Do you prefer rubberbanding or grinding?

Unknown

Shikao wrote:

Rubberbanding all the way, I have better things* to do with my life than grinding in this game...

*you know like... other games

I'm with Shikao, it's been nice to do other things rather than grind mercilessly. I do find it bizarre that they allow missions to dip to 0 points though, surely a nominal minimum amount per mission would allow the top couple of people to keep playing. Didn't happen to me in Hunt, feel bad for all the people it did

Unknown

No, I lost because I was asleep during the last six hours.... ah well.

Unknown

I'm a grinder long late nights playing early morning play before work I love grinding out points no money no spending just good old playing it keeps the game moving and the pace exciting as I climb over the fodder and battle the big boys it reminds me of summer days in the arcade killing bucks as fast as their bones would spend lol I understand rubber banding and why people like it but give me the grind

Unknown

I'd rather grind. I don't have a lot to do while at work.

Dayv

neither.

Unknown

Let's be honest, there are four methods for getting quality covers:

* Rubberbanding
* Grinding
* Credit card
* Random chance

Given that, I'll take either of the first two or, preferably, a balance between them.

Unknown

I think a re configured rubber band would be fine. I can't see how that
It benefits their wallet, since players couldn't grind out a lead.

Unknown

I'd much rather have something other than PVP 'competition' be the entirety of the game. It just makes the whole thing feel like treading water.

Unknown

Grinding. I like to know that when I put effort into something it's not going to be trivialized at the last moment.

This is if rubber banding continues in its current state. I'm open to it if it can be improved but ultimately this is a limited skill competition so the only real measure of commitment is effort put in, if you put in the hours you shouldn't have your work taken away by someone who gamed the system and played for only the last hour.

Dayv

Maybe points could be based on some other criteria. For example, number of (enemy) turns taken, level difference between characters used and those defeated, amount of health lost (less being better), etc. there could even be a complicated algorithm taking more than one factor into effect. Stronger teams would tend to get stronger wins and more points, except for that pesky level factor -- teams taking bigger risks would be getting rewarded for it as well. And a lucky or particularly well-played round with total domination would be a windfall. Allow a bit of grinding with the regenerating stacks, perhaps (not at 2 hour intervals though, ew).

It would reward playing smartly, using non-maxed characters, and mashing the AI down with overwhelming force.

Unknown

DayvBang wrote:

Maybe points could be based on some other criteria. For example, number of (enemy) turns taken, level difference between characters used and those defeated, amount of health lost (less being better), etc. there could even be a complicated algorithm taking more than one factor into effect. Stronger teams would tend to get stronger wins and more points, except for that pesky level factor -- teams taking bigger risks would be getting rewarded for it as well. And a lucky or particularly well-played round with total domination would be a windfall. Allow a bit of grinding with the regenerating stacks, perhaps (not at 2 hour intervals though, ew).

It would reward playing smartly, using non-maxed characters, and mashing the AI down with overwhelming force.

That's like saying the Super Bowl should be decided based on the number of onside kicks recovered

Dayv

DumDumDugn wrote:

That's like saying the Super Bowl should be decided based on the number of onside kicks recovered

I think that should be based on the number of traumatic brain injuries sustained.

Unknown

DayvBang wrote:

DumDumDugn wrote:

That's like saying the Super Bowl should be decided based on the number of onside kicks recovered

I think that should be based on the number of traumatic brain injuries sustained.

Now that would be interesting.

On a side note, grinding is catching up!

Unknown

I'm a rubber banding voter, but the one thing that bothered me was reading that some people were able to join the event a few days ago and still place in the top 10 overall.

That's screwed up.


Although that might just be a product of joining so late they had an incredibly easy bracket full of new players and one-time players.

Unknown

I voted grinding, but I think a rubberbandy system like the one in the Hunt might have been a lot easier to swallow if the event hadn't been ten days long. Maybe there should have been daily rewards (king of the hill style) for overall competition point values instead of just sub-game competitions wherein rubberbanding might have barred you entirely from top finishes. I don't know. 10 days is a long time for a tournament wherein fortunes can be reversed so quickly by rubberbanded competitiors.

In case a developer reads or gets wind of this, I want to go on record as saying that the Hunt was great. The point system might need refinement, but the event itself was super-cool.

MarvelMan

Although I appreciate the need for rubberbanding, I voted for grinding as I hate the ability for someone to join the last day or two in a 10 day event and place near the top. In one of my final sub-missions there was a player at 19k+ while second place was at 11k, with third just below 10k. Some mix is best (which is what appears they are trying) but having no minimum on the points is frustrating. Make it small, but give some reward to the person willing to grind.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

Although I appreciate the need for rubberbanding, I voted for grinding as I hate the ability for someone to join the last day or two in a 10 day event and place near the top. In one of my final sub-missions there was a player at 19k+ while second place was at 11k, with third just below 10k. Some mix is best (which is what appears they are trying) but having no minimum on the points is frustrating. Make it small, but give some reward to the person willing to grind.

Keep in mind that to use rubber banding in the sub-bracket to that effect, that they missed a lot of other submissions. Tons of free recruit tokens and Iso, other chances at the Hunt Heroic, HP if they skipped a Savage Land sub. Is missing all that worth getting a top place in one bracket? Or even 2-3 brackets?

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

I'm a rubber banding voter, but the one thing that bothered me was reading that some people were able to join the event a few days ago and still place in the top 10 overall.

That's screwed up.


Although that might just be a product of joining so late they had an incredibly easy bracket full of new players and one-time players.

It is not just the "quality" of people in their bracket if they joined late, it is the likelihood that all the people in that bracket joined late too since as a bracket is filled a new one opens. They were on even footing with others in their bracket and points were worth a lot more for them than someone who started early. They did have an advantage in the sub-tournaments but at the cost of collecting a ton of ISO and tokens.

Anyway, I voted rubber banding as even that was a bit of a grind since I wanted every reward possible. More would not have been fun. I do think that it would have been good to be more transparent regarding the way things work.