Those that wanted the end of cakes...

Ruinate

They didn't nerf cakes to keep scoring down. They did it cause whales were complaining about competing against plebs who had access to cakes.

carrion_pigeons

Ruinate wrote:

They didn't nerf cakes to keep scoring down. They did it cause whales were complaining about competing against plebs who had access to cakes.

That's ridiculous.

scottee

This issue showed why it's bad the devs don't understand high level play, and why it's bad that lower level players who didn't understand it spread misinformation.

When the complainers brought it up, they posted that baking was how the crazies were getting crazy scores, and that they shouldn't be able to bake, thinking it would keep scores down. All of the high level players told them they were wrong, but they didn't listen.

Then the devs listened to the complainers. And now we are where we are.

Seriously, just make a players panel with some people who understand high-end play and run these ideas to them in an email first. It'd be like a couple extra paragraphs of info to process and you wouldn't make decisions that are bad for the player experience, like removing ccs and scaling PVE to the moon for high level rosters.

I understand they don't have as much time to read every little thing on the forum that some players have the time for. So let the players learn and summarize for you.

Fightmastermpq

scottee wrote:

This issue showed why it's bad the devs don't understand high level play, and why it's bad that lower level players who didn't understand it spread misinformation.

When the complainers brought it up, they posted that baking was how the crazies were getting crazy scores, and that they shouldn't be able to bake, thinking it would keep scores down. All of the high level players told them they were wrong, but they didn't listen.

Then the devs listened to the complainers. And now we are where we are.

Seriously, just make a players panel with some people who understand high-end play and run these ideas to them in an email first. It'd be like a couple extra paragraphs of info to process and you wouldn't make decisions that are bad for the player experience, like removing ccs and scaling PVE to the moon for high level rosters.

I understand they don't have as much time to read every little thing on the forum that some players have the time for. So let the players learn and summarize for you.

This is a really great idea. I recognize that these forums make up a very small percentage of the playerbase and 5* bakers and even smaller portion still, but that tiny portion of the player base has a YUGE impact on the PvP experience for everyone.

Sm0keyJ0e

carrion pigeons wrote:

Ruinate wrote:

They didn't nerf cakes to keep scoring down. They did it cause whales were complaining about competing against plebs who had access to cakes.

That's ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous? I'm guessing you were one of the ones that benefited from high placement without a high end roster?

I love the new system. Nearly everyone in the top 5 in CL8 are those that should be there. I hated seeing tiny rosters outscore me because of cakes. It's not how the game was intended to be played.

fmftint

Sm0keyJ0e wrote:

I love the new system. Nearly everyone in the top 5 in CL8 are those that should be there. I hated seeing tiny rosters outscore me because of cakes. It's not how the game was intended to be played.

I wouldn't call beating the easiest possible teams that you can get the system to accept for defense "how the game was intended to be played"

Sm0keyJ0e

fmftint wrote:

Sm0keyJ0e wrote:

I love the new system. Nearly everyone in the top 5 in CL8 are those that should be there. I hated seeing tiny rosters outscore me because of cakes. It's not how the game was intended to be played.

I wouldn't call beating the easiest possible teams that you can get the system to accept for defense "how the game was intended to be played"

Never said it was. And in S5 we rarely play that way. Every man (or woman) for themselves, I say!!

Vhailorx

Sm0keyJ0e wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

Ruinate wrote:

They didn't nerf cakes to keep scoring down. They did it cause whales were complaining about competing against plebs who had access to cakes.

That's ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous? I'm guessing you were one of the ones that benefited from high placement without a high end roster?

I love the new system. Nearly everyone in the top 5 in CL8 are those that should be there. I hated seeing tiny rosters outscore me because of cakes. It's not how the game was intended to be played.

Which whales were conpmaining about cupcakes? Whales were the most prolific bakers. And some who didn't bake enjoyed sniping bakers too. I am sure there were some whales out there who hated baking, but it wasnt a large crowd. (And of course, the whole system is more or less the same for whales now with grilling so the change didnt benefit those malcontents at all).

