Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

Unknown

Mpq - 1
Fun - 0

Punisher5784

The last time changes were made to PVP, you lowered the amount of pts a player would lose from losses.. now it's more than before?

viewtopic.php?style=1&f=13&t=27106

How about we just scrap all of the recent PVP changes and return PVP to where it was 2 seasons ago? Everyone was much happier then - new players, 3* transitioners and vets.

Too many changes in a couple of months..

Nooneelsesname

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.

ballingbees

That was what I suspected in this Divine event. No one is bothering shielding, but some guys take turns to shoot to 1k in a matter of minutes, then slowly drift down. Can't imagine how it is possible to sustain a push so fast with every match only earning 20pts from 700 onwards, unless there was some outside help.

We need another change to go with this, that everyone can only find targets with a cap of, for instance, 200pts ahead of them, no restriction to find those below them.
Right now the MMR allows for high score folks to be sniped from anywhere and everywhere, even by those 700-800pts below them, for -45 pts a snipe. If you're already going to make losses cost more pts, please stop this large point gap MMR, I'm not looking forward to be sniped for -95pts a match.

PuceMoose

It makes me a little sad. I am a long-time player, but I have never coordinated attacks/losses, used out-of-alliance chat to set up hit streaks, or purposefully retreated to boost an alliance mate's score. It was just "deeper" into the game that I desired to go (no offense to those that went deeper to coordinate). Let me hit 800 points through one or two carefully timed shields and I'm a happy camper. One of the great things about defensive wins was that if you were attacked four times, and won *once*, you could break ~ even. It was a great feeling to set up a strong defensive team, get attacked 10 times, win twice, and come out at only -4 or so. (again, this is in the sub-rabid-Jaws level of the <800 club) It's frustrating that the behavior they're trying to punish ends up hurting *everyone*, at all levels of play. Couldn't they just have hidden the enemy team's name? That would have made meta-scheming-alliance-collusion difficult, if not impossible, I imagine. On the other hand, if you have a decent team, it sounds like hitting progression rewards (at least the relatively modest 800 or below) might become easier, but only if you bulldoze.

mouser

fmftint wrote:

once again instead of simplifying a system, they add more moving parts.

Bill Gates would be proud.

Unknown

Honestly these developers trying to improve pvp are like me fiddling with breakers when the lights go off. "Does this do it? No? How about this one? No? Let me try pushing two at a time down then up really fast. No? Does the hand I use matter, or...? "

fmftint

ArkPrime wrote:

Honestly these developers trying to improve pvp are like me fiddling with breakers when the lights go off. "Does this do it? No? How about this one? No? Let me try pushing two at a time down then up really fast. No? Does the hand I use matter, or...? "

Have you tried adding more breakers?

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Honestly these developers trying to improve pvp are like me fiddling with breakers when the lights go off. "Does this do it? No? How about this one? No? Let me try pushing two at a time down then up really fast. No? Does the hand I use matter, or...? "

Have you tried adding more breakers?

One was painted blue. Was that blue for the water in the bathroom? One of them seems smaller. Is that one like dangerous?

Oldboy

Let's all just wait for the changes and then play PVP to find out. This is all just generating unnecessary angst over an issue that will/maybe change again. I doubt the devs will change anything right now so let's play a few rounds and find a new strategy we're comfortable with and find the answers to our hypothetical victory/defensive points gains/loss . Hopefully the first few PVPs will give out 'unpopular' 3* covers that we could test drive pvp with.

fmftint

Oldboy wrote:

Hopefully the first few PVPs will give out 'unpopular' 3* covers that we could test drive pvp with.

3BE was just released, very likely he will be the first reward of the season

cletus1985

ArkPrime wrote:

fmftint wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Honestly these developers trying to improve pvp are like me fiddling with breakers when the lights go off. "Does this do it? No? How about this one? No? Let me try pushing two at a time down then up really fast. No? Does the hand I use matter, or...? "

Have you tried adding more breakers?

One was painted blue. Was that blue for the water in the bathroom? One of them seems smaller. Is that one like dangerous?

You're doing it wrong, flip as many breakers as you possibly can (make sure it's on a weekend), then leave for the weekend. When you come back everything will have fixed itself. Long weekends work best.

Unknown

Once again, the solution is more annoying than the problem.

whitecat31

So the defensive win point nerf is in effect, but the boost to the points won is not in effect after a certain point value between participants is met.
Note I did not say the boost to the points lost is in effect after a certain point value.

Why do they do this during an event where prizes matter to people? Implement the bad, but not the good.

This current Tinykitty change targets almost everybody who ever uses shields.
Is there anybody at MPQ who actually plays this game at a semi-competitive level besides Ice-X?
Is there anybody at MPQ that is capable of winning a bracket, not entered in the last minute?

Oldboy

fmftint wrote:

Oldboy wrote:

Hopefully the first few PVPs will give out 'unpopular' 3* covers that we could test drive pvp with.

3BE was just released, very likely he will be the first reward of the season

now where did i put my pitchfork?... Oh here it is. Let me just put it right beside me when i play that pvp...

Moon Roach

If the downvote button was still here, I'd be so tempted, if only because the initial announcement is so lacking in detail.

Hey, didn't they say that negative downvoting was removed? This would be positive downvoting. I want the button back.

Salgy

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Changes we made to Versus matchmaking in Season XIII increased average Versus fight times by about 30%. [*SNIP*] We’re increasing the points value of each Versus mission by 50%.

so, if I'm reading this right, you're not addressing the 30% longer matches, you are just making the target on my back as I'm hopping 50% bigger?!? Sounds like all you are doing is encouraging, and rewarding snipers...

aesthetocyst

death knight wrote:

For developers, you aren't very creative. This seems like a short term fix for a broken pvp system. I think a deserter debuff would have been much better than what you so called professionals decided on. I'm starting to wonder if anyone working for D3 plays this game.....

