PVP "etiquette" only works if you use Line.

Pylgrim

From time to time, threads talking about "PVP etiquette" come up. For those not up on their jargon it means that if you are hopping above 800-900 points instead of attacking the high-yielding-point nodes that you are presented with, you shield, wait and attack later, not to screw someone else's climb. Theoretically, you'll also get more points from them as they keep gaining points in peace. This is a concept pushed by Line users but everybody is expected to comply, with some of the top alliances endorsing punishing gangbangs on offenders. In theory, it sounds great: we all do this and like a big happy family, no one ever gets sniped and we all benefit and get more points.

I've been trying to follow this philosophy for a while, with mixed results. Yes, sometimes I go back to nodes I "respected" to gain even more points than they initially promised. Many other times, though, I find out that those people got attacked and actually give me less points than expected. Today, I had the biggest blowout in Sticks and Stones. Climbing to 919 points I lined three 50-ish points battles and though I could keep going, I decided to follow etiquette and shielded. A couple hours later, I unshielded and battled my first node. It gave me only 41 points instead of 50 but that was fine. I just needed one of the other nodes to give me the 46 points it was then showing to go over 1k. I quickly finished the second battle to find out that it gave me 10 points! Quickly scrambled to fight the third... and it gave me 12 points. By then I was attacked for 30 points. Tried one more desperate battle for supposedly 40 points and the AI got an 18 red Ap cascade in the first turn and I was Star-Spangled to death shortly after. Lost 40 points there and 50 more from attacks that came through in the meantime. No more time, no more shields, no more health packs, so sitting at 870 points, I had to give up.

I spent 225 HP, countless boosts, lots of health packs and thousands of skip-tax Iso to get absolutely nothing, except protecting the climb of three strangers. Merry Christmas to them, I guess.

My whole point is that unless you use Line to coordinate hops and make sure that the person that you are protecting kept climbing, etiquette is only a way to screw yourself. Not everybody have the time for an additional MPQ related commitment such as camping in Line with its added time-consumption. Or others, like me, don't play every PVP (only the ones with necessary 1k rewards) so it is a hassle for everybody involved to let in and out a non-regular user of the chatrooms. That people cannot and shouldn't use etiquette and I know I will no longer do it. All I ask is that the ones who observe it understand those who don't.

mohio

You may think it's a hassle for yourself to do it only for an event here or there, but most BC or shield check rooms would gladly accept you knowing that you'll only be there for one event, or once a week, etc. The more people that "play nice" the better it is for everyone in the room, so I doubt many would raise a fuss unless you enter the room and start hitting friendlies. Also a lot of people genuinely want to help out other players so they will take you whether you're climbing to 1k at the very end or baking and hopping with 24+ hrs left.

Just saying. But keep playing how you enjoy the game, cause that's what everyone should do anyway.

Unknown

I received a threat from an upper alliance at one point about my sniping problem. After a while when they figured I don't really use Line and honestly don't care.

This is a game. Not a job. Not a life or death situation. Nope just a game.

Those who don't need the progression or placement awards will stomp me out on the way to the top, so yeah if I have a chance to win I'M GOING FOR IT.

In a unrelated note, outside of alliances I don't see anything about Line on the forums.

fmftint

If you're going to play on your own and prequeue nodes, you need to stick to players who's points you can verify, someone in your bracket or in a T10 alliance where you can check global leader board

Rumbles

The previous reply by mohio covered most points. I'd just like to add, participating in a successful BC or # chat room will also give you more targets to look for and when. Further, you can ask individuals their current score thus estimate the points you will receive is roughly in line with what your screen shows(rngesus is the only one that could explain why this issue hasn't been addressed in game)

slowej25

Literally the exact same thing just happened to me as well. Attacks came in like I was on a hitlist or something but I try to play by the unwritten rules and instead I get sniped and can't hit 1k this event.

DrStrange-616

Part of me wishes they make it anonymous. That would eliminate all of this.

Ludaa

I'd wager an anonymous system would lead to more double and triple hits, where as seeing the same name again at least gives a second thought.

DrStrange-616

Ludaa wrote:

I'd wager an anonymous system would lead to more double and triple hits, where as seeing the same name again at least gives a second thought.

True, but there would be no alliance retaliations or crews that plan climbs. It would be in game team vs team. Win points or lose them. Choose opponents based on points available and your chances of winning and none of the other stuff.

Rumbles

They could deal with this by only allowing you to hit a given target 1x per hr or other randomly determined interval longer than 30 seconds. They could cap points lost over unit of time to not allow drastic drops during single matches. Losing 200+ points while performing a single battle is disheartening for people that really "need" a given reward. They could alter the point system so the person working hard isn't handicapped by the ref....it's like letting the losing team shoot three pointers from the free throw line. They could make any of these changes, improve the game and improve fan relations. Don't hold your breathe.