And if you had a good roster and were outscored by "tiny" rosters, it had less to do with cupcakes and more to do with willingness to spend hp/time hopping. I simply do not understand the continued sense of bitterness about baking. As if the current pvp meta is some objectively correct "way to play the game."

The effect of the cupcake change was focused on high end 3* and low-to-mid tier 4* rosters. Those players now have a much harder time hitting the final 15 cp progression, but perhaps a slightly easier time hitting 900. There are also some knock-on effects in terms scoring for 2* and early 3* rosters, but they are less significant because mmr offers more protection at low scores.

Whatever demi/d3's publicly stated reason for the change, i think the real intent was to reduce the flow of cp to 3* and 4* vets (and this has certainly been the most significant effect, regardless of the intent). Those are dedicated players who probably wont quit outright in large numbers, and putting a squeeze on their cp flow was probably intended to induce more spending. Cp are the only way to get some of the most desirable characters in the game (oml, pboenix, bss, gg, im46, bb) and players now have to grind more and/or spend more to match their cp inflow from summer 2016.

Ruinate

Vhailorx wrote:

Sm0keyJ0e wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

Ruinate wrote:

They didn't nerf cakes to keep scoring down. They did it cause whales were complaining about competing against plebs who had access to cakes.

That's ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous? I'm guessing you were one of the ones that benefited from high placement without a high end roster?

I love the new system. Nearly everyone in the top 5 in CL8 are those that should be there. I hated seeing tiny rosters outscore me because of cakes. It's not how the game was intended to be played.

Which whales were conpmaining about cupcakes? Whales were the most prolific bakers. And some who didn't bake enjoyed sniping bakers too. I am sure there were some whales out there who hated baking, but it wasnt a large crowd. (And of course, the whole system is more or less the same for whales now with grilling so the change didnt benefit those malcontents at all).

And if you had a good roster and were outscored by "tiny" rosters, it had less to do with cupcakes and more to do with willingness to spend hp/time hopping. I simply do not understand the continued sense of bitterness about baking. As if the current pvp meta is some objectively correct "way to play the game."

The effect of the cupcake change was focused on high end 3* and low-to-mid tier 4* rosters. Those players now have a much harder time hitting the final 15 cp progression, but perhaps a slightly easier time hitting 900. There are also some knock-on effects in terms scoring for 2* and early 3* rosters, but they are less significant because mmr offers more protection at low scores.

Whatever demi/d3's publicly stated reason for the change, i think the real intent was to reduce the flow of cp to 3* and 4* vets (and this has certainly been the most significant effect, regardless of the intent). Those are dedicated players who probably wont quit outright in large numbers, and putting a squeeze on their cp flow was probably intended to induce more spending. Cp are the only way to get some of the most desirable characters in the game (oml, pboenix, bss, gg, im46, bb) and players now have to grind more and/or spend more to match their cp inflow from summer 2016.

Bolded the duh part. That's what I am saying!

I made it sound like whales hate all cakes. They don't, it benefits them too. They hate cakes that anyone can eat however. That's why "steaks" or whatever you want to call them were a thing long before cakes were dead. I have been told this straight up by some whales. The big ones. And the big ones were not prolific bakers, they grilled. They would take your 1* cakes and turned it into 4* garbage which used to enrage me.

I agree that those who hop the most should win, but the whales pov is understandable too. After spending mega bucks would you be okay with getting outranked while you slept because anyone could smash 1* cakes?

Stax the Foyer

Vhailorx wrote:

Sm0keyJ0e wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

Ruinate wrote:

They didn't nerf cakes to keep scoring down. They did it cause whales were complaining about competing against plebs who had access to cakes.

That's ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous? I'm guessing you were one of the ones that benefited from high placement without a high end roster?

I love the new system. Nearly everyone in the top 5 in CL8 are those that should be there. I hated seeing tiny rosters outscore me because of cakes. It's not how the game was intended to be played.

Which whales were conpmaining about cupcakes? Whales were the most prolific bakers. And some who didn't bake enjoyed sniping bakers too. I am sure there were some whales out there who hated baking, but it wasnt a large crowd. (And of course, the whole system is more or less the same for whales now with grilling so the change didnt benefit those malcontents at all).

