Pylgrim wrote: Who's talking about the earlier stages alone? The whole effect is compounded throughout the climb and if there's truly an increase in difficulty once the very top scores are reached, the total difficulty will be probably evened out. To make clearer my point: In nowadays' MMR, my average score earn per fight sits around 30, with scores over 35 being common during the first few hundreds and scores under 30 (but over 25) being the norm later on. As such, reaching 1k needs 34 victories or so. If 38 is indeed going to be the new 25, there's reason to believe that the average score per victory will be 45, but let's be pessimistic and say it's going to be 40. That's only 25 victories to reach 1k! Much faster, less chances for bad breaks and offensive losses, less health packs used. Whatever negative change it causes on accumulated defensive losses, it would have to be HUGE to outweigh having to play 30% less fights during your climb. Moreover, closing gaps will be easier and safer: Many times I have sat around 960 points being unable to find a single fight to bridge the gap to 1k with a single fight, so it's either spend HP in another shield-hop just for the very last few points (and risk an additional unshielding) or attempt the suicidal risk of playing two quick rounds in a row and hope that your score adds up to get the 4* before the flurry of inevitable attacks registers. Now, it will be quite more possible to breach the gap with a single, quick battle. And this effect also compounds! Sitting at 920 before meant the necessity for 3-4 shields depending on your targets. Now, it may theoretically be done with 2. If 38 will really be the new 25, 1k is only 5-6 fights away from 800+ points, rather than 8!
PeterGibbons316 wrote: This sounds super shady, and would definitely be a mechanic/exploit/loophole that breaks competitive play. It's certainly something devs would want to get rid of.....what am I missing?
Nellobee wrote: I still believe the game would be better if they just removed shielding entirely. Then it would be more about playing the actual game and less about a bizarre meta.
djsquillz wrote: Nellobee wrote: I still believe the game would be better if they just removed shielding entirely. Then it would be more about playing the actual game and less about a bizarre meta. And then every PVP would be a 90 minute "join, sprint, and pray you don't get hit" right at the end of an event...just like it used to be before shields were introduced. marc
Tredo wrote: Well stated, Mohio. I don't understand the level of animosity between anonymous internetters going on here. Is it due to the competitive nature of the game, or is it simply due to lack of manners? I play this little Q&A game with my daughter when she says something mean.
PeterGibbons316 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: You're missing a lot of things, none of which I feel like explaining. Maybe it's your tone, maybe it's how you're willing to call people dishonest while not knowing what you're talking about. I didn't call anyone dishonest, I said IF that was how it works (which you are telling me it isn't) then it would certainly be an exploit. So then how DOES it work?????? The only explanation I have seen is from mohio saying " you could go from 500-900 without actually playing any matches". I don't think I have EVER scored 900 points, and I'm on day 225 or something like that. Getting to 900 without ever playing sounds like an exploit to me.
ArkPrime wrote: You're missing a lot of things, none of which I feel like explaining. Maybe it's your tone, maybe it's how you're willing to call people dishonest while not knowing what you're talking about.
Unreallystic wrote: Tredo wrote: Well stated, Mohio. I don't understand the level of animosity between anonymous internetters going on here. Is it due to the competitive nature of the game, or is it simply due to lack of manners? I play this little Q&A game with my daughter when she says something mean. It's pretty obvious to me. It's a fall out of frustration of top alliances verse everyone else. It's really not more complex than that. The devs have done a good job of not 'destroying' the game due to the top 3%, but the top 3% have 'ruined' the game for many others. Frankly speaking there are a LOT of players with the ability and the rosters to get a top 5 finish, a chance at the 4* covers or triple covers they covet, but due to 'essentially' exploits (more on that in a sec) they can't compete unless they go mercenary or join up with one of those top alliance, some times - such as myself, requiring them to leave friends and family currently in their alliance. As for 'essentially exploit', I think there is some...disagreement with what an exploit is. An exploit is NOT cheating. Exploit means to take advatnage of. Gaming or overgaming a in a way not originally intended. The current top rank PvP is dominated by those gaming the system, it is NOT cheating and should not be called as such, but it is taking advatnage of the system in a way not intended by the devs. So the players that complain about "playing fair" are frustrated because they can't compete, because they aren't in the top groups, doing what they do. It's how people felt during Sentry Bombing when they didn't have Sentry...you had to work expotentially hard to keep up, but ultimately, you still couldn't consistnetly beat a Sentry/Hood team. I could climb to #1 in my slice right now and shield and fight as much as I want, at the end of the day, I'm going to get 'undercut' in the last hour or so by several high alliance members bouncing off each other. so after all that work, I'm left 'maybe' with a top 25 finish, and no 4* to continue to 'end game', while the covers won, are ultimately just sold for ISO by most of the high players. Or if its a new character, I get a double whammy in the next even not having the covers to compete. Now, I'm honestly not complaining right now, I've personally given up on 4*, they aren't that great, and I'll never be able to get the covers because I'm not going to 'leave' the alliance that has my mother and my wife in it, nor do the insane amount of work in PvE (or deal with the crummy scaling) to get a top finish (anymore), but I'm saying all this to try and explain the frustration of others. - Unreall
ArkPrime wrote: If you're not willing to put in the work, fine. Just don't begrudge those who are, and don't blame bad game design on us. We play the game within the rules, we just do it more efficiently than people who don't care to.
