Complaint: Leveling, EXP, and Maps

Anything and everything related to the Evolution server.
Post Reply
@nt
Pro but Noob
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:14 am
Location: USA Massachusetts

Monster Evolution is a great server mod, don't get me wrong. It's something very special and it's the reason why I play it, even though I have a computer that can run almost any game I want. However, ME is not perfect and there are some issues with the server I want to talk about, and hopefully fix.

Issue #1: Piercing and low levels playing on hard maps
If a rank 1 player plays a hard map like xeno, or utopia, he has no chance, and his death is almost inevitable, giving piercing to an already hard map. This can be negated by the lower levels staying far away from the monsters, but what about a map like xeno part 2 where you must run through mobs of monsters? Their deaths are guaranteed. I can say with confidence that the majority of players I meet in the game are rank 2. What does this mean? Only a small fraction of the most dedicated players on the server can play hard maps, and everyone else who doesn't stand a chance on the map only makes it harder for them.

Tinkering around the monsters' damage/hp, or players' skills/stats is not the answer; making monsters weaker, and players stronger will defeat the purpose the map, as it was intended to be a hard map in the first place. I think what we need is a rework on the piercing system. If you are a rank 1 player playing on a high level map, your death should not give the team as much piercing as the death of a player playing at the level the map was intended to play. I can't think of an exact equation for it, but a level 1 dying on an r4 map should definitely give less piercing than a level 150 dying on a map meant for his level. Additionally, low level players playing on high level maps should be rewarded with increased objective exp for staying alive, giving them an incentive to play the maps. Just because a certain map is picked, it shouldn't take away your right to play the game.

Issue #2: Map selection
Playing the same map over and over again is not fun. I think Acatana is a nice map, but that doesn't change the fact that you'll get sick of it when you play it a thousand times because that and two other maps are the only ones that give you good exp. If you make it so that players can only effectively level on 2 or 3 maps, they will get sick of them, and stop playing entirely. You will not grow as a player from spamming 1-2 maps, but if you don't spam those maps, your character's LEVEL will never grow, and in an RPG, your character's level typically more important than your individual skill. (a rank 1 player can have perfect aim and perfect dodging skills, but will never be able to solo a map like utopia.)

I think this can be fixed by giving maps more exp. By making exp more obtainable, it benefits both hardcore players, and casuals. Hardcore players will be able to get r4 faster and play hard maps like xeno, robofactory, and utopia, and casual players can focus on other enjoyable aspects of the game outside of exp (like vehicles, player vs player monster combat, ect.) while still seeing growth on their character.


Issue #3: Level Gap
The level gap in this game is huge. It's not a problem at all going from rank 1-2; you just have to play a bit. 2-3 is much harder, but if you really put in the effort, it is still possible. And then getting to rank 4, is impossible unless you seriously dedicate yourself. This problem isn't as bad in Monster Mash because all the monsters for every map scale on players' levels, but every map on ME has a set difficulty. This ties into issue #1 because low levels will stay low, and certain maps will be completely locked off to them. This level gap also screws over high levels because there will only be like 1-3 players on their level to play high level maps with them.

All 3 of these issues can be fixed (or at least helped) if players simply got more exp. Low level players won't be useless on high level maps since they can level easier, people can play other maps now that exp is easier to get, and the level gap will shrink, and there will be a more even distribution of high levels and low levels. Yes, ME should be a hard game, and its difficulty is what makes it fun, but it shouldn't take years to simply get a high enough level to play a map.

