Yes, you had to be really active and play each event to place high
Toxicadam wrote: Yes, you had to be really active and play each event to place high Yea, this is the first event where rubberbanding felt like it worked perfectly. You couldn't cheese the system to get easy 1st place finishes in certain subs, but you could still miss a few refreshes and place in the top 10 of a particular sub. If you missed one or two sub-missions you weren't going to get top 20, but you still could get top 100 overall. Which seems fair. In the past, you could miss half the event and still come back and storm to a top 10 finish (while reaping easy first places in most events) if you had joined early and had a global leader that was 50k points ahead of you. So it rewarded persistance of play, but didn't require you to play constantly. Quite a feat considering some of the imbalanced PvE events of the past.
Phantron wrote: Toxicadam wrote: Yes, you had to be really active and play each event to place high Yea, this is the first event where rubberbanding felt like it worked perfectly. You couldn't cheese the system to get easy 1st place finishes in certain subs, but you could still miss a few refreshes and place in the top 10 of a particular sub. If you missed one or two sub-missions you weren't going to get top 20, but you still could get top 100 overall. Which seems fair. In the past, you could miss half the event and still come back and storm to a top 10 finish (while reaping easy first places in most events) if you had joined early and had a global leader that was 50k points ahead of you. So it rewarded persistance of play, but didn't require you to play constantly. Quite a feat considering some of the imbalanced PvE events of the past. The rubberband is definitely done quite well this time. It's pretty much impossible to snipe #1 unless you're in an extremely weak bracket. Persistance will definitely win though you can certainly get a respectable amount of points for the usual 'wait for last 2 hour' strategy, but don't count on competing for top 10 like that.
gamar wrote: Phantron wrote: Toxicadam wrote: Yes, you had to be really active and play each event to place high Yea, this is the first event where rubberbanding felt like it worked perfectly. You couldn't cheese the system to get easy 1st place finishes in certain subs, but you could still miss a few refreshes and place in the top 10 of a particular sub. If you missed one or two sub-missions you weren't going to get top 20, but you still could get top 100 overall. Which seems fair. In the past, you could miss half the event and still come back and storm to a top 10 finish (while reaping easy first places in most events) if you had joined early and had a global leader that was 50k points ahead of you. So it rewarded persistance of play, but didn't require you to play constantly. Quite a feat considering some of the imbalanced PvE events of the past. The rubberband is definitely done quite well this time. It's pretty much impossible to snipe #1 unless you're in an extremely weak bracket. Persistance will definitely win though you can certainly get a respectable amount of points for the usual 'wait for last 2 hour' strategy, but don't count on competing for top 10 like that. I never figured out how to game the subs... In most of the subs I took somewhere between 20th and 50th because once you get within ~500 of 1st all of the nodes have double digit points, and for giggles I decided to try to take one of the Alaskas by taking an early lead out of the gate, but a couple of guys passed me in the next 12 hours and I couldn't catch back up to them. It ended up not being a big deal because even with that, I still got top 20 in the main (despite missing almost an entire sub due to the server crash), but I'm kind of curious as to what the "correct" strategy was to win a sub (or finish at 15000 points higher than me like davecazz who lead my bracket)
NorthernPolarity wrote: Winning a sub is the same strategy as its always been: grind as much as possible right before the end of the sub and each 12 hour interval, so you would time your runs such that you finished 13 hours before the event (to give you some breathing room for your next clear) and just before the event ends. The only problem is that your PvE MMR could mess up your runs by giving you ridiculous levels to prevent you from grinding as much as possible, so you need to either have a roster strong enough to brute force your way through that and grind your heart out, or trick the system into thinking that you suck so that you can fight more reasonable opponents. Dave did a combination of managing his PvE MMR and hardcore grinding in order to get his huge lead I believe, so it's the same as its always been for most events in this game.
beemand2g wrote: you must have got the order of your nodes wrong I placed top 2 in most of the subs and did it by rubberbanding. I took out the hard nodes first then left the essentials to last
Team_Xtreme wrote: We've had The Hunt a few times before and I haven't seen this much displeasure with it. Is it the increased scaling or maybe pressure to get points for alliance that's causing people to call it a "marathon" or "grind"? People also complain that it's repetition of the same enemies. But with exception of the Simulator event, it has mostly been the same enemy structure of facing Dark Avengers and goons.
Team_Xtreme wrote: We've had The Hunt a few times before and I haven't seen this much displeasure with it. Is it the increased scaling or maybe pressure to get points for alliance that's causing people to call it a "marathon" or "grind"? People also complain that it's repetition of the same enemies. But with exception of the Simulator event, it has mostly been the same enemy structure of facing Dark Avengers and goons in PvE events.
Ben Grimm wrote: This was the first event with scaling beyond 230. I'd guess the people with walls of 390+ enemies is a big part of the frustration.
jozier wrote: Basically you either luck out and remain below the ridiculous threshold, or you cross the line and all of a sudden can't do anything to stop the runaway freight train of scaling.
jozier wrote: I also don't remember the last Hunt, but I thought only the essential nodes were repeatable the last time it was run. I could very well be wrong on that but I seem to recall it being less mission heavy.
NorthernPolarity wrote: Winning a sub is the same strategy as its always been: grind as much as possible right before the end of the sub and each 12 hour interval, .
gamar wrote: The scaling wasn't a problem, the problem was that in most subs by the time you catch up to near the current leader your nodes don't give enough points to pass them. So in one sub I tried to do exactly what you said, but some players still managed to pass me, and then *I* couldn't get enough points on nodes to re-pass them!
mags1587 wrote: Chimaera wrote: Any design that punishes players for playing too much is tinykitty bad and needs to be changed. Any design that punishes players for not playing other than not winning the event is tinykitty bad. This current design does both. This. Also, I would add: Any game mechanic that punishes a player for playing well (i.e. not taking damage) has to be taken back to the drawing board.
Chimaera wrote: Any design that punishes players for playing too much is tinykitty bad and needs to be changed. Any design that punishes players for not playing other than not winning the event is tinykitty bad. This current design does both.