HoD is fun....

Options
2»

Comments

  • Volrak
    Volrak Posts: 732 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Laeuftbeidir said:
    By the way,the ladder system that has been mentioned.. We have that. It's the progression rewards - it just does not stretch all the way up to 100%, but ends with 30-60%.

    My idea was always to stretch progression rewards to the maximum score, with small intervals at the bottom (and depending on the tier), and bigger ones at the top,without touching the rank system.
    Agree with everything you said.  Rank rewards are the best they've ever been.  And I'm yet to read any justification for giving a rank n reward to players who were outscored by >=n other players apart from "I want (even) more rewards".

    The underlying issue seems to be events which are so easy that there are a huge number of perfect scores, combined with bugs which freeze the game for an unlucky selection of people.

    One other thing - a long time ago Hibernum ran an event whose progression tiers went all the way up to nearly 100%.  My memory is that there were many complaints that it did not take many lost points to rule out the highest progression rewards for yourself, which left players feeling demotivated for the rest of the event once they crossed that threshold.
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    You're right with that. It was a coalition PVE event ; if I recall correctly it was ToZ. I think the maximum progression was around 850, with around 900-950 maximum score? 
    Obviously perfect for players who were very competitive.. Not so for others.The idea I mentioned came from that very decision, it was to a) stretch the progression range so far, that maximum progression is literally impossible (for the Boss pve thingy. The idea was - when it's clearly impossible, then no one can complain), but to b) change the intervalles, so that they're smaller at the begging, and get bigger later on.. And to c) make the rewards in the intervals different, depending on the tier (you can easily calculate with 70% for the best reward in platinum - but a bronze player should get it with 40%.it's also not as good as in platinum anyway).

    But yeah, the complaints you mentioned quickly killed the discussion
  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,227 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Volrak said:
    Laeuftbeidir said:
    By the way,the ladder system that has been mentioned.. We have that. It's the progression rewards - it just does not stretch all the way up to 100%, but ends with 30-60%.

    My idea was always to stretch progression rewards to the maximum score, with small intervals at the bottom (and depending on the tier), and bigger ones at the top,without touching the rank system.
    Agree with everything you said.  Rank rewards are the best they've ever been.  And I'm yet to read any justification for giving a rank n reward to players who were outscored by >=n other players apart from "I want (even) more rewards".

    I support having reward tiers, and you can be assured it isn't because my rewards are lacking in Goblinpile. No, it's because I feel that the current system unfairly punishes people for point variations that frequently are due to bugs or bad luck, rather than lack of skill.

    Similarly, I dislike that the rewards are variable based on bracket, so that a person with a loss in one bracket might receive vastly disparate rewards from someone in the second bracket (we actually heard there was a third bracket for the first time in ages during HoD--bet that was a great one to be in!).

    Ladder systems don't eliminate or stifle competition. You still have to earn your points by beating people.  Coalitions still will try to score highly to beat other coalitions.  However, ladders help reduce the inequity and randomness of prize distribution by placing it in specific, pre-defined tiers.  Heck, you wouldn't even have to worry about a person scoring more than maximum, because it wouldn't push perfects out of the highest tier.

    Tangentially, it's always seemed a bit inconsistent that Player A can fail six objectives and score higher than Player B, who meets all of the objectives but loses. Yes, the primary objective should be to win, but this method de-incentivizes objectives in a way I'm not sure is healthy. I'd like to see them award partial points for objective completion.

    But you know, we've all had this discussion before.
    Volrak said:

    One other thing - a long time ago Hibernum ran an event whose progression tiers went all the way up to nearly 100%.  My memory is that there were many complaints that it did not take many lost points to rule out the highest progression rewards for yourself, which left players feeling demotivated for the rest of the event once they crossed that threshold.
    To be fair, this has also been the case at the other extreme, where people play the game to progression, and then are demotivated to play the rest of the event.

Categories