Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

aesthetocyst

mr_X wrote:

Never understood why you can even attack someone you are allied with.

Because alliances, like teamups, weren't part of the original game architecture. They were bolted on later. Never (apparently) fully integrated into the design philosophy, much less the implementation.

SnowcaTT

jimstarooney wrote:

Its not just alliance mates, most top alliances have arrangements with other alliances

First rule of fight club....

However, this is yet another reason to simply remove the names when you attack. The "spirit" (?) of the rule was being broken a bit with alliance shield-hopping, it got worse with mega-alliance hopping, and now the alliance arrangements have really gamed the system. Every one of these issues would be solved by one simple step - name of person you are attacking removed.

Usually I'm shouted down on this idea - mostly by the people who "enjoy the community" - aka are in on the scam.

FierceKiwi

SnowcaTT wrote:

jimstarooney wrote:

Its not just alliance mates, most top alliances have arrangements with other alliances

First rule of fight club....

However, this is yet another reason to simply remove the names when you attack. The "spirit" (?) of the rule was being broken a bit with alliance shield-hopping, it got worse with mega-alliance hopping, and now the alliance arrangements have really gamed the system. Every one of these issues would be solved by one simple step - name of person you are attacking removed.

Usually I'm shouted down on this idea - mostly by the people who "enjoy the community" - aka are in on the scam.

I'm fine with that....if they actually fix it so I can get accurate point values for these anonymous targets. Without names I have no way of verifying whatever number the game spits out.

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

jimstarooney wrote:

Its not just alliance mates, most top alliances have arrangements with other alliances

First rule of fight club....

However, this is yet another reason to simply remove the names when you attack. The "spirit" (?) of the rule was being broken a bit with alliance shield-hopping, it got worse with mega-alliance hopping, and now the alliance arrangements have really gamed the system. Every one of these issues would be solved by one simple step - name of person you are attacking removed.

Usually I'm shouted down on this idea - mostly by the people who "enjoy the community" - aka are in on the scam.

It's good for everybody. People who want to coordinate get outrageous scores and people who don't can snipe them for outrageous amounts of points. And it's open for everybody. All you need to do to get in is be willing to do some work. Hell, if your roster is good enough, it's not even much work. I'm 5th in my season bracket having played around 3 or 4 hours total of pvp so far, between all events.

Unknown

simply remove the names when you attack.

It'll drive down engagement because attacks won't feel so personal, and matches against the same team feel even more monotonous without a name attached. It's an ok idea but a poor solution to a small problem at the top end that most people aren't even affected by.

--edit removed ArkPrime's quote portion because of unclear context.

Ebolamonkey84

daibar wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

simply remove the names when you attack.

It's good for everybody. People who want to coordinate get outrageous scores and people who don't can snipe them for outrageous amounts of points. And it's open for everybody. All you need to do to get in is be willing to do some work. Hell, if your roster is good enough, it's not even much work. I'm 5th in my season bracket having played around 3 or 4 hours total of pvp so far, between all events.

It'll drive down engagement because attacks won't feel so personal, and matches against the same team feel even more monotonous without a name attached. It's an ok idea but a poor solution to a small problem at the top end that most people aren't even affected by.

Ark was referring to the alliance arrangements being good for everyone, not the nameless fights, as he is in on the scam.

SnowcaTT

daibar wrote:

simply remove the names when you attack.

It'll drive down engagement because attacks won't feel so personal, and matches against the same team feel even more monotonous without a name attached. It's an ok idea but a poor solution to a small problem at the top end that most people aren't even affected by.

Part of what D3 tries to do is encourage player engagement - and getting hit 8 times while you are doing three attacks isn't very engaging. Other methods would also help that - like removing the player from the possible queue once they are attacked.

Eventually new players will accidentally snipe someone above their grade - and then they end up on the hate list of 80 people, that ends up being bad news. Knowing what a snipe is, and how to avoid it, isn't really intuitive until it's to late.

DrNitroman

SnowcaTT wrote:

Knowing what a snipe is, and how to avoid it, isn't really intuitive until it's to late.

To be fair everybody on this forum don't seem to agree on the exact definition of 'sniping' and therefore I wouldn't pretend that I know what is sniping (personal vendetta?, attack during hop?, ...).

