go because all it does is lead to more grind and make the last 12 hours even more important than before on when you played those games. Prodigal Sun, even on the rubberbanded sub events, sure didn't seem like it mattered that much when you played in the last 12 hours because I keep on see some guy who was at the top 5 hours before event ended stay at top without playing more and that's a good thing. I still don't know why they haven't implemented server based refresh time. Now you'd even have an indicator to show when the next full refresh is.

JamieMadrox

You're never going to satisfy everyone. For some it'll be too strong RB, for others it'll be too weak. I did well in both PVEs so for me it's the event lengths. These PVEs could easily be one or two days shorter and I'd be much happier.

Unknown

As I posted in the suggestions section, I would like to see a completely different scoring system for PVE. One where there is no rubberbanding or even node refresh. Each event has so many battles to complete and that's it. Scoring is based solely on how well you complete the battles, not when you complete them. This would take care of so many issues in my opinion. Yes, this would be more difficult to implement as there is no tweaking, this would be brand new. No more endless grinding, fretting over node refresh times, missing out because of times zones, etc. Your score reflects your skill, not your ability to show up every 2.5 hrs.

Unknown

I think it's important to get to the roots of the complaints.

In Prodigal Sun, the refresh rate was changed, so it heavily favored the grinders. There was no way for the more casual players to 'catch up' if they missed a sub or started late. (Unless they were able to manage level scaling and pass people at the very end).

In TaT, the refresh rate was the same (causing people behave in the same manner in order to keep up with the lead pack), but halfway through the event the main node opens up and allows everyone and his brother to catch back up. The main nodes also cause this event to be heavily slanted towards people that can play at the end of the main. Since they can make such dramatic gains in a short time. Basically negating whatever success you may have had in the subs.


So, as you can see, these are two very different events that had been Calvinball'd.

I think a fairer system would have been one like TaT, but the main node is on a 12-24 hour refresh. Allowing some rubberbanding, but not decimating people's progress they made in subs.

Clintman

They need to remove this utterly **** system for PVE. It is just so darned stupid. We are essentially arguing the merits of the changes to PVE scoring to be more or less dumb than they were before, but at no point does it make sense.

It does everything badly, it really does not cater to new players and certainly not veterans. It is not balanced, scaling follows an incomprehensible algorithm that we can only guess at, feeling confident that the only thing we can count on is that it will change next PVE to be more or less dumb than it was to start.

It is unduly punishing to other members of our world wide community. It causes stress and frustration. They need to have an outlet for people to play casually without having to babysit their rating. PVP is good for that, lets abandon it with PVE.

Unknown

I don't think the RB was any different in TaT compared to Prodigal Sun (not counting the RB-less sub at the end). They're all well within the 'a full clear probably gets you first if you kept pace' RB that's been used for quite a while now. It's just that in TaT it's very easy to fall off the pace since the pace of the leader was 'everything once every 2.4h' so most people are likely to fall way back after a while (or just from going to sleep) and at that point the RB seems much greater, but that's because you've fallen way behind.

Grinders hasn't lost to the 'wait for the last minute' guys for a very long time now so I don't see how the change in partial refresh helps. It's possible to beat a grinder in TaT if they grinded in the wrong way, but if they grinded correctly you'd still never catch up to them either if you only waited for the end.

atomzed

Clintman wrote:

They need to remove this utterly **** system for PVE. It is just so darned stupid. We are essentially arguing the merits of the changes to PVE scoring to be more or less dumb than they were before, but at no point does it make sense.

It does everything badly, it really does not cater to new players and certainly not veterans. It is not balanced, scaling follows an incomprehensible algorithm that we can only guess at, feeling confident that the only thing we can count on is that it will change next PVE to be more or less dumb than it was to start.

It is unduly punishing to other members of our world wide community. It causes stress and frustration. They need to have an outlet for people to play casually without having to babysit their rating. PVP is good for that, lets abandon it with PVE.

Clintman, I have seen your posts and i understand your sentiments about MPQ.

Personally i don't see a need to throw out PVE entirely. I view PVE as an arena suitable for those newer players (more energy to grind, any rewards are good). PVP is the arena for mature players (with good rosters and HP for shields).

If you take out PVE entirely, and only have PVP, a lot of the players with poorer rosters will leave. They tried to remedy this by 'sharding', but of course it creates its own effects.

