Placement discussion

SaltyK

imho, if people can schedule their life around a mobile game, they should rewarded accordingly.

DAZ0273

jp1 said:

Okay....this is going nowhere. 

How is in the world would you know who is the better player? How can you possibly discount entirely the advantage of timing your clears for optimization? How do you know if that person could compete in a different environment (I never advocated for changing the times to fit my schedule)? 

You are are very confident in your arguments which a riddled with flawed logic and prejudice. You think the only people that can compete in any manner, even one entirely different from the one they currently excel at, will instantly adapt and still come out on top. That’s ridiculous.

This is the same as if you argued that the world champion chess player would also be the world champion at any and everything else simply because. You’re not offering any data or facts to back this assertion up, further you are completely derailing this thread from its intended course. 

Just because someone places top 5 based on optimized clears in no way indicates that they would automatically place top 5 if the point system was centered around a different metric that others might excel at. 

You clearly have a belief that the only reason anyone ever places in the top is because they are superior in every conceivable way and they couldn’t possibly be dethroned by any method. That is both ludicrous and demeaning to nearly the entire player base.

Please tell me you have simply been trolling.

In the "how small are you in the pond argument" I don't even rank as a microbe but there is one thing I have learned about MPQ in my time playing, especially from observing the various conversations - if the top players want something enough they will tend to get it. The way that some sub-optimal rosters not so long ago competed was you probably remember by "tapping" which compensated for speed with spare time available. The top rosters actively lobbied the Devs to have it removed even though it was very much a first world MPQ problem that affected very small percentage of players. And they succeeded. Those players claimed it wasn't fair/not design/unhealthy etc but if they were honest what they were really doing was protecting their own placement.

So I guess what I am saying to summarise Phumade's points is no matter what changes are made, the players who are used to getting the top spots will one way or another get those same top spots, be it through collusion, gameplay techniques or organised lobbying they will protect their positions and maintain the status quo. Sadly, the only realistic way to advance in placement is by top players quitting and their placement positions feeding down the chain.

DAZ0273

_Vitto said:

DAZ0273 said:

...

In the "how small are you in the pond argument" I don't even rank as a microbe but there is one thing I have learned about MPQ in my time playing, especially from observing the various conversations - if the top players want something enough they will tend to get it. The way that some sub-optimal rosters not so long ago competed was you probably remember by "tapping" which compensated for speed with spare time available. The top rosters actively lobbied the Devs to have it removed even though it was very much a first world MPQ problem that affected very small percentage of players. And they succeeded. Those players claimed it wasn't fair/not design/unhealthy etc but if they were honest what they were really doing was protecting their own placement.

So I guess what I am saying to summarise Phumade's points is no matter what changes are made, the players who are used to getting the top spots will one way or another get those same top spots, be it through collusion, gameplay techniques or organised lobbying they will protect their positions and maintain the status quo. Sadly, the only realistic way to advance in placement is by top players quitting and their placement positions feeding down the chain.

Not true then? I don't suppose it would be particularly hard to find the numerous tapping complaint threads.

Edit: The poster responded to has edited their post.

_Vitto

DAZ0273 said:

...

Not true then? I don't suppose it would be particularly hard to find the numerous tapping complaint threads.

Does it seem normal to you that you can start tapping a node several hours before event end for a single point? Does it seem a feature that the devs wanted to implement, or maybe it's a flaw that can be heavily exploited?

DAZ0273

_Vitto said:

DAZ0273 said:

...

Not true then? I don't suppose it would be particularly hard to find the numerous tapping complaint threads.

Does it seem normal to you that you can start tapping a node several hours before event end for a single point? Does it seem a feature that the devs wanted to implement, or maybe it's a flaw that can be heavily exploited?

All of that appears to be missing the larger point (and I am a mere guppy who never engaged in Tapping so have no dog in this fight). It was affecting top placement, ergo, it had to go.

