Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

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

Defensive wins were "a thing" this game. Now they are not. They amputated an entire aspect of pvp combat. This is like amputating a foot because of an inflamed toenail. NOBODY is claiming it didn't need to be fixed, we're saying this is an incompetent, clumsy way to fix it.

GothicKratos wrote:

There was a specific analogy that ArkPrime made that I found pretty entertaining. He compared boosting to "netdecking" in TCGs

No, I didn't. Read what I posted again. You're drawing parallels from several different posts that are completely unrelated. That analogy wouldn't make any sense, since the retreat method that they patched was something people were using to get to 1k, instead of when it was used to reach, say, 5k, for several events straight.

Unknown

aesthetocyst wrote:

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.

Didn't happen. The method we're talking about takes a while to get going. To get over 1k you'd need like 5 other guys over 1k, all unshielded, taking turns retreating to each other. This was not an instant thing, which is why you didn't see entire alliances taking top25 or something like that.

No guy using 2*s got into top5. None. You know the post I made before about vets knowing when weird things happen in the top 25? . We'd talk about it. We'd know.

aesthetocyst

ArkPrime wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

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.

Didn't happen. The method we're talking about takes a while to get going. To get over 1k you'd need like 5 other guys over 1k, all unshielded, taking turns retreating to each other. This was not an instant thing, which is why you didn't see entire alliances taking top25 or something like that.

No guy using 2*s got into top5. None.

Who said anything about 2*s? I stated these were players with "weak rosters". As in, too weak to hit 1K in the first 8hrs of an event. Which they were doing. If this implies your alliance was not on the farthest extremes of the world of boosting, I really don't think that's a bad thing These were alliances with very strong players who were very coordinated, who would run up very early scores to race ahead of the competition, and then turn around and assist their weaker members. This is supposedly in the past after this change, but on the whole it won't weaken those alliances. Their trailblazers will still blaze, and their junior partners will bounce off them rather than be boosted by them, presumably.

Unless the boosters are generous enough to eat the 2/3rds "discount!" We shall see.

Now would you like to comment on the rest of my post?

Unknown

I stopped there. Whenever there's a big post and I spot complete nonsense I tend to skip the rest of the post.

There were no people with weak rosters above 1k. If anyone was stupid enough to try that at the start of the event it would take like an hour and a half to build up to 1k from seed teams, and they would be sniped to hell by all the vets that preregister (quite a lot of them do).

Tredo

Please just stop. Both of you. I'm begging. This is not productive. Your tête-à-tête is completely derailing this thread. What will it take for both of you to stop posting here until you're ready to have a discussion that actually focuses on the issue at hand?

aesthetocyst

ArkPrime wrote:

I stopped there. Whenever there's a big post and I spot complete nonsense I tend to skip the rest of the post.

There were no people with weak rosters above 1k. If anyone was stupid enough to try that at the start of the event it would take like an hour and a half to build up to 1k from seed teams, and they would be sniped to hell by all the vets that preregister (quite a lot of them do).

Ark, there are at most 185pts worth of seed teams, if you enter an event in the opening minutes. Yes, we vets to like to start early, don't we? In that spirit, have a good night. It sounds a rest is in order.

Unknown

Tredo wrote:

Please just stop. Both of you. I'm begging. This is not productive. Your tête-à-tête is completely derailing this thread. What will it take for both of you to stop posting here until you're ready to have a discussion that actually focuses on the issue at hand?

This is about the issue at hand. He's saying this needed to be emergency fixed because random people were boosting to 1k from nowhere at the start of the event. I know for a fact that's not the case. We're arguing about how bad the problem was and if it warranted the complete removal of defensive wins from the game as a "fix".

DrStrange-616

Tredo wrote:

Please just stop. Both of you. I'm begging. This is not productive. Your tête-à-tête is completely derailing this thread. What will it take for both of you to stop posting here until you're ready to have a discussion that actually focuses on the issue at hand?

Isn't this where a mod should step in and either take the offenders to the woodshed or give them a verbal warning?

Unknown

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Tredo wrote:

Please just stop. Both of you. I'm begging. This is not productive. Your tête-à-tête is completely derailing this thread. What will it take for both of you to stop posting here until you're ready to have a discussion that actually focuses on the issue at hand?

Isn't this where a mod should step in and either take the offenders to the woodshed or give them a verbal warning?

What rule did we break? I think you got something in the rules confused with "disagree with someone"

DrStrange-616

ArkPrime wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Tredo wrote:

Please just stop. Both of you. I'm begging. This is not productive. Your tête-à-tête is completely derailing this thread. What will it take for both of you to stop posting here until you're ready to have a discussion that actually focuses on the issue at hand?