You assume that people who wanted cakes dead also wanted grilling dead.

Certain whales were very outspoken about their dislike for cupcakes. Certain whales have the ear of developers. Certain whales utilized the safer method of grilling, rather than the riskier-but-helpful-to-everyone cupcakes, and are free to continue to do so after cupcakes have been killed.

I don't know anything for sure. But there's certainly a Venn diagram that one could draw there, and the conclusion would make sense for a variety of reasons.

Buret0

Cupcakes were a problem. I'm glad they were fixed. Unfortunately, the game still suffers from an OPed 5* class and a ladder point allocation system that ignores the power level of the teams being used.

"Hi, I'm a championed BlackBolt. I've got over 50K health and will be doing 6K damage per turn as a passive. I know you don't even have a single champion 5*, but you've got some boosted 4*s and some 9 cover 5*s for me to eat. To me, you are all cupcakes."

cyineedsn

Buret0 wrote:

Cupcakes were a problem. I'm glad they were fixed. Unfortunately, the game still suffers from an OPed 5* class and a ladder point allocation system that ignores the power level of the teams being used.

"Hi, I'm a championed BlackBolt. I've got over 50K health and will be doing 6K damage per turn as a passive. I know you don't even have a single champion 5*, but you've got some boosted 4*s and some 9 cover 5*s for me to eat. To me, you are all cupcakes."

This is ridiculously inaccurate. It's more like "Hi, I'm a championed BlackBo-oooh they're dead."

Vhailorx

Buret0 wrote:

Cupcakes were a problem. I'm glad they were fixed. Unfortunately, the game still suffers from an OPed 5* class and a ladder point allocation system that ignores the power level of the teams being used.

"Hi, I'm a championed BlackBolt. I've got over 50K health and will be doing 6K damage per turn as a passive. I know you don't even have a single champion 5*, but you've got some boosted 4*s and some 9 cover 5*s for me to eat. To me, you are all cupcakes."

Not to start the whole long thing again, but I really don't see much evidence that cupcakes were an objective problem from a player perspective. I will happily concede that baking was a mechanic that advantaged some and disadvantaged others. But that's true of EVERY mechanic in every game ever. The current PVP meta just advantages and disadvantages a different set of players. And whenever anyone discusses the issue it tends to devolve into a screaming match about the morality of certain tactics. I find that pretty pointless.

It seems to me that baking enabled more players to get more resources in a more efficient manner, and it didn't create an insurmountable barrier of entry for anyone (yes real baking required out of game communication, but that was a trivial marginal cost for anyone willing and able to climb high enough that baking had a direct effect, and EVERYONE benefited indirectly from inflated scores). Ergo baking was good for players as a whole and we should have been united in defense of it.

Vhailorx

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You assume that people who wanted cakes dead also wanted grilling dead.

Certain whales were very outspoken about their dislike for cupcakes. Certain whales have the ear of developers. Certain whales utilized the safer method of grilling, rather than the riskier-but-helpful-to-everyone cupcakes, and are free to continue to do so after cupcakes have been killed.

I don't know anything for sure. But there's certainly a Venn diagram that one could draw there, and the conclusion would make sense for a variety of reasons.

The position you are describing is not worthy of consideration stax. Supporting grilling but opposing baking is a completely contradictory position that can really only be justified by pure self interest. grilling and baking are exactly the same tactic. It's like advocating for everyone on the other side of town to pay very high taxes to fund your own public services, but wanting taxes low where you live.

I am sure that some whales hold this view. But there will always be outliers in any group. I also know of some very big whales (i.e. every 5* champed within days of release whales) who spent a lot of time and HP baking the fluffiest of cupcakes and were quite irritated by the change. I don't think demi is making game-wide changes to please one small number of whales while simultaneously pissing off another small group. That's just treading water.

