Missing the new system already on pve

tanis3303

Slarow wrote:

tanis3303 wrote:

In this new system, every second those nodes spend at full points before you see the timer pop up means more points are available for anyone that clears them faster than you do. So as far as competitive play goes, it is not a more flexible system. If you want to win the bracket, you HAVE to play each node to the timer upon subs opening, then grind them down at the end. You have to, or the other 9 guys will. I'm not saying its healthy ...but that's how it works in the t10 of PvE.

It sounds to me like you are saying that getting first place out of 1000 players is hard. It should be.

It also sounds to me like the new system puts a higher emphasis on clearing nodes fast (actual strategy), as oppose to emphasizing exact optimal time clears (meta-strategy), which allows more opportunity for better players to excel, separating the men from the boys.

Yea, I'm not saying it should be easy, it never has been. But under the new system, its not only harder because of the increased scaling, but it takes significantly more time to do. That (I think at least) is the only real point the grinders are trying to make. Their workload practically doubled, but their payout remains exactly the same.

GrumpySmurf1002

DaveR4470 wrote:

Here's the argument, then: your statement only works if you have ample time to play, and/or some measure of flexibility.

Say it takes me 20 minutes to clear an entire board for a given sub. And say I have an hour, and ONLY an hour, to play.

• Under the new system, I know I will get the point equivalent of 3 optimal clears of the board, because points don't drop until I hit run #7.
• Under the timer system, I would need to do (I think) at least 5 clears of the board to get the point equivalent of 3 optimal clears. But that would take more time than I have, so I can't do it. Under the old system, I earn (guesstimate) no more than about 75% of the points I'd earn under the new system.

And max progression levels -- which, if you are not competing for placement must be, of necessity, ALL you care about -- are based on a multiple of optimal clears for the event (usually at least 3-4 clears per sub).

If I'm in a small minority of people benefitting from this, and a larger swath of people do not, so be it. It is what it is. But you don't seem to be able to see how the new system could be better than the old one. Well, here you go.

This assumes that the progression points are static. Very likely they won't be.

From all accounts of the first test, the EotS was set at closer to ~4.5 clears of the full node values. Which means 'old system' and new system would be functionally equivalent under the 'play whenever you want' model.

Them turning rubberbanding on for the 2nd test throws most comparisons out the window, there were monster advantages to playing subs late to get the progression for minimal effort. From my own experience, I basically just played the 48 hour sub and got ~80-90% of the progression.

The rubberbanding might be (ok, probably is) single-handedly the reason for all the focus on there being 'less effort' required, as you were getting more points than were scheduled to be available. Combined with the dev-acknowledged lower progression mark, it was trivial compared to normal situations.

Slarow

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

That's Simon's point. Unless you're playing for top rank, the fact that things are worth max points means very little other than the psychological benefit of seeing 'Full Points".

No it doesn't. It means that those who can play every 8 hours are at a huge advantage to those who can't play every 8 hours. The first group will end up with 25% more points, which can easily be the difference between top 300 and top 100, or top 200 and top 50.

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

With identical effort required for 'casual' play, it stands to reason the most complaints would come from the drastic difference in competitive requirements, and thus from the players most likely to play under those conditions.

That's the problem. Top 10 players are making it seem like it was "harder on top 10, but exactly the same for everyone else", when that is simply not the case. That's the point of this thread, to say that there are plenty of us for whom "play whenever you want to" is a HUGE advantage compared to the old system.

Eddiemon

simonsez wrote:

Pollozz wrote:

Don't like going back on schedule again. Was fun to play anytime without loss points!!. I bet I will get a lot of aggression from the usual T50 placement people but the remaining 950 are actually really happy if this new system is implemented anytime soon.

If you're not T50, you have no reason to give a tinykitty. It's the same game for you regardless. And no, this isn't aggression because you like the new system. It's aggression because you can't even understand there's no reason for you to like it.

Of course you do. If your target is max progression rewards you need essentially 3 full clears at max points of each sub. Which means you can't just sit down for a couple of hours at any point in your day and bash out the required points, you have to play to the clock.

