Infinity Season *Updated (9/19/17)

1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Doc L
    Doc L Posts: 279 Mover and Shaker
    Kahmon said:
    I found myself with some free time yesterday just before slice 3 was starting, so I signed up and started at the very beginning. First up 10 freebie seed fights. Then a few more against real teams. Then I had other stuff to do so I took a break. As I had time I would pop back on for a few fights here or there.

    Laundry time. Guess I'll play MPQ while it washes. Back to other stuff. A few fights before bed to help me fall asleep. Oh look, 45 wins on day 1. No stress. No pressure. Very enjoyable. Now if only there were 15 command points at 50 wins. Oh well, can't have everything.

    And to those who say all your feedback is ignored...
    There are lots of us giving feedback about how much we like these changes.
    Could it be improved? Definately.
    Will they find a happy compromise to make everyone happy? Probably not.

    Whatever PvP looks like in a few months, you can bet it is because they feel it is best for the majority of the player base. Some people will feel it hurts them, but they will adjust.
    I would argue your last point - I'm not sure many of the changes in PvP specifically have helped the majority of the player base. True Healing changes only helped those with larger rosters, removal of cupcakes depressed all the scores in PvP to some extent, increased health of characters at the 3* level meant more health packs and longer matches, messing with MMR messed with a lot of players climbing... Not saying some changes aren't good, but I don't think it's the majority.


  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Kahmon said:
    And to those who say all your feedback is ignored...
    There are lots of us giving feedback about how much we like these changes.
    Could it be improved? Definately.
    Will they find a happy compromise to make everyone happy? Probably not.

    Whatever PvP looks like in a few months, you can bet it is because they feel it is best for the majority of the player base. Some people will feel it hurts them, but they will adjust.
    Trust me, the scenario you put forward is what i have been pushing for this whole time. When engagement is up, in theory, everyone wins.  The first test, before i champed some 5*, i enjoyed it without even hitting 40 wins.  I played when i wanted, and the teams were comprised of a variety of different characters not just the same three or four champed boosted 4*.  

    The problem is that for almost 4 years now, the only constant with this game is that for every step forward, there are two steps back*.  You and others(and me previously) may enjoy it now, but the minute you take that leap forward, this game "rewards" you with penalty after penalty, with fewer and fewer actual rewards.

    All they have to do is make the top two rewards points *or* win based and everyone wins.  Everybody. There exists a compromise that makes everyone happy, and they are either unable or unwilling to do it.  And since communication has only gotten worse as these 4 years have gone by, i doubt we will ever get an answer as to why.

    *notable exceptions are the introduction of the ddq, and then champing.
  • Alterationartist
    Alterationartist Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    Milk Jugz said:
    I've hit 900 in over 20 straight events and could do it in 20 or less wins, even with taking a few hits. To now have to put in DOUBLE effort for the SAME tinykitty rewards absolutely makes it a grind. This is pure madness. I, personally, don't want to see any change. But, if change has to be made the best solution is an either/or system. Example, the 4* cover is earned by winning 40 matches OR getting 900 points. Anything less is a slap in the face to some part of the player base.
    So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?

    Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    Alterationartist said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    I've hit 900 in over 20 straight events and could do it in 20 or less wins, even with taking a few hits. To now have to put in DOUBLE effort for the SAME tinykitty rewards absolutely makes it a grind. This is pure madness. I, personally, don't want to see any change. But, if change has to be made the best solution is an either/or system. Example, the 4* cover is earned by winning 40 matches OR getting 900 points. Anything less is a slap in the face to some part of the player base.
    So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?

    Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
    Plenty of people, including myself, called for less wins to the 4* cover after the first test. This second test shows us where all that got us.

    Also, as pointed out in previous discussions, Versus progression rewards have never been guaranteed rewards. You need to have a roster that can get to them to even have a chance in the first place. That is how a Versus event should work. You shouldn't be able to get that cover with a roster of 2*s!!!

    I'm not asking D3 to be a charity to appeal to me. THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET THE COVER WITHOUT WIN BASED PROGRESSION ARE THE ONES ASKING FOR CHARITY!!!!!!!!!
  • Alterationartist
    Alterationartist Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    Milk Jugz said:
    So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?

    Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
    Plenty of people, including myself, called for less wins to the 4* cover after the first test. This second test shows us where all that got us.

    Also, as pointed out in previous discussions, Versus progression rewards have never been guaranteed rewards. You need to have a roster that can get to them to even have a chance in the first place. That is how a Versus event should work. You shouldn't be able to get that cover with a roster of 2*s!!!

