Shield hopping makes the game pay-to-win

Raffoon

So, the basic concept with shield hopping is that you keep a shield up constantly once you reach a certain amount of points, break the shield only to play 1-3 games, and then re-shield before the retaliation comes in. More extreme versions of this technique include coordinating with high scoring players to leapfrog each other only when shields are up.

Shield hopping (not necessarily the coordinated kind) is an absolutely essential technique to place highly in a given PVP bracket. If you do not use this technique and you have a lot of points, someone will attack you and lower your score, meaning you're no longer at the top.

Being forced to maintain a shield using real-life currency is quite literally the definition of pay-to-win. You pay money for a shield and then you get to place higher in the tournament. Perhaps, if you pay enough and have a good roster that money even results in winning.

The fact that there is no way to win a tournament without paying D3 money is ridiculous, and I don't know why we stand for it.

There must be a better system than this. I know that D3 loves raking in the money on shields, but allowing shield-hopping to exist creates a direct link between how much money you pay and how high your score is. Whatever happened to fairness?

trey9

I think a simple, elegant solution to this entire shield hopping problem would be to limit players to 1-2 shields per pvp.

Unknown

It's been a problem but honestly the cost for shield hopping is getting pretty prohibitive since everyone's doing it that you're almost always better off to just save up the HP for ability upgrades instead unless you just want to have everyone maxed. There's no meaningful gain for getting 3 covers and then sell them back for 1500 iso 8 which is what most people will be doing, and even if it's a new hero like Deadpool, as long as Deadpool isn't viable in top tier (this may change in R60), there's still no real gain for having him maxed out. Now when Daken or Sentry shows up on cover this doesn't work, but I think even F2P players can easily save up HP for the occasional 3*. With R60 coming around only Sentry is still clearly top dog status. Daken is probably still up there, but obviously weaker compared to before. The 4*s would take more than a couple shield hops to get if they're the #1 prize, and if they're available at 1300 it's simply a matter of math and probability. E.g. if spending 500 HP has a 80% chance of getting you Nick Fury cover, you should go for it.

Pylgrim

trey9 wrote:

I think a simple, elegant solution to this entire shield hopping problem would be to limit players to 1-2 shields per pvp.

Only 2 is crazy low, even for people that do not shield hop. 4-5 seems like a fairer number to everyone, while greatly limiting shield-hopping.

Nevertheless, I don't think the problem is that bad. As a non-shield-hopper myself, I can still place top 25/50 in PVP, which means that counting my Alliance's rewards, I'm getting 2-3 covers per event and a nice amount of ISO and HP. I don't need to place 1-2. Hell, I don't need to place top 10 to enjoy the game and get enough rewards to advance. Some people really want to experience that "Best there is" feeling and prestige, in addition to everyone else. If they are willing to pay for it, more power to them. It doesn't affect me. In fact, I'm glad that now it's rather easy to find targets that will give you >40 points when you have 600 points or more. It used to be that once that you passed that barrier, you were lucky to find an opponent that gave you 30 points.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

trey9 wrote:

I think a simple, elegant solution to this entire shield hopping problem would be to limit players to 1-2 shields per pvp.

Only 2 is crazy low, even for people that do not shield hop. 4-5 seems like a fairer number to everyone, while greatly limiting shield-hopping.

4-5 is a ridiculous number of shields. It's completely possible to place in the top 25 and even the top 10 while only ever using a single shield.

The only reason to use that many shields is for shield-hopping, which I'd argue is degenerate gameplay.

What might make sense to reward a shield at certain point tiers (which you could activate at any point).

IamTheDanger

Pylgrim wrote:

trey9 wrote:

I think a simple, elegant solution to this entire shield hopping problem would be to limit players to 1-2 shields per pvp.

Only 2 is crazy low, even for people that do not shield hop. 4-5 seems like a fairer number to everyone, while greatly limiting shield-hopping.

Nevertheless, I don't think the problem is that bad. As a non-shield-hopper myself, I can still place top 25/50 in PVP, which means that counting my Alliance's rewards, I'm getting 2-3 covers per event and a nice amount of ISO and HP. I don't need to place 1-2. Hell, I don't need to place top 10 to enjoy the game and get enough rewards to advance. Some people really want to experience that "Best there is" feeling and prestige, in addition to everyone else. If they are willing to pay for it, more power to them. It doesn't affect me. In fact, I'm glad that now it's rather easy to find targets that will give you >40 points when you have 600 points or more. It used to be that once that you passed that barrier, you were lucky to find an opponent that gave you 30 points.

