Operation Pay Harder: A Debrief

HailMary

The core problem with allowing hitting players across different Event Shards is that it explicitly inserts unfairness into the equation by design, as opposed allowing unfairness as a result of player behavior.

Under the current system, differences in Shard scoring are controlled entirely by players: if monster scores clump in one Shard, then that Shard will have more juicy targets to feed off of. PVP scores highly correlate with how much time is left in an event: the closer to the end, generally the higher the score. Thus, allowing cross-Shard matchmaking provides an absolute, compounded advantage to later Shards. Shard 2 people can feed off of end-of-event scores in Shard 1 -- some of these points being perfectly risk-free due to the impossibility of retaliation. Shard 3 feeds off of Shard 1's event-end scores and Shard 2's event-end scores (which were already boosted by feeding of Shard 1). Shard 4 feeds off of Shard-1 scores, boosted Shard-2 scores, and double-boosted Shard-3 scores. Shard 5... well, you get the idea.

Ergo, with cross-Shard matchmaking, the optimal strategy simply becomes "always choose the last Shard," because it only requires a modicum of thought to turn each previous Shard closure into a miniature Kyipgate. The current system is hardly perfect, but cross-Shard matchmaking is not an improvement.

I know that Raekwen, for one, wasn't arguing for this, but just to clarify in general: the current Event Shard system is structurally an absolute upgrade on the non-sharded system. It's true that death brackets are likely worse in the shard where the monsters clump (I'm calling it The Hard Shard), due to a diminished bracketing pool. That problem aside, the absolute worst-case scenario under the new system is that some hardcore players treat it like the old system: there's a single event end-time that they feel compelled to join, because that's where all the monster points are.

Thus, under this worst-case scenario, this is how the current system compares to the old one:
- Hardcores (i.e. those who care a lot about individual Season placement, top alliance placement, etc.) will treat it like the old system and all enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize progression rewards will want to enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize individual placement rewards will benefit from avoiding The Hard Shard, since scoring thresholds for placement in other Shards are lower.
- People who don't optimize much will choose whatever Event Shard suits their schedules.

lukewin

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

lukewin wrote:

I was in 5th time slice for Hollowpoint. 1st was 1193, 10th was 858. No one hit the 1300. In talking with alliance mates, scores like these were average across time slices 1, 2, 3 and 5.

858 in a bad slice: 2000 ISO, 100 HP, 2 covers
1100 in a good slice: 2000 ISO, 50HP, 3 covers, token.

So to what onimus said, this isn't about progression vs event. It's about individual vs alliance.

It's possible it is progression rewards though. Without matches that make hopping worth it, there's no chance of hitting the progressions. I think time slices help most, except for those that can normally get progressions, that end up in slices with no matches of value. It definitely helped me. I placed Top 25 with a score of 700 something. I'm sure a lot of other players that can't hit the progression rewards placed higher than they normally would have, which means more covers that we normally wouldn't see. That 700 points is also more than I typically contribute.

_RiO_

Raekwen wrote:

If 2* players had no shot of earning 3* covers, how did people get 3* covers to begin with?

• An extremely lucky break from token pulls.
• Gifted from daily rewards at an excruciatingly slow pace.
• Bought from cover packs, back when they still guaranteed a mininum of one 3* cover.
• Beginning players in the current state of the game grabbing one or two covers for a 3* in easy-mode PvE that they have a snowball's chance in hell of ever completing.

Raekwen wrote:

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to acquire them at all, I'm saying there should be a natural separation in the rankings based on roster strength, willingness to hop, etc. Someone with a month of playtime and shields up once shouldn't have the same opportunity for rewards that someone who has been playing since the beginning, worked very hard on their roster, and spends much more hp on shields has.

And what about someone playing the game at a casual rate for close to a year, slowly building and collecting the entire 2* roster and now looking to advance to 3*s? Casual play has nothing to do with roster strength and skill. It has everything to do with playing the game at the pace of a few hours a day or being part of the mental cases dedicating close to 24/7 time and/or loads of cash.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

Thus, under this worst-case scenario, this is how the current system compares to the old one:
- Hardcores (i.e. those who care a lot about individual Season placement, top alliance placement, etc.) will treat it like the old system and all enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize progression rewards will want to enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize individual placement rewards will benefit from avoiding The Hard Shard, since scoring thresholds for placement in other Shards are lower.
- People who don't optimize much will choose whatever Event Shard suits their schedules.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

The core problem with allowing hitting players across different Event Shards is that it explicitly inserts unfairness into the equation by design, as opposed allowing unfairness as a result of player behavior.

