PvP variable end times effect on scoring

Unknown

Flare808 wrote:

Brothanoomsy wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Dude, variable end times is a feature that LOTS of people have been demanding for half a year. But no, surely it's another machiavellian plot from evil D3 to get more money by specifically screwing /you/. That wax to twirl their Snidely Whiplash moustaches ain't free, after all!

Your unsubstantiated claim that people have been demanding time choices for 6 moi months makes it neither true, nor a good idea. It is easily abused in its current format and broken in its application. It's not about the developers having some secret plot either.

This will adversely affect some players who care about their season average.

Unfortunately, people have been clamoring for variable end times for a while now. Long enough that even D3 got around to making the change (we all know how long that can take-C.Mags for example). Not sure how you know that people haven't been asking for new end times because you just joined 10 days ago. Pylgrim is right. D3 has said that this is a beta and they are testing things out. No, it will not be perfect, but at least they listened to us this time.

P.S.- Since you're too lazy to look, here are some of the people demanding time changes for 6 months

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10487
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9526
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6260
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7247
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6561

You successfully proved two things with your response to me.
1. You are very rude. This not an insult. This is an observation. There was no need to reply the way you did. It lessens your ethos.
2. There are some people who were unhappy with the past ending system used in MPQ.

My membership in this forum has nothing to do with how long I've been visiting it. My time as a member does not excuse your lack of manners towards me.
I didn't view posts concerning ending times because they didn't concern me. I knew how to avoid it being a problem. It seems that not everyone did. Even that is immaterial.
The fact remains that instituting a new, untested, system which has not had the bugs worked out of it, in the middle of a season, on paying players, is a poor decision.
Let me retry that in different words: beta+middle of season+paying customers=poor planning.

The ease with which this system can be abused is staggering. It has a MAJOR glaring exploit staring us all in the face.

My post did not insult you Flare. Why did you choose to be so hostile to me?

Unknown

ClydeFrog76 wrote:

That picture is terrifying. I'm glad I'm wearing brown underpants.

How about this one?

http://imgur.com/95naTUT

Flare808

Brothanoomsy wrote:

My membership in this forum has nothing to do with how long I've been visiting it. My time as a member does not excuse your lack of manners towards me.
I didn't view posts concerning ending times because they didn't concern me. I knew how to avoid it being a problem. It seems that not everyone did. Even that is immaterial.

I wrote my post in response to you saying Pylgrim's claim was unsubstantiated and untrue. I merely substantiated it and proved it. I realize that ending times may not have been a bother to you, but you decided to comment on a topic that you just admitted you didn't pay attention to.

Brothanoomsy wrote:

The fact remains that instituting a new, untested, system which has not had the bugs worked out of it, in the middle of a season, on paying players, is a poor decision.
Let me retry that in different words: beta+middle of season+paying customers=poor planning.

The ease with which this system can be abused is staggering. It has a MAJOR glaring exploit staring us all in the face.

Not arguing with you on this one. There are better ways D3 could have handled this change. A short mini-season (a la Anniversary Event) could have been used for experimenting.

Brothanoomsy wrote:

1. You are very rude. This not an insult. This is an observation. There was no need to reply the way you did. It lessens your ethos.

As a teacher, I am forced to point out that being rude is in fact an opinion. It is also not an observation, but more a perception.

Unknown

Flare808 wrote:

Brothanoomsy wrote:

My membership in this forum has nothing to do with how long I've been visiting it. My time as a member does not excuse your lack of manners towards me.
I didn't view posts concerning ending times because they didn't concern me. I knew how to avoid it being a problem. It seems that not everyone did. Even that is immaterial.

I wrote my post in response to you saying Pylgrim's claim was unsubstantiated and untrue. I merely substantiated it and proved it. I realize that ending times may not have been a bother to you, but you decided to comment on a topic that you just admitted you didn't pay attention to.
I acknowledged this.

Brothanoomsy wrote:

The fact remains that instituting a new, untested, system which has not had the bugs worked out of it, in the middle of a season, on paying players, is a poor decision.
Let me retry that in different words: beta+middle of season+paying customers=poor planning.

The ease with which this system can be abused is staggering. It has a MAJOR glaring exploit staring us all in the face.

Not arguing with you on this one. There are better ways D3 could have handled this change. A short mini-season (a la Anniversary Event) could have been used for experimenting.

