gamar wrote: Speaking as someone whose alliance is currently 114 for the season and therefore a candidate to be affected by the unlikely scenario that "instant alliance creation" will reshuffle the top 150 and not just the top 20 (for someone in the 90th place alliance it would take less time and effort to just score more freaking points in PVP than coordinate alliance shenanigans) if you're that concerned about it you should be joining a much more hardcore alliance than "barely top 100"
lokiagentofhotness wrote: Must we insist that transitioning / new players ALSO don't get top 10 until their roster is high enough to compete in the higher brackets?
JoshBot3000 wrote: D3 won't change time sharding as an event mechanism. What they are VERY LIKELY to do is allow people to attack people outside of their time shard. That is still a sticky wicket because that means players who are literally finished can be attacked which may cause CHAOS on the servers. How many of you have noticed that shields run even after an event ends? The server keeps your status for that. Attacking someone off a shield who is done is quite likely a programming nightmare (seems pretty obvious if one stops to think about it).
gamar wrote: It's kind of a moot point since even before the end time thing d3p was "gently nudging" players so "don't give developing players a handicap" was never an option on the table...
xKOBALTx wrote: lokiagentofhotness wrote: Must we insist that transitioning / new players ALSO don't get top 10 until their roster is high enough to compete in the higher brackets? Ummm, yes? Honestly, how do you think those of us who are at that stage got there?
Phaserhawk wrote: one simple fix is to not allow changes to alliances at certain times. Once a PvP starts I would suggest a 24 hour window to adjust alliance lineups and then you are locked in. Being able to jump back and forth here and there, this has to stop, it's why they don't allow it in any major sport, it's called the trade deadline, you implement this and it instantly stops the manipulation. Then you can start working on sharding and MMR.
Spoit wrote: gamar wrote: It's kind of a moot point since even before the end time thing d3p was "gently nudging" players so "don't give developing players a handicap" was never an option on the table... You want a gentle nudge? I joined this bracket at 78th place at 1. It's now 8:20 and it's only at 307 people. I joined at that time every other week and it was full in well under an how. Gently nudge this sharding. (there are already 5 RO/x-men/AoS people in the top 10, and that's well before most people even start to climb)
Shadow wrote: Actually, this view isn't entirely correct. My alliance has been in the top 25 for seasons since the very first one and we haven't placed outside of top 50 alliances for any single PvP in a very long time. We also don't fall out of top 50 even in the off season. However, for Hollowpoint Kiss, we dropped out of top 50. The reason was simple. Our top players were in the wrong bracket and could not find worthwhile targets after a certain point range. So, this change does affect top rate alliances quite a fair bit and not just the barely top 100. Now, for Heavy Metal, all our key players are in the 4th bracket since that is where the points are supposed to be found. So, the message seems to be that if you do not care about the score, you are free to join any time bracket you like. But if you want to score well, then sorry but you do not have a choice in choosing a bracket to your convenience.
Shadow wrote: The quick fix to this which should be able to be done within the season itself assuming that the variable end times is here to stay for this season is to simply open up cross-bracket attacking.
Spoit wrote: Spoit wrote: gamar wrote: It's kind of a moot point since even before the end time thing d3p was "gently nudging" players so "don't give developing players a handicap" was never an option on the table... You want a gentle nudge? I joined this bracket at 78th place at 1. It's now 8:20 and it's only at 307 people. I joined at that time every other week and it was full in well under an how. Gently nudge this sharding. (there are already 5 RO/x-men/AoS people in the top 10, and that's well before most people even start to climb) 3 hours later, and it's added all of...3 people. I don't think think this nudging could be any more gentle
Badlands wrote: To change the game to suit the tiny minority of "high performers" is wrong. Time shards work for the majority of players, I got a reasonable score 800+ in Hollowpoint and I didn't have to wake at 4am to do it. Also in my experience when small groups of players in an Online game conspire to make the experience worse for everyone else they get banned, so I'd proceed with caution on this.
Time shards work for the majority of players
To change the game to suit the tiny minority of "high performers" is wrong.
