Operation Pay Harder: A Debrief

Options
1679111214

Comments

  • HailMary
    HailMary Posts: 2,179
    Options
    gamar wrote:
    It's not like d3p could refresh all the stacks when a shard ends or anything, that's crazy talk
    Obviously, that would solve the "later Shards are totes better" problem, and definitely isn't merely a crude band-aid.
    gamar wrote:
    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.
    Why "almost none"?
    gamar wrote:
    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.
    Sorry, I missed the part where "the context of this discussion" was "only top-scoring people who never lose points on shieldhops."
    gamar wrote:
    Still not seeing it
    Clearly.
  • HailMary wrote:
    Obviously, that would solve the "later Shards are totes better" problem, and definitely isn't merely a crude band-aid.
    Don't beg the question
    HailMary wrote:
    Why "almost none"?
    Because that's how many nodes worth more than 10 points I ever see near the end of an event?

    How exactly are you going to convince MPQ to queue up 15 people ALL in Shard 1 and ALL with 1000 pts?
    HailMary wrote:
    Sorry, I missed the part where "the context of this discussion" was "only top-scoring people who are unbad at shield hopping."
    You missed the part of this discussion where it's about hypothetical point inflation, which is determined entirely by the top scoring people in the shard(s)?
  • HailMary
    HailMary Posts: 2,179
    Options
    gamar wrote:
    Don't beg the question
    You'll pardon me if I don't take debate tips from the "Still not seeing it" guy. icon_rolleyes.gif
    gamar wrote:
    HailMary wrote:
    Why "almost none"?
    Because that's how many nodes worth more than 10 points I ever see near the end of an event?
    If you're consistently putting up 1600+ scores, then that makes sense. Otherwise, well, our mileages clearly vary... by a lot.
    gamar wrote:
    How exactly are you going to convince MPQ to queue up 15 people ALL in Shard 1 and ALL with 1000 pts?
    Are you saying you don't see a problem if the situation isn't literally the worst scenario possible? Also, there's that part about later Shards sniping earlier Shards that mikey highlighted.
    gamar wrote:
    HailMary wrote:
    Sorry, I missed the part where "the context of this discussion" was "only top-scoring people who are unbad at shield hopping."
    You missed the part of this discussion where it's about hypothetical point inflation, which is determined entirely by the top scoring people in the shard?
    So, earlier, when you said "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.", you were specifically referring to top scorers as a group?

    They generally start shieldhopping more than six hours out -- many of them start hopping far earlier. You're either playing musical chairs with "the context of this discussion," or you have... an unorthodox perspective on how top scorers behave. icon_e_wink.gif
  • lokiagentofhotness
    lokiagentofhotness Posts: 192 Tile Toppler
    Options
    lukewin 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.


    Yeah I got 848 and number 6 which is the best I have ever done in a pvp. Oh also did not have to stay up to 2am to do it.
  • homeinvasion
    homeinvasion Posts: 415 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    My 2 cents is that it was never PVP that had the main problem with end times its always been PVE, especially when new characters are released. This also just smacks to me of an oligopoly of the Day 300+ American players that want to keep the lions share so tinykitty it up for everyone else because they want to keep the monopoly of all the rewards, all the time. I love that D3 are proactive and try new things, I agree they should playtest more, grats you found a small loophole for a fractional percentage of the highest end players that can abuse the system, you were going to get the same rewards anyway, by the name of the post you all agreed to spend more money to achieve these startling results.

    IMO D3 just leave it as is, it helps far more of the unheard masses than the few very vocal peeps on this forum.
  • reckless442
    reckless442 Posts: 532 Critical Contributor
    Options
    lukewin 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.


    Yeah I got 848 and number 6 which is the best I have ever done in a pvp. Oh also did not have to stay up to 2am to do it.
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?
  • Lystrata
    Lystrata Posts: 322 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    lukewin 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.


    Yeah I got 848 and number 6 which is the best I have ever done in a pvp. Oh also did not have to stay up to 2am to do it.
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?

    Not particularly. It actually seems more even-handed. The top ranking players fight other players on their level. The lower tier players do likewise. You all had to fight each other anyway - at least this way, anyone who doesn't want to compete against every X-men alliance out there can choose a less competitive time shard. Which doesn't actually suggest it's a 'comfortable ride'. I still had to fight just as much to get my 600+ points in the last PvP, still got hit and lost 25ish points at times, still had to retaliate down to the wire before shielding at 2hr 59m.