Yeah, what he/she said. The point of playing any game is to Have Fun ! ! A lot of players seem to have forgotten that. I don't shield hop either, and usually place top 25. Except for Combined Arms and Balance of Power events. Those 3 events are the only time I have placed in top 5. But I just don't see the point in spending 1,500 Hp on shields and 500 or 600 iso on skipping opponents til I find a "good" one, all to get a 100 Hp and 1,000 iso in return. If my math is correct (and it always is), that means you actually come out in the negative.

I may not do it, or even understand it, but other players do. If thats how they choose to play, then that's their choice. I have fun playing and thats enough for me. It's none of my business whether some one on the other side of the planet uses 5 shields or 50. That's their choice to make. I play my way, they play theirs.

mohio

As a rebuttal to a few things I'm seeing in this thread and my own thoughts on it...

Shield hopping is only really a problem at the very top of the heap. So if you are looking to get 1st place and you have a good enough roster to presumably win it, you're likely sharded into a bracket with others who can too, so you better hope you can shield hop more/better than them. However, if you're in a top 100 alliance and place top 10, there is 300 hp in rewards for you, which comes out to either 4 3-hour shields, or 2 3-hour shields and one 8-hour shield. If you actually do that, you're probably scoring in the 1100+ range anyway, so top 5 is easily manageable (I can typically top 5 with just a single shield hop and a score in the mid 1000s).

As for saying the game is fun and you want to play the game - there are several things I take issue with there. For one, others play the game for different reasons. Sure the game is fun at the core, but to some, competition is the driving factor and it's more fun to win than *just* top 5. In addition, shield hopping can actually be pretty fun. There's an adrenaline rush as you break shield and try like hell to win as fast as possible, then go for match 2, then sometimes even match 3, all the while hoping you're not gonna get hit when you come out of the next match. I've even done an extra shield hop I knew I wouldn't even need just because it was fun to play a couple boosted matches and get that rush.

In conclusion - I agree that the current state of affairs for MPQ makes PvP pay-to-win, and excessive shield hopping is necessary, but only if "winning" for you is #1. If your goal is to top 5 every tournament, there's no need to spend any money, and while you might still need to shield hop, it won't cost you any amount of hp beyond what you can recoup through rewards.

homeinvasion

I look at it in comparison to the other big Free To Play games out there and the demographics of who play them. Off the top of my head there are:

League of Legends
DOTA 2
Planetside 2
a whole bunch of MMO's

And probably a lot that I can't think of. I think all of them exist because there is an equal balance. For example League of Legends has reportedly got 70 Million users worldwide (tap that asian market) that log in at least once per month. Maybe reign that in a little because of people having multiple accounts, I personally have 6 max level accounts half I paid money for half I didn't, but paying money makes very little difference over the mid to long term, certainly after a few months it makes no difference at all, I can buy fancy skins to customize but no power disparity. I can't buy some uber sword that cleaves my opposition.

Now here's the rub, they don't get to 70 million players without actually being balanced for the F2P or P2W people but once there; the economies of scale mean they rake in the cash from all those micro transactions for skins and periphery that don't actually unbalance the game.

From a purely business point of view they should make it equally balanced so that you don't have to spend money to get more people involved and make a creative way for people to input money. Don't get me wrong I've spent over $3000 on this game- Don't think I have some win all team, I only have 1 level 166 and many holes in my roster, and in no way can I compete at the highest end. But it is a pay to win model, and I refuse to buy shields because it just feels like a rip off. I think there is an easy solution to this which is

1. Can all the health pack buys - revert the silly true heal business
2. remove shields - or massively **** it - I really think come up with a better model, a system where you come out of a win for 20 points to have lost 200 in retaliations is wrecked and bad in every way. - what about no loss of points for a defeat. Then those ridiculously high PVP rewards might be achievable.
3. Make the first cover of each character's colors easier to get then make the remainder harder to get which encourages people to try out characters and strategies then makes people willing to buy in.
4. Don't sell the community a whole bunch of covers then **** the character. (except Sentry stuff that guy)

Noone likes being ripped off or feeling like they are being taken advantage of. Harvard business school teaches that "businesses that perform ethically ALWAYS outperform in the long term" losing a free to play game to someone that is obviously paying to win doesn't feel ethical. Whether or not it is ethical is completely irrelevant because perception creates reality. So from a business point of view their model is broken.

