shield cool down must go

Unknown

I voted "Just leave it and watch as people quit." solely because the poll was so biased against the change in the first place that I was trying to moderate the result.

I doubt many people actually want anyone to quit, except for the whiners who complain about how d3 controls their bodily functions with a steady stream of digital crack.

FaustianDeal

Progression prize levels probably need to be lowered to prevent rage-quits. My rationale is based on looking at scores from the Luke Cage event.

Some disclaimers up front: I can see 20 teams in my results: they are ranked 1-10, and 45-54. My sample size is 200 players. (I am going to assume that those 200 players are to be among the top 10% of all players of the game - if not better.) I am going to base a lot of these numbers on an assumed 100,000 playerbase (~21,000 alliances participated, but let's assume they are, on average, half staffed.)

Looking at the 1300 point progression prize:
I can see <20 people who either; definitely won, or plausibly could have won the 1300 progression. They all appear in the top 10. That means the top-10 alliances only had a 10% hit rate for the 4* progression prize. The success rate for reaching 1300 had already fallen to 0% by the time you are sampling teams 45-54. I doubt it was a gentle decline either.
* I'll wager only 50 people total crossed 1300.
* They were almost all on top-25 teams and represent ~2% of the players on the top-100 teams
* The 1300 progression prize was won by well under 0.1% of the total player base (probably under 0.05%).

That's bad.

If we figure a 100,000 person playerbase - that means a minimum of 200 brackets. That means at least 200 4* cards were awarded for 1st place finishes. so 4x as many people won a 4* due to finishing 1st than who made the 1300 progression.
This might not be quite so frustrating if sharding wasn't still a factor in how brackets get loaded.. I'll wager 3* players were probably completely shut out of the 4* prize pool in the Luke Cage event (barring a small number who were loaded into a small/soft bracket). I might even bet more 2* players won the 1st place prize than 3* players (I haven't heard any evidence to suggest that there is a sharding distinction between 3* and 4* rosters).

Looking at the 1100 point progression prize: (Red Luke Cage; a new character)
I would assume people were motivated to get to 1100 to get that cover.
What do the numbers say (to me)
~84 people on the top 10 alliances made 1100 last night. Let's round up and say 50% might have gotten there.
In the 200 players on the alliances ranked 45-54 (limited to scores I can see)- it looks like only 5 of those 200 people probably made the 1100 (highest score in those 200 players was 1152). so by the time you get to the middle of the top-100 that percentage has precipitously fallen to ~2%. (I imagine it probably dropped to a statistical 0% before you hit the 100th ranked team. Even if you assume it remained flat @ 2% all the way down to the 100th ranked team
* I will still assert that <1,000 people across all of the top 100 teams made 1100.
* It was probably closer to 500.
* Even using the more generous 1,000 number it still means only ~1% of all players made 1100.

I cannot believe these are the 'desired' payout rates for progression prizes in PVP, but maybe they are.

mohio

You made me curious, so since I can see alliances 92-101 I figured I'd check them out. I was the only one over 1100 and I think I only saw one other person even over 1000.

Unknown

I don't really see the point to talk about whether progression prizes are reachable as a matter of policy. If you understand what the ELO rating means you'll know that 1300 is inherently impossible to get to in such a system. This is counterbalanced by the fact that a shielding system also makes no sense in the context of an ELO rating which cancels out the impossibility of reaching certain threshold. So, the net result is that you got two things that don't make sense and sometimes the result might accidentally look like something right depending on who you're asking. It's impossible to have a policy that accurately places a certain % of the population in some threshold when the result is really just an accident. Prior to the cooldown changes they're accidentally in favor of players by way too much of a margin, and now they're probably fairly against the players again by accident. I'm sure they'll eventually lower the thresholds and maybe it'll accidentally be favorable to player again, but none of this is ever supposed to make sense in the first place.

