Highest PVP scores being promoted by D3

OnesOwnGrief

For the record, you guys need to agree on a definition of what "sniping" is because some people cry hard from any sort of hit.

sc0ville

IceIX wrote:

Wouldn't work without also implementing a complex grouping set of allies to not show, otherwise multi-alliance groups would have a distinct advantage over single alliances. Sure, X-Men 1 can't hit X-Men 1. But they can hit X-Men 2. So now they just reshuffle members to get around the alliance hit exception. So we make a "fuzzy search" where if a name is substantially the same you can't hit. So now DeadpoolsRings and DeadpoolsTacos can't see one another. Now the Alliances would just suck up the name changes and we'd have X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, Excalibur instead of X-Men 1-4. We'd pretty much have to manually watch for players exploiting the system as such and create groupings based on that. Which is obviously untenable, not to mention prone to user/admin error.

Also, not saying that any of those Alliances are "exploiting" or anything, just that those Alliances in particular are well known, so good for naming illustration.

Dauthi, I don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not but this conversation has gotten away from you. You've selectively quoted IceIX and you cut out the context in which with he used the term "exploit."

You keep claiming that IceIX referred to using outside comms as a form of exploiting, but he never did. I've quoted the full context of the original usage of the term "exploit" by IceIX. People can read for themselves, IceIX was referring to a hypothetical situation whereby the rules of the game had changed and interalliance attacks were impossible, and then these alliances performed name changes to "exploit" a vulnerability in the ability to prevent various sub-alliances from attacking one another.

You're extrapolating what he said into a different meaning, and deriving authority from it that isn't there.

aesthetocyst

So in Made Man, I was able to climb and pass 1K in about 2hrs work spread over 2 days. I used 2 shields to break 1K. Only shielded at 800 because q got stuck and I didn't want to hit the same people repeatedly. 2hrs later it was fine.

In the last 10min, to get back in top 5, I hit a target to get back in top 5. 3500 more iso for 75hp? Sure.

LINE was no help in my efforts, didn't bother talking to anyone about this event. I did shoot the breeze with some people on LINE off and on tho. Despite a complete lack of effort on my part to reach 1300, even tho I was using LINE at the time, my account wasn't spontaneously credited with the difference between my score (1095) and the magic number (1300).

Now I know that the servers know I am LINE club member. What gives?

Man, LINE has really let me down.

I guess it's time to go back to using the "Will Play for Points" method. What a hassle.

Unknown

lukewin - Fair enough, enough has been debate about this subject and this can go on forever, so I'll stop there. But I'd like to bring up one more thing though, these people that use "LINE" are also forcing all players to play the way that they do. If you happen to catch one of them un-shielded, and attack them for points, which is exactly what I do since they are worth points, they expect you to wait for them to shield before attacking. I for one, and I am sure the majority of the players will not wait because this is a custom rule that is enforced by those players. If you don't wait and take points from them, you get put on their hit list (which I don't care at all), but you see that there is a style of gameplay that is being enforced, especially when you reach that high in points since a normal player will only have one way to gain points - constantly searching and skipping nodes.

donietsche - using TS, Vent, etc is mainly to "win" that match that they are in. That win will usually increase their score/climbing up the leaderboards (depending on the game), it does not grant them 2x, or even 3x the scores of someone else that wins through the use of communication. In this game, I can win a game for 10 points, where someone can win for 60 points, or I could join those BCs and win for 60 points as well, but it has nothing to do with winning my one-match. Anyway, this point is invalid, since these are totally different styles of game, real-time PvP, etc.

