Event Length and Locked Rosters -- Dev Feedback Needed

bk1234
bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
edited January 2017 in MtGPQ General Discussion
It looks like this one is going to go LONG -- maybe even until Saturday (clear your games people so we can get it over with).

If this event were to overlap with the weekend event, how would we switch out people on our rosters?

This is important information for future notice.
«13

Comments

  • THEMAGICkMAN
    THEMAGICkMAN Posts: 697 Critical Contributor
    Yeah we need to know about this. This is important, I thought it might show up at some point. I'm not 100% sure if it'll go till weekend, but at least for future reference if it doesn't.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    bken1234 wrote:

    If this event were to overlap with the weekend event, how would we switch out people on our rosters?


    The elephant in the room I want devs to address is why people feel comfortable enough to openly declare they are circumventing the spirit of coalitions by maintaining coalitions bigger than 20.

    If you're going to endorse reserve benches, make it official. Allowing coalitions that exceed 20 to compete with others when the official size of a coalition is 20 is just bad.

    How is this much better than allowing people to sub in fresh people mid event?

    Here's the list of excuses that will be used to justify this, so I'll just head it off right now:

    1) coalition leaders have to work hard for this. They deserve this for their hard work

    2) everyone could do it.

    3) just join a top coalition. They accept new people all the time.

    All these are equally applicable to the practice of allowing coalitions to sub in fresh members mid event to inflate their score. Why was that not allowed but this allowed to continue? Is the arbitrary line in the sand "stuff that we didn't think of doing first, so it's unfair to us"?

    Fix it please.
  • Steeme
    Steeme Posts: 784 Critical Contributor
    I wish they would increase the coalition size to 30 and only count the top 20 scores. It would end a lot of this nonsense and give everyone some breathing room.
  • THEMAGICkMAN
    THEMAGICkMAN Posts: 697 Critical Contributor
    Ohboy wrote:
    bken1234 wrote:

    If this event were to overlap with the weekend event, how would we switch out people on our rosters?


    The elephant in the room I want devs to address is why people feel comfortable enough to openly declare they are circumventing the spirit of coalitions by maintaining coalitions bigger than 20.

    If you're going to endorse reserve benches, make it official. Allowing coalitions that exceed 20 to compete with others when the official size of a coalition is 20 is just bad.

    How is this much better than allowing people to sub in fresh people mid event?

    Here's the list of excuses that will be used to justify this, so I'll just head it off right now:

    1) coalition leaders have to work hard for this. They deserve this for their hard work

    2) everyone could do it.

    3) just join a top coalition. They accept new people all the time.

    All these are equally applicable to the practice of allowing coalitions to sub in fresh members mid event to inflate their score. Why was that not allowed but this allowed to continue? Is the arbitrary line in the sand "stuff that we didn't think of doing first, so it's unfair to us"?

    Fix it please.

    Ok, firstly having reserves and subs isn't a bad thing because it isn't actually circumventing the 20 person limit. You can still only have 20 people in a coalition in game at a time.

    2. It's better than subbing in fresh people mid event because it doesn't let you go above the Max score and cheat.

    3. What does you're first point "heading off excuses" even mean???

    4. Yeah everyone can do it. But it isn't cheating and it isn't circumventing the rules of the game so it's not a problem that everyone can do it. It's not cheating, it's not against the rules, it's not strictly limited to a specific group of people, so yeah everyone can do it. So what.

    5. I don't see how that could be used as an excuse to justify what you see as wrong.

    There is nothing wrong with swapping out people in between events.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    THEMAGICkMAN wrote:
    Ohboy wrote:
    bken1234 wrote:

    If this event were to overlap with the weekend event, how would we switch out people on our rosters?


    The elephant in the room I want devs to address is why people feel comfortable enough to openly declare they are circumventing the spirit of coalitions by maintaining coalitions bigger than 20.

    If you're going to endorse reserve benches, make it official. Allowing coalitions that exceed 20 to compete with others when the official size of a coalition is 20 is just bad.

    How is this much better than allowing people to sub in fresh people mid event?

    Here's the list of excuses that will be used to justify this, so I'll just head it off right now:

    1) coalition leaders have to work hard for this. They deserve this for their hard work

    2) everyone could do it.

