Sm0keyJ0e said: Names matter. Please leave them.
Shintok17 said: Brigby said: tiomono said: This topic just makes me wish they would remove players names from the nodes so we do not know who we are hitting. It could block you from having members of your own 20 person alliance show up at all for you. That way all you look at is if the team you are about to face is worth the points it gives.I feel it would slow down large alliance truces and even out the PvP playing field dramatically. But that' just my opinion. I forget what article I read, but I heard that removing names in PVP events actually ended up lowering competitive drive amongst players. Names were apparently a big factor in the mindset of "I'm fighting against another actual player! I have to try and beat them," and removing that element caused players to treat it as just fighting against AI.Now whether that's true or not, and/or would be the case in MPQ, is a whole other story. I just found it an interesting perspective to think about. I understand what your trying to convey, but we all know that when we fight someone in PVP it is the AI playing with a real players roster. We already know it is not Live PVP. The names don't make a difference. Most of us only look at the rosters and points for that team in order to chose to attack or not. Most of us don't look at names. When your climbing you don't have time to be looking or keeping track of who you already hit, since every second counts. You can be attacked multiple times just for wasting time checking names and that match you delicately chose would be worth nothing since the attacks usually take away more points than you earn.
Brigby said: tiomono said: This topic just makes me wish they would remove players names from the nodes so we do not know who we are hitting. It could block you from having members of your own 20 person alliance show up at all for you. That way all you look at is if the team you are about to face is worth the points it gives.I feel it would slow down large alliance truces and even out the PvP playing field dramatically. But that' just my opinion. I forget what article I read, but I heard that removing names in PVP events actually ended up lowering competitive drive amongst players. Names were apparently a big factor in the mindset of "I'm fighting against another actual player! I have to try and beat them," and removing that element caused players to treat it as just fighting against AI.Now whether that's true or not, and/or would be the case in MPQ, is a whole other story. I just found it an interesting perspective to think about.
tiomono said: This topic just makes me wish they would remove players names from the nodes so we do not know who we are hitting. It could block you from having members of your own 20 person alliance show up at all for you. That way all you look at is if the team you are about to face is worth the points it gives.I feel it would slow down large alliance truces and even out the PvP playing field dramatically. But that' just my opinion.
abmoraz said: Shintok17 said: Brigby said: tiomono said: This topic just makes me wish they would remove players names from the nodes so we do not know who we are hitting. It could block you from having members of your own 20 person alliance show up at all for you. That way all you look at is if the team you are about to face is worth the points it gives.I feel it would slow down large alliance truces and even out the PvP playing field dramatically. But that' just my opinion. I forget what article I read, but I heard that removing names in PVP events actually ended up lowering competitive drive amongst players. Names were apparently a big factor in the mindset of "I'm fighting against another actual player! I have to try and beat them," and removing that element caused players to treat it as just fighting against AI.Now whether that's true or not, and/or would be the case in MPQ, is a whole other story. I just found it an interesting perspective to think about. I understand what your trying to convey, but we all know that when we fight someone in PVP it is the AI playing with a real players roster. We already know it is not Live PVP. The names don't make a difference. Most of us only look at the rosters and points for that team in order to chose to attack or not. Most of us don't look at names. When your climbing you don't have time to be looking or keeping track of who you already hit, since every second counts. You can be attacked multiple times just for wasting time checking names and that match you delicately chose would be worth nothing since the attacks usually take away more points than you earn. That brings me back to my M:tG analogy: If I give my deck to my 11yr old nephew, are you playing me (because it is my deck and I set it up, decided on the synergy, etc...) or him (because he's the one making the decisions)?PvP
Dragon_Nexus saidI hit as hard and fast as I can. I suppose if this was abstracted to the real world it would look like me muscling my way through the queue to be served first, I guess. But it's not the real world. I don't know why shielded players can't be added to the list of possible targets to hit. That would solve a few problems too. Hit me, gain points off me...but I don't lose points. So if I robbed you of points on my climb but then suddenly shielded, you can still target me and hit me back. Turnabout is fair play.