I don't mind PVE being a grind (either TaT or PS) but i just want to know how much commitment i need to put in to get a good placing. In PVP, i know exactly what is required. In PVE, they have Calvinball so much that i am no longer trying to guess; i am even thinking of just prioritising on PVP entirely

Colognoisseur

Phantron wrote:

I don't think the RB was any different in TaT compared to Prodigal Sun (not counting the RB-less sub at the end). They're all well within the 'a full clear probably gets you first if you kept pace' RB that's been used for quite a while now. It's just that in TaT it's very easy to fall off the pace since the pace of the leader was 'everything once every 2.4h' so most people are likely to fall way back after a while (or just from going to sleep) and at that point the RB seems much greater, but that's because you've fallen way behind.

Grinders hasn't lost to the 'wait for the last minute' guys for a very long time now so I don't see how the change in partial refresh helps. It's possible to beat a grinder in TaT if they grinded in the wrong way, but if they grinded correctly you'd still never catch up to them either if you only waited for the end.

This has always been true for me ever since the first Hulk PvE. As long as I am playing optimally I can pretty much not lose out to anyone playing rubberband games and playing less. Do they get the same final prize? Yes but at much greater risk if they miscalculate. I also reap much more iso by playing all the nodes in the best way plus getting sub rewards. I like playing the game and I like playing it a lot so I liked the TaT system because it encouraged more play on my part, which is why I am playing the game.

As long as the scoring system continues to reward me for playing consistently and intelligently I can live with it.

JamieMadrox

Colognoisseur wrote:

As long as the scoring system continues to reward me for playing consistently and intelligently I can live with it.

Basically one of my mottos. "Work smarter, not harder."

Unknown

A scoring system like Prodigal Sun would be more feasible (relatively fewer complaints) if bracketing returned to the old system. That way people can plan when they join a bracket (when they are able to schedule their lives around the refreshes) and not have to worry about being 50k behind the leaders.

Or, you could do away with the PvP ranking system altogether and use progression + goals/achievements/targets instead

Clintman

atomzed wrote:

Clintman wrote:

They need to remove this utterly **** system for PVE. It is just so darned stupid. We are essentially arguing the merits of the changes to PVE scoring to be more or less dumb than they were before, but at no point does it make sense.

It does everything badly, it really does not cater to new players and certainly not veterans. It is not balanced, scaling follows an incomprehensible algorithm that we can only guess at, feeling confident that the only thing we can count on is that it will change next PVE to be more or less dumb than it was to start.

It is unduly punishing to other members of our world wide community. It causes stress and frustration. They need to have an outlet for people to play casually without having to babysit their rating. PVP is good for that, lets abandon it with PVE.

Clintman, I have seen your posts and i understand your sentiments about MPQ.

Personally i don't see a need to throw out PVE entirely. I view PVE as an arena suitable for those newer players (more energy to grind, any rewards are good). PVP is the arena for mature players (with good rosters and HP for shields).

If you take out PVE entirely, and only have PVP, a lot of the players with poorer rosters will leave. They tried to remedy this by 'sharding', but of course it creates its own effects.

I don't mind PVE being a grind (either TaT or PS) but i just want to know how much commitment i need to put in to get a good placing. In PVP, i know exactly what is required. In PVE, they have Calvinball so much that i am no longer trying to guess; i am even thinking of just prioritising on PVP entirely

Woah, don't get me wrong, PVE is good, PVP type scoring in PVE is bad.

Unknown

Clintman wrote:

They need to remove this utterly **** system for PVE. It is just so darned stupid. We are essentially arguing the merits of the changes to PVE scoring to be more or less dumb than they were before, but at no point does it make sense.

It does everything badly, it really does not cater to new players and certainly not veterans. It is not balanced, scaling follows an incomprehensible algorithm that we can only guess at, feeling confident that the only thing we can count on is that it will change next PVE to be more or less dumb than it was to start.

It is unduly punishing to other members of our world wide community. It causes stress and frustration. They need to have an outlet for people to play casually without having to babysit their rating. PVP is good for that, lets abandon it with PVE.

I fully agree the current system of scoring for PVE is dumb

The only rewards should be progression - they should include the new character covers here and remove the need to play at a certain time because of rubberbanding etc bec. of this. This way they could removing scaling as well. Its a silly system at its very base level right now because they're giving arbitrary points randomly depending on what time you beat a node and who you beat it before or after.