Der_Lex - I made an account on the forums just to get attention to this matter. I wouldn't make an account just to chat with other players, I am concern about the state of the game, and would like to get it addressed. Some people learn to deal with it, some quit, or some just play it out until it is resolved, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue though. IceX said that currently any fix would be worse than what it is now, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. We just need to wait for a resolution that would be best for all.

donietsche - you are misunderstanding, everyone can equally obtain that high score, doesn't mean that everyone will be able to, but if they wanted to, they have the ability to, right now you cannot do that by just playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

mags1587 - I had motivation to socre high, that's the whole point of playing the game for me, to improve my overall standing overtime. Some do it to collect every cover and they're fine with it. I tried to score high w/o using communication, it doesn't work. You don't gain enough points as they do simply by skipping, and the times that you do, it's just not enough when they can do it 90% of the time. This part isn't an issue since it's Versus, but sometimes you will get sniped down by those coordinated players, just because you attacked them (again, a normal player would be completely innocent in this case, and just play the game the way it is, thinking that they just spam skips until they find a good target, they have no idea that there is a rule implemented by this style of play), or because one of them really wanted Rank 1 (alliance should be able to snipe one person to keep their spots, that's fine).

elvy75

I've been playing various online games since late 1990s that included alliances, and ALL of them included some sort of out of game communication. It used to be mirc, aol, icq, today we have line. I dont see why is it problematic to use outside communication in line for MPQ and it was ok for all other games. Developers dont have anything to do with it, player will always organize themselves. The more competitive the game is the better organized players are. We all have the same tools available to us, and its up to us to use them or not. If you opt for not using what is available to everyone then please dont whine that others who want to cooperate are better than you are.

Dauthi

sc0ville wrote:

IceIX wrote:

Wouldn't work without also implementing a complex grouping set of allies to not show, otherwise multi-alliance groups would have a distinct advantage over single alliances. Sure, X-Men 1 can't hit X-Men 1. But they can hit X-Men 2. So now they just reshuffle members to get around the alliance hit exception. So we make a "fuzzy search" where if a name is substantially the same you can't hit. So now DeadpoolsRings and DeadpoolsTacos can't see one another. Now the Alliances would just suck up the name changes and we'd have X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, Excalibur instead of X-Men 1-4. We'd pretty much have to manually watch for players exploiting the system as such and create groupings based on that. Which is obviously untenable, not to mention prone to user/admin error.

Also, not saying that any of those Alliances are "exploiting" or anything, just that those Alliances in particular are well known, so good for naming illustration.

Dauthi, I don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not but this conversation has gotten away from you. You've selectively quoted IceIX and you cut out the context in which with he used the term "exploit."

You keep claiming that IceIX referred to using outside comms as a form of exploiting, but he never did. I've quoted the full context of the original usage of the term "exploit" by IceIX. People can read for themselves, IceIX was referring to a hypothetical situation whereby the rules of the game had changed and interalliance attacks were impossible, and then these alliances performed name changes to "exploit" a vulnerability in the ability to prevent various sub-alliances from attacking one another.

You're extrapolating what he said into a different meaning, and deriving authority from it that isn't there.

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

ICE referred to the act as exploiting with his last sentence, so I don't know Regardless there wouldn't be any way to catch/stop this act.

Not exploiting as in breaking game rules/we're going to ban you, but exploiting as in the true definition; Taking advantage of flaws in a system for full benefit.

Then I make sure to clarify:

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Would it be safe to say you discourage it but it is not punishable then ?

Pretty much exactly this, yes. Now, if you somehow figured out how to *stay* shielded and still hop, that'd be a different matter.

TheOncomingStorm

Dauthi wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

It's not just me that can't consistently do it, it's 4-5 others in my alliance with similar rosters that can't. I am not talking from just personal experience, but everyone who has ever existed in my top 100 alliance of 1 and 1/2 years. It is entirely possible, but there are so many factors that can prohibit your movement, for example time slices or random chance. I have personally tried for 1300, and seen my own members try for 1300, only to waste hundreds of HP because valid targets never show up. This makes it inefficient to even try. This of course is not the case if you coordinate hops.

For those who insist that I can't hit 1300, please read the bolded. If you can hit 1300, say 1/5 times, and each time is stressful/wastes hp, then it is inefficient to try. Let's drop the straw-man that I am attacking the exploit because I can't hit 1300. It is an exploit, and exploits should be fixed.

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

What does this mean? It means pvp coordination is not an exploit, it is the natural consequence of having alliances. That's like saying setting an alarm clock for pve is an exploit. Everyone has access to it, the game is set up so that is helpful, but people who do not as well others will always have to find something or someone to point a finger at. So instead of their alarm, they'll say people using them are exploiting the system.

