Missing the new system already on pve

mohio

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

jobob wrote:

Throw out the "ease" or "difficulty" of hitting progression. Unless I am way off in my math, hitting progression becomes IMPOSSIBLE sooner with the old system than the new. Is that an accurate statement?

It's impossible to say for sure because this makes the assumption that the 25CP progression level is going to stay static. In other words that Juggernaut Heroic in the 'new system' would still be set at 43k. It's not unreasonable to think that number becomes 50k or 60k if the first 6 clears are all worth the same.

As I said, unfortunately no one (that I know of) is tracking node values/sub totals for past events to accurately compare to the test values.

What I can tell you is that 'play when you want' works perfectly fine in the old system. That's been my strategy for PvE for I don't know how long now. If I make an honest effort (actually do several clears of each sub), I've never missed a progression. T50 or T100 placement then takes care of itself.

It obviously depends on how much higher the point threshold is in the new system vs. old system, but if the 4 clears vs. 3 clears that's been bandied about is correct than I would say it's the same in both cases. Looking at the math - if x is the amount of points of one full clear of nodes, then in the old system there is roughly 6-6.5 x worth of points (6.5 is theoretical max, but really maybe 6.25 is more realistic?). In the new points system, the max is 8x if you sit and do it all at once, and 8.5x if you let nodes recharge for 12 hours (so realistic max will be maybe close to 8.75x). The 8x to 6x comp is the same as 4 to 3, so if this is indeed the case, then the only benefit is that you can get more points if you join late in a sub under the old system than the new system since you can get all 8x if you have enough time versus only 3.5x. So because of that then yes, hope for full progression is indeed alive later in the event for the new scoring than the old.

Slarow

New McG wrote:

Let's pose a theoretical: Say you play under the old system twice as it opens, twice 12 hours later, and then twice more two hours before the end. 6 times "whenever you want". (Rough math involved ahead.)

That's not "whenever you want", it's the exact opposite. It's playing two specific times, every day, for the duration of the event. You have to pick which bracket to join based on your schedule for the next 3/4/7 days, and ensure that you are available at those exact times to play, and if your schedule changes, then you are SOL.

"Whenever you want" means that anytime during the 24 hour period I can sit down and bang out as many nodes as possible, and it could be different times each day, it could be broken up into multiple sessions some days, and all at once on other days. The first day it may be during lunch break. The second day it may be after the kids go to bed, the third I may be out of work sick and have time to play in the morning.

Your example sheds light on why people don't understand the benefit of "play whenever you want", because they don't even know what "play whenever you want" actually means.

Stax the Foyer

jobob wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

It's impossible to say for sure because this makes the assumption that the 25CP progression level is going to stay static. In other words that Juggernaut Heroic in the 'new system' would still be set at 43k. It's not unreasonable to think that number becomes 50k or 60k if the first 6 clears are all worth the same.

You're right... I can't predict the future. But for me, this argument is a bit of a non-starter:

1) It seems to be based on the feeling that "If D3 feels the rewards are too easy" they will move the goalposts. Even if I concede that point, a lot of people ITT are making the exact opposite argument- that hitting progression actually requires MORE work. It seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" argument:

"I like this new system because it seems easier to hit progression.
"It's not ANY easier, it's harder. And D3 is going to change the rewards anyway, because it's easier."

2) It also seems to be based on D3 being stingy and wants to make rewards harder in the new system. If we're going by that assumption, why are we also assuming that they will only try to make the rewards harder to obtain in the NEW system? Couldn't they just as easily move the goalposts for the old one as well?

Two quick points. You're comparing long-term predictions with current analysis, and people are also commenting on both ranking awards and progression awards, so the feedback is pretty jumbled.

We've got a history of max progression award numbers, so we know that they've been adjusted upwards for some events in subsequent runs. That they're willing to move those goalposts upwards isn't in doubt, although I've made some assumptions about their reasoning that I think are reasonable.

It was harder to hit progression for some players, especially those with better rosters, because of scaling and because of the increase in difficulty for trivial nodes without corresponding point increases. That was not an across-the-board experience, but scaling hits different roster levels differently, so when the developers turn two knobs at once, you'll get disjointed feedback like that. Difficulty can also be measured differently for different people. For some people, difficulty is a matter of time investment. For other people, it's healthpack usage.