Summary:

Fixed points.
Limited number of node repeating/recycling.
Fixed enemy level tiers.
Time Independent.
No Scaling.
No Rubberband.
Rewards all progression.
Fun PVE

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

Summary:

Fixed points.
Limited number of node repeating/recycling.
Fixed enemy level tiers.
Time Independent.
No Scaling.
No Rubberband.
Rewards all progression.
Fun PVE

Oh my god I want this so bad. Can you make a spinoff game with this so I can play that instead?

atomzed

Clintman wrote:

Woah, don't get me wrong, PVE is good, PVP type scoring in PVE is bad.

Ah i misunderstood your point... so you are saying what LoreNYC is saying

LoreNYC wrote:

I fully agree the current system of scoring for PVE is dumb

The only rewards should be progression - they should include the new character covers here and remove the need to play at a certain time because of rubberbanding etc bec. of this. This way they could removing scaling as well. Its a silly system at its very base level right now because they're giving arbitrary points randomly depending on what time you beat a node and who you beat it before or after.

Summary:

Fixed points.
Limited number of node repeating/recycling.
Fixed enemy level tiers.
Time Independent.
No Scaling.
No Rubberband.
Rewards all progression.
Fun PVE

1 problem i forsee if you remove the bracketing (or PVP type scoring) is that progression reward must be tightly tuned.

If you make it too easy (like TaT), everyone will get the progression reward and the covers become less meaningful.

If you make it too difficult, people will complain (like the previous Sims, where nonone got the blue cmag covers).

The key question is how to strike a balance.

With the PVP bracket system, a balance is strike. The top 20 in a bracket of 1000 will get the rewards. Which means that only 2% of the MPQ population will get the covers. This makes the covers scarce, and hence makes it valuable.

If everyone has it, then there's no demand for it. If there's no demand for it, those who gotten it will also not be happy, because its no longer precious.

Imho, it is a tough thing to balance... to manage scarcity and value of the covers. Thus far, they seem to have decided that they can live with top 2 - 5% getting the covers.

Should they tweak the figures? Or should they change the system entirely such that covers are not the only things sought after? How do they engage those players with maxed out roster, similar to what MMORPG do for elite players? (their current answer is Season I and II, but i think its not working)

These are difficult questions, and i still see D3 trying to tweak the system.

Unknown

It seems to me the common complaints about the PvE is that people who try to play games with rubberband wonder why they lose to a grinder that also knows the same thing as you. The PvE system has been overwhelmingly favoring the grinder as long as the grinder doesn't run out of steam, which is actually quite possible due to scaling. People are basically saying how come they can't catch up to someone who grinded all the time if they didn't hit a scaling wall at the end? Well, why should you be able to?

For the typical 1000 players main bracket event, the prize for finishing #1 is effectively the same as #20. The difference is that the grinder starts out in the top 5 and can afford to drop 10 places and not have a nervous breakdown, whereas if you started out at #19 and fall two places in the last hour that'd really suck. Now, there are also times where you start out at #19 and just stay there, and here you probably came out ahead because you obviously spent a lot less effort, but that advantage comes at the risk of having to make sure you didn't fall 2 more places at the end.

Although I question the scheduling requirement trends in the recent event, the overall pattern has not changed. If you won't or can't play more then the best you can do is try to hex those who can and hope they run into the 395s really soon. I sure don't see anyone saying how it's unfair they pass someone up who jumped out early but hit a scaling wall later, and there are a lot of those guys (usually the 2* roster you see at the top at the beginning).

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

It seems to me the common complaints about the PvE is that people who try to play games with rubberband wonder why they lose to a grinder that also knows the same thing as you. The PvE system has been overwhelmingly favoring the grinder as long as the grinder doesn't run out of steam, which is actually quite possible due to scaling. People are basically saying how come they can't catch up to someone who grinded all the time if they didn't hit a scaling wall at the end? Well, why should you be able to?

For the typical 1000 players main bracket event, the prize for finishing #1 is effectively the same as #20. The difference is that the grinder starts out in the top 5 and can afford to drop 10 places and not have a nervous breakdown, whereas if you started out at #19 and fall two places in the last hour that'd really suck. Now, there are also times where you start out at #19 and just stay there, and here you probably came out ahead because you obviously spent a lot less effort, but that advantage comes at the risk of having to make sure you didn't fall 2 more places at the end.