Do you think the devs would openly discourage you from using an alarm? Please, let's not forget this:

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Would it be safe to say you discourage it but it is not punishable then ?

Pretty much exactly this, yes. Now, if you somehow figured out how to *stay* shielded and still hop, that'd be a different matter.

If you want to use the exploit, go for it, it's not punishable. Don't try to explain to others who don't how it is morally correct however, or bash others who would like to see no advantages given due to outside communication.

I said it before that's from the perspective that they want pvp to be a king of the mountain type feature. That was the original intention and design. They would like to discourage anything that hampers this.

However, you have to also remember there were no alliances when the feature was designed. Alliances, not Line which is an extension of the concept of alliances, was a feature added by MPQ that facilitated cooperation and communication. They'd probably also discourage the thread in the pve section with bracket counts or when people post the scores needed to make the t100 for events or the season.

It's just convenient that a lot of people don't have a problem with bracket counts or scoring updates or alliance in game chat. I'm guessing in your in game chat Y'all don't ask if people are shielded, discuss which slice looks good, or if you see a good target available. All of which are exploits by the parameters you set for that term. I guess it's also just as convenient to make Line a scapegoat and turn a blind eye to everything else.

Ducky

donietsche wrote:

I fail to see how one can talk about issues of (im)morality in relation to players communicating (in order to play a match-5 game).

But let's accept that it's a debate about morality: I think that it's much more immoral to snipe a player while the guy (or the gal) is hopping: 'cause you're stealing, in a sense, his hard work.

Players who check shields aren't stealing a reward from your hands.

If they hit 1.3 using this strategy rather than attacking like hungry wolves as soon as a match pops up in their nodes they aren't making more difficult (or impossible) for you to get the same reward.

I repeat the question: let's make sure (lol, how?) that people can't use LINE, let say that I call my friend on his phone to check if he's shielded before attacking; or to let him know that one juicy target is out there.

What are the devs supposed to do? Make sure that the game is played only in an isolation chamber?

The game can be played cooperatively and that is going to stay in one form or another.

In my book cooperation is a nobler form of gaming. But that's just my opinion: the antagonistic strategy has its merits, and it deserves to be accepted as well.

The game theory could be easily applied to understand the different approaches to the game (including the pve section).

I'm sorry, but this "nobility" nonsense for shield checking is ridiculous. PvP is a competition. It's called player versus player for a reason. If you don't want to get hit, don't drop your shield. And by shield checking, it inherently makes it harder for people to climb because they have to sit around and make sure people are shielded. I may not be hopping, but when I am at 1300+ while climbing, I am just as big a target as people who hop. So I'm sorry but I'm not sorry if I hit people. I play PvP and if you get hit, you just got versus'd.

And with regards to taking the rewards from your hand: If you don't want to lose your placement, either start hopping earlier or climb higher before an initial shield. It is not their fault you didn't manage your time and resources properly in your attempt to get the placement or progression that you so desire.

donietsche

OnesOwnGrief wrote:

For the record, you guys need to agree on a definition of what "sniping" is because some people cry hard from any sort of hit.

I believe there is a consensus about what "true" sniping is.

Attacking someone while the player is floating, of course, it's a necessity. And sometimes it can be seen as a loan (the attacked player can take back his points with interests).

If you attack someone in the 1k (and you're a late climber in the 400s) as soon as the match pops up in your nodes, more often than not you know that you could delay your attack and let him finish his hop. Especially if the guys is in your t10 leaderboard.

You're not required to do so, but it's still a snipe.

Of course, players or alliances bound by truces should respect those deals.

If the deal implies that players should not attack one each other while floating you should do so, because you gave your word.

If you don't, nobody will "cry", but for sure you're not worth the trust you were credited with.

Unknown

donietsche wrote:

But let's accept that it's a debate about morality: I think that it's much more immoral to snipe a player while the guy (or the gal) is hopping: 'cause you're stealing, in a sense, his hard work.

I fail to see how this is an issue since this is Versus, the player base, even the devs agree to call it "PvP", since it really is this style of gameplay, taking stuff from the enemy is a core aspect of this. Play Age of Empires Castle Siege, HearthStone, World of Warcraft, you always take something from the player, whether it's points, resources, or whatever.