My personal thought is that this will make ranking awards harder to hit, while not making progression awards any easier to hit. Those two items are not at all in conflict with one another. The first is based on the performance ceiling being raised, the second is based upon my experience playing this game. Both are based on more than my personal experience playing this event, but there could be as-yet-uncommunicated changes in design philosophy at play. I hope there are.

carrion_pigeons

Slarow wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

Slarow wrote:

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.

Why is this a necessary prerequisite for a design to be acceptable again? It seems to me the game would work fine if covers were given out to 25% of the population. Better, in fact, given that the top 1% can't even get enough Iso to use those covers in the first place. Let the top rewards be sufficient Iso and call it a day?

And that is where it inevitably ends up. Arguing for more 4* rewards. If you want to argue for more 4* rewards, then do so, but it needs to be a separate discussion from moving placement rewards into progress rewards, because the argument for moving to progression only rewards falls flat on its face outside of also increasing 4* rewards, which simply isn't going to happen.

What exactly is not going to happen? D3 increasing 4* rewards? Of course it is. They already have, multiple times, and they will continue to do so.

With regards to your actual question, it is also, of course, possible to limit progression to an average of 1% of players, given some amount of testing to find out how insane the grindiest 1% of players are. The math isn't even hard, given enough data. The issue is only that you would have to set your goalposts at the point where only 1% of players feel like it's worth their time anymore to try, which is terrible design for reasons I assume are obvious.

I don't think anyone arguing against placement rewards is under any illusions that they're not also arguing for *more* rewards. The point is that with placement rewards in the equation, it wouldn't matter how much you increased rewards because grinders would break the rewards structure and the average player would still get ****. With pure progression rewards, the possibility opens up for a design that makes the game feel fair to the average player.

NewMcG

Slarow wrote:

New McG wrote:

Let's pose a theoretical: Say you play under the old system twice as it opens, twice 12 hours later, and then twice more two hours before the end. 6 times "whenever you want". (Rough math involved ahead.)

That's not "whenever you want", it's the exact opposite. It's playing two specific times, every day, for the duration of the event. You have to pick which bracket to join based on your schedule for the next 3/4/7 days, and ensure that you are available at those exact times to play, and if your schedule changes, then you are SOL.

"Whenever you want" means that anytime during the 24 hour period I can sit down and bang out as many nodes as possible, and it could be different times each day, it could be broken up into multiple sessions some days, and all at once on other days. The first day it may be during lunch break. The second day it may be after the kids go to bed, the third I may be out of work sick and have time to play in the morning.

Your example sheds light on why people don't understand the benefit of "play whenever you want", because they don't even know what "play whenever you want" actually means.

It's a theoretical. I picked a random set of times. If you play a little sooner, or a little later in the day, or whenever, unless you play all 6 times at one sitting, your average is still going to pretty handily be beyond the progression. With timers constantly regenerating, those 6 plays won't be hugely different unless you're hitting it pretty much all at once. (And, here's a secret. If you hit all 6 times at once in the old system, you'll get about 3.5 times the max value. Or still basically enough to get the current progression CP.)

jobob

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

jobob wrote:

I get what you guys are saying, but there's nothing about either test so far that gives me the impression things will be any easier to play casual.

And I also get what you are saying... so I want to be clear: I am not looking for easier. I am looking for more flexible. I can put the work in. Maybe that's the fault of the players supporting the new system for using the wrong wording, but, for me at least (who is on the fence between the two, honestly), "easier" is the wrong word.

And I say that realizing that there is even LESS flexibility in the new system for those looking to grab T5. And I completely agree that is a problem.

jobob

Stax the Foyer wrote:

My personal thought is that this will make ranking awards harder to hit, while not making progression awards any easier to hit. Those two items are not at all in conflict with one another. The first is based on the performance ceiling being raised, the second is based upon my experience playing this game. Both are based on more than my personal experience playing this event, but there could be as-yet-uncommunicated changes in design philosophy at play. I hope there are.

IS it harder to hit #1 though? Certainly not from a meta perspective... I can promise you that exactly the same number of people in each bracket finished #1 in the old system versus the new. The ceiling may have been raised, but it was raised for everyone. That's like saying it would be harder to win the Super Bowl if they made the quarters 20 minutes instead of 15, by arguing that it gives the other team more time to score points.

Now, it may be harder for YOUR ROSTER to win first due to the scaling. But that's something D3 has stated that they are trying to address, and so for the time being I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Or are you arguing that this new format somehow lends itself more to bracket sniping and luck? Which, again, I don't get because it's a problem in both systems.

