Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

Buret0

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

Are you not already shielded at the end of PVP? I got to 800 in Divine Champions to get my Rags blue, didn't shield, and got knocked down to mid 500s.

I shield if I care about how I'm placing. I never bother to protect a subpar finish.

Generally I'll shield any finish where I'm in the top 25 to top 50. Otherwise I'm willing to just accept the progression rewards and save the HP.

It will be pretty easy to get to 500 early, but then you are going to need to shield or wake up to a 300 point hit. It really wouldn't be tough to recover from those hits though... getting a ton of retaliation hits in with eight hours left after being hit hard is going to cause some crazy changes in the standings in the last three to eight hours.

At which point it is going to be apparent who has been shielding for most of the event and who hasn't. Getting to the top and staying there will be easier, but more expensive than it was before.

Reclimbing is also going to be much faster with the higher point values, but the cost of getting hit is going to be much worse.

As I said... I'll give it a season to see how it actually shakes out, but I'm fairly certain that they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in response to boosting.

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

you don't have a right to complain when something broken is fixed.

You're completely missing the point. If this change could be classified as a "fix", no one would be complaining. It's a preventative. It doesn't "fix" anything.

simonsez

Pylgrim wrote:

I was talking about the very act of playing a match, which is something that people exploiting shortcuts to the top seem to want to avoid.

No one who was boosting has a natural aversion to the match-3 mechanic. I'm sure you know this. You can read this very thread and find several people explaining the motivation behind it. Or you can read any other thread that complains that PvE scaling, lousy PvP matchmaking, buffs and nerfs, have made trying to progress in events an unpleasant, frustrating slog. It's has nothing to do with anyone not liking to slide tiles around.

GothicKratos

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

you don't have a right to complain when something broken is fixed.

You're completely missing the point. If this change could be classified as a "fix", no one would be complaining. It's a preventative. It doesn't "fix" anything.

It was. Did I say they fixed PvP? No. They patched a hole in the roof. It was a problem, even if it wasn't a problem to you, and they did something to addressed the issue.

@fmftint: Why can anyone not call boosting an exploit? Cambridge defines an 'exploit' as "to use something in a way that helps you" (as in, "we need to fully exploit the resources available to us") or "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage" (as in, "anti-tampering devices prevent people from exploiting our product"). Both definitions apply 100% to boosting. It can be defined as "completely" using the resources available to them (i.e. knowing how to use the in-game mechanics to your advantage) or as in making gaining progression rewards a vastly easier progress for yourself and not others (i.e. 'exploiting' the in-game mechanics). Simply because you choose not to label it as an exploit, or the developers for that matter, that it their choice in verbiage, but nobody is wrong, in either definition of the word, in using the term "exploit" in reference to boosting.

Dauthi

Haven't read much, but this sounds good to me.

With the new changes the slog to 1k is very tiresome. This will speed it up a lot. This wouldn't have been possible without the new changes either, since now you get attacked a lot less (unless you have taken more points than your team can hold). You will get to the point where you "spin your wheels" faster and quickly shield up.

As far as I can tell, this also means more points when shield hopping too, which means a lot more points to go around at the top as we bounce off of shields.

fmftint

GothicKratos wrote:

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

you don't have a right to complain when something broken is fixed.

You're completely missing the point. If this change could be classified as a "fix", no one would be complaining. It's a preventative. It doesn't "fix" anything.

It was. Did I say they fixed PvP? No. They patched a hole in the roof. It was a problem, even if it wasn't a problem to you, and they did something to addressed the issue.

@fmftint: Why can anyone not call boosting an exploit? Cambridge defines an 'exploit' as "to use something in a way that helps you" (as in, "we need to fully exploit the resources available to us") or "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage" (as in, "anti-tampering devices prevent people from exploiting our product"). Both definitions apply 100% to boosting. It can be defined as "completely" using the resources available to them (i.e. knowing how to use the in-game mechanics to your advantage) or as in making gaining progression rewards a vastly easier progress for yourself and not others (i.e. 'exploiting' the in-game mechanics). Simply because you choose not to label it as an exploit, or the developers for that matter, that it their choice in verbiage, but nobody is wrong, in either definition of the word, in using the term "exploit" in reference to boosting.

why? because the developers who decide what is and is not an exploit have ruled that it isn't

Dauthi

fmftint wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

you don't have a right to complain when something broken is fixed.

You're completely missing the point. If this change could be classified as a "fix", no one would be complaining. It's a preventative. It doesn't "fix" anything.

It was. Did I say they fixed PvP? No. They patched a hole in the roof. It was a problem, even if it wasn't a problem to you, and they did something to addressed the issue.