At least, I hope that the way to avoid it doesn't involve extended out-of-game communication!

SnowcaTT

DrNitroman wrote:

At least, I hope that the way to avoid it doesn't involve extended out-of-game communication!

Maybe all they have to do is fix the chat?

To Arkprime's point - I've been getting more and more into out-of-game communication, and it can be kind of fun. But it does take "some work" - it's actually a fair amount of time added in.

DrNitroman

SnowcaTT wrote:

DrNitroman wrote:

At least, I hope that the way to avoid it doesn't involve extended out-of-game communication!

Maybe all they have to do is fix the chat?

To Arkprime's point - I've been getting more and more into out-of-game communication, and it can be kind of fun. But it does take "some work" - it's actually a fair amount of time added in.

I believe you but the ingame part of the game is actually enough as a time-killer for me
I agree we could deserve an enhanced chat though!

Sickboy254698

Defensive wins aren't worth enough and you lose way too many points for a loss.

I'm in a top 25 alliance and I am top ten in every PVP event. I've never once looked at the name of the person I'm attacking. All I care about is whether or not its worth the points to attack you. Just wanted to throw out for you guys who seem to think it matters and there is a conspiracy going on.

aesthetocyst

SnowcaTT wrote:

daibar wrote:

simply remove the names when you attack.

It'll drive down engagement because attacks won't feel so personal, and matches against the same team feel even more monotonous without a name attached. It's an ok idea but a poor solution to a small problem at the top end that most people aren't even affected by.

Part of what D3 tries to do is encourage player engagement - and getting hit 8 times while you are doing three attacks isn't very engaging. Other methods would also help that - like removing the player from the possible queue once they are attacked.

Eventually new players will accidentally snipe someone above their grade - and then they end up on the hate list of 80 people, that ends up being bad news. Knowing what a snipe is, and how to avoid it, isn't really intuitive until it's to late.

I am of the understanding that those maintaining hate lists are the same crowd who define "sniping" as deigning to attack anyone without prior written authorization.

If we all respected that hypocritical silliness, these events would never go anywhere!

Stax the Foyer

aesthetocyst wrote:

I am of the understanding that those maintaining hate lists are the same crowd who define "sniping" as deigning to attack anyone without prior written authorization.

If we all respected that hypocritical silliness, these events would never go anywhere!

This is more of a general explanation that a direct response to your post, but it's the opposite, actually. These events go better when people wait a bit before attacking, at least in terms of people getting progression awards.

If you wait a few minutes before attacking high point targets, you give people a chance to shield. Hits on shields bring more points into the system. Points trickle down. Without high scorers, brackets dry up.

I climb just fine by cycling through my targets. If I queue a 60+ point target, I'll leave that node alone and do my other two fights before coming back to that node. If you cycle through your nodes like that, you give people a chance to reshield, and everyone benefits. Once it gets rolling, it doesn't even slow you down. You're still going straight from one fight to another, but there's a two-fight buffer of courtesy and friendliness in front of you.

Once you start shield hopping, queuing up a high-point target well in advance does the same thing, making it very unlikely that you'll catch them unshielded.

Now, nobody's making anyone do that, people can play however you want, but enough high scorers understand that doing this isn't silly, it actually makes sense.

snlf25

I had no idea you could even hit anybody who was shielded, stax. Interesting.

Scored 1003 points and just squeaked by in getting my first Hulkbuster cover tonight from High Stakes. Spent 100 hp on 2 health packs and didn't shield because I don't care about placement in this one. Never seen so many roided up Blades and Hulks in my life. I've made 1000 points in 5 of the last 6 PvPs now. The scoring change has really rejuvenated my interest in the game.

simonsez

snlf25 wrote:

I had no idea you could even hit anybody who was shielded, stax. Interesting.

As long as you queue them when they're unshielded, sure...

aesthetocyst

simonsez wrote:

snlf25 wrote:

I had no idea you could even hit anybody who was shielded, stax. Interesting.

As long as you queue them when they're unshielded, sure...

Thanks to busted q's, that's not quite true. A player gets stuck in your q and they'll come back again and again, regardless of shield status.

