PVP survey questions

shartattack

i understand that the developers are interested in growing the pvp side of the game, and that the hybrid scoring system helps everyone achieve their goals, either through strategy and cooperation or sheer effort and time.  
What i don't understand is that the most recent survey included 3 pvp-related questions:

1.  opening up MMR
2.  eliminating skips
3.  eliminating hitting alliancemates

Number 1 is definitely a "be careful what you wish for" situation.  Many people like the idea because they want to whomp on some lower tier rosters.  However, this also means that they will be the recipient of some whomping back.  Given that wins-based is a thing now, they might not care.

2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play.  This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me.

sirwookieechris

shartattack said:

i understand that the developers are interested in growing the pvp side of the game, and that the hybrid scoring system helps everyone achieve their goals, either through strategy and cooperation or sheer effort and time.  
What i don't understand is that the most recent survey included 3 pvp-related questions:

1.  opening up MMR
2.  eliminating skips
3.  eliminating hitting alliancemates

Number 1 is definitely a "be careful what you wish for" situation.  Many people like the idea because they want to whomp on some lower tier rosters.  However, this also means that they will be the recipient of some whomping back.  Given that wins-based is a thing now, they might not care.

2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play.  This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me.

Because it gives unfair advantages to certain players. Devs already showed they weren’t a fan of cupcakes and killed that. This might be there attempt to kill “steaks” or whatever they are called.

For all the people who complained about tapping being an unfair advantage, there don’t seem to be many people upset about alliances helping each other in a pvp format to inflate their numbers.

New players are discouraged from joining certain slices in pvp because of the shenanigans of certain alliances. If I was a dev I would actively try to discourage loopholes that allowed alliances to dominate a slice and keep others out.

tiomono

I personally really dislike the pvp setup. I am looking forward to seeing how the new hybrid system will affect things.

I do not like that their are alliance families. I do not like that alliance families can and will use enforcers to push people down. At this point I also do not like discussions on this topic because it feels like the people benefitting from the system often have the attitude of "it's better for everyone if you just stop resisting our playstyle".

I would love to see a season that prevented you from hitting your own 20 person alliance, but would hide player names from you. That way all you are concerned with is can I beat this team and is it worth the points.

shartattack

sirwookieechris said:

Because it gives unfair advantages to certain players. Devs already showed they weren’t a fan of cupcakes and killed that. This might be there attempt to kill “steaks” or whatever they are called.

how? anyone can cooperate.  There is no secret club or anything.  Have a 4 or 5 star roster, play nice, you can find a spot.

For all the people who complained about tapping being an unfair advantage, there don’t seem to be many people upset about alliances helping each other in a pvp format to inflate their numbers.

For what it's worth, i never complained about tapping.  I figure if someone wants to devote their life to get an extra token, then godspeed to you.  tapping is a time suck however, and encourages brute force mindlessness.  no skill, no strategy.  Also, no money to the devs.  Cooperative pvp requires skill and strategy.  Cooperative pvp makes money for the devs because it encourages shield buys, and engages long time players who stay for the camaraderie. The only new pve we've had in ages has been dustbinned because people whined.  We haven't had a new game mode since i started. Playing with others is more fun than playing with yourself.  Also, if you can't help your alliance, what's the point of an alliance?  

New players are discouraged from joining certain slices in pvp because of the shenanigans of certain alliances. If I was a dev I would actively try to discourage loopholes that allowed alliances to dominate a slice and keep others out.
Some slices have more points.  some have less.  There are many different styles to play.  If you don't find a slice to be of your liking, there are 4 more.  Variety is a good thing.  Your statement makes it sound like if someone joins the wrong slice, they will get hunted down relentlessly for no reason, and that just doesn't happen.

huktonfonix

The idea of this design and development team trying to radically change high-level pvp fills me with the same dread as my parents announcing they’re going to fiddle with their wireless router.

BlackWidower

huktonfonix said:

The idea of this design and development team trying to radically change high-level pvp fills me with the same dread as my parents announcing they’re going to fiddle with their wireless router.

I Lol'd.  I don't think anything good comes from being able to hit your own alliance members.

Either you're cheating or you did it by accident and feel bad.

Neither of those things are a good thing.  This one is a no-brainer.

The rockett

What if you have 2 ally’s, 3, 4, 5,6?  How does that work then?  You know people will just float so they have no ally at all as a work around?  

