Should MCOC stop with 5 energy per move quests?

TheFifty9Sound · March 19

Yes

All I have to say is that Winter of Woe was so much more enjoyable this round with the energy timer halved.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

Yes

DNA3000 said:

Toproller89 said:
I'm seeing a trend in the 5 energy per move content, with WoW and now this alliance war showcase, and I'm not liking it one bit.
You do realize that energy is balanced per map, not per step right? If you changed energy from 5 per step to 3 per step, there would just be more steps.

What you're really saying, I assume, is that you want everything to cost less energy overall. Which begs the question, why have content cost energy at all? I think if someone wants to advocate for things to cost less energy, they should either be honest and state that they think things should cost no energy and are pushing for energy costs to be as low as they can get away with, or explain why X energy is too much, but Y energy is just right.

The issue isn't necessarily the cost alone, it's the content that is challenging to the point that it requires restarting, testing, strategizing, and finding the most efficient way to complete it. Energy itself is a penalty, of course. It's a limiting factor. When the content is rife with challenge and one misstep means you're either starting over again or falling into a sinkhole of Resources, then that factor becomes much, much more limiting.
Personally I'm not on the same page as adding that extra layer. It seems unnecessary, and last month it cost me all the Energy I had for a Fight I never got past.

Errang · March 19

Replace the word “energy” with “engagement” and you’ll see why Kabam is doing it.

Demonzfyre · March 19

Toproller89 said:
Another reason could be, is that i have put some ideas out there with good intent, but the ideas themselves were just plain bad for one reason or another.

No, that's not it at all. I'm pretty sure it's because you think you speak for all of us.

DNA3000 · March 19

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

Toproller89 said:
I'm seeing a trend in the 5 energy per move content, with WoW and now this alliance war showcase, and I'm not liking it one bit.
You do realize that energy is balanced per map, not per step right? If you changed energy from 5 per step to 3 per step, there would just be more steps.

What you're really saying, I assume, is that you want everything to cost less energy overall. Which begs the question, why have content cost energy at all? I think if someone wants to advocate for things to cost less energy, they should either be honest and state that they think things should cost no energy and are pushing for energy costs to be as low as they can get away with, or explain why X energy is too much, but Y energy is just right.
The issue isn't necessarily the cost alone, it's the content that is challenging to the point that it requires restarting, testing, strategizing, and finding the most efficient way to complete it. Energy itself is a penalty, of course. It's a limiting factor. When the content is rife with challenge and one misstep means you're either starting over again or falling into a sinkhole of Resources, then that factor becomes much, much more limiting.
Personally I'm not on the same page as adding that extra layer. It seems unnecessary, and last month it cost me all the Energy I had for a Fight I never got past.

I was in favor of reducing the energy costs for Woe for precisely that reason, but I can see the argument that as content intended to give a “taste” of high tier war to players who do not regularly participate in it, allowing repeated experimentation for low cost would be a bit contrary to that intent. While we can restart it, the devs do seem to want us to feel the pressure of getting it done without doing that a lot. They went to significant effort to add additional “trappings” of war for that purpose (like the health penalty for fight restart, and the map timer).

The question is whether it is intended to educate players about the fights, or simulate some of the pressure in doing those fights under constrained circumstances. It’s probably a bit of both, and the energy cost is intended to be a compromise between limited entry (like giving us just a couple entry tickets and forcing us to do it in that many tries, much as actual AW requires you to do it in one) and low cost retries.

Rookiie · March 19

ahmynuts said:

DNA3000 said:

Suros_moon said:

Crcrcrc said:
new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees
That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case
I would swear this post came from a GroundedWisdom alt.
If you squint really hard Suros_moon looks like GroundedWisdom

Am I doing this right

GroundedWisdom · March 19

Yes

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

Toproller89 said:
I'm seeing a trend in the 5 energy per move content, with WoW and now this alliance war showcase, and I'm not liking it one bit.
You do realize that energy is balanced per map, not per step right? If you changed energy from 5 per step to 3 per step, there would just be more steps.

What you're really saying, I assume, is that you want everything to cost less energy overall. Which begs the question, why have content cost energy at all? I think if someone wants to advocate for things to cost less energy, they should either be honest and state that they think things should cost no energy and are pushing for energy costs to be as low as they can get away with, or explain why X energy is too much, but Y energy is just right.
The issue isn't necessarily the cost alone, it's the content that is challenging to the point that it requires restarting, testing, strategizing, and finding the most efficient way to complete it. Energy itself is a penalty, of course. It's a limiting factor. When the content is rife with challenge and one misstep means you're either starting over again or falling into a sinkhole of Resources, then that factor becomes much, much more limiting.
Personally I'm not on the same page as adding that extra layer. It seems unnecessary, and last month it cost me all the Energy I had for a Fight I never got past.
I was in favor of reducing the energy costs for Woe for precisely that reason, but I can see the argument that as content intended to give a “taste” of high tier war to players who do not regularly participate in it, allowing repeated experimentation for low cost would be a bit contrary to that intent. While we can restart it, the devs do seem to want us to feel the pressure of getting it done without doing that a lot. They went to significant effort to add additional “trappings” of war for that purpose (like the health penalty for fight restart, and the map timer).

