Operation Pay Harder: A Debrief

xKOBALTx

Spoit wrote:

Part of it is probably sentry going away soon, but the brackets have been terrible since this started. IIRC, my top 10 was like 1.9k for my bracket. I didn't care about IM40, so I only went to 1.2k before shielding because I was out of packs, and that was barely top 25

I'm pretty back-and-forth about how I feel regarding this whole time-slot sharding debacle. I happened to be in Spoit's bracket and I wanted to point out that this whole thing does affect more than just the top players of the top alliances. The repercussions can be felt much further down the bracket.

The normal end-times just happen to be my preferred end-times, but they way they are skewed now I'm tempted to abandon them. That will allow me to get better placement for covers I need, but likely at the expense of grabbing progression rewards and the total scores I provide to my alliance. We are among those alliances in the sometimes tenuous stretch between 85-115. These scoring shifts may not seem like much, but they really can create quite a swing in this tight scoring area from event to event and eventually at season end.

Unknown

Who cares about all that ****? Until we have a playable spider pig character they need to ignore all other issues completely.

lukewin

reckless442 wrote:

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

In PVP, I'm currently more focused on placement (covers) more than anything else, since my alliance is working towards growing in PVP and doesn't require a minimum. I got Top 25 (2 covers, I could actually use). I scored 732 points, 22nd place. Used 2 3 hr shields. I think without the time shards, my score would've got me Top 50, if that, so one less cover, less ISO and 25 less HP. The extra HP is a bonus, the extra ISO is nice, but that cover is a huge deal. I normally don't even hit the 700 pt progression reward, so that is more of a bonus. I am in the ISO rich, cover poor bunch, so placement that means more covers is nice.

HailMary

Raekwen wrote:

You're making the assumption that the shields even matter once a shard closes. Why would it? That would be asinine.

Nowhere have I assumed anything of the sort. I laid out the "pop a 3hr shield" scenario simply for people who couldn't extrapolate that for themselves from my No-Shield example. I'm glad we're agreed that everyone would be functionally shielded after their Shard ends.

Raekwen wrote:

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.

Except that this allows everyone in later Shards to do this using a three-node stack that, at maximum, is about 12-15 opponents deep. People don't even need to do it intentionally. Everyone in later Shards who plays at around those times gets a couple of nodes that are perfectly retal-immune, and once earlier Shards start ending, the number of people who could possibly attack them shrinks.

Raekwen wrote:

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

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

_RiO_

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.

From over half a year of personal experience; most of the points don't really start flowing in the lower MMR bubbles until the last few hours. So yes; if you want the progression rewards you must play close to the finish time or be happy with a lot of suboptimal point matches draining your health packs quickly, necessitating intermediate shielding and generally just costing too much time to really be a viable alternative to the last minute spurt. Please understand; the situation at the middle ground of the game is completely different from the top end of the game. (And sadly, Demiurge has probably left the gap to grow long enough that both are no longer reconcilable.)

reckless442 wrote:

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?

Some middle-ground players are hardcore and are pushing themselves far harder than they should be to compete. They do not make up the norm. Most players are in the middle ground and are not interested in the higher progression rewards because they would never ever reach them anyway; not under the new time-slice system and not under the old global system. Most players in the middle ground will just be happy with having the mandatory 150 HP entry fee of an 8hrs shield reduced to a more modest 75 HP optional insurance fee.

reckless442 wrote:

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.

You assume wrongly for both. As a transitioning player I was required to shield for the full 8 hours because otherwise I would be blasted apart at the 3hr mark by teams of full 166s. That was at a score of max 600, where the 166 wall would have come into full effect and would absolutely 100% block me from advancing further. Going into the final stretch without a shield would guarantee being booted from the top 100.

reckless442 wrote:

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?

Because the scoring is severly reduced and we can now pick a timeslice that allows us to play up to the last moment of the event, we can make one push from zero to about 300 for the token and then at about 4 hours left to go on the clock we can push ahead in one go to about 500 (where the 166 wall now stands) in the top 25. Then we shield for 3hrs at half the HP cost for the 8hrs shield before and are leaped over by a few of those 166-ers coming in late, but we still hang on to the top 100 placement with much greater success than before, simply because 3hrs is substantially less time for people to leap over us than 8hrs.

In other words; we have better odds at a top 50 win and have to spend less HP to get it.

reckless442 wrote:

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

Simple; they are benefitting their intended audience. They're just not intended to benefit the .1 hardcore percentile of the userbase you are thinking about...

Raekwen

Ryz-aus wrote:

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.

Wouldn't you rather have both decent scores AND play in a bracket with people from your time zone?

Linkster79 wrote:

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. tinykitty.

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?

You couldn't have missed the point more. No one is saying that there shouldn't be separate event shards, they are saying let's get them right. No one is trying to take away your baby.

