Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

scottee

I think these changes are negative at the high end, but not as bad as everyone thinks. And it's negligible at lower thresholds.

The points will essentially be spread out more, and scores will be pushed upward. When you do a sustained push, you play in a burst. You gain more points than you lose. That will still happen the same, but you'll be 100-200 points higher than previously. This will make it easier to get to 725-800 for the progression rewards. You then either shield, or stay unshielded and lose points 50% faster than you did before.

This is also better for conservative shield hopping. If you normally do 1-2 matches per hop before you take any losses, you'll still be able to do the same, but with 50% more points. Getting to 1000 will be easier if you use this method.

The big losers are those who push the point thresholds up by coordinating and setting the really high bar. Basically, the devs are trying to keep the coordinated top alliances from putting up sky high numbers, presumably to keep new players from feeling hopeless.

People are basically thinking they're going to be bigger targets because they're worth more points. But everyone is worth more points, so the dynamics of who gets hit and how much they get hit will not change. If you do a sustained push and get hit by 4 people, you'll still get hit by 4 people. If you gained points in that push before, you'll still gain points in that same push now. It doesn't change any climbing dynamics, only the amount of points gained/lost each time, which again, will be higher than before, not lower.

Pylgrim

ArkPrime wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far?

Er, in the example given by Will, in the past, from a defeat where the attacker got 25 points, the loser would lose 13 points, a 52% of the points given. In the new format, it's only 50%. Yes, on the paper you are losing more points on a defeat (6 more in the example given), but you also are scoring much more when you win (13 points more). So lets say that following exactly those numbers, you win once and are defeated once: Before you'd end with a total of +12 points, from now on, you'll end with a total of +19 points. An unarguably positive outcome.

Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.

Er, except the positive part of the changes only takes effect in the next season, but we got the patch for the negative part of it even before this announcement. Er.

Oh my God, you're right, how could I've been so insensitive. The devastating effects this change will have in these absolutely essential off-season events cannot be understated. My heart goes to you in these times of ungodly hardship, brother.

NighteyesGrisu

simonsez wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

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.

Yes, because if there's one thing everyone's been asking for is, "Please make us lose more points when we get attacked!!". Dammit, the tone-deafness is so maddening at times!

At least you didn't drop this turd on a friday, as usual.

Why am I not surprised that some people instantly whine about the change, trying hard to only see the negative of a change?

Even though you lose 30% more on losses as well you still have a net gain. Especially since the vast majority of matches in a tournament result in wins. In fact it's a rather substantial net gain since in the earlier stages wins amount for quite a bit more than losses (therefore making the 30% resulting in more actual points) but you (as usual) make it sound as if it's a step back.

mohio

scottee wrote:

The big losers are those who push the point thresholds up by coordinating and setting the really high bar. Basically, the devs are trying to keep the coordinated top alliances from putting up sky high numbers, presumably to keep new players from feeling hopeless.

I've been thinking about this and talked about it with alliance mates and we see the opposite happening. These guys will still figure out how to get to 800+ quickly and from there now all their shield hops will give them 50% more points from hitting their shielded teammates. I can't attest to how often they are sniped but most forumites seem to respect some form of "give them 10 minutes, then its on them" for high level hoppers. So in total, I expect this change will end up with higher top end scores than we've been seeing recently.

Der_Lex

A faster climb is useless if it'll mean it'll be harder to hit 1k because you'll lose even more points when you're hit at 800+ points by some guy way below you. Reaching the top isn't hard, but staying there is.

I understand that you'd want to put a stop to coordinated retreat climbing, but wouldn't a more elegant solution have been that after you attack a certain player, there'd be a cooldown period before you could attack that player again? That would please both sides of the equation:it would limit the possibility of retreat climbing, but it would also mean you can't get sniped by the same guy three times in a row while you're trying to get to 1k.

Xenoberyll

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

Even though you lose 30% more on losses as well you still have a net gain.

Except that at the higher ranks, the time you take to win one match might get you 5+ defensive losses...

NighteyesGrisu

Xenoberyll wrote:

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

Even though you lose 30% more on losses as well you still have a net gain.

Except that at the higher ranks, the time you take to win one match might get you 5+ defensive losses...

I don't think I've ever had more than 2-3 defensive losses during a battle...and even that is rare...usually I have one max (unless I try to hop for quite a long time). If you get 5 losses during a single match you're pretty much finished anyway...30% increase or not.

Unknown

Demiurge_Will wrote:

There was a loophole in the scoring system that allowed players to coordinate to gain lots of points very quickly, by intentionally losing to one another. We’ve closed that loophole by...

no. dont call it a loophole just to justify a change that you want to sell as necessary to the 'intended' functioning of the system. its not a loophole. its ingenuity on behalf of veteran players to make something out of this tinykitty game. your so-called loophole wouldnt be such a 'problem' if ya'll had not continually tinykittied this game up. ya'll do realize that you cant squash the hustle. players will always seek out any advantage they can. your post really makes it sound like the devs spend more time trying to kill fun (or what little is left of it) than to even start to fix any of the many problems the community has continually raised in vain.