It might be truer to argue that T50 players have no reason to give a tiny kitty. If you're already willing to fit your life around playing a game every 8 hours there is no manner of indignity you won't put up with.

mohio

Slarow wrote:

tanis3303 wrote:

In this new system, every second those nodes spend at full points before you see the timer pop up means more points are available for anyone that clears them faster than you do. So as far as competitive play goes, it is not a more flexible system. If you want to win the bracket, you HAVE to play each node to the timer upon subs opening, then grind them down at the end. You have to, or the other 9 guys will. I'm not saying its healthy ...but that's how it works in the t10 of PvE.

It sounds to me like you are saying that getting first place out of 1000 players is hard. It should be.

It also sounds to me like the new system puts a higher emphasis on clearing nodes fast (actual strategy), as oppose to emphasizing exact optimal time clears (meta-strategy), which allows more opportunity for better players to excel, separating the men from the boys.

There's two problems with this...1) The winners right now are already the fastest ("better" is not true, but maybe luckier or wealthier since it takes 5* to clear the fastest). There are enough people hitting close enough to optimal timing that in order to separate from the rest you still need to be fast in the grind at the end. You also have to have sometimes 3.5+ hours of free time to grind the end of a sub and do the first clear of the next one. 2) The new system in its most optimized form is less about speed and more about time. Instead of having close to 4 hours of time blocked off, now you will need more like 6 or 7 hours because to get the timers started requires 6 plays, and then there are an additional 5 (or is it 4?) stacks to grind through at the end of each sub as well. Each full clear is going to take longer since nodes are scaled higher, so those 6 clears will take at least 3 hours if not longer, and the end of sub grind is only against the highest scaled nodes, so it's likely to take that long as well, even if it is fewer nodes overall. In all likelihood no one is going to be able to do this, so the winner will be who can do the most, which is more about how much time they can devote to it, than how fast they can do it (although they obviously interact with each other). If you force two players to only play in a fixed amount of time, then yes of course the faster one will win, but that is not what is going to be happening here.

GrumpySmurf1002

Slarow wrote:

No it doesn't. It means that those who can play every 8 hours are at a huge advantage to those who can't play every 8 hours. The first group will end up with 25% more points, which can easily be the difference between top 300 and top 100, or top 200 and top 50.

I have literally done only 3-4 clears before a sub ends in the old system and cruised to top 100, and in most cases top 50 and even 10 if I get in a good bracket. I've done PvE's where I've literally done 1 clear and out under the old system and still finished top 200.

You're way overestimating the amount of people putting even minimal effort into clearing a PvE, let alone how many are actually doing enough for progression. Either that or you're in the worst brackets imaginable/not bracket shopping correctly, which is an element that no system is really going to fix.

Stax the Foyer

This is a game where even PvE rewards are given out on a ranking basis to limit the amount of covers given out. That absurd system that has remained in place despite years of pleas from the playerbase, and continues to drastically benefit PvE bracket snipers over people who play a full event.

Every single reward in this game is throttled.

If people think that the max progression numbers aren't just going to be set higher to take into account the additional points that are available due to the lack of initial point decay, they've had a very different MPQ experience than I have.

Slarow

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

Slarow wrote:

No it doesn't. It means that those who can play every 8 hours are at a huge advantage to those who can't play every 8 hours. The first group will end up with 25% more points, which can easily be the difference between top 300 and top 100, or top 200 and top 50.

I have literally done only 3-4 clears before a sub ends in the old system and cruised to top 100, and in most cases top 50 and even 10 if I get in a good bracket. I've done PvE's where I've literally done 1 clear and out under the old system and still finished top 200.

You're way overestimating the amount of people putting even minimal effort into clearing a PvE, let alone how many are actually doing enough for progression. Either that or you're in the worst brackets imaginable/not bracket shopping correctly, which is an element that no system is really going to fix.

