Sinister 600 Poll: How do you like this event?

HoundofShadow said:

@Zirtak_the_Second
I think many here are unhappy because they want to play a perfect game and they can't tolerate mistake. That's why they want every information, every details, so that they can come up with a perfect gameplan before the event starts. That's why I think it's difficult for them to enjoy this type of event.

Claiming players want a "perfect game" and a "perfect gameplan" puts them in a negative light, implying unrealistic and unreasonable expectations.

Poor individual performance affects not only an individual player, but whatever alliance that player is in.  It is normal and expected that players that have any sense of responsibility towards their alliance won't be pleased when events are designed so that particular individual can't make a meaningful contribution to their alliance.

Rather than stating it is unrealistic and unreasonable for players to object to the current implementation of this event, I state it is normal and expected that players will object to the current implementation of this event.

@AardvarkPepper
MPQ has always being about making difficult choices since the day after you completed prologue or unlocked PvP. If you have 5 members who are relatively new (2*-3*), then put them in easy mode or medium mode. If the commanders are going to sideline them because of one event, then it's their choice.

The point I am making, which is verifiable by looking at information available in advance regarding the event, and in-game data - again, this is no mere assertion I am making, but verifiable fact - is that the design of the reward structure and the point allocation for nodes for the event itself, is such that alliances are divided in a way contrary to normal expectations.

"MPQ has always been about making difficult choices" is not an accurate statement.  For players that have no interest in roster performance there is no difficult choice; such players just grab whatever character they like for personal reasons.  For players that do have an interest in roster performance, there are top meta choices.  It is not a "difficult choice" for a player in the 2*-3* transition to field Iron Man, Doctor Strange, and Hawkeye (among others) - it is simply the *correct* choice in terms of roster performance.

I made the point earlier that a new free to play player can quickly enter a top 100 PvE alliance.  I can only think that this point, which directly contravenes what you just wrote, was not made sufficiently clear.

I shall be more specific.  Within the first thirty days, a player that knows what they are doing that regularly competes in PvE events, that competes in Lightning Rounds so earns Heroic tokens, that plays against PvP seed teams, can expect to have on the order of 20-25 roster slots, at least.  This is data that is verifiable by checking initial HP, HP rewarded from logins, HP rewarded from Prologue, and HP obtainable from low-level events and looking at initial HP roster slot costs.  This leaves roster slots for a 1* Juggernaut (for Deadpool Daily Quests and also as a usable character), the thirteen non-Bagman 2*s, as well as a limited selection of 3*s and/or 4*s (4*s only in case they are super useful).

From this point - again, this is all verifiable in-game - a player that wants to accelerate their development will open a lot of tokens and end up having to discard 3* and 4* covers.  However, with knowledge of what they are doing, it is not a "difficult choice" at that point, it is simply a matter of "right" versus "wrong".  For example 3* Iron Man is a "right" choice, 3* Doctor Octopus is a "wrong" choice for a player early in the 2*-3* transition with limited roster slots.  I trust I need not debate the particulars of why this is true here, though I will of course do so later if it is shown to be necessary.

Once the player has 3* Iron Man, Doctor Strange well covered they are on their way to performing up to PvE SCL 7.  Again, this is no mere assertion, but a fact that can be tested in-game.  It is not "easy" or "fast" for a player in the 2*-3* transition to compete at PvE SCL 7, but it is necessary for proper and quick roster development in case a particular selected 4* happens to be the prize.  Otherwise, a player can play at SCL 4-6 to earn selected 3* covers and to save real life time.

In PvE SCL 7, a player can earn the Essential 3* and 4* characters as progression prizes; the 4* Essential won't be earned until perhaps a bit more or less halfway through the event.  Yet playing optimally still earns a player normal "max progression" - i.e. the final progression prize.

The top 100 PvE alliances seek players that achieve the final progression prize.  Where alliances that "request" 100% or more are *not* top 100 PvE alliances, inevitably this comes down to the administrators in that alliance not kicking non-performers that don't reach that score.

So let us consider, again, whether MPQ is a "game of difficult choices".  Granted that new players won't know what they're doing, once they *do* get around to researching the game and/or receiving advice from veterans that know what they're doing, there are *not* difficult choices, merely correct and incorrect choices.  Even free players in the 2*-3* transition can quickly earn their way, on their merits, into a top 100 PvE alliance (never mind hybrid alliances which is also a possibility for better prizes for those that can regularly perform).

