Time to lock event scores for seasons

mohio

As already pointed out, the downside of the ultron method: 2 players with the best of intentions have RL **** come up (kids get sick, extra **** to do at work, etc) and participate at 50% their best for half the season. Why should this punish the other 18 guys in that alliance? Pretty sure those 2 guys would feel pretty bad and hope instead for the system we have now.

As for the locking alliance scores at the end of each event: this SOUNDS like a good idea, but is way too exploitable by **** commanders. I can imagine a scenario where an alliance is pretty safely in top 100 and the commander boots several guys to bring in whoever he wants to get the end of season rewards. This is an extreme example and that guy would be a pariah in this community if that were to happen, but basically there is no recourse for people who are left on the outside looking in going into that last event. Having your whole season's body of work move with you is more player-friendly, since they are better able to market themselves to alliances that need the help.

jimstarooney

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

acescracked wrote:

I just don't get the rub. Either system is wrought with problems and I think the current system less so. This only really affects the few alliances near reward tiers. Make a massive change that hits all alliances to address a personal view of fair play? Nah.

It's incredibly frustrating to finish Top100 in every single PvP event as both a player and an alliance, finish your last event of the season with your alliance in the top 70, and then watch as your alliance slowly drops out of the top 100 because other alliances are mercing.

Consider this - with perfect communication the top 2,000 players would merc into the top 100 alliances at the end of the season to earn the 4* reward. So the current system operated perfectly rewards the top 2,000 players. So why have alliance rewards? Get rid of the brackets, give the top 2,000 people the cover, and just call it a day. As it is your "alliance rank" means nothing, because it fluctuates so drastically at the end of events. At least with a top 2k you would have a much better idea of where you really stood.

Mercing has been a thing since alliances were formed and tbh is where us commanders earn our salt.lay minimums out b4 season starts and the ppl who have to get kicked shouldnt be surprised when it eventually happens.

Unknown

The idea of making the per-event score locked into the alliance seems good at first, but as everything it brings other problems.

Lets say a couple players had RL issues and did poorly and the alliance would end up out of T100. The alliance cant get enough mercs in and all others would lose the prize, so the top ones decide to merc out. So 4-5 players are now in other alliances and their home is sitting at 14/20 members while they get that event's prize in another alliance.

If the points are tigh this one alliance will have a huge score difference for the entire season from that point onwards, and their players wouldnt be useful for another alliance because they wouldnt carry a full season score with them for the end of the season, they would carry only the last event score, and any alliance getting them in would be booting a member for last event worth of points only too.

CrookedKnight

My alliance finished 101st by a margin of less than 300 points because neither of our commanders was online to make any switches in the final two hours (before which we had 4000 points of breathing room -- amazing how fast that evaporates) and I still think this is a bad idea.

The rockett

So this is the first time I have ever posted on the forums. I agree with the OP frustration of the last day in the season. This was my experience yesterday. At 1pm EST,, (when the NFL was kicking off) my alliance was ranked 52/53. When the season ended at 3am EST, we were 92nd. We all kept playing Mr F pvp and the shield room but dropped 40 spots in 13 hours. While I do understand mercing, and we have used it in the past, what I would propose is a 24 lock down. You cannot change anybody in the last 24 hours of a season. I understand that people have real life issues. But to be fair to the people that have played their butts off for the whole season to almost get knocked out by "teams" that are together for less then 24 hours seems wrong. Again, just the last 24 hours as a lock down. That is it.

Linkster79

A 24 hour freeze before the final version event of the season really won't solve anything, just bring the merry go round forwards by one day. Like I said this is a player problem, not a developer problem.

Players wanted cumulative versus event scores, so alliances and seasons were introduced and everyone shouted "huzzah!!"

Players wanted wanton alliance hopping put and end to so a cool down on rejoining the same alliance were introduced and everyone shouted "huzzah!!"

Players wanted free alliance slots and players were given free alliance slots and everyone went "huzzah!!"

What there is now is the system that was largely asked for, the seeds have been sown and now it is time to reap the whirlwind.

wiz_biz

Linkster79 wrote:

A 24 hour freeze before the final version event of the season really won't solve anything, just bring the merry go round forwards by one day.

while i definitely agree to an extent, i still think it would be a step in the right direction. alliance protocols need to be flexible enough to accommodate the usual traffic (dropping and replacing inactives, etc.), but at least having a deadline even slightly before the season ends still makes us work a little more with what we've got. if there was lockdown 24 hrs (or even longer, maybe before the last PVP of the season), sure there will still be the volatility in alliance rank until that point, but at least we could use the last day to focus on what we could realistically do in the last pvp or in sim to tighten up the rank, and not have to stay up all night worrying about placecment.

who knows, maybe it wouldn't make that much of a difference, but would at least seem to foster more of an atmosphere of teamwork with your alliance during that last critical day and not make t100 placement such a **** shoot. not that i really expect anything to change, but a girl can dream...

