Venom Heroic - Aug 29 - Sep 1

Unknown

People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled.

What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck.

For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes.

My suggestion is this:

Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it.
If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me.

/edit: I don't have the numbers so I wouldn't know how much of a problem congestion would be. May need to be tweaked to the 91st or 111th. But seeing how this event turned out they aren't really into finetuning anyway.

Unknown

PPPlaya wrote:

People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled.

What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck.

For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes.

My suggestion is this:

Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it.
If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me.

I vote this

_RiO_

silverrex wrote:

PPPlaya wrote:

People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled.

What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck.

For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes.

My suggestion is this:

Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it.
If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me.

I vote this

Thirded. Absolutely correct.

hex706f726368

_RiO_ wrote:

silverrex wrote:

PPPlaya wrote:

People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled.

What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck.

For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes.

My suggestion is this:

Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it.
If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me.

I vote this

Thirded. Absolutely correct.

bleh! no thanks! you'd have to join an event immediately and grind the whole time or risk being sharded into a bracket with no chance of competing for the top prize.

Unknown

If you are sharded into a 2 day old bracket, thats a sharding issue and not a RBing one.
However if you think you should be able to join an event at halftime and easily cruise to a top5 finish, all the while passing people who have put in a lot more time than you, I don't know what to tell you.

My main point is making Top100 Accessible and giving people a reason to put in more effort for better prizes.

hex706f726368

But by the system suggested, anyone put into a bracket older than 2.5 hrs is already out of luck, sharding or not. To keep it fair, you'd have to start a new bracket, otherwise the new entrants would be a cycle behind and reliant on the leaders falling off or missing a cycle. There's no way D3 would let brackets go w/o being full, so I'm not seeing how that solution is any better. It seems worse.

I DO think I should be able to join an event when it's convenient for me and not be punished. I don't care if I have to put in the same, more or less effort. Just let me PLAY on my time. I have a JOB that requires me to WORK on a schedule. Forcing me to be attendant at the end time is bad enough; I'd prefer it wasn't made worse.

Unknown

According to your opinion it is a travesty when you join 1 cycle late because you can't Top10 anymore (Which you totally can if you don't miss any cycles but since you have a work schedule you'll probably miss a ton anyway) but it's completely acceptable that people in Europe went to sleep in first place and woke up in 250th.

You maintain that you should be able to join whenever and still be able to get the top prize due to insane rubberbanding. By joining late and missing cycles you are doing a lot less than people who joined early, so I don't see why you should be able to catch up to them. Enabling a top100 finish is the compromise which seems the most fair to me. The belief that you should be able to top5 regardless of join time and cycles played seems outlandish and out of touch with reality to me.

If you have a solution that fixes everything you are welcome to post it. It's evident from the thread people are NOT happy with the way it is right now. As is you will have to conform to what is best for everyone, not just you.

_RiO_

hex706f726368 wrote:

But by the system suggested, anyone put into a bracket older than 2.5 hrs is already out of luck, sharding or not. To keep it fair, you'd have to start a new bracket, otherwise the new entrants would be a cycle behind and reliant on the leaders falling off or missing a cycle. There's no way D3 would let brackets go w/o being full, so I'm not seeing how that solution is any better. It seems worse.

I DO think I should be able to join an event when it's convenient for me and not be punished. I don't care if I have to put in the same, more or less effort. Just let me PLAY on my time. I have a JOB that requires me to WORK on a schedule. Forcing me to be attendant at the end time is bad enough; I'd prefer it wasn't made worse.

Removing rubber-banding above the top 100 position means you do not have to be attendant at the end time if you're placed well above that.
As rubber-banding would be in effect at all ranks below top 100, you'd still be able to join late and quickly rush up to the tail end of the top 100.

Your argument is void.

Unknown

Ben Grimm wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

Playing inefficiently? I do not bend my life around MPQ.

There's your problem. This isn't a game; it's a lifestyle, a cult, it controls your life and you serve it. It is your master. If you have free time that isn't dedicated to feeding its gaping maw then it has not failed you; you have failed it.

MPQ is your god, now.

And of course, MPQ-GoD NEEDS YOUR MONEY!!!!!

Seriously, it's garbage like this that turned and turns me away from the game. Hearing that people can join whenever, do each node once and vault and into Top 10 is total ****. Meanwhile I can't break top 150 while playing every day, having already cleared each node at least once.

hex706f726368

PPPlaya wrote:

According to your opinion it is a travesty when you join 1 cycle late because you can't Top10 anymore (Which you totally can if you don't miss any cycles but since you have a work schedule you'll probably miss a ton anyway) but it's completely acceptable that people in Europe went to sleep in first place and woke up in 250th.