That's true HM, but in coming up with a mechanism for PVP they need to factor in player behaviour. Given that everyone has their choice of time shard then any perceived unfairness can be overcome by selecting the latest bracket.

From what I've seen so far of this thread. For PVP I think I prefer the old method but just move the end time by +3hrs every time. For PVE then a choice of end times exactly as they did for Hollow Point Killer PVP event.

GuntherBlobel

HailMary wrote:

The core problem with allowing hitting players across different Event Shards is that it explicitly inserts unfairness into the equation by design, as opposed allowing unfairness as a result of player behavior.

Exactly. If I were a Dev, I wouldn't change anything fundamental about the system until I'd seen how the player base adapts. I might change little things like reducing the number of shards or the size of brackets to accommodate the average number of players per time shard, but that would have been part of the plan from the onset.

The one unexpected thing that I might now consider fixing would be Alliance jumping.

GrumpySmurf1002

lukewin wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

lukewin wrote:

I was in 5th time slice for Hollowpoint. 1st was 1193, 10th was 858. No one hit the 1300. In talking with alliance mates, scores like these were average across time slices 1, 2, 3 and 5.

858 in a bad slice: 2000 ISO, 100 HP, 2 covers
1100 in a good slice: 2000 ISO, 50HP, 3 covers, token.

So to what onimus said, this isn't about progression vs event. It's about individual vs alliance.

It's possible it is progression rewards though. Without matches that make hopping worth it, there's no chance of hitting the progressions. I think time slices help most, except for those that can normally get progressions, that end up in slices with no matches of value. It definitely helped me. I placed Top 25 with a score of 700 something. I'm sure a lot of other players that can't hit the progression rewards placed higher than they normally would have, which means more covers that we normally wouldn't see. That 700 points is also more than I typically contribute.

Those numbers above include what would be gained in progression for the 1100. It's a wash.

If you move down the ladder, someone who could typically score 600 (figure that's 51-100th place) does gain more by getting to 700 in a harder bracket (namely the 1000 iso reward at 700), but that is only if 700 is still good enough for 100th. If 700 knocks you out, then it's obviously better to take the 600 and the 3* cover.

The overall point though is that whatever marginal increase in progression you can do by being in a more lucrative time slice is going to be offset by being able to place higher with a lower score.

The only way that wouldn't be true is if your 600 in a bad time slice suddenly becomes 1100+ with the same investment, which I can't possibly see being true.

_RiO_

arktos1971 wrote:

HailMary wrote:

Thus, under this worst-case scenario, this is how the current system compares to the old one:
- Hardcores (i.e. those who care a lot about individual Season placement, top alliance placement, etc.) will treat it like the old system and all enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize progression rewards will want to enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize individual placement rewards will benefit from avoiding The Hard Shard, since scoring thresholds for placement in other Shards are lower.
- People who don't optimize much will choose whatever Event Shard suits their schedules.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Stan wrote:

But then, why does God give us anything to start with?

Chef wrote:

Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then it would have nothin' to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Stan, that give God his great power.

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCuqR2l4Ztk

Raekwen

_RiO_ wrote:

Raekwen wrote:

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to acquire them at all, I'm saying there should be a natural separation in the rankings based on roster strength, willingness to hop, etc. Someone with a month of playtime and shields up once shouldn't have the same opportunity for rewards that someone who has been playing since the beginning, worked very hard on their roster, and spends much more hp on shields has.

And what about someone playing the game at a casual rate for close to a year, slowly building and collecting the entire 2* roster and now looking to advance to 3*s?

Then why should you expect your advancement into 3* to suddenly be fast? Play at your own rate, and collect a 3* cover at a time. But don't assume that your rewards should be the same as people who have worked much harder... you know, those mental cases you talked about who are putting more time and/or money into it then you are.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

The core problem with allowing hitting players across different Event Shards is that it explicitly inserts unfairness into the equation by design, as opposed allowing unfairness as a result of player behavior.