Out with the spastic band-aids, in with the ongoing player focus groups?

Nah. Never work. Pass the band-aids.

dkffiv

Demiurge_Will wrote:

(That affects both the number of points from a win and from a loss. Before the change, if Ada and Bea both have 500 points and Ada attacks Bea and wins, Ada would gain 25 points and Bea would lose 13. After the change, Ada would gain 38 points and Bea would lose 19.)

Demiurge_Will wrote:

First, we’re reducing how many points a loss costs. Previously, if you had 800 or fewer points in an event, a loss would cost you less points than your opponent gained, using this fomula: [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 800. We’re changing this so that if you have 1000 or fewer points in an event, a loss costs you [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 1000. (Above 1000 points, you’ll lose as many points as your opponent gains.)

So if a 400 point target hits an 800 point target, the 400 point target gains 75 and the 800 gets knocked down to 740? (75 * 800/1000 = 60) At 800 finding a 29 point target currently is pretty lucky, so in that example I'd end up at 798 assuming I hit one decent target and I was only sniped by a single person (frequently its at least 2 people). A bad hop usually ends up like +25 +25 -40 for a +10 gain, new system will be +50 +40 -100 for a -10 net?

Remember that if you're climbing faster, your stored targets that you have lined up before hopping will be worth less. Think of it as you're at 800 and attacking a 900 and a 900. The first fight is a 100 point differential, then second is a 75 point. New system will be 100 differential, 50 differential. Meanwhile you're climbing faster so the differential from a low level sniper will be larger (you're now say 450 points higher when you would've been 425).

Overall I see this sucking.

aesthetocyst

dkffiv wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

(That affects both the number of points from a win and from a loss. Before the change, if Ada and Bea both have 500 points and Ada attacks Bea and wins, Ada would gain 25 points and Bea would lose 13. After the change, Ada would gain 38 points and Bea would lose 19.)

Demiurge_Will wrote:

First, we’re reducing how many points a loss costs. Previously, if you had 800 or fewer points in an event, a loss would cost you less points than your opponent gained, using this fomula: [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 800. We’re changing this so that if you have 1000 or fewer points in an event, a loss costs you [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 1000. (Above 1000 points, you’ll lose as many points as your opponent gains.)

So if a 400 point target hits an 800 point target, the 400 point target gains 75 and the 800 gets knocked down to 740? (75 * 800/1000 = 60) At 800 finding a 29 point target currently is pretty lucky, so in that example I'd end up at 798 assuming I hit one decent target and I was only sniped by a single person (frequently its at least 2 people). A bad hop usually ends up like +25 +25 -40 for a +10 gain, new system will be +50 +40 -100 for a -10 net?

Remember that if you're climbing faster, your stored targets that you have lined up before hopping will be worth less. Think of it as you're at 800 and attacking a 900 and a 900. The first fight is a 100 point differential, then second is a 75 point. New system will be 100 differential, 50 differential. Meanwhile you're climbing faster so the differential from a low level sniper will be larger (you're now say 450 points higher when you would've been 425).

Overall I see this sucking.

But, but, but, those dirty boosters will be slowed up a step. Definitely hurting all players a little bit to prevent possible exploitation by a few is totally worth it.

There is a better way here to kill two birds with one stone, providing the devs could make it work: a cooldown on defense. For both wins and losses. It's been suggested before. Whenever an account is impacted on defense, positively or negatively, start a timer. 10 minutes would be good. During that 10 minutes, the account could still be attacked, and the attacker would still win or lose pts, but the target would remain the same.

This would both frustrate boosters, by slowing down attempts at mass boosting, and cause them to risk losing pts for nothing, and it would also alleviate the risk of being blitzbombed on offense ... no more losing 250pts in 5 min.

Yes, this would have the effect of raising scores. But reducing player frustration, encouraging players to earn their own points—and rewarding those who do!—would be well worth it.

Yes, since the pts lost on offense are divided by 1000, the pts on defensive wins should also be reduced, to eliminate the phenomena of creating free pts when a player below 1000 retreats to another under 1000, but they shouldn't be reduced to 1/3rd of what they were. That's too punitive to all players. Reducing them by 1/3rd would have been sufficient.

And leave the pts won / lost on offense alone. Again, a player can only win one match at a time. Until this cooldown exists, by increasing the upside as well as the downside, you've really just increased the downside.

EDIT: OK, already thought of a problem with my suggestion. There would need to be two "timers," one for credits, one for debits. Otherwise, you could get your friend to boost you just prior to hopping, and be insulated for 10min, plenty of time for any hop. Talk about an exploit! On the flipside, if you were attacked and defeated, you would likewise be insulated from receiving any defensive pts, even at the greatly reduced rates. That would be cruel.

Still I don't think it's too much to ask. All it would take is two timestamps ("time_last_debited" and "time_last_credited") and the addition of a check when adjusting the score of an account as a result of a match that account didn't initiate. If the server time is less than 10min after the last debit or credit (check the appropriate timestamp), then pass on the score change. If more than 10min, update the score, and overwrite the timestamp to the current server time.

Altering the report to the player, to note that the score was/wasn't affected and why/not, would be nice, but not necessary. The cooldown itself would be far more important, and I am confident that every player would be glad it was there.

Except crazy mad boosters. Or anyone intentionally trying to wreck others. no great loss, either category.