Eddiemon

unco_dan wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

There was a loophole in the scoring system that allowed players to coordinate to gain lots of points very quickly, by intentionally losing to one another. We’ve closed that loophole by...

no. dont call it a loophole just to justify a change that you want to sell as necessary to the 'intended' functioning of the system. its not a loophole. its ingenuity on behalf of veteran players to make something out of this tinykitty game. your so-called loophole wouldnt be such a 'problem' if ya'll had not continually tinykittied this game up. ya'll do realize that you cant squash the hustle. players will always seek out any advantage they can. your post really makes it sound like the devs spend more time trying to kill fun (or what little is left of it) than to even start to fix any of the many problems the community has continually raised in vain.

So it's not a loophole because you don't want it to be called a loophole. Fantastic argument. And most loopholes are discovered 'ingeniously', as they aren't normally obvious flaws.

And yes while there are plenty of whingers like yourself, there have also been plenty of posts in favour of the more balanced, less 'spend 200 bucks on one character' model they are now going with.

For the majority of us players who weren't using your loophole or ingenuity or whatever phrase doesn't chafe your undies, D3 have just said they are increasing our expected scores by 50% for the same amount of effort. That's fantastic and pretty much the opposite of 'killing fun'.

simonsez

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

Why am I not surprised that some people instantly whine about the change

Same reason I'm not surprised there are always shills and white knights who don't know a turd from a bonbon

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

it's a rather substantial net gain since in the earlier stages wins amount for quite a bit more than losses

No one gives a flying **** about the earlier stages of PvP. If you still need it explained to you, this is about the potential for disasters via bad hops and sniping.

simonsez

Eddiemon wrote:

D3 have just said they are increasing our expected scores by 50% for the same amount of effort.

Only if you never lose, and only if they cap is being raised from 50 to 75. Otherwise, no, they didn't say that.

NighteyesGrisu

simonsez wrote:

Same reason I'm not surprised there are always shills and white knights who don't know a turd from a bonbon

....obviously..

No one gives a flying tinykitty about the earlier stages of PvP. If you still need it explained to you, this is about the potential for disasters via bad hops and sniping.

strange, haven't people whined endlesssly how it's not so hard to climb since less seed teams and harder teams from the start...and when something's done to improve that climbing suddenly 'nobody gives a flying tinykitty about it'. Classic.

And of course you only see the potential of disaster and not that you now need less hops to begin with since every match will be worth more points. I don't know if the two even each other out or not, but it would at least lessen the negative effects there.

unco_dan wrote:

no. dont call it a loophole just to justify a change that you want to sell as necessary to the 'intended' functioning of the system. its not a loophole. its ingenuity on behalf of veteran players to make something out of this tinykitty game. your so-called loophole wouldnt be such a 'problem' if ya'll had not continually tinykittied this game up. ya'll do realize that you cant squash the hustle. players will always seek out any advantage they can. your post really makes it sound like the devs spend more time trying to kill fun (or what little is left of it) than to even start to fix any of the many problems the community has continually raised in vain.

So losing/retreating on purpose is now fun? I'm sure you used to get fun out of tanking as well. Of course it was a loopwhole, and one that was being exploited more and more.

simonsez

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

strange, haven't people whined endlesssly how it's not so hard to climb since less seed teams and harder teams from the start..

There's a difference between things that are just tedious and annoying vs. things that are going to actually negatively impact your score.

And let's wait for Will to say the new cap is 75 before we start assuming that points gained on hop wins will be any more than they are now.

NighteyesGrisu

simonsez wrote:

There's a difference between things that are just tedious and annoying vs. things that are going to actually negatively impact your score.

except that we don't know yet if it will actually negatively impact your score...

And let's wait for Will to say the new cap is 75 before we start assuming that points gained on hop wins will be any more than they are now.

how many 50p matches do you get at the top end?

Unknown

Finding a 50 point target for shield-hopping was very rare. I don't think I've ever actually seen a 50 point target during my shield-hops, tbh. I for one, have always been happy with two attacks at 30 points each. That will now be 90 points, instead of 60. I expect the 1000-cover will he easier to get than before.

Raffoon

This will increase everyone's point totals on average. That's a positive for most players because it means more progression rewards.