In the mean time it is worth knowing the "top" alliances have little to no interest in smashing a helpless opponent, or punching you in the back of the head. They prefer to front run and out score opponents.

GuntherBlobel

Same bracket as the OP and it was brutal. I had the sheild at 842, down from ~900. I lost 200 pts during my 2nd match after shielding. No way was I going to crack 1K in this PvP.

I don't know how one can expect etiquette to exist in that 900-1000 pt danger zone. The people hitting me for 50 pts a piece aren't ready to begin shield hopping yet, so ettiquete is a moot point. I can't blame them for hitting me... it's just very unfortunate for me that as soon as I hit 900 pts, I become the preferred target of EVERY player.

El Satanno

Ludaa wrote:

I'd wager an anonymous system would lead to more double and triple hits, where as seeing the same name again at least gives a second thought.

Double or triple? At a certain point, you can end up cycling through the same 3 or 4 people almost infinitely. How nice would it be to know that you may be hitting the same person upwards of 6 or 7 or more times?

PeterGibbons316

fmftint wrote:

If you're going to play on your own and prequeue nodes, you need to stick to players who's points you can verify, someone in your bracket or in a T10 alliance where you can check global leader board

^This

If you find a juicy target and can't tell if they are shielded via the methods above, then you hit them, get all the points promised, and move on.

The exception to this is cupcakes. If you are nearing 1k and find a team of 2*s worth more than you, then you should absolutely wait to hit them. Do another battle or two first and then come back to it, you'll get even more points.

Unknown

I'm not sure that many people in top alliances subscribe to this notion of PVP etiquette.

Getting hit is a bit painful. But I'd say that most players just shrug it off. This is just the game. Usually, people will complain about getting "sniped by rando" and that's the end of that.

It's not so much single hits that rile people up, but a pattern of behavior (real or imagined). Most breaches of etiquette involve the perception of animus.

Double-tapping is the most common expression of this. Usually, hops are short enough that a single person won't usually be able to hit a target twice unless they're specifically gunning for him or her. It's those cases that make attribution of malice more likely (and perhaps more reasonable). This includes close-together shield bounces. If you double queue a person, Emily Post suggests that you go hit someone else in between to give your target a chance to shield. I'll do that for you too.

Of course, people do get hot-headed. Sometimes, a particular antipathy might be misattributed to players who have just happened to have hit the same target in the past or members of the same alliance/alliance family/line chat cohort, and coordinated counter-action takes place. That's unfortunate, but that's not usually the case.

Sniping cupcakes is a special and extreme case. Putting out a cupcake is basically a public service; it's very rude to snipe cupcakes, because not only are you taking advantage of the service, you're also screwing over the provider and slightly decreasing its value to everyone else. And you broadly discourage this sort of valuable activity in the future. You're basically a terrorist. Don't be a terrorist.

DrStrange-616

The typical player has no idea about any of this. No idea what a sniper is or a cupcake. They're not terrorists. They're trying to get points and if the game serves up a target they can beat with good points, they hit it. As they should. That's the game. The rest of this is not. I understand why it's developed, but the animosity is often misplaced.

Unknown

DrStrange-616 wrote:

The typical player has no idea about any of this. No idea what a sniper is or a cupcake. They're not terrorists. They're trying to get points and if the game serves up a target they can beat with good points, they hit it. As they should. That's the game. The rest of this is not. I understand why it's developed, but the animosity is often misplaced.

Sure, I take your point that the meta-game is pretty much inscrutable to the average MPQ player. But by having a conversation about PVP etiquette, by having the inkling that there exists a notion of PVP etiquette to begin with, we're already way past average. I'll amend my statement.

Yes, the various mechanics of the game have conspired to make it so that players can snipe a cupcake without having the slightest idea what those terms mean. You're right here - you might as well be upset at the tides as these circumstances. But there are people who do understand what these mechanics are, particularly people who frequent the forums. In this subset of cases, involving people who knowingly act selfishly to gain the slightest advantage - well, those are bad people who deserve social ostracism and perhaps collective counteraction.

DrStrange-616

That's where I disagree. A set of phantom rules have been established. No player has to follow them. They are artificial to the game itself. There is no way to know the intent of the player or the circumstance of the match, unless they tell you. Enforcing these phantom rules because you want to play the game your way and not the way it was designed, strikes me as unfair and a little bullying. That's not to say some people don't actively seek out and destroy targets for their own amusement, but this idea of ostracism based on assumptions worries me. Unless, of course, you're just joking and I'm too tired to see it. In that case, never mind.

theo199

So you know what you have to do now.
Playing the game and having fun (yeah, the actual purpose of any game) or follow such "etiquette" written by and for a tinykitty minority of harassers alliances.

