[POLL] Shields, cooldown system, alternative fixes

turul

Lets have a poll, to help the devs reconsidering the the new introduction of the shield cooldown system.

Since the main reason of shield hopping is because at high points, you lose more points that you can gain if you are unshielded for 10+ mins, I added the option of alternative fixing methods. We can have a poll about that later.

Some alternatives i can think of:

Allow shielded players to be queued up with some limitations
Tank teams should be filtered, Chance of getting a shielded player queued up could be finetuned.
(First shield introduction was similar, but devs funbalanced it)

Limit total points that can be lost in a period of time
Actually this fix would be similar to the above one, if loss-limited players could be still queued up.

Feel free to add some of your alternative fixing methods!

mohio

I'm commenting simply to let the devs know I much prefer a 2-3 hour cool down (or a proportion of the shield used) to the fixed 8-hr cool down proposed by the devs. However, I voted for alternative fixes since I'd much rather see them fix the underlying problem (getting shelled for hundreds of points in the amount of time it takes to complete a single match) than try some stopgap shield fix which leaves the fundamental flaw intact.

Unknown

I've often said PvP needs a checkpoint system. Somewhere that stops you from losing points. Possibly at the ladder points, so you can start a climb, and if you don't make it maybe you shield, but if you pass the next rung, you can safely remain unshielded and your points will be safe. At 400, 600, 900, 1100, and 1300, once you pass these points you can never fall below them. It will help overall scores as people remain unshielded but it will not unjustly punish those people who worked hard to get those scores. If you are going to discourage, and outright manipulate, shield hopping then a system like this is needed.

At a certain point, you can no win fast enough to cover your losses. Any team can beat any other team really, so you win 25 points, but you lose 5 matches in the mean time for -20 to -40 each, there goes 150 points. Start another match, guess what's going to happen. This wouldn't be that big of a deal if you had a safety net to stop you from falling below checkpoints.

Unknown

The idea of a 3 hour shield with an 8 hour cool down makes about as much sense as a football bat. The only way I could see this working was if they allowed shielded players to attack without breaking their shield. Surely, that would come with it's own set of problems (death brackets, nobody above 1000 finding high point nodes, etc) that D3P would have to fix, but seriously. Captain America has a shield, and he can still attack with it.

Unknown

The "two hour cooldown" is the idea that makes no sense to me because that would change nothing for everyone but the whaliest of whales. Most people often wait two hours between hops so their health packs can regenerate anyways

SnowcaTT

I like the shield cool-down idea, shield-hopping was pay to win. I actually have no idea why they would kill it, it seems to me the HP used for shield hopping would be the biggest source of revenue.

When we were throwing around ideas before I mentioned that instead of a specific point value for attacks (including retaliation attacks), those nodes should "count down" maybe -1 point per hour since the battle was fought.

I think this would encourage more play throughout the event, rather than just the last few hours. Currently, the big swingers know there is very little reason to start early - you'll just get to many counter-attacks. But this makes -everyone- start late, since the 166's will just swing right through you if you hit 500 to early.

Instead, people would have the option of battling early and their D team wouldn't be worth anything to hit a day later. It would be worthwhile checking in at various times to find others who are currently playing or have recently, for the highest point nodes.

Unknown

The checkpoint idea is cool, but I don't see how that is not almost equally exploitable.

Unknown

Here's a couple scenarios that the solution should handle:

i. You want to run an errand/have dinner etc for a couple hours, shield for 3 hours and come back and play a little more.
ii. You are a once daily player who plays for about 3 hours each day around the same time.
iii. You play in the morning, and then play at night after school/work, etc.
iv. You play nearly constantly except for sleeping hours.


The solutions I can think of that might handle this situation include:
1. Variable shield lengths. Allow purchases of shield in different lengths at different costs.
2. Shield extensions. (I like this one the most)
3. Change shield cooldown to variable length based on:
-A. The original length of the shield, eg 1 hr for 3 hr shields, 3 hr for 8 hr shields, 8 hr for 24 hr shields.
-B. How much time you have left on your shield, Eg perhaps half of the time left.