[mod=DeathWarrant]Please note that I have removed your poll. It was somewhat extraneous and I feel your points and the discussion they engender are more appropriate for this venue than the simple yes/no of a poll. Carry on! :cheers: Thanks![/mod]
I like cookies...
User avatar
christmas
1337 Haxor
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:30 pm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #1: Piercing and low levels playing on hard maps
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-its pointless for low-rank players to even attempt high-rank maps. (for obvious reasons.)
-on the other hand its stupid for a high-rank player to even bother to play a high-rank map becaaaaaaaaause ....at any given moment a low rank player can join and give "piercing"...
the 2nd case scenario is the reason some high-rank players dont even bother playing high-rank maps anymore.
-its pointless on top of that for a high rank to bother play a low rank map or a map that gets a high xp reduction (for reasons like the pph is terrible and wont serve his purpose at all). that lies also within the LevelLimiter restrictions and the major gap observed among the ranks. so a r4 paladin is more like a GOD, and an r2 paladin is a weak useless player compared to the r4. and that gap can not be met in a map. so if a map is of average difficulty, for the r4 player is a walk in the park, while for the r2 player is a struggle. and if a map is of high difficulty, for the r4 player is a challenge, while for the r2 player is a certain death= piercing, or if not, its a character of zero contribution on that map scenario. this gap among ranks can not be met.

*other factors to consider:
-many/most hard maps are also very long in duration
-added piercing equals to struggle for the high-rank player (imagine 50% piercing or above).
-most maps give low xp. most xp gain is awarded on map completion through winXP (in hard maps). so playing a map for 1 hour, getting some piercing and failing before the end, you know what a bad taste it leaves....

*my proposal (regarding piercing factor):
i had proposed (once upon a time) to allow mapper to specify acceptable piercing factor or piercing used method through in-map:
e.g. neglect piercing, use default formula, use up/down limit, use handicap to reduce piercing

also, if I recall correctly, I might be wrong though, MM server has no such piercing function (aka dead players will not add difficulty to the living players)

*Ant's thinking.
besides its hard and/or it requires time to do changes of that sorts, Ant considers "piercing-factor" a vital key aspect of the server (as it is).

also, piercing in hard long maps with big team, is where we see the domino effect, the weakest player dies first, so all the remaining follow one by one, until the strongest player stays alive, only to struggle and die eventually. and the question that a high rank asks here is: whats the point of purchasing resistances (e.g. 50%) when with piercing, which is the case, I will see them reduced to 0% or -25% ?


*conclusion:
piercing overall f@cks the strongest players (the high-ranks).
imagine being r4 pala (75% resist) and suddenly a low rank dies.
you get 50% piercing and your resistance drops to 25% ...aka incoming damage is TRIPLED !!!!
you get mad, quit, because you find it ridiculous fighting monsters with higher HP and DAMAGE, and ON TOP OF THAT you play with reduced resistances. I mean, are you gonna get a prize for that? Nope. -> you wish you would be playing either a. solo or b. with another reliable high-rank player who wont give you piercing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #2: Map selection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a MAJOR issue in my opinion.
if you get to be level 200, you simply dont give a fuck about XP.
but all along the way to level 200......you need XP.
basically you want to have fun.
you play and have fun.
but then you want to level, so that the game is more fun.
so you need XP, which can be obtained by specific maps (the lower the level, the more maps available with high pph).
but, what happens when, XP are limited by so many factors?
and also, why the XP distribution and pph is so uneven among maps?
well, what happens is that you are forced to replay like crazy specific high-pph maps only.

I proposed lots of things to resolve this type of issue. I might rewrite them in the future (if i can be arsed).

regarding time: it requires lots of playtime to get to r4, so you need to spend time.
regarding characters: you need to built 1 character, in order to level it. starting with 5 characters, you will never level any.
regarding pph/low-level maps: low level maps give high pph. also as a low level every 1000-2000xp you get 1 level and 10 stats = progress.
when there are lots of low rank maps with high pph, this translates to....i play 1 hour = 1 level.
but what happens after level 100?
what happens is, pph drops drastically. maps number that give even decent pph is reduced drastically.
so, while as r2 you can level every 1 hour of playtime, as r3 you need 3 hours or more to level. as r4, you are f@cked.
and the other factors: maps available are very few.
and another factor: high ranks that pull you up. so, that 1 hour you need, can be dropped to half an hour, if there are high ranks beating the map in half the time.

