gamar wrote: gobstopper wrote: Sontar wrote: I think the positions on this issue are neatly split along the line of those equating spending HP for hops with being competitive and those that do not. For the former group this change threatens to destroy/reduce competition because fewer players are able to participate. For the latter the change will increase competition by bringing the portion of the shield hoppers that can not sustain hopping after the change down to a level playing field. I don't think you understand how the ladder system works. If you have a level playing field that means no one is gaining points faster than they lose. Which also means PvP turns into PvE - whoever can grind the most in the least amount of time wins. The only difference is PvP doesn't have scaling and rubberbanding to help transitioners. Thus, the people with max rosters will still have the advantage - as they should. It also means placement is determined completely randomly in the final minutes. I don't agree that the positions on this issue are neatly split. It's an uneven split, between those that understand the meta and dynamics of PvP scoring, and those that don't. You might see the 2k scores and feel "robbed" of top rewards due to P2W. But you have to understand that if top scorers were suddenly scoring only 1k due to shield hop limits, you STILL have ZERO shot at beating them. The top scorers are providing the points for the rest of the playerbase. If their scores go down, so will yours. Finally, the case for leveling the playing field is flawed at best. The players with maxed rosters weren't magically gifted them overnight. They either put in a ton of time, or paid $. Why should those who either have not put in the time or the $ be able to run with those who have? (Referring only to PvP, as in PvE anyone can win, independent of roster strength, as long as you have the essential characters) Among the people that as you say "understand the dynamic of PVP scoring" I've seen arguments in this thread that this will (a) not prevent 2k scores in the slightest, (b) make the top scores much lower but lower everybody else's scores similarly, and (c) scrunch everyone's scores together as intended but that's bad There might be a few alliances willing to spend and coordinate every 8 hours to do the necessary hopping. But as usual, you forget that 99% of players aren't going for 1300. There's HARD numbers in the game system - the "good" progression rewards, the post-600 "wall of 166"... If scores go down after the change (and I think they will just through the nature of disincentives) the guy at 600 or 700 points doesn't need people at 1500 to get his high point battles, and as top20 and top50 take lower scores those races will open up for him again
gobstopper wrote: Sontar wrote: I think the positions on this issue are neatly split along the line of those equating spending HP for hops with being competitive and those that do not. For the former group this change threatens to destroy/reduce competition because fewer players are able to participate. For the latter the change will increase competition by bringing the portion of the shield hoppers that can not sustain hopping after the change down to a level playing field. I don't think you understand how the ladder system works. If you have a level playing field that means no one is gaining points faster than they lose. Which also means PvP turns into PvE - whoever can grind the most in the least amount of time wins. The only difference is PvP doesn't have scaling and rubberbanding to help transitioners. Thus, the people with max rosters will still have the advantage - as they should. It also means placement is determined completely randomly in the final minutes. I don't agree that the positions on this issue are neatly split. It's an uneven split, between those that understand the meta and dynamics of PvP scoring, and those that don't. You might see the 2k scores and feel "robbed" of top rewards due to P2W. But you have to understand that if top scorers were suddenly scoring only 1k due to shield hop limits, you STILL have ZERO shot at beating them. The top scorers are providing the points for the rest of the playerbase. If their scores go down, so will yours. Finally, the case for leveling the playing field is flawed at best. The players with maxed rosters weren't magically gifted them overnight. They either put in a ton of time, or paid $. Why should those who either have not put in the time or the $ be able to run with those who have? (Referring only to PvP, as in PvE anyone can win, independent of roster strength, as long as you have the essential characters)
Sontar wrote: I think the positions on this issue are neatly split along the line of those equating spending HP for hops with being competitive and those that do not. For the former group this change threatens to destroy/reduce competition because fewer players are able to participate. For the latter the change will increase competition by bringing the portion of the shield hoppers that can not sustain hopping after the change down to a level playing field.
"David wrote: Moore"]Greetings, Some of the thinking behind this change: • "Shield hopping" is still possible but very limited. High-scoring is fun, but Shield hopping generally requires a large amount of out-of-game communication that not all players have access to. We asked ourselves this question: "Would you Shield hop if you didn't need to in order to reach a high score? If not, that's a sign that a change is probably needed."
Spoit wrote: No, if anything, this discourages hitsquads, since you only get 3 breaks every 8 hours, so breaking to snipe someone like that would ruin your timing
Dauthi wrote: This could make the difference in time slices more extreme, if points created grows exponentially based on the amount of shield hoppers. The more there are, the easier it is to hop, creating incentive to hop or the idea to hop. Smoothing this major inequality could be their intention.
simonsez wrote: If it is, then get rid of time slices in PvP. They're not necessary. I don't recall anyone EVER complaining "I can never do well in PvP because I can't grind during the last 2 hours"
whitecat31 wrote: "David wrote: Moore"]Greetings, Some of the thinking behind this change: • "Shield hopping" is still possible but very limited. High-scoring is fun, but Shield hopping generally requires a large amount of out-of-game communication that not all players have access to. We asked ourselves this question: "Would you Shield hop if you didn't need to in order to reach a high score? If not, that's a sign that a change is probably needed." Let's look at this question with commas added for clarifications. "Would you Shield hop, if you didn't need to, in order to reach a high score? If not, that's a sign that a change is probably needed." What the heck are you trying to say here? IF you don't shield hop to reach a high score, it is a problem? Are you saying the problem is, because some people score high, others don't have to shield hop to get a high score? Or are we talking about an achievement score? Because High Score means the top score and WINNING. The last time I checked, nobody has won a pvp match without shield hopping since I have been around. If you guys, are asking yourself that question, than perhaps there is a logic gap at play I don't see or something is lost in translation. Or perhaps we are talking about achievement scores, but you mention later about possibly lowering those. I would love clarification.