@fmftint: Why can anyone not call boosting an exploit? Cambridge defines an 'exploit' as "to use something in a way that helps you" (as in, "we need to fully exploit the resources available to us") or "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage" (as in, "anti-tampering devices prevent people from exploiting our product"). Both definitions apply 100% to boosting. It can be defined as "completely" using the resources available to them (i.e. knowing how to use the in-game mechanics to your advantage) or as in making gaining progression rewards a vastly easier progress for yourself and not others (i.e. 'exploiting' the in-game mechanics). Simply because you choose not to label it as an exploit, or the developers for that matter, that it their choice in verbiage, but nobody is wrong, in either definition of the word, in using the term "exploit" in reference to boosting.

why? because the developers who decide what is and is not an exploit have ruled that it isn't

Unless you can read the OP's mind, then you have no idea why he called it what he did. I would have avoided calling it an "exploit" despite it being one too. It avoids confusion/misinterpretations about possible repercussions.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

GothicKratos

fmftint wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

@fmftint: Why can anyone not call boosting an exploit? Cambridge defines an 'exploit' as "to use something in a way that helps you" (as in, "we need to fully exploit the resources available to us") or "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage" (as in, "anti-tampering devices prevent people from exploiting our product"). Both definitions apply 100% to boosting. It can be defined as "completely" using the resources available to them (i.e. knowing how to use the in-game mechanics to your advantage) or as in making gaining progression rewards a vastly easier progress for yourself and not others (i.e. 'exploiting' the in-game mechanics). Simply because you choose not to label it as an exploit, or the developers for that matter, that it their choice in verbiage, but nobody is wrong, in either definition of the word, in using the term "exploit" in reference to boosting.

why? because the developers who decide what is and is not an exploit have ruled that it isn't

Here, let me give an example.



This isn't a zebra.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Cambridge defines an 'exploit' as "to use something in a way that helps you" (as in, "we need to fully exploit the resources available to us") or "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage" (as in, "anti-tampering devices prevent people from exploiting our product"). Both definitions apply 100% to boosting. It can be defined as "completely" using the resources available to them (i.e. knowing how to use the in-game mechanics to your advantage) or as in making gaining progression rewards a vastly easier progress for yourself and not others (i.e. 'exploiting' the in-game mechanics).

~emphasis added~

This (the bolded part) is where I tend to disagree. It flooded the PVP's with extra points that went to anyone that could see and hit them. So yes, it helped you achieve your end game of getting the 1k progression, but all the people that are hitting you that are not part of your group benefited as well. Did it throw the metrics off, yes. But it did benefit everyone playing by making larger point targets available.

What I worry about, which I have seen several people point out as well, is if these boosted people are no longer out there, even with the point increase, the system will not be as plentiful and as flooded with points as before. So the larger hits very well could take us further backwards in progression as opposed to the Devs attempt/intentions to make us hit them faster. Unless they are going to ease up on the seed team restrictions AND make the seed teams worth more points, I am afraid that we very well see PVP's with serious point droughts.

GothicKratos

That's a fair concern. The same concern was raised when Shields got cooldowns and people managed fine. There will be a new equilibrium and if needed, the developers will adjust progressions again.

As for the bolded, it's semantics, really. I don't disagree that the point inflation didn't help some other guys, but you greatly benefited from it and you indirectly helped others.

Ducky

Dauthi wrote:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

You rang?

Tredo

fmftint wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

you don't have a right to complain when something broken is fixed.

You're completely missing the point. If this change could be classified as a "fix", no one would be complaining. It's a preventative. It doesn't "fix" anything.

It was. Did I say they fixed PvP? No. They patched a hole in the roof. It was a problem, even if it wasn't a problem to you, and they did something to addressed the issue.

@fmftint: Why can anyone not call boosting an exploit? Cambridge defines an 'exploit' as "to use something in a way that helps you" (as in, "we need to fully exploit the resources available to us") or "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage" (as in, "anti-tampering devices prevent people from exploiting our product"). Both definitions apply 100% to boosting. It can be defined as "completely" using the resources available to them (i.e. knowing how to use the in-game mechanics to your advantage) or as in making gaining progression rewards a vastly easier progress for yourself and not others (i.e. 'exploiting' the in-game mechanics). Simply because you choose not to label it as an exploit, or the developers for that matter, that it their choice in verbiage, but nobody is wrong, in either definition of the word, in using the term "exploit" in reference to boosting.

why? because the developers who decide what is and is not an exploit have ruled that it isn't

They are most likely avoiding that term because they don't want to alienate/call-out their customers that were using the exploit/loophole/issue/opportunity/whatever. That's customer service etiquette. Regardless, it's semantics. People were intentionally losing to help others progress in the game. That is not how things are supposed to work. It isn't healthy for the game.

We really should be focusing on the real issue: is the fix going to hurt more than it will help? I'm guessing it will because of the increase in points lost. But, maybe we should wait to hear back from one of the devs about what the formula is for wins/losses. I realize that might mean waiting until next year...