It is not merely my assertion that MPQ is not a "game of difficult choices".  This is all data verifiable in-game, whether hard coded into the current implementation of events and event reward levels, or whether a result of the current commitment the current player population at large has.  In abstract, one could make the straw man argument that if 1000-1500 players suddenly changed their personal practices, then (again, this is a straw man argument) it would be insufficient to gain merely 100% of normal progression, that it would theoretically be necessary to achieve 120% or 130%.  But to draw an analogy, even if cats were theoretically capable of making sandwiches given proper equipment, one shouldn't base business projections or plans around there suddenly being high demand for cat-sandwich-making equipment.  It just isn't happening.

Theoretical cat-sandwich-making arguments aside, in practice, motivated new players can quickly get to the point that they are valued members of a relatively top performing alliance.   This is what the structure of the game allows, what the structure of the reward system allows, and what current playerbase practices and meta support.

Granted, top 10 alliances end up doing things like searching for active players that have powerful rosters that can compete at SCL 9 for higher potential (and in practice) points per player.

But this new event does not (as most PvEs do) have variable reward levels that let top 10 alliances earn higher rewards commensurate to their effort.  Rather, it has a single reward level, and raises the bar for alliances across the board.  This event makes new and higher demands on players and commanders *at large*, not just on the top 10 alliances and their members.

Rather than the current event reward structure at large, in which knowledge and effort are relatively well rewarded, this new event has written into its very structure demands.  Demands on commanders, demands on player rosters, and if a player's roster (not just the player) isn't up to the task, either the alliance has to give up rewards, or individual players have to be cycled out - and if commanders aren't really up to the task of coordination, both will be true to some degree.

And this is wrong.  This is not how the game was, this is not how the game is, this is not in line with player expectations.  Yes, this is what the game is *becoming* but I think it's a bad direction.

It's down to how the commander sees the situation. In situation where players can't get Nebula covers because many of their members are lacking the essentials or their levels are not high enough to complete the node, the commanders or the players could see things in many ways such as:

1) I should have recruited more seasoned players and I'm going to kick these newbies out. They are dead weights to my alliance.

2) We might not be able to get Nebula covers for everyone this time, but we can try to get the next best set of rewards for the newer players, so that their rosters become stronger.

It's a matter of perspective. The world is not just shades of black and white. There are many other colours out there. Seeing the huge outcry here, I won't be surprised if this event will be buried forever. I guess it's going to be one of the best news for many here.

The point I'm making is it isn't a matter of perspective.  This event's design and reward design are such that this event contravenes existing practices.  Rather than dividing the population into top 10 (elite active commanders and elite active players with highly developed rosters), top 100 (knowledgeable active commanders and active players that have a degree of communication and direction), top 250 (commanders and/or players that put in some good effort but don't care to do quite the amount of effort required to make top 100) and everyone else, this event's structure pushes EVERY alliance to have more and more active players with highly developed rosters.

To put it in more relatable terms, if you have high maintenance high performance equipment and give it to a team of highly trained professionals, you expect positive results.  You force everyone in every situation - untrained cadets, soldiers in the field in varying situations - to use the same high maintenance high performance equipment, the equipment breaks down and fails.

Again, I am not saying that there should be no options for elite players.  By all means, have high maintenance and high performance events that give good rewards.  But I am saying pushing high maintenance and high performance on the playerbase *at large* is the wrong decision.

You get an elite team that needs to fully disassemble their rifles using specialist equipment every twenty four hours and calibrate - if that entire team has that specialist equipment and further has specialists to take care of any less usual maintenance that may be required - sure okay, *if* the equipment is really necessary to picking off targets at 2500 meters at night and that's an expected requirement for performance for that group of specialists, then sure, good idea, give them the equipment they need to get the job they need to do done.

Now you give that same high maintenance equipment to grunts in the desert, in an urban setting with cover limiting effective ranges to 500 meters or less, and the sand blows in and grit gets everywhere making the equipment malfunction - there the higher end of performance simply isn't what's needed, but the teams don't have the maintenance equipment or the time or specialist personnel.  What do you end up with in a couple months when you issue those high maintenance rifles, when there isn't the budget or infrastructure or anything else to maintain the equipment?  Very expensive clubs.

