Those that wanted the end of cakes...

woopie

They shifted 10 CP down the progression reward chart because they knew people would be upset by the elimination of cakes.

Fightmastermpq

woopie wrote:

They shifted 10 CP down the progression reward chart because they knew people would be upset by the elimination of cakes.

Kind of. They knew the change would DRASTICALLY reduce the number of people hitting the max 25 CP progression and while they did want to lower the total amount of CP given out they didn't want to completely limit it to vets, so they put half of it at an earlier progression point for smaller rosters. And honestly it makes more sense there. If you are a 3*/4* player you need that CP to progress, and if you are a 5* player you need even more CP to progress.

Calnexin

cyineedsn wrote:

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

If you want to stay in character, that should be all-caps bold 72 point font.

Hendross

Calnexin wrote:

cyineedsn wrote:

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

If you want to stay in character, that should be all-caps bold 72 point font.

BlackBo... oh, they're dead.

El Satanno

Vhailorx wrote:

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.

I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting me. I believe we are on the same wavelength regarding Stax's suggestion. And while you are right it is probably not a good idea to cater to that tiny handful of gargantuan deep-sea mammals, there is a hefty amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is the case. The same evidence also points to the apparently dichotomous attitude regarding "grilling" and "baking." Make of it what you will.

Rod5

Not sure why people are saying the rules are different for different rosters. Anyone can put out a weaker team, whether it will show up is based on the strength of their previous team.

I was a consumer and provider of cupcakes, and whilst I was unimpressed by losing them, I cannot argue that only the people who have worked hardest (and spent most) on their rosters are now getting the rewards. Those with much weaker rosters cannot now just shortcut the hard yards required.

Rod5

You could argue that the only people affected were those punching above their weight (was one for a while), as those with 3* rosters could score super-high and now can't.

In reality though, cakes were picked up by many more than the intended audience, the 3* hoppers were qd by others - more hittable high point qs were available full stop.

So now you have a gaping divide between 5*/big 4* rosters and the rest. 4* rosters have enough on their plate getting to 1.2 anyway, and even if I wanted to I couldn't put out a team that a 3* roster could down (without TUs anyway).

So no trickledown, no decent point qs and no incentive to push on. Feel bad for 2/3/4* transitioners.

dsds

I benefited from the end of cakes, I will admit. I didn't score higher, but I ranked higher. The only reason I benefited was because they put the 10cp at 575. They wouldn't be able to do that if they didn't kill cakes. There were way too many people getting the 25cp. In order to satisfy their requirement that only a certain amount of players get certain rewards, they had to cut it. Most people can hit the 10cp. This is much more fair.

Vhailorx

dsds wrote:

I benefited from the end of cakes, I will admit. I didn't score higher, but I ranked higher. The only reason I benefited was because they put the 10cp at 575. They wouldn't be able to do that if they didn't kill cakes. There were way too many people getting the 25cp. In order to satisfy their requirement that only a certain amount of players get certain rewards, they had to cut it. Most people can hit the 10cp. This is much more fair.

Why couldn't they move 10 cp to 575 without killing cakes? I think that the ideal outcome for players would have been moving 10cp to 575 and leaving cakes in place. 5* players still have an advantage (though not as large as their current advantage), vet 3* and 4* players can get 25 cp to help their progression, and 2*/weaker3* players can hit 575 for 10 cp that were totally out of reach before. It would still be somewhat hard to place well (unless you poached a late bracket), but it's a net win as more cp is better than a few k extra iso + some 3* covers. And everyone getting prog rewards is better than a few getting placement rewards.

fmftint

dsds wrote:

I benefited from the end of cakes, I will admit. I didn't score higher, but I ranked higher. The only reason I benefited was because they put the 10cp at 575. They wouldn't be able to do that if they didn't kill cakes. There were way too many people getting the 25cp. In order to satisfy their requirement that only a certain amount of players get certain rewards, they had to cut it. Most people can hit the 10cp. This is much more fair.

Did you rank higher because of the end of cakes, or because SCLs spread competition out a lot more?

AtlasAxe

Vhailorx wrote:

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.

