entrailbucket said: Top 250? That means you're beating 750 other players, quite possibly other players who like to play and are competing, but can't do it optimally. Your intent is irrelevant, the irrefutable fact is that your play is taking rewards away from them. We're all competing for the same pool of rewards, and whatever you get is something someone else doesn't get. Those 750 other players exist, no matter how much you dismiss them as "casuals" or whatever.
Roland113 said: entrailbucket said: Top 250? That means you're beating 750 other players, quite possibly other players who like to play and are competing, but can't do it optimally. Your intent is irrelevant, the irrefutable fact is that your play is taking rewards away from them. We're all competing for the same pool of rewards, and whatever you get is something someone else doesn't get. Those 750 other players exist, no matter how much you dismiss them as "casuals" or whatever. Its semantics. Your initial statement of "I think when a lot of people ask for more 5*, what they're really asking for is "give out more 5* to me (or players in my situation), but not to anybody else," " does not apply to many people and I'm simply giving a counterpoint explaining why more covers make my MPQ experience more enjoyable to me with no regard to where I place competitively.
BlackBoltRocks said: Roland113 said: entrailbucket said: Top 250? That means you're beating 750 other players, quite possibly other players who like to play and are competing, but can't do it optimally. Your intent is irrelevant, the irrefutable fact is that your play is taking rewards away from them. We're all competing for the same pool of rewards, and whatever you get is something someone else doesn't get. Those 750 other players exist, no matter how much you dismiss them as "casuals" or whatever. Its semantics. Your initial statement of "I think when a lot of people ask for more 5*, what they're really asking for is "give out more 5* to me (or players in my situation), but not to anybody else," " does not apply to many people and I'm simply giving a counterpoint explaining why more covers make my MPQ experience more enjoyable to me with no regard to where I place competitively. Which is a rather poor assumption to make. People saying “give me more 5*” does not necessarily equate to “but also do not give more 5* to everyone else”. For some reason entrailbucket is behaving as though 5* are private goods: making them accessible to one person necessarily means depriving another person of them. Which isnt true at all. 5*, like almost everything in this game, should be public goods: making them accessible to one person does not deprive another person of them.What is a private good, however, is placement (and by extension placement rewards). Oh, and PvP retaliation. Those are separate topics altogether.
Basepuzzler said: Rockwell75 said: PVP and PVE players can't even get a 5* from top placement-- I highly doubt they'll be offered in any way in the DDQ. There should, however, be a way to get a 4* every day from DDQ. The event that gives you CP should instead give you a cover for the 4* hero you need to use (and instead offer the CP through progression). Also, requiring people with 4* rosters to use 1* and 2* characters is dumb and dare I say a little degrading. Would be great if they added CL so higher tier players could skip the 1 and 2* nodes and have a 4 or 5* node to play for a 4* cover instead.
Rockwell75 said: PVP and PVE players can't even get a 5* from top placement-- I highly doubt they'll be offered in any way in the DDQ. There should, however, be a way to get a 4* every day from DDQ. The event that gives you CP should instead give you a cover for the 4* hero you need to use (and instead offer the CP through progression). Also, requiring people with 4* rosters to use 1* and 2* characters is dumb and dare I say a little degrading.
entrailbucket said: Ok then, let's assume for the sake of argument that you've solemnly vowed to never compete for placement in any form, and if you're in danger of earning a placement reward you'll purposely get out of the way so a competitive player can earn that reward.In that case, I agree with your point. You getting more 5* doesn't affect me, or anybody else, in any way. But how many players do you think would be willing to sign that pledge? And how many will stick to it forever?[...]You've misread my argument at some point (to be fair we've kind of bounced around all over the place). Awarding more 5* to everyone just pushes up the bar for everyone, it doesn't actually improve anyone's roster relative to the rest of the playerbase, which is the *only* thing that matters in a game where every mode is competitive and rewards are exclusive. So when I see people asking for more 5* for everyone, I often feel like they've not fully considered the implications of that request. And oftentimes when I keep asking, I find that what they really want is to improve their own position in the hierarchy. Hence "more 5* for me but not for anybody else."
