Is there a definitive etiquette for PvP?

abmoraz

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Names matter. Please leave them.

Whatever you say, Beta-tester #77682294

Dragon_Nexus

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.

This is exactly my philosophy so far.

4 years of playing this game has taught me that dithering around in PvP or taking too long to complete a match can end up getting you hit two, three, maybe four times, invalidating all the points you just earned.

I 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

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. 

Phumade

Dragon_Nexus said

I 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.

I generally think if you can verbalize the concern about your behavior in your own words.  Then its probably an accurate assessment of how others feel about you.

So if you think your are pushing your way through the line,  then rest assured the other people do as well.  In any case, nobody on the forum really cares, ultimately its the people in that shard who will react and enforce you accordingly.


In any case queing shielded players is actually a terrible terrible idea.  and I'm pretty sure your placement would actually fall.

I don't need to have a phd in physics and math to tell you, that the immediate response will be to run up scores past 10k.  Already the most experienced players can post 3k+ with minimal need to coordinate action.  If you give them the ability to que and hit targets, those scores will top 5k.  

DAZ0273

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?

beyonderbub

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. 

Quebbster

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?

ThaRoadWarrior

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

Spudgutter

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. 

I know right?  Nothing shows them that your ideas are superior and they should not have a contrary opinion more then you finding them in a match 3 puzzle game and beating them.

On a serious note, i still dont understand why names matter.  When discussing points vs wins based, people often said they didnt want pvp turned into the mindless slog that pve is, or have to play on a schedule.  That pvp is truly "versus mode."  But if all you are doing is playing when other people are out there and hitting only specific people and targets, isnt that the same thing?  You cant play when you want because the timing isnt right, you have to skip a bunch of times trying to find a particular person, etc.  

Can't we all agree that MMR is weird?  That pvp is a turn off to many, many players, and that it is probably better for the long term health of the game if we made an adjustment?  That while some people at "the top" would lose a little, but its better then the alternative of the game dying a slow death?

(Im not one of those "oh, the game is dying" types, i just think pvp would be easier and more for all of us, if more people played)

Daiches

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

Is their a part in the movie about hoe these big corporations pave the track, build his car, fill up his gastank and give him a push start, so he gets to cross the finish line at all?


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.

mohio

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?

I only brought up free speach which in the US is granted as a right by our constitution to illustrate that even it has its limits (despite people not really understanding this). My point is that I'm generally on the side of maximum happiness for all players. If you get a kick out of hitting me repeatedly, go ahead, I don't mind, its just a game. Some people really do mind though, so I personally don't hit people more than once in a row, or twice in 3-4 matches. In the end all I can control is my own actions, so I play in a way that I hope won't cause others their own enjoyment while they play.

shartattack

many of the people who say "names aren't important" are the same who say "i qued this guy for 45 and it was only worth 16 when i finished the match."

WelcomeDeath

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

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.

That clip provides a montage outlining all the corporate machinations that go into racing in that world, yes. Though the fictional conceit of that universe is that pops builds his cars from scratch in the garage of his house, and refuses to get a sponsor because he believes in the spirit of competition rather than the spirit of corporate collusion. I posted it in good humor, because the tone of some of the posts in this thread brought it to mind.

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. From reading about it on the forum, it sounds like the versus points economy is a feudal one, with various barons controlling access to farmable land, and telling all the serfs they are doing them a favor by giving them a little patch of dirt where they can grow just enough to stay fed lol.

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. 

beyonderbub

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.

Someone here gets me

Kishida

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. 

MPQ gives players basically no guidance in any aspect of the game. Not explaining optimal PvE play is arguably more obnoxious, given that PvE is a relatively more level playing field for growing rosters, adjusted for SCL.

Fact of the matter is that PvP is all about roster strength. Without 4* champs, you're almost never crossing 800 points. Without boosted 4* champs, you won't hit 900. (This used to infuriate me, but the latest 12 increased odds + power creep has made this less of an issue.) Even as a 5* player, if you want to reach 1200, you need to shield hop. When you're still building your roster, you don't have HP to spare, and it's hardly worth spending for shields.

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 as for the snide comment about the "cool kids' club," battle chats do benefit people who don't participate in them. With a strong roster, you can reach 1200 in slice 1 without Line with minimal difficulty; you'll pull out your hair and burn through HP attempting the same in slice 5. Until and unless you build that strong roster, you just have to put in your time (or money) in the PvP salt mines. That's what people at the top of the scoreboard did.

ThaRoadWarrior

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. 

JSP869

Back when I was playing WoW I had a Rogue that was specifically for PvP. I remember one match in particular where I'd ganked a Priest a few times because they were hanging back and healing their teammates, so I'd take them out so my teammates could kill their teammates faster without the annoying heals.

After I'd killed them for like the 3rd or 4th time they emote/spat on me. I laughed, I was only doing my job, I didn't take it personal, but clearly they were, which just made it easier for my team because that meant they were less able to focus on doing their job.

In PvP here I've climbed to 900 a couple of times, and that last push from 850 to 900 is always brutal. Yeah, I get upset at getting knocked down, repeatedly, but I was only ever mad at the process/grind, I never took it personally from the people that hit me.

I've even accidentally hit my Alliance mates because I rarely notice the names of the people I'm hitting. I had one of them call me out in Alliance chat once, good natured, asking me if the points were worth it.

Sure were, I replied, you got me to 575 for the CP

Spudgutter

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. 

I think it's somewhere in between.  As mentioned by someone earlier, it's pretty much human nature to try to make things easier for ourselves.  

BC's are typically easy to get into, and people will tell you the more the merrier.  Because it makes it easier for everyone.  And that is why i mention pvp is broken and mmr needs fixing.  If it were better, people wouldn't need to find a work around.  But, if it was different, people would still try to find a way to make it easier, and around and around we go.  

So the big question is, do you constantly try to update it to make it suitable and fun for as many as possible, or do you throw in the towel and spend time on something else **cough** supports **cough**

Kishida

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. 

"Honestly earned" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence vis-a-vis MPQ. Also, it's not a great metaphor in that there aren't really spectators for MPQ; everyone who has an opinion about PvP has some skin in the game as a player.

Battle chats can seem unfair, because, like I mentioned earlier, PvP is all about roster strength. And it really is about roster strength; there aren't 2* rosters pulling down 1200+ scores. If you don't have a strong roster, a slice that is heavily battle chat reliant is going to be tougher for placement (and progression, likely) than a drier slice. I think that Line streamlines progression but does not out-and-out exploit gameplay. You need to have the roster to play at a high level; you need to time your hops and spend on shields accordingly. If you're jockeying for first, it's as much (if not more) a fight at any other level of the game. The existence of Line, though, is like the debate on etiquette that kicked off this thread, something that exists regardless of one's personal preference. It's life in miniature: You can proclaim what you're gonna do and how it's gonna be, but you're one part of a larger system, and you can only control so much. At a certain point, you have to decide the best way to live in that framework. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