Unhealthy PVE: Tap tap tap the whole day

Spudgutter

Phumade said:

Just to put things into perspective.

a 300 point sub victory is equivalent to 100 taps (at 3 pts per tap)

1 tap a min means 100 min or 1 and 3/4 hour of extra play ontop of a 45 min grind.

So a an 300 pt tapper is only spending 2.5 hrs per day on pve subs.

compare that workload to what a 3*/4* roster spends in scl9 play (shooting for a T50-T100 finsih) merely looking to finish progression.

The avg 4* to 5* transition player probably avgs 1hr 15 to 1hr 30min for their standard opening/closing clear.


The 300 point tapper is only spending an extra hour of play compared to the typical 4*/5* transition roster and is guaranteeing themselves a T5 finish in the process.

Is it really surprising people thought this was a better strategy than accepting 11th place under traditional optimal?

I think it was mentioned in the other thread that it was someone with 550 5* characters. So you are also talking about the people that are at the literal end of the game, and like it so much they will tap an extra hour or two to stay at the top of the game.   

Crowl

JRYUART said:

Well the devs say that the extra points are to determine tiebreakers.  Since this game has many elements that are based strictly on luck/rng that we (reluctantly) accept, maybe they could implement a system where the top 10 fastest clearers are put in a prize pool where the winning placements are randomized with everyone getting the same odds to potentially win t1-2, t3-5, t6-10?  It would take at least a little of the sting out of being out-tapped despite optimal pve play without changing the current system too much.  People who were already going for optimal play were already committed to specific mpq playing time so it wouldn't change anything for them much either.

That would probably be very unfair on far more people than are negatively impacted by those mindlessly grinding a single node.

Phumade

Spudgutter said:

I think it was mentioned in the other thread that it was someone with 550 5* characters. So you are also talking about the people that are at the literal end of the game, and like it so much they will tap an extra hour or two to stay at the top of the game.   

No disagreement that the tappers are actually high level players that basically upgraded different chars to pursue a multi tap strategy vs panthos and traditional optimal.  Any strategy that 4* roster can developed can be executed faster and more effectively by a bigger roster.

But fundamentally,  why do other players care if a 550 player taps an extra hour than is the bare min,  When the game asks a much weaker 4* roster to play 90 min just maintain pace with the progression tables?  I.e.  When you compare the time a multitapper spends to post a T1 score, to what the avg roster takes to do a standard clear,  the multi tapper time doesn't look excessive at all.

If you accept that 4* players who are viable for a T100 placement have to spend 90 min on their clears.  Don't ever be surprised that a 5* player uses his extra time to play past traditional optimal.

Phumade

aesthetocyst said:

Phumade said:

Just to put things into perspective.

a 300 point sub victory is equivalent to 100 taps (at 3 pts per tap)

1 tap a min means 100 min or 1 and 3/4 hour of extra play ontop of a 45 min grind.

So a an 300 pt tapper is only spending 2.5 hrs per day on pve subs.

compare that workload to what a 3*/4* roster spends in scl9 play (shooting for a T50-T100 finsih) merely looking to finish progression.

The avg 4* to 5* transition player probably avgs 1hr 15 to 1hr 30min for their standard opening/closing clear.


The 300 point tapper is only spending an extra hour of play compared to the typical 4*/5* transition roster and is guaranteeing themselves a T5 finish in the process.

Is it really surprising people thought this was a better strategy than accepting 11th place under traditional optimal?

Your "total time" didn't account for opening of the sub. Say another hour per day. Nit picked.

Also, to net 300pts, a player has to tap more than 100 times. Add'l taps are required to make up for the points that would have refreshed while tapping. How many are required to get to breakeven depends on the node value.(initial value of the node / 72 / pts/tap * 3 for each hour remaining in the sub (IIRC), e.g., 10 taps/hr to breakeven point on a 720pt node that yields 3pts/tap).

Total time is a fair point and look at it this way.
5* player who taps
45 min close + 90 min (90 taps) + 45min opening grind = 3hrs total play

vs. 
4* transition player play 7match optimal
90 min close + 90 min open = 3hrs total play.

The 5* player can consistently play 90 taps in the same time that a 4* transition roster can do the basic clears.  Is the 5* player in the wrong for playing the game for a similar amount of time as a lesser roster who is only slightly less than avg for the clearance level?