*also most low-rank maps have map multiplier of 2 or above and no xp limiter by the level until lvl 100 or so.

i will provide a few data.
to get lvl 100 you need 190,000 xp
to get lvl 150 you need 570,000 xp
to get lvl 200 you need 1140,000 xp

to get to level 100 is easy...when there are maps that you can get 400-500xp in under 10 mins of playtime.
that problem lies to Ant's idea of buffing the XP in the specific maps (and especially in the beginning of the maps).
just imagine this, why even bother win a map, to get winXP? who cares. I can rush a map like kamikazi, for 10 mins to acquire 400+ xp, then redo this map or some of the other low-rank maps that have that high pph in the start. will I die? yes. do I care? no. how come? I got so much xp in such low playtime.
frigate, UoW3, cubes, nanoTek, wangara etc are just some of these maps. *if you ask someone else, he will provide another 5 low rank maps with high pph at start.

something that would be proper here would be to implement a global monster adjustment difficulty function, not for all maps, but for the majority of them (something like in MM). map difficulty would be adjusted to the current players, and there would be no LevelLimiter, so what you would see XP distributed among the players skill, e.g a r4 getting the highest score(strongest), an r3 getting less XP, an r2 getting lesser XP etc...
of course then, all low ranks would complain, because, when a high rank would join a map (e.g. Cubes), difficulty would be adjusted to him, so it would be a struggle for the low ranks to fight the monsters (like they were playing Xeno2), and for the r4 it would be a challenge, attributing to him XP normally.
and since Ant seems to favor the low rank players in expense of the high ranks, I would never ever ever ever see something like that happening or even being considered.
ps: the adjustment mod is not something I do propose for high rank maps, since it would mess their role, imagine Utopia1,2, Xeno2, Cirban, Iguazu, Castle etc adjusted to r2 players...it would make a kick-ass map looking soft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #3: Level Gap
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low levels stay low for only 1 reason. because they dont dedicate themselves to play more. they want it the easy way out.
What I have learned is besides the system/monsters/threat/map knowledge, what it requires and its not only most vital, but the only element that will make you an r4 player and ultimately a lvl 200, is TIME.
you need to stop expecting to get 1 level every 1 hour of playtime (because thats what was the case as a low rank) and start investing time and effort.
game is ridiculously fast-progressing as a low rank, and the exact opposite as a high rank.

*as I mentioned in other instances, I would agree to increase XP (for high rank maps, basically for maps for lvl 120 and above). from that everyone will benefit (expect those who are high ranks 175+ already, but they dont care because they are close to lvl 200 anyways.)
as for low rank maps, i wont say to reduce XP there, but they already too high, so increasing the pph even more, will cause the phenomenon to have players with 50 r2 characters and no r3 or r4 character.
simply put, invest TIME.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
..........................CONCLUSION..........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

piercing: Ant will disagree to mess with this, as he considers it a vital aspect of the game.
in addition, its something that it grows with you on time.
furtheron, you will see r4's/lvl200 not bother joining in r3-r4 maps with lower rank players, 1 of the reasons being the expected piercing.

map selection: Laugh Out Loud!!!
when you get to lvl 125 or so, you will be telling me: "oh man, i'm so sick of replaying the same 2 or 3 maps in order to level, because all other maps give so weak xp".
(did I say 3 maps? if its 3 maps then you are damn lucky boy).
Level Limiter kicks your ass big time!!!

level gap:
first off, you got a wrong definition of that.
regarding what you mention, ANT could give a good booster (to allow players over level 100 to progress more rapidly and get to r4 and probably lvl200 eventually). I totally agree on that.
*and I dont have a personal gain on that since all my chars are over level 180-185.

BUT, (no offence ANT) Ant's attitude is in general to promote low ranks, and penalize high ranks.
in my last list I made of skills and maps, because I was checking the changes done over the last 3 or 4 or 5 server updates (i dont remember)
regarding r4 characters skills:
Ant did so many nerfs in most major skills one way or another, that some skills became from OP to total piss, or expensive to acquire, or limited, or with other limitations,
and regarding maps:
oh well, there arent many maps for a high rank to get high pph, many high rank maps come with high winXP (so you have to play even 1 hour and make sure you succeed), which is not the case for soloing, its also the level-limiter, and also many high-rank maps (including the maps in the latest server update) can have an additional xp reduction of 30-40% (as map multiplier).
and these constitute major nerfs. its a direct penalization of the rank.


