Do you play with etiquette?

Square

Dauntless74 wrote:

As for queuing, I have no idea what that means.

Queue
"a file or line, especially of people waiting their turn."

Your queue is the three nodes that are waiting for you to hit. Queueing is lining up players to hit, rather than jumping on them as soon as see them.

Buret0

I was at 1225 last night and got triple tapped by the same player, cost me the 1300. Changed my team and triple tapped back, but I'm guessing neither of us made the 1300 because of it.

Square

Buret0 wrote:

I was at 1225 last night and got triple tapped by the same player, cost me the 1300. Changed my team and triple tapped back, but I'm guessing neither of us made the 1300 because of it.

That's what happens to elites

Unknown

Except you will just shield up then bounce on your buddies.

What you guys say about waiting 10 minutes has cost me progress before. I queue them at 50, wait 10 minutes then hit them. In the meantime someone else hits them and now they are worth 30, wasting an entire hop for me. Your best bet for points is to smack them when you can almost guarantee the points. Hopefully they have finished successfully, shielded, and you get more points than expected but that is out of my control.

Alx85

I don't think I understand or fully appreciate the subtleties alluded to in this post. I'm a casual player and will ignore player names and just go for the most points available (in a winnable match). Everyone has their own score to grind and I get hit back usually as much as I climb. Never hit 1000 let alone 1300 and sim takes a lot of time to go 2K. I don't have the emotional energy to worry about tracking who I've hit and how many times. End of the day your rewards are yours so fight tooth and nail for them.

chaos01

I recently scored probably 500 points off a single player because of retaliations. Didn't feel bad about it then. Don't feel bad about it now.

Ludaa

barrok wrote:

Except you will just shield up then bounce on your buddies.

What you guys say about waiting 10 minutes has cost me progress before. I queue them at 50, wait 10 minutes then hit them. In the meantime someone else hits them and now they are worth 30, wasting an entire hop for me. Your best bet for points is to smack them when you can almost guarantee the points. Hopefully they have finished successfully, shielded, and you get more points than expected but that is out of my control.

This should be an US Vs. MPQ argument...

As part of a group that creates a lot of points, I'll say that after 900, 99% of the time we aren't taking points away from anyone. Save the retal for big points if you have it. Those in the other camp are directly taking someone's points. How would you view those in the latter group if you were me? I understand you may not have the time, but don't balk at the thought of "Etiquette" just because. It's D3's stupid system, but you are directly making it harder for everyone but yourself. You're welcome to play however you want but your comments come across as extremely selfish.

It's also not out of your control. It would take mere minutes to contact anyone in the top ten on Line to check their status, but hey, you've got places to be and might as well cut some people off.

Square

chaos01 wrote:

I recently scored probably 500 points off a single player because of retaliations. Didn't feel bad about it then. Don't feel bad about it now.

That's not a matter of etiquette. If someone wants to do a retal war with you, it's fair game.

I rarely get to do that, since almost everyone who hits me is 500 points lower than me, and a retal is bad for me. I get 5 points or less, and the original hitter gets a chance for another big score.

Unknown

Lol the thought of forcing someone to contact you out of the game to confirm I can attack you is more selfish than my desire to play the game how it was intended.

If they wanted line to be the form of communication they would have installed it with the game. If you want to go for big points that's your decision, but forcing me to install a separate app to communicate with you is ludicrous.

blinktag

cyineedsn wrote:

I think there's been alot of passive-aggressive posts in this thread from people on both sides of the issue

I agree.

Allow me to just be aggressive instead.

The poll is a bunch of self-rightous tinykitty. Someone's sour they got hit.

Welcome to PvP. People need points. Sometimes you're the one that has them.

Get over it.

Omega Red

The thing that bugs me about this discussion is the argument that everyone benefits from cooperation and this would be true only if playing for progression and not for placement. This is supposed to be a competition and you are basically asking us to not compete but collaborate. This is like asking two fighters to fix a series of boxing matches because in the long run it benefits them both more. If everyone cooperated this would not be a competition, it would be a travesty.

These pseudo-etiquette rules are nothing more than a system to preserve everyone's place in the food chain. Top players provide a pool of points and the lower level players get a free ride from them if they behave. "Let me stay at the top of the food chain and you can live off my wastes".

I want to climb, I want to rank my placement as high as possible and for that to happen I need to bring you down. Why then should I let you win by not attacking you while unshielded? Why should I let you run away towards 2000 unchallenged, unopposed? Why should I make your climb easier when that makes my placement harder?

Who is more selfish, the guy who is fighting for a top ten placement because he actually needs the covers or the guy who wants to hit well over 1300 simply for vanity?

cletus1985

blinktag wrote:

cyineedsn wrote:

I think there's been alot of passive-aggressive posts in this thread from people on both sides of the issue

I agree.