Under the current system, differences in Shard scoring are controlled entirely by players: if monster scores clump in one Shard, then that Shard will have more juicy targets to feed off of. PVP scores highly correlate with how much time is left in an event: the closer to the end, generally the higher the score. Thus, allowing cross-Shard matchmaking provides an absolute, compounded advantage to later Shards. Shard 2 people can feed off of end-of-event scores in Shard 1 -- some of these points being perfectly risk-free due to the impossibility of retaliation. Shard 3 feeds off of Shard 1's event-end scores and Shard 2's event-end scores (which were already boosted by feeding of Shard 1). Shard 4 feeds off of Shard-1 scores, boosted Shard-2 scores, and double-boosted Shard-3 scores. Shard 5... well, you get the idea.

Ergo, with cross-Shard matchmaking, the optimal strategy simply becomes "always choose the last Shard," because it only requires a modicum of thought to turn each previous Shard closure into a miniature Kyipgate. The current system is hardly perfect, but cross-Shard matchmaking is not an improvement.

I know that Raekwen, for one, wasn't arguing for this, but just to clarify in general: the current Event Shard system is structurally an absolute upgrade on the non-sharded system. It's true that death brackets are likely worse in the shard where the monsters clump (I'm calling it The Hard Shard), due to a diminished bracketing pool. That problem aside, the absolute worst-case scenario under the new system is that some hardcore players treat it like the old system: there's a single event end-time that they feel compelled to join, because that's where all the monster points are.

Thus, under this worst-case scenario, this is how the current system compares to the old one:
- Hardcores (i.e. those who care a lot about individual Season placement, top alliance placement, etc.) will treat it like the old system and all enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize progression rewards will want to enter The Hard Shard.
- Players who emphasize individual placement rewards will benefit from avoiding The Hard Shard, since scoring thresholds for placement in other Shards are lower.
- People who don't optimize much will choose whatever Event Shard suits their schedules.

Yes, the worst case scenario presently is as good as the situation previously, but as long as shards "close" when they finish, I don't see the downside of cross-shard matchmaking. You might have an easier time if you climb early in a later shard but you'll have to shell out for shields to keep those points, and by the time you're shieldhopping the finishers from the previous shard aren't available. The "big mass" of players as all the shards overlap will mitigate bad MMR bubbles but final shard scoring will ultimately still be constrained by how much people in that shard shieldhop off of each other because they'll have the highest points as it finishes. Even if people wanted to piggyback off of a previous shard it's not like you'll reach 1700 off of the victors of a shard topping out at 1000

Unknown

Raekwen wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

Raekwen wrote:

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to acquire them at all, I'm saying there should be a natural separation in the rankings based on roster strength, willingness to hop, etc. Someone with a month of playtime and shields up once shouldn't have the same opportunity for rewards that someone who has been playing since the beginning, worked very hard on their roster, and spends much more hp on shields has.

And what about someone playing the game at a casual rate for close to a year, slowly building and collecting the entire 2* roster and now looking to advance to 3*s?

Then why should you expect your advancement into 3* to suddenly be fast? Play at your own rate, and collect a 3* cover at a time. But don't assume that your rewards should be the same as people who have worked much harder... you know, those mental cases you talked about who are putting more time and/or money into it then you are.

Paid more money does not equal worked much harder.

For me, the problem isn't that it needs to be easier to get 3* covers. The problem is that there's no reason to make it HARDER.

Raekwen

Semantics. The point is whether is money or time, it's a contribution someone else is willing to make that you aren't. And that's fine, but don't expect the same results.

Edit: Either way, this isn't the point of this thread. If you want to comment on the other multitude of threads regarding the fairness of transitioning players, I'll be more than happy to post there. I know I opened the bag, but trying to steer this back to where it belongs.

reckless442

For PVE, obviously, playing in the last hour or two is essential. But we are talking about sharding PVP where shields mean players don't have to grind at the very end. I'm reading a number of players who like the new time shards saying they don't mind that they can't climb as high or have to spend more to get progression rewards due to limited targets because the better end-times offset that problem.