Bowgentle

DAZ0273 said:

_Vitto said:

DAZ0273 said:

...

Not true then? I don't suppose it would be particularly hard to find the numerous tapping complaint threads.

Does it seem normal to you that you can start tapping a node several hours before event end for a single point? Does it seem a feature that the devs wanted to implement, or maybe it's a flaw that can be heavily exploited?

All of that appears to be missing the larger point (and I am a mere guppy who never engaged in Tapping so have no dog in this fight). It was affecting top placement, ergo, it had to go.

Tapping never was about smaller rosters keeping up with bigger rosters for top placement.
Some of the most egregious tappers were people with level 500+ 5s.

Thing is, if you wanted t2 with ANY roster, you HAD to tap.

Removing tapping was a QOL change for everyone.

DAZ0273

Bowgentle said:

DAZ0273 said:

_Vitto said:

DAZ0273 said:

...

Not true then? I don't suppose it would be particularly hard to find the numerous tapping complaint threads.

Does it seem normal to you that you can start tapping a node several hours before event end for a single point? Does it seem a feature that the devs wanted to implement, or maybe it's a flaw that can be heavily exploited?

All of that appears to be missing the larger point (and I am a mere guppy who never engaged in Tapping so have no dog in this fight). It was affecting top placement, ergo, it had to go.

Tapping never was about smaller rosters keeping up with bigger rosters for top placement.
Some of the most egregious tappers were people with level 500+ 5s.

Thing is, if you wanted t2 with ANY roster, you HAD to tap.

Removing tapping was a QOL change for everyone.

Oh I agree, I was just making a point generally, not really looking to criticise Vets. The fact is that (and I am not one of these anti-Vets players, I defend you guys all the time!) there was an organised response (via Rockett mostly) to something that threatened top placement in PvE. Any changes that might do the same would likely be met with similar push back. Why should those top players give up or have challenged their place at the head of the table? They aren't going to stand for it and history suggests a way will be found to maintain the status quo.

_Vitto

Enjoy this guy @Bowgentle
I give up.

Illuminati theories are not my thing.

WEBGAS

A progression rewards only PVE structure, has been asked for months (years).
The last online survey had some  specific  fields/choices to flag in order to ask a PVE playable at our own peace and time, without being forced to schedule our private lives around brackets.
Hope there will be changes in the near future, but I won't hold my breath upon it 

DAZ0273

_Vitto said:

Enjoy this guy @Bowgentle
I give up.

Illuminati theories are not my thing.

My name isn't "this guy" but I'm sure Bowgentle will have plenty of enjoyment any way, he has never been shy with an opinion in all the time I have been here.

You have me totally wrong. I'm not claiming Illuminati anything. I'm not even saying it is wrong for topm players to protect their positions. Top players deserve where they should be but they absolutely will act to protect that position. Or are you going to tell me there isn't co-ordinated dispersal of top players through SCL and brackets to enable the widest distribution of top placements amongst the elite?

If you want to deny that there weren't threads perpetuated on these boards that were designed to bring an end to Tapping then I can't help you because it really did happen and regardless of what you say, protection of placement was definitely a motivating factor.

As I said, I have long been a friend to the Vets of this board, defending against unfair accusations by jealous players but that doesn't mean what I say isn't actually the case.

bluewolf

Tapping was done for more than several hours in order to gain advantage.  Someone once posted their story of basically tapping for an entire day.

But while it, from one perspective, allowed people with lower rosters to "compete" with higher rosters, it simultaneously told people with higher level rosters that their effort and money were not as useful as having hours and hours of time to spend playing the same nodes over and over again.  

If it had continued, it would have very likely have begun to drive away some high end players (and spenders) who simply don't have that much time to play.  Not to mention that tapping was not a sustainable way to achieve placement for anyone beyond the occasional event or at most on a short term basis, just in terms of having the time and interest to spend months or years doing it consistently.  The practice was spreading, which is probably what lead to the developers eliminating it. The fact that high end players were most concerned does not change that it was not a good thing for the game on a long term basis.