JDFiend said: entrailbucket said: Top 250? That means you're beating 750 other players, quite possibly other players who like to play and are competing, but can't do it optimally. Your intent is irrelevant, the irrefutable fact is that your play is taking rewards away from them. We're all competing for the same pool of rewards, and whatever you get is something someone else doesn't get. Those 750 other players exist, no matter how much you dismiss them as "casuals" or whatever. Understanding intent is central to understanding the sense that a person is using a word within. Compete has three distinct senses of use in the English Language: -strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over othersbe able to rival another or others.take part in a contestIt's clear from the context that they were using it in the first sense. They are not competing as they are not striving or trying to win anything - they just want to get their progression rewards. Intent and context are central elements to understanding and deciphering language. If they have no intent to compete - to strive are they really entering a contest? By the same token, if you win easily and it was a cake walk were no one could rival you - would it really be a competition? As one of the defining elements is the struggle to overcome.
entrailbucket said: JDFiend said: entrailbucket said: Top 250? That means you're beating 750 other players, quite possibly other players who like to play and are competing, but can't do it optimally. Your intent is irrelevant, the irrefutable fact is that your play is taking rewards away from them. We're all competing for the same pool of rewards, and whatever you get is something someone else doesn't get. Those 750 other players exist, no matter how much you dismiss them as "casuals" or whatever. Understanding intent is central to understanding the sense that a person is using a word within. Compete has three distinct senses of use in the English Language: -strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over othersbe able to rival another or others.take part in a contestIt's clear from the context that they were using it in the first sense. They are not competing as they are not striving or trying to win anything - they just want to get their progression rewards. Intent and context are central elements to understanding and deciphering language. If they have no intent to compete - to strive are they really entering a contest? By the same token, if you win easily and it was a cake walk were no one could rival you - would it really be a competition? As one of the defining elements is the struggle to overcome. Interesting, so let's say I join a CL5 PvP bracket somehow, with no intent to compete with those players, just to get 1200 points for progression. If I finish the event in 1st place, does the game psychically read my lack of intention to compete and award the 1st place prizes to the #2 finisher?
JDFiend said: Where is competing defined as receiving rewards?My supermarket rewards me for shopping there regularly, am I competing?
Tensuun said: Glad to hear I've done a fantastic job of convincing you, but I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. The level of detail seemed necessary to me; a Pledge to lose points on purpose so someone else can get placement is a pretty high bar, and I wanted to prove rigorously that other more common attitudes could have a comparable effect. I would have written less, but I didn't have the time.I only hope this means we may now discuss the viability of features that may affect the distribution of heretofore-rare in-game resources, without it being implied that those in favor of raising the supply for non-competitive players are dirty rotten hypocrites.--Anyway, what's this about the discussion having nothing to do with me? Is this not the DDQ thread, discussing basically the one shining oasis of MPQ in which no competition occurs?
entrailbucket said: JDFiend said: Where is competing defined as receiving rewards?My supermarket rewards me for shopping there regularly, am I competing? Since you're just going to ignore my hypothetical case and debate the meaning of the word "compete" instead of anything related to Marvel Puzzle Quest:"Supermarket" has two meanings --"a large retail market that sells food and other household goods and that is usually operated on a self-service basis" and "any business or company offering an unusually wide range of goods or services." Which one of those says anything about giving rewards? Are you sure you're shopping at a supermarket? The Ancient Romans didn't have supermarkets. Did they really exist? What about dinosaurs? What color were they?
JDFiend said:Neither. I have never said rewards were central to the concept of a supermarket. I wouldn't put the as a central component of competing either but you keep coming back to. As if the two are intrinsic. Every response almost. It is kind of interesting. Even though they have explained their intent as they maybe competing in a competition but they are not doing so in a competive spirit. I'd define most Tescos as a supermarket, and it is how they market themselves. However, context is important they do have smaller drop in metro stores, catalogues, banking services, mobile networks, broadband - so their is room for debate around that defintion. Context is the key mostly.Did what really exist Ancient Romans or Supermarkets? Pronoun could be interpreted either way. I'd say ancient Romans didn't - generally they were just Romans as there isn't a modern day equivalent like Greeks. Am sure there are theories out there somewhere the entire Roman society is a hoax.Dinosaurs. Again I'd say yes they existed. Others wouldn't, but I wouldn't try to change or disrepect thier belief or tell them they are wrong as I think differently.Think the colour of dinosaurs are still hotly contested subject. Though Barney conclusive proves it is purple and yellow.
Kahmon said: No, no. Please keep arguing about how competitive you aren't on a thread about the least competitive regular part of MPQ.