Slarow

New McG wrote:

Slarow wrote:

New McG wrote:

Let's pose a theoretical: Say you play under the old system twice as it opens, twice 12 hours later, and then twice more two hours before the end. 6 times "whenever you want". (Rough math involved ahead.)

That's not "whenever you want", it's the exact opposite. It's playing two specific times, every day, for the duration of the event. You have to pick which bracket to join based on your schedule for the next 3/4/7 days, and ensure that you are available at those exact times to play, and if your schedule changes, then you are SOL.

"Whenever you want" means that anytime during the 24 hour period I can sit down and bang out as many nodes as possible, and it could be different times each day, it could be broken up into multiple sessions some days, and all at once on other days. The first day it may be during lunch break. The second day it may be after the kids go to bed, the third I may be out of work sick and have time to play in the morning.

Your example sheds light on why people don't understand the benefit of "play whenever you want", because they don't even know what "play whenever you want" actually means.

It's a theoretical. I picked a random set of times. If you play a little sooner, or a little later in the day, or whenever, unless you play all 6 times at one sitting, your average is still going to pretty handily be beyond the progression. With timers constantly regenerating, those 6 plays won't be hugely different unless you're hitting it pretty much all at once. (And, here's a secret. If you hit all 6 times at once in the old system, you'll get about 3.5 times the max value. Or still basically enough to get the current progression CP.)

And if max prog is the only thing you care about, thats fine, but it isn't. Placement is important too, even to those of us who are not T10.

To expand on your example, look at two people, one who plays 6 times all at once, and one who spreads out their 6 plays optimally. In the new system, they both end up with the exact same points. In the old system, the second guy gets almost double the points the first guy did. This is the advantage that the old system grants to the "meta-strategy" of "optimal play time", and eliminating that meta-strategy is exactly why the new system is better than the old one for many players.

jobob

lol, I think we should just agree that both systems suck and close the topic

simonsez

jobob wrote:

IS it harder to hit #1 though? Certainly not from a meta perspective... I can promise you that exactly the same number of people in each bracket finished #1 in the old system versus the new. The ceiling may have been raised, but it was raised for everyone. That's like saying it would be harder to win the Super Bowl if they made the quarters 20 minutes instead of 15, by arguing that it gives the other team more time to score points.

No, it's more like saying they're going to increase the distance of the Boston Marathon from 26 miles to 2600 miles, but it won't matter, since it'll be the same for everyone. But the good news is you'll be able to start running whenever you want.

Stax the Foyer

jobob wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

My personal thought is that this will make ranking awards harder to hit, while not making progression awards any easier to hit. Those two items are not at all in conflict with one another. The first is based on the performance ceiling being raised, the second is based upon my experience playing this game. Both are based on more than my personal experience playing this event, but there could be as-yet-uncommunicated changes in design philosophy at play. I hope there are.

IS it harder to hit #1 though? Certainly not from a meta perspective... I can promise you that exactly the same number of people in each bracket finished #1 in the old system versus the new. The ceiling may have been raised, but it was raised for everyone. That's like saying it would be harder to win the Super Bowl if they made the quarters 20 minutes instead of 15, by arguing that it gives the other team more time to score points.

Now, it may be harder for YOUR ROSTER to win first due to the scaling. But that's something D3 has stated that they are trying to address, and so for the time being I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Or are you arguing that this new format somehow lends itself more to bracket sniping and luck? Which, again, I don't get because it's a problem in both systems.

What? No. Of course it's harder. That's what raising the ceiling does.

If you run a 100m and an ultramarathon, the exact same number of people are going finish first in both races. That doesn't mean they're the same difficulty.

I've been in brackets where more than 3 people ground the old nodes down to 1, and the difference between a top finish came down to speed of clear. People are willing to put in more effort than the old system allowed. When you raise the ceiling, people are going to be willing to put in additional work.

GrumpySmurf1002

jobob wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

jobob wrote:

I get what you guys are saying, but there's nothing about either test so far that gives me the impression things will be any easier to play casual.

And I also get what you are saying... so I want to be clear: I am not looking for easier. I am looking for more flexible. I can put the work in. Maybe that's the fault of the players supporting the new system for using the wrong wording, but, for me at least (who is on the fence between the two, honestly), "easier" is the wrong word.

And I say that realizing that there is even LESS flexibility in the new system for those looking to grab T5. And I completely agree that is a problem.

Yeah, I didn't really mean easier in the sense of less 'work,' but in the flexibility sense. I see higher raw scoring in the new system, but that not leading to higher progression or higher placement than it would otherwise with the same effort and timing.