    I'm not asking D3 to be a charity to appeal to me. THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET THE COVER WITHOUT WIN BASED PROGRESSION ARE THE ONES ASKING FOR CHARITY!!!!!!!!!
    That's a very destructive way of addressing it. Insinuating that a player 'shouldn't be able' to get something is itself an issue. Why would you actively desire a mechanic and enable the attitude that we should be beating this knowledge into the heads of lower tier players, If that were the case, then that prize shouldn't even be able for a player to obtain, instead of being put in front of them to let them know of what they shouldn't be 'allowed' to get.

    Speaking on my point, this is supposed to bring and keep more players into the game, and marketing the old system using your words can only be viewed as a method of actively discouraging players.
  • killerkoala
    killerkoala Posts: 1,185 Chairperson of the Boards
    there should be a hybrid system as someone said where progression could be based on wins or progression points.  i like playing for a couple hours in pvp at one time not over 2.5 days, so getting 40 wins unless i want to buy like 3k in health packs, which is what devs want people to do.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    Alterationartist said:


    Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.

    These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100).

    It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
    That is exactly my point in saying this:

    Milk Jugz said:
    Alterationartist said:

    ............
    I've hit 900 in over 20 straight events and could do it in 20 or less wins, even with taking a few hits. To now have to put in DOUBLE effort for the SAME tinykitty rewards absolutely makes it a grind. This is pure madness. I, personally, don't want to see any change. But, if change has to be made the best solution is an either/or system. Example, the 4* cover is earned by winning 40 matches OR getting 900 points. Anything less is a slap in the face to some part of the player base.

    Also, while you are correct this change is not for veteran players what you fail to take into account is that it affects veteran players negatively. So even if it's not for them, it still affects them and not for the better.
    If you make a change it should have benefits across the board. It should not be taking from one group to give to another!
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2017
    Alterationartist said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?

    Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
    Plenty of people, including myself, called for less wins to the 4* cover after the first test. This second test shows us where all that got us.

    Also, as pointed out in previous discussions, Versus progression rewards have never been guaranteed rewards. You need to have a roster that can get to them to even have a chance in the first place. That is how a Versus event should work. You shouldn't be able to get that cover with a roster of 2*s!!!

    I'm not asking D3 to be a charity to appeal to me. THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET THE COVER WITHOUT WIN BASED PROGRESSION ARE THE ONES ASKING FOR CHARITY!!!!!!!!!
    That's a very destructive way of addressing it. Insinuating that a player 'shouldn't be able' to get something is itself an issue. Why would you actively desire a mechanic and enable the attitude that we should be beating this knowledge into the heads of lower tier players, If that were the case, then that prize shouldn't even be able for a player to obtain, instead of being put in front of them to let them know of what they shouldn't be 'allowed' to get.

    Speaking on my point, this is supposed to bring and keep more players into the game, and marketing the old system using your words can only be viewed as a method of actively discouraging players.
    Or, looking at it from a different perspective, pushes people to keep playing and better their roster. Too many people want instant gratification. When I had a low level roster, I looked at Versus as, someday I will have the roster to take those prizes and I kept building until I did. Now, I do have the roster to take those prizes. And there are all these people that think they deserve it NOW!!!!! Go build your roster and earn it!!!!

    Think, carrot on a stick to persuade you to keep playing and building. Stop asking for charity!!!
  • Alterationartist
    Alterationartist Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    Alterationartist said:


    Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.

    These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100).

    It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
    I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.

    Would it be better to
    a. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.

    or

    b. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.

    Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Alterationartist said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?

    Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
    Plenty of people, including myself, called for less wins to the 4* cover after the first test. This second test shows us where all that got us.

    Also, as pointed out in previous discussions, Versus progression rewards have never been guaranteed rewards. You need to have a roster that can get to them to even have a chance in the first place. That is how a Versus event should work. You shouldn't be able to get that cover with a roster of 2*s!!!

    I'm not asking D3 to be a charity to appeal to me. THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET THE COVER WITHOUT WIN BASED PROGRESSION ARE THE ONES ASKING FOR CHARITY!!!!!!!!!
    That's a very destructive way of addressing it. Insinuating that a player 'shouldn't be able' to get something is itself an issue. Why would you actively desire a mechanic and enable the attitude that we should be beating this knowledge into the heads of lower tier players, If that were the case, then that prize shouldn't even be able for a player to obtain, instead of being put in front of them to let them know of what they shouldn't be 'allowed' to get.

    Speaking on my point, this is supposed to bring and keep more players into the game, and marketing the old system using your words can only be viewed as a method of actively discouraging players.
    And when all the vets are gone?  This game has already done a good job of getting rid of vets, i shouldn't be surprised.  There used to be people who would maintain all sorts of information about this game.  Character ranking, how-to for beginners, when an evant was ran and who was boosted, etc.  Now that stuff is a ghost town in comparison. 