It will also make it harder to score significantly higher than the rest of the pack in the top spots, because at that level, the impact of being attacked is higher. So for example, a bracket that looked like:
1 - 1250
2 - 1200
3 - 1000
4 - 800
5- 795

Might instead look like
1 - 1175
2 - 1150
3 - 1000
4 - 850
5 - 830

Or it might look like
1 - 1300
2 - 1290
3 - 1250
4 - 1200
5 - 1000

So, the real question for the top level of play is whether the overall influx of points into the system will filter upward into more points at that point on the scoring continuum. Regardless of whether it does, this will compress the difference in scores between players at the top, as the overall gain per time unshielded will diminish.

Since I've only been playing up to the 300 token this season (having scored 1k plenty in the past), this seems like it will help my play style, personally. I can certainly see where making the top spots even more ferociously competitive could be annoying, though.

P.S. In case any developers are reading: Every time I see Xforce and Thor in my roster now, I think Ferocious Jaguar-You. So, F-You. Still no more money from me ever, and I still re-rate at 1 star every time the reminder pops up. Congrats on the wonderful past few months of changes

Unknown

How to fix PVP:

Eliminate losing points entirely. Even offensively. If you win offensively, you gain points, if you lose, you get zero. Defense doesn't really matter.

Yes, scores would go up, and you'd lose shield HP.

But.

You could recalibrate progression awards to reflect the new scoring. Lower levels would probably be unaffected; higher levels would go roughly where they were.

And you'd also gain a lot of income because people would have a much stronger incentive to broaden their roster so they can fight longer. Right now, PVP is about keeping three people healthy. With these changes, people could use their entire rosters in PVP, and would gain a direct PVP benefit from doing so.

Also, PVP might actually become, shockingly, fun. Suddenly, there would be a huge variety of opponents. Every team wouldn't be the same featured plus two. People would be able to try new strategies without worrying about how it would affect them on defense. People could try goofy combinations just because they think they'd be fun to play.

And if people are enjoying it, they'd be more likely to by health packs, or tokens, or go after that character they weren't going to bother with because they weren't good in PVP. You'd gain a lot more long-term than you'd lose short-term.

PVP is fixable, and it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult to fix. Please, try at least running an event or two like this - maybe in the next off-season - before you rule it out entirely.

dkffiv

Pylgrim wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far?

Er, in the example given by Will, in the past, from a defeat where the attacker got 25 points, the loser would lose 13 points, a 52% of the points given. In the new format, it's only 50%. Yes, on the paper you are losing more points on a defeat (6 more in the example given), but you also are scoring much more when you win (13 points more). So lets say that following exactly those numbers, you win once and are defeated once: Before you'd end with a total of +12 points, from now on, you'll end with a total of +19 points. An unarguably positive outcome.

Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.

Er, except the positive part of the changes only takes effect in the next season, but we got the patch for the negative part of it even before this announcement. Er.

Oh my God, you're right, how could I've been so insensitive. The devastating effects this change will have in these absolutely essential off-season events cannot be understated. My heart goes to you in these times of ungodly hardship, brother.

If you can only roll out 50% of a solution, maybe you should wait a week to roll out 100%?

fmftint

Ben Grimm wrote:

How to fix PVP:

Eliminate losing points entirely. Even offensively. If you win offensively, you gain points, if you lose, you get zero. Defense doesn't really matter.

Yes, scores would go up, and you'd lose shield HP.

But.

You could recalibrate progression awards to reflect the new scoring. Lower levels would probably be unaffected; higher levels would go roughly where they were.

And you'd also gain a lot of income because people would have a much stronger incentive to broaden their roster so they can fight longer. Right now, PVP is about keeping three people healthy. With these changes, people could use their entire rosters in PVP, and would gain a direct PVP benefit from doing so.

Also, PVP might actually become, shockingly, fun. Suddenly, there would be a huge variety of opponents. Every team wouldn't be the same featured plus two. People would be able to try new strategies without worrying about how it would affect them on defense. People could try goofy combinations just because they think they'd be fun to play.

And if people are enjoying it, they'd be more likely to by health packs, or tokens, or go after that character they weren't going to bother with because they weren't good in PVP. You'd gain a lot more long-term than you'd lose short-term.

PVP is fixable, and it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult to fix. Please, try at least running an event or two like this - maybe in the next off-season - before you rule it out entirely.

that would just turn PVP into an endless 2.5 day grindfest.
The fundamental problem in PVP is, you can only win one fight at a time, but theres no limit to how many you can lose

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

that would just turn PVP into an endless 2.5 day grindfest.
The fundamental problem in PVP is, you can only win one fight at a time, but theres no limit to how many you can lose

It's already an endless 2.5 day grindfest. Only the absolute top would be significantly affected. It might require a little extra work to win, but 90% of the players probably wouldn't need to play any more to score the same. And I'd rather 90% of the players have more fun even if it means it might be a bit harder for people to finish out their third Hulkbuster.