On "dealing with" cupcakes

Talus9952

While checkpoints sound interesting, they essentially replace shields. You can just do checkpoint hops instead of shield hops, with no fear of going below your checkpoint.

JVReal

Talus9952 wrote:

While checkpoints sound interesting, they essentially replace shields. You can just do checkpoint hops instead of shield hops, with no fear of going below your checkpoint.

They replace shields so that you can continue to play after initiating a checkpoint. Shielding requires you to stop playing. I don't want to stop playing, I want to spend HP to "save" at this "checkpoint" and aim for the next tier of prize by continuing to press forward without threat of lowering below the checkpoint threshold.

My biggest problem with Shielding is that I may have Health Packs left, but I get to a point where I'm spinning my wheels and slowly going backwards in points with each fight. I shield to preserve points, but then sit there with the ability to continue on... but no real motivation or desire because I know if I un-shield and continue, they will be negative hops.

Checkpoint will allow me to wait out the retaliations and then climb again to push for that next tier and 'save' again with a checkpoint.

dsds

JVReal wrote:

Talus9952 wrote:

While checkpoints sound interesting, they essentially replace shields. You can just do checkpoint hops instead of shield hops, with no fear of going below your checkpoint.

They replace shields so that you can continue to play after initiating a checkpoint. Shielding requires you to stop playing. I don't want to stop playing, I want to spend HP to "save" at this "checkpoint" and aim for the next tier of prize by continuing to press forward without threat of lowering below the checkpoint threshold.

My biggest problem with Shielding is that I may have Health Packs left, but I get to a point where I'm spinning my wheels and slowly going backwards in points with each fight. I shield to preserve points, but then sit there with the ability to continue on... but no real motivation or desire because I know if I un-shield and continue, they will be negative hops.

Checkpoint will allow me to wait out the retaliations and then climb again to push for that next tier and 'save' again with a checkpoint.

Isn't that the same? You'd still need to wait out the retaliations first. But I guess the difference would be you can keep fighting without risk of losing more points, but in the 3-8 hours time that you normally should, you may not get a net positive climb above your check point?

Also wouldn't the be abused as well? If someone does a check point at say 1000pts, and then put out cupcake teams, they will lose no points while others will gain points.

carrion_pigeons

dsds wrote:

JVReal wrote:

Talus9952 wrote:

While checkpoints sound interesting, they essentially replace shields. You can just do checkpoint hops instead of shield hops, with no fear of going below your checkpoint.

They replace shields so that you can continue to play after initiating a checkpoint. Shielding requires you to stop playing. I don't want to stop playing, I want to spend HP to "save" at this "checkpoint" and aim for the next tier of prize by continuing to press forward without threat of lowering below the checkpoint threshold.

My biggest problem with Shielding is that I may have Health Packs left, but I get to a point where I'm spinning my wheels and slowly going backwards in points with each fight. I shield to preserve points, but then sit there with the ability to continue on... but no real motivation or desire because I know if I un-shield and continue, they will be negative hops.

Checkpoint will allow me to wait out the retaliations and then climb again to push for that next tier and 'save' again with a checkpoint.

Isn't that the same? You'd still need to wait out the retaliations first. But I guess the difference would be you can keep fighting without risk of losing more points, but in the 3-8 hours time that you normally should, you may not get a net positive climb above your check point?

Also wouldn't the be abused as well? If someone does a check point at say 1000pts, and then put out cupcake teams, they will lose no points while others will gain points.

Not necessarily the same, since there's a point where a negative hop becomes impossible, which is (essentially) never true for shields.

The abuse you mention could be prevented by stopping people at a lower checkpoint from seeing you.

MarvelMan

carrion pigeons wrote:

Not necessarily the same, since there's a point where a negative hop becomes impossible, which is (essentially) never true for shields.

Except the risk of negative hops is good for D3 in that it promotes spending to protect what you have.

carrion pigeons wrote:

The abuse you mention could be prevented by stopping people at a lower checkpoint from seeing you.