    3) just join a top coalition. They accept new people all the time.

    All these are equally applicable to the practice of allowing coalitions to sub in fresh members mid event to inflate their score. Why was that not allowed but this allowed to continue? Is the arbitrary line in the sand "stuff that we didn't think of doing first, so it's unfair to us"?

    Fix it please.

    Ok, firstly having reserves and subs isn't a bad thing because it isn't actually circumventing the 20 person limit. You can still only have 20 people in a coalition in game at a time.

    2. It's better than subbing in fresh people mid event because it doesn't let you go above the Max score and cheat.

    3. What does you're first point "heading off excuses" even mean???

    4. Yeah everyone can do it. But it isn't cheating and it isn't circumventing the rules of the game so it's not a problem that everyone can do it. It's not cheating, it's not against the rules, it's not strictly limited to a specific group of people, so yeah everyone can do it. So what.

    5. I don't see how that could be used as an excuse to justify what you see as wrong.

    There is nothing wrong with swapping out people in between events.

    Sigh. What are the rules? The things you can do in the game? The game didn't say you could gain an advantage by subbing in fresh players mid event. But similarly, it didn't say you could gain one by maintaining an unofficial coalition to ensure you're always at full strength and members never have to worry about taking a break.

    Subbing in players mid event was according to the rules too, in that context. What's the max score? You just assumed it was 20 people staying and getting perfect. It's a definition you set yourself. According to your definition of kosher, it's fine because you still only have 20 people in a coalition at any one time.

    You have a 20+ man coalition. Why are you not doing 20? Because you can swap in fresh players between events, and swap out players who can't play or don't want to play full time. Of course it's a bad thing. Most coalitions don't do that because it's not the natural thing to assume you should do when the coalition limit is set to 20 and the game makes no mention of a reserve bench. You're gaining an advantage not provided within the game. Normal coalitions cannot possibly have full strength playing every event. You're cheating in that fashion, but refusing to acknowledge it because it's benefiting you.

    Take a step back and think about it. Once you apply your owna logic to the mid event subs, the argument works equally well. That's why I said the line in the sand is basically "stuff we didn't think of doing, so it's unfair and cheating."

    And that's just wrong. If the devs think they are OK with reserve benches, they should implement it Ingame.
  • Nitymp
    Nitymp Posts: 320 Mover and Shaker
    Ohboy wrote:
    words

    So if a football team gets an injury between games they should play the next game a man down?

    Similarly, if a player on the football team plays absolutely abysmally, should they still play in the next game or be subbed out for a better performer?
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Nitymp wrote:
    Ohboy wrote:
    words

    So if a football team gets an injury between games they should play the next game a man down?

    Similarly, if a player on the football team plays absolutely abysmally, should they still play in the next game or be subbed out for a better performer?

    Does the game of football have rules on a reserve bench?

    Can I just assume we can use reserves in games that don't have rules on a reserve bench?

    Can I play doubles in tennis, and between sets sub in Federer as my partner?

    When a game has nothing resembling a reserve bench in place, you can't just say "oh look another game uses reserves"
  • Nitymp
    Nitymp Posts: 320 Mover and Shaker
    Well then treat every event as a season and the time in between as off-season with transfers taking place?

    I don't see the issue, frankly.

    Except some sour grapes perhaps?
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Nitymp wrote:
    Well then treat every event as a season and the time in between as off-season with transfers taking place?

    I don't see the issue, frankly.

    Except some sour grapes perhaps?

    The issue is that this goes outside game mechanics and gives certain people an advantage.

    I'm simply advocating for a stop to the disparity. Either ban the practice, or give reserve benches to every coalition.

    To me, there's no difference in being able to sub in fresh members mid event and subbing in fresh members between events. They're both abuse of the fact that coalitions are bigger than they're supposed to be. There's no way to compete for most coalitions. So if the devs are OK with 30 member coalitions, give everyone 30 member coalitions.
  • Nitymp
    Nitymp Posts: 320 Mover and Shaker
    Mid-event is bad because it boosts scores.

    Between events is just making sure that the coalition has the best 20 players available to participate for that particular event.

