TheDobot wrote: Maybe this has been touched on, but I want to write it anyway. I've been thinking about this change and I'm afraid for the average player now. The hard hitters are going to have to play more and that means they are going to feast on the lower and mid range teams in the bracket. Before no one ever had to worry about those players because they were shielded, but now they might be playing at the end crushing the average player who is just trying to just get in the top 100. Does anyone else feel this way? Just a note too...I'm not complaining just throwing this out there.
whitecat31 wrote: TheDobot wrote: Maybe this has been touched on, but I want to write it anyway. I've been thinking about this change and I'm afraid for the average player now. The hard hitters are going to have to play more and that means they are going to feast on the lower and mid range teams in the bracket. Before no one ever had to worry about those players because they were shielded, but now they might be playing at the end crushing the average player who is just trying to just get in the top 100. Does anyone else feel this way? Just a note too...I'm not complaining just throwing this out there. Well of course. It will be just like the lightning round environments. You skip around looking for easy teams to poach, because you can beat them with very little risk and health loss. Besides you will get a nice iso reward while doing it. The established teams, will easilyy beat down other peoples new teams. You could say, the way you search for teams won't allow for that once you hit a certain threshold. I would say I have teammates on Q in my alliances that I will purposely suicide into, to build up their points. It works like this. 14 players in an alliance of 20 will beat the crud out of the 2 to 3 star transitioning teams, until a threshold of 650 is met. The other 6 in the alliance get designated as special targets and get attacked by 14 players who all lose on purpose as fast as possible, using useless characters like invisible woman, bagman, one star characters, and re queuing them up to do it again as fast as possible creating a large node of opportunity to hit later. Basically lose to as many teammates as possible to drop down to the lower ranks, and pound the 2 star teams into oblivion rinse and repeat and harvest tons of ISO along the way. The two star teams that would have been ignored in the past, are now to be stepped upon.
SnowcaTT wrote: for once, this wasn't a late Friday afternoon news-dump
CNash wrote: This is more of a comment on how changes are communicated than on the topic of changes to shields, but... how about when a change is in the works, float the idea in the forum first? Instead of "this is going to happen, here are the specifics and why we're doing it", something like "We're considering making this change; we'd appreciate some feedback and will take your concerns into consideration during the planning process." I know David says, "Your feedback is welcomed", but "welcomed" doesn't necessarily mean "we're going to pay attention to it". It gives the community a heads-up well ahead of the change, it lets people feel more involved in the evolution of the game (right now, this thread feels like half constructive feedback, and half pleading with the devs to do things differently), and it helps to mitigate the "father knows best" attitude that game developers tend to have. I get that it's their product, they're the ones being paid to make it better, but at the moment it feels a little like when Microsoft announce changes to Windows or Office - "You'll really love our changes, and if you don't, well... sucks to be you I guess, we're the industry standard!".
Brothanoomsy wrote: CNash wrote: This is more of a comment on how changes are communicated than on the topic of changes to shields, but... how about when a change is in the works, float the idea in the forum first? Instead of "this is going to happen, here are the specifics and why we're doing it", something like "We're considering making this change; we'd appreciate some feedback and will take your concerns into consideration during the planning process." I know David says, "Your feedback is welcomed", but "welcomed" doesn't necessarily mean "we're going to pay attention to it". It gives the community a heads-up well ahead of the change, it lets people feel more involved in the evolution of the game (right now, this thread feels like half constructive feedback, and half pleading with the devs to do things differently), and it helps to mitigate the "father knows best" attitude that game developers tend to have. I get that it's their product, they're the ones being paid to make it better, but at the moment it feels a little like when Microsoft announce changes to Windows or Office - "You'll really love our changes, and if you don't, well... sucks to be you I guess, we're the industry standard!". This might possibly be the most sensible post in this thread. It certainly carries the most veracity.
simonsez wrote: SnowcaTT wrote: for once, this wasn't a late Friday afternoon news-dump Might as well have been. It's not like Hi-Fi has been around to address any of the reasons why this is an awful idea.