mohio said: abmoraz said: Shintok17 said: Brigby said: tiomono said: This topic just makes me wish they would remove players names from the nodes so we do not know who we are hitting. It could block you from having members of your own 20 person alliance show up at all for you. That way all you look at is if the team you are about to face is worth the points it gives.I feel it would slow down large alliance truces and even out the PvP playing field dramatically. But that' just my opinion. I forget what article I read, but I heard that removing names in PVP events actually ended up lowering competitive drive amongst players. Names were apparently a big factor in the mindset of "I'm fighting against another actual player! I have to try and beat them," and removing that element caused players to treat it as just fighting against AI.Now whether that's true or not, and/or would be the case in MPQ, is a whole other story. I just found it an interesting perspective to think about. I understand what your trying to convey, but we all know that when we fight someone in PVP it is the AI playing with a real players roster. We already know it is not Live PVP. The names don't make a difference. Most of us only look at the rosters and points for that team in order to chose to attack or not. Most of us don't look at names. When your climbing you don't have time to be looking or keeping track of who you already hit, since every second counts. You can be attacked multiple times just for wasting time checking names and that match you delicately chose would be worth nothing since the attacks usually take away more points than you earn. That brings me back to my M:tG analogy: If I give my deck to my 11yr old nephew, are you playing me (because it is my deck and I set it up, decided on the synergy, etc...) or him (because he's the one making the decisions)?PvP While I get what you're saying, the real problem with PvP is that when your "nephew" loses with your deck, it still costs you points. So, sure if you fight my team in a Versus event, you're just playing against the AI playing my team (which is probably nearly identical to at least half the other teams you can queue so you must have picked me cause I'm worth the most points). But when the AI loses (as it nearly always does), I lose points. Yes, you beat an AI team, but you still are taking points from a real live person, not just a computer. On topic though - I'm a big proponent of play however makes you happy. I tend to qualify it like the government does with free speach though. When your speach starts infringing on other people's rights, you've gone too far. If your playstyle that makes you happy is ruining the game for several others, I start to have a problem with that.
Dragon_Nexus said: I don't know why shielded players can't be added to the list of possible targets to hit. That would solve a few problems too. Hit me, gain points off me...but I don't lose points. So if I robbed you of points on my climb but then suddenly shielded, you can still target me and hit me back. Turnabout is fair play.
When Shields were first introduced, it was possible to queue and hit shielded players. The end result was that scores ballooned since people would just hit shielded players over and over until they got bored and shielded themselves, then other people started hitting them. The invisibility aspect was added soon after this.
And by the way, isn't "turnabout" the reason we get retaliation nodes?
beyonderbub said: My only regret is that I can't hit some forumites in-game enough as a direct rejoinder to their inane comments or topics started. I would climb to 1200 progression on specific forumites if I could find them often enough or if they played to a level where they were actually worth hitting.