the level/rank gap actually lies on the gap between a r4 and r2 player.
you have an r2 player who can do this and that, has a few weak skills, can survive a bit, do some damage. and on the other hand you got a high rank who can shit adr, tank lucies and alien queens and not even sweat, kill incoming waves for fun....and that should give you all the motive you need to get there, to be that kick-ass character. overall, the game forces you to get to level 175-200.
if an r2 is a good player, then r4 is like a GOD. putting these two together into a game, you dont expect the r2 to contribute or you dont rely on him. but that gap cant be fixed.
Last edited by christmas on Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:59 am, edited 5 times in total.
@nt
Pro but Noob
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:14 am
Location: USA Massachusetts

Losing a rank 4 player is a much bigger impact on the team than losing a rank 1 player, for obvious reasons. (r4 paladin heals better than r1 paladin) Rank 1 players also die way easier; the piercing system should take this into account as a rank 1 player's death is not the same as a rank 4 player's death.

Another option I see is to make it so that players who do not reach a certain level threshold are teleported to a saferoom, (like final obj in xeno part 2) and wait there until everyone else finishes the obj, but that would probably make things even worse.
I like cookies...
User avatar
christmas
1337 Haxor
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:30 pm

[quote="@nt"]Losing a rank 4 player is a much bigger impact on the team than losing a rank 1 player, for obvious reasons. (r4 paladin heals better than r1 paladin) Rank 1 players also die way easier; the piercing system should take this into account as a rank 1 player's death is not the same as a rank 4 player's death.

Another option I see is to make it so that players who do not reach a certain level threshold are teleported to a saferoom, (like final obj in xeno part 2) and wait there until everyone else finishes the obj, but that would probably make things even worse.[/quote]


first off, we are not talking about dick-players or players attempting to f@ck other players' efforts.
we are talking about gameplay.

one r4 and one r2 decide to play a map.
what are the chances of the r4 dying before the r2 (and giving piercing to the low rank)?
zero? 1% ? its low!!!
what is gonna be the impact?
no point mentioning it. a low rank is weak anyways. also, if a high rank died there, you expect the low rank to die within 1 minute, with or without piercing.

what are the chances of the r2 dying before the r4 (and giving piercing to the high rank)?
99% ?
what is gonna be the impact?
MAJOR!!!
trust me, everyone who got to high rank, raged so many times when he sensed the piercing in his skin.
because, if the map was a challenge, then it goes from challenge to mission fricking insanity.

1 thing I had proposed for that was to give 3 lives to a low rank in hard maps (when playing with a high rank player and dying before him, under certain conditions).
DW_Ant
DW Clan Member
Posts: 2670
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Thanks for providing constructive criticism about the server and highlighting specific issues. Here's my insight why these exist.


Issue 1: Piercing and low levels playing on hard maps
The main theme of the server is team collaboration. There needed to be a way for make every player valuable. There needed to be some measures in place to prevent Paladins from soloing difficult maps while 90% of the other players remain dead. This issue is amplified with Paladins when they have 75% resistances and defensive abilities such as Enhanced Armor, Advanced Resistances (this was removed long ago), and healing. Without piercing, the Paladins could play the map normally (without changing pace or caution) while the rest simply watch the 1-2 players carry the team.

It's intended to cause a snowball effect when players start getting killed. If the team is not properly coordinating, more weight is added to each individuals' shoulders.

Without piercing, players would still playing the hardest map (since they provide the most exp and still reliably earn the highest exp rate). I forecast that it'll become a habit to carry low levels to rank III by numerous iterations of high ranked maps regardless how successful the low level player is doing.

Regarding the proposition suggesting to expose level designers to modify the piercing factor. This will add more complexity to the formula, and I don't think this would be the way to go. Currently it's difficult enough for a player to get a handle of the piercing impact. How can a player predict how much damage that skaarj projectile will do? Having inconsistent rules between maps could confuse and even frustrate players. Simple things like the experience multiplier based on the player level is enough to make things not clear. This element will also make things much more difficult to balance. Having a global rules set, will make things considerably easier when addressing game difficulty.