Brothanoomsy wrote:

1. You are very rude. This not an insult. This is an observation. There was no need to reply the way you did. It lessens your ethos.

As a teacher, I am forced to point out that being rude is in fact an opinion. It is also not an observation, but more a perception.

As a teacher, I'm sure that you have noticed that a major problem with some students today is their refusal to take responsibility for their actions. Manners and politeness,... you chose to excuse your rudeness with a straw argument? Rather than own up to the fact that your reply was impolite, you choose to try to play semantics with me concerning the definition of an observation and a perception. This, in and of itself, says much about you. Especially when you use it as a reason to defend your words. Some would say that perception IS reality. And others would point to Aristotle's Cave allegory.

Your response to me was worded in such a way as to appear to attempt to demean the recipient. It appears to be very condescending. While some cultures may encourage condescension and impolite responses, I don't know of any. Maybe I haven't encountered yours yet.

I hope our conversation is not indicative of the techniques you use to teach your students. What's worse is you know you were wrong and can't admit it. Even I did that. Of course, you know that because you made sure to point it out to me. Way to be an example to others, "teacher".

Your ethos, again, lowered by your words. You could easily have avoided all of that harshness. But now everyone can see you did not choose to do so.


I certainly hope your day gets better.

OnesOwnGrief

I must be missing a section of the thread because I'm trying to find (and failing) the rude statement... Someone help!

acescracked

OnesOwnGrief wrote:

I must be missing a section of the thread because I'm trying to find (and failing) the rude statement... Someone help!

Ah don' wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food-trough wiper! Ah fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!!!!

Now that's rude!

kidicarus

The thing is with clever shielding, you could always mitigate the problem of having inconvenient timing. I think that's what brothanoomsy was trying to say before this thread degenerated into whatever it has degenerated into.

Thing about this is now we have 5 time slices. We now have 1 or 2 time slices with scores that are higher than average. That is already an unlevel player field. I've seen more than a few posts today about death brackets. While my own bracket didn't turn out as bad as some of the others did, I did not enjoy joining a bracket where the leader already had 1600 points. I suppose it's my fault for joining with 5 and a half hours before end time but I'm sure that this was the result of the reduced player pool as well as "gentle nudge" sharding. This is just not fun.

Unknown

I think that everyone could agree that implementing this (well) for PvP would be a benefit, but that the real demand for this functionality was PvE for which most of these problems wouldn't exist.

*sets his alarm for 4am tonight*

*and tomorrow night*

Unknown

I am actually baffled by the scoring on the last two pvp's. For me one was very low, one very high, and both times I was only getting 19 point battles from 100 points and above. Very dull so I just did the sensible thing and stopped playing them (I could play for hours on dull events to get a thor cover, but I have to look myself in the mirror every morning). But across our Alliance the results are very random and really cannot work out what the end result of all this is. I can't even figure out how many people are playing, a lot, or a little.

I do like the idea behind "choose your own event end time". Just waiting a while longer to see if this was actually the best solution.

*Edit* I have just seen the Pay harder thread. So yeah, this isn't the best solution. Nice try though.

Pylgrim

For people just joining our adventure here's a recap of what's happened:

-Shadow: "I am upset that I got bracketed with very few X-Men meaning that I have a harder time climbing beyond the 1000s because the lack of targets! Surely this is another ploy of D3 to get more money, screwing players like me.
-Me: Dude, your comparably tiny grievance is the cost of providing a feature that eases a major strain on the way a big chunk of players play the game, and which they were demanding for half a year.
-Brothanoomsy: Your claims of amounts of players and amount of demanding claims are unsubstantiated. I, like Shadow, feel like I'm affected by it and believe we should be catered to, instead of your hypothetical many.
-Flare808: Uh, those claims are not unsubstantiated. The evidence whose apparent absence you use to dismiss his argument is right here, where it can be found by anyone who makes a perfunctory board search *dumps a lot of links as proof of this*.
-Brothanoomsy:Ah pfft I didn't see those threads nor I care for searching around for them, so I'm entitled to stand by my previous dismissal (especially since the concerns of those people are not my concern, and my concern is, obviously, of far greater importance). But now that the evidence has been dumped where it cannot be denied, I better derail the discussion by complaining that I was called lazy. Even if it is true, no one has the right to call it to my face.