ThaRoadWarrior said: Anybody ever see the live action Speed Racer movie, and that scene when Speed realizes that he and pops have been busting their humps their whole lives, only to find out that the big corporations all decide before the grand prix who is going to win, and when he won't join them and play the game their way they try as hard as possible to slap him down and take him out of the race? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG3rq-M7uMc
DAZ0273 said: mohio said: abmoraz said: Shintok17 said: Brigby said: tiomono said: This topic just makes me wish they would remove players names from the nodes so we do not know who we are hitting. It could block you from having members of your own 20 person alliance show up at all for you. That way all you look at is if the team you are about to face is worth the points it gives.I feel it would slow down large alliance truces and even out the PvP playing field dramatically. But that' just my opinion. I forget what article I read, but I heard that removing names in PVP events actually ended up lowering competitive drive amongst players. Names were apparently a big factor in the mindset of "I'm fighting against another actual player! I have to try and beat them," and removing that element caused players to treat it as just fighting against AI.Now whether that's true or not, and/or would be the case in MPQ, is a whole other story. I just found it an interesting perspective to think about. I understand what your trying to convey, but we all know that when we fight someone in PVP it is the AI playing with a real players roster. We already know it is not Live PVP. The names don't make a difference. Most of us only look at the rosters and points for that team in order to chose to attack or not. Most of us don't look at names. When your climbing you don't have time to be looking or keeping track of who you already hit, since every second counts. You can be attacked multiple times just for wasting time checking names and that match you delicately chose would be worth nothing since the attacks usually take away more points than you earn. That brings me back to my M:tG analogy: If I give my deck to my 11yr old nephew, are you playing me (because it is my deck and I set it up, decided on the synergy, etc...) or him (because he's the one making the decisions)?PvP While I get what you're saying, the real problem with PvP is that when your "nephew" loses with your deck, it still costs you points. So, sure if you fight my team in a Versus event, you're just playing against the AI playing my team (which is probably nearly identical to at least half the other teams you can queue so you must have picked me cause I'm worth the most points). But when the AI loses (as it nearly always does), I lose points. Yes, you beat an AI team, but you still are taking points from a real live person, not just a computer. On topic though - I'm a big proponent of play however makes you happy. I tend to qualify it like the government does with free speach though. When your speach starts infringing on other people's rights, you've gone too far. If your playstyle that makes you happy is ruining the game for several others, I start to have a problem with that. This subject is always a fascinating one generally. Out of curiosity what "rights" do we have (or should we reasonably expect) as MPQ players?
Daiches said: Too many comments in the thread from people not knowing exactly how points are built in a shard and only thinking that someone spending thousands of HP on shields building scores is somehow stealing their placement.
Welcome Death said: Ok. Here's what you do. If people are messaging you and whining about hits in pvp, you should definitely agree to never hit them again. Then, next event, you should hit *only* them, as much as possible, all the way to 900 or 1k or whatever your goal is. Skip all day just to find them. If theres more than one, even better! Eventually the messages will stop. You're welcome.
ThaRoadWarrior said:The game provides exactly 0 in-game guidance to players on how they should be playing Versus, probably by design so that people flail around and spend money on shields.It may be true that a rising tide raises all ships, but a group of elites coordinating among themselves outside the game to ease their own path to success within the game is always going to foster a little resentment with those who haven't been indoctrinated into the cool kids' club.
Kishida said: There are definitely things that could stand to be fixed about PvP, but until it can be completely overhauled to everyone's satisfaction (fingers crossed for factoring SCL into MMR), you have to work within the current system.
ThaRoadWarrior said: Kishida said: There are definitely things that could stand to be fixed about PvP, but until it can be completely overhauled to everyone's satisfaction (fingers crossed for factoring SCL into MMR), you have to work within the current system. And I think that piece right there is what makes the practice of battlechat feel not quite right to those who don't use it: IS that working within the current system, or is that exploiting the current system? If we were playing a sport rather than this game, and it came out that the top teams were gaming the brackets to make sure they got to the top by colluding off the field so to speak, would that be considered ideal play, even if it meant that some sub-par team got further in the standings than they could have done otherwise as a side effect? Or would we all agree it was unethical?You do occasionally see this in racing, not to fixate on that metaphor. In Formula 1, teams field 3 cars. One of the drivers is typically the #1; maybe this person is legit better, maybe this person is more popular, maybe this person brings in more sponsorship dollars, there are all kinds of reasons. It occasionally happens where one of the other drives is in a position to beat this person in a race, and the team boss will tell them not to if doing so would hurt the overall season point standings for instance. It's not specifically disallowed, but all the fans hate when this happens because it feels like an artificial result rather than one honestly earned.
ThaRoadWarrior said:You do occasionally see this in racing, not to fixate on that metaphor. In Formula 1, teams field 3 cars. One of the drivers is typically the #1; maybe this person is legit better, maybe this person is more popular, maybe this person brings in more sponsorship dollars, there are all kinds of reasons. It occasionally happens where one of the other drives is in a position to beat this person in a race, and the team boss will tell them not to if doing so would hurt the overall season point standings for instance. It's not specifically disallowed, but all the fans hate when this happens because it feels like an artificial result rather than one honestly earned.