    The only 'comfortable' part about it was I didn't have to wake up at 4am to do it.
  • Do I not see a problem with people with comparable rosters competing with each other for rewards while people with weaker, and also comparable rosters compete against each other?

    No. No I don't. I see somebody (me included) scoring better than they ever have before and perhaps deciding to continue playing because now they might have a chance at advancing in the game.

    Almost everybody I've seen post here that is either in the transition phase or past it has said that the grind is long and arduous and a labor of love. What D3 has done is gone and said, "We understand, and while we're not going to make it easier, at least we're going to make it more enjoyable for you."

    The funny thing about all this that I'm seeing, is that the "end-game" players who consistently achieve 1K+ scores in PVP seem to be the ones who are demanding the devs make it easier for them, while the transition players are all saying, "We don't need you to make it easier, just make it fair and enjoyable."
  • reckless442
    reckless442 Posts: 532 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Lystrata wrote:
    lukewin wrote:
    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.


    Yeah I got 848 and number 6 which is the best I have ever done in a pvp. Oh also did not have to stay up to 2am to do it.
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?

    Not particularly. It actually seems more even-handed. The top ranking players fight other players on their level. The lower tier players do likewise. You all had to fight each other anyway - at least this way, anyone who doesn't want to compete against every X-men alliance out there can choose a less competitive time shard. Which doesn't actually suggest it's a 'comfortable ride'. I still had to fight just as much to get my 600+ points in the last PvP.

    The only 'comfortable' part about it was I didn't have to wake up at 4am to do it.
    So when there are new covers, it's fine that the people who play more and push harder get one cover because they have to fight death brackets due to the Devs' creationg of alliances and the season system, yet the "casual" player can get two to three covers by putting up 800 points because they face no competition.

    Yeah, that seems fair.
  • Lystrata
    Lystrata Posts: 322 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    So when there are new covers, it's fine that the people who play more and push harder get one cover because they have to fight death brackets due to the Devs' creationg of alliances and the season system, yet the "casual" player can get two to three covers by putting up 800 points because they face no competition.

    Yeah, that seems fair.

    How is that any different than before? With only one time shard, everyone was competing in the same one. Everyone had to fight the T10 players. That doesn't seem to be a consideration here.

    And you're not actually forced into a death bracket. There are multiple options for you. You want to score high, fine - go in the 'death' bracket. But for everyone else, being able to play without waking up in the middle of the night takes precedence over unattainable 4000+ scores.

    As I've said many times, I don't think this is perfect. I can see why there's frustration. But I honestly think it is fair that players at equal levels are fighting each other, rather than 1* - 2* transitioning players getting hit by maxed out 3* - 4* (insofar as 4* can be atm) players.

    This really just reads to me like the top players got accustomed to slaughtering anyone beneath them, while coordinating shield hops with each other... and now the tiny fish have moved into different ponds, are backlashing against losing their easy targets.
  • lokiagentofhotness
    lokiagentofhotness Posts: 192 Tile Toppler
    Options
    lukewin 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.


    Yeah I got 848 and number 6 which is the best I have ever done in a pvp. Oh also did not have to stay up to 2am to do it.
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?

    Except that I don't? I can't beat someone with sentryhood which means I can't beat anyone with 50 points - so all I get are 20 pointers, ie. it takes me 5 games to get a 100 points where it takes someone with sentryhood what? 2 games and 2 min? People need to stop assuming that playing up to 1300 means you play "harder" it's plenty hard for me to get up to 600 with my limited roster, and almost impossible beyond that because I have to skip all the 50 pointers to find an easier target with 15-20 points that I can barely beat and have to waste health packs/shield to maintain. AND I don't get the 800 and above progression rewards, which are usually pretty great. Top players also usually get better alliance rewards than the rest. Is better progression awards / better alliance rewards not enough? Must we take away covers from the transitioning / new players as well in the interest of "fairness"?

    FYI as my roster improves I will surely end up in the same situation as everyone else in the top 1 percent? So it's not like I'm going to "coast" forever.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,309 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    So when there are new covers, it's fine that the people who play more and push harder get one cover because they have to fight death brackets due to the Devs' creationg of alliances and the season system, yet the "casual" player can get two to three covers by putting up 800 points because they face no competition.

    Yeah, that seems fair.

