[Suggestion] Reset time in multiplayer should be settable

In order to fight 20+ battles to get an epic chest a player has to play for ~ 7 hours and more. And that's inside one day. Not all people have so many spare hours in their days. Look what you've done with Amy.
Could you let players themselves set the cycles in wich chests are reset? For those who wish it may be 24 hours, some others would like to play the 20 battles in several days or a week.

 

Two things:

First, that Epic chest isn't "your daily quota"; it's basically a placeholder so that the sequence HAS a far end. Many people will never go that far. I, for one, will rarely go above the 1 to 3 wins that get me the highest reward-to-effort ratio. When the sequence was first implemented, we expressed (just as you have) how unlikely it is to get up to the top, and Jon responded:

Second, unfortunately, your suggestion is the same as allowing players to choose "whether they want Epic items for little effort." Because, of course, literally every player would just extend the time frame until they got the Epic.

 

I see the point. But let me disagree. Winning 20 times inside one day isn't a difficulty or challenge; it just takes long hours. One may lose 40 times, win 20 and get his unearned reward, without any thrill or achevement. He'd just spend enough hours inside one day.
But when a player has to win 7 battles in a row - that shows his mastery, that requires a prize. And in this case it's indifferently whether the player's conducted the battles within a day or a month. And that what few people will ever do. When a counter is renewed after a defeat (or at least goes back) every victory is much more valued.
And most importantly it'd leave some motivation to participate for people, who like the game and want to earn Epic items, but have only an hour or two a day in their disposal.
But perhaps I'm missing something.

 

I agree with MikeF. I simply do not have the "real time" to play 20 PvP games in a day, probably not even enough time in a week.

I'm not massively interested in PvP, other than using the loot to improve my PvE parties and the new "Make your own scenarios" looks interesting. I'm probably in the 1-3 wins min/max group, by default rather than design.

However, it makes little difference to the PvP rankings etc., if my games are spread out over a month to get that "gold at the end of the rainbow", but it would make me feel it's worthwhile to achieve. It's the same amount of "effort" - 20 wins- just over a different time period. Jon thought that it wouldn't be easy to achieve, but the daily leader boards show that there are some players who are doing this consistently, from a relatively small population of players.

 

I strongly disagree, the 20 win mark is intended to be difficult to achieve for a reason - it is a really fracking rare item guaranteed! You can win that item no problem from a regular chest as well or in a singleplayer but as it stands, it is an achievement for those who are willing to commit long hours in one day. I know for sure that I will never get that far since I do not have the time for it but it does not bother me at all since the 3 win mark per day is pretty interesting as well and well sufficient.

 

Well . . . I don't really feel strongly on the issue, I'm just trying explain what I see. I can understand the desire to have that epic chest as a "placeholder": just a marker to let you know there's a "top" to the ladder. I don't think it's "worthwhile to achieve" the top rung; being able to see an entire ladder just lets me know where I stand on it by the time I stop for the day. If the majority feels that you SHOULD be able to reach the top, well, there's not much else I can say.

My main concern is with allowing people to decide how quickly they will get there. Everyone must be held to the same standards to ensure fairness, especially since we're talking about the multiplayer side.

 

If the standard is everyone can get to the end, fine. The sticking point is many people can essentially farm the system by luckily having the time to invest in doing so.

Say it takes me a month to complete 20 wins. In the same time, someone who is more determined and time rich can lap me 30 times. This does not seem to me to be unfair to anyone in the equation.

However, if you're min/maxing the 1-3 battles strategy, you might want the timer to expire and not accumilate. That's a slightly different question and answer, I feel.

 

On the other hand - the player who plays 20 wins in one day will get only 5 special chests but if you are a casual player who spends 20 days winning once you will get a special chest each time

 

The epic chest was not intended to be achieved. Those die-hard enough to get it CAN, but that's because they are able to pay the cost. Might it be better if the Epic chest was instead a ? icon which secretly gave an epic chest?

 

Honestly, my first ever MP win (against Garry) yielded an Epic item and it was from the first chest. The way it is is perfectly fine

 

And yet it is, constantly.

 

Indeed. After the last reset I achieved the 20 wins every day for a week solid. This is a feat which required a fair deal of time and effort. I would not advise anyone to replicate this (I was exhausted beyond words). And now, I like others generally don't play beyond 3 ranked games a day.

However, the issue which brought us here is, should we have a settable timer for multiplayer? Well, to an extent you do. After your first win the timer begins and you're given a set amount of time in which to achieve the 20 wins before the timer is reset.

The largest issue with allowing players to reset their timers at will would be that they could simply reset it after each win for a guaranteed rare (or 2 with club membership) and 3 other items after every win!