Allow me to just be aggressive instead.

The poll is a bunch of self-rightous tinykitty. Someone's sour they got hit.

Welcome to PvP. People need points. Sometimes yore the one that has them.

Get over it.

And by your simple minded frame of thought no one would ever reach progression because there would be no points in the system.

I just recently got Line and was against it for awhile, but waiting 5 min to let someone shield simply puts more points in the system, thus allowing more players to hit progression. Argue all you want about "elitist" blah blah blah, but the simple fact is that if everyone just attacked everyone immediately there wouldn't be enough points for progression prizes. By simply queuing a match, then waiting 5 min while queuing another you can go into your 1st match and hit the 2nd afterwards while allowing those targets to shield and injecting more points into the system benefitting everyone. You don't have to play this way, but it makes everyone's journey better. I followed this pattern before Line and never got into a war, which was also beneficial to me.

cletus1985

Omega Red wrote:

The thing that bugs me about this discussion is the argument that everyone benefits from cooperation and this would be true only if playing for progression and not for placement. This is supposed to be a competition and you are basically asking us to not compete but collaborate. This is like asking two fighters to fix a series of boxing matches because in the long run it benefits them both more. If everyone cooperated this would not be a competition, it would be a travesty.

These pseudo-etiquette rules are nothing more than a system to preserve everyone's place in the food chain. Top players provide a pool of points and the lower level players get a free ride from them if they behave. "Let me stay at the top of the food chain and you can live off my wastes".

I want to climb, I want to rank my placement as high as possible and for that to happen I need to bring you down. Why then should I let you win by not attacking you while unshielded? Why should I let you run away towards 2000 unchallenged, unopposed? Why should I make your climb easier when that makes my placement harder?

Who is more selfish, the guy who is fighting for a top ten placement because he actually needs the covers or the guy who wants to hit well over 1300 simply for vanity?

Who's gonna place higher regardless? I'm by no means top of the food chain (Hoping to get 4* playable), but I can hit 1300 with coordination which at least allows me to progress. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a marathon that takes strides.

blinktag

cletus1985 wrote:

And by your simple minded frame of thought no one would ever reach progression because there would be no points in the system.

That's a load of hogwash.

1. Seed teams add points.
2. Wins generate more points than the loss in the same battle, so net gain for the pool.
3. Wins against shielded opponents add points to the pool.

So "simple-minded" is a bit much when you seems to ignore how things work as the basis for your argument.

Square

blinktag wrote:

I agree.

Allow me to just be aggressive instead.

The poll is a bunch of self-rightous tinykitty. Someone's sour they got hit.

Welcome to PvP. People need points. Sometimes you're the one that has them.

Get over it.

Oh, I really didn't. I got near 1500 in the Mystique PVP, came 5th, and wasn't hit once over 600. So this really wasn't a rage topic.

And you're free to be as aggressive as you like (and sound in your post too ), but if that's your consistent style, don't be surprised if you get a rep as a tinykitty, and start to see people go out of their way to hit you. Nothing self-righteous or sour about it. The only people going out of their way to hit me are people enraged by my elitism in this thread

Ludaa

barrok wrote:

Lol the thought of forcing someone to contact you out of the game to confirm I can attack you is more selfish than my desire to play the game how it was intended.

If they wanted line to be the form of communication they would have installed it with the game. If you want to go for big points that's your decision, but forcing me to install a separate app to communicate with you is ludicrous.

More ludicrous than being active on the game's forum? Like I said, It's D3's dumb system we should fight against. Unfortunately, this game thrives a good deal off player frustration I imagine.

Omega Red wrote:

The thing that bugs me about this discussion is the argument that everyone benefits from cooperation and this would be true only if playing for progression and not for placement. This is supposed to be a competition and you are basically asking us to not compete but collaborate. This is like asking two fighters to fix a series of boxing matches because in the long run it benefits them both more. If everyone cooperated this would not be a competition, it would be a travesty.

These pseudo-etiquette rules are nothing more than a system to preserve everyone's place in the food chain. Top players provide a pool of points and the lower level players get a free ride from them if they behave. "Let me stay at the top of the food chain and you can live off my wastes".

I want to climb, I want to rank my placement as high as possible and for that to happen I need to bring you down. Why then should I let you win by not attacking you while unshielded? Why should I let you run away towards 2000 unchallenged, unopposed? Why should I make your climb easier when that makes my placement harder?

Who is more selfish, the guy who is fighting for a top ten placement because he actually needs the covers or the guy who wants to hit well over 1300 simply for vanity?

