Xenoberyll wrote: Demiurge_Anthony wrote: Cover Max. I didn't have time to test with Max champion levels, sorry =/ Why not actual level of the characters? i have a lot of cover maxed 4 stars that are useless against lvl 350+ opponents because i don't have the ISO to level them. Covers mean very little.
Demiurge_Anthony wrote: Cover Max. I didn't have time to test with Max champion levels, sorry =/
Bowgentle wrote: Yeah, I was afraid that the scaling "fix" would mean "increase the difficulty of the easy nodes". Thank you, but that is not the PVE fixes we were looking for. I recently started playing PVE again because I need more ISO than I can ever get even if I play 24/7, but if I'm out of healthpacks after the easy nodes, I'll just quit altogether. PVP already is a chore, I'm not going to play Gauntlet-style in every PVE for 70 ISO rewards and critical boosts.
DayvBang wrote: In my opinion, none of these changes address the real problem:Competitive PvE always has been and always will be a bad idea. All this does is create a new model for "optimal play". A new metagame for placement that has little to nothing to do with how good a player is at winning matches. PvE can be fun without a leaderboard. Look at The Gauntlet concept (perhaps not its punishing difficulty for minimal rewards), or the Ant-Man and TAHulk special events, or even DDQ. Stop turning repetition into a game and start rewarding people for passing new challenges. Add in some elements of choice (e.g. branching hard or easy paths where the player may only choose one path to complete). If repetition is to be a factor, do more events in the Galactus model where you play for progression only, and it doesn't really matter whether you arbitrarily did "better" than another player. But not this. Not the new way or the old way.
Dauthi wrote: Bowgentle wrote: Yeah, I was afraid that the scaling "fix" would mean "increase the difficulty of the easy nodes". Thank you, but that is not the PVE fixes we were looking for. I recently started playing PVE again because I need more ISO than I can ever get even if I play 24/7, but if I'm out of healthpacks after the easy nodes, I'll just quit altogether. PVP already is a chore, I'm not going to play Gauntlet-style in every PVE for 70 ISO rewards and critical boosts. While I agree we should be getting more ISO, I prefer puzzle quest, not grind quest. Mindlessly destroying easy nodes was in no way a "puzzle" or fun, and hard gauntlet style nodes bring skill, strategy, and a full rosters into PVEs.
D4Ni13 wrote: DayvBang wrote: In my opinion, none of these changes address the real problem:Competitive PvE always has been and always will be a bad idea. All this does is create a new model for "optimal play". A new metagame for placement that has little to nothing to do with how good a player is at winning matches. PvE can be fun without a leaderboard. Look at The Gauntlet concept (perhaps not its punishing difficulty for minimal rewards), or the Ant-Man and TAHulk special events, or even DDQ. Stop turning repetition into a game and start rewarding people for passing new challenges. Add in some elements of choice (e.g. branching hard or easy paths where the player may only choose one path to complete). If repetition is to be a factor, do more events in the Galactus model where you play for progression only, and it doesn't really matter whether you arbitrarily did "better" than another player. But not this. Not the new way or the old way. Completely agree with this. MPQ doesn't have PvE right now. Just 2 kinds of PvP
OJSP wrote: The problem is, we don't know what works and what doesn't in this experiment.. what outcome do the developers want to get to make this a successful experiment?
boldfacedfemme wrote: Um.. I thought the first six plays on a node were supposed to be the same amount of points each? I just played the first node on the 48hr sub, and points went from 200 to 160. Im confused.