I do think that demi and d3 keep a VERY close eye on exactly how fast premium resources go out the door. And one thing that baking certainly did is make the top PVP prog reward much more accessible to the players who needed it most (i.e. the players for whom extra LTs make the most marginal difference: 3* players looking to build out their 4* bench and 4* players looking to start their 5* roster). Now those players have to settle for slower progress, or spend more $ to make up the difference. I think everything else about the change was (from a dev/pub perspective) a side benefit.

revskip

Buret0 wrote:

Cupcakes were a problem. I'm glad they were fixed. Unfortunately, the game still suffers from an OPed 5* class and a ladder point allocation system that ignores the power level of the teams being used.

"Hi, I'm a championed BlackBolt. I've got over 50K health and will be doing 6K damage per turn as a passive. I know you don't even have a single champion 5*, but you've got some boosted 4*s and some 9 cover 5*s for me to eat. To me, you are all cupcakes."

Except that the guy with a champed Black Bolt most likely also has another champed 5* and isn't seeing the 4* teams until they are past 1000 and doing single hops. And is actually being eaten alive by the max-champed 5* teams any time (s)he does anything more than a single hop past 1000.

The game contracts dramatically at every transition including top level play. Having two champed but not maxed 5* teams eliminates a lot of targets from your MMR until they hit a certain score while exposing you to the 1% of the 1%. Having two 4* champs with a 5* with 9+ covers eliminates a lot of targets from your MMR while exposing you to the 1%. And so on down the line.

El Satanno

Vhailorx wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You assume that people who wanted cakes dead also wanted grilling dead.

Certain whales were very outspoken about their dislike for cupcakes. Certain whales have the ear of developers. Certain whales utilized the safer method of grilling, rather than the riskier-but-helpful-to-everyone cupcakes, and are free to continue to do so after cupcakes have been killed.

I don't know anything for sure. But there's certainly a Venn diagram that one could draw there, and the conclusion would make sense for a variety of reasons.

The position you are describing is not worthy of consideration stax. Supporting grilling but opposing baking is a completely contradictory position that can really only be justified by pure self interest. grilling and baking are exactly the same tactic. It's like advocating for everyone on the other side of town to pay very high taxes to fund your own public services, but wanting taxes low where you live.

My emphasis, because you've undercut your own stance against Stax's claim. I also happen to subscribe to the unspoken statement made between the lines there. The individuals he is referring to want to keep all the cake-y goodness for themselves without sharing to the rest of the unwashed masses. "Grilling" does that, albeit not as selfishly as surely hoped for.

I also know of these whales who were angered by the death of cake. I rolled with one as co-commander for many a season. (Hi Dan54321!) But there are whales, and there are WHALES. Stax is speaking of the latter.

Vhailorx

El Satanno wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You assume that people who wanted cakes dead also wanted grilling dead.

Certain whales were very outspoken about their dislike for cupcakes. Certain whales have the ear of developers. Certain whales utilized the safer method of grilling, rather than the riskier-but-helpful-to-everyone cupcakes, and are free to continue to do so after cupcakes have been killed.

I don't know anything for sure. But there's certainly a Venn diagram that one could draw there, and the conclusion would make sense for a variety of reasons.

The position you are describing is not worthy of consideration stax. Supporting grilling but opposing baking is a completely contradictory position that can really only be justified by pure self interest. grilling and baking are exactly the same tactic. It's like advocating for everyone on the other side of town to pay very high taxes to fund your own public services, but wanting taxes low where you live.

My emphasis, because you've undercut your own stance against Stax's claim. I also happen to subscribe to the unspoken statement made between the lines there. The individuals he is referring to want to keep all the cake-y goodness for themselves without sharing to the rest of the unwashed masses. "Grilling" does that, albeit not as selfishly as surely hoped for.

I also know of these whales who were angered by the death of cake. I rolled with one as co-commander for many a season. (Hi Dan54321!) But there are whales, and there are WHALES. Stax is speaking of the latter.

Not sure I understand your point Satanno. It sounds like Stax is talking more about THE whale, as opposed to whales in general. And it seems to me that it's probably not a good idea for demi to cater exclusive to a handful of people; even the biggest spenders can't support this game by themselves.