_RiO_

Raekwen wrote:

You couldn't have missed the point more. No one is saying that there shouldn't be separate event shards, they are saying let's get them right. No one is trying to take away your baby.

reckless442, in this thread's opening post, wrote:

We ask D3 to remove the time-shards and return PVP events to single end times. While it is admirable that D3 wanted to find a solution to the inconvenient end times for European players, this system is a failure. Instead, let’s rotate end times between events.

You were saying again, Raekwen?

Raekwen

Alright, I missed that line. I think the event sharding concept is great, let's just fix it so it's fair across all of the shards. So at least, I'm not trying to take away anyone's baby. In fact, I'm trying to help a population I'm not part of.

Since my game playing isn't affected, I should just let it go and let the stubborn people get their wish.

Pylgrim

JessyC01 wrote:

For a lot of people (myself included), there are only a few rewards that are of any concern. Namely, they are: alliance top 100 prize, PVP top 5, 1300 progression. I can't speak for everyone, but I have no interest in racking up monster +2000 scores, just so that at the end of the season I can get terrible season rewards that won't come close to covering the amount of HP I spent in shieldhoppping to get +2000 in the first place. My season bracket is filled with try-hards from the top alliances.

I think this touches on another important issue: the continuous stream of new players, heavily compounded by alliances being free and the new dynamics introduced by timeline bracketing will necessitate a revision of the awarding schema.

Lystrata

onimus wrote:

This whole test was supposed to make it better for people who the traditional ending time did not work for but, in an exceedingly ironic twist, it has only made it worse for them.

Not really. They can still pick a particular time (shard 4, from what I'm understanding?) and be absolutely no worse off than before. The rest of us, who don't care about 4000+ scores, are better off.

seasong wrote:

Finally, I've seen some people say, "Why should D3 listen to the top 1% of players when it makes the rest of the 99% player base happy?" I think the simple answer is that that 1% shoulders much more than 1% of the cost of the game. As Operation Pay Harder highlights, to truly compete requires a financial commitment. D3/Demiurge should be commended for making a very enjoyable game on the F2P level but on the other hand, the needs of the paying players who help sustain the game shouldn't be glossed over. Different end times offer a seemingly universal benefit in providing choice, but for top competitive players, there is still no real choice. Thus, top players are saddled with the negative effects without fully realizing the positive. I think D3/Demiurge should do more mitigate those negative effects.

Actually, I can see this playing out quite, quite differently. Now that there are various end times, more players may well be willing to buy HP for 3 hour shields. When events ended at crazy o'clock my time, I wouldn't even bother with a shield - even shielded, if you don't play the last 6-7 hours, you'll end up out of the T100. What's the point of wasting money on that?

But now that I can choose any time convenient to me, I will happily shield for 3 hours, and am more willing to buy HP to do so - as it is no longer an automatic waste of money.


Personal points:

* They haven't actually removed your ability to score super high - as we see in this thread. That option still fully exists. All this has done is allow people who don't care so much about T10 to play in a time of their choosing, and arguably against players more on-level with themselves as they don't have to automatically face X-Men, etc.

* Also, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, there may be the need for tweaks and restructure. I doubt this is the most perfected system possible. My concern is that after two PvPs, T10 players are suddenly clamouring to get the whole thing removed - which is A) a complete slap in the face to the devs who finally did something about all the forum complaining, and shows little regard for the rest of the player base.

Ryz-aus

Raekwen wrote:

Ryz-aus wrote:

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.

Wouldn't you rather have both decent scores AND play in a bracket with people from your time zone?

Absolutely, but I don't want them to scrap time sharding until they figure that out which is what reckless called for in the OP.

For me, scrapping it would be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - I think some people find this first implementation of time slices an overall negative and I want to be clear that I am not one of them. It has its problems, but it is not worse than having one time slice - this is from someone who has a pretty much maxed roster and has been in the top 50 every season (I had one season in 2nd and have slacked ever sense )

Raekwen

HailMary wrote:

Raekwen wrote:

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.

Except that this allows everyone in later Shards to do this using a three-node stack that, at maximum, is about 12-15 opponents deep. People don't even need to do it intentionally. Everyone in later Shards who plays at around those times gets a couple of nodes that are perfectly retal-immune, and once earlier Shards start ending, the number of people who could possibly attack them shrinks.

Let's be realistic though. Of the 12-15 people in your node batch queue, how many of them are typically useful targets?

HailMary

Raekwen wrote:

Let's be realistic though. Of the 12-15 people in your node batch queue, how many of them are typically useful targets?

Players from earlier Shards are much more likely to be worth more, since they're later in their climbs. This is especially true for those near/past the end of their events, since they're done climbing/hopping already. They've (ideally) already reached their maximum score by the time you hit them.