    This is still highly hypothetical. As I see it developing now, the good prizes will still go to the ones that push harder... within their "weight class". In an ideal world, hard-working new and transitioning players should be able to grab good rewards by winning them from their less hard-working peers. Same should be for the veteran: you get rewards by pushing harder than other veterans. However, as it has been from almost the beginning until very recently, new and transitioning players never, ever, ever had a chance to top 25 or better because around that point they started to find only hardcore players who had them as quick snacks to shield hop their way to unnecessary and ridiculously inflated scores. The features you name, do not quite take us to the "ideal world" I mentioned above but are steps in the right direction.

    That said, I completely understand that you are upset that the status quo for your class of feeding on weak teams your way to over 1k points then hopscotch your pals to 2k+ is being shaken. Must be a very upsetting and difficult time and you have my sympathy.
  • 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...
  • mags1587
    mags1587 Posts: 1,020 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    There seems to be an assumption here that the time shard with the death brackets will always be predictable. That's not the case, as it will depend on which shard the top alliances choose per event. The majority of the playerbase will be flying blind on which shard is the death shard this event.

    I get that it's tough for people transitioning from 2* to 3* to place and do think that D3 does still have work to do on MMR (the opponents you fight), but I don't think the solution is to make the veteran players fight *only* with each other and be bracketed *only* with each other. Because what's the motivation to level your roster in that case? What if there was a hard and fast line -- say, max 6 3* characters and you're considered a veteran. Would there be any motivation to max your characters in that scenario?

    The PvP system has always been designed to pit everyone against everyone. Newbies, vets, and everyone in between. The time slices have exacerbated the problem with sharding and death brackets. If the devs are going to keep this system I think they need to go all the way and create two types of PvP brackets -- easy and hard with rewards to match. And if there's a concern about vets joining easy PvP to have an easier time of it, well, an idea is to set it up so the player has no control over which type of PvP he/she joins -- the player has no control over sharding right now, after all.
  • Eddiemon
    Eddiemon Posts: 1,470 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?

    No. It sounds good to me.
    If you care about progression rewards and Season rewards then you can hand out with those who care about similar things and fight to the death. Because that's where the points live. There isn't any point mixing in players whose aim in life is to get a top 150 cover because they aren't worth points to you and are someone you have to pay to skip. In the old model, they were the people you were targetting to get points through shield hopping anyhow.
    If you care about placing and don't care about those things then you can compete with the placement players and not be automaticcaly blocked out of placement covers by people who already have the character fully covered and are only after ridiculously high point scores.

    This is what we call win-win, where everyone can have what they want.

    Over time sharding may gravitate to one timezone being the high points timezone and the other timezones being for players who are transitioning and don't want to spend heavily on shields because the event ends at an inconvenient time. Or everyone may disperse across the timezones and we'll see scores balance out. I don't know enough about group dynamics to predict long-term.

    Everyone has a choice here, and railing because other people choose to play their way makes your chosen playstyle less optimal isn't really a good argument. Is Thorina more important to you than season placement rewards? Play that way. If season placement is more important then play that way. But don't insist that other people are forced to play a specific way just so you can get more rewards off them.
  • Eddiemon
    Eddiemon Posts: 1,470 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    mags1587 wrote:
    There seems to be an assumption here that the time shard with the death brackets will always be predictable. That's not the case, as it will depend on which shard the top alliances choose per event. The majority of the playerbase will be flying blind on which shard is the death shard this event.

    It will either gel or it won't. After a season we will either end up with a known death bracket (whether it be #4 or the one that ends at midnight somewhere in the US or some other indicator), or we will end up with peopel dispersed across their timezones and brackets being competetive.

    But yes, for the first few events predicting the pack behaviours is a challenge.
  • Lystrata wrote:
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?

    Not particularly. It actually seems more even-handed. The top ranking players fight other players on their level. The lower tier players do likewise. You all had to fight each other anyway - at least this way, anyone who doesn't want to compete against every X-men alliance out there can choose a less competitive time shard. Which doesn't actually suggest it's a 'comfortable ride'. I still had to fight just as much to get my 600+ points in the last PvP, still got hit and lost 25ish points at times, still had to retaliate down to the wire before shielding at 2hr 59m.

    The only 'comfortable' part about it was I didn't have to wake up at 4am to do it.

    I must admit, it completely baffles me that in a game whose income is based solely on players paying for an advantage, people continuously complain that those payers...have an advantage.

    In your example, you lost 25ish points at times and only seemed to buy one 3 hour shield. That is a very, very comfortable ride my friend. I got sniped for 40+ almost every shield hop and bought I don't even know how many shields/boost.

