the rich is getting richer, the poor is getting....

Unknown

EpicBeastmode wrote:

Id like to discuss how people using racist slurs merely get the post edited and the poster doesnt get a suspension or ban?

ok, do it. in your own thread.

i got indeed a warning by a mod, BUT: i used the term <slur removed> for "silly". using it as slur removed would be out of context in my sentence and wouldnt make sense.

in fact, some (smarter people than you) got it and made the 1926 joke and 88mph, since those represent state of the art locomotives and their topspeed. and i myself jokingly said "ye old threadderail"

dont make your problems my problems. grab a dictionary. educate yourself.

1 day ban issued for repeated use of racial slurs. Just b/c you're not directing them at someone doesn't make them less offensive.

orionpeace

hexad_2808 wrote:

I wonder why a rookie like Andrew Wiggins isn't being offered a max contract like Lebron, Durant or Kobe who has won rings and MVPs.

Hey!

If Andrew Wiggins asks for something, you give it to him. Or he will END you and your entire race.

Unknown

Bravo way to go message board tough guy. In regards to your "uneducated" comments i will abstain since i am pretty positive my resume ranks in the 99th percentile of civilization so it does not matter. And if you could think before shooting your load, you would realize your post was edited by the mod and some people were unable to see it in its original incarnation which is the mod doing his job. But seeing as the mod himself sees it as a racial slur...well, good for the mod, glad he keeps the order around here. Enjoy being poor as the rich get richer. Bwhahahahahahha!!!!

loroku

Phantron wrote:

There is surely at least 5% of the people that easily puts in more total effort/time/money than the average 'I need help as a transitioner' guy on top of their existing advantage and as long as this is true, it'd be completely unfair if anyone who is disadvantaged in every metric possible somehow breaks into the top 5%.

Ultimately this is a fair point. This is a PvP game, and the point of ALL PvP games is that the old timers get to **** all over the new guys (for a variety of reasons). That's pretty much every PvP game, ever. And you're right: that's not going to change, certainly not in this game, and it's what we all ultimately signed up for.

I guess what people are really wanting is a feeling of progression that doesn't require that. The prologue is awesome but it sets up a false standard. The 1* build-up is so fast and so fun that when you hit the wall of PvP progression and realize the expectations have changed, it causes a cognitive disconnect and people get upset. (I know I did.) It would almost be better if there were no prologue, since people would understand more quickly how impossible it is to break into the top ranks if they had to use their level 1, 1* Iron Man + the loaner to get new covers from the very beginning. It would be SO hard and SO difficult to get off the ground they would know how hard it is to get any further later. Has anyone played Hearthstone? They do a good job of giving you like 5 AI matches, and then they just sort of throw you to the sharks and say, "sink or swim, ****!" And that's what PvP games are all about: chumming the sharks.

The alternative would be to actually build up more actual PvE content, which is something they've toyed with but they clearly, frankly hate. Progression in this game is intentionally capped to make the play experience as long and painful as possible because that's what's working for their bottom line. SOOOO many people really want this game to be something it isn't, and honestly as long as its profitable it's REALLY hard to say why they should change the game.

What we really need is something like a PvE-only (REAL PvE, not the PvP they call PvE in this game) Marvel-themed, Bejeweled-style game that competes with this one, so we could have a choice of how to get our licensed, bejeweled-style pick-me-up game fix but without all the constant grinding and grief that this game creates.

slidecage

i like to see them do something like they did with power where you had to use a 1 star 2 star and 3 star.

Make an event where you can just use 1 and 2 stars and 3 and 4 stars. Like when they have EASY AND HARD> Make easy only 1 and 2 star people. Make hard 3 and 4 star people. Give the hard bracket a little better awards
like
Easy
Top 10 get 3 star cover

HARD
Top 10 get 4 star cover or 3 star and hp

loroku

(One thing to remember about the "bracketed" stuff is that high-level people can still dominate low-level brackets, and can easily choose to. Making them exclusive can help, but it would be very difficult to keep a 4* player from simply dominating a 1* tournament simply because they could.)