acescracked

Pylgrim wrote:

For people just joining our adventure here's a recap of what's happened:

-Shadow: "I am upset that I got bracketed with very few X-Men meaning that I have a harder time climbing beyond the 1000s because the lack of targets! Surely this is another ploy of D3 to get more money, screwing players like me.
-Me: Dude, your comparably tiny grievance is the cost of providing a feature that eases a major strain on the way a big chunk of players play the game, and which they were demanding for half a year.
-Brothanoomsy: Your claims of amounts of players and amount of demanding claims are unsubstantiated. I, like Shadow, feel like I'm affected by it and believe we should be catered to, instead of your hypothetical many.
-Flare808: Uh, those claims are not unsubstantiated. The evidence whose apparent absence you use to dismiss his argument is right here, where it can be found by anyone who makes a perfunctory board search *dumps a lot of links as proof of this*.
-Brothanoomsy:Ah pfft I didn't see those threads nor I care for searching around for them, so I'm entitled to stand by my previous dismissal (especially since the concerns of those people are not my concern, and my concern is, obviously, of far greater importance). But now that the evidence has been dumped where it cannot be denied, I better derail the discussion by complaining that I was called lazy. Even if it is true, no one has the right to call it to my face.

You forgot the part where I quoted a great Frenchman from Monty Python's the holy grail.

Unknown

I like it. Could play during the day, end time being about 7pm for me, instead of having to stay up until 3am shield hopping and slamming red bull just to play a cellphone game. Feels more like a game and less like a job.

I understand that there could be trouble in the 1500-2500 point land, but I'm far, far away from that country.

Polares

First, as a EU player, I think time zones were a MUST for this game (you should try to wake up at 4am to play every time a new character is released in a PvP event). In fact they are a MUST in PvE also, because in this present event ALL sub-events finished (will) at 6 am (****!!!!), so I ve been unable to be in the top 10 because of the unfriendly time zone (I am Top 15).

Then, maybe this super scores are not because IM40 is the reward, but because Thoress is the reward for the season, so everybody is playing like crazy to get all her covers. It was the same when Fury was released. D3 should SHOULD NOT AWARD NEW 4* as SEASON REWARDS. This is a big problem for people who is trying to win covers of old characters.

Unknown

acescracked wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

For people just joining our adventure here's a recap of what's happened:

-Shadow: "I am upset that I got bracketed with very few X-Men meaning that I have a harder time climbing beyond the 1000s because the lack of targets! Surely this is another ploy of D3 to get more money, screwing players like me.
-Me: Dude, your comparably tiny grievance is the cost of providing a feature that eases a major strain on the way a big chunk of players play the game, and which they were demanding for half a year.
-Brothanoomsy: Your claims of amounts of players and amount of demanding claims are unsubstantiated. I, like Shadow, feel like I'm affected by it and believe we should be catered to, instead of your hypothetical many.
-Flare808: Uh, those claims are not unsubstantiated. The evidence whose apparent absence you use to dismiss his argument is right here, where it can be found by anyone who makes a perfunctory board search *dumps a lot of links as proof of this*.
-Brothanoomsy:Ah pfft I didn't see those threads nor I care for searching around for them, so I'm entitled to stand by my previous dismissal (especially since the concerns of those people are not my concern, and my concern is, obviously, of far greater importance). But now that the evidence has been dumped where it cannot be denied, I better derail the discussion by complaining that I was called lazy. Even if it is true, no one has the right to call it to my face.

You forgot the part where I quoted a great Frenchman from Monty Python's the holy grail.

You also forgot the part where I slow clapped your hilariously awesome recap.

****. That hasn't happened yet. Hold on. Damn time space continuum.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

For people just joining our adventure here's a recap of what's happened:

-Shadow: "I am upset that I got bracketed with very few X-Men meaning that I have a harder time climbing beyond the 1000s because the lack of targets! Surely this is another ploy of D3 to get more money, screwing players like me.
-Me: Dude, your comparably tiny grievance is the cost of providing a feature that eases a major strain on the way a big chunk of players play the game, and which they were demanding for half a year.
-Brothanoomsy: Your claims of amounts of players and amount of demanding claims are unsubstantiated. I, like Shadow, feel like I'm affected by it and believe we should be catered to, instead of your hypothetical many.
-Flare808: Uh, those claims are not unsubstantiated. The evidence whose apparent absence you use to dismiss his argument is right here, where it can be found by anyone who makes a perfunctory board search *dumps a lot of links as proof of this*.
-Brothanoomsy:Ah pfft I didn't see those threads nor I care for searching around for them, so I'm entitled to stand by my previous dismissal (especially since the concerns of those people are not my concern, and my concern is, obviously, of far greater importance). But now that the evidence has been dumped where it cannot be denied, I better derail the discussion by complaining that I was called lazy. Even if it is true, no one has the right to call it to my face.