Unknown

I actually made the a little to fast never made a poll before and the the option and title I made was based on what i thoght would happen the fact i didnt see anyone address that that issue a 8 hour cool down on a 3 hour shield makes no sense. And I make 600-700 every pvp pretty ez and with out shields nd i had fun getting 1100 in patch pvp last season .I mean if u hav fun hitting 1300 or 2000 then why not ..if anyone wants to make accurate poll that addresses the shield cool down issue please do so

Unknown

It's having a 2.5 hour cooldown that makes no sense. Whether you agree with the goal or think it's terrible, it's really clear the point of cooldowns is to make it costly to climb to high scores while remaining almost completely protected. Having a cooldown shorter than the shield duration entirely undermines that purpose.

Katai

I basically like Shield Cooldowns because it basically makes it impossible to get to 1300, and therefore I have no reason to push past 800 and can call it a night after the first shield.

Basically, it moved 4* from "attainable with some heavy effort" to "impossible, so might as well not be a reward"

FaustianDeal

Katai wrote:

Basically, it moved 4* from "attainable with some heavy effort" to "impossible, so might as well not be a reward"

I'm in full agreement with this sentiment, but it also represents my frustration with the cooldowns. Does this prevent, or contribute, to the feelings of frustration and burn-out that seem to set in over time? For 2* and 2-3* transition players I am not sure if this noticeably adds to their existing level of frustration. They already feel like they are locked out of becoming a 3* player; so th

For 3* players that had viewed the 1300 progression as their only semi-reliable source of 4* cards, this seems to have basically slammed the breaks on the 3-4* transition. The existing frustrations voiced by 2* players about the 166-wall are going to be repeated by 3* players running aground on the new 270-wall that sprang up once 4horverine became the dominant strategy in high-end PVP.

The announcement that they are increasing the rate at which 4* characters are introduced is an enticement to keep existing 4* players invested and playing, but how do 3* players break into the new elite when they pulled up the ladder by adding cooldowns?

a dedicated 2* player can eventually get the covers to become a 3* player through top-100 individual placements in PVE and PVP. From what I have seen in my own alliance, these changes have not shut down the ability of a 2* player to hit top-100 and get an individual card. It takes a frustratingly long time (1 cover at a time), but it seems doable.

But how do 3* players become 4* players? In PVP: 1300 probably ain't happening.
What about placement: An earlier post on another thread listed the 3 components of success as:
1 - speed - win fast enough to climb high
2 - health pack management - (I would call this efficiency) win more matches with the health packs you are awarded
3 - the 'scarecrow' or intimidation factor of your team
Is there a tandem out there that more effectively hits on all 3 of those points than 4horverine? If not; then it is going to be substantially harder for any 3* team to climb faster, more efficiently, while deterring attacks...
As a 3* player, winning a 4* cover from placement might require more luck than skill when 4horverine exists.

So its basically random token drops and daily supply drops... (what day does a 4* Thor cover drop from the dailies, by the way?)

Unknown

I didn't get 4*s from PVP very often - I crossed 1300 a few times in PVP, but I was only really willing to do it if it got me multiple needed covers (i.e., I needed the 1100, 1300, and placement awards) and that didn't come up that often - but I'm just writing it off now. I'm only expecting 4*s from tokens and daily rewards now.

Ironically, the people getting them from PVP are probably the ones who need them the least and have them already, but that's the system the developers seem to want.

Unknown

Ben Grimm wrote:

I didn't get 4*s from PVP very often - I crossed 1300 a few times in PVP, but I was only really willing to do it if it got me multiple needed covers (i.e., I needed the 1100, 1300, and placement awards) and that didn't come up that often - but I'm just writing it off now. I'm only expecting 4*s from tokens and daily rewards now.

Ironically, the people getting them from PVP are probably the ones who need them the least and have them already, but that's the system the developers seem to want.