Additionally, I don't mean to suggest that my own position is without self-interest. Everyone is always biased by self interest. My problem is that the position stax describes (don't know if stax actually feels that way) can only be justified by self interest imo. Bigger spenders get better rosters; that is their reward for spending. They shouldn't also get different rules. But that is exactly what supporters of grilling who also opposed baking want. They want defensive teams to work one way for "regular" rosters, and another way 5* champ rosters.

grunth13

Vhailorx wrote:

El Satanno wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You assume that people who wanted cakes dead also wanted grilling dead.

Certain whales were very outspoken about their dislike for cupcakes. Certain whales have the ear of developers. Certain whales utilized the safer method of grilling, rather than the riskier-but-helpful-to-everyone cupcakes, and are free to continue to do so after cupcakes have been killed.

I don't know anything for sure. But there's certainly a Venn diagram that one could draw there, and the conclusion would make sense for a variety of reasons.

The position you are describing is not worthy of consideration stax. Supporting grilling but opposing baking is a completely contradictory position that can really only be justified by pure self interest. grilling and baking are exactly the same tactic. It's like advocating for everyone on the other side of town to pay very high taxes to fund your own public services, but wanting taxes low where you live.

My emphasis, because you've undercut your own stance against Stax's claim. I also happen to subscribe to the unspoken statement made between the lines there. The individuals he is referring to want to keep all the cake-y goodness for themselves without sharing to the rest of the unwashed masses. "Grilling" does that, albeit not as selfishly as surely hoped for.

I also know of these whales who were angered by the death of cake. I rolled with one as co-commander for many a season. (Hi Dan54321!) But there are whales, and there are WHALES. Stax is speaking of the latter.

Not sure I understand your point Satanno. It sounds like Stax is talking more about THE whale, as opposed to whales in general. And it seems to me that it's probably not a good idea for demi to cater exclusive to a handful of people; even the biggest spenders can't support this game by themselves.

Additionally, I don't mean to suggest that my own position is without self-interest. Everyone is always biased by self interest. My problem is that the position stax describes (don't know if stax actually feels that way) can only be justified by self interest imo. Bigger spenders get better rosters; that is their reward for spending. They shouldn't also get different rules. But that is exactly what supporters of grilling who also opposed baking want. They want defensive teams to work one way for "regular" rosters, and another way 5* champ rosters.

Actually, the biggest spenders do live by different set of rules per demi. Just look at the complaints about C/S. Some people just call and get their stuff done, while others get frustrated by the "this is against the rules that we won't show you" reply. It's why they won't post their rules. It's why there are variable responses to the same ticket. It does happen....A LOT.

Vhailorx

grunth13 wrote:

Actually, the biggest spenders do live by different set of rules per demi. Just look at the complaints about C/S. Some people just call and get their stuff done, while others get frustrated by the "this is against the rules that we won't show you" reply. It's why they won't post their rules. It's why there are variable responses to the same ticket. It does happen....A LOT.

To the extent that's true, it's also not a good policy.

Eddiemon

Vhailorx wrote:

The effect of the cupcake change was focused on high end 3* and low-to-mid tier 4* rosters. Those players now have a much harder time hitting the final 15 cp progression, but perhaps a slightly easier time hitting 900. There are also some knock-on effects in terms scoring for 2* and early 3* rosters, but they are less significant because mmr offers more protection at low scores.

I find the 900 target easier to hit. I never went for the 1200 because it is suicide up there. I might need a short term shield around 800 to burn off the retaliations for the points I make between 500 and 800, but for the right 4 star cover it's worth it.


[/quote] Whatever demi/d3's publicly stated reason for the change, i think the real intent was to reduce the flow of cp to 3* and 4* vets (and this has certainly been the most significant effect, regardless of the intent). Those are dedicated players who probably wont quit outright in large numbers, and putting a squeeze on their cp flow was probably intended to induce more spending. Cp are the only way to get some of the most desirable characters in the game (oml, pboenix, bss, gg, im46, bb) and players now have to grind more and/or spend more to match their cp inflow from summer 2016.[/quote]

Doesn't make a lot of sense as they took away 10CP and put it lower in the progression tree, similar to what they did in PvE.

My reality is that I have far more CP than I used to, so I really don't see limiting it as a factor.

If anything I'd say their aim was to reduce the gap between the haves and have nots.