scottee wrote: gamar wrote: Nobody complained that only top players win the top prizes, or that it made it hard for others to progress. People complained that scaling locking them out of PVP, only offering one 2* cover in rewards, the nerfing of tokens, reductions in HP and ISO rewards, all of THOSE things made it too hard to progress There were certainly people complaining that only top players were winning top prizes. They got down played by many forum members, but the complaints were certainly there. And I'm not sure what you mean by "scaling" affecting PVP, as scaling usually refers to PVE, unless you're referring to MMR placing winning 2* players against 3* rosters
gamar wrote: Nobody complained that only top players win the top prizes, or that it made it hard for others to progress. People complained that scaling locking them out of PVP, only offering one 2* cover in rewards, the nerfing of tokens, reductions in HP and ISO rewards, all of THOSE things made it too hard to progress
daveomite wrote: New brackets systems suck tinykitties. Period. Got up to 980 in god of lies, got hit 3 times for over -160. Three retals combined worth, maybe 30 points. One retal was for 6 points again a 141 team with over 600 points.. Thanks, but no thanks.
kensterr wrote: daveomite wrote: New brackets systems suck tinykitties. Period. Got up to 980 in god of lies, got hit 3 times for over -160. Three retals combined worth, maybe 30 points. One retal was for 6 points again a 141 team with over 600 points.. Thanks, but no thanks. I feel your pain - cos I'm getting those as well.
00001noob0001 wrote: cutoff points for top 10 in my last few pvp are high ..1.1k+-> 1k+-> 900+-> 1k+ so is it confirm brackets are base on mmr?
IceIX wrote: At this very second and with the understanding that we continue to noodle with it, it's random with some slight weighting so that newer users will tend towards brackets with other newer users and vice versa. It doesn't by any means preclude a Day 200 user from dropping into a bracket with 999/1000 Day 5s, just that weighting gives a gentle push to the RAND function when the event server looks at which shard to give a player to. It's FAR more likely that you got "unlucky" than anything nefarious from the sharding tech shoving you into a bracket full of hardcores.
pasa_ wrote: So mystery solved, viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7382&view=unread#p139409 IceIX wrote: At this very second and with the understanding that we continue to noodle with it, it's random with some slight weighting so that newer users will tend towards brackets with other newer users and vice versa. It doesn't by any means preclude a Day 200 user from dropping into a bracket with 999/1000 Day 5s, just that weighting gives a gentle push to the RAND function when the event server looks at which shard to give a player to. It's FAR more likely that you got "unlucky" than anything nefarious from the sharding tech shoving you into a bracket full of hardcores. It was like I hinted early on, the daycount used as the weight for bracketing. As for the interpretation, it sounds pure bull, if you slant the plate just a little the water will still gather in a clear pattern -- and doing the separation like that exactly results in some bracket filled with 30-50 veterans and others with 0-2 instead of the flat rate of 3-4. Making 900 pts well above #1 in one and #50 in others. Quite sad, the whole story but hardly unusual or out of line in any of the elements -- agenda, stealth, punishment of more established folks.
daveomite wrote: Oh yeah....lovely. I'm on day 82. Sure, that means I need to be facing pure 141's. Probably means I should be able to reach 1,300 in a pvp with no problems, because obviously, on day 83, I become king of the world. Right. I've actually been going back and forth over email with Kyle at D3. He's been very helpful with info regarding some issues I had run into in Brakadoom. When I have a few, I'll post some snippets, as it does lend some light to the darkness, but not specifically everything were asking here.
IceIX wrote: ...just that weighting gives a gentle push to the RAND function when the event server looks at which shard to give a player to. It's FAR more likely that you got "unlucky" than anything nefarious from the sharding tech shoving you into a bracket full of hardcores.
qtquazar wrote: IceIX wrote: ...just that weighting gives a gentle push to the RAND function when the event server looks at which shard to give a player to. It's FAR more likely that you got "unlucky" than anything nefarious from the sharding tech shoving you into a bracket full of hardcores. ahem... D3 gentle push:
Chimaera wrote: qtquazar wrote: IceIX wrote: ...just that weighting gives a gentle push to the RAND function when the event server looks at which shard to give a player to. It's FAR more likely that you got "unlucky" than anything nefarious from the sharding tech shoving you into a bracket full of hardcores. ahem... D3 gentle push: Notice the one brick that does not fall in the pit, thats why they can claim not all the hardcores are in one bracket.
Rajjeq wrote: In yet another "coincidence" I only managed top 50 in Heavy Metal shielding at 882 while my son got 8th at 654. Just because I'm curious, how many times in a row does this have to occur before it is statistically significant? We are at a 100% rate since the change thus far.