Isn't this where a mod should step in and either take the offenders to the woodshed or give them a verbal warning?

What rule did we break? I think you got something in the rules confused with "disagree with someone"

Y'all have to be close to or beyond this one by now, don't you think?

Intentional argumentative behaviour, such as circular arguments (repeating the same thing over and over), or other such means that only serve to create tension and not discussion (such as dragging other events from the past or even other threads currently into a different, unrelated topic)

Unknown

DrStrange-616 wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

Tredo wrote:

Please just stop. Both of you. I'm begging. This is not productive. Your tête-à-tête is completely derailing this thread. What will it take for both of you to stop posting here until you're ready to have a discussion that actually focuses on the issue at hand?

Isn't this where a mod should step in and either take the offenders to the woodshed or give them a verbal warning?

What rule did we break? I think you got something in the rules confused with "disagree with someone"

Y'all have to be close to or beyond this one by now, don't you think?

Intentional argumentative behaviour, such as circular arguments (repeating the same thing over and over), or other such means that only serve to create tension and not discussion (such as dragging other events from the past or even other threads currently into a different, unrelated topic)

...no? Where did either of us do anything like that?

I wish GK added backseat modding to the bannable offense list.

DrStrange-616

ArkPrime wrote:

Intentional argumentative behaviour, such as circular arguments (repeating the same thing over and over), or other such means that only serve to create tension and not discussion (such as dragging other events from the past or even other threads currently into a different, unrelated topic)

...no? Where did either of us do anything like that?

I wish GK added backseat modding to the bannable offense list.

LOL. Ok. Beat your dead horse and just try not to scare the maggots.

GothicKratos

I think we all need to simmer down a bit. I appreciate the attempts to mediate Tredo and DrStrange - it's nice seeing people stick up for a positive environment - but they're being civil and I don't think they're intentionally overtaking the conversation (and it is on-topic, even if it's basically spit balling).

That being said, I really think what needs to be said really has been said. We'll see how things shake out in a week or two when the whole thing hits the bandwagon, but as long as it's civil, I'm pretty okay with a 78 page thread.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

I think we all need to simmer down a bit. I appreciate the attempts to mediate Tredo and DrStrange - it's nice seeing people stick up for a positive environment - but they're being civil and I don't think they're intentionally overtaking the conversation (and it is on-topic, even if it's basically spit balling).

That being said, I really think what needs to be said really has been said. We'll see how things shake out in a week or two when the whole thing hits the bandwagon, but as long as it's civil, I'm pretty okay with a 78 page thread.

You realize how many threads are going to quote your post right? Now that downvotes are out?

GothicKratos

I do now, and it makes me want to just leave, if I'm being honest.

fmftint

OP updated, point cap raised to 75

Moon Roach

fmftint wrote:

OP updated, point cap raised to 75

I saw that just before having to head off to 5-a-side (we drew 5-5), or I would have made a post to that effect.

Will even took my worked examples and put values in.

I'd give a thumbs up, but as far as I can tell it was a stealth update, so I won't.

orionpeace

Q: Yeah, that’s too much math. How about some more examples?
A: OK! Here you go:

A (200) attacks B (500): If A wins, A gains 64, B loses 32. If A loses, A loses 2, B gains 4.

And they don't see the risk versus reward issue here?

If I'm player A, at worst I stand to lose 2 points, but if I win I get 64. And in the current PvP MMR, player A can see a players with 800+ too, gaining 75, risking 1 point, while player B loses 38. You get hit twice like that during a hop and you lose more points than you could possibly gain in one match. At at 800+ you are unlikely to find that kind of point differential.

Maybe it will work out, but I'm not seeing this as an improvement to the game.

Whether they needed to fix Boosting is debatable. I'm just not sure this change is a net positive to players who regularly score 800+.

DrStrange-616

I really wish they'd let us see player point totals again.

Nooneelsesname

Nooneelsesname wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

I’m excited to make Versus faster and fairer, and I’m looking forward to getting these changes into your hands!

I get that a change like this had to be made, but every time a dev ends a post with "positive" corporate spin like this it's super gross and insulting.

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Q: Are you actually excited about this, or is that just a corporate line?
A: I actually get excited about stuff like this. That exclamation point was legit.

Okay. I'm glad you like your job and that it makes you happy.

What rubs me the wrong way is your declaration that this will make things faster and fairer rather than allowing us to come to that conclusion ourselves after playing under the new rules. Especially when you've made changes in the past have not had the results you've told us to expect. It's just kind of 1984 Newspeaky.

I hope you're right and that this will be awesome.