Funnily enough, now that I think of it, I've pushed to 1300 a few times, but I got the huge majority of my 4* covers (meaning almost all of my IW and XForce covers) by getting first place back in the pre-alliance days when 800-900 points got you first place, and that took a heck of a lot LESS stress, effort, and shielding than getting 1300 points ever did

Unknown

My take on the shield cool down change:

1. I used to like to shield for 3 hours twice near the end of PVP. It was a good value for 150HP and helped me typically manage T25 placement. Now I need to use one 3 hr and one 8hr shield to do that, costing 225HP. Also, I need to manage my play over an 11-12 hour window, as opposed to the previous 6-7 hr window. I never felt, and I suspect many would empathize that two 3hr shields at the event end isn't unreasonable strategic game play, nor unreasonable shield-hopping.

2. Previously, employing the above, if you hit 600 in PVP, and was in a T100 alliance, you could break even. You could even bank some HP each event if you broke 800 allowing you to save up for needed covers over time: This increase in cost incurred from the shield cool down change means you need to place or score higher than T25 player, T100 alliance, and/or 800 score to break even or gain HP each event.

3. As a result, a player may adopt one of several alternative strategies each event depending on the rewards:
a. eat the increased HP cost and play 2 shields in the last 11 hours --> compromise HP for covers.
b. give up on two shields and just use one shield, either 8 hours out from end, or 3 hours from event end, and accept whatever placement they manage (maybe breaking shield at the very end) --> compromise covers for HP.

4. Who benefits, who suffers?

My conclusion is this benefits vets with strong 4* rosters (disclosure: I have a 4* roster) who can sit at higher scores unshielded for longer durations with fewer attacks. It's easier to achieve ~800+ final score to hit T25 or higher if your team can sit at parity in the 750 range while unshielded, relatively unmolested. Max 3* teams get sniped pretty heavily in the 700-750+ range -- the range generally for T25 placement - I've been tracking data on the score required for T25 placement for 5 seasons and it hasn't changed much.

Meanwhile, weaker rosters will likely have to employ 3a or 3b to place, a net loss in outcome for them compared to before shield cool down.

All this is apart from the tiering for the prog awards. I'm reasonably confident that will be addressed as needed, as the devs commented.

Summary: In the end, the current shield cool-down disallows what I feel is a not unreasonable use of shields that was previously economical and imposes a (~75HP) regressive tax disproportionately impacting weaker rosters vying for cover placement. Relative to before the change, you either save less HP, get fewer covers, and/or spend more time managing placement. My understanding was the shield cool-down was designed to prevent hopping to insanely high scores (something I had nothing against, btw). The apparent outcome appears to increase the cost of standard shield strategy for typical players competing for cover placement.

TLDR: I endorse the suggestion, among other decent suggestions equivalent in outcome, of having a 3 hr cool-down on 3 hr shields.

whitecat31

First I want to say. This poll is so biased it made me laugh.
That being said, I find the reasons the developers said about the reason for the cool downs was either not truthful or failing miserably.
It was supposed to be about increasing fun and not letting the big bad alliances with good communication dominate.
It was supposedly about allowing others have a chance to get those nice rewards to let them compete.

Guess what, the big bad alliances that communicate are doing better than ever. They might even be spending less money. I am a member of one of these alliances, and I have spent less money now.
Their 4 star characters they got for being veterans allow them to maintain and strengthen the gap they had before.

Here is something even worse, most of the people who get to the 1300 point threshold will SELL their 4 star roster prize for 1000 ISO. As far as I can tell the last event had maybe 30 players worldwide break 1300. I don't think any of them needed the 4 star prize for doing so. Sadly, I don't think MPQ will check that stat to see if that 1300 point prize is sold.

In my opinion the "Truthful" reason this change was done is to reduce people from getting 4 star characters or the 1100 point prize of a new character at a discount.

To those people who say, they only shield once as they SNIPE everybody they see on their way to the top in the last 2 hours to happily place in the top 25. You are not trying to win. You are just trying to maximize your points on the backs of others and doing it as cheaply as possible. I hope to God MPQ is not catering the game to those players.