D3's proposed solution currently screws over anyone who has a life, and doesn't want to plan their lives around MPQ.

mohio

gamar wrote:

The "two hour cooldown" is the idea that makes no sense to me because that would change nothing for everyone but the whaliest of whales. Most people often wait two hours between hops so their health packs can regenerate anyways

You've been around long enough that you should know this, so I don't want to patronize you. So, this will be said for those reading this and going "yeah that's right, +1, those whales should be brought back to our level."

Broadly speaking there are two uses for shields. One is simply to protect your score while current players either hit you or clear you out of their queue. You wish to still be an active player, but because you become a juicy target at high points simply because of your score you are forced to shield to protect your points, and continue playing in ~10 minute increments every 30 minutes to 1 hour. This is "shield hopping" and apparently what the devs would like to curtail. The other use is as you say, either due to running out of health packs, or real life getting in the way, you cannot play for 2+ hours. So, you pick how long you think you'll be away from the game (<3, 3-8, or >8 hours) and choose the appropriate shield to protect your points while you're away. The devs are apparently trying to tell us this 2nd method was the only intended reason for shields so they are taking measures to make the first method more difficult. Perhaps they should be spending their time trying to fix the underlying problem in the first case where these players are getting hit for tons of points and forced to shield above 900.

san

Lerysh wrote:

I've often said PvP needs a checkpoint system. Somewhere that stops you from losing points. Possibly at the ladder points, so you can start a climb, and if you don't make it maybe you shield, but if you pass the next rung, you can safely remain unshielded and your points will be safe. At 400, 600, 900, 1100, and 1300, once you pass these points you can never fall below them. It will help overall scores as people remain unshielded but it will not unjustly punish those people who worked hard to get those scores. If you are going to discourage, and outright manipulate, shield hopping then a system like this is needed.

At a certain point, you can no win fast enough to cover your losses. Any team can beat any other team really, so you win 25 points, but you lose 5 matches in the mean time for -20 to -40 each, there goes 150 points. Start another match, guess what's going to happen. This wouldn't be that big of a deal if you had a safety net to stop you from falling below checkpoints.

I very much agree with this, and have suggested it in the forums within the last couple of weeks. This is really the only way to level the playing field. Just because the rich guy can't buy shields every minute, doesn't make it any less difficult for me to... I buy one shield, the 3hr, and only if I have to, to make my minimums. Other than that, I can't really afford it..

Unknown

mohio wrote:

gamar wrote:

The "two hour cooldown" is the idea that makes no sense to me because that would change nothing for everyone but the whaliest of whales. Most people often wait two hours between hops so their health packs can regenerate anyways

You've been around long enough that you should know this, so I don't want to patronize you. So, this will be said for those reading this and going "yeah that's right, +1, those whales should be brought back to our level."

Broadly speaking there are two uses for shields. One is simply to protect your score while current players either hit you or clear you out of their queue. You wish to still be an active player, but because you become a juicy target at high points simply because of your score you are forced to shield to protect your points, and continue playing in ~10 minute increments every 30 minutes to 1 hour. This is "shield hopping" and apparently what the devs would like to curtail. The other use is as you say, either due to running out of health packs, or real life getting in the way, you cannot play for 2+ hours. So, you pick how long you think you'll be away from the game (<3, 3-8, or >8 hours) and choose the appropriate shield to protect your points while you're away. The devs are apparently trying to tell us this 2nd method was the only intended reason for shields so they are taking measures to make the first method more difficult. Perhaps they should be spending their time trying to fix the underlying problem in the first case where these players are getting hit for tons of points and forced to shield above 900.