Saying "it's a matter of perspective" or "the commanders made the decision to use that rifle" is besides the point.  The commanders don't determine what equipment is issued, logistics does.  Stating that the commanders or the soldiers should just make the best of the situation is besides the point.  Yes, they *could* make the best of the situation, they could use those expensive clubs in hand to hand (provided they survived to get into melee range), they could throw rocks, they have all sorts of options.  But the fact that logistics is providing inappropriate equipment is the identifiable issue that *should* be the issue - not the commanders, not the soldiers.

Analogies are necessarily inexact, but hopefully this analogy puts in perspective what's going on.  As I wrote, it is natural and expected that players will object to the implementation of this and the previous alliance event, and there are good and natural reasons why this is the case.

To extend the analogy, and to not place undue blame on the developers I'll add - let's not blame logistics for making what they thought were reasonable and rational decisions.  There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes.  Maybe specialist teams were slated to undergo training, but political then financial support was withdrawn, leaving relatively untrained soldiers unsuited to specialist elite operations.  It's not a question of high maintenance rifles being improperly ordered, the rifle order was made using the best data available at the time.  It's not a question of "hey let's give everyone the right equipment", decisions have to be made in advance, payment is made or committed to, and people act based on expectations - then circumstances change.  It's not that someone in an office screwed up on the spot and needs to be fired.  It's that things changed in the six months (or whatever) since the times the rifles were ordered and manufactured and shipped, and now people are just doing the best they can in spite of circumstances.

That said, corrections are still appropriate.  "Corrections" is a strong term; it implies things went wrong.  But then, I do think things went demonstratively wrong.  You could say this is a new direction MPQ is going and not a mistake at all.  But if that's the case (and again, as this is contrary to existing trends), if MPQ is really going to pursue this sort of event design, some players would do best to rethink their commitment to MPQ.

It is not necessarily "wrong" if MPQ takes a new direction; they're going to try to generate monetization and that's just a reality of business.  But if MPQ becomes a game in which players need to spend hundreds of dollars or thousands of hours - and I mean *need* - to be at the *least* competitive, I just don't think the game will be interesting.  There are plenty of "throw your wallet at the screen" sort of games out there, with more interesting tactical design, or more action-fun-play, or better features for communication in-game.

As it is, a new player can in a month or two push into a top 100 PvE alliance and earn regular enhanced alliance rewards. Not top 10, and the player's going to be locked out of earning those higher tier rewards, but that's as it goes.

As it's going, a new player will be trash.  More and more events will have hard-coded into them demands on player rosters (not on player practices or activity, but simply raw rosters which means money or time grind), so alliances will push new and active players out, pushing alliances ever more towards those that have invested thousands of dollars and hours, and that continue to put in that investment.  Less of a social game, less flexibility, more grind more grind more grind more pay more pay more pay.  That's just not something I can sell to anyone I know.  "Hey, friend, I know how you like the Marvel universe, so here's a fun match-3 game you can play, only you can never be part of my alliance because I'm in a more competitive alliance and you just aren't going to get there unless you spend hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours so um yeah check it out" - how does one "sell" an investment with low rates of return, that doesn't offer benefits other than monetary (such as social aspects like playing with friends), that requires an ongoing investment of time, &c &c &c, such as MPQ currently has implemented?  Where is the selling point?  It places a huge burden on the Marvel license to expect its characters to sell a game with so few redeeming qualities.  (Mind, again, I don't mean to be critical, every feature has a cost of implementation.  But in real terms, there *is* competition for player dollars in the form of other products, even other games that use Marvel licenses.)

I don't have the metrics, and maybe that IS the best way to go in terms of monetization - splitting the playerbase up, pushing players towards spending and grinding.  But when a game's design works against social aspects, when it pushes players into hierarchies based on a large money and time commitment, when it doesn't have quality of life features (such as team-based selection to select user-defined teams rather than individual character selection, or more robust in-game chat options) - well, to my mind when a game starts to go that direction, that's a game I'm going to move away from.

Anyways I'm certainly going to be playing for a couple months to see if there's a discount-price-for-roster sale like there was last year.  We'll see how future events go, and the direction the developers take the game.