Unknown

An easy solution would be to separate alliance points from individual. After each event alliance score is calculated. So it should be added to alliance seasonal score. So the alliance score will be the sum off all 10 event scores. It won't be dynamic like now when it's determined by sum of all members individual scores at the end of the season.

Edit: so no need for freezes or locking up members

slidecage

Linkster79 wrote:

A 24 hour freeze before the final version event of the season really won't solve anything, just bring the merry go round forwards by one day. Like I said this is a player problem, not a developer problem.

Players wanted cumulative versus event scores, so alliances and seasons were introduced and everyone shouted "huzzah!!"

Players wanted wanton alliance hopping put and end to so a cool down on rejoining the same alliance were introduced and everyone shouted "huzzah!!"

Players wanted free alliance slots and players were given free alliance slots and everyone went "huzzah!!"

What there is now is the system that was largely asked for, the seeds have been sown and now it is time to reap the whirlwind.

there needs to be at least a 24 hour freeze on teams why you ask.

This makes commanders to be online at 3am on a monday morning (sorry but not getting up at 2am just to make sure my time has enough pts just cause billy bob did 15 changes and pushed my team to 101)

lucky im not a commander

i would love to see PVP change but it never would... GIVE Pts based on your final rank in each PVP.

First would get like 1000
2nd would get like 900
and down the line

wants the pt into getting to normal PVP brackets all year just to be put into an insane season bracket

this season took
3 first
1 top 5
2 top 10s
4 top 50th

came in 485th in season. top 10 in my season all had at least 4 to 6 4 stars max

lukewin

Being top 100 in every PVP or being top 100 every day but the last, doesn't mean that you'll finish top 100 for the season. Scores in The Simulator can swing things. If players are playing during the season, your season rank is higher than the alliances that don't have scores. If there are other alliances that really push in the Simulator in the end, they can jump spots too. It's not just the merc'ing that causes swings.

marx_2299

Yes, but your also forgetting that a lot of people make their final push that last pvp too. Many members of my alliance, myself included, don't play sim until very end. I scored 2,000 points that last pvp (over 2 days) on sim alone. What if half my alliance did that? That's a LOT of points. The fact of the matter is, with the new Legendary tokens and a chance at 5*, alliances are going to do what they have to do to ensure top 100. You just have to crack the whip. Competitive PVP is just that, competitive. Would those guys in the alliances on this post have been replaced had they scored over 10,000 points on season? I doubt it. My alliance was 62, with bottom guy at 9,000. We were dropping fast as well, but replaced a guy who had joined midway through season with a merc. The bottom 50 is NEVER secure. Never. Sucks but managing the ever-changing rules in this game is what we commanders are supposed to do. They'll be other changes that suck too coming down the pipe, just gonna have to adept to those too. #firstworldproblems

SnowcaTT

I remember when our alliance was in growing pains (around S3) and had to do the last-day merc-ins. It always felt terrible. It's easier to have well defined season requirements early on (I think 7500 is really all you need still? Not certain what the T100 break-down is), so no hurt feelings later on.

Coming from an alliance that hit T50 in all events and seasons for five seasons in a row: I wouldn't want to see them locked in. Real life happens, sometimes folks burn out mid-season and you don't want to be stuck with that.

However, it lets me bring up the solution once again: One week seasons (I used to say two...but once again the 4* releases have been sped up...). If D3 could slow down the 4* releases to once every three weeks (hah!), you could have three one-week seasons that each rewarded a color of the newest 4*. Then you could lock in alliances, a week isn't to much to require of folks.

GrumpySmurf1002

SnowcaTT wrote:

It's easier to have well defined season requirements early on (I think 7500 is really all you need still? Not certain what the T100 break-down is), so no hurt feelings later on.

It was 10750 this season (highest on record, even going back to when there were 12-14 events). But since the 1300 progression was added, at least 200k has been required. So if your alliance was on pace for 190k, you never had a chance, even if you were in a top 100 position prior to the mercenaries moving around.

That's basically now 900 per event and 1750 sim, average. (We had one at 7k, but he was countered by those above 13k). And as 4* availability increases, so too will those requirements. From there, either it will plateau as spending limits scoring, or more people will be spending, and it will become full fledged P2W.