JamieMadrox

loroku wrote:

(One thing to remember about the "bracketed" stuff is that high-level people can still dominate low-level brackets, and can easily choose to. Making them exclusive can help, but it would be very difficult to keep a 4* player from simply dominating a 1* tournament simply because they could.)

This already happens to an extent. There are players that enter events late and choose their time slice based on what the competition is like in each. If they want bog points for progression they go to the big points slice. If they want easy placement they go to the low points slice.

Now would it shut all of you whining, entitled babies up if I said I felt really, really, really bad when I hit you for 30 points during my late event climb knowing you can't win on the retaliation?

Seriously though. My roster is where it is today because of over 10 months of work, a few hundred dollars' worth of HP, and being in awesome alliances that helped me be a better player and get better rewards. If you're not willing to put in the same amount of effort, why do you deserve to get the same rewards?

Vhailorx

Jamie Madrox wrote:

loroku wrote:

(One thing to remember about the "bracketed" stuff is that high-level people can still dominate low-level brackets, and can easily choose to. Making them exclusive can help, but it would be very difficult to keep a 4* player from simply dominating a 1* tournament simply because they could.)

This already happens to an extent. There are players that enter events late and choose their time slice based on what the competition is like in each. If they want bog points for progression they go to the big points slice. If they want easy placement they go to the low points slice.

Now would it shut all of you whining, entitled babies up if I said I felt really, really, really bad when I hit you for 30 points during my late event climb knowing you can't win on the retaliation?

Seriously though. My roster is where it is today because of over 10 months of work, a few hundred dollars' worth of HP, and being in awesome alliances that helped me be a better player and get better rewards. If you're not willing to put in the same amount of effort, why do you deserve to get the same rewards?

That's just the point Mr. Maddox. Your ten months of previous effort is qualitatively different from the first 10 months of effort for someone who started in december 2014. 10 months ago, diligent effort got you lots of new covered maxed 3* characters that were good and could be leveled as soon as the iso was available (sentry, BP, lazy Thor And lazy daken etc). For someone who started in December 2014, the same amount of diligent effort will (assuming nothing changes) will result in a roster of 15 or 20 new 3* and 4* character with 4-6 covers each. This change has nothing to do with differences between the players, and results entirely from changes to the game's mechanics. That is what people should be worried about with respect to this game.

Unknown

Remember when LazyCap was released and he was rewarded in like six tournaments during the first month be was available? And it was awesome? Did they just not make enough cover purchase money from that?

JamieMadrox

gamar wrote:

Remember when LazyCap was released and he was rewarded in like six tournaments during the first month be was available? And it was awesome? Did they just not make enough cover purchase money from that?

That was the first PVE I did well enough in to win all of the covers for placement. And LCap was so good for me at the time (transition) that I bought covers for him to make it easier for me to get better rewards.

Vhailorx wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

loroku wrote:

(One thing to remember about the "bracketed" stuff is that high-level people can still dominate low-level brackets, and can easily choose to. Making them exclusive can help, but it would be very difficult to keep a 4* player from simply dominating a 1* tournament simply because they could.)

This already happens to an extent. There are players that enter events late and choose their time slice based on what the competition is like in each. If they want bog points for progression they go to the big points slice. If they want easy placement they go to the low points slice.

Now would it shut all of you whining, entitled babies up if I said I felt really, really, really bad when I hit you for 30 points during my late event climb knowing you can't win on the retaliation?

Seriously though. My roster is where it is today because of over 10 months of work, a few hundred dollars' worth of HP, and being in awesome alliances that helped me be a better player and get better rewards. If you're not willing to put in the same amount of effort, why do you deserve to get the same rewards?

That's just the point Mr. Maddox. Your ten months of previous effort is qualitatively different from the first 10 months of effort for someone who started in december 2014. 10 months ago, diligent effort got you lots of new covered maxed 3* characters that were good and could be leveled as soon as the iso was available (sentry, BP, lazy Thor And lazy daken etc). For someone who started in December 2014, the same amount of diligent effort will (assuming nothing changes) will result in a roster of 15 or 20 new 3* and 4* character with 4-6 covers each. This change has nothing to do with differences between the players, and results entirely from changes to the game's mechanics. That is what people should be worried about with respect to this game.