Monster Mash does not implement the piercing factor since there's no need for that. The respawn intervals are consistent. Each wave lasts about 5 minutes, and players respawn every 5 minutes. Players will also fight the same set of monsters regardless of the map, which reduces the need to replay a specific map. See issue II of this post for more details on that.
Monster Mash instead sets the monster level based on the lowest level living player. For example, if the team with levels 25, 200, 250, 400, and 500 are alive, the monster level is 25. As soon as the level 25 is slain, then the monster level jumps up to 200. Unfortunately, this method does not work for Monster Evolution since monsters do not time out like in Invasion. If the monster level is high, and the player must kill a boss monster to continue, then the player may end up spending a large amount of time, killing that monster. You can get a glimpse of this in Monster Mash, when fighting a high level mech titan.



Issue 2: Map selection
This one has my vote for the largest issue.
Other than having a large map database, I don't see any way around this problem. Some players love to max their PPH. They find the select few maps that grants a decent PPH, they will replay those maps over and over again, and if they play the map over and over again, they will get better and more efficient with those maps. If they get more efficient, they will increase their PPH. It is possible to address this by adjusting the experience multiplier based on the map voting frequency, but this action, alone, makes players upset. I tried this method out by manually adjusting the experience multiplier frequently for a couple months, but the feedback was not positive. Nowadays, I don't adjust the multipliers often.

Providing maps more experience will not fix the problem. Before the server was release, experience points were deflated. It used to mean much to gain 50 points in a map (50 points was the equivalent of 500 points nowadays). Even during the time when 50 points meant much, maps with highest PPH was played the most.

It was not intended for players to normally reach to level 200. After level 100, the players should feel strong enough to stand on their own two feet, but the level cap was set to 200 for the individuals who do not want to retire their characters early. The reason why it's high is because of feedback suggesting that players don't have any motive after hitting the cap. At the same time, I get feedback that players get into the mindset that they must hit level 200. It's not difficult to make it easier to reach to level 200, but then I think players would suggest that the level cap is too low.

Again, this is not an issue of increasing the experience reward. As demonstrated numerous times (when I would globally increase the experience reward), the issue for replaying the same maps persists. It's about relative experience reward amongst all maps, and I don't see how to accomplish this if individuals are well-versed in specific maps.



Issue 3: Level gap
This ties in to some of the issues I brought up in Issue 2. To avoid repeating text, I won't be addressing much here.

This is a delegate balance. I can make it easier to reach level 200, then players would suggest to increase the level cap. I can increase the level cap beyond 200, but then players suggest that the gaps between rank I and rank V is too high. I think the gap is already too vast between ranks I and IV. I can decrease the level gap by making low levels more powerful, but then players would suggest the maps are too easy (or the hard maps are not hard enough).

Again everything is relative. Finding the happy medium is the difficult part. Especially if the target is moving (ie: number of active players, or general class preferences at the time).





I do acknowledge that these are ongoing issues. Some of these exist in order to fix larger problems players could be experiencing. I don't think these are the best solutions (as evidenced by this thread). I apologies if the system designs, nerfs, buffs, and value adjustments come across that I'm penalizing high ranks, or I have a vendetta towards specific classes or individuals. Monster Evolution is shaped today from years of feedback. Despite its faults, I'm quite proud in how far Monster Evolution transformed since the initial design back in 2009.

Although Monster Evolution is not perfect, I don't project drastic changes to be applied anytime soon, but that does not mean I'm disregarding feedback. Your feedback is considered, and may be applied some time in the future.

It means much to me to read posts like these. This is evidence that something was done right. Thank you for your feedback.
The difference between successful people from others is
not in the lack of strength,
not in the lack of knowledge,
but rather in the lack of will.