It is a somewhat fair point, especially in the Era of Dilution, to say that catching up is insanely hard if not impossible.  The advantage that veteran rosters have from playing at a time when pulls were more concentrated, allowing higher level characters and champ levels to be built up with less pulls, really cannot be truly overcome.

You can hope that a meta comes along and that you can catch that wave, but the fact that you won't have the champ levels giving you a high rate of return (especially in CPs returned per champ level) puts you at a disadvantage.  But that's also the nature of any collecting game like this that has been running for years.

---

I think that:

1. Offering up some events with different win conditions would be good for the game and could help revive the waning interest among most of the players, especially long term vets.  Boss events are run pretty frequently and offer that opportunity.  Perhaps some raid events, designed well, could be something that players would enjoy as non-placement events.

2.  It is highly unlikely that the developers would completely eliminate the current PVE placement structure from the game, because there are a significant number of high end players (spenders) who have embraced it and enjoy competing under the current rules.  Also, it would take a lot of work.  (It also seems to me that making win conditions change with the season would generate a lot of confusion among a very large percentage of the players.)

3.  The current state of rewards and resource demands has gotten far enough from feeling fair to many players that some shift is probably needed.  If roster progress begins to feel better in some way, it would mitigate feelings of unfairness in regards to the current rewards structure and the strict scheduling requirements.

DAZ0273

Right and at no point did "this guy" state that tapping was good or desired.

But while it, from one perspective, allowed people with lower rosters to "compete" with higher rosters, it simultaneously told people with higher level rosters that their effort and money were not as useful as having hours and hours of time to spend playing the same nodes over and over again.

And

It is a somewhat fair point, especially in the Era of Dilution, to say that catching up is insanely hard if not impossible.  The advantage that veteran rosters have from playing at a time when pulls were more concentrated, allowing higher level characters and champ levels to be built up with less pulls, really cannot be truly overcome.

So again the only 100% way to advance is by player retirement handing places down the chain.

TranscendGod

I agree that if PvE were changed to value something other than speed, the most competitive PvE players would probably still dominate. However, there are some rather extreme and untrue claims about PvE that I'd like to address.

It is true that a 4* player would have trouble competing in CL9 (unless you join a late bracket, in which case it's not too difficult to get top 5. I did it several times back when I had less time to play). However, it is absolutely false that 4* players can't compete in CL7 or 8. I've managed to be top 2 in CL7 and CL8 in nearly every new character release event as a 4* player (while playing the entire event and not just joining a late bracket in most cases). When I play more casually in non release event PvEs (fooling around with fun teams and being quite a lot slower as a result), I still often get top 5/10 (in CL7 or 8).

I know players with relatively low level 5* champs who are much faster than most of the people with higher level 5s. Players with similar rosters can have dramatically different clear times. It is not true that you can never compete with most vets as a newer player without being a whale. With the right characters champed (even at a low champ level), you can be faster than most of them.

If you want to compete for a high rank, you can reduce your CL or join a late bracket. But it's also true that virtually everyone (including myself) could play better and be faster. I make numerous mistakes even when I'm first to finish my 4x clear. Most top 10 players in CL8 and below are far from optimal, even in competitive brackets in new character release events. Contrary to what some people are claiming, you do not need high level 5* champs to do well in PvE (especially below CL9).

jp1

_Vitto said:

...

jp1 said:

At what point did it seem like I felt I deserved better placement rewards? This is getting silly. I’m aware of the current game structure. I think it is a bad structure that doesn’t afford equal opportunities to the player base. 

No entitlement. Just an opinion.