I'll leave the math details to the experts,  the broad implication is pretty clear.  High level roster + play same amount of time as a 4* transition roster = T5 results over much stronger rosters.

tiomono

JHawkInc said: I

Dax317 said:

Dax317 said:

I define a whale as anyone playing outside their Clearance Level.

WOW! So we can all be whales! I'll go apply to the most spendy alliance I know and assure them I will only play in SCL 1. According to Dax, ya can't get any more cetaceous than that!

I apologize if I was in unclear here, but if you are suppose to play in cl 8 but play down in 6 or 5, or if you are suppose to play in 6 and play down in 4 or 3 then yes you are a whale, or maybe you prefer ringer. My understanding Is that the cl were suppose to level the playing field, but I suppose you are the type that wants to play professional athletes against college kids so you can make sure and win. Got it. 

It's not about what people prefer. The term "whale" has a meaning, and you're using it wrong. Whales are bigger spenders. It doesn't matter how they play a game. SPENDING is what defines a whale. It's an extremely common term across games with microtransactions (typically social games with free-to-play aspects), but it's also a casino term that predates such modern gaming.

You might have a case for arguing that someone who can play SCL8 and drops down for an easy win is a ringer. But calling them a whale is like calling them a donut or a Zimbabwe. It doesn't mean anything if you use the word incorrectly.

My takeaway from this discussion is i will now call anyone with a roster that easily handles cl8 or 9 dropping to 5 or 6, as a donut.

beyonderbub

tiomono said:

JHawkInc said: I

Dax317 said:

Dax317 said:

I define a whale as anyone playing outside their Clearance Level.

WOW! So we can all be whales! I'll go apply to the most spendy alliance I know and assure them I will only play in SCL 1. According to Dax, ya can't get any more cetaceous than that!

I apologize if I was in unclear here, but if you are suppose to play in cl 8 but play down in 6 or 5, or if you are suppose to play in 6 and play down in 4 or 3 then yes you are a whale, or maybe you prefer ringer. My understanding Is that the cl were suppose to level the playing field, but I suppose you are the type that wants to play professional athletes against college kids so you can make sure and win. Got it. 

It's not about what people prefer. The term "whale" has a meaning, and you're using it wrong. Whales are bigger spenders. It doesn't matter how they play a game. SPENDING is what defines a whale. It's an extremely common term across games with microtransactions (typically social games with free-to-play aspects), but it's also a casino term that predates such modern gaming.

You might have a case for arguing that someone who can play SCL8 and drops down for an easy win is a ringer. But calling them a whale is like calling them a donut or a Zimbabwe. It doesn't mean anything if you use the word incorrectly.

My takeaway from this discussion is i will now call anyone with a roster that easily handles cl8 or 9 dropping to 5 or 6, as a donut.

I think the word you are looking for is ... Zimbabwe.

Michaelcles

Tappers and cheaters always make bank in this game.

i haven’t read the whole thread, but why are folks assuming that there is only one person playing per account?

Phumade

Michaelcles said:

Tappers and cheaters always make bank in this game.

i haven’t read the whole thread, but why are folks assuming that there is only one person playing per account?

I don't.  infact the most blatant example of a tapper is the exact name of a band you can find on spotify / facebook / see live in concert.  They've been pretty clear that they like and play mpq.  No one would be surprised at all if they are passing and playing on the same ipad while or tour, sound check blah blah blah.  Its no different than if a married couple passes and plays the game on the same ipad at home.  That would certainly explain how some accounts have incredibly sustained play sessions that are just random enough to believe its a human player and not a bot.

bluewolf

I suppose I should have expected that my somewhat late bracket HaT has at least 16 people who are overgrinding the 48 hour sub.  But still annoying.  It looks mostly Gambattery driven.  I can’t blame them, but I can’t just sit playing this silly game for hours on end.

Hey devs.  You done broke your game.

dr tinykittylove

bluewolf said:

I suppose I should have expected that my somewhat late bracket HaT has at least 16 people who are overgrinding the 48 hour sub.  But still annoying.  It looks mostly Gambattery driven.  I can’t blame them, but I can’t just sit playing this silly game for hours on end.

Hey devs.  You done broke your game.

Or they might have forgotten it was a 2 day sub and just grinded early before bedtime... 

mckauhu

To prevent this kind of behaviour, just make the scaling increasingly difficult until you simply can't beat them anymore. Problem. Solved.