Unknown

This morning I wrote down the exact timings and types of shields I'd need to use over the next 1.5 days of the PvP in order to have a chance at 1300. Any deviation from this plan will result in the needless expenditure of 675hp.

Fun with a capital F

Unknown

Given the numbers of 4* to be released, D3 shouldn't care much about how much HP we spend shield hopping to get the 1300 progression reward.

Most of the guys reaching that point have maxed their 4* long before, and are just building another copy they will never be able to feed Iso with.

Those in the Top 10 are already the big spenders. So what's the point really ? Milk them till they have enough and quit ?

D3 should be much more creative and think about a way to make the F2P spend a bit on this game.

Leitmotiv : Don't kill the hen that lays the golden egg...

Unknown

The part I found most disingenuous, or at least inconsistent was the part where they said they didn't want cooldowns every 3 hours because they didn't want people to have to play every 3 hours.

Considering how poorly the 8 hour cooldown has gone, I really hope they shorten the cooldown to 2 hours before too many 3* players jump ship, with no meaningful way of going forward.

kalex716

whitecat31 wrote:

To those people who say, they only shield once as they SNIPE everybody they see on their way to the top in the last 2 hours to happily place in the top 25. You are not trying to win. You are just trying to maximize your points on the backs of others and doing it as cheaply as possible. I hope to God MPQ is not catering the game to those players.

Ironically, I would describe anybody who is trying to maximize points cheaply is in fact, the only ones "winning" at this game at all. Any other play style will inevitably lead to burnout.

It is, in my opinion of course; the min effort - max results people that you've called into question, who will be the only ones able to stay engaged/active in the long term.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

they said they didn't want cooldowns every 3 hours because they didn't want people to have to play every 3 hours.

I must have missed that part.

Hold on, is this :

- appalling,
- hilarious,
- pathetic ?

So they don't want people to play every 3 hours in PvP, but they force us to play the PvEs every 2.25 hours/3 hours ???

Can anybody tell me what the logics are there ?

Since when D3 cared about our well-being ???

I must be a masochist to keep on playing while I am considered as a dumb fool this way...

simonsez

arktos1971 wrote:

Since when D3 cared about our well-being ???

Ever since they freed us from the shackles of prologue healing...

Unknown

Awww thanks D3! I wasn't aware there was a rehab option! *PHEW* Saved again!!

arktos1971 wrote:

daibar wrote:

they said they didn't want cooldowns every 3 hours because they didn't want people to have to play every 3 hours.

I must have missed that part.

Hold on, is this :

- appalling,
- hilarious,
- pathetic ?

So they don't want people to play every 3 hours in PvP, but they force us to play the PvEs every 2.25 hours/3 hours ???

Can anybody tell me what the logics are there ?

Since when D3 cared about our well-being ???

I must be a masochist to keep on playing while I am considered as a dumb fool this way...

JustDan13

The 8 hour cooldowns are insane, to put it mildly.

Point the First: An 8 hour cooldown on EVERY shield means that if you want to shield for any reason (a meeting, dinner with your family, etc), then continue playing, you're tinykittyed.

Point the Second: Shield hopping was getting out of control. I think most people would agree with that. But you went too far the other way. Players, especially those without maxed rosters, which were recently estimated at ~70% of players, NEED to be able to do some shield hopping, as that was a method that could be used to get better progression rewards, increasing the strength of their rosters. A 3 hour cooldown on all shields would allow for that, without it getting out of hand.

Point the Third: Most of the alliances had begun to coordinate and work as a team, timing their shields and hops. This is a GOOD thing, increasing the strength and effectiveness of Alliances. This change has made any of that sort of communication almost worthless.

I hereby cast my imaginary vote on the imaginary ballot for THREE HOUR COOLDOWNS. 8 hours is simply too much, and detracts too much from the game.