At least until the 5* squash the points available as top scorers put themselves into untouchable category.

xellessanova

SnowcaTT wrote:

I remember when our alliance was in growing pains (around S3) and had to do the last-day merc-ins. It always felt terrible. It's easier to have well defined season requirements early on (I think 7500 is really all you need still? Not certain what the T100 break-down is), so no hurt feelings later on.

It was 215,145 for top 100, so 10757 average for S18. Top 60s was 220k, so just a 5000 point spread separated the last 40 places or so.

S17 top 100 was 203,506, so a 12k jump from last season. I think that it's gotten worse because scores have gotten better and there are way, way more good players in the pool, but only the same 2000 rewards. Next season is going to be brutal.

lukewin wrote:

Being top 100 in every PVP or being top 100 every day but the last, doesn't mean that you'll finish top 100 for the season. Scores in The Simulator can swing things. If players are playing during the season, your season rank is higher than the alliances that don't have scores. If there are other alliances that really push in the Simulator in the end, they can jump spots too. It's not just the merc'ing that causes swings.

Right, it's the same thing as when 16/20 people play in PVP slices 1 & 2 vs 16/20 people in slices 4 & 5 -- very different distributions.

shurak wrote:

An easy solution would be to separate alliance points from individual. After each event alliance score is calculated. So it should be added to alliance seasonal score. So the alliance score will be the sum off all 10 event scores. It won't be dynamic like now when it's determined by sum of all members individual scores at the end of the season.

Sadly, this is just going to make every individual PVP a bloodbath, so seasons are 10x as stressful for commanders and there will be 10x complaint threads about falling out of the top 100 each season plus 10x sad threads about not being able to join a top 100 pvp alliance with only a maxed 3* roster.

Solution: Why not just extend the rewards down to top 125 or wherever the natural break point is? Scores are way higher now, the number of people playing and the level of competition is way higher, why make it this freaking hard?

Blahahah

I don't see the problem, and this is why...

Mercs exist because there is a demand for them. If no one needed the mercs, then no mercs would exist.
The fact that they do means that players in the top 150-ish numbers utilize the tools available.

Lets say you got rid of mercenary in its current form. Just slap a 48 hour lock or prevent new people from joining at the end of season or whatever...
Instead of having guilds with mercenaries coming in, you might have a new things like... Mercenary guilds that people can get into to get those season rewards.

A guild of folks who let about 5 people in to get those covers, at the usual mercenary fee of course.
Or you have smaller guilds who comprise themselves of 50% members and 50% mercs.
Merc end up just taking longer contracts.

So on and so forth. Honestly how the system is now, the people who want/need it use it, those who don't don't. I think thats pretty okay.

PeterGibbons316

This is the real solution: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=32831

With the amount of mercing that happens alliance rewards have really just become overall rewards - make it official.

Unknown

I would say there should be a modifier for time served in a given alliance. The merc'ing at the end has gotten kind of out of hand.

Now, granted, we've got a couple people in ours who are slacking, and they prob should have been booted, but we dropped 20 slots in the last day, which is a real big variance...

The rockett

I understand that if you put a 24 lock on added/dropping members it will just move it up a day. But at least it will give you a true line of sight what is going on. When you watch the leader board with 10 minutes left and see a team below you disappear and then 30 seconds later, reappear 1-2K above you, you know exactly what happened. Now i know this is a game, but if you would compare this to your favorite sport. You cannot get a Free Agent (merc) in the middle of a game. You can do it before or after the game and but not during. That is all I am trying to say. I feel like to be fair to the true alliances something should be done to protect them when you have 0 turnover.

Dayv

The basic truth is that it can be really painful to be in the bottom 20 or so of the top 100. It doesn't take a lot of work for people just outside of the top 100 to get a merc or two in and climb in, pushing #100 out. That alliance notices they've slipped, so *they* get a merc or two, and it continues. I was an alliance commander during one of the earlier seasons where we were caught in the churn and it was incredibly stressful to deal with. Until you get your alliance up out of this placement churn zone, usually by adding one more merc than you really wanted to and feeling bad about it, your placement is always in danger.

acescracked

slidecage wrote:

Linkster79 wrote:

A 24 hour freeze before the final version event of the season really won't solve anything, just bring the merry go round forwards by one day. Like I said this is a player problem, not a developer problem.

Players wanted cumulative versus event scores, so alliances and seasons were introduced and everyone shouted "huzzah!!"

Players wanted wanton alliance hopping put and end to so a cool down on rejoining the same alliance were introduced and everyone shouted "huzzah!!"

Players wanted free alliance slots and players were given free alliance slots and everyone went "huzzah!!"

What there is now is the system that was largely asked for, the seeds have been sown and now it is time to reap the whirlwind.

.. why you ask..

Sorry, nobody asked.