Unknown

The alliance stuff in no way makes the shield hopping any less to win. At top 50 you get 100 HP versus 50 HP for top 250. The extra 50 HP does not even pay for a 3 hour shield, so if you ever feel obligated to put any shields to help alliance you're losing HP overall, and based on the posts of people it's pretty clear a lot of people feel the need to play more for the alliance and can easily end up losing HP compared to a top 250 finish.

At the individual level, you get 100 HP for top 10 versus 50 HP for top 50. The latter can usually be done with no shields at all, so again if it costs you one shield to get top 10 you still lost HP. You get more iso/cover for the effort but it is quite possible to reach a point where neither are of any meaningful use.

PvP is very P2W and it is not subsidized in any meaningful way unless you're somehow able to get away with doing next to nothing in a top alliance, but even then that's only 50 HP subsidized versus a top 250 finish. But that's also why it shouldn't matter because trying to 'win' PvP is a good way to lose HP. If there isn't a high value cover, there's not much point to get a cover for someone you'll never use or just sell 3 3*s back to 1500 iso 8 immediately.

Unknown

homeinvasion wrote:

From a purely business point of view they should make it equally balanced so that you don't have to spend money to get more people involved and make a creative way for people to input money. Don't get me wrong I've spent over $3000 on this game- Don't think I have some win all team,

I've spent a lot too in the past, and thought I should not pay more than what I already did.

In the long run, you agree to pay on shields, because the rewards are worth the money you put in them. Better pay shields than Iso...

Shadow

Shield hopping is not necessary unless you are going for top 5. And even then, it is possible to get top 5 without spending any money on the game. For a top 10 ranking, it is entirely possible to achieve without having to spend any HP on shielding at all. I have done top 10 countless times without shielding during the course of the entire PvP tournament. I just came in at #7 for BoP and didn't shield. Currently on day 202, I have 10 maxed 3*s, my she-hulk is at level 150 and the other 3*s that aren't maxed are fully covered except for Storm (was out of town when she came out), Deadpool and Captain Marvel. And I have not spent anything on the game. Not even for roster slots. So, my point is that this game can be played for free and you can have an impressive roster without spending on the game if that is really what you want to do. The game is only pay-to-win if you really want to achieve #1 on a regular basis. But if that's what you want, then there is a price to pay.

Flare808

Just a thought to consider. If you limit shields, PvP scores will plummet and the highest progression rewards would go unclaimed. Without people who push early and shield hop often, the rest of the scores will suffer as well. Think about the recent PvPs: Nicks, Puns, Daredevils. There were record scores abound. The reason for those high scores was the trailblazers that shieldhop together to reach higher scores early in a PvP. The rest of MPQ scores will reflect how much they shieldhop accordingly (think-how trickle down economics should work). Case in point, Balance of Power, those in X-Men and other alliances didn't push as hard, so scores dropped. With limited shields, there would be no incentive to push early as they would burn their shields on suboptimal targets. Most of us would end up waiting around until the end to make the best use of shields and wait for better targets to emerge.

kidicarus

You get 100 HP for reaching 800 points in every pvp.

You get 100 HP for placing top 10

Your alliance gets 100HP for placing top 50.

That's 300HP income.

That pays for 4 3 hour shields.

It's only pay to win if you want to spend more than that and I've not spent a single cent in the last 9 months or so but I typically end up top 5. Some events I make a profit, some I lose out

It can be worth it to shield hop if you need the covers - especially when awarded covers tend to be used in future pvps or pves and you can look at it as a form of an investment in your roster rather than straight up expenditure.

simonsez

Shielding-hopping isn't really pay-to-win. It's more like pay-to-finish-first-in-my-bracket-by-500-points.