Also in my experience when small groups of players in an Online game conspire to make the experience worse for everyone else they get banned, so I'd proceed with caution on this.
reckless442 wrote: Spoit wrote: Spoit wrote: gamar wrote: It's kind of a moot point since even before the end time thing d3p was "gently nudging" players so "don't give developing players a handicap" was never an option on the table... You want a gentle nudge? I joined this bracket at 78th place at 1. It's now 8:20 and it's only at 307 people. I joined at that time every other week and it was full in well under an how. Gently nudge this sharding. (there are already 5 RO/x-men/AoS people in the top 10, and that's well before most people even start to climb) 3 hours later, and it's added all of...3 people. I don't think think this nudging could be any more gentle I just joined shard 4. Got added to the same bracket at no. 392. The leader has 1087 points already.
Okin107 wrote: While I'm OK and I understand vet's issues with this change, we should establish a middle ground and agree that the time slots have to stay. Having said that, the rest of the issues can be worked out. Honestly though, why the hell do you people want to find targets past 1900 points? I read most of vets posts and the most burning issue is hitting those 2k scores. What vets don't understand at this point, is that while they manage to have super high season scores for no actual reason, the rest of the players suffer in the #90-#99 rank range to get one cover for the sake of the slow as #*&@ progress! Seriously, you vets should ask for those 2k scores to be limited and not be available. You should be the first ones to do it because you are paying for them. Asking the devs to make it easier for you to go to scores that where never directly intended in the game is kind of absurd to me. And what is more absurd is making it the #1 problem of this change. I think this change is saving you money if it is harder to reach 2k points because guess what, 1300 is the top progression reward. You, top players have brought this upon yourselves with being so competitive with each other that you burn your wallets like there's no tomorrow. I liked what an earlier poster said, that if a minority of people gather together and try to abuse the system, they likely get punished for it rather than have the game shifted towards their needs. The issue of alliance hopping on the other hand is easy to deal with. Like previous posters already said, just lock people in alliances during an event. It looks like US players miss the rest of the world on PVP because they could hop over them during the time we where sleeping. Here's an idea then. If you want the time slots to be gone, let's make the event times EU based. You can still have your 2k scores but this time you lose your sleep. Sounds fair to me!
ZenMonkey wrote: Hi Everyone, This issue isn't about the 1 percent, it effects everyone. You may just not have noticed it yet because most have been joining the standard time slot out of habit. If you pick the wrong slot 1)Progression rewards become a lot more expensive or impossible to reach for many 2)Alliance rankings are hurt. I have been in alliances struggling for 100 before, it usually consists of a few players that can score high and help carry the team to victory. If any of these players pick the wrong slot kiss top 100 goodbye. you can argue all day about not needing a high score. I don't score high for my personal rewards I do it for the alliance. The alliance is the only thing keeping me in the game. As for the statement session placement doesn't matter..... Well then seasons don't matter...... But they exist and they are a part of the game. If they don't matter they should be removed, until then this feature goes directly against a fundamental game design. You can't develop a feature in a void and once again it just demonstrates what's wrong with the game, It's schizophrenic. They introduce seasons then they make game changing changes during a season totally invalidating rankings. They nurf characters to encourage a varied roster then they release sentry They give us alliances with ranked rewards then they split alliances up with different time shards. How splitting alliances up is a good thing is beyond me but hey I guess I'm an out of touch 1 percenter Lastly I just want to give a shout out to X-men. They are often villainized but they have always played nicely with me. You guys are insane but I love you, this wasn't about beating you but to make a statement against a feature that may kill the game for me.
reckless442 wrote: I can't speak for everyone, but I think I can fairly say that most vets have no interest in hitting 2000. We want to hit the progressions, get top-5 rewards, and help our alliances get top alliance results. For S.H.I.E.L.D, we have never had minimums and don't kick people out for low scores. Instead, we compensate for a member's RL issues, but that means some of us have to push high if we want the alliance to stay top-10 and receive the 5000 ISO alliance reward. But as more alliances have high scorers, it has become increasingly competitive, and that pushes players to go even higher. OPH went as high as it did because we wanted to ensure out point was made even if other alliances did swaps to try to match us. We didn't think we would have garnered the same attention if we didn't win. As for locking players into alliances, that wouldn't work because you do have the problem of players who slack off or have RL issues. Having 19 members miss rewards because one member didn't participate is going to create a lot of anger and will causes alliances to collapse as high scoring players search for greener pastures.