Shield Penalty

Ding

How about if they changed it so that if you hit somebody who shielded before you attack them you only earned half the points? It would greatly help with the game getting back to an actual PvP format.

Failbot

But there's nothing to say if a person is shielded. Also this would just be a money grab as people would buy shields even more just to make sure their high score is untouchable

FaustianDeal

Here are my concerns with this idea:
1 - You need to have ways to create points. Without vectors to create points no one would reach top progression.
2 - You want to champion 'true PvP' with this, but the AI is always on the other side of board. Playing the same, stupid way the AI does. That's not PvP. That's the AI gambling with my points, and the AI is not as good as I am.

I think there are (at least) 2 substantially detrimental effects with this model:
1 - The ability of people to reach top progression in an event is incredibly impaired. Suddenly the that chasm between the 900 and the 1200 progression prizes seems insurmountable. Not only do I need to hit someone worth good points, but I have to have the hit register before they shield? (People are frustrated enough when an old Q is worth less than they expected, but having a 'fresh' Q drop in value by 50% would be infuriating. And its virtually guaranteed to happen with every fight as you get closer to 1200.)
2 - The other detrimental outcome here is that this seems to reward behaviors which I don't think we want to strongly encourage.
* This would encourage people to 'fight down'. As I get closer to 1200, I am going to start looking for matches worth 30, because that person is probably still climbing (because they also want to hit 1200). That match, perversely, is better for me than a 50 point Q, because that target has a higher likelihood of shielding before I can finish the match, and now I only get 25 points? I also hung out a target on my back doing this; hitting a target worth 30 is inviting a retaliation. (And the AI gets to pilot my team in the retal - not liking my chances.) Not only is this risky, but it seems to create a toxic environment where players who reach 1,000 points are more likely to get brutalized down to 800 than if they had just given up and shielded at 900. How is that desirable?
* This would also encourage sniping behaviors. Look for people close to 1100 and try to target people in that range (1100-1150). In your model those people are looking at, conservatively, 3-4 fights - but possibly a many as 10 - before they are going to hit 1200. They are the people most lilkely to be worth 'full points' but still be 'worth hitting'.

There is no benefit to trying to plan ahead on a hop in your model - they are better off doing some quick skips right before they unshield because the points for those matches will be better than saving a Q you found before their shield went up.

This suggestion creates a 'no mans land' in the chasm between 900-1200 where its going to be gory and frustrating to try to make ground. How is that really the desired intent? That's assuming the slice ever matures to the point that there are enough people in no mans land for there to be any battles worth fighting. It takes *a lot* of traded hits under 1k to generate a pool of points sufficient to allow people to achieve the 'escape velocity' required to reach top progression (or to go beyond it to become a worthwhile target for the next people trying to get there).

simonsez

Ding wrote:

How about if they changed it so that if you hit somebody who shielded before you attack them you only earned half the points?

I don't think people are clamoring to figure out ways for us to earn LESS points in PvP...

Ding

simonsez wrote:

Ding wrote:

How about if they changed it so that if you hit somebody who shielded before you attack them you only earned half the points?

I don't think people are clamoring to figure out ways for us to earn LESS points in PvP...

I think the reason for that is because people are set in their thinking that they need to make a certain number of points to reach progression, instead of remembering that the progression score can easily be adjusted.

Ding

FaustianDeal wrote:

Here are my concerns with this idea:
1 - You need to have ways to create points. Without vectors to create points no one would reach top progression.
2 - You want to champion 'true PvP' with this, but the AI is always on the other side of board. Playing the same, stupid way the AI does. That's not PvP. That's the AI gambling with my points, and the AI is not as good as I am.

I think there are (at least) 2 substantially detrimental effects with this model:
1 - The ability of people to reach top progression in an event is incredibly impaired. Suddenly the that chasm between the 900 and the 1200 progression prizes seems insurmountable. Not only do I need to hit someone worth good points, but I have to have the hit register before they shield? (People are frustrated enough when an old Q is worth less than they expected, but having a 'fresh' Q drop in value by 50% would be infuriating. And its virtually guaranteed to happen with every fight as you get closer to 1200.)
2 - The other detrimental outcome here is that this seems to reward behaviors which I don't think we want to strongly encourage.
* This would encourage people to 'fight down'. As I get closer to 1200, I am going to start looking for matches worth 30, because that person is probably still climbing (because they also want to hit 1200). That match, perversely, is better for me than a 50 point Q, because that target has a higher likelihood of shielding before I can finish the match, and now I only get 25 points? I also hung out a target on my back doing this; hitting a target worth 30 is inviting a retaliation. (And the AI gets to pilot my team in the retal - not liking my chances.) Not only is this risky, but it seems to create a toxic environment where players who reach 1,000 points are more likely to get brutalized down to 800 than if they had just given up and shielded at 900. How is that desirable?
* This would also encourage sniping behaviors. Look for people close to 1100 and try to target people in that range (1100-1150). In your model those people are looking at, conservatively, 3-4 fights - but possibly a many as 10 - before they are going to hit 1200. They are the people most lilkely to be worth 'full points' but still be 'worth hitting'.

There is no benefit to trying to plan ahead on a hop in your model - they are better off doing some quick skips right before they unshield because the points for those matches will be better than saving a Q you found before their shield went up.

This suggestion creates a 'no mans land' in the chasm between 900-1200 where its going to be gory and frustrating to try to make ground. How is that really the desired intent? That's assuming the slice ever matures to the point that there are enough people in no mans land for there to be any battles worth fighting. It takes *a lot* of traded hits under 1k to generate a pool of points sufficient to allow people to achieve the 'escape velocity' required to reach top progression (or to go beyond it to become a worthwhile target for the next people trying to get there).

1. I did say that if you began your attack before the person was shielded.

2. Sniping behaviour is exactly what would be encouraged. As I pointed out, I'm seeking a system that is more PvP. If you're playing a game of 1v1v1v1v1v1 etc., you don't take turns letting people score. You attempt to score as much as you can, but you also try to limit the scoring of other people.

simonsez

Ding wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Ding wrote:

How about if they changed it so that if you hit somebody who shielded before you attack them you only earned half the points?

I don't think people are clamoring to figure out ways for us to earn LESS points in PvP...

I think the reason for that is because people are set in their thinking that they need to make a certain number of points to reach progression, instead of remembering that the progression score can easily be adjusted.

Unless they make the top progression 600 (which they never would) to account for your half points idea, I'm not interested. I'm sure there are some people who would totally get off on playing "snipe fest", but I don't play this game because I need more stress in my life...

FaustianDeal

The fallacy of this is that even if you made this change you still don't have PvP.
Until you share a gameboard with another person and alternate turns, you still aren't playing PvP.

Its also not like a person can only be engaged against a single opponent at a time - which seems like it would be another mark of a true 'PvP' experience. If defense was single-threaded then we might also have a dialog, but when a person can be simultaneously hit by a dozen or more opponents then it also doesn't feel like 'PvP'.

I think a lot of other things would have to change before this suggestion got anything that looked like an endorsement from the broader player base.