I honestly don't know what to make of the shield changes so I'm trying to comment on what I think their goal is and how it will affect the game, not whether these changes will make the game better/more fun because for once I just don't know which "side" I'm on regarding the change. My post isn't saying "knock whales down"

That said, a two-hour cooldown will make climbing a little harder or expensive for whales (and not nearly enough to stop them from hopping to 2000 or whatever) but even for people just going for 1100 or 1300 they can knock off 2 or 3 battles, which will likely knock down their chars to half-ish health, shield and heal up for two hours, and repeat once or twice, no health pack purchases necessary. And people scoring 1300 or less are 99% of the game. So whatever d3p is trying to accomplish it doesn't make sense to me to make a change that has no impact on 99% of the players

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

I've often said PvP needs a checkpoint system. Somewhere that stops you from losing points. Possibly at the ladder points, so you can start a climb, and if you don't make it maybe you shield, but if you pass the next rung, you can safely remain unshielded and your points will be safe. At 400, 600, 900, 1100, and 1300, once you pass these points you can never fall below them. It will help overall scores as people remain unshielded but it will not unjustly punish those people who worked hard to get those scores. If you are going to discourage, and outright manipulate, shield hopping then a system like this is needed.

At a certain point, you can no win fast enough to cover your losses. Any team can beat any other team really, so you win 25 points, but you lose 5 matches in the mean time for -20 to -40 each, there goes 150 points. Start another match, guess what's going to happen. This wouldn't be that big of a deal if you had a safety net to stop you from falling below checkpoints.

This is even more exploitable: Once you're past a checkpoint, throw out a defensively weak team, eg MNMags\CStorm or Sentry + Lvl 1 and let people feast. The base level to rank would then be 1300, and you'd just be fighting above the top checkpoint.

I hadn't intended on responding to this, but so many people upvoted it, which I think is more indicative of the fact that people just don't like losing points, which is why shields are so popular.

san

daibar wrote:

Lerysh wrote:

I've often said PvP needs a checkpoint system. Somewhere that stops you from losing points. Possibly at the ladder points, so you can start a climb, and if you don't make it maybe you shield, but if you pass the next rung, you can safely remain unshielded and your points will be safe. At 400, 600, 900, 1100, and 1300, once you pass these points you can never fall below them. It will help overall scores as people remain unshielded but it will not unjustly punish those people who worked hard to get those scores. If you are going to discourage, and outright manipulate, shield hopping then a system like this is needed.

At a certain point, you can no win fast enough to cover your losses. Any team can beat any other team really, so you win 25 points, but you lose 5 matches in the mean time for -20 to -40 each, there goes 150 points. Start another match, guess what's going to happen. This wouldn't be that big of a deal if you had a safety net to stop you from falling below checkpoints.

This is even more exploitable: Once you're past a checkpoint, throw out a defensively weak team, eg MNMags\CStorm or Sentry + Lvl 1 and let people feast. The base level to rank would then be 1300, and you'd just be fighting above the top checkpoint.

I hadn't intended on responding to this, but so many people upvoted it, which I think is more indicative of the fact that people just don't like losing points, which is why shields are so popular.

While I do agree that some scores would be higher, you'd still be hitting a relative "wall" due to MMR, which would make progression difficult. Sure, you could try and go for the 900pt checkpoint, but you'd still be facing 166x3 due to MMR, and then you'd have to beat several of these teams consecutively to score the 300pts required between the 600 and 900 checkpoint. 300 points is NOT an easy task. It may be for some, but I sure as heck know in my 2-3* transitioning world, it takes several hours and the loss of several of my good characters due to attrition....

While I think you make a valid point on the top end (past 1300 say) this already happens anyways with whales. If a 2-3* player were to actually manage to hit the 1300 mark, the whales would make sure they stayed right there at that point level, and fight for the top spots among each other.

... Another solution proposed in the suggestion thread would be to separate the two scores (pvp score vs progression). The overall progress bar would continue to climb and you wouldn't lose points, thus giving the newer players a chance to still earn the progress rewards through sufficient play. The PvP scores would be kept the same however, and no checkpoints would be necessary.

While I initially advocated for the checkpoint system, and have actually made a suggestion thread on this, I would prefer the second system I mentioned there, as I think it is the best of both worlds, for whales and newbies alike.