Fair point about fighting for placement. In my experience, the road to placement and high scores seems much less bumpy through cooperation. I took first place in Identity Theft with 14xx. I didn't have to fight that hard because with a coordinated alliance, you can enter separate brackets to ensure less competition. 1300 for vanity is no longer a thing with 5's in the wild I will add. Going one man army in this game to progress seems like it would be horrible. It may be that there are coordinated alliances in every shard now, so you will be seen as a nuisance/threat just about anywhere. Just throwing it out there, but we often invite the players who will cooperate to share our hops, even if that means top 5 competition.

dr tinykittylove

I think there's quite a bit of conflict now between 3* transitioners who need the placement covers and the 3*+ who need the progressions.

There's no real way to resolve this within the current system - people sniping late brackets for placement with the time crunch will inevitably be sniping other players too, or we wouldn't have the final hour bloodbaths, and I can't say they're wrong for wanting to progress any way they can.

I have the luxury of having paid my dues by playing like a crazy person, so that I don't need placement and have enough hp to fritter on shields and roster slots. I can afford to take my climbs easy, playing around slowly to give time to shield and skipping anyone I already hit, but that shouldn't be required of anyone.

Unknown

Even during the shield hopping phase I would bet around 90% of matches end against a shielded opponent, even if you just queued them. If someone is trying to make 3 hops that's their own fault.

I usually do 2 matches and then shield. Then 4 hits come in. Even if I hit one dude out of shield, I just added 4 more match points to the system.

It's just a scare tactic to say we are stopping people from progressions because we are removing points from the system. Look at some of the scores in pvp, no one is lacking for points. They are there if you want them.

Chirus

I am part of an alliance that does coordinated shield hops. Though it's hard for me to speak on behalf of everyone who also do the same, I can tell you that I harbor no ill will to anyone who does not do the same thing. In fact, I even go as far as to say I don't resent those who double, triple, or quadruple tap. Those individuals think "tough luck" towards their targets and I'm actually inclined to agree. I realize everyone has their own playstyles that best accommodate their real-life schedules and even to an extent their philosophy towards this game. Some people just do not want to deal with the hassle of working as a group, understanding the so-called "etiquette" of play, and simply want to have fun on their own time in the way they want to play the game. I have no desire to dictate how they should play their game. It's their game, they should play it as they see fit.

That said, it would be quite one-sided if this meant the community I'm a part of should also bend over backwards to make the game comfortable for these solo-players. The way I enjoy the game is through communal effort, and that necessitates that we protect the points of our front-runners through enforcement, especially if our group is a rather small number of people. Thus, if any solo player complains that they were attacked by a whole team of people from the same alliance, my likewise thought to them is, "tough luck". As much as you play the game for your enjoyment without much consideration to your opponents, I approach it just the same. I don't play the game so solo-players can have fun. I honestly don't particularly care. I play for my own enjoyment and that means looking after my mates and doing what needs to be done to help the group as a whole flourish. That's fun for me.

What is the take-home message? There's no right or wrong way to play the game. This whole field of play is much like a biome. You have foragers, hunters, parasites, and symbiotes. Who's going to argue which organism is doing the "right" thing, when all creatures are simply doing what they can to survive? Likewise, who's going to argue whose method of play is the "correct" one? So long as you're having fun, there are no established rules. This rather sensitive topic has been the source of much anger and vitriol. Most of it doesn't make sense to me. In the end, this is a game to unwind, take stress off your shoulders, laugh about nonsense, and to have fun with. We all can discuss which way is the best way and whatnot, but in the end, I predict we will do nothing but chase our own tails. Just agree to disagree and move on. Keep this game an outlet for enjoyment and stress-relief. I'd hate to imagine you come home from a horrible day at work, so you can spend your downtime in rage and frustration. That's simply counter-productive.

El Satanno

But what a fun conversation this has turned into, eh? Loaded poll questions, passive-aggressive responses, snarky ripostes, we've got it all!

Many of my alliance mates and I have been on both sides of the fence. Two seasons ago, we were fighting tooth-and-nail to try and secure t100 placement in events. The other top scorers and I were very much engaged in the "screw them, we need the points" style of play. Sometimes it worked out, other times it didn't. Then I decided to see if I could get myself a seat at that SSoLU table. Lo and behold, it was like a whole new world. I will say without reservation that cooperating with like-minded individuals has not only made my personal and alliance-wide progression accelerate, but it's improved our experience with the game as a whole.

So to get this story around to the OP, I used to not follow the unwritten rules of etiquette, largely because I didn't know any better. Then I did, and everything got better. Life is better when you do.

An interesting related point to raise is that PvP works better when you play cooperatively, yet PvE presents the most relentlessly cutthroat competition this game offers. Funny thing, indeed.