There will be coordinated abuse of people just over a threshold for the benefit of those in that checkpoint. Id *MUCH* rather hit someone who is sitting at 901 (after a 900 point check) who is taking a break than someone trying to climb to the next checkpoint.

Eichen

While checkpoints sound interesting, they essentially replace shields. You can just do checkpoint hops instead of shield hops, with no fear of going below your checkpoint.

What if at each checkpoint you were only worth a set amount of points biased on how many others were in the same checkpoint and it no longer took into account your total score?

Dudemon

Anyone complaining about cc's probably isnt scoring high enough to ever see them, thus is just enraged by a fantasy that others have some sort of advantage.

Anybody can use cc's. It benefits all. To complain just hurts the game. Without them I could forget about getting to 1000. The number of times you get hit above 800 is absurd. Even with shields it is very difficult. And my roster is not that shabby with a couple good champed 4*s and a usable OML.

LINE is not necessary at all. I belong, but never use it. When I get ready to hop, I just start doing massive searches. If I'm above 850, I MAY get lucky and get one or two cc's. If I dont find them I usually fail... even with whales.

The real problem is not being able to find targets with enough points to progress at a resonable pace.

30-35 points a pop wont get it done before you have to reshield or suffer a net loss.

Dudemon

Pylgrim

Thanks to F4tD for unlocking the thread. While I understood the fear of devolving into the usual whining and blaming, unlocking it has provided lots of useful discussion so far.

Reading the reasoning of the anti-cc party, something has jumped to my attention. While there's anger about a perceived "elite group" benefitting for free from a clique mentality while the rest of the people are the commoners trampled on by that effect, I also notice that many of the people who claim to have tried and given up refer to it as "too time consuming" or "too much of a bother", etc. SO: the immediate benefits of cupcakes are not reaped for "free". They take additional time and commitment and add a layer of complexity to the game. Now here is the thing: most multiplayer games have something like this; a "hidden" mechanic that allows the most enfranchised players to get ahead and who is available to everybody who wants to commit any more time and effort for increased rewards or quicker progression. (And there's always a subset of players who resent it because they would like to achieve similar rewards at their own level of commitment.)

The big difference, and the one thing people are clinging to, in order to allege that cupcakes are an actual illegal (or "cheating") maneuver is that it is hatched outside the game. However, what people fail to notice is that it happens outside the game not because it is a shady, hidden endeavour, but because MPQ doesn't offer proper in-game communication channels for players. Chat in MPQ is extremely limited (not to mention, unreliable) and that's the only reason why high-commitment players need to resort to external communication to set up the strategies they would be using anyway, in any other similar game.

Then there's the fact that it's demonstrated, (as morph3us explained clearly and concisely on a previous page,) that cupcaking benefits a whole slice. Yes, it benefits more immediately and in a higher measure those directly involved, but why wouldn't it be like that? Cupcaking is not a zero-sum equation, though. I feel that some people believe that the fact that cupcakes allow people to go well over 1300 means that they're some kind of 1% hogging what's rightfully everybody's and that removing cupcakes would somehow, magically, distribute all those points across the shard and everybody would be able to reach 1k at least. The truth is that (as morph3us explained), that would only serve to decrease the total amount of points in a shard and then, because the rest of the system remains unchanged, /everybody/ would be having trouble reaching their goals. I know that people exist out there that much rather would have their neighbours living in the same misery they experience rather than working together with them to better the neighbourhood's conditions, but I certainly hope we have none in this community.

Are you having trouble reaching your personal goals to progress in the game? So did I, then I joined a battlechat and started benefitting from cucpcakes. Think it's too much bother/unethical in priciple/other objection? That's fine and your complaint about not being able to reach your goals is still valid but you need to understand that it is the system's fault, not cupcaking's. To resent and blame those who are able to reach the goals you can't by doing what you refuse to is just spiteful. Redirect that indignant outrage to the system who forced cupcaking into being as a necessity. That's a cause worth fighting for and I'm sure that bakers and those who benefit from them will join their voices to you.