Spoit wrote: simonsez wrote: SnowcaTT wrote: for once, this wasn't a late Friday afternoon news-dump Might as well have been. It's not like Hi-Fi has been around to address any of the reasons why this is an awful idea. I understand that people are upset, I am too, but taking it out on HiFi is the wrong approach. He's just the messenger, and he works for the publisher, not the devs who made this decision
locked wrote: Whew, finally read the thread. Sorry if my suggestion is dumb for some very basic reasons. Here it is. Shields are very convenient to protect one's score and to allow for some life. That was their intended purpose after all. How about we don't nerf shields but the hopping instead? If one breaks shield in anything but the last 10 minutes of it, they are subject to a point decrease multiplier a la point refresh stacks in PvE. Moreover, the decrease periods should stack leading to less and less effective point gains. This way players can still use as many shields as they wish and break whenever they wish but they would just penalize themselves for attempting to get ahead through tons of shieldhops and people that more or less play normally (only shield when they have to go, run out of healthpacks, etc.) will be ahead instead since they will be getting normal point gains instead of +5 or +7 per hop. Of course having more versatile shields would help as well. Maybe change the 3 hr to 3-4, add a 5-6 hr shield, change the 8 hr to 8-10, add a 12-15 hr shield. Definitely needs more variety and will encourage better planning and not obsessing over scores (I would hope). Thoughts? Flames? Post-disclaimer: I do shieldhops but only out of necessity and not enjoyment. I hope there are other ways introduced to compete besides ranks and scores, new exciting modes, since excellent competitive players like reckless, Daveomite and many others I have come to know through the forums deserve to have a fun outlet for their desire to prove themselves in their favourite game and to knock themselves out if they wish so.
wymtime wrote: I agree that we should not take our frustration out on HiFi, but the fact of the matter is he should be on the forum taking some Q and A as to why the changes are being made this particular way. This is part of his role and why his position was created. By having even a short Q and A to give more of an explanation would at least give the people on the forum an understanding as to what is going on. Even if we are 1% of the player base there should be a place players can go to get a better understanding as to why the Devs are changing the game in specific ways. More communication is always better. When ice or Dave are answering questions people on the forum are less abrasive, more willing to listen, and ask questions to get clarification. Without we get people lashing out in frustration because we don't agree with the way the Devs are changing the game and don't understand why they choose this particular way to change the game. D3 has come light years in the past 7 months with communication and that is great. There is still room to grow and I hope it happens soon.
gobstopper wrote: As far as why the devs implement certain changes in the game, I feel this is obvious as well. They need $ to survive. Casuals form the largest pool of potential paying players. Thus, they strive to cater to casuals (to convert them) without alienating the established veterans. Balancing this dichotomy is not easy. I think many people do realize this. But it doesn't mean we won't call them out when they post changes like this one - which appears to benefit the 99% but actually will make things more difficult (unless they pair this change with additional ones that modify the ladder system).
wymtime wrote: So I will look at this idea from the point of view that we want to stop extreme shield hopping and have scores be closer to the progression totals. If we penalize someone for breaking a shield early, let's say 15 points per match hoppers instead of generating 50 points per match per hop will get 35 unless they wait till their shield is about to expire, or fully expires. If people are only making 2 matches per hop you will bring scores down, but will not stop people from hopping and have people being PTW by just hopping more and out spending other players. Your idea will lower scores but will not really address the issue of PTW. I still think the best 2 options are set the number of shields a player can use in one PVP. It might be 3 it might be 5. This way players can only spend so much on shields to win.
Jameson2014 wrote: Another thing to think about... This isn't going to stop outside of game communication. It will simply increase. I have an idea that I'm mapping out to continue shield hopping, but will take pretty much most of the top alliances to communicate, and hops to be on large scale. This is totally possible, and, in my opinion, a nice way to say "nu Uh" to the devs trying to be our parents. Lol. Why on earth is one of the justifications "outside game communication" as if that's a bad thing. So, like oph, but bigger, and more permanent.