The 2*-3* transition is definitely going to be harder and harder the more time passes and the more new characters are released. I'm not disputing that. What I take issue with is the people that think they shouldn't have to work for their rewards. Yes, they deserve to progress too, but it needs to be reasonable and D3 needs to make changes so that it is reasonable. Increasing earned ISO would be one way. I'd also like to see a removal of HP costs for roster slots for characters that are new to your roster (duplicates of the same character would cost HP, and removal of a character that you only have one of would remove the free slot as well.) and better drop rates for 3* covers in heroic & event tokens (remove 2* completely since they're so easy to get in PVP).

Unknown

Jamie Madrox wrote:

The 2*-3* transition is definitely going to be harder and harder the more time passes and the more new characters are released. I'm not disputing that. What I take issue with is the people that think they shouldn't have to work for their rewards. Yes, they deserve to progress too, but it needs to be reasonable and D3 needs to make changes so that it is reasonable. Increasing earned ISO would be one way. I'd also like to see a removal of HP costs for roster slots for characters that are new to your roster (duplicates of the same character would cost HP, and removal of a character that you only have one of would remove the free slot as well.) and better drop rates for 3* covers in heroic & event tokens (remove 2* completely since they're so easy to get in PVP).

If d3p is set on roster slots costing a lot, I'd like to see something like a secondary roster, a "bench," with infinite slots, but you can't use any of the characters. At any time you could spend a modest amount of HP (75?) to swap two characters between your roster and the bench, or from the bench to an empty roster slot.

rednailz

gamar wrote:

Remember when LazyCap was released and he was rewarded in like six tournaments during the first month be was available? And it was awesome? Did they just not make enough cover purchase money from that?

Do I ever, he was my first 3* I went crazy on trying to build, hoping to get ahead of the "curve". It helped and I wan him with my 2* team, but he didn't help that much. To this day mine still isnt' 166. He serves me fine at 140.

Unknown

Simple possibly on topic thought experiment

Once upon a time there were only a few 3*s for this experiment lets say 10, now there are (more than) 30. to max out 10 takes 130 covers there will be plenty of unneeded duplicates along the way to 130 so lets round all the way up to 200 for covers needed before you have 10 covered 3*s back in the day. Also assuming all things equal each event would have a 1/10 chance in offering covers for a specific character and tokens drops resulting in a 3* would also be 1/10.

Lets jump to the time of 30 3* characters. 30 characters 390 covers to max them all. Those same 200 3* covers we assumed above we will certainly have a less chance of duplicates but with each character coming up in events 1/30 times and tokens 1/30 times lets assume a slightly random distribution. I am going to go out on a limb and say covers earned has a correlation with time/effort/money put into the game. So with not equal but comparable levels of effort someone who started a long time ago should be well on their way to 10 maxed 3*s. And someone today may have 30 3*s all at about 7 covers.

The latter may have "More" covers for the same effort but the former still has the advantage and will continue to out earn the new players which widens the gap even further. Not with more skill or more effort but because they got here when the game was younger.

No one is complaining saying they want free stuff without doing anything for it, they realize how hard it is to get characters to competitive state without already having characters at a competitive state. Telling them to keep working at it they will eventually catch up is not even remotely true. They may eventually catch up to where a veteran's roster is now, but by then it will take even more to be truly competitive and the cycle continues. I am certain there are going to be a few who muscle or buy their way past that barrier but for most newer players it is going to keep them at a disadvantage forever.

But hey some people have been playing longer so they deserve to be at an advantage forever no matter how skilled or dedicated new players might be, right?

rednailz

Cryptobrancus wrote:

But hey some people have been playing longer so they deserve to be at an advantage forever no matter how skilled or dedicated new players might be, right?

Um...how you figure? If you're skilled enough and have a decent niche roster you can take down a 4 * team with a 3 * team no problem (and with some boosts)

In PvE I've seen tons of 2* roster guys finish in the top 10 for the event. They have the dedication and there's always 2 * players boosted.