TL;DR: Removing cupcakes will harm a group of people while not improving the life of the rest. It's much better to lobby for an overhaul of the system that will improve the life of everybody.

killerkoala

with no CC, it will make every pvp feel like "Balance of Power" pvp. and u know how "easy" it is to reach 1k, let alone 1300.

BraneDedDev

Phumade wrote:

notamutant wrote:

No cupcakes possible anymore, short of weak 4 stars.

trust me. the overwheling majority of rosters will have a surplus of weak level 70 4*.

hahahahaha

And the community solution to the eventual cupcake burning is already found. Worry not.

BraneDedDev

A checkpoint system is desirable. Keep playing or stop so that you don't lose hundreds of points while making 30. The current system is deeply flawed. The shield system sucks - play, wait, play, wait... uh, play? There has to be a better way.

The issue is balance between paying and playing, 99:1 obviously.

Talus9952

The system as designed, maybe was envisioned by the devs as a free for all, taking everyone else's points for progression. Shielding was the only way to save your score, and to add points to the shard. Without cupcakes, the best way for the shard to make it easier to get progression, was to climb off each other while the targets are shielded. Cupcakes just extend this to make your hops safer and faster, and pumping more points into the shard. So say someone at 2000 pts bakes a cake, and someone at 1300 queues his cake along with 2 others. Once he hops, other people can queue him and attack him. But since his hops are quick, he can hopefully finish it without losing points. Say he finishes at 1500, and while he was out, 10 people queue him and attack him. The points have trickled down at this point. People are queueing higher point targets, and putting more points into the shard, feeding the ones lower.

Astralgazer

There are so many posts defending this cupcake thing. But it gets old fast. You will see that they're like broken tape playing over and over the same single argument ad nauseam.

Of course people benefitting from a flawed system will defend it with vigour. We see this everyday in RL, too. Then you villify those who can't participate in cake eating parties as lazy. Predictable argumentative tactic.

But I digress, instead I would like to propose a further refinement for my safe-point/checkpoint suggestion. Some ideas come from other posts in the thread. Here goes nothing: change shield system to checkpoints. Let people pay to safe their progression. I know I would pay to save my progression at 500, so if I risked going to 800 at once, I would not have to risk beaten back to 200. Make the checkpoints without time limit, so that one wouldn't be pressured to watch the clock before playing again. D3 can assign different price tags for different checkpoints.And make the distance far enough so that people would really be needing this protection after a grind.

Every system will have flaws open for exploits. To prevent the most blatant possible exploit, checkpoints could also be gates. One can only hit players behind the same gate.

There will be other unintended consequences, certainly. But at least we make some good discussion.

P.S. After the announcement of SCL, I would like to wait and see how this system goes. If I can hazard a guess, I think lots of level 7 players would flood the lower SCL to get easy targets.

Edit: typos.

Dragon_Nexus

Astralgazer wrote:

There are so many posts defending this cupcake thing. But it gets old fast. You will see that they're like broken tape playing over and over the same single argument ad nauseam.

Of course people benefitting from a flawed system will defend it with vigour. We see this everyday in RL, too. Then you villify those who can't participate in cake eating parties as lazy. Predictable argumentative tactic.

Gotta say I agree with this. I get tired of the excuses people make for exploits and such. "Well everyone can do it, so it's fair".

Granted, this isn't an exploit. It's not cheating, but the same kinds of arguments are being used. Just because everyone can do it and take advantage doesn't mean that's how the system should work, or even that that is how it was designed to work.

If the devs manage to come up with something much better than make the process smoother sailing, I'm all for it. Let's at least wait until we see what they come up with before we get techy, eh? If by the end of the next season (assuming it's come in by then) I'm still on slice 3 and find myself barely able to hit 650 I'll be happy to wade in on the "Why this isn't working" side of the debate.