And Mike I wholeheartedly disagree that, showing mastery by wining 7 battles in a row, "requires a prize." I don't feel that just because I can win consecutively denotes that I be any more rewarded than someone who fights valiantly, and manages to win once every few games.

 

I haven't said that players should be allowed to reset their timer any time they want. And, of course, it shouldn't be renewed untill all 20 battles are completed . I meant that they may be allowed to set what timer they would have.
For instance: when a player comes to the multiplayer room at the first time, he is offered with several timer renewal cycles: 24 hours, 72 hours, weekly, monthly. After he has chosen, he can't change this parameter until the time period he'd chosen is finished; chests can't be renewed until the time period he'd chosen is finished.
That way if I choose the weekly cycle I could get only 4 rare chests and one epic chest inside one week max, and no more, while more vigirous players could still enjoy their dayly achievements. That's just an example of how it may be implemented to allow all players enjoy the multiplayer mode fully.

The idea of renumeration for wins and some kind of punishment for defeats occured after Sir Knight's notion of "Epic items for little effort", and frankly it's a different subject . I've reached the purple chests several times, and it wasn't not too difficult, although it took me a whole weekend. Wining a Magic The Gathering tournament for novices took me only two hours, but wasn't less challenging (because I could lose). If all tournaments and competitions were like "lose as much as you wish, but win 5 times", they wouldn't be so thrilling. I can imagine the picture when a player resigns right after getting a bad hand of cards or facing a mighty competitor or when he's slighly losing, just because there is little motivation to continue fighting rather than launching a new match. I don't say that players should lose an item after a defeat (although exactly this feature makes Ultima Online so great and unique in today's MMO market of 100% safe play), but in order to prevent rewards for little effort why not to consider moving the token back after a defeat or wining in a row or a system of points (like in a tournament) or smth else rather than setting a highly restrictive time limit only.

Lance I see your point and it's admirably humane. But let's have a look at the campaign mode. Some adventures there have up to 7 battles (usually 4), and when a player loses 3 times he has to either pay money or start all over again. It's quite a reward for wining in a row. Why the multiplayer mode should be more delicate to players, especially if it could let more successful and accurate players get their reward sooner? I don't say that exacly this should be implemented, just thinking about it here in writing, cast a vote so to speak.

 

Sorry, it was not clear to me that you were suggesting the the timers only be settable to beyond the current time limit, ie: 1 week.However, that still possess it's own issues.

In both SP and MP the timer resets at a certain point (SP daily and 18 hours from the time you win your first MP match). But as it's been shared the intend to the epic chest is not for it to be easily obtained, which it appears is your goal. I understand you would still put forth the same effort, but over a longer course of time.

Another issue is that what happens if you are allowed to set your timer to 1 week, and you obtain the epic chest in 1 day? I've gotten my epic chest in just over three hours before. Meaning that I was unable to gain anything other than 2 common or better item chests for the remainder of my almost 15 hours remaining until my reset.

If your were interested in a taking a vote then you could have added a poll. But all of that to say, I feel the current system works. And in the future once tournaments have been established you will see the kind of reward system for that, that you are looking for.

 

If the epic chest isn't supposed to be achievable, it shouldn't be something that says "achieve me!" so strongly.

I suggest replacing it with more of a bragging-rights-reward of some sort -- something that doesn't actually impact gameplay a lot (or at all.)

 

The question is what the rewards are intended to achieve. That first chest reward is, presumably, intended as the same "Daily login reward" that so many f2p games use to maintain interest. I assume that's so common for a good reason.

That 20th chest, I'm a little puzzled by. It just seems to be rewarding playing a lot. Even if you're the unequivocal best player on the server and win every game, it's still a really significant time commitment to get 20 wins, but anyone can grind out 20 wins if they devote the hours to it.

I don't get it. It seems almost purpose built for loot farmers.

I don't much like the suggestion of setting the timeframe in advance, either. I'm really bad at telling the future, and if I set up a normal weekly or monthly cycle, and then my wife takes the kids to her parents for the weekend, then I'm just going to be annoyed.

I would like to suggest a reset button with a 24 hour cooldown.

 

It can be seen as such. It's also a reason why I probably won't start playing PvP and if I start I will burnout/quit the game in few days/weeks.

Similar to all those progressive daily rewards in other f2p games. Nice and engaging in theory, but for me once I miss one, I just tend to stop playing all together.

 

Allthough 20 wins a day is much better than progressive login bonus for a week. Now I can just decide not to play PvP if I don't have enough time and won't lose/waste progression.

I know it's bit twisted way of thinking it, but can't help myself. No matter how many chests I get along the way, if I miss the last one, all the matches are useless and I've just wasted my time and failed to achieve something.

 

That's actually really awesome to know, and makes me feel a lot better. I wonder if there's some way to make that more obvious to people who don't read the forum.