If you're playing an RPG or an MMO chances are in PvP land you will get rolled over from people with better loot who have been playing longer, but if you time and plan your attack right you can gank a vet player and get away. If you're playing a FPS you're going to get rolled over by people who have unlocked better guns and know the map better, but it only takes 1 well placed bullet to put down a vet on a 30 - 2 run.

If your playing a racing game online the vets know the track better and can afford better parts.

How is this principle so unfair if it's a common occuerence in online games? And with a match 3 game there is always luck. Save your +1 to AP and +20% damage to all colors boosts, collect good TUs and if you have a decent roster you can take down those that have been playing longer than you and have a much better roster.

Example - a lvl 270 thor and xforce team doesn't stand up to well to a fully boosted BP and Patch team. Couple green and couple black matches - you deny xforce, thor takes a lot of AP to get going. beserker strike after battle plan and a little ROTP - done.

JamieMadrox

gamar wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

The 2*-3* transition is definitely going to be harder and harder the more time passes and the more new characters are released. I'm not disputing that. What I take issue with is the people that think they shouldn't have to work for their rewards. Yes, they deserve to progress too, but it needs to be reasonable and D3 needs to make changes so that it is reasonable. Increasing earned ISO would be one way. I'd also like to see a removal of HP costs for roster slots for characters that are new to your roster (duplicates of the same character would cost HP, and removal of a character that you only have one of would remove the free slot as well.) and better drop rates for 3* covers in heroic & event tokens (remove 2* completely since they're so easy to get in PVP).

If d3p is set on roster slots costing a lot, I'd like to see something like a secondary roster, a "bench," with infinite slots, but you can't use any of the characters. At any time you could spend a modest amount of HP (75?) to swap two characters between your roster and the bench, or from the bench to an empty roster slot.

I know that they're looking in to some sort of solution to the roster cost issue, but I don't know what it is.

Ebolamonkey84

I think I may be considered a vet at this point by most newer people. I've played a little under 300 days and have a cover maxed 221 XForce, 6 lvl 166 3*s, and 22 cover maxed 3*s.

My problem with most of the threads like this one is that transitioners incorrectly assign the blame for the slow transition to the veteran players. This gets vets riled up and on the defensive and the conversation degrades into class warfare. The vets are not the enemy. We do not want to keep the transitioner down to keep all the good prizes to ourselves. There are more viable solutions to the issue that do not involve segregating the player base and taking prizes away from one group to benefit the other.

When I started playing, there was an actual 1* > 2* transition and you needed to get top 50 to get a single 3* cover. It took effort to get 2*s to a usable level, to the point where if I accidentally got high enough to get into the 3* reward tier I would try to drop down, because an OBW purple was infintely more useful to me than a 3* I didn't have space for. It took me probably around 2 months to get a good set of maxed 2*s, and then about 4 months after that to get a cover maxed 3*, which seemed reasonable at the time.

Now 2* covers rain down from the sky and there is no more 1* > 2* transition, which makes the 2* > 3* transition seem even slower. No one really needs the cover offered from rank 101-300 anymore, so anything less than top 100 is seen as failure.

The enemy is the game and its current reward structure. Here are some possible solutions that could help the transitioner without hurting the vet.
1) Expand single cover 3* rewards to top 150, 2 covers to top 50, 3 covers to top 10.
2) Offer more PVP events that do not count towards season total. I would love to take a few PVPs off when I don't need the rewards so that others can get them, but I'm the commander of an alliance that expects to be top 25-50 and I need to hit the same requirements we expect of all of our members. More off season PVP events would allow people like me to sit them out so that people who need the prizes can play.
3) Create a system where people who do not need the cover rewards can still get the ISO but defer the covers to the next person down the line. For example, I get top 25 but do not need either cover. I decline the covers and get my 1000 ISO. The rank 26 player now gets a chance to get the 2nd tier cover and the rank 101 person gets offered the 3rd tier cover.
4) Increase the probabilities of the tokens already, or replace the 900 progression reward with a 3-4* only token.

wirius

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

I think I may be considered a vet at this point by most newer people. I've played a little under 300 days and have a cover maxed 221 XForce, 6 lvl 166 3*s, and 22 cover maxed 3*s.