NewMcG

Slarow wrote:

And if max prog is the only thing you care about, thats fine, but it isn't. Placement is important too, even to those of us who are not T10.

To expand on your example, look at two people, one who plays 6 times all at once, and one who spreads out their 6 plays optimally. In the new system, they both end up with the exact same points. In the old system, the second guy gets almost double the points the first guy did. This is the advantage that the old system grants to the "meta-strategy" of "optimal play time", and eliminating that meta-strategy is exactly why the new system is better than the old one for many players.

And under the new system, that person who played 6 times optimally will now do it all at once right away. The other guy will do it whenever they feel like. The difference being, the "whenever I feel like it" player has a timer after his 6th hit, whenever it ends up being, while the other guy will be "recharged" back up to higher points and will run away from the other guy in the placement rankings when he goes back and hits it again.

Of the two, the "play when you feel like it" player obviously isn't as concerned about placement if they leave the ONLY chunk of points on the table which you can actually use to get ahead. For the "whenever you feel like it player" that "whenever" had still better be pretty early in the day to get that countdown ticking if you give a damn about your ranking.

You're operating under this delusion that the people seriously competing for placement are somehow going to be limiting themselves to 6 hits. It's the hits beyond the 6th which make every bit of difference in the new system. Those lollygagging and just hitting it 6 times whenever, because it's "full points whenever I do it now" are going to be sad when they realize the ones who ground it out early leave them well behind in placement. It just makes it more of a pain in the **** to do the initial grind when piggybacked on the end grind.

Slarow

New McG wrote:

Slarow wrote:

And if max prog is the only thing you care about, thats fine, but it isn't. Placement is important too, even to those of us who are not T10.

To expand on your example, look at two people, one who plays 6 times all at once, and one who spreads out their 6 plays optimally. In the new system, they both end up with the exact same points. In the old system, the second guy gets almost double the points the first guy did. This is the advantage that the old system grants to the "meta-strategy" of "optimal play time", and eliminating that meta-strategy is exactly why the new system is better than the old one for many players.

And under the new system, that person who played 6 times optimally will now do it all at once right away. The other guy will do it whenever they feel like. The difference being, the "whenever I feel like it" player has a timer after his 6th hit, whenever it ends up being, while the other guy will be "recharged" back up to higher points and will run away from the other guy in the placement rankings when he goes back and hits it again.

Of the two, the "play when you feel like it" player obviously isn't as concerned about (T25) placement if they leave the ONLY chunk of points on the table which you can actually use to get ahead. For the "whenever you feel like it player" that "whenever" had still better be pretty early in the day to get that countdown ticking if you give a damn about your (T25) ranking.

You're operating under this delusion that the people seriously competing for (T25) placement are somehow going to be limiting themselves to 6 hits. It's the hits beyond the 6th which make every bit of difference in the new (T25) system. Those lollygagging and just hitting it 6 times whenever, because it's "full points whenever I do it now" are going to be sad when they realize the ones who ground it out early leave them well behind in (T25) placement. It just makes it more of a pain in the **** to do the initial grind when piggybacked on the end grind.

I updated your post, since it only applies to the top fraction of the players. Your statement is not valid for the rest of the community, which is exactly what is being stated in this thread.

Being forced into an 8 hour play cycle has an affect on placement, even for us "peasants" who only shoot for T100/T50.

jobob

Stax the Foyer wrote:

What? No. Of course it's harder. That's what raising the ceiling does.

If you run a 100m and an ultramarathon, the exact same number of people are going finish first in both races. That doesn't mean they're the same difficulty.

I've been in brackets where more than 3 people ground the old nodes down to 1, and the difference between a top finish came down to speed of clear. People are willing to put in more effort than the old system allowed. When you raise the ceiling, people are going to be willing to put in additional work.

Except your example isn't "raising the ceiling," it's changing the event. A 100m sprint and an ultramarathon require COMPLETELY different skill sets. Might as well compare it to winning the World Series of Poker. It would be more like going from a 26 mi marathon to a 28 mile race... some might find it harder to win, some might find it easier.

OneLastGambit

simonsez wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

I missed the first sub. Entirely. Did one clear of the next 2 subs and hit the cp nodes and esentials 5 or 6times each and finished 5th.

Hooray for noob brackets...

OneLastGambit wrote:

And before someone says it number 1 in my bracket had a cover maxed and level 343 oml and a 7 cover phoenix so it was not a noob bracket.