FFE466

_________________________
{F}{AH}{CivFR}{XC}{U}{DF}{CJ}{SD}
User avatar
christmas
1337 Haxor
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:30 pm

=======================================================================================
Issue 1: Piercing and low levels playing on hard maps
=======================================================================================

First off, its wrong comparing MEvo to MM...for a number of reasons.
what I think @nt was trying to say is that:
a. MM has less complexity involved regarding monsters you have to face at each given time.
b. Difficulty of a map and the monsters on this map are proportional to the map's fixed difficulty and not to the players currently in game.
c. In MM you can play any map, at any time, with any character of any level, with any team, and that map's difficulty (monsters) will be adjusted to players and nothing else.
also...
yes, server is definitely about team collaboration!!!
but, you cant talk about team collaboration when most of the times server is empty or has 1-2 players, and it rarely has over 2 players.
with these new data, what happens is, that you act as if you would play solo.
most of the times, when you play, its gonna be solo.

so if you are high-rank player, you will be playing a high rank map (logical), and when 1 player will join chances are he will be of low rank (highest probability), giving a large gap.
also, as a low rank, his contribution will be small (logical).
but the most common case is of him dying causing piercing, which would be equal to -50% to all of the resistances.
(that is just 1 case of piercing. there are lots of other cases, other which affect negatively a low rank etc...)

btw, I dont agree with MM not having piercing factor. On the contrary, I find it very logical to have piercing factor, since its a wave-based gametype, which means, every 5 mins piercing is reset. also, MM has 16 waves, so it wont penalise players, while MEvo, in a map that has 2-3 res events only, piercing sticks to you like plague for a looonger time. Also MM has auto clear wave, which means you can hide and move to next wave, removing the piercing. Also MM in based on team collaboration, and server is crowded most times.

piercing factor is a formula which works well when a large team, e.g. over 4-5 players. But thats not the case when its only 2 players only in game (which is the most often case scenario).


=======================================================================================
Issue 2: Map selection
=======================================================================================

Ant: "Other than having a large map database, I don't see any way around this problem. Some players love to max their PPH. They find the select few maps that grants a decent PPH, they will replay those maps over and over again, and if they play the map over and over again, they will get better and more efficient with those maps. If they get more efficient, they will increase their PPH. It is possible to address this by adjusting the experience multiplier based on the map voting frequency, but this action, alone, makes players upset. I tried this method out by manually adjusting the experience multiplier frequently for a couple months, but the feedback was not positive. Nowadays, I don't adjust the multipliers often."

you could provide a formula calculating map xp multiplier based on the order of the map. (if this is possible, i dont know) just a thought.
e.g. I send you one (in an email about a year ago regarding that).
XP_multiplier = 0,8 + 0,03 * order
where order is the sequence (assumming there are 40 maps in server, the last played map will have order = 40, while the map that was just played will have order = 1).

so for the last played map: XP_multiplier = 0,8 + 0,03 * 40 = 2,00
so for the just played map: XP_multiplier = 0,8 + 0,03 * 1 = 0,83


also, regarding the adjusting of map multipliers you did manually.
although I dont monitor those, I will tell you about 2 which everyone noticed, regarding being among the most popular maps on server.
Acatana and ResidentUnreal. you reduced XP_multiplier by 25%.
thats the approach you took. I will give you an alternative.
You could have kept the XP_multiplier for those 2 maps as they were, and buff all other maps by 25%.

you did the same in Cirban, ATH and other maps, which is pointless to mention.

the problem, from my angle, is that, instead of keeping those XP_multipliers as they are, and buffing all the rest (the unpopular maps, the maps with the low pph, the maps that players rarely play),
you took the approach of "nerfing the XP to the most frequently played maps.


I agree with the cap, there should be a cap in every RPG based game or mod. I would like (as I mentioned in another email) to see some form of reward for level 200, like the trasure hunter skill/ability.
e.g. rewarding 10 stat points every 30,000xp or something in that form. still a player will never buy all skills (if that is your concern), because you need more than 1000 stats over your lvl 200 to get all skills. just a thought.
also, dont forget that a lvl 200 player gets a huge xp limiter.


***the biggest challenge, is to balance maps, by balancing their difficulty and xp reward to provide equal xp/pph among maps, in a degree that maps will be worth playing.

furtheron, we should consider that players can have favorite maps, maps that they simply like or love, and maps that they dont like or enjoy playing.
Taries
Camper
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:35 am
Location: Czech Republic

Things that bother me on server:
Server is not public >>> low player base, minimum new players

Unbalanced classes >>> could write a lot here, but in short: Medic: Very strong however useless on maps without ammo(Nocturne first part for example or Iguazu), Support: universal can do any map no ammo problems, Berserk: thanks to ammo pouch got more map options then Medic + needs less ammo to kill stuff thanks to his masteries, Necromancer: very weak, is very dependant on other classes, weak masteries, should deserve 80% resist at r4 since low HP, dependant on souls, very bad on maps with Xenomorphs if you are Skeletal mage user or Poison skills user.