The structure of the game provides equal opportunities to players who invest the same amount of money/time/strategy/roster adjustments.
It does not provide the same equality if any of those criteria is different with respect to the other player. And that's how it should be.

jp1 said:

If that’s the case then something needs to be done to level the field a bit so people can continue to progress in the 5* game. Someone with a roster full of 550 5s doesn’t need placement rewards. Maybe group everyone similarly to what you see in PVP.

This is tinykitty. Everybody needs placement rewards if he/she wants to progress in this game, regardless of roster level. 

If a player has 550s it means he/she invested money, effort and time more than I did in the game. Why should it be fair to level the player base? To make his/her efforts useless?

No. The structure of the game does not offer equal opportunities to all players that’s the whole point. By basing it on a clock people in different time zones will have inherent advantages. But okay, if you disagree... that’s kind of a dead end road to debate.

as for the other “this is tinykitty”. I have invested plenty of time and money as well. What would be “fair” is if the 550s weren’t my competition for progress, not if they couldn’t get it at all. What would be “fair” is if spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars meant something in this game. Promoting an impossible economy to traverse for newer (Going on 2 years, so I guess with MPQ that’s new) players such as myself to have a shake at continued progression instead of the Ayn Rand economic style setup we have now.

Fair is subjective, and as such it will always be fair to the people it is currently benefiting the most. While every change that makes them have to “adapt” will be unfair.

Anyway, I suppose this was such a hot button topic that it shouldn’t be discussed. I didn’t realize how attached some folks were to their security blanket. I thought promoting change that could positively impact the game for new players and, you know, keep it around longer was a goal of most people. All that has really happened is I have been quoted out of context to perpetuate flawed arguments and allow sour individuals to vent.

Sorry to the few who actually tried to engage in conversation that may be productive. Jumping this burning ship.

TranscendGod

Before you leave, I just wanted to say that I think you have some good ideas that could improve the game quite a bit. Especially the idea of rewarding more points for using more of your roster. This wouldn't fix the problem with stronger rosters dominating (it would probably make it worse), but it could make the game quite a bit more fun. It would also make clears quite a bit slower so it would be nice if they also reduced the total number of clears for optimal play in order to compensate.

To fix the scheduling problem, they could simply rank us by the total amount of time we took to complete our clears. This would allow players to start whenever they like, and to take breaks in between nodes. They could make it so that nodes reward a constant number of points and are locked after 7 clears. We'd be ranked by points first (in descending order), and then total time second (in ascending order).

jredd

jp1 said:

jredd said:

i don't play optimally and still finish top 50 most pve events. i don't expect nor do i deserve better placement rewards. if you can't play optimally you don't either. in no way should the game reward you equally as someone who plays more/more efficiently/more optimally. that's the way the current structure of the game is. 

i think what you're looking for are different, non-competitive, untimed (to a degree) game modes where the rewards are commensurate to your roster and how you use it rather than the times during the day you are able to play.  

At what point did it seem like I felt I deserved better placement rewards? This is getting silly. I’m aware of the current game structure. I think it is a bad structure that doesn’t afford equal opportunities to the player base. 

No entitlement. Just an opinion.

Wasn't that the point of you original post? unless you just want to finish top 5 for bragging rights? 

maybe your thread should have been titled something along the lines of the second part of my post which you may have missed. 

_Vitto

jp1 said:

...

No. The structure of the game does not offer equal opportunities to all players that’s the whole point. By basing it on a clock people in different time zones will have inherent advantages. But okay, if you disagree... that’s kind of a dead end road to debate.

as for the other “this is tinykitty”. I have invested plenty of time and money as well. What would be “fair” is if the 550s weren’t my competition for progress, not if they couldn’t get it at all. What would be “fair” is if spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars meant something in this game.

Anyway, I suppose this was such a hot button topic that it shouldn’t be discussed. I didn’t realize how attached some folks were to their security blanket. I thought promoting change that could positively impact the game for new players and, you know, keep it around longer was a goal of most people. 