Phumade said:

Spudgutter said:

Phumade said:

I think you really misunderstand how boss events work.  finishing in 40hrs really means your doing in in under 2days or your finishing before side node scaling has gotten past 400.  Overall higher alliance finishes in boss events reflect how well the alliance communicates and coordinates WHEN they play nodes.  I.e.  the Boss event leaderboard measures the best coordinated alliances not the biggest/heavest rosters

I think you are the one who truly does not understand how boss events work.  Take a look at other threads and other posts, there are a ton of people who help carry weaker rosters.  there are plenty of people that are happy with round 6/7/8 rewards. Again, the precedent has been set, they are responsible for turning that on it's head, not us.  If you think that it should not be that way, that "the gate" should change, it sounds like a fair debate for the accountants and base and I’ll let you carry on your crusade their.

response under 1.

Phumade said:

edit:  For what its worth,  I did day 2 with just a champed doc ock, 390 kitty, 370 groot.  basically 30 levels below their warning and used 1 hp for the full clear.  I'll try day 3 deadly with just level 350 chars.  Having a roster that can only do round 6 of a boss event doesn't relate to competing against Level 450 chars.

you have an old classic 5*, regarded by many as not very good at all (thus presumably thrown away by newer rosters) a maxed out 4* at the top of the 4* meta, 9 covers for a 5* that is in the latest tokens that goes quite well with meta defining 4*.  You need to realize that you are at such a level in the game that is unimaginable to the majority of players.  Literally.  and i am not knocking that as anti-elitest.  i have a pretty great roster as well.  i just know my place.  I am not going to shrug my shoulders and wonder why the peons complaining just don't use their maxed champ 4*.  They barely have champed characters, let alone max!  

lastly

response under 2.

Response to 1:
       The only precedent that has been set in Boss events is the fastest path to complete the leader boards in the shortest amount of time.  a basic 270 alliance can easily  finish 8 rnds before the 7th scaling window hits.  Do you honestly think 3 270 are gonna beat the 515 side nodes?  I don't think so,  and i think alot of alliances have equated following a bake recipe with thinking they understood the when and why to hit the boss node or wait.
       You speak in terms of precedent and you've played the boss events from the very beginning.  That's why I don't think your accurate in your assessment of the precedent sent.

If you think the precedent is easier boss events, that has only been true since Boss rush.  Prior to that the trend was for harder events.  (We both remember how many boss events got retuned down).  So I would say we lived equally under a hard boss (3 years of hard bosses) and easy Boss (right around that 3 year mark) philosophy.  And I don't see that as surprising at all to see them develop a third type of pve with a higher gate threshold.  We both remember simultaneous heroics at different difficulties 


But sure, we can let the accountants decide which tack drives better engagement and more creative solutions.  My roster and your roster cares not about the widith or the difficulty of the event.  just that its new with a different math problem to min max.

response to 2:
     YOu know it could have just as easily been yondu (340), baby groot 275, agent venom 350.  Its not the names, its the numbers behind it that count. and sure now  that its last day, might as well try to figure out the lowest teams that can still win.  I think some people beat rnd 8 galactus with a 3* team.

Spudgutter said:

for the second one, you still don't get it.  it isn't the name per se, it is the numbers.  i have 15 champed 5*, and i don't have a 340 Youndu.  in fact, i barely have anyone at 340.  My top three 4* are 344, 342 and 341.  The fact you casually reference using him with your second (!!) Groot, without realizing you are in a separate class is laughable.  You have literally received over 130 covers for Groot alone.  How about not talking down to those who are still trying to climb the same hill?  read some of these other responses.  our hopes for alliances in general, be it story, versus, boss or raids, is to help everyone get the best rewards possible.  some may work a little harder than others, a rising tide raises all boats.  we shouldn't have to step back and do worse.

bbigler said:

I haven't read all the posts, but has anyone mentioned that you can't get full personal progression rewards without 5*Ock in the Hard or Deadly nodes?  I assume the Easy and Medium subs don't require Doc Ock, but then you're sacrificing alliance rewards.  The point is that every other PVE event allows you to get full personal progression without the required 5*, except this one.

Plus, it's really dumb that the 4* cover reward is the same one everyday.  My 1/5/5 Nebula is not happy at all.