Kelbris

trey9 wrote:

I think a simple, elegant solution to this entire shield hopping problem would be to limit players to 1-2 shields per pvp.

That's not really fair. Sometimes I use a few 3 hour shields over the course of the last 36 hours when the retaliations start coming in hot and heavy, and icky use them from my HP bank.

Kelbris

kidicarus wrote:

You get 100 HP for reaching 800 points in every pvp.

You get 100 HP for placing top 10

Your alliance gets 100HP for placing top 50.

That's 300HP income.

That pays for 4 3 hour shields.

Read this.

Kelbris

Muspel wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

trey9 wrote:

I think a simple, elegant solution to this entire shield hopping problem would be to limit players to 1-2 shields per pvp.

Only 2 is crazy low, even for people that do not shield hop. 4-5 seems like a fairer number to everyone, while greatly limiting shield-hopping.

4-5 is a ridiculous number of shields. It's completely possible to place in the top 25 and even the top 10 while only ever using a single shield.

The only reason to use that many shields is for shield-hopping, which I'd argue is degenerate gameplay.
.

Cheapest shield is 3 hours.

Health packs fully recharge in 3 hours.

You really don't think us Netflix binge-watchers have another use for shields? It's a lot cheaper than buying 5 health packs.

(Seriously, who plays this very average game without watching TV during?

Unknown

I get over 800 each PVP.

I get 100 HP just from getting to 800 points. I get 50 HP from my alliance placing in the top 250. Finally, I get 100 HP if I place in the top 10 or 50 HP if I place in the top 25.

I have placed in the top 25 in every PVP since the end of season 3.

So that is least 200 HP that I get back every single PVP. If I can secure a top 10 spot, that is 250 HP back.

I typically only shield at 11 hours and again at 3 hours. That means I spend about 225 HP per PVP. I may occasionally unshield at 1 hour to try and get that last 50-100 points to place in either the top 10 or top 5.

That comes to a total of about 300 HP in a PVP, with 250 returned if I place in the top 10.

I have never felt the need to purchase HP for shielding. I've gotten top 5 about 4 times last season, once so far this season and I've made the top 10 maybe half the time between the last two seasons.

Shield hopping is only necessary if you're going for the top 1 or top 5 in a competitive bracket. It doesn't really affect me all that much.

_RiO_

onimus wrote:

Shield hopping is only necessary if you're going for the top 1 or top 5 in a competitive bracket. It doesn't really affect me all that much.

... until you start getting bracketed into competitive brackets.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

onimus wrote:

Shield hopping is only necessary if you're going for the top 1 or top 5 in a competitive bracket. It doesn't really affect me all that much.

... until you start getting bracketed into competitive brackets.

Nope.

In the last two months I've been consistently bracketed with at least a couple of X-men, Djangoliers and other top-notch alliances. Never used more than 2 shields, usually of the 8-hours kind because I'm on the wrong side of the world and I'm not willing to sacrifice my sleep for a game. I've been able to end almost everytime in top-10, with the occasional top-5 here and there and a couple of slips in top-25 because of a mistimed shield. All this while slowly but steadily building up my roster: I'm currently missing just Yelena and Bullseye and I already have the HP ready for Beast.

atomzed

Agree with those members who said their shield expenditure is similar to the HP gain.

My typical expenditure is
- 1) around 150 or 225 HP for pvp which I don't need the reward covers. That means I gain approximately 150 to 75 HP per pvp (assuming 300 HP from progression rewards and top 10). Sometimes I just aim for 800 progression reward which gives me 200 HP and I don't even bother to shield. Which is a net profit of 200 HP.

-2) if I really want the 4 covers, I can accept an expenditure of 700 to 800 HP. If I am in an easy bracket, I may push up the shield expenditure to aim for top spot. If I want the 1100 cover rewards, I may also push more. I have not spend more than 1000 HP on shields. So assuming a 1000HP expenditure, and a 300 HP gain, that means I spend 700 HP on 4 to 5 covers, maybe even 6 (if I get top spot). That translates to around 140 HP per cover, which is 10x cheaper than purchasing outright.

In short, I can push with more shields and get the covers I want, or I can just aim to earn a net profit for each pvp.

I really think that the HP gain is really generous in the game, and can compensate for the shields expenditure.