They give you 5 different time slices, not 1. Saying that the advantage is based on time zones is just an excuse.
But as you said, dead end road I guess.

550s paid big bucks for people like you and me to be no competition to them, that's the whole point. You just sound delusional to me because you can't compete (and it is reasonable) with said rosters. 

Promoting changes is absolutely fine, no one rejected yours and many people tried in this discussion to support them. The issue with what you're writing is that you speak of fair and equal, but in reality is just "fair" and "equal" to you, not to the community.

jp1

jredd said:

jp1 said:

jredd said:

i don't play optimally and still finish top 50 most pve events. i don't expect nor do i deserve better placement rewards. if you can't play optimally you don't either. in no way should the game reward you equally as someone who plays more/more efficiently/more optimally. that's the way the current structure of the game is. 

i think what you're looking for are different, non-competitive, untimed (to a degree) game modes where the rewards are commensurate to your roster and how you use it rather than the times during the day you are able to play.  

At what point did it seem like I felt I deserved better placement rewards? This is getting silly. I’m aware of the current game structure. I think it is a bad structure that doesn’t afford equal opportunities to the player base. 

No entitlement. Just an opinion.

Wasn't that the point of you original post? unless you just want to finish top 5 for bragging rights? 

maybe your thread should have been titled something along the lines of the second part of my post which you may have missed. 

No. The point of my original post was to encourage a discussion about some ideas that might open up opportunities for a greater percentage of the player base. This could still be accomplished while remaining fair from a competitive standpoint. Some great ideas have been posted in the thread when people took the time to respond with something productive. 

I did did read the second part of your post, it was actually much more accurate for my intention, I just didn’t appreciate that it was wedged in with the comments about entitlement. Which are factually inaccurate, even if the original post reads that way to some, perhaps it could have been more eloquently stated, but even on a re-read it didn’t appear unclear to me. Text makes things so messy with tone having to be inferred that I can understand how it might seem different to some though.

Then the unfortunate back and forth that ensued really muddied the waters.

@TranscendGod -  Thanks, I appreciate that. I wasn’t saying I was leaving the forum. I just didn’t intend to start this thread so I could spend my time arguing. Definitely understand that we will all have differing opinions, but I was genuinely surprised at the snark. I would like to see the discussion progress in a more productive way.

jp1

_Vitto said:

jp1 said:

...

No. The structure of the game does not offer equal opportunities to all players that’s the whole point. By basing it on a clock people in different time zones will have inherent advantages. But okay, if you disagree... that’s kind of a dead end road to debate.

as for the other “this is tinykitty”. I have invested plenty of time and money as well. What would be “fair” is if the 550s weren’t my competition for progress, not if they couldn’t get it at all. What would be “fair” is if spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars meant something in this game.

Anyway, I suppose this was such a hot button topic that it shouldn’t be discussed. I didn’t realize how attached some folks were to their security blanket. I thought promoting change that could positively impact the game for new players and, you know, keep it around longer was a goal of most people. 

They give you 5 different time slices, not 1. Saying that the advantage is based on time zones is just an excuse.
But as you said, dead end road I guess.

550s paid big bucks for people like you and me to be no competition to them, that's the whole point. You just sound delusional to me because you can't compete (and it is reasonable) with said rosters. 

Promoting changes is absolutely fine, no one rejected yours and many people tried in this discussion to support them. The issue with what you're writing is that you speak of fair and equal, but in reality is just "fair" and "equal" to you, not to the community.

Okay. Agree to disagree. 

I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my intentions though. 

ZootSax

SaltyK said:

imho, if people can schedule their life around a mobile game, they should rewarded accordingly.

Playing on your own time as much as you personally want to is really it's own reward.  

Back on topic, placement has ALWAYS been defined by people willing to play a very specific schedule in a very specific way and if multiple people were willing to do so, the better roster will win, RNG not withstanding.  The original complaint has merit, but the answer is probably in a different game than this one unfortunately.