I am fine with attacking players while they are hopping, and I am fine with them doing the same.

Malcrof

Ok, this entire thread turned into a tl;dr mess.

The post on Facebook was to entice new players. It is also a good showing that PVP rewards should be increased. Not 1 of the people on that list have bothered posting to defend or comment on anything.. so you are tilting at windmills at this point.

you want the truth about Line... here it goes.

I joined Line, at first to merc. then i hit 1k, (see my thread in tips), someone invited me into a room full of extremely helpful people. I asked questions, real, valid, on point questions. I got real answers. I can now hit 1k consistently. Not by magic, not by co-ordination, not by some form of extreme collaboration.. but because i wanted to, and i asked people who knew how.

End of story. There is no conspiracy.. Yes, people helping other people has to suck, i know, what is this world coming to, next thing you know there will be world peace.. you would hate that wouldn't you.

Unknown

IceX, what if everyone gain the same amount of points per win. Limit the amount of skips per hour on each node so people can't keep picking on weaker opponents purposely?

donietsche

DuckyV wrote:

donietsche wrote:

I fail to see how one can talk about issues of (im)morality in relation to players communicating (in order to play a match-5 game).

But let's accept that it's a debate about morality: I think that it's much more immoral to snipe a player while the guy (or the gal) is hopping: 'cause you're stealing, in a sense, his hard work.

Players who check shields aren't stealing a reward from your hands.

If they hit 1.3 using this strategy rather than attacking like hungry wolves as soon as a match pops up in their nodes they aren't making more difficult (or impossible) for you to get the same reward.

I repeat the question: let's make sure (lol, how?) that people can't use LINE, let say that I call my friend on his phone to check if he's shielded before attacking; or to let him know that one juicy target is out there.

What are the devs supposed to do? Make sure that the game is played only in an isolation chamber?

The game can be played cooperatively and that is going to stay in one form or another.

In my book cooperation is a nobler form of gaming. But that's just my opinion: the antagonistic strategy has its merits, and it deserves to be accepted as well.

The game theory could be easily applied to understand the different approaches to the game (including the pve section).

I'm sorry, but this "nobility" nonsense for shield checking is ridiculous. PvP is a competition. It's called player versus player for a reason. If you don't want to get hit, don't drop your shield. And by shield checking, it inherently makes it harder for people to climb because they have to sit around and make sure people are shielded. I may not be hopping, but when I am at 1300+ while climbing, I am just as big a target as people who hop. So I'm sorry but I'm not sorry if I hit people. I play PvP and if you get hit, you just got versus'd.

And with regards to taking the rewards from your hand: If you don't want to lose your placement, either start hopping earlier or climb higher before an initial shield. It is not their fault you didn't manage your time and resources properly in your attempt to get the placement or progression that you so desire.

thanks for the advice, but I have the feeling that I start climbing and that I reach my target score (way) before you do (not in this event though; I've seen your final score*).

I used to be a late climber in the past, so I also understand what you're saying.

As far as I'm concerned, everything is fair game.

I mean that I won't cry or moan or **** if a player tries to snipe me while hopping.

If I'm carrying a significant score in the early phases of an event (or in the last 8 hours), I know that I will be a target.

If I get sniped, it's my fault (I wasn't quick enough, or simply I had a bad timing when I planned my jump).

That being said, don't ask me to tell that it's an approach that I personally appreciate.

I try to avoid hitting people while they are hopping. Even if they are "competitors".

*which, I suppose, happened thanks to a certain degree of coordination (Unless you kept hitting 1 pt. matches until the end).... which sometimes, you must admit, it's the best approach to the game.

aesthetocyst

sagapo wrote:

donietsche wrote:

But let's accept that it's a debate about morality: I think that it's much more immoral to snipe a player while the guy (or the gal) is hopping: 'cause you're stealing, in a sense, his hard work.