    This is not an abuse of the system.

    Although, yes, it would be better if each coalition was 25 and only the top 20 scores counted, as this would make it easier and more accessible.
  • Volrak
    Volrak Posts: 732 Critical Contributor
    Ohboy wrote:
    The issue is that this goes outside game mechanics
    I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. The mechanics we're talking about here are the add/remove member tools provided to alliance leaders. You could argue it's not fair to use those tools in a certain manner, but others will argue they don't see any reason to use the tools in a crippled, limited way.

    It's an ethical argument where opinions will naturally differ, and IMO there are good arguments both for and against, and so the "right" answer is not going to be clear-cut. Bottom line is that players will use these tools how they see fit, until and unless the game rules or mechanics change to constrain them.
  • THEMAGICkMAN
    THEMAGICkMAN Posts: 697 Critical Contributor
    Ohboy wrote:

    The issue is that this goes outside game mechanics and gives certain people an advantage.

    I'm simply advocating for a stop to the disparity. Either ban the practice, or give reserve benches to every coalition.

    To me, there's no difference in being able to sub in fresh members mid event and subbing in fresh members between events. They're both abuse of the fact that coalitions are bigger than they're supposed to be. There's no way to compete for most coalitions. So if the devs are OK with 30 member coalitions, give everyone 30 member coalitions.

    How is it against the game mechanics? You can only have 20 people in a coalition and that's that. No way around it. And I was referring to the game mechanics when I said rules so....

    Everyone can have "reserve benches".

    As nitymp said, subbing mid event was bad because it would boost scores.
    Coalitions are not bigger than they are supposed to be. The coalition I'd the 20-person in game group who play in the event, the people can be swapped out mid event, can they not? Or would you have us lock members for coalitions permanently? Surely you can see the list of problems that would cause. The reserves are not a part of the coalition they're are simply meant to swap in for people who are unable to play. That's it. No exploiting or going against the game mechanics.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Nitymp wrote:
    Mid-event is bad because it boosts scores.

    Between events is just making sure that the coalition has the best 20 players available to participate for that particular event.

    This is not an abuse of the system.

    Although, yes, it would be better if each coalition was 25 and only the top 20 scores counted, as this would make it easier and more accessible.


    You don't think subbing players out when they can't make it for a certain event will boost scores? Why do you think people are doing it?

    It's absolutely an abuse of the system. The system doesn't natively allow everyone to have a reserve team, and does not punish people who do. That's no way to run a competitive scene.

    I also prefer the solution to be that every coalition gets a maximum of 30 members and only top 20 counts.

    But if we can't have that, the next best thing is to level the field and ban this practice completely. Everyone gets it, or no one gets it.
  • THEMAGICkMAN
    THEMAGICkMAN Posts: 697 Critical Contributor
    Ohboy wrote:
    But if we can't have that, the next best thing is to level the field and ban this practice completely. Everyone gets it, or no one gets it.

    Ban it how exactly?
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    THEMAGICkMAN wrote:
    Ohboy wrote:
    But if we can't have that, the next best thing is to level the field and ban this practice completely. Everyone gets it, or no one gets it.

    Ban it how exactly?

    Three solutions come to mind

    1) tax - create a cumulative tax people have to pay for joining a coalition. Start small or nothing, but explode upwards once a trigger is hit(maybe 5-10?)

    2) hard ban - make it so members who leave a coalition can't rejoin it. Or maybe only rejoin it after 1-3 months.

    3) officially frowned upon but helpless to really act on it - threaten to ban players completely from the game if they are discovered frequently engaging in the behavior. Basically toothless, but it's no longer discussed in public like this and people don't realize the deck is stacked against them from the start.
  • Reaganstorme
    Reaganstorme Posts: 334 Mover and Shaker
    Having a social group of players who are prepared to be placed into or out of an active roster of a coalition for the benefit of the group as a whole is a natural extension of the limitations coalitions have. That's called teamwork.

    Some people will always want to be a intermittent member of a successful team, as the long term benifits of such arrangements will outweigh any short term loss of rewards. And if they aren't happy being dropped, they'll move on give that support to another coalition.