I'm confused by that, so I would like some explanation. From what alliance members in those shards told me, it sounds like they had to spend a lot of ISO and HP to get to an 1100 or 1300 progression reward (if 1300 was even obtainable). More ISO spent on skips and more HP because if they were sentry-bombing, they had to start earlier and received lower points per match. In the past, those players would have climbed to 1300 at a much lower cost and dropped an 8-hr shield til the end. So does time-sharding for those players actually save them anything? Wouldn't dropping an 8-hr shield overnight be as conducive to sleep and cost about the same as what they need to spend now to reach the higher-level progressive rewards?

As for players who were happy to hit 800 or thereabouts due to the suppressed scores -- I'm assuming without shields -- how did time-sharding help you? At those scores, you should not have had to shield under the old system eight hours before the end of the event unless you have a low- or mid-level roster. Also, with suppressed scores in these new time shards, I would think a transition team at 800 points would be an big target due to the overall lack of points, so the player would probably still have to shield or spend to maintain their score. So if a player is content to settle for those scores and progression rewards, why couldn't they do that under the old system and still sleep?

So please explain to me how the time-shards as currently implemented actually help the players they are intended to benefit.

Unknown

I would worry about cost of/whether 1100/1300 is obtainable after the Sentry nerf. It can very well be that with Sentry bombing out of the way, concentrating players in a single time shard just means everyone ends up hitting everyone else equally and nobody ever goes up. There's no point to make a temporary solution when there's about to be an event that should have a far bigger impact on PvP scores than time shards.

HailMary

gamar wrote:

Yes, the worst case scenario presently is as good as the situation previously, but as long as shards "close" when they finish, I don't see the downside of cross-shard matchmaking. You might have an easier time if you climb early in a later shard but you'll have to shell out for shields to keep those points, and by the time you're shieldhopping the finishers from the previous shard aren't available. The "big mass" of players as all the shards overlap will mitigate bad MMR bubbles but final shard scoring will ultimately still be constrained by how much people in that shard shieldhop off of each other because they'll have the highest points as it finishes. Even if people wanted to piggyback off of a previous shard it's not like you'll reach 1700 off of the victors of a shard topping out at 1000

Shards are spaced 3 hours apart. Thus, Shard 1 closes when Shard 2 is at T-3hr & Shard 3 is at T-6hr. Let's just look at this three-Shard scenario.

Let's take players who are unshielded at the end of their Shards, and call them No-Shield players for now. Node opponents are queued in batches from the server, which means that the 4-to-5-deep stack of opponents in your nodes aren't necessarily active when you fight them. Shard-1's No-Shield players essentially all become Lil Kyips at Shard-2's 3hr mark and Shard-3's 6hr mark, because Shard 1 is ending, which locks in their scores and prevents retaliation. Similarly, Shard-2's No-Shield players all become Lil Kyips at Shard 3's 3hr mark. A good number of these Lil Kyips probably fed off of Shard 1's Lil Kyips, which boosts their scores.

We could do the same thing for the "pop a concluding 3hr shield" group of players: at Shard 2's 6hr mark & Shard 3's 9hr mark, Shard-1 3hr-shield players become Lil Kyips. At Shard 3's 6hr mark, Shard-2 3hr-shield players become Lil Kyips.

That's on the point gain side. Now for the point loss side. We can disregard the effects of score-based/win-ratio-based MMR, since we can assume that stays the same regardless of Event Shard implementation. Here's a basic timeline of who can possibly hit an unshielded player in a particular shard at various points late in an event:
- Shard-1 player, Shard-1's 3hr mark: everybody.
- Shard-1 player, Shard-1's end: everybody.
- Shard-2 player, Shard-2's 3hr mark: everybody.
- Shard-2 player, Shard-2's end: everybody not in Shard 1.
- Shard-3 player, Shard-3's 3hr mark: everybody not in Shard 1.
- Shard-3 player, Shard-3's end: everybody not in Shards 2 or 3, i.e. only fellow Shard-3 players.

This snowballing pattern only gets worse with more Shards.

tl;dr - Ceteris paribus, cross-Shard matchmaking makes choosing the very last Shard the optimal strategy for score maximization. This is arguably worse than the current worst-case scenario, where the monster players collectively select The Hard Shard.

Spencer75

Okin107 wrote:

While I totally see the point of OP, I'll have to partly disagree here.