Here is the kicker.  Before I knew what shield check rooms AND baking was, we started our own Battle chat trying to ge better at pvp.  The only people that we played off of where each other.  We would Q each other’s a team and hop to progression with that.  We did this for some time until we learned of sheild check rooms.  Under what was asked, that would have never happened. Some of these people we did this with are still in the game and active on the forums.  This was the only way we knew how to get better and get each other at progression. 

Now times have changed but I do not like this idea of not being able to hit or Q up my teammates.  

tiomono

The rockett said:

What if you have 2 ally’s, 3, 4, 5,6?  How does that work then?  You know people will just float so they have no ally at all as a work around?  

Here is the kicker.  Before I knew what shield check rooms AND baking was, we started our own Battle chat trying to ge better at pvp.  The only people that we played off of where each other.  We would Q each other’s a team and hop to progression with that.  We did this for some time until we learned of sheild check rooms.  Under what was asked, that would have never happened. Some of these people we did this with are still in the game and active on the forums.  This was the only way we knew how to get better and get each other at progression. 

Now times have changed but I do not like this idea of not being able to hit or Q up my teammates.  

It is not a fair competition to all players if some are cooperating with other players they are competing against to raise their scores to higher levels than they could achieve on their own.

Tony_Foot

shartattack said:

2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play.  This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me.

We have discussed this before so you know my stance on it, most people do. I hate this collaborative hand holding. It's pvp, I don't go online to play Gears of War and organise with the enemy where we will meet on the map so I can kill them and then the next game they can kill me to improve my wins. It's a terrible game mechanic that people want to dress up as a fun social side of the game. No it's cheesing the game to get the best rewards for the least effort.

I'm all for item 2 but I think it would be easier to just give one node and allow skips so fewer 'friendly targets' can be queued.

3 won't work because people will just drop to play pvp and rejoin when they have finished climbing. Again I'd really like all events to work like Boss event's, lock you where you are when you start and go even further, lock you out if you start an event on your own.

I get the score trickle down argument but if everyone was suddenly scoring 1200 instead of 2500 at the top end the devs could just tweak the reward levels based of the % of people earning the rewards.

But I really wouldn't worry, I don't see this stopping because I'm sure the feedback on the survey would have been most animated from those at the top but I do think people need to look at those pvp stats put out a week or so ago on the numbers playing and how little interest there is with pvp and wonder why that is. It's currently a terrible game mode. I welcome them trying a few things to try to make in semi enjoyable and not a collaborative game mode.

shartattack

BlackWidower said:

huktonfonix said:

The idea of this design and development team trying to radically change high-level pvp fills me with the same dread as my parents announcing they’re going to fiddle with their wireless router.

I Lol'd.  I don't think anything good comes from being able to hit your own alliance members.

Either you're cheating or you did it by accident and feel bad.

Neither of those things are a good thing.  This one is a no-brainer.

“Hey teammates, shielding in a min around 1800, q me”.  Teammates q and hit after he shields.    How is that cheating?

Daiches

Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
Now get off my lawn.

elko90

sirwookieechris said:

shartattack said:i

i understand that the developers are interested in growing the pvp side of the game, and that the hybrid scoring system helps everyone achieve their goals, either through strategy and cooperation or sheer effort and time.  
What i don't understand is that the most recent survey included 3 pvp-related questions:

1.  opening up MMR
2.  eliminating skips
3.  eliminating hitting alliancemates

Number 1 is definitely a "be careful what you wish for" situation.  Many people like the idea because they want to whomp on some lower tier rosters.  However, this also means that they will be the recipient of some whomping back.  Given that wins-based is a thing now, they might not care.

2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play.  This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me.

Because it gives unfair advantages to certain players. Devs already showed they weren’t a fan of cupcakes and killed that. This might be there attempt to kill “steaks” or whatever they are called.

For all the people who complained about tapping being an unfair advantage, there don’t seem to be many people upset about alliances helping each other in a pvp format to inflate their numbers.

New players are discouraged from joining certain slices in pvp because of the shenanigans of certain alliances. If I was a dev I would actively try to discourage loopholes that allowed alliances to dominate a slice and keep others out.

If these alliances don't do that, then the reat of us will have no points to win and reach our orogression targets!

Waddles_Pines

I have very little problem with the current setup.  You're not supposed to win everything.  It's a competition.  The one thing that's weird about the survey is not hitting alliance mates.  All the really competitive people are on Line chats, so does this really do anything.  All it does is have two teams work together to hit each others rosters instead of their own.  The game does enough to discourage the casual gamer from coordination since in game chat is a joke.  