    I'm not saying pvp didn't need fixing. It has needed it for years.  But i said it then, and i repeat it now: it shouldn't come at the detriment of anyone, if possible.  And it is completely possible.  
  • Lucifier
    Lucifier Posts: 244 Tile Toppler
    for me, i joined PVP like 8 hours ago, playing easily every now and then, i play few matches, till now i got 31 wins.
    so far i like it.
    P.S. I don't know how it will effect my placement tho, before i usually join PVP in the last 2 hours (and usually end up with T25), now i doubt it.

    but still to compare, before i was not able to get 4* cover, 3* cover, 2500 iso (to be more accurate 1750 iso), 50HP, and event token, for me this is better than T25.
    and whatever placement i get now is a bonus.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    Alterationartist said:
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    Alterationartist said:


    Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.

    These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100).

    It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
    I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.

    Would it be better to
    a. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.

    or

    b. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.

    Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway.
    I have your "c" option and it didn't fall from the sky or is all that impossible. It's been said from the first test. Make it an either/or system, that is the most common sense approach and should be tested, like this pathetic system is being tested.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Alterationartist said:
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    Alterationartist said:


    Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.

    These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100).

    It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
    I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.

    Would it be better to
    a. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.

    or

    b. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.

    Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway.
    Hardly call.  Might have.  Half of your responses are based on guesses, without the humility to admit that they are just that, guesses.  Please do me a favor and read the post with an open mind before replying, and keep in mind you are putting out opinions, and some people are putting out facts. 
  • Alterationartist
    Alterationartist Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    Milk Jugz said:
    Alterationartist said:
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    Alterationartist said:


    Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.

    These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100).

    It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
    I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.

    Would it be better to
    a. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.

    or

    b. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.

    Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway.
    I have your "c" option and it didn't fall from the sky or is all that impossible. It's been said from the first test. Make it an either/or system, that is the most common sense approach and should be tested, like this pathetic system is being tested.
    I wouldn't call that a 'common sense' approach, so much as a 'he who chases two rabbits' approach. The big issue that's going to pop up is how to balance these two measurements, and more importantly, programming this. There could be all sorts of anomalies and exploits that could pop up in that system, where people could get the same reward twice or even not get a tier reward at all, born of a conflict of two measured bits of data. It sounds incredibly easy to say, but it's still a c option that has a high probability of being just as big of a burden.

    Not common sense. Something like this requires way more thinking than just saying it
  • granne
    granne Posts: 852 Critical Contributor
    PvP is the one area of this game where finesse is required. Building your roster, learning your float points, learning when to climb and how to use shields are all important aspects.

    This test replaces it all with a brute force approach that does nothing to reward building your roster and hands rewards to anyone who can bring themselves to slog through 40 matches.

    That said, slogging through 40 matches deserves a reward.

    I'm all for improving engagement in PvP by people who feel excluded now, but this isn't the way to do it.

    I'm a fairly recent convert to PvP, previously playing to around 6-700 and then quitting because what was the point? Then I hit 800 a couple of times, then 900. Now I hit 900 in every event and can hit 1200 if I have the time and inclination. That's all happened in the space of less than three seasons. I would argue that the path to getting 900 is there, if you're just willing to work for it. Could it be a less frustrating experience? Of course it could. But turning PvP into a rebranded PvE does a disservice both to vets and to players with lesser rosters.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Alterationartist said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    Alterationartist said:
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    Alterationartist said:


    Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.

    These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100).

    It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
    I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.

    Would it be better to
    a. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.

    or

    b. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.

    Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway.
    I have your "c" option and it didn't fall from the sky or is all that impossible. It's been said from the first test. Make it an either/or system, that is the most common sense approach and should be tested, like this pathetic system is being tested.
    I wouldn't call that a 'common sense' approach, so much as a 'he who chases two rabbits' approach. The big issue that's going to pop up is how to balance these two measurements, and more importantly, programming this. There could be all sorts of anomalies and exploits that could pop up in that system, where people could get the same reward twice or even not get a tier reward at all, born of a conflict of two measured bits of data. It sounds incredibly easy to say, but it's still a c option that has a high probability of being just as big of a burden.

    Not common sense. Something like this requires way more thinking than just saying it
    Considering the number of people who came up with that option on their own, i would argue that it was pretty common sense.  

    As far as if it caused problems, maybe they should do one of those things where they check for bugs?  What are those called again?  Oh yeah, a TEST!

Categories