    I agree that rosters should remain fixed for an event, even if two events overlap, those are the risks you take with managing a roster larger than the cap. It will be one more challenge for good coalitions to manage.

    Our Coalition is quite casual despite our pretty good scoring (top 50 or better in events, top 25 overall), and have a bit of turn over of our bottom players. We are just now considering a charter (that's how casual we've been) after these many months. We have no bench to draw on.

    I feel that coalitions of players who are willing to work together, within the rules, should be entitled to reap the rewards of their efforts.
  • THEMAGICkMAN
    THEMAGICkMAN Posts: 697 Critical Contributor
    I still don't understand why it's a problem for you. So people sometimes have to leave coalitions and then they're replaced by other people. Its not like competitive coalitions have an extra 10 people just waiting to fill in for someone. What's so bad about filling in for people who are unable to play an event?
  • losdamianos
    losdamianos Posts: 429 Mover and Shaker
    THEMAGICkMAN wrote:
    Ohboy wrote:
    bken1234 wrote:

    If this event were to overlap with the weekend event, how would we switch out people on our rosters?


    The elephant in the room I want devs to address is why people feel comfortable enough to openly declare they are circumventing the spirit of coalitions by maintaining coalitions bigger than 20.

    If you're going to endorse reserve benches, make it official. Allowing coalitions that exceed 20 to compete with others when the official size of a coalition is 20 is just bad.

    How is this much better than allowing people to sub in fresh people mid event?

    Here's the list of excuses that will be used to justify this, so I'll just head it off right now:

    1) coalition leaders have to work hard for this. They deserve this for their hard work

    2) everyone could do it.

    3) just join a top coalition. They accept new people all the time.

    All these are equally applicable to the practice of allowing coalitions to sub in fresh members mid event to inflate their score. Why was that not allowed but this allowed to continue? Is the arbitrary line in the sand "stuff that we didn't think of doing first, so it's unfair to us"?

    Fix it please.

    Ok, firstly having reserves and subs isn't a bad thing because it isn't actually circumventing the 20 person limit. You can still only have 20 people in a coalition in game at a time.

    It is, it demoralizes solo coalitions, how can you compete if your coalitions has only 20 players ?

    this puts EVERYONE on even ground

    locking rosters was arguably the best feature of 1.9 (alongside with 8 hour not fully recharged events)

    Yes people will always complain but I will take complaints over cheating any day of the year

    Is the nature of this topic is to bring back the old exploit ?
    Nitymp wrote:
    Ohboy wrote:
    words

    So if a football team gets an injury between games they should play the next game a man down?

    Similarly, if a player on the football team plays absolutely abysmally, should they still play in the next game or be subbed out for a better performer?
    APPLES - ORANGES
    its not team of football, more like hmm team dart competition where when injuried players points still count but the new fresh guy starts with all recharged nodes( if you know what I mean ) so easy to abuse system


    Why do we even need to compare this to sports ?
    we have now system which puts Every single coalition in the game no matter where it its from or how many "friendly" coalition it mates with it is on the same level WHY should we change ???

    bad things happening in real life can happen to anyone therefore noone has advantage over anyone
  • Alve
    Alve Posts: 167 Tile Toppler
    Losdamianos - I don't think anyone's intention is to bring back the old system, so there's no need to talk about that. People were talking about switching players for >>different<< events when events overlap.
  • losdamianos
    losdamianos Posts: 429 Mover and Shaker
    Alve wrote:
    Losdamianos - I don't think anyone's intention is to bring back the old system, so there's no need to talk about that. People were talking about switching players for >>different<< events when events overlap.
    Im really sorry but are we trying to find issue where there isnt any ????
    Are we talking about submitting 20 players for each coalition for each event in advance ?
    Maybe an extra screen where Leader of each coalition would choose 20 players for each event and submit it ??
    icon_lol.gif

    Im struggling to take this seriously when we have bugged matches
    3.3 gideon
    deploy which takes ages to actually deploy
    fabricate animation is way too long -> when kiling first creature and 2nd creature which becomes 1st needs to be buffed for almost a minute
    crashes when energized gems are just too much for d3 to handle properly
    etc...

Categories