Sure scores are open to manipulation but no one is guaranteed anything by doing so. The problem you describe affects mostly the top players. I get it, you guys cannot find 30 point matches to jump over 2k points. A question though, why do you need to do that when top progression is 1300 points? Sure, the answer is because you can and you want to break records. Or because PVP is indeed problematic at parts. Asking for a change that saves sleepless hours from the game base to not be implemented because you can't hop to insane scores is a bit selfish in my opinion.

Time shards have certainly improved the game. I understand it will not be perfect, but it is better than before. For the issue of insane scores, I don't think they're normal. They have to do something so that they can stop scores from jumping so high and not encourage them. Have you stopped to think about people (Including me) that had to spend 150 HP on 8 hr shields every PVP in order to maybe get in the T100 for the one cover? At least now I can play that last hour and win my T100 cover without spending any HP and saving my resources for Roster Slots (Another big issue).

Personally, I'm so glad my last bracket had scores of only 1100 max because my 600 points put me in #96 right at the last minute. 3 months ago I was able to go T50 with such a score, now I can barely break into T100. All because those crazy 2k+ scores that I find ridiculous and pointless. I know there is a season score to manage, but that shouldn't directly punish me for trying to get that one cover (Another big issue but not the right place to go about it).

Now, if people want to score high like you, they can go in your time shard and go nuts. After all, they will just be in the same situation like they where before. Time sharing is optional and you can choose whichever time you desire. If the big sharks gather in that 4th time you mention be my guest. I (and many others) choose to play casually in my own timezone. I don't see how this hurts veterans so much that they would want this change to go away.

Without trying to come out harsh or negative, I vote PRO end time selection!

Thank you for being the voice of reason.

I chose the earliest end time. I love it. I got top 25 in an event I don't really care about without shielding.

As for season score? I could care less. It's not hard to hit 7500 for the season and I could care less about a couple more tokens for a higher finish, it's simply not worth the effort (and shields and hp)

Please don't get rid of the new ending times because a few complain about their season score. Besides they can always join the last end time, can't blend his is an issue

tbighead21

arktos1971 wrote:

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Raekwen

HailMary wrote:

gamar wrote:

Yes, the worst case scenario presently is as good as the situation previously, but as long as shards "close" when they finish, I don't see the downside of cross-shard matchmaking. You might have an easier time if you climb early in a later shard but you'll have to shell out for shields to keep those points, and by the time you're shieldhopping the finishers from the previous shard aren't available. The "big mass" of players as all the shards overlap will mitigate bad MMR bubbles but final shard scoring will ultimately still be constrained by how much people in that shard shieldhop off of each other because they'll have the highest points as it finishes. Even if people wanted to piggyback off of a previous shard it's not like you'll reach 1700 off of the victors of a shard topping out at 1000

Shards are spaced 3 hours apart. Thus, Shard 1 closes when Shard 2 is at T-3hr & Shard 3 is at T-6hr. Let's just look at this three-Shard scenario.

Let's take players who are unshielded at the end of their Shards, and call them No-Shield players for now. Node opponents are queued in batches from the server, which means that the 4-to-5-deep stack of opponents in your nodes aren't necessarily active when you fight them. Shard-1's No-Shield players essentially all become Lil Kyips at Shard-2's 3hr mark and Shard-3's 6hr mark, because Shard 1 is ending, which locks in their scores and prevents retaliation. Similarly, Shard-2's No-Shield players all become Lil Kyips at Shard 3's 3hr mark. A good number of these Lil Kyips probably fed off of Shard 1's Lil Kyips, which boosts their scores.

We could do the same thing for the "pop a concluding 3hr shield" group of players: at Shard 2's 6hr mark & Shard 3's 9hr mark, Shard-1 3hr-shield players become Lil Kyips. At Shard 3's 6hr mark, Shard-2 3hr-shield players become Lil Kyips.

That's on the point gain side. Now for the point loss side. We can disregard the effects of score-based/win-ratio-based MMR, since we can assume that stays the same regardless of Event Shard implementation. Here's a basic timeline of who can possibly hit an unshielded player in a particular shard at various points late in an event:
- Shard-1 player, Shard-1's 3hr mark: everybody.
- Shard-1 player, Shard-1's end: everybody.
- Shard-2 player, Shard-2's 3hr mark: everybody.
- Shard-2 player, Shard-2's end: everybody not in Shard 1.
- Shard-3 player, Shard-3's 3hr mark: everybody not in Shard 1.
- Shard-3 player, Shard-3's end: everybody not in Shards 2 or 3, i.e. only fellow Shard-3 players.