You maintain that you should be able to join whenever and still be able to get the top prize due to insane rubberbanding. By joining late and missing cycles you are doing a lot less than people who joined early, so I don't see why you should be able to catch up to them. Enabling a top100 finish is the compromise which seems the most fair to me. The belief that you should be able to top5 regardless of join time and cycles played seems outlandish and out of touch with reality to me.

If you have a solution that fixes everything you are welcome to post it. It's evident from the thread people are NOT happy with the way it is right now. As is you will have to conform with what is best for everyone, not just you.

I don't have a better solution. And I don't think yours is any better. I tried to engage in a discussion about that, but that was a mistake on my part.

I only have to conform with what D3 thinks. When they change the rules, I'll change how I play or leave.

Unknown

The rubberband is only an issue because people blame rubberband when they're outplayed since the game doesn't tell you how good the guys who passed you up are.

I usually do 3 clears of the highest point nodes in a PvE event on the last cycle. This time I did only 2 nodes once and left at least 1000 points on the table and finished 2nd with a 15 point lead and about 50 points behind #1. If I could've done my normal clear I'd have won #1 by about 1K. If grinding is so irrelevent this would not have been possible because I honestly did very bad on my final cycle. Assuming you didn't miss the last cycle, there are two scenarios:

1. The last cycle is trivial and in that case you should assume everyone you're competing with could get the maximum points, and therefore the winner is determined by who was ahead before the last cycle started. By the way, rubberbanding doesn't help you here because the guy who led at the beginning of the last cycle is the guy who can do his mission the latest, because he started out leading and is not in a hurry to do them until you did yours. Most of the time the bracket (not overall) leader is in the 'no rubberband' region which means he cannot be caught if he did the maximum number of base points since you must do more base points to catch him in that region, which isn't possible if he did the max.

2. The last cycle is hard. In this case while the final cycle's base points will determine the winner, there's no way to know you'll be able to do all the missions so having some cushion is better than having nothing. From what I can tell I had a huge lead over the guys who crept up at the end and it barely held against the guys who did much better on the hard missions than I did. No you don't know if it'll always hold, but some lead is better than no lead in case you didn't beat all the missions you plan to. Now if I did my usual performance on final round none of that would've been an issue, but level 200+ Daken has a way of making things not going according to the plan.

LegendReborn

The major issue is that you can miss reward brackets (as if 1-10 and 11-20 of 1000 weren't already tiny) by miniscule amounts of points on top of the fact that people can catch up with much less effort. People aren't upset that others are getting rewards but instead upset that they aren't being rewarded for the work they also put in, despite it being more work than the other guy.

At the very least, reward tiers should be expanded OR there should be grace brackets where if you are within x amount points of the lowest placer of a placement tier then you also get rewards from that bracket. It's mental that 100 points can be the difference from 15 to sub 20.

_RiO_

Phantron wrote:

The rubberband is only an issue because people blame rubberband when they're outplayed since the game doesn't tell you how good the guys who passed you up are.

Problem isn't justthe rubberband. It's the combination of the rubberband and not being able to play the last few refreshes.
This will drop you far enough that you can easily be overtaken by a lot of people still further below you relying on rubberbanding. Thus dropping you even further.

You can end an event in top 10 with 6 hours left on the clock. You can lose a few places due to top players competing 'normally' without much rubberband influence, but with each step back down the effect of the rubberband for the other players in your direct vicinity on the ladder becomes greater and greater. The effect snowballs and what initially is a 'small' step down of no more than 20 places, can leap into being slammed down multiple 100s of places.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

Phantron wrote:

The rubberband is only an issue because people blame rubberband when they're outplayed since the game doesn't tell you how good the guys who passed you up are.

Problem isn't justthe rubberband. It's the combination of the rubberband and not being able to play the last few refreshes.
This will drop you far enough that you can easily be overtaken by a lot of people still further below you relying on rubberbanding. Thus dropping you even further.

You can end an event in top 10 with 6 hours left on the clock. You can lose a few places due to top players competing 'normally' without much rubberband influence, but with each step back down the effect of the rubberband for the other players in your direct vicinity on the ladder becomes greater and greater. The effect snowballs and what initially is a 'small' step down of no more than 20 places, can leap into being slammed down multiple 100s of places.