1) "Bracket Shopping" is a meta-strategy that shouldn't be the answer to low placement. 2) The current system doesn't allow you to bracket shop, because it forces you to pick a bracket based on the 8 hour cycle and when you will be available to play. Those with the ability to play at any time have a distinct advantage in the old system, in that they can bracket shop. That advantage goes away in the new system.

Stax the Foyer

Slarow wrote:

It also sounds to me like the new system puts a higher emphasis on clearing nodes fast (actual strategy), as oppose to emphasizing exact optimal time clears (meta-strategy), which allows more opportunity for better players to excel, separating the men from the boys.

Slarow

Stax the Foyer wrote:

This is a game where even PvE rewards are given out on a ranking basis to limit the amount of covers given out. That absurd system that has remained in place despite years of pleas from the playerbase, and continues to drastically benefit PvE bracket snipers over people who play a full event.

Then propose an alternate method to limit the amount of covers given out to 1% of the population. No one ever proposes a system that will work, they just complain about the current system.

Stax the Foyer wrote:

If people think that the max progression numbers aren't just going to be set higher to take into account the additional points that are available due to the lack of initial point decay, they've had a very different MPQ experience than I have.

That's fine. I would much rather play 4.5 times on my own schedule (which I believe was the EOTS calculation) than 3.5 times, all at specific 8 hour intervals, as the old system requires.

GrumpySmurf1002

Slarow wrote:

1) "Bracket Shopping" is a meta-strategy that shouldn't be the answer to low placement. 2) The current system doesn't allow you to bracket shop, because it forces you to pick a bracket based on the 8 hour cycle and when you will be available to play. Those with the ability to play at any time have a distinct advantage in the old system, in that they can bracket shop. That advantage goes away in the new system.

1) Yet it is, and is the case with 24 hour refreshes as well.

2) Bracket shopping leads to scenarios where you play the event for as little as 1 minute and race to finish a node quickly for top placement. It has very little to do with 8 hour refreshes.

Bracket shopping will not go away in the new system. You're still at a tremendous advantage if you join a fresh bracket just before a sub ends and are able to access those points that no one else that joins after you has access to. It will dampen the effect sure, but the very nature of PvE means bracket shopping is part of a strategy that means everything to placement, both low and high.

jobob

simonsez wrote:

jobob wrote:

In the new system, you can only lose points if you play a node more than 7 times, regardless of schedule.

That's not true. The quicker you clear down the timer, the more points will be available at the final grind. So for every minute that goes by with a node that says "full points", yes, you are ultimately losing points.

It is absolutely true. If you don't clear more than 7 times, there is no "final grind." The fact that you even bring up the timer is proof that you are talking about a different situation than I am.

I fully understand the mechanic and what is required for placing highly, and have stated multiple times that it isn't fair to those looking for T10 finishes.

The new system has merit for progression and T100 (probably also T50) players. It seems like a lot of T10 players want to ignore that fact completely.

Bryan Lambert

DaveR4470 wrote:

Say it takes me 20 minutes to clear an entire board for a given sub. And say I have an hour, and ONLY an hour, to play.

Well, thanks to the new difficulty scaling, your 20 minute clear under the old system just became a 30+ minute clear under the new system, so your hour's only going to get you 1-2 full clears.

And if your clears are still taking you 20 minutes under both systems, then you'd probably better quit now, because the more you progress, the longer the game will make you play for the same points and rewards.

Stax the Foyer

Slarow wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

This is a game where even PvE rewards are given out on a ranking basis to limit the amount of covers given out. That absurd system that has remained in place despite years of pleas from the playerbase, and continues to drastically benefit PvE bracket snipers over people who play a full event.

Then propose an alternate method to limit the amount of covers given out to 1% of the population. No one ever proposes a system that will work, they just complain about the current system.

The forums have been filled with alternative suggestions since time immemorial. I've probably made dozens of posts about this topic myself.

The best alternative is, I think, is to have the covers given out at increasingly high progression rewards that, based on prior results, would be expected to yield the desired distribution.

That can either be done using the old point decay system, or with an uncapped scaling system with no point decay at all, so you just play until you get scaled out of your nodes, and get full points every time.