GurlBYE

Honestly if they doubled or tripled progression but made the progression points not go down without changing them as they are, but make placement rewards more lucrative but harder to achieve, I can't think of a single player who loses out.

Vets and whales spend more on shields for hard to hold onto points. So even d3 would win.

Lower players spend health packs to beat enough teams to reach there 2k for the rapidly losing value 4 star, maybe reaching out for the 3900 for the 25 cp for a shot at a 5 star while the event award in the top get significantly better.

Lower players would also have more reason to play so there are more participants and more points in the pool, more team variation. Then people wouldn't even be upset about being attacked rapidly and the ones who are would have rosters strong enough to deal with it.

Pants1000

I'm not a fan of cupcakes, or even PVP as a whole. I also don't buy the argument that it helps the slice as a whole. It may help more players hit progressions, but ranking rewards are skewed toward the bakers and their friends.

I think PVP should be a single player game, where coordination with others provides no benefit.

I like the idea of shields changing to protect your score without hiding you, but by itself that would make cupcakes much more prevalent. Imagine someone with 2000 points setting a shield to lock their score and leaving a cupcake outfor hours.

I'd also like to see players have to choose a defense team for the whole event, rather than the current system. Then anyone who sets a cupcake defense would have a very hard time climbing. I think it would also add some strategy, because some great offensive teams have terrible defense flaws.

I'd also like to see players names hidden, so there are no more friendly alliance truces.

I think the current system brings in money from all the gold spent on shields though, so they are probably hesitant to change a system that's working from their perspective. We'll see...

Kjeldbjerg

Pants1000 wrote:

I'd also like to see players have to choose a defense team for the whole event, rather than the current system. Then anyone who sets a cupcake defense would have a very hard time climbing. I think it would also add some strategy, because some great offensive teams have terrible defense flaws...

Your last part doesn't make any sense. Why would you care about your offensive team def capabilities, when you've already chosen another def team for the entire event?

DalekGAF

Pants1000 wrote:

I'd also like to see players names hidden, so there are no more friendly alliance truces.

This is such a great idea I'm begging the developers to do this.

There's literally no other benefit to seeing the username other than to open up "exploits" and planning.

fight4thedream

Pylgrim wrote:

Thanks to F4tD for unlocking the thread. While I understood the fear of devolving into the usual whining and blaming, unlocking it has provided lots of useful discussion so far.

Reading the reasoning of the anti-cc party, something has jumped to my attention. While there's anger about a perceived "elite group" benefitting for free from a clique mentality while the rest of the people are the commoners trampled on by that effect, I also notice that many of the people who claim to have tried and given up refer to it as "too time consuming" or "too much of a bother", etc. SO: the immediate benefits of cupcakes are not reaped for "free". They take additional time and commitment and add a layer of complexity to the game. Now here is the thing: most multiplayer games have something like this; a "hidden" mechanic that allows the most enfranchised players to get ahead and who is available to everybody who wants to commit any more time and effort for increased rewards or quicker progression. (And there's always a subset of players who resent it because they would like to achieve similar rewards at their own level of commitment.)

The big difference, and the one thing people are clinging to, in order to allege that cupcakes are an actual illegal (or "cheating") maneuver is that it is hatched outside the game. However, what people fail to notice is that it happens outside the game not because it is a shady, hidden endeavour, but because MPQ doesn't offer proper in-game communication channels for players. Chat in MPQ is extremely limited (not to mention, unreliable) and that's the only reason why high-commitment players need to resort to external communication to set up the strategies they would be using anyway, in any other similar game.