Orangecrush wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned, but if coordinated hopping is the enemy, why don't you just make it so you cant attack your alliance members?
"David wrote: Moore"]Some of the thinking behind this change: • "Shield hopping" is still possible but very limited. High-scoring is fun, but Shield hopping generally requires a large amount of out-of-game communication that not all players have access to. We asked ourselves this question: "Would you Shield hop if you didn't need to in order to reach a high score? If not, that's a sign that a change is probably needed."
daibar wrote: "David wrote: Moore"]Some of the thinking behind this change: • "Shield hopping" is still possible but very limited. High-scoring is fun, but Shield hopping generally requires a large amount of out-of-game communication that not all players have access to. We asked ourselves this question: "Would you Shield hop if you didn't need to in order to reach a high score? If not, that's a sign that a change is probably needed." The difference with this issue is it's not the same as having a god character, eg Sentry. Before, the question asked was could you win without Sentry? The answer was NO. You just couldn't consistently win a PVP without Sentry and sentry bombing. So a nerf was needed and delivered, (irregardless of whether he was over-nerfed or not). So they asked the same thing about shield hopping. Can you win without shield hopping? Again no. But here's where they screwed up. This is high level game mechanics. Players are going to develop strategies around your system. If you take it to absurd extremes, you could ask, can you 'win' in MPQ without having an alliance, or even can you win without playing MPQ? It's clear that this is the wrong question. Even the question of "Was this intended?" is wrong, because people are going to find ways to combine characters that you never thought of. The real question becomes, "Should we allow X?" Should we allow players to get to 3000 in PVP with shield hopping? Should we allow players to dominate PVP with shield hopping against those who do not do absurd amounts of shield hopping? Should we allow so many players to easily get 1300 progression and 4* rewards? The devs said no. D3's media response is a little dishonest, but I can't fault them for the final decision.
stephen43084 wrote: Why are people still wasting their time arguing about the money motives of the developers? Logically, there are a ton of other ways to change the shield system to make a lot more money than this one. In fact, if we had people with stronger business acumens on the forum, they would tell you that this change will decrease shield revenue. Why would a company want to cut revenue from a feature? To make a lot more revenue from other features. This is another move to to make the game attractive to the mass of players who do not score of 750, much less shield hop. The mass of players, who despite the thinking (or lack thereof) of some, actually funds this game. Sorry, to break it to those that spend $100 per month on this game. You could leave tomorrow. They do not care. You are not the type of customer generating their real income. Regardless of the motivation for the change, it only matters whether the change is good or not. Saying the change is bad because it will increase/decrease sales is not going to persuade anyone that the change itself is not the best means to accomplish whatever their end is. Stop worrying about money. If you really care and really want to persuade them this change is bad you have to put real effort into and do like countless others in giving analysis and real reasons how this change is going to benefit or adversely affect game play. If you do not care, then keep wasting space talking about money and sales.
Phaserhawk wrote: They say it will be evaluated and changed if need be, in other words, we are going to monitor revenues and if it causes a decrease instead of the increase they are hoping, they will say it isn't working and revert back to the original form, which is why I emphasize to the top players and alliances, quit spending and pushing so hard and it will go back to what it was.
simonsez wrote: Dauthi wrote: This could make the difference in time slices more extreme, if points created grows exponentially based on the amount of shield hoppers. The more there are, the easier it is to hop, creating incentive to hop or the idea to hop. Smoothing this major inequality could be their intention. If it is, then get rid of time slices in PvP. They're not necessary. I don't recall anyone EVER complaining "I can never do well in PvP because I can't grind during the last 2 hours"
gamar wrote: daibar wrote: "David wrote: Moore"]Some of the thinking behind this change: • "Shield hopping" is still possible but very limited. High-scoring is fun, but Shield hopping generally requires a large amount of out-of-game communication that not all players have access to. We asked ourselves this question: "Would you Shield hop if you didn't need to in order to reach a high score? If not, that's a sign that a change is probably needed." The difference with this issue is it's not the same as having a god character, eg Sentry. Before, the question asked was could you win without Sentry? The answer was NO. You just couldn't consistently win a PVP without Sentry and sentry bombing. So a nerf was needed and delivered, (irregardless of whether he was over-nerfed or not). So they asked the same thing about shield hopping. Can you win without shield hopping? Again no. But here's where they screwed up. This is high level game mechanics. Players are going to develop strategies around your system. If you take it to absurd extremes, you could ask, can you 'win' in MPQ without having an alliance, or even can you win without playing MPQ? It's clear that this is the wrong question. Even the question of "Was this intended?" is wrong, because people are going to find ways to combine characters that you never thought of. The real question becomes, "Should we allow X?" Should we allow players to get to 3000 in PVP with shield hopping? Should we allow players to dominate PVP with shield hopping against those who do not do absurd amounts of shield hopping? Should we allow so many players to easily get 1300 progression and 4* rewards? The devs said no. D3's media response is a little dishonest, but I can't fault them for the final decision. I don't really agree. Shield-hopping is like gold farming, it's the part of the game you hate that you do to get to the part of the game you like. Yes, players will figure out how the system works. But when the winning strategy isn't "fun" (prologue healing, shield hopping) it makes perfect sense for the devs to try to address that. And yes, there are som players who DO enjoy the thrill of shield-hopping, and I think d3p is at least attempting to leave something in there for them too Whether any of this succeeds or is a huge boondoggle remains to be seen, but "are players being 'forced' to do things they don't like in order to get anywhere in the game" is EXACTLY the type of question the devs should constantly be asking