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

That's a fair concern. The same concern was raised when Shields got cooldowns and people managed fine. There will be a new equilibrium and if needed, the developers will adjust progressions again.

As for the bolded, it's semantics, really. I don't disagree that the point inflation didn't help some other guys, but you greatly benefited from it and you indirectly helped others.

Well I never benefited from it (boosting). My roster hasn't progressed far enough to be doing all that. LOL. And now I will never know the pleasure.

Scoregasms

So if 1k is when the real pain begins (not looking forward to seeing -75 after a match) and you set top progression to 1k, why not lower it to 850 and let those vying for placement rewards wade through the insane volatility you are setting up with these changes? Lots of folks go in just for progression rewards in PVP and then float down, but if there are serious point draughts as some think may happen, this could be even more frustrating without those folks at the top unshielding so we can q some big points from below to just get progression.

These kinds of changes can be more far reaching than just plugging one hole only to make 3 others worse. I know it's not live yet, but I know I appreciate seeing a 40 point Q versus a sea of 4-5 pointers after thousands of ISO skipping. If those go away, what am I even playing PVP for if i can't even hit top progression?? You usually bend over backwards if that happens in PVE, why treat PVP so differently?

Guess we'll see how it plays out...

Unknown

Tredo wrote:

We really should be focusing on the real issue: is the fix going to hurt more than it will help? I'm guessing it will because of the increase in points lost. But, maybe we should wait to hear back from one of the devs about what the formula is for wins/losses. I realize that might mean waiting until next year...

Problem is, this thread is now 12 pages long and has been up for 24 hours. Demiurge_Will came in, copy and pasted the post into the forums and then dipped out. He didn't bother to stay around for Q&A on what most of us would consider a very large change to the game mechanism. That's bad business as far as I am concerned.

Meanwhile, he posted the EXACT same post on redditt (i think it was redditt), and stayed around for one softball question and then ignored all the tougher questions. That is what drives me crazy. This entire thread meltdown COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED with just a few simple questions answered. (Granted, people should always be nice to each other. But the trigger was having new game changes without sufficient information, which is a constant problem here.)

Edit: Corrected name spelling.
And added a clickable link to email Demiurge_Will by clicking his name above. (in case you wanted to give him your two cents on how he handled the points change situation)

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

It was. Did I say they fixed PvP? No. They patched a hole in the roof.

No, it's more like there was a hole in the roof, so we put a pot under to keep from having to walk through puddles all day, but because they insist the purpose of the pot is to cook soup, they took it away. The hole in the roof is still there, and we're back to sloshing around again.

Unknown

Tredo wrote:

They are most likely avoiding that term because they don't want to alienate/call-out their customers that were using the exploit/loophole/issue/opportunity/whatever. That's customer service etiquette. Regardless, it's semantics. People were intentionally losing to help others progress in the game. That is not how things are supposed to work. It isn't healthy for the game.

We really should be focusing on the real issue: is the fix going to hurt more than it will help? I'm guessing it will because of the increase in points lost. But, maybe we should wait to hear back from one of the devs about what the formula is for wins/losses. I realize that might mean waiting until next year...

They're not calling it an exploit because it's their fault for encouraging people to do this by putting in no safeguards whatsoever to the common problem of win trading. Sure, you can never stop win trading, but you can't just call all your players cheaters when you've made no attempt to stop it. The original Diablo 1 has an estimated 33% cheaters on BNet. You don't see Blizzard ever taking a stance against them because it'd just look bad on yourself because people's going to ask 'why are 1/3 of all players cheaters?'. I think the most Blizzard ever said is: "We guaranteed you won't get killed in town", which isn't even always true. Of course after Diablo 1 Blizzard considerably tightened up the security and from that point on they've a much tougher stance on cheating since it is no longer 1/3 of the playerbase that they've to worry about.

jackstar0

Guys no, it's like cars...

/the only worse analogy for everything

Unknown

aesthetocyst wrote:

.....and there were players with relatively weak rosters who ran up from 500 to 1100 in an hour or two, in the first 12 hours of events. Hmmm.

...like who?

I can claim that this one guy won my bracket with nothing but a lvl 4 bagman too if we're making outlandish claims without any supporting evidence

aesthetocyst

ArkPrime wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

.....and there were players with relatively weak rosters who ran up from 500 to 1100 in an hour or two, in the first 12 hours of events. Hmmm.

...like who?

I can claim that this one guy won my bracket with nothing but a lvl 4 bagman too if we're making outlandish claims without any supporting evidence

Sorry Ark, but it's purely anecdotal. As far as outlandish ... no. Common. Not happening in every bracket, but common enough. Sorry, I don't take a timestamped screenshot every time I check ranks. Nor will I name names of players or alliances, it's in the past. But the phenomena was a perfect example of the extremes this was being taken too.