Then there's the fact that it's demonstrated, (as morph3us explained clearly and concisely on a previous page,) that cupcaking benefits a whole slice. Yes, it benefits more immediately and in a higher measure those directly involved, but why wouldn't it be like that? Cupcaking is not a zero-sum equation, though. I feel that some people believe that the fact that cupcakes allow people to go well over 1300 means that they're some kind of 1% hogging what's rightfully everybody's and that removing cupcakes would somehow, magically, distribute all those points across the shard and everybody would be able to reach 1k at least. The truth is that (as morph3us explained), that would only serve to decrease the total amount of points in a shard and then, because the rest of the system remains unchanged, /everybody/ would be having trouble reaching their goals. I know that people exist out there that much rather would have their neighbours living in the same misery they experience rather than working together with them to better the neighbourhood's conditions, but I certainly hope we have none in this community.

Are you having trouble reaching your personal goals to progress in the game? So did I, then I joined a battlechat and started benefitting from cucpcakes. Think it's too much bother/unethical in priciple/other objection? That's fine and your complaint about not being able to reach your goals is still valid but you need to understand that it is the system's fault, not cupcaking's. To resent and blame those who are able to reach the goals you can't by doing what you refuse to is just spiteful. Redirect that indignant outrage to the system who forced cupcaking into being as a necessity. That's a cause worth fighting for and I'm sure that bakers and those who benefit from them will join their voices to you.

TL;DR: Removing cupcakes will harm a group of people while not improving the life of the rest. It's much better to lobby for an overhaul of the system that will improve the life of everybody.

This is going to be a bit ironic considering I was one of the members on here that encouraged Pylgrim to join battlechats and at the time I myself held similar ideas to the ones he espouses but I would like to challenge this notion of "benefiting the community".

The events we are talking about are called "Versus" events, are they not?

Now honestly, I think that is a misnomer. They should probably be called Cooperative Play events or what I more affectionately call "Wallet Warrior Potlucks" where members of various top alliances bring a variety of food like steaks, brownies, muffins and that most popular sweet, the cupcake, hold hands and sing "We are the world".

"Wait, I thought Versus events were supposed to be, um, you know, competitive?" So did I, dear reader, so did I.

I spent about 10 seasons in one of the biggest, most popular shield check rooms on SSOLU and during that time I learned quite a bit about how things really operate at the top.

For starters, most top alliances are in cahoots with each other. For the most part ranking is already predetermined before an event begins usually by an alliance's required point minimums. But no one is really gunning for the top which means every event we end up with roughly the same alliances in roughly the same ranking. Oh sure a sniper alliance might have a go at it every now and then but as my experience with snipers has taught me they lack the same discipline, dedication or organization.

But before you jump on that point, keep in mind that the current design of Versus events is set in the favor of the baker. I just spent the last event sniping one of the big dogs of s4 and I hit him 23 times at 75 points a pop. Let's assume that three of those hits didn't go through since he probably was able to shield up before I could complete the match, so I had roughly 20 successful hits which means I managed to swipe 1500 points from my hits on him alone.

However, the end result is quite telling: I finished the event at 1405, my opponent finished at 3317 and managed to clinch first in the bracket. Some of the n00bs on here might be wandering how this can be? Well for starters my opponent has many, many friends. Not just in his alliance but among his network of baker buddies. Furthermore, I have many, many enemies since I used to be an enforcer for that shield chat room and I hurt some people's feelings when I decided I wanted out. Add in the random sniper who doesn't care who I am but just wants some points and you can begin to imagine how often I get hit.

But it's all good. I'm willing to take as much as I give. It's part of the game after all. But what my little tale is supposed to illustrate is that despite common belief that being a sniper is taking the "easy" way to play the game, it's actually not (although this also is dependent on roster strength). Because while I am hitting my opponent whose roster is a lot stronger than mine for those 75 points, he is hitting up cupcakes. It takes me approximately 5 minutes to complete a match and in those 5 minutes with his roster he can easily eat 3-5 cupcakes. Which means regardless of my best efforts, he will always walk away with a net positive for his hop as long as he doesn't get hit by other players.