jackstar0 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: If you're not willing to put in the work, fine. Just don't begrudge those who are, and don't blame bad game design on us. We play the game within the rules, we just do it more efficiently than people who don't care to. There is the magic word: work. People should take more time to think about this amusement (time-sink) and that word and why they seem congruent within their psyche. Once it is work, it's no longer play.
Der_Lex wrote: Boosting has always been a thing, but in my experience actual retreat climbing became a lot more prevalent after the infamous MMR change, which was a pain in the backside for top-end players more because of the 'if you get over x amount of points, you'll be visible to everybody' than because of the climb taking longer and being a bigger a hassle. I think it's safe to say that anyone who actually engages in retreat climbing or boosting has enough experience in the game and a roster that's developed enough to be able to reach 1k without it, but doing so takes a big investment in both time and HP for shields, and even then it's still a bit of a crapshoot because a bad cascade and/or a couple of fast snipes can keep you from reaching that final threshold (and will require an even bigger investment in HP if it's near the end of the event and you only have your 300HP shield left thanks to those wonderful 8 hour cooldowns). Retreat climbing saves you HP (which is probably the main reason why it's being dealt with, let's be honest) and time at the expense of having to coordinate well with alliance members or other friendlies and of ISO for skips. What bugs me about the way this change has been implemented is not that the change itself is being made, since I see where it's coming from (even though I think it's more a matter of revenue than overall game health/balance, but I'm a cynic that way), but the way in which it's implemented: the increased points gain is once again a change that benefits lower-level players a lot more than top-end veterans (since unless I've misinterpreted the, frankly rather vague, official explanation, fights at 800/900+ still won't give you more than about 20-30 points, yet guys at the bottom will be able to hit you for a lot more from now on), just like pretty much every change made in the past couple of months other than DDQ and the expansion of 4* PvE Alliance covers to top 100 instead of top 50. Don't get me wrong, I want everybody to enjoy playing regardless of whether they're on day 500 or on day 20, but I do get the feeling that the enjoyment of the top-end vets doesn't really seem to matter much to the devs anymore, and will continue to feel that way until some kind of change makes it into the game that does address long-running issues for veteran players (*coughcoughrosterslotpricescoughcough). But right now it seems like they feel we've had it too good for too long already, and they're doing their damnedest to rectify that situation.
ArkPrime wrote: You don't get to decide how people should play this game.
jackstar0 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: You don't get to decide how people should play this game. Firstly, I get to do whatever I want. Secondly, I can judge as much as I want. People judge me and I'm cool with that. Just like the lord tacitly implied was the way to do it. Thirdly, I wasn't deciding how people should do anything. I was suggesting that people take a moment of introspection and consider that when they use the word "work" in relation to an entertainment they might want to consider what that's about. Lastly, carry on, gamer.
DrStrange-616 wrote: Thank you for the explanation, Ebolamonkey84. On the one hand, it's very clever and I understand why people do it. On the other, it's clearly not in the "spirit" of the game. But so much is broken I wouldn't know where to start to fix it all.
TheOncomingStorm wrote: DrStrange-616 wrote: Thank you for the explanation, Ebolamonkey84. On the one hand, it's very clever and I understand why people do it. On the other, it's clearly not in the "spirit" of the game. But so much is broken I wouldn't know where to start to fix it all. Let's not forget, they decide if the progressives are at the correct level by how many people get those, not what final scores are. So basically, boosting gave them false data where if appeared that enough people playing normally were hitting progressives so that those progressives did not need to be lowered. So if their points change does not facilitate enough people hitting the progressive they should be lowered (as they probably would have been shortly after the MMR change if not for this loophole). Also, most people I know were complaining how much PVP was taking as a result of MMR changes, weekly buffs, 4* nerfs, and health buffs. These were the people that really enjoyed the retreat boosting. It was a way to avoid the slogfest the aforementioned changes had created. Disregarding alternatives to this new defense loss change and the MMR change, as long as these changes produce shorter PVP play for the same results, I think players will accept it. It think most players are guarded about if the change will work they way that has been stated as well as being able to hit the progressives. I am not saying that they are without reason to be guarded, but I am saying it would be nice if we get the promised results.