    And if you think about hp as money (which essentially is what it is), it's "fair" if you can pay $75 for access to a particular set of rewards while others have to pay $1000 dollars and still possibly miss out on those rewards just because they enjoy playing the game at a higher level and have put time, effort, and a lot of money into playing at that high level. Ok...

    So financially, the argument to D3 is players who were paying very little get to pay even less now but those players are happy. And players who paid the most have to pay even more to get less are upset but shouldn't be because this is all...fair. And will be especially fair when the top prizes are a new character/GThor. :/
  • mags1587
    mags1587 Posts: 1,020 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Eddiemon wrote:
    mags1587 wrote:
    There seems to be an assumption here that the time shard with the death brackets will always be predictable. That's not the case, as it will depend on which shard the top alliances choose per event. The majority of the playerbase will be flying blind on which shard is the death shard this event.

    It will either gel or it won't. After a season we will either end up with a known death bracket (whether it be #4 or the one that ends at midnight somewhere in the US or some other indicator), or we will end up with peopel dispersed across their timezones and brackets being competetive.

    But yes, for the first few events predicting the pack behaviours is a challenge.

    The third option, and the one that worries me, is that the time shard with the death brackets will be different every PvP as the top alliances choose shard 1 for one PvP, then shard 3, then shard 4, etc. It might be a little far fetched, but it is possible.
  • lokiagentofhotness
    lokiagentofhotness Posts: 192 Tile Toppler
    Options
    seasong wrote:
    Lystrata wrote:
    Which is purely a function of the need for high scorers to create their own death brackets to get progression rewards, maintain season scores, and help their alliances. Is that really how the game should be -- that the strongest players have to fight each other for placements, while the rest of the MPQ universe gets to ride comfortably to good placement rewards without much effort? Do you not see a problem with that?

    Not particularly. It actually seems more even-handed. The top ranking players fight other players on their level. The lower tier players do likewise. You all had to fight each other anyway - at least this way, anyone who doesn't want to compete against every X-men alliance out there can choose a less competitive time shard. Which doesn't actually suggest it's a 'comfortable ride'. I still had to fight just as much to get my 600+ points in the last PvP, still got hit and lost 25ish points at times, still had to retaliate down to the wire before shielding at 2hr 59m.

    The only 'comfortable' part about it was I didn't have to wake up at 4am to do it.

    I must admit, it completely baffles me that in a game whose income is based solely on players paying for an advantage, people continuously complain that those payers...have an advantage.

    In your example, you lost 25ish points at times and only seemed to buy one 3 hour shield. That is a very, very comfortable ride my friend. I got sniped for 40+ almost every shield hop and bought I don't even know how many shields/boost.

    And if you think about hp as money (which essentially is what it is), it's "fair" if you can pay $75 for access to a particular set of rewards while others have to pay $1000 dollars and still possibly miss out on those rewards just because they enjoy playing the game at a higher level and have put time, effort, and a lot of money into playing at that high level. Ok...

    So financially, the argument to D3 is players who were paying very little get to pay even less now but those players are happy. And players who paid the most have to pay even more to get less are upset but shouldn't be because this is all...fair. And will be especially fair when the top prizes are a new character/GThor. :/

    I have to buy a LOT of shields just to get 20 points each game and max out at 700 points, ie. no progression rewards beyond that - which IIRC is what? 1000 points, HP, a 3* character, a 4* character, and oh yeah an alliance top prize HP+PVP cover of the moment. Again I ask - is that not enough? 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? Which will never happen by the way, ever - unless they win top 10 once in a while. Buying covers isn't that easy if you can't even get a single cover for a character, and 3*s aren't guaranteed in cover packs, even. Everyone acts like someone who wins with 800 points gets the exact same prizes as someone who wins with 1500 points. That is patently untrue. I'm tired of hearing about how transitioning players are "coasting" when I have to play 5 games to get 100 points for a 166maxed out player's 2.
  • pmorcs
    pmorcs Posts: 126 Tile Toppler
    Options
    HailMary's bulleted list is roughly how I've been explaining it to people as well. I also figure it provides a little extra per-event strategy -- assuming, as mentioned above, that things solidify into a common theme where one predictable shart gets all the hardcores.

    HM lays out broad categories of players and where they might benefit the most, but there's nothing to prevent you from shart-hopping. If I need a given cover badly, then I should pick one of the underplayed ones. But if I don't, then I should join the one with all the swole points. Thus I can maximize on either points and rewards as I see fit throughout the season..