Unknown

I don't know why we bother with these discussions. Once D3 says what the change is going to be, it goes through that way. I have never once ever seen anything changed based on our feedback. It feels like D3 thinks the people that visit the forums are the die hard fans, the edge case, and what we think is never good for their average target users.

Unknown

rooter wrote:

I don't know why we bother with these discussions. Once D3 says what the change is going to be, it goes through that way. I have never once ever seen anything changed based on our feedback. It feels like D3 thinks the people that visit the forums are the die hard fans, the edge case, and what we think is never good for their average target users.

1. They gave us back alliance HP after expanding slots.
2. They implemented time shifting.
3. They nerfed OP characters like Sentry and CMags, while buffing Mawkeye, Daredevil.
Just a few I can think of.

Plus, why do people bother coming to the forums at all? Just to talk about a game they are obsessed with each other. Even if D3 weren't directly involved in the forums, there's still be chatter.
....

300 points is an easy task if people are leaving out feeder teams. If you have multiple levels of collusion, people could leave progressively weaker teams at a checkpoint, eg beating a weak team with an even weaker one. Even random strangers in Gears of War boost together without being able to talk to each other and that's a FPS! I'm sure the MPQ player base is smart enough to collude as well.

For PVP progression not being able to go backwards, I'm personally against that as it turns PVP into a PVE grind, and makes progression rewards too easy to get. We already have a system that rewards grinding, PVE.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

rooter wrote:

I don't know why we bother with these discussions. Once D3 says what the change is going to be, it goes through that way. I have never once ever seen anything changed based on our feedback. It feels like D3 thinks the people that visit the forums are the die hard fans, the edge case, and what we think is never good for their average target users.

1. They gave us back alliance HP after expanding slots.
2. They implemented time shifting.
3. They nerfed OP characters like Sentry and CMags, while buffing Mawkeye, Daredevil.
Just a few I can think of.

None of those were new features that D3 said were coming. Those were things that were already in the game and needed fixing.

Spoit

I voted for 3 hour cooldown, but what I really meant was Time-30 minutes or so

turul

Spoit wrote:

I voted for 3 hour cooldown, but what I really meant was Time-30 minutes or so

I think there is no point for different cooldowns for different shields...

Spoit

turul wrote:

Spoit wrote:

I voted for 3 hour cooldown, but what I really meant was Time-30 minutes or so

I think there is no point for different cooldowns for different shields...

sure there is. If the stated purpose of a shield is to make it so you don't lose points when you don't play, making the cooldown last approximately as long as the shield make a hell of a lot more sense than making it 5 hours longer than the shield

turul

Spoit wrote:

turul wrote:

Spoit wrote:

I voted for 3 hour cooldown, but what I really meant was Time-30 minutes or so

I think there is no point for different cooldowns for different shields...

sure there is. If the stated purpose of a shield is to make it so you don't lose points when you don't play, making the cooldown last approximately as long as the shield make a hell of a lot more sense than making it 5 hours longer than the shield

i meant there is no point to have 8hr cooldown for 8hr shield "Time-30 minutes or so", if you pick 3hr cooldown as voting option.
(unless i misinterpret you)

Spoit

turul wrote:

Spoit wrote:

turul wrote:

Spoit wrote:

I voted for 3 hour cooldown, but what I really meant was Time-30 minutes or so

I think there is no point for different cooldowns for different shields...

sure there is. If the stated purpose of a shield is to make it so you don't lose points when you don't play, making the cooldown last approximately as long as the shield make a hell of a lot more sense than making it 5 hours longer than the shield

i meant there is no point to have 8hr cooldown for 8hr shield "Time-30 minutes or so", if you pick 3hr cooldown as voting option.
(unless i misinterpret you)

I mean that it should be like
3h: 2.5h cooldown
8h: 7h cooldown
24h: well, probably still 8 hours, because a 20-something hour cooldown is silly and 300 hp is not cheap anyway