EDIT: For instance, this morning in High Stakes, the best target I can q was worth 65pts. I was just below 900. I qd it, an hour, I hopped and hit it. Paid 71, so apparently I qd him while he was hopping. Great. Come out of the hop, check the q. There he is again. Again reporting 65pts. Hmmm. Is he really hopping again? No, it's an echo. An echo in my busted q. And, unfortunately, he's still the only target worth taking on.

aesthetocyst

Stax the Foyer wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

I am of the understanding that those maintaining hate lists are the same crowd who define "sniping" as deigning to attack anyone without prior written authorization.

If we all respected that hypocritical silliness, these events would never go anywhere!

This is more of a general explanation that a direct response to your post, but it's the opposite, actually. These events go better when people wait a bit before attacking, at least in terms of people getting progression awards.

If you wait a few minutes before attacking high point targets, you give people a chance to shield. Hits on shields bring more points into the system. Points trickle down. Without high scorers, brackets dry up.

I climb just fine by cycling through my targets. If I queue a 60+ point target, I'll leave that node alone and do my other two fights before coming back to that node. If you cycle through your nodes like that, you give people a chance to reshield, and everyone benefits. Once it gets rolling, it doesn't even slow you down. You're still going straight from one fight to another, but there's a two-fight buffer of courtesy and friendliness in front of you.

Once you start shield hopping, queuing up a high-point target well in advance does the same thing, making it very unlikely that you'll catch them unshielded.

Now, nobody's making anyone do that, people can play however you want, but enough high scorers understand that doing this isn't silly, it actually makes sense.

.... and that's precisely how I play, and encourage others to play, as bringing other players down drags everyone down. That said, I've seen plenty of players freak over someone hitting them without making direct contact first, regardless of timing, which was the point of my post.

Ultimately, this is player vs. player. No one needs to play like a jerk--far too many players do because they know not that they do (or don't care)--but we can't all play by appointment, which was my point.

It was noted above that not everyone agrees on the definition of "sniping," I was noting the silliest. That being those who seem to regard any attack w/o warning as a snipe.

Stax the Foyer

aesthetocyst wrote:

.... and that's precisely how I play, and encourage others to play, as bringing other players down drags everyone down. That said, I've seen plenty of players freak over someone hitting them without making direct contact first, regardless of timing, which was the point of my post.

Ultimately, this is player vs. player. No one needs to play like a jerk--far too many players do because they know not that they do (or don't care)--but we can't all play by appointment, which was my point.

It was noted above that not everyone agrees on the definition of "sniping," I was noting the silliest. That being those who seem to regard any attack w/o warning as a snipe.

I understand, and that's why I tried to be clear that it wasn't a response to you. Sorry if it came off that way.

I just wanted to clarify that there was a middle ground that benefits everyone, because the mechanic that hitting a shielded player gains you points without losing points isn't intuitive at all from the information that the game provides. I totally agree with your point that people would hardly ever fight if they had to clear every single hit with someone else, but not everyone reading it would understand that there's still a reason to not attack PvP targets ASAP.

udonomefoo

I get this and will try to wait more when I am making a run, but my only problem with it is that the points don't update from when q'd. So whenever I get a juicy target I'm thinking - will this 65 point target be worth 35 by the time I come back to it? That's probably only relevant if I'm playing right at the end though.

Stax the Foyer

snlf25 wrote:

I had no idea you could even hit anybody who was shielded, stax. Interesting.

Scored 1003 points and just squeaked by in getting my first Hulkbuster cover tonight from High Stakes. Spent 100 hp on 2 health packs and didn't shield because I don't care about placement in this one. Never seen so many roided up Blades and Hulks in my life. I've made 1000 points in 5 of the last 6 PvPs now. The scoring change has really rejuvenated my interest in the game.

It's something that a lot of people don't realize until they start coordinating with other players.

The other significant advantage to giving someone a chance to shield is that you don't give them a retaliation node if you beat them when they're shielded. That matters because a retaliation node gives them a chance to fight back against the team that you used to beat them, instead of the last team that you won a match with (which is usually a stronger defensive team). Retaliation nodes also increase the likelihood that someone will hit you during a shield hop, accidentally or (if you're high enough to be on the leaderboards) on purpose.