*slow clap*

Phaserhawk

OnesOwnGrief wrote:

I picked the regular end time of 1AM EST for Hollowpoint Kiss. My Bracket looks nothing like that and my scores have actually not changed. If anything, they improved with less effort. Who knows, maybe I'm just the exception to everything going on.

I was finding this as well until Hollowpoint. Hulk and Spidey I coasted to 1000 and got top 10 with ease, Hollowpoint was a slow grind to 800 and I only got top 50

Flare808

Pylgrim wrote:

For people just joining our adventure here's a recap of what's happened:

-Shadow: "I am upset that I got bracketed with very few X-Men meaning that I have a harder time climbing beyond the 1000s because the lack of targets! Surely this is another ploy of D3 to get more money, screwing players like me.
-Me: Dude, your comparably tiny grievance is the cost of providing a feature that eases a major strain on the way a big chunk of players play the game, and which they were demanding for half a year.
-Brothanoomsy: Your claims of amounts of players and amount of demanding claims are unsubstantiated. I, like Shadow, feel like I'm affected by it and believe we should be catered to, instead of your hypothetical many.
-Flare808: Uh, those claims are not unsubstantiated. The evidence whose apparent absence you use to dismiss his argument is right here, where it can be found by anyone who makes a perfunctory board search *dumps a lot of links as proof of this*.
-Brothanoomsy:Ah pfft I didn't see those threads nor I care for searching around for them, so I'm entitled to stand by my previous dismissal (especially since the concerns of those people are not my concern, and my concern is, obviously, of far greater importance). But now that the evidence has been dumped where it cannot be denied, I better derail the discussion by complaining that I was called lazy. Even if it is true, no one has the right to call it to my face.

And here I thought that I would have to wake up to respond to Brothanoomsy on my own. Thanks for summing it up so well Pylgrim!

Unknown

I like the variable end times. I agree that there are still some kinks to get worked out. Both "death brackets" and "dead zones" seem a lot more common. However, on the whole, I think its a move in the right direction and can be updated with minor tweaks.

Raekwen

Polares wrote:

Then, maybe this super scores are not because IM40 is the reward, but because Thoress is the reward for the season, so everybody is playing like crazy to get all her covers. It was the same when Fury was released. D3 should SHOULD NOT AWARD NEW 4* as SEASON REWARDS. This is a big problem for people who is trying to win covers of old characters.

Ehh.. maybe in the 50-100 range the season reward matters. But, as someone said, scores went crazy due to the trickle-down from the top. And it wasn't the Thoress cover that drove it, since everyone up there is guaranteed one whether they push hard or not.

MaskedMan

Have to agree with the nay sayers on this one. For whatever reasons overnight it became massively harder to get in the top 100 ranks for those of us without 166 teams. Before this change with hard play you could almost always score a 3 star card reward from PvP but afterward I can barely make top 200.

Tried different starting times without effect. Not sure if this just brought back players who had quit or what but because of the terrible reward structure for PvP events - top 100 get a 3 star, 100+ get 2 star (i.e. worthless reward since no one needs more two star characters). Even a Gold Hero card would be tremendously better than that and would allow people not placing in top 100 to advance (if very slowly).

As it stands I will wait and see what happens and see if they rebalance in some way. Otherwise I will stop playing regularly as advancement for me anyway will be impeded too drastically. I don't mind paying for a game but buying a 166 team defeats the purpose of advancing (a major part of the game). The advancement aspect is the most important part of the game for someone like me.

Oddly when I get a 166 team I would definitely stop playing (as I do in other games when I reach max level). So forcing players to have a 166 team to participate in competitions defeats the purpose of playing for me. Others plays for different reasons but that is my place in things.