And this is why cupcakes and baking are such a hegemonic practice for top end gameplay. They are quick and easy points and if you have a strong enough roster and don't get too greedy you can walk away with an almost guaranteed net positive on your shield hop. With proper communication, you can ensure that anyone in your alliance is able to score well provided they have the HP for it and know what they are doing. And then there is the added side effect that other players can use cupcakes to score higher too.

But bakers are not heroes, they are simply players who enjoy the art of point generation.

I'm willing to bet if they had the option of limiting their cupcakes to just their alliance mates and truce buddies, non-members would see far less cupcakes. I'm sure of this because during my time in the shield check room it became known to me that some of the top alliances were operating another "hush hush" room for exclusive cupcake drops.

That is not to say there aren't good people who bake. There are and they only have the best of intentions but their efforts are being used by certain top alliances to maintain a stranglehold on ranking. I know for a fact that at least one of those top alliances is not above using deception and manipulation and it wouldn't surprise me if they had a sleeper cell sniper alliance that they use on occasion so they can operate more aggressively against competitors without breaking their truces.

A question that has been bothering me for some time is: "Why is it none of the other strong alliances try to make a run for the top?" But I suppose the answer is quite simple: It's not the worth it. For one thing, if two top alliances go to war with each other they are guaranteed to knock each other out of competition for top spot because they have to expend resources sniping each other instead of just baking. That's why alliance wars are such a rare occurrence because they always end up a being a pyrrhic victory since a non-involved alliance is able to bake more and slip by the two warring factions.

The other primary factor is resources. It costs a pretty penny to be a prolific baker so you can imagine they want the most bang for their buck. Which is one of the major reasons s4 has become a baker's paradise since the more people you have baking the more points you can generate. I don't deny that having more points in the shard makes it easier for people to reach higher progression goals.

But is this not a perversion of competition? Because what Pylgrim's argument and those who support cupcakes sound like to me are that they are willing to be bought off with cupcakes, to not care about the competition and focus primarily on event progression goals.

Are "Versus" events not supposed to be competitive?

Gauging from the reaction to the suggestion that 5* characters be added to final season rank rewards, I am going to assume the answer is most forum members prefer them not to be.

I can understand why since this game is lacking when it comes to non-competitive game modes. Story events are what I consider "true" competition but unless you have a taste for grind fests they aren't much fun to play competitively. But it makes just as little sense to call the so-called competitive events "Versus" since all of the top alliances are primarily hitting each other for points and not their "opponents".

Consider the following in-game message about the past two previous events:

Hotshot: Set the opposition ablaze with your incendiary assault and burn up the leaderboards!
Eye for an eye:Optic blast through enemies and lead your team to the top of the leaderboards.

Taking into account Hi-Fi's recent statement about cupcakes being unintended gameplay, it seems pretty clear that what top alliances are doing, i.e. climbing off each other instead of attacking each other, is counter to the intended design goals of the development team.

Of course it would be easy to criticize them for the inherent flaws of their competitive game design but I think there are few things they can do to remedy the situation:

1. Rename "Versus" events to "Cooperative Play" events and re-write in-game text to reflect this. Provide a link to the forum to explain the "baking" system.

2. Change the current reward structure where the better rewards are in rank rewards to discourage cooperation amongst top alliances. Especially make 1st, 2nd and 3rd place have significantly better rewards. One of the most fun times I had playing PvP was the 3* Deadpool PvP release event which was a crazy fun shield hop fest to get those new Deadpool covers!

3. Create a point system that takes into account opponent's active team's strength relative to one's own active team's strength. That way a cupcake team will be worth 1 point if a veteran player tries to attack it with a 4* or 5* team regardless of current point accumulation difference.

I think we can all agree that if "Versus" events are intended to be legitimate competitions the current format is broken and top alliances are taking advantages of this format for their own ends. While others do benefit from baking, it does not give legitimacy to such practices.