This snowballing pattern only gets worse with more Shards.

tl;dr - Ceteris paribus, cross-Shard matchmaking makes choosing the very last Shard the optimal strategy for score maximization. This is arguably worse than the current worst-case scenario, where the monster players collectively select The Hard Shard.

You're making the assumption that the shields even matter once a shard closes. Why would it? That would be asinine. Close the players off from the pool completely, shield or no shield, once their shard ends. Sure, some people could still have them queued, but you get one whole fight out of it, then you can't find them again. Not really much of an advantage.

It's so simple it's baffling why people keep trying to make it harder than it is.

Ryz-aus

reckless442 wrote:

For PVE, obviously, playing in the last hour or two is essential. But we are talking about sharding PVP where shields mean players don't have to grind at the very end. I'm reading a number of players who like the new time shards saying they don't mind that they can't climb as high or have to spend more to get progression rewards due to limited targets because the better end-times offset that problem.

I'm confused by that, so I would like some explanation. From what alliance members in those shards told me, it sounds like they had to spend a lot of ISO and HP to get to an 1100 or 1300 progression reward (if 1300 was even obtainable). More ISO spent on skips and more HP because if they were sentry-bombing, they had to start earlier and received lower points per match. In the past, those players would have climbed to 1300 at a much lower cost and dropped an 8-hr shield til the end. So does time-sharding for those players actually save them anything? Wouldn't dropping an 8-hr shield overnight be as conducive to sleep and cost about the same as what they need to spend now to reach the higher-level progressive rewards?

As for players who were happy to hit 800 or thereabouts due to the suppressed scores -- I'm assuming without shields -- how did time-sharding help you? At those scores, you should not have had to shield under the old system eight hours before the end of the event unless you have a low- or mid-level roster. Also, with suppressed scores in these new time shards, I would think a transition team at 800 points would be an big target due to the overall lack of points, so the player would probably still have to shield or spend to maintain their score. So if a player is content to settle for those scores and progression rewards, why couldn't they do that under the old system and still sleep?

So please explain to me how the time-shards as currently implemented actually help the players they are intended to benefit.

For me, the old end times were at 3:30 am when I have been asleep for at least 3 hrs, or 3:30 pm where I've been at work for over 8 hrs - except for the event that ends Friday night in the US, I need a minimum of an 8 hr shield and possibly a 24 hour one. If I care at all about placement awards, I am tinykittied without spending a ton of hp to build a score that will stay top five - there is too much time left to avoid being passed. With time sharding I made a push a few hours from the end, scored 975 ( vs my normal 1100-1400) and used one shield to get second place. It's annoying my score is lower, but the fact that I am now on a fair playing field with my bracket is worth it.

I agree this is even worse for pve, but it certainly impacts pvp as well.

I don't really care about missing out on the progression rewards that much - I have a max covered x-force, fury, and iw, so what am I getting for scoring 1300? An extra cover for my second x-force or 1000 iso. 1100 being tough is annoying when there are new heroes, but if I really want it I still have the option of choosing a time slice that otherwise is terrible for me.

This doesn't mean that they shouldn't experiment with ways to even out the time slices, but at least now it is my choice to pick between the progression or placement rewards. Putting this off until the offseason is nuts IMO - this has been requested for months and there is no way they are going to get it right in two events (as we have seen). If they delayed the next season until this was working better, you would just have a new set of complainers.

Linkster79

So a bunch of really high scorers thought they would band together to try and stop what the large majority of players want, flexible end times. Boofuckinghoo.

Personally I dont give a rats **** about this. I used to score 600/700/800 easy and had to use an 8 hour shield 3 PvP's per week. Guees what? I can now score 600/700/800 and play to the final minutes. Does anyone really need to score 2000 points in a PvP when the rewards cap out at 1300? Do you really need to boost your e-**** that much? If a person really wanted to score over 1300 points they would even if it meant lots of little battles worth 15-20 points. Does anyone remember the times that 1300 was seen as a magical score attainable only by the select few like WalkYourPath or TheLadder because I do, and now some of you feel like it is your right to just steam roll past that?