Quebbster

aesthetocyst wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

That's where I disagree. A set of phantom rules have been established. No player has to follow them. They are artificial to the game itself. There is no way to know the intent of the player or the circumstance of the match, unless they tell you. Enforcing these phantom rules because you want to play the game your way and not the way it was designed, strikes me as unfair and a little bullying. That's not to say some people don't actively seek out and destroy targets for their own amusement, but this idea of ostracism based on assumptions worries me. Unless, of course, you're just joking and I'm too tired to see it. In that case, never mind.

Calling rules "phantoms" implies they are subjective ... well, hell so does calling whatever it is "etiquette". As if it's a matter of opinion. And I suppose various fine points are a matter of opinion.

However, there is one, central objective truth rooted in the nature of the PVP scoring system: all player's winning are based on the scores of others. Therefore, so far as generating points is concerned, it is in no player's interest to intentionally lower another's score when it can be avoided. This isn't opinion, it's math. It's inescapable, and independently derived time and again.

In my experience, it's very rare to find a player that is intentionally trying to tear each other down. Being able to communicate with other players fundamentally changes the PVP experience. And that isn't a reference to any sort of explicit cooperation; communication humanizes the names on the screen.

Well, that depends a bit on what kind of reward you are chasing.
If you are after progression rewards then yes, it is in your interest to add points to the system.
If you are after placement rewards, then you may want to bring those above you down a bit. Obviously this mainly applies to those in your bracket, but even those in different brackets are good targets as that leaves less points for your competition and making it harder to pass you.
Personally I am after progression rewards, so I try to play at least semi-nice.

PeterGibbons316

aesthetocyst wrote:

DrStrange-616 wrote:

That's where I disagree. A set of phantom rules have been established. No player has to follow them. They are artificial to the game itself. There is no way to know the intent of the player or the circumstance of the match, unless they tell you. Enforcing these phantom rules because you want to play the game your way and not the way it was designed, strikes me as unfair and a little bullying. That's not to say some people don't actively seek out and destroy targets for their own amusement, but this idea of ostracism based on assumptions worries me. Unless, of course, you're just joking and I'm too tired to see it. In that case, never mind.

Calling rules "phantoms" implies they are subjective ... well, hell so does calling whatever it is "etiquette". As if it's a matter of opinion. And I suppose various fine points are a matter of opinion.

However, there is one, central objective truth rooted in the nature of the PVP scoring system: all player's winning are based on the scores of others. Therefore, so far as generating points is concerned, it is in no player's interest to intentionally lower another's score when it can be avoided. This isn't opinion, it's math. It's inescapable, and independently derived time and again.

In my experience, it's very rare to find a player that is intentionally trying to tear each other down. Being able to communicate with other players fundamentally changes the PVP experience. And that isn't a reference to any sort of explicit cooperation; communication humanizes the names on the screen.

Exactly. People may be ignorant of the rules, but once you realize that the rules are there as a direct result of the mechanics of the PvP system we were given and the rules result in a mutually beneficial outcome....you must follow the rules. Not doing so means you are sacrificing the good of the entire group for the gain of yourself, and that makes you an Language!.

Quebbster wrote:

Well, that depends a bit on what kind of reward you are chasing.
If you are after progression rewards then yes, it is in your interest to add points to the system.
If you are after placement rewards, then you may want to bring those above you down a bit. Obviously this mainly applies to those in your bracket, but even those in different brackets are good targets as that leaves less points for your competition and making it harder to pass you.
Personally I am after progression rewards, so I try to play at least semi-nice.

Eh. With the amount of cooperative play that takes place bringing down the entire group (yourself included) doesn't really make sense to try and hit that top progression. Typically the top spot is defined by who can spend the most on shields, and spend the most time in chats lining up high value targets rather than who can directly attack their nearest rival the most. Again, the mechanics of the game really don't support that behavior. It's typically better off to line up a high point target in another bracket worth more points than to try and snipe your rival giving him a retal node to just snipe you back at some point.

Mod Edit: Language!

Daiches

theo199 wrote:

So you know what you have to do now.
Playing the game and having fun (yeah, the actual purpose of any game) or follow such "etiquette" written by and for a tinykitty minority of harassers alliances.

It is actually a lot more fun to play with friends and to help other people reach progression goals (which are worth a hell of a lot more than placement rewards). Try it sometimes. Maybe you won't be so angry then.

A rising tide floats all boats. That's what the etiquette is for. Hitting people who are shielded means more points enter the system and the total overall score of participants in the slice will be higher and more people will get rewards.