Rubber Banding Has Got to Go (or be changed)

Unknown

Spencer75 wrote:

My biggest issue with those that complain about rubber banding in these events and what they fail to understand is this:

They'll always say "I was in the top 150 (or whatever rank) the whole time" no you weren't. You were in the top 150 after you played your rounds every 12 hours and exhausted your rubber banding (your elasticity one could say).

I always based my rank on where I was when the sub missions closed. That's pretty much the only time that you can say for sure what your ranking is.

I was in the top 40 up until the last two days of sub missions. At that point I'd gone well past 50k and I just couldn't care that much anymore. Still finished in the top 150, but I didn't grind like I had been doing.

I do think the rubber banding in this event was better than any previous one. I don't think there was much sling shotting as there has been in the past. But I do think it's still just a bit too strong. It should help you catch up, but it shouldn't catch you 95% of the way up... honestly I think 80% is about right. Yes, that's right... you should have to put some effort in if you want to make the top rewards.

And Kelbris -- this has nothing to do with how quickly you finish matches. It has to do with how many matches you play. If you're efficient then you can play more matches in the same amount of time, which is what should give you an advantage. Right now, it doesn't. Or not much of one.

Unknown

I'm happy with the rubberbanding as is, Zathrus is right, it's the best incarnation of it we've seen yet, and absolutely think that getting rid of it is not in the best interest of the game/players. I'm ok with refining it more, maybe it does need to be toned down a touch more, but it's close to correct.

Kelbris

BrenH wrote:

Kelbris wrote:

Why should people be rewarded for quantity of play? It wouldn't reward people who play match 3 games smarter, and end matches in less turns while also taking less damage. Just because you have the time to play this game more often than I do, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to keep up or even do better if I put more thought into my game.

They shouldn't necessarily be rewarded with higher standing within a PVE event but perhaps there should be some sort of "consolation" for those who do want to play so much.

A dead battery. 8-)

For instance once a mission has been ground down to zero points all subsequent plays of that mission until the points reset earn 50 iso instead of 20.
This would allow people who like to grind an event a way to still play and get something reasonable for their time.

I like to play a lot whilst watching TV or on the way to and from work and would definitely have continued to play the Hulk missions if they awarded 50 iso instead of 20. It wouldn't have to be 50 iso but that seems like a nice easy number.

Play SHIELD VS then. Untimed, and the rewards are 70 or 140 ISO. Unless you want the prog rewards reaaally badly, you're better off attacking the 10-15 point munchkins for the easy ISO.

Hell, I'll run through about 25 people in Shield VS and then yield with my covers that I don't use. Let's be honest here, most people use less than half of their team 95% of the time.

As long as that was made transparent in the tournament rules everyone would be on even footing as far as how much iso they could earn.

Unknown

Since rubberbanding places a huge amount of emphasis on grinding the last set of missions, there should be a warning displayed prominently that warns people when we're on the last set of repeatable missions. Otherwise you're going to have a repeat of The Hulk event when people were screwed when it turns out the missions in the last 12 hours are not repeatable.

Kelbris

Mavericat wrote:

Totally agree. There's one tourney going on now. I want to play but know that starting later will give me much better chances at winning, so I actually force myself to play other games, even though I'd much rather play marvel. That seems like a huge red flag that the system is broken.

Starting later doesn't do anything except guarantee you'll get less ISO. I've started 5 minutes after a tournament opened, and a day after, and got top 10 both times.

Strategy gives you better chances at winning.

Unknown

Kelbris wrote:

Mavericat wrote:

Totally agree. There's one tourney going on now. I want to play but know that starting later will give me much better chances at winning, so I actually force myself to play other games, even though I'd much rather play marvel. That seems like a huge red flag that the system is broken.

Starting later doesn't do anything except guarantee you'll get less ISO. I've started 5 minutes after a tournament opened, and a day after, and got top 10 both times.

Strategy gives you better chances at winning.

This. All that truely matters is playing at the end, and using strategy will help. Doesn't matter when you joined, other than determining who you are bracketed with.

Unknown

Zathrus wrote:

I always based my rank on where I was when the sub missions closed. That's pretty much the only time that you can say for sure what your ranking is.

Me too. This is the only "accurate" time. And again this assumes you still keep doing what you were doing to guarantee you will stay near that rank when it's over.

Mavericat

Starting later doesn't do anything except guarantee you'll get less ISO. I've started 5 minutes after a tournament opened, and a day after, and got top 10 both times.

Strategy gives you better chances at winning.

This. All that truely matters is playing at the end, and using strategy will help. Doesn't matter when you joined, other than determining who you are bracketed with.

Starting late definitely puts me in a much higher rank off the bat rather than if I start immediately, so yes you can win if you start early, but it'll be harder.

I can't tell you how many times I've started early, only to have my brother or sister start a day or two later and out rank me after a couple fights...

Find someone who plays the game too and try it out...