I fail to see how this is an issue since this is Versus, the player base, even the devs agree to call it "PvP", since it really is this style of gameplay, taking stuff from the enemy is a core aspect of this. Play Age of Empires Castle Siege, HearthStone, World of Warcraft, you always take something from the player, whether it's points, resources, or whatever.

I am fine with attacking players while they are hopping, and I am fine with them doing the same.

Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should .... nor does it mean doing so is the most advantageous strategy ... and it isn't, if your goal is to score higher. In this model, players score higher together, or they chain each other to a lowest common denominator.

The general complaint here is an inability to score higher.

The answer is always going to be: score ... higher ... together.

EDIT:

sagapo wrote:

IceX, what if everyone gain the same amount of points per win. Limit the amount of skips per hour on each node so people can't keep picking on weaker opponents purposely?

Thud. Le sigh.

Dauthi

Malcrof wrote:

Ok, this entire thread turned into a tl;dr mess.

The post on Facebook was to entice new players. It is also a good showing that PVP rewards should be increased. Not 1 of the people on that list have bothered posting to defend or comment on anything.. so you are tilting at windmills at this point.

you want the truth about Line... here it goes.

I joined Line, at first to merc. then i hit 1k, (see my thread in tips), someone invited me into a room full of extremely helpful people. I asked questions, real, valid, on point questions. I got real answers. I can now hit 1k consistently. Not by magic, not by co-ordination, not by some form of extreme collaboration.. but because i wanted to, and i asked people who knew how.

End of story. There is no conspiracy.. Yes, people helping other people has to suck, i know, what is this world coming to, next thing you know there will be world peace.. you would hate that wouldn't you.

Let me make this clear, nobody can take your chat away from you, and I am happy that a community like that exists. It will always be there with all your friends.

So, why is there such a huge backlash? Is it the chat everyone is fighting for or the advantage it provides? Can anyone who has been fighting the exploit being fixed answer that?

TheOncomingStorm

Malcrof wrote:

Ok, this entire thread turned into a tl;dr mess.

The post on Facebook was to entice new players. It is also a good showing that PVP rewards should be increased. Not 1 of the people on that list have bothered posting to defend or comment on anything.. so you are tilting at windmills at this point.

you want the truth about Line... here it goes.

I joined Line, at first to merc. then i hit 1k, (see my thread in tips), someone invited me into a room full of extremely helpful people. I asked questions, real, valid, on point questions. I got real answers. I can now hit 1k consistently. Not by magic, not by co-ordination, not by some form of extreme collaboration.. but because i wanted to, and i asked people who knew how.

End of story. There is no conspiracy.. Yes, people helping other people has to suck, i know, what is this world coming to, next thing you know there will be world peace.. you would hate that wouldn't you.

Oh yea, there was an original topic. Heh. I don't see what's wrong on congratulating your best players. Your best should have higher scores.

I'm not worried about noobs, dwill has their back, which is probably a good thing. Sharding, new mmr, new buffs, etc. I don't think anyone goes into any other game expecting to be the top scorer right off the back. I think it's nice MPQ took time to recognize some players.

sc0ville

Dauthi wrote:

sc0ville wrote:

IceIX wrote:

Wouldn't work without also implementing a complex grouping set of allies to not show, otherwise multi-alliance groups would have a distinct advantage over single alliances. Sure, X-Men 1 can't hit X-Men 1. But they can hit X-Men 2. So now they just reshuffle members to get around the alliance hit exception. So we make a "fuzzy search" where if a name is substantially the same you can't hit. So now DeadpoolsRings and DeadpoolsTacos can't see one another. Now the Alliances would just suck up the name changes and we'd have X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, Excalibur instead of X-Men 1-4. We'd pretty much have to manually watch for players exploiting the system as such and create groupings based on that. Which is obviously untenable, not to mention prone to user/admin error.

Also, not saying that any of those Alliances are "exploiting" or anything, just that those Alliances in particular are well known, so good for naming illustration.

Dauthi, I don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not but this conversation has gotten away from you. You've selectively quoted IceIX and you cut out the context in which with he used the term "exploit."