Low map variety >>> at some point you dont get EXP on some maps, so you gotta play other, some classes has even lower variety of maps since the maps require teamwork, which isnt bad, but since server isnt public....

Map EXP rewards >>> some maps are not worht playing since their reward is bad, example: Argento: map got harder since last update, but EXP were not increased, nobody plays it. Utopia: nice map but too long, you get more from playing 3 Acatanas in row then finishing Utopia part1.

Bugs >>> here i put bug I hate since begining, which is damage from projectiles of dead monsters, for example Enligthement is almost instant kill and so is Xenomorph acid.

Motivation for max levels >>> I got 2 characters at lvl 200, I dont have any motivation to keep playing them.
@nt
Pro but Noob
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:14 am
Location: USA Massachusetts

Thanks for replying to my post Ant, and sorry for the late notice; just saw it. Here is my feedback on what you said:

Issue #1 Piercing: No offense to low levels, but at a fundamental level, (hp, damage, resists, ect.) they are inferior to a high level. They should not be expected to perform in the way a high level does. The piercing system should take into account players' levels and adjust the piercing they give upon their death. If 2 r4 players are playing a map like cirban and one of them dies, then yes 50% piercing is fair. But a r2 and an r4 are playing cirban and the r2 dies, he should give something like 30%. The surviving r4 player definitely will notice the increase in damage, but it won't make the game borderline unplayable. It's unfair for high levels to rage when low levels die on high level maps because a: the map is way out of their league, and b: they are not as skilled, and don't have much experience, but it is also unfair to punish high levels because they want exp and didn't spend the entire game protecting them.

Issue #2 Maps: Low levels are useless and die easy on high level maps, and high levels can't get any exp on low level maps.There are some nice high levels out there who are willing to play low level maps with you because they just enjoy the game, and there are also some nice low levels out there who listen to you when you tell them to hide, or fall back and get hp. The current way it is, you are relying on the players' integrity and selflessness. Personally, I see a lot of high level players make compromises when a low level joins when they're soloing, and vote for maps like cubes and acatana where they can actually get exp. That is good, but trusting the good will of anonymous people on the internet is a recipe for disaster if this server ever goes public again and has more players.

In terms of map selection, I personally tried making a ctf map on ut2004 level editor and that was hard enough on its own. I cannot fathom the effort and dedication it takes for mappers to make an ME map only for it to be never played because it gives no exp. Only a small percentage of the playerbase play maps because they are fun. Most of them are happy with spamming resident acatana over and over again because they get good exp on it. I genuinely believe that by increasing exp on maps that are never played, it is the only way for them to see the day of light. Those individuals who have become so well-versed in specific maps like you said did so out of desperation because no other map would give them decent exp (like how you mentioned back when 50 exp was worth 500 exp now). I think that by giving maps more exp will do more good than harm, as when players realize certain maps have potential to get good pph, they will start to learn a map all from scratch all over again, and learning a map and fine-tuning your routine to it so you can beat if safely and efficiently is in my opinion, one of the most fun and satisfying things about the server. I understand your fear of making r4 too easy; rank 4 SHOULD stay as something only the most dedicated players obtain, but considering most of the players are r2 and never even get to r3, it shouldn't be an issue. All it could need is like getting 200 pph more on some maps, and that would at least make me more apt to play it.

Another way I see this issue is this: You grind from ranks 1-3, and then as soon as you hit level 150, you say to yourself: "lol I pretty much beat the game now that I'm op r4." Afterwards, since you're an r4, you now won't care about exp anymore, and play whatever map you want. However, getting r4 is not easy at all, and after you hit r4, you become so strong that you will steamroll your way through half of all the maps you've never touched (ex. seraphimfalling, argento, ect.)