The question is whether it is intended to educate players about the fights, or simulate some of the pressure in doing those fights under constrained circumstances. It’s probably a bit of both, and the energy cost is intended to be a compromise between limited entry (like giving us just a couple entry tickets and forcing us to do it in that many tries, much as actual AW requires you to do it in one) and low cost retries.

I never considered the War atmosphere aspect, that makes more sense. I just feel content as of late has been overboard in terms of challenge level, and those constraints become increasing factors. Perhaps it's overboard overall, or just for me personally. I don't know. I think there's a fine line between pushing for Players to up their game, and spilling the "hard shaker" onto the dish.
There's always going to be a number of Players who are upset they're not making the cut, which is expected. There's always a number of Players who are completely in over their head, which is also expected. There's always going to be fewer Players who will say it's not hard no matter what the game produces. The piece that I seem to question, mostly because I don't know internal conversations, is what that goal number actually is. In any case, thanks for pointing that out.

Toproller89 · March 19

Yes

Demonzfyre said:

Toproller89 said:
Another reason could be, is that i have put some ideas out there with good intent, but the ideas themselves were just plain bad for one reason or another.
No, that's not it at all. I'm pretty sure it's because you think you speak for all of us.

I'm not sure why you have that impression of me, when I put out a poll and said that I wanted to hear what the consensus was.

I would also like to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand if you have any to share.

klobberintyme · March 19

Toproller89 said:

Demonzfyre said:

Toproller89 said:
Another reason could be, is that i have put some ideas out there with good intent, but the ideas themselves were just plain bad for one reason or another.
No, that's not it at all. I'm pretty sure it's because you think you speak for all of us.
I'm not sure why you have that impression of me, when I put out a poll and said that I wanted to hear what the consensus was.

I would also like to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand if you have any to share.

My thoughts are as follows:

I couldn't tell you what cost what energy. Too much? Not enough? I play in bursts of 5 minutes to re-set from staring at editing monitors for hours. If you blow through your energy stash restarting or play in sessions longer than 30 minutes, you should buy something or leave, this ain't a library.

Jinxesaxe · March 19

No

I think the concentration of these 5 energy per tile quests is what is really debilitating.

There is so much in game right now, and to get just two piece of Deathless King Groot, you have to complete every objective in WoW as a Paragon AND do the AW Showcase mode 100%.

With the Magic Heist boost, I haven’t been having a hard time. I got the Showcase mode down last night without using energy items because of the double time. For anyone planning to do it this weekend? Or next? It’s gonna be really tough if you muck up the Venom or Kindred fight and want to restart.

I have no problem with a quest having a 5 energy per tile cost. I do have a problem with EVERY new piece of content having that high of a requirement.

There have been people asking for a long time for energy caps to be increased, because they feel they can’t do everything in game. The response has always been to use your energy more efficiently and take some losses. But when we have a major push for Deathless champions, and you are encouraged to do both Showcase and WoW, some people might not be able to even explore TBEQ this month. Thats not an inefficiency problem on the players part.

I understand there needs to be a cost for these things, but I spent a lot of revives and potions on the WoW Absorbing Man and this Showcase mode. I understand feeling like that is enough of a cost, and that the high energy cost is redundant because of it.

TL;DR
I’m hoping that as we continue to get content this year we see less of the high energy and high consumable cost content, and see more of one or the other, because the sheer amount of new pieces of content that have 5/tile costs is daunting and frustrating.

Jinx

Vegeta9001 · March 19

70 energy per step imo

Polygon · March 20

High energy cost is fine if the difficulty reflects it like with the WOE hulkling, but with fights like Abs or some of the AW Showcase its debatable

JediJones77 · March 20

Yes

Yes, please. They're adding more and more content for us to do to keep up with unique rewards, and making it cost more and more resources to do. Which means you've got to grind more and more arenas and stuff just to pay the costs of doing more and more content. They're pushing things to the breaking point. Running Winter of Woe alongside this new War quest when both are needed to build Deathless King Groot is just ridiculous. And that's on top of all these Nightcrawler targets we have to hit!

Should MCOC stop with 5 energy per move quests?

Comments