Side thought on this: the ****, unusable chat function in game required out of game communication. Baking was a benefit that arose from that.

dsds

fmftint wrote:

dsds wrote:

I benefited from the end of cakes, I will admit. I didn't score higher, but I ranked higher. The only reason I benefited was because they put the 10cp at 575. They wouldn't be able to do that if they didn't kill cakes. There were way too many people getting the 25cp. In order to satisfy their requirement that only a certain amount of players get certain rewards, they had to cut it. Most people can hit the 10cp. This is much more fair.

Did you rank higher because of the end of cakes, or because SCLs spread competition out a lot more?

A little bit of both I would say. I know there was a lot of anger that cakes were gone. But they were only benefiting a select group of people. Majority of the player base did not know about it or had any knowledge how to access it. This forum makes up a very very small percentage of the player base. It was clearly unfair to the majority of the players that a small select group was able to advance a lot faster without paying. They are gone. Let it go!

At 700-800pts, I am usually top 50 or 100 at scl 8. And I start early like on the day the event starts.

Please moderators, if there is any thread you should lock, this one should be the one.
The devs already made the decision let's move on. There were other dev decisions I didn't like, but I don't bring it up every week.

Vhailorx

Majority of the player base did not know about [baking] or had any knowledge how to access it.

And yet they still benefited from it for reasons discussed ad nauseum. . .
Sure, baking is partially dead. But grilling still exists. And if you opposed baking, how can you not oppose grilling?

To the extent that baking was some great mpq injustice (and to be clear, i dont think it was an injustice at all), isn't grilling just as unfair?

revskip

dsds wrote:

But they were only benefiting a select group of people.

That is actually not true. Even if some players never ate a single cake they still benefited because others who did had scores which were higher which led to easier climbs for everyone since targets that are now worth 30ish points were worth 40ish points and so on.

dsds wrote:

Please moderators, if there is any thread you should lock, this one should be the one.
The devs already made the decision let's move on. There were other dev decisions I didn't like, but I don't bring it up every week.

I'd rather the mods were locking fewer threads not more. While I am fairly certain bakes aren't coming back discussing the fallout from removing them does no one any harm.

udonomefoo

Found my first grill last night. I hit it and almost lost to maxchamp GG. That guy is nasty, even with no support.

Bowgentle

udonomefoo wrote:

Found my first grill last night. I hit it and almost lost to maxchamp GG. That guy is nasty, even with no support.

If by maxchamp you mean 550, then yes. He's nasty.

If by maxchamp you actually mean champed 450, then no, he does nothing on his own if you don't give him something like 25 turns.

puppychow

TxMoose wrote:

killing baking changed nothing (or at least very little) for front runners. what it killed was the prolific trickle-down effect on the rest of the scores behind the front runners. and baking isn't completely dead. you just have to successfully take on a champed 5* now, so there's a minimum roster requirement to benefit now.

Speaking of taking on a champed 5*, I managed to take out a 450 OML, SS once (on different teams). And my highest character is a 288 Dino. It IS doable if you manage to get a lucky/decent starting board.

But I agree that the elimination of cakes ended up hurting the mid-tier level players. The cynic in me thinks that D3 PREFERS that result anyway because it slows power creep for the majority of the players (by making it harder to reach 4* progression or get decent placement).

udonomefoo

Bowgentle wrote:

udonomefoo wrote:

Found my first grill last night. I hit it and almost lost to maxchamp GG. That guy is nasty, even with no support.

If by maxchamp you mean 550, then yes. He's nasty.

If by maxchamp you actually mean champed 450, then no, he does nothing on his own if you don't give him something like 25 turns.

You're right, I misused the term. I think he was about 473. I took a 25k glider to the face on turn 3 so I'm not sure where you're getting 25 turns from though.

ClydeFrog76

Cakes...grills...get with the program, people. High-end players are toasting cheese sandwiches these days.

Bowgentle

udonomefoo wrote:

Bowgentle wrote:

udonomefoo wrote:

Found my first grill last night. I hit it and almost lost to maxchamp GG. That guy is nasty, even with no support.

If by maxchamp you mean 550, then yes. He's nasty.

If by maxchamp you actually mean champed 450, then no, he does nothing on his own if you don't give him something like 25 turns.

You're right, I misused the term. I think he was about 473. I took a 25k glider to the face on turn 3 so I'm not sure where you're getting 25 turns from though.

Yeah, denying black like your life depends on it would be a good idea... because it does