Issue #3 Level Gap: I'll have to disagree with Ant and agree with christmas on the game's viewpoint on levels. I do think that the game unintentionally forces you to become at least level 100 to play the game, which getting that on your own is already a huge task. No offense to the mappers, but a lot of the higher-quality maps (xeno, utopia, cirban, resident unreal) are all high rank maps. Not only that, but each class's abilities (zerks doing damage, paladins healing, supports giving ammo/adren, necros spawning pets) is almost impossible at r1 (think zerk's breakable mwm and -10% resist with 200 max hp or supp's ability to supply adr as r1) and then barely manageable at r2. It is only at r3 when your character's skills are really developed to the point where the game is enjoyable, and considering how many players are under level 100, it is no wonder why a lot of players quit at r1 and r2, leaving only a few regular r1 and r2's when the majority of recurring players are r3 and r4 players.

That is my feedback on your feedback. Thank you for replying to my post again Ant.
I like cookies...
DW_WailofSuicide
DW Clan Member
Posts: 1634
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:00 am

There are many different and equally valid opinions on these kinds of things. Realistically I think it's inevitable that someone is going to have some kind of complaint, but overall Monster Evo has (I think) proven to be quite fun.

#1. Piercing. Personally I think that piercing is a bit of a hack fix, but the problems that piercing tries to alleviate are very difficult or impossible to solve otherwise.

(a) One of the big problems you're getting at lies in the inability of players to start their own server instances with their friends. Because Monster Evo is a single server, everyone has to play whatever map is voted. Ideally you should just be able to select a map and then hit 'Play' and the game would matchmake you with other people (or only your friends, if desired). This isn't feasible because that type of functionality is not built into UT2004.

(b) Ideally something like piercing is unnecessary because the loss of a teammate would typically harm the team enough in and of itself that further penalties would not be necessary. Unfortunately this is not actually the case in practice. High level characters have too much power (IMO) in many ways. Further, dependencies between classes are not equal, and can be circumvented even more by map design. Lastly, the monster AI / triggering is not usually smart enough to take advantage of its statistical advantages. It is way too easy to retreat backwards throughout many maps, taking on enemies one at a time. This is partially a map design problem, but also an insolvable AI problem. I don't blame players for playing in a way that is intelligent and makes sense, but it shouldn't be possible to have a room with 50 enemies in it and you are able to pick them off one at a time.

#2. Maps. Achieving parity between maps is almost an impossible task because there are so many angles you can look at specific challenges a map offers. Even if the maps could be mathematically proven to give the same EXP/Time values per rank & difficulty, you would still see people choosing the same 1 - 2 maps as the designated "best" maps. It's simply easier, if your only goal is accumulating experience, to have a metagame that coalesces around learning tricks for a minimal number of maps that are repeated endlessly. This problem exists in pretty much any game whose primary objective is leveling up -- Borderlands works this way, Diablo works this way...

You could try to design a system that would force diminishing returns on playing the same maps, but again that becomes virtually impossible to enforce realistically since someone could just cycle through other maps.

The other big problem when it comes to maps is it's just too hard to make a good map. Especially for Monster Evo. Building a good map in the first place takes a lot of time and dedication and understanding of how everything is set up. It would be great if we had more maps. Personally I think it's impressive how many we have considering it's all stuff made on people's free time.

#3. That's all perspective. It strikes me that what you're calling "the point at which your play becomes enjoyable" is mostly the point at which the design of the system begins to break down from amplified numbers. I do think there's some validity to the point that at low levels it's hard to even do your assigned team role. But then later on it becomes too easy. Some skills are almost traps because later on you get abilities that are strictly better.

Sadly, fixing that all doesn't strike me as realistic because fixing the myriad problems would almost inevitably alienate players. At a certain point if you change too much it's no longer the same game -- And maybe it's better by some metric, but it's hard to justify doing that when there are people who've sunk thousands of hours in getting a max level character. I really wanted to change up the end game of Monster Mash, for example, but eventually it became clear people were happy with the game as it was, even if it could've been better. It's just too difficult to get people on board with a new vision when they are only thinking inside a small little box.
Post Reply