I know by taking away cupcakes it will stall the progression of many players and Pylgrim is right to be concerned. But I do not believe having faux-competitions is good for the game. And no amount of cupcakes or other sweets will persuade me otherwise. There are better ways to address the progression problem than settle for the current status quo. At least I think so.

Hopefully we will see more positive changes for the game in the near future. In the meantime, I will continue having my fun taking on the evil empire and seeing how much one dude can do battling a baking behemoth ﾞ☆⌒o(*^ｰﾟ)v

TL;DR: Cupcakes are an unintended design flaw that top alliances exploit to monopolize the highest ranks of Versus events, turning said events into promenades and handholding rather than any actual competitions.

Pylgrim

fight4thedream wrote:

2. Change the current reward structure where the better rewards are in rank rewards to discourage cooperation amongst top alliances. Especially make 1st, 2nd and 3rd place have significantly better rewards. One of the most fun times I had playing PvP was the 3* Deadpool PvP release event which was a crazy fun shield hop fest to get those new Deadpool covers!

I'm going to limit the quote to this paragraph because I think it addresses perfectly the biggest issue with PVP and the reason why I now fiercely defend cupcaking. Placement in PVP is worthless to me, and really, to most people who cannot give the tiniest of kitties about "bragging rights" because the rewards, in comparison to the effort needed, are so pitiful that pursuing them is outright foolish.

Let's use my own position as an example, a player closer to the 4* side of a 3*-4* transition. There are only two things that I need in order to progress: certain 4* covers (the ones I am missing or the ones that will add levels to my handful of 4* champions) and the iso to max my 4*s as I complete their covers. 3* covers are nice because most of mine are championed, but I certainly won't go much out of my way to get them. PVP currently offers two ways of earning 4*s: the 1k progression reward and the reward for top 1 placement in a bracket of 500 people. The former can be achieved by, potentially, anybody (in a perfect world), the latter only by roughly 1/500th of the MPQ playerbase. Now let's imagine that there are no cupcakes and PvP is truly the bloody wild west you dream of. Can you figure the amount of resources, time, effort, and ultimately money, spent till the very last second of the event to get that top 1 reward? And still, only one person will get it. Similar with the top 10 and so on. So what do I (and really, you and most sane people) should care about placement? I don't give a **** whether the top 1 position is almost decided by committee among the elitest group of bakers or by the most desperate madman gnashing and thrashing wildly against other madmen (though, in all reality, it would just go to the person with the best roster in the bracket), that person it's not going to be me. And I'm fine with that! It's really not worth it for one miserable 4* cover and a couple additional 3*s (not to mention that any increased Iso and HP rewards will be badly offset by the amounts spent in skip tax, boosts, and shields).

That means that for me and most people in my position, the 1k progression reward is the sane, plausible option for achieving progress. The way MMR and "visibility" works means that I have to be in favour of any measure that adds points to a shard. And yes, if I can find a cupcake that allows me to finish that final, momentous battle that will take me from 950+ to 1k faster than climbing 5* players who now see me can set me back 100+ points, I'm going to be very grateful indeed. And it is my opinion that anybody who understands and pursues progression in the game more than craving the feeling of placing "top" should think the same. It's not like I'm using cupcakes to hit far above my weight or anything! I'm at a point where earning 4*s (and iso) is the only way forward and sometimes I need that extra push to barely achieve one of the scant available rewards! If that's not a proof of a broken system that warrants unorthodox measures, I don't know what it is.

So yeah, if rewards were changed so placing actually means something beyond bragging rights, I could understand and sympathise with people who feel robbed from genuinely having a shot at it by a group of illuminati-like bureaucrats basically deciding the outcome beforehand by gaming the system. Instead, what we currently have is a conflict of interests between a group of people that /feel/ things should be certain way (PVP meaning battle instead of cooperation, game systems should not be tampered with, use of external software being illegitimal, etc.) against a group of people who pursue the most logical and practical approaches to achieving /factual/ and fair progression in the game. My own position couldn't be clearer.