The missing last refresh(es) is an intractable problem in the game's current 2H 24M system so I have nothing to say there. I've made several suggestions but as long as the 2H 24M system stays there's no hope. People are blaming the wrong thing here. I remember the Heroic Oscorp where the final 12H had no rubberband main nodes and I still had to do them every possible cycle to keep my lead and I started with a very large lead. If there is no rubberband they'd just make the node values higher to begin with, and when it gets to values like Heroic Oscorp's final 12H missions, missing a single cycle will still totally hose your standing. D3 obviously wants people to compete at the end. Right now the node values start small and is amplified by rubberbanding so you see someone get 1500 points per rubberband and say that's unfair. If there's no rubberband D3 will just make those nodes worth about 500 points each and you'd still be hosed for missing a cycle.

Nellyson

The whole PVE reward system is broken! Everyone should have the possibility to earn new covers and NOT by how they rank in the end. New character's covers should be handed out in the progression rewards. Make it completely up to the player and not how lucky you can get. And be able to earn all 3! Sure, make it ridiculously high, but then that way the totally f-d RB doesn't hurt the grinders. I personally like to start at the beginning. I like playing this game, yet I'm punished for liking to play. It's absurd. Make new characters available at a really high value. Grinders will be happy as their efforts aren't wasted and the Rubberbanders will be fine cause they'll manage to get up there as well without pissing everyone off.

LegendReborn

I don't agree that everyone should be entitled to three covers through progression. I believe that PVE progression rewards should be obtainable to almost any transitioning player who puts in decent time for the event. I do agree that at least one cover for the new character should be obtainable through progression. I still want to PVE to reward effort put in but I don't like how **** it feels missing things by tiny margins.

If they want to keep rubberbanding, then they should try to rectify the perceived problem of missing rewards by only a miniscule amount of points. Part of that would be making a better progression system and another part would be creating more fair reward tiers that reflect how close scores are.

I want to give D3 money and I was actually ready to put $20 in for character slots but after being knocked down from top ten to sub 20, I really don't feel like putting a single cent in anymore.

FierceKiwi

Nellyson wrote:

The whole PVE reward system is broken! Everyone should have the possibility to earn new covers and NOT by how they rank in the end. New character's covers should be handed out in the progression rewards. Make it completely up to the player and not how lucky you can get. And be able to earn all 3! Sure, make it ridiculously high, but then that way the totally f-d RB doesn't hurt the grinders. I personally like to start at the beginning. I like playing this game, yet I'm punished for liking to play. It's absurd. Make new characters available at a really high value. Grinders will be happy as their efforts aren't wasted and the Rubberbanders will be fine cause they'll manage to get up there as well without pissing everyone off.

This is what most people are really complaining about as I stated back on like page 2 of this thread you can win riding the rubber and you can win grinding (of course lifing in bad time zones makes all that irrelavent). PvE shouldn't have some weird psuedo PvP component to it but it does.

FierceKiwi

LegendReborn wrote:

If they want to keep rubberbanding, then they should try to rectify the perceived problem of missing rewards by only a miniscule amount of points. Part of that would be making a better progression system and another part would be creating more fair reward tiers that reflect how close scores are.

How is this any different than being a few points away from a reward tier in PvP? Even if you gave everyone within say 1% of T10 those rewards then you just get the guy in 30th who's upset since he was 1 point away from getting that magic tier boost.

LegendReborn

FierceKiwi wrote:

LegendReborn wrote:

If they want to keep rubberbanding, then they should try to rectify the perceived problem of missing rewards by only a miniscule amount of points. Part of that would be making a better progression system and another part would be creating more fair reward tiers that reflect how close scores are.

How is this any different than being a few points away from a reward tier in PvP? Even if you gave everyone within say 1% of T10 those rewards then you just get the guy in 30th who's upset since he was 1 point away from getting that magic tier boost.

Because PVE implies that you aren't directly facing other players for the reward, at least not for the entirety of the rewards. Outside of the patch cover, there really weren't rewards for the transitioning player. The Deadpool event at least gave a deadpool cover through it.

Also, it wouldn't just be 29 or so guys who are within 1% of points, it'd probably be at least 100, if not more. This highlights how random PVE competition and rewards feel to the userbase as it becomes a **** shoot for all but the tiny few who have outstanding teams to the point where progression doesn't mean much of anything. The rubberbanding creates a system where people are so close to each other in terms of score that most of them have to both play like crazy at the end AND be somewhat lucky enough to place into a single cover, let alone multiple covers.

FierceKiwi

LegendReborn wrote:

Because PVE implies that you aren't directly facing other players for the reward, at least not for the entirety of the rewards. Outside of the patch cover, there really weren't rewards for the transitioning player. The Deadpool event at least gave a deadpool cover through it.

Which is why they should do away with all the psuedo PvP that exists in PvE and make the rewards solely progression based. As long as it is a competition though you either end up in a teir or you don't you shouln't get a magic boost because you gave it your all and it was kinda close.