Scale event end scores to meet progression rewards

Unknown

It's becoming an established trend that the good PvE progression rewards just never get reached any more. It's not even a close call, quite often the bar is set so incredibly high that we won't even make it halfway there. Now, I do believe that players deserve some kind of reward after spending 10 days of continuous effort. And I also believe that D3P would be willing to hand out this reward if they just could get their numbers right. So, how about applying a scaling factor to all player scores at the end of the event, big enough that at least 5% of all players actually receive the top progression reward? For the current event that would mean multiplying scores by 1.35, maybe a bit more. Exact numbers shouldn't be too hard to figure out, should at most take a few database selects. This will benefit the whole player base, even the ones with low scores will get bumped up a progression tier or two.

GumisK

Seconded. Illusionary progression rewards are a huge discouragement, especially with The Hunt being so long and exhausting. After all, it's not the community's fault that the devs have miscalculated the points again.

Unknown

^^ Yepp, that would be good.

Therefore it will not happen.

Unknown

A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves as something to merely aim at. -Bruce Lee

Unknown

I think scaling points to the rewards would cause far too much rubberbanding and make the end of an event a mad house.

There are currently 18 progression awards. What if they release the rewards and necessary point totals only a handful a day. So the top goal is only revealed in the last 24 hours and can be changed on their end without the community raging all over them about changing things after release.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

I think scaling points to the rewards would cause far too much rubberbanding and make the end of an event a mad house.

It doesn't, the scaling factor would only get applied once the event is over. You couldn't calculate the proper value with scores still changing.

Unknown

Moghwyn wrote:

Cryptobrancus wrote:

I think scaling points to the rewards would cause far too much rubberbanding and make the end of an event a mad house.

It doesn't, the scaling factor would only get applied once the event is over. You couldn't calculate the proper value with scores still changing.

So basically what you are saying is it would say (for the top progression reward) something like Top 5% of all scores get: XXX. That way it's determined after the end based on the top point totals?

Unknown

sms4002 wrote:

So basically what you are saying is it would say (for the top progression reward) something like Top 5% of all scores get: XXX. That way it's determined after the end based on the top point totals?

They know how many players they reasonably want to reach those top progression rewards when they configure the event. If that number turns out to be significantly lower (like 0% for quite some time now), stretch all scores until the originally intended percentage is reached. This will boil down through all progression tiers, which should be okay, obviously the event was quite a lot harder than planned. Additional benefit is that it will to some extent counter the fatigue we currently get towards the end of events, players tend to lose interest once they realize the proverbial carrot is yet again out of reach.

Unknown

Wouldn't this just change all progression rewards to a new kind of placement rewards?

GumisK

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Wouldn't this just change all progression rewards to a new kind of placement rewards?

It's still better than not being able to get them at all, I suppose.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Wouldn't this just change all progression rewards to a new kind of placement rewards?

Not really, placements are bracketed, progression is global. You would still get your progression reward when placing badly in a competitive bracket, provided your overall score is good enough.

I guess I understand your concern about a preset percentage of players getting the topmost progression reward. There's an easy way around that by calculating the scaling factor slightly differently. Let' suppose that in The Hunt the highest expected score was 190k points, the highest attained score 140k points. Instead of stretching scores to let 5% of all players reach the 170k progression reward, just stretch all scores by "highest expected score"/"highest attained score", roughly 1.36 in this example.

Unknown

For what it's worth, there's a misunderstanding here about how progression rewards are reached. In any given refresh, I could (and often did) reach first place in my main. However, I left thousands of points on the board because I didn't want to encounter out-of-control scaling. The result was that I didn't push far enough ahead of the other top contenders that they would in turn try to surpass me and then build up a lead themselves. Ergo, the leapfrogging and rubberbanding never kicked in hard enough to get to the top progression rewards (and let's be honest, b/w 110K and 150K, there wasn't much excitement; so a lot of effort for very little reward).

So the problem here isn't unattainable progression rewards, but the fact that the people leading the pack determine everyone's ability to get progression rewards. That to me is the real problem. However, the huge scaling effect causes a disincentive for the grinders to actually grind. I don't think anyone in my top 10 really kicked grinding into high gear until the last day (at which point it was too late to get the highest end rewards).

If we're going to improve progression rewards, there needs to be a very clear understanding of why they're broken, and the main issue as I see it is several mechanics that work to keep each other in check (rubberbanding and scaling, in this case), but when they're the slightest bit out of whack they inhibit far more than they balance.

Unknown

Progression rewards were attainable before scaling. I don't need a forensic pathologist to figure out who killed PvE.

Unknown

I'd be fine with (controlled / intelligent) scaling, given that they separate progression rewards from the leaderboards. The few scoreboard leaders who leapfrog each other the entire event should not determine the other 99%'s ability to earn the progression rewards.