ArkPrime wrote: No you misunderstand me, you can ramble on as much as you want, just know that nobody is listening. I just pointed out one of many reasons why.
ArkPrime wrote: TheOncomingStorm wrote: DrStrange-616 wrote: Thank you for the explanation, Ebolamonkey84. On the one hand, it's very clever and I understand why people do it. On the other, it's clearly not in the "spirit" of the game. But so much is broken I wouldn't know where to start to fix it all. Let's not forget, they decide if the progressives are at the correct level by how many people get those, not what final scores are. So basically, boosting gave them false data where if appeared that enough people playing normally were hitting progressives so that those progressives did not need to be lowered. So if their points change does not facilitate enough people hitting the progressive they should be lowered (as they probably would have been shortly after the MMR change if not for this loophole). Also, most people I know were complaining how much PVP was taking as a result of MMR changes, weekly buffs, 4* nerfs, and health buffs. These were the people that really enjoyed the retreat boosting. It was a way to avoid the slogfest the aforementioned changes had created. Disregarding alternatives to this new defense loss change and the MMR change, as long as these changes produce shorter PVP play for the same results, I think players will accept it. It think most players are guarded about if the change will work they way that has been stated as well as being able to hit the progressives. I am not saying that they are without reason to be guarded, but I am saying it would be nice if we get the promised results. No. People were still finishing around what they always finished.
PeterGibbons316 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: PeterGibbons316 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: Using normal in game mechanisms to play event is not an exploit. I'm not familiar with the exploit and how it works (please educate me on the details if I am wrong in my assumptions here), but if the intention of PvP is to acquire points by winning battles against opponents, and you have found a "loophole" that lets you acquire more point by intentionally losing battles instead, then you are exploiting a game mechanic the defeats the spirit of the game. It may not be "unethical", but if you are doing this to gain an advantage over players that aren't using this exploit then you are kind of a piece of tinykitty. For someone who admits he doesn't understand what he's talking about, calling people out like in that last sentence is a pretty daring shot in the dark, wouldn't you say? Nobody is topping pvp brackets using this. People were using it to inject more points into a bracket early when everyone is worth 10-15 points and boosting people into the 1k progression reward. The tactic discussed requires people to spend a lot of time unshielded, and if anyone attempted it over 1k they would be sniped into oblivon. Nobody was being harmed by this, unless you consider "not getting progression as easily as some people" being harmed. In which case everyone who has a nice roster is harming everyone that doesn't. So how exactly did it work? You find a buddy and both continually lose to each other boosting your scores to 1k? Could you do this with a 2* roster? Once you got to 1k couldn't you then shield to stay there and take a top (or near it) finish beating out players with developed rosters grinding for days trying to get the same score? This sounds super shady, and would definitely be a mechanic/exploit/loophole that breaks competitive play. It's certainly something devs would want to get rid of.....what am I missing?
ArkPrime wrote: PeterGibbons316 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: Using normal in game mechanisms to play event is not an exploit. I'm not familiar with the exploit and how it works (please educate me on the details if I am wrong in my assumptions here), but if the intention of PvP is to acquire points by winning battles against opponents, and you have found a "loophole" that lets you acquire more point by intentionally losing battles instead, then you are exploiting a game mechanic the defeats the spirit of the game. It may not be "unethical", but if you are doing this to gain an advantage over players that aren't using this exploit then you are kind of a piece of tinykitty. For someone who admits he doesn't understand what he's talking about, calling people out like in that last sentence is a pretty daring shot in the dark, wouldn't you say? Nobody is topping pvp brackets using this. People were using it to inject more points into a bracket early when everyone is worth 10-15 points and boosting people into the 1k progression reward. The tactic discussed requires people to spend a lot of time unshielded, and if anyone attempted it over 1k they would be sniped into oblivon. Nobody was being harmed by this, unless you consider "not getting progression as easily as some people" being harmed. In which case everyone who has a nice roster is harming everyone that doesn't.
PeterGibbons316 wrote: ArkPrime wrote: Using normal in game mechanisms to play event is not an exploit. I'm not familiar with the exploit and how it works (please educate me on the details if I am wrong in my assumptions here), but if the intention of PvP is to acquire points by winning battles against opponents, and you have found a "loophole" that lets you acquire more point by intentionally losing battles instead, then you are exploiting a game mechanic the defeats the spirit of the game. It may not be "unethical", but if you are doing this to gain an advantage over players that aren't using this exploit then you are kind of a piece of tinykitty.
ArkPrime wrote: Using normal in game mechanisms to play event is not an exploit.