Although I question the scheduling requirement trends in the recent event, the overall pattern has not changed. If you won't or can't play more then the best you can do is try to hex those who can and hope they run into the 395s really soon. I sure don't see anyone saying how it's unfair they pass someone up who jumped out early but hit a scaling wall later, and there are a lot of those guys (usually the 2* roster you see at the top at the beginning).

The problem now is the grinder has to be able to grind at optimal times as well, otherwise people playing later can draft each other and slingshot past the grinding leader at the time. I do agree in a 1v1 scenario, grinder will always win but even the word - grinding- makes it sound like anything but fun.

Just because rewards are in progression doesn't mean everyone can get them but I'd rather they toon progression tier awards than attempt to write a code that makes enemies level appropriate for everyone playing.

atomzed

LoreNYC wrote:

Just because rewards are in progression doesn't mean everyone can get them but I'd rather they toon progression tier awards than attempt to write a code that makes enemies level appropriate for everyone playing.

I assume that this question is directed at me so i will answer it.

Yes i agree that not everyone will get all the progression rewards.... If D3 can predict accurately the progression. It seems like they have been poor at predicting the progression rewards (Prodigal sun timer has to be adjusted downwards several times, TaT timer was opened on Day 3 (?), noone reach Cmag progression rewards for sims while everyone reached the top progression rewards for TaT).

I am just pointing out that your suggestions will also create unintended consequences (no scarcity, hence no value in rewards), and may not be better than the current system.

@phantron, i agree with you about the grinder having advantage. I will be happy if D3 explains that PVE is meant for grinders and PVP meant for shorter bursts of play and strategic timing for pushes.

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

The problem now is the grinder has to be able to grind at optimal times as well, otherwise people playing later can draft each other and slingshot past the grinding leader at the time. I do agree in a 1v1 scenario, grinder will always win but even the word - grinding- makes it sound like anything but fun.

Just because rewards are in progression doesn't mean everyone can get them but I'd rather they toon progression tier awards than attempt to write a code that makes enemies level appropriate for everyone playing.

I agree the scheduling requirements for the recent 2 events is getting rather ridiculous and hope that's not the direction we're going.

I support events like the original Heroic Oscrop where all the good stuff is in the progression (placement reward for #1 was only a single Daredevil cover) but they really need to make sure they get everything right. Imagine if TaT was mostly progression based, then it'd probably be like 'free 3*s for everyone who joined!'. On the other hand there are also plenty of events that's 'nobody is even within 50% of the score of the first 3* progression reward'. They really need to put server based refresh time if they plan to have an event where the reward is mostly progression. I remember in the first Heroic Oscorp there are talks about how you've to play exactly optimally to get all 17 or so full refreshes in for the duration of the event to have a shot at the Wolverine X Force cover. Now Heroic Oscorp turned out to be so hardcore that plans to do every possible refresh never got past the planning stage, but that's just a very bad policy in general.

I think they should apply the lightning Elite round concept for PvE. Offer something useful like the guaranteed 3* token in progression for an upfront cost and make it reasonably obtainable. If you take 150 HP out of 10000 guys, that's got to translate into some real money somewhere and even if you end up giving away 10000 3* tokens, the value of a random 3* just isn't that high, but if D3 feels bad about it they can always increase the amount you got to spend to get in the event. I'd assume they'd have metrics to be able to set that not everyone could get the final progression reward anyway. Just don't forget to put a heroic token at 1 PvE point so that people have their consoliation prize.

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

LoreNYC wrote:

Just because rewards are in progression doesn't mean everyone can get them but I'd rather they toon progression tier awards than attempt to write a code that makes enemies level appropriate for everyone playing.

I assume that this question is directed at me so i will answer it.

Yes i agree that not everyone will get all the progression rewards.... If D3 can predict accurately the progression. It seems like they have been poor at predicting the progression rewards (Prodigal sun timer has to be adjusted downwards several times, TaT timer was opened on Day 3 (?), noone reach Cmag progression rewards for sims while everyone reached the top progression rewards for TaT).

I am just pointing out that your suggestions will also create unintended consequences (no scarcity, hence no value in rewards), and may not be better than the current system.

@phantron, i agree with you about the grinder having advantage. I will be happy if D3 explains that PVE is meant for grinders and PVP meant for shorter bursts of play and strategic timing for pushes.

Getting progression rewards right requires an event to have no rubberbanding. Otherwise it's just too hard to predict what will happen and almost invariably it becomes too easy or too hard. Scaling is optional (if there is no scaling, D3 would just put the progression thresholds way higher to compensate).