limiting the number of points ypou can lose

Unknown

Oh that really hurt...I just got clipped for 110 points when I was in one match. Worse it was right at the end so their was no way I could get them back. I can get losing 100+ overnight, but in 4 minutes?


So how about a cap on how many points one can lose at once or have it that you can only be in 2 matches at once (one you are playing & one where you are ai) cus damn that was just brutal...

[Deleted User]

sounds like 3-5 players attacked at once.

this happens when a lot of stacked rosters wait 'til last hours of tourney and hunt for players that have already invested their time in a tournament bracket and yield high rewards for match victories.

This could be prevented with a logical and still fair solution.

Instead of letting players pick the end time, they don't get to choose the end time instead of choose when their playable window of time starts. This would inevitably discourage the stacked rosters from trying to fast track as other players whose rolling window ends after their 36-48 hour period ended could still attack them, but with no penalty to their final score. Still lets people attack each other and build scores but independently limiting your attack surface, because it is kind of a sneaky tactic.

currently we pick date/endtime. Instead, the first time we attack a player in the tournament, your rolling 36-48 hour attack window starts. They can still catch groups of players to arrange the brackets in the current fashion.

At that time, your score gets rolled up inyou finish where you finish. I think spanning tournaments across more than one day also kind of turns it into contest of who shells out the most for shields, regardless of shield cool down times. No PvP tournament should span more than 36 hours and that would separate players from the spenders.

simonsez

So you want to take shards, which already slice things way too thin to find good targets, and divide them even further into smaller attack windows? Let's just bring this home to its logical conclusion: 2-man brackets. Whoever falls asleep first, loses.

[Deleted User]

I suggested once you've ended your eligible window to play, no more penalties to your score are levied but you can still be attacked for the benefit of other players who are still in their attack window. Or did you not read that part???

MojoWild

I'm missing the logical part of this alternative solution, doesn't really make sense to me. So people could start playing a minute before the end time and still have a 36-48 hour period?
A cap would be simpler.

san

Here's an alternative solution I posted a couple of months ago:

http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19590&p=255439#p255439

I think that this would be much more effective.

[Deleted User]

MojoWild wrote:

I'm missing the logical part of this alternative solution, doesn't really make sense to me. So people could start playing a minute before the end time and still have a 36-48 hour period?
A cap would be simpler.

to simplify, provided all else remains the same, instead of choosing an end time, you just get rolled into a bracket of people who have started within a relative timeframe. Try not to focus on the numbers as much as the concept, the numbers could all be adjusted for fitting scenarios.

e.g. within a 3-day span

day one: 200 people start within the first twelve hours--getting a full 36-hour attack window, with the latter half of the day's participants rolled into the same group but not exercising full time, all participants that began play that day forfeit playability at the end of of day 2
day two: 100 people start their 36-hour attack window within the first twelve hours, wash-rinse-repeat, their window ends at the end of day 3 but they are still able to attack the teams from day one for the remainder of the day, but once the first bracket's playability window expires--their score can no longer incur penalties, their bracket ends--rewards are paid
day three: 200 people, etc. And their 36-hour attack window stretches into a 4th day, with the same process being repeated

It's very similary to their current setup but having unknown tournament end times I think actually mixes things up and enforces more fair play, musical chairs style. Who ever has a seat has a seat, regardless of how much you paid for shields, medpacks, boosts. It's more fair all-around.

This discourages people with stacked rosters from coming in the last hours of a tournament to rinse the competition of their hard-earned scores.

I think another great alternative would be levying 50-100 iso points for skipping possible matches. 10 iso is too cheap and accessible for the people that only hunt for massive match rewards, if you want the big payouts--you should be willing to pay for it in true "pay to play" fashion.

[Deleted User]

Alternatively, in another thread, I also mentioned a hard over-under limit for target pools, e.g. have to be within 100 pts (+/-) in order to attack anybody. This will naturally confine players with rosters of like capability to the same scores, all other things considered being equal. Inevitably, juvenile rosters will suffer at the hands of more mature rosters but not for long because the more mature rosters can only prey on juvenile rosters for a few matches within the targetpool being restricted to scores within the +/- limit.

That seems simplest and could be very effective at neutralizing roster disparities in the long-term.