P.S. - In general, the proportion of useful targets in my node stacks varies wildly depending on my score, timing, tanking, etc.

Raekwen

I don't think the effect would be all that drastic. Certainly not enough to make everyone migrate to the end shard at the expense of choosing the time zone that works best for them.

Unknown

arktos1971 wrote:

Budget Player Cadet wrote:

I did. I made the choice, and I played as hard as I could once I figured out how and got my tools sharpened. 'Course, now that's not an option. And I'm not the only one transitioning. How do you get 4* covers without having 4*s?

I totally agree with all that you said. And I understand your concern reading your explanations.

Your situation is not as desperate as I thought though and I apologized if I seemed judgmental.

Now, it may seem very simplistic/easy, but if you can't make it to 553 with winning the covers when Sentry is nerfed, maybe buying the missing covers will help you ? If there's one character to invest money on, it's him.

I don't know if you spent some money in the game already, but strategywise, it seems obvious D3P will make everything possible to make players invest in the game one day or another.

What do you think ?

I think I could drop 50 bucks on a game I'm getting sick of, or buy the new Smash Bros.

HailMary

Raekwen wrote:

I don't think the effect would be all that drastic. Certainly not enough to make everyone migrate to the end shard at the expense of choosing the time zone that works best for them.

Indeed, I don't know if it'll be drastic.

However, it would mean that, for score maximization, Shard 5 > Shard 4 > Shard 3 > Shard 2 > Shard 1 by design, since each Shard will have more good targets and fewer incoming attacks than the previous. This would be true essentially independent of player behavior. The current system does not define an explicit Shard hierarchy, since the ease with which one scores high is determined by the other players who choose to join that Shard.

Unknown

I think I could drop 50 bucks on a game I'm getting sick of, or buy the new Smash Bros.

Last HP sale they had I bought Mario Kart, I just bought Smash bros lol. The only reason I could afford last pvp was my alliance slot refund

lots of high quality games being released for the holidays!

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

Raekwen wrote:

You're making the assumption that the shields even matter once a shard closes. Why would it? That would be asinine.

Nowhere have I assumed anything of the sort. I laid out the "pop a 3hr shield" scenario simply for people who couldn't extrapolate that for themselves from my No-Shield example. I'm glad we're agreed that everyone would be functionally shielded after their Shard ends.

Raekwen wrote:

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.

Except that this allows everyone in later Shards to do this using a three-node stack that, at maximum, is about 12-15 opponents deep. People don't even need to do it intentionally. Everyone in later Shards who plays at around those times gets a couple of nodes that are perfectly retal-immune, and once earlier Shards start ending, the number of people who could possibly attack them shrinks.

It's not like d3p could refresh all the stacks when a shard ends or anything, that's crazy talk

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

Raekwen wrote:

I don't think the effect would be all that drastic. Certainly not enough to make everyone migrate to the end shard at the expense of choosing the time zone that works best for them.

Indeed, I don't know if it'll be drastic.

However, it would mean that, for score maximization, Shard 5 > Shard 4 > Shard 3 > Shard 2 > Shard 1 by design, since each Shard will have more good targets and fewer incoming attacks than the previous. This would be true essentially independent of player behavior. The current system does not define an explicit Shard hierarchy, since the ease with which one scores high is determined by the other players who choose to join that Shard.

Agree 100% HM. Also the slot 5 people would happily hit particularly slots 1 to 3 guys for big points towards the end of their events when they still have 12-24 hours left to climb and shield - to the further detriment of scores in earlier slots and the very players that have chosen a "convenient" end time. Higher scorers would simply choose the last slot, and there would probably be more widespread complaints about the system

FWIW my view is that its working fine, the impact was totally predictable for veteran players once we understood the sharding (which we didn't until a little way into hulk) with higher points being achievable in the shards with concentrations of higher scorers. But I think maybe 3 slots rather than 5 would improve the distribution of players and hence points.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

Shards are spaced 3 hours apart.

They aren't uniformly spaced, for Heavy Metal for example they were 10pm, 4am, 7am, 1pm, 4pm (EST)

HailMary wrote:

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.

Even supposing d3p doesn't clear out node stacks whenever a shard ends, which they could easily do, how many of those queued battles are going to have worthwhile points? Almost none. Besides, the only reason Kyip mattered was that you could hit him over and over, if you're calling a "once and done" battle a "Lil Kyip," then when you're shield hopping (and if you aren't you'll rapidly lose your "inflated" points just from being unshielded at t-6 or t-3) EVERYONE is a "Lil Kyip."

HailMary wrote:

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.

Frankly, who cares, because the people who are bad at shield hopping and are losing points aren't determining the Shards' top scores so they're irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

HailMary wrote:

tl;dr - Ceteris paribus, cross-Shard matchmaking makes choosing the very last Shard the optimal strategy for score maximization.

Still not seeing it