You keep claiming that IceIX referred to using outside comms as a form of exploiting, but he never did. I've quoted the full context of the original usage of the term "exploit" by IceIX. People can read for themselves, IceIX was referring to a hypothetical situation whereby the rules of the game had changed and interalliance attacks were impossible, and then these alliances performed name changes to "exploit" a vulnerability in the ability to prevent various sub-alliances from attacking one another.

You're extrapolating what he said into a different meaning, and deriving authority from it that isn't there.

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

ICE referred to the act as exploiting with his last sentence, so I don't know Regardless there wouldn't be any way to catch/stop this act.

Not exploiting as in breaking game rules/we're going to ban you, but exploiting as in the true definition; Taking advantage of flaws in a system for full benefit.

Then I make sure to clarify:

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Would it be safe to say you discourage it but it is not punishable then ?

Pretty much exactly this, yes. Now, if you somehow figured out how to *stay* shielded and still hop, that'd be a different matter.

You didn't clarify anything, you just got him to reaffirm what he already said.

Dauthi

sc0ville wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

sc0ville wrote:

Dauthi, I don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not but this conversation has gotten away from you. You've selectively quoted IceIX and you cut out the context in which with he used the term "exploit."

You keep claiming that IceIX referred to using outside comms as a form of exploiting, but he never did. I've quoted the full context of the original usage of the term "exploit" by IceIX. People can read for themselves, IceIX was referring to a hypothetical situation whereby the rules of the game had changed and interalliance attacks were impossible, and then these alliances performed name changes to "exploit" a vulnerability in the ability to prevent various sub-alliances from attacking one another.

You're extrapolating what he said into a different meaning, and deriving authority from it that isn't there.

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

ICE referred to the act as exploiting with his last sentence, so I don't know Regardless there wouldn't be any way to catch/stop this act.

Not exploiting as in breaking game rules/we're going to ban you, but exploiting as in the true definition; Taking advantage of flaws in a system for full benefit.

Then I make sure to clarify:

IceIX wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Would it be safe to say you discourage it but it is not punishable then ?

Pretty much exactly this, yes. Now, if you somehow figured out how to *stay* shielded and still hop, that'd be a different matter.

You didn't clarify anything, you just got him to reaffirm what he already said.

The first piece he affirms it is an exploit, just not in the typical gaming sense where you will get banned for using it. He wants to make sure it is very clear nobody will get punished for doing this. In the second he establishes the developers do not want you to use it, but again will not punish you if you choose to.

Buret0

donietsche wrote:

What are the devs supposed to do? Make sure that the game is played only in an isolation chamber?

Again... if they really wanted to remove what they term an exploit, they could make it so that you couldn't attack someone in your own alliance and you can't see the names of the targets until after the battle ends.

The devs want the name there because they want attacking each other to be "personal", which is why they have the retaliation nodes. That's fine... keep the names available for retaliation nodes only. Keep the names on the leaderboard. Just don't let people hunt for the specific target (by name) they are looking for... let them skip through teams and points all they want.

If they are actually looking to do something about team-up climbing, that's the perfect answer. The people who are against this are naturally the people who are using it. They will be mad about it because it was an advantage that the top players were using to score well over 1300 points and was necessary to stay in the top alliances.

Top alliances will still be able to communicate with each other about which slices have points and when the top players in a rival alliance are unshielded... they just won't have any special way of targeting those players, except for retaliation nodes. You can still use retaliation nodes like normal, but in order to build up a list of targets in retaliations, they have to have attacked you and won.

It won't affect good players from climbing, it just removes climbing exploits that the devs have said they are discouraging (but not actually doing anything about).

Unknown

aesthetocyst wrote:

Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should .... nor does it mean doing so is the most advantageous strategy ... and it isn't, if your goal is to score higher. In this model, players score higher together, or they chain each other to a lowest common denominator.

The general complaint here is an inability to score higher.

The answer is always going to be: score ... higher ... together.

Disagree. The higher they score, the higher I must score to get/keep Rank 1. You are turning it into a grind like Story mode. The only reason it isn't like that right now is because of the shield cooldowns.

Sure the placement rewards aren't that great, but the fact that you can say you "beat the game" by reaching Rank 1 consistently, is what drives competitive people to play.

Why would I let them get points easily? That ruins Versus mode.