You don't understand what a noob bracket is

The reason i finished where i did has nothing to do with noob brackets. Plain and simple it's because I bracket sniped the event.

And yes I do understand what a noob bracket is simon. I was not in one. Yes we all get that you hate the new system, we all get that you think it's unfair. The point the OP made is not everyone thinks that. And because someone doesn't share your opinion doesn't mean theirs is invalid.

As for the comment about new character releases, you can bracket snipe any event and make t100 it's really not hard if you're willing to forgo progression rewards and tank your alliance score then anyone can do it.

Stax the Foyer

jobob wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

What? No. Of course it's harder. That's what raising the ceiling does.

If you run a 100m and an ultramarathon, the exact same number of people are going finish first in both races. That doesn't mean they're the same difficulty.

I've been in brackets where more than 3 people ground the old nodes down to 1, and the difference between a top finish came down to speed of clear. People are willing to put in more effort than the old system allowed. When you raise the ceiling, people are going to be willing to put in additional work.

Except your example isn't "raising the ceiling," it's changing the event. A 100m sprint and an ultramarathon require COMPLETELY different skill sets. Might as well compare it to winning the World Series of Poker. It would be more like going from a 26 mi marathon to a 28 mile race... some might find it harder to win, some might find it easier.

I mean, somebody's gotta come in first. Abstracting that out to the point that you're ignoring the significant difference in time investment involved doesn't mean much other than that 1 = 1 is a truism.

You will play more matches to get a top finish under the new system. If you think it's easier to play more matches than less matches, that's between you and the doctor treating your carpal tunnel.

Stax the Foyer

OneLastGambit wrote:

simonsez wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

I missed the first sub. Entirely. Did one clear of the next 2 subs and hit the cp nodes and esentials 5 or 6times each and finished 5th.

Hooray for noob brackets...

OneLastGambit wrote:

And before someone says it number 1 in my bracket had a cover maxed and level 343 oml and a 7 cover phoenix so it was not a noob bracket.

You don't understand what a noob bracket is

The reason i finished where i did has nothing to do with noob brackets. Plain and simple it's because I bracket sniped the event.

And yes I do understand what a noob bracket is simon. I was not in one. Yes we all get that you hate the new system, we all get that you think it's unfair. The point the OP made is not everyone thinks that. And because someone doesn't share your opinion doesn't mean theirs is invalid.

As for the comment about new character releases, you can bracket snipe any event and make t100 it's really not hard if you're willing to forgo progression rewards and tank your alliance score then anyone can do it.

Unless this was secretly a 2-sub event, bracket sniping alone won't get you that finish with that effort.

fmftint

simonsez wrote:

jobob wrote:

IS it harder to hit #1 though? Certainly not from a meta perspective... I can promise you that exactly the same number of people in each bracket finished #1 in the old system versus the new. The ceiling may have been raised, but it was raised for everyone. That's like saying it would be harder to win the Super Bowl if they made the quarters 20 minutes instead of 15, by arguing that it gives the other team more time to score points.

No, it's more like saying they're going to increase the distance of the Boston Marathon from 26 miles to 2600 miles, but it won't matter, since it'll be the same for everyone. But the good news is you'll be able to start running whenever you want.

More like, we'll keep the distance 26 miles, but you must carry a backpack and every .25 mile we're gong to throw 5 lbs in it

Bryan Lambert

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

Yeah, I didn't really mean easier in the sense of less 'work,' but in the flexibility sense. I see higher raw scoring in the new system, but that not leading to higher progression or higher placement than it would otherwise with the same effort and timing.

Let's not forget that ultimately, us arguing with each other over whether less play time is better than more flexibility misses the point that really, we should be arguing with Demiurge that less play time AND more flexibility is what would benefit all players.

I mean, in both tests, being able to play whenever I wanted was great. But having to find and make time for the extra clears necessary in EotS wasn't worth the trouble, and the amount of play time required to place anywhere near where I used to also wasn't worth the trouble. Luckily, the lower progression in Brotherhood meant that I could get where I used to get in a progression-only PvE in about the same play time as I used to. Fewer clears, but the clears took longer thanks to the difficulty "smoothing".

The problem with top placement in PvE is that the system is sort of irrelevant, because what determines top placement isn't how much you play, it's how much more you play than everyone else, and if this game and this forum have proven anything, it's that there are plenty of people willing to try and play more than everyone else. So whatever system they go with, ten people are gonna play it the most, and if you wanna be one of those ten, you're going to push to play more than #11. It's a play time arms race.