My problem with most of the threads like this one is that transitioners incorrectly assign the blame for the slow transition to the veteran players. This gets vets riled up and on the defensive and the conversation degrades into class warfare. The vets are not the enemy. We do not want to keep the transitioner down to keep all the good prizes to ourselves. There are more viable solutions to the issue that do not involve segregating the player base and taking prizes away from one group to benefit the other.

When I started playing, there was an actual 1* > 2* transition and you needed to get top 50 to get a single 3* cover. It took effort to get 2*s to a usable level, to the point where if I accidentally got high enough to get into the 3* reward tier I would try to drop down, because an OBW purple was infintely more useful to me than a 3* I didn't have space for. It took me probably around 2 months to get a good set of maxed 2*s, and then about 4 months after that to get a cover maxed 3*, which seemed reasonable at the time.

Now 2* covers rain down from the sky and there is no more 1* > 2* transition, which makes the 2* > 3* transition seem even slower. No one really needs the cover offered from rank 101-300 anymore, so anything less than top 100 is seen as failure.

The enemy is the game and its current reward structure. Here are some possible solutions that could help the transitioner without hurting the vet.
1) Expand single cover 3* rewards to top 150, 2 covers to top 50, 3 covers to top 10.
2) Offer more PVP events that do not count towards season total. I would love to take a few PVPs off when I don't need the rewards so that others can get them, but I'm the commander of an alliance that expects to be top 25-50 and I need to hit the same requirements we expect of all of our members. More off season PVP events would allow people like me to sit them out so that people who need the prizes can play.
3) Create a system where people who do not need the cover rewards can still get the ISO but defer the covers to the next person down the line. For example, I get top 25 but do not need either cover. I decline the covers and get my 1000 ISO. The rank 26 player now gets a chance to get the 2nd tier cover and the rank 101 person gets offered the 3rd tier cover.
4) Increase the probabilities of the tokens already, or replace the 900 progression reward with a 3-4* only token.

I agree completely! I think however its also the responsibility of us vets to not blame the newbies either if they get out of hand with their blame. Its not "Who shot first". We should be the responsible party, understand the new people's complaints, then gently guide them to a more appropriate solution. Kudos Ebolamonkey.

Unknown

Agreed completely. This post may have stepped on some toes at points but the gist is the 2-3 transition is really hard right now in the present. The comments from veterans often seem indifferent or defensive and don't always take into account that the game has changed a lot since they made their own transition.

It is up to D3 to determine whether this is a problem or not and how it should be addressed if so. There are lots of decent ideas about what could be done, and some of those ideas affect more than just transitioners. It is fair to address those ideas with feedback if it would negatively impact yourself. But trying to deny there might be a problem for this subset of players when you are past all their problems is not helping the discussion.

rednailz

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Agreed completely. This post may have stepped on some toes at points but the gist is the 2-3 transition is really hard right now in the present. The comments from veterans often seem indifferent or defensive and don't always take into account that the game has changed a lot since they made their own transition.

It is up to D3 to determine whether this is a problem or not and how it should be addressed if so. There are lots of decent ideas about what could be done, and some of those ideas affect more than just transitioners. It is fair to address those ideas with feedback if it would negatively impact yourself. But trying to deny there might be a problem for this subset of players when you are past all their problems is not helping the discussion.

I've never seen any player deny that the transition is much harder now then it used to be. It's certainly an issue, and you see on these boards a lot of vets or ppl with great rosters posting and campaining for D3 to make changes to help the transition. In the very long laundry list of problems it's usually at the very top.

Only thing left to happen now is for D3 to do something about it, or wait for the player base to die off and have the game drift off into oblivion, which I could see happening in a few seasons if there aren't some changes.

Unknown

Personally I think a HUGE portion of the blame lies on the level shift, which I haven't seen mentioned yet

"Hey we noticed that a lot of players stay in the 2* state for a long time instead of moving up to 3* characters. I know, let's make it twice as hard for them to compete with 3* rosters and get 3* covers!"