It's not a binary choice between the old system and the new system. We can pick and choose. And pointing out why the apparent benefits of the new system may not be the intended or lasting results of the new system is feedback that benefits everyone, even if some people are viewing it as a personal attack or as elitism.

Nellobee

All I know is, I joined with like 13 hours left, did a clear, noted I was a quarter of the way to max prog, and ground everything down until I had my 25cp.
And that felt like an appropriate amount of effort. Which most things in this game do not. So kudos for accidentally leaving rubber banding on, please make that mistake in the future.

mohio

@ slarow (and others making similar claims without actually thinking about the math) - very simple math shows that worst case, minimum scenario, 4 clears in the "old" system is equal to 3 clears of the "new" system. So, saying 4.5 clears of new vs. 3.5 clears of old for progression... it's basically exactly the same! Especially true if you are able to space out your clears throughout the day. This is what people have been trying to say. Nothing is really changing except the psychology behind it. No one is currently forcing you to play every 8 hours, you just feel pressured into doing it because of the node refresh timer. Having 6 clears worth of 100% points frees your mind to not feel pressured to get them in at any given point in time, which is why people are feeling like the new system is better, even if they are actually doing more work for the same rewards they were getting before

wymtime

MeatLoafX wrote:

wymtime wrote:

MeatLoafX wrote:

The test seemed easier for me. Getting a top 50 was never in doubt. Now, I'm getting my team wiped on several nodes and I'm not able to crack top 100. Sure, more people are likely playing - I know I really want the guardians covers - but I can't clear nodes so I can't get points. For my roster level, the test nodes were easier (I know it wasn't for everyone). Sad I can't get the covers I want but more disheartened because the pvp also seems off for me and I can't really do much of anything at the moment...

Question for you so you feel you are wiping out on the Heroic PVE because it is a heroic and the limited roster is making you play with teams with poor synergy or do you feel it is the scaling of the Heroic and you would be wiping out regardless of roster restrictions? The reason I ask is there is a difference between a heroic and a normal PVE.

Th heroic part is making it harder, but he nodes in the test started at 35-50 for me and topped out in the 80s or 90s it seemed. Here, nodes are well over my level to start (not all of them, but #s 4-7 and the essentials are well over my level). Add that with seeing pvp matches more than double my level at times and I'm not able to do much. The pvp has leveled out a little, but I have to wade through really, really high rosters to find an even match.

Thanks meatloaf,
What meatloaf saw in the new format and what higher level vets sawcis drastically different. He saw much more reasonable nodes for his level while vets saw much higher level nodes and were outscaled. I have to imagine if meetloaf and other players at his level we're seeing scaling similar to the test the 8hr refresh timer would not be as big of an issue. With the old format lower level players were significantly outscaled in nodes 4-6. In the new format they were not. In the new format vets were outscaled from nodes 1-6 plus essentials. The scaling is the biggest issue with PVE.
D3 take note from 2* players to 4* players we really don't like playing over scaled nodes all the time!! We like a challenge on. Occasion, but all the time is a pain.

Thanks again meatloaf you insight helped me understand your side more and I wish you luck in the game.

Slarow

mohio wrote:

Especially true if you are able to space out your clears throughout the day.

Thats the whole point! What people don't understand is that spacing out your clears throughout the day IS THE PROBLEM that many of us face. So saying "it's exactly the same, especially if you spread out your clears" indicates that you completely missed the entire point of this thread. The new system is a huge advantage to those of us for whom timing every 8 hours is a huge burden.

Phaserhawk

What is the formula to get to max progression? That's my question

BlackSheep101

Folks commenting on the ease of reaching the 25 CP progression in Brotherhood compared to a typical PVE event shouldn't kid themselves. They'll move that point threshold back out again, and you'll be back to 5 clears per sub. At least under the current format you have trivial nodes to grind if you need to make up ground lost to the refresh timer.

Here's hoping they figure out how to fix the high end of the scale on the next test event. If not, they better leave progression rewards low or I'll have no desire to play pve anymore.