Eliminating skipping will not work.  What if you wind up queuing 3 super high teams?  are you forced to sacrifice 3 team in order to get out of that corner?  

Like the OP said, in regards to MMR, be careful what you wish for.  Sure it's nice to see a baby seal once in a while, but to somebody else you're the seal... 

tiomono

Daiches said:

Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
Now get off my lawn.

We know how it works currently. We just feel it's not right. The dev's trying to find ways to change it means they do not really like how it currently works either.

It's not just your lawn.

Daiches

tiomono said:

Daiches said:

Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
Now get off my lawn.

We know how it works currently. We just feel it's not right. The dev's trying to find ways to change it means they do not really like how it currently works either.

It's not just your lawn.

You feel it's not right, but have no qualms picking the fruit of the labor. That's called hypocrisy.

Tony_Foot

Daiches said:

Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
Now get off my lawn.

I said I know how trickle down works and they would have to alter the targets if all of a sudden people played properly and it stopped. Yet people would rather continue with an idiotic system of scoring 3k and putting far more effort in than is required than let them make changes so the hand holding can stop and the points required tweaked.

Its just another exploit, I understand why people do it but we would all be better off if it was reworked. 

Its amusing you call people playing the game as intended a leech. 

shartattack

tiomono said:

We know how it works currently. We just feel it's not right. The dev's trying to find ways to change it means they do not really like how it currently works either.

It's not just your lawn.

with the way the current system is set up, the players that play cooperatively, understand how the pvp system works, play a lot (and use revenue generating shields), and have a top 1% roster take almost all of the top prizes.  Shouldn't that be the case?  Should they put the top prizes in a lottery?  Should we all take turns?

shartattack

Tony_Foot said:

I said I know how trickle down works and they would have to alter the targets if all of a sudden people played properly and it stopped. Yet people would rather continue with an idiotic system of scoring 3k and putting far more effort in than is required than let them make changes so the hand holding can stop and the points required tweaked.

Its just another exploit, I understand why people do it but we would all be better off if it was reworked. 

is it hand-holding, or are they putting in "far more effort"?  It can't be both.  If the devs tweaked MMR so that grills didn't work anymore, I will still hit 1200 and place high in every event i put forth the effort.  The top players will still do well.  The gap would widen though.  A 4* team could take down a 5* grill.  They are not taking down 2 5* and a giant 4* essential.

Ducky

The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.

tiomono

Daiches said:

tiomono said:

Daiches said:

Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
Now get off my lawn.

We know how it works currently. We just feel it's not right. The dev's trying to find ways to change it means they do not really like how it currently works either.

It's not just your lawn.

You feel it's not right, but have no qualms picking the fruit of the labor. That's called hypocrisy.

What fruits are you referring to? So if I feel like a portion of something is not right I should just completely walk away? Or should I voice frustration and suggest changes?

Gambit was busted. I played with him. I am glad he is getting changed. Tapping was ridiculous, I did not do it, I am happy for people that it affected that its gone.

I guess I do not consider playing the game the way it currently is while wanting it to change to be hypocritical.

Spudgutter

Daiches said:

Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
Now get off my lawn.

You can know how it works and not like it at the same time.  They are not mutually exclusive. 

It's not weird you know.  People think that extra time, energy and outside knowledge of the game to circumvent what others believe is the "proper" way to play should be addressed by the devs.  And they did, they removed tapping. 

Oh, I'm sorry, we are talking about pvp now?  Huh, i would have thought the anti-tapping crowd would be on the other side of the issue here.  I can see the small difference, tapping benefits a very few amount of people while shield check rooms help only those that are in the know.  But two wrongs don't make a right.

Full disclosure, i am in a 29 person check room, but their mmr is way above mine and they climb all event.  I never hop off them, i just dont hit them and they dont hit me.  And i get to 1200 every event.  You don't *need* to add points by hopping off shields, it should happen naturally. 

What would happen in s2 or s5 if names were removed so enforcement went down?  Like Tony said up above, maybe if everyone played more like how it was designed, they would realize how broken it is and spend some energy fixing it.  Instead, you have the *haves* dictating to the *have nots* how to play, and then have posts about pvp participation going down without recognizing the possible correlation.  

Am i right or wrong?  I don't know.  And remember before you respond, you don't work for them, so you don't either.  So go ahead and post an opinion, but stop acting like you know 100% the right answer, no one does.