Placement discussion

124

Comments

  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2019
    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. :smile:
    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.
    No, removing tapping was a QoL change for ~1%  of people those who regularly compete for top 5 placement.  Beyond that tiny fraction of players, tapping had absolutely no impact on the game.  But that tiny fraction of players is also the most important 1% in terms of mpq's revenues, so their influence is outsized and tapping had to go (a change about which I do not complain, to be clear).

    In general, I agree with phumade and bowgentle's main points that (1) someone will basically always be willing to grind harder, (2) roster based scaling was horrible to the extent that it made the game harder for level 500+ rosters than it was for level 150 rosters (ergo soft-capped was a viable strategy).

    But I think jp1 has also stated a legitimate complaint that the reliance on speed as the scoring tiebreaker creates a pretty demanding optimal schedule (currently a player must have an 80-120 minute block of uniterrupted grinding wrapped around the slice-end time, but any point-refresh-over-time mechanic will create and optimal schedule).  That particular schedule is not possible for everyone.  Now, you can say that it is better than 8 hour refreshes or 2:24 hour refreshes, and I would likely agree with you.  But someone else can still wish for a theoretically superior alternative solution. 

    Personally, I mind the optimal schedule a whole lot less than I mind the ~70 matches a day threshold for max-prog.
  • ursopro
    ursopro Posts: 334 Mover and Shaker
    #bringtappingback
  • jredd
    jredd Posts: 1,387 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2019
    jp1 said:
    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.
    thing is, this has been brought up here 1000 times. lots of folk have proposed some really cool and exciting ways the devs could take the game away from the grind and hustle its current formats provide. the only thing they seem keen on doing is new events with the same mechanics and an endless stream of new characters. if it's something different you want, this game won't provide that for you. (one day i hope i have to eat that last sentence, but i'm not going to hold my breath)
  • DFiPL
    DFiPL Posts: 2,405 Chairperson of the Boards
    Phumade said:
    Level 460 is not competing for T5 in scl9, and barely competing against 470s for Top10.  You have to go to scl7 or lower if you want to play for the 4* prizes.
    Disagree re: SCL7 or lower.

    My highest character is 462. I have all of TWO 5* in the 460+ range. I have sixteen 5* champions. I routinely, when I can be bothered to not oversleep, hit top 10 in SCL8. That's, like, muscle memory. Where I have to 'compete' is T5 or higher, and even then, I've finished in the top three on a couple occasions. I don't play the 'flip' game. I join when I join and roll with it.

    That said, no, I'm not going to be managing any of that in SCL9.

    But neither do I have to drop all the way down to SCL7 to be competitive for 4* prizes. That's nonsense.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    DFiPL said:
    Phumade said:
    Level 460 is not competing for T5 in scl9, and barely competing against 470s for Top10.  You have to go to scl7 or lower if you want to play for the 4* prizes.
    Disagree re: SCL7 or lower.

    My highest character is 462. I have all of TWO 5* in the 460+ range. I have sixteen 5* champions. I routinely, when I can be bothered to not oversleep, hit top 10 in SCL8. That's, like, muscle memory. Where I have to 'compete' is T5 or higher, and even then, I've finished in the top three on a couple occasions. I don't play the 'flip' game. I join when I join and roll with it.

    That said, no, I'm not going to be managing any of that in SCL9.

    But neither do I have to drop all the way down to SCL7 to be competitive for 4* prizes. That's nonsense.
    I see plenty struggle in scl8.  You may be one of the fortunate few blessed with the ability to play at a high tier.  But I’m pretty confident that your account would be the minority when measured across all 5 slices and all the brackets in each slice.  I know when I play in the first bracket of scl 8, regardless of time bracket, I routinely get smoked for T2, and I actually try to play on schedule.  Congrats on your wins.  It’s gotten to the point, that it’s not worth the effort to drop an scl when the margins to win are tighter due to the lower health pools.

    we can all point to many exceptions to the rule, but that doesn’t mean the rule is wrong.
  • DFiPL
    DFiPL Posts: 2,405 Chairperson of the Boards
    Phumade said:
    DFiPL said:
    Phumade said:
    Level 460 is not competing for T5 in scl9, and barely competing against 470s for Top10.  You have to go to scl7 or lower if you want to play for the 4* prizes.
    Disagree re: SCL7 or lower.

    My highest character is 462. I have all of TWO 5* in the 460+ range. I have sixteen 5* champions. I routinely, when I can be bothered to not oversleep, hit top 10 in SCL8. That's, like, muscle memory. Where I have to 'compete' is T5 or higher, and even then, I've finished in the top three on a couple occasions. I don't play the 'flip' game. I join when I join and roll with it.

    That said, no, I'm not going to be managing any of that in SCL9.

    But neither do I have to drop all the way down to SCL7 to be competitive for 4* prizes. That's nonsense.
    I see plenty struggle in scl8.  You may be one of the fortunate few blessed with the ability to play at a high tier.  But I’m pretty confident that your account would be the minority when measured across all 5 slices and all the brackets in each slice.  I know when I play in the first bracket of scl 8, regardless of time bracket, I routinely get smoked for T2, and I actually try to play on schedule.  Congrats on your wins.  It’s gotten to the point, that it’s not worth the effort to drop an scl when the margins to win are tighter due to the lower health pools.

    we can all point to many exceptions to the rule, but that doesn’t mean the rule is wrong.
    My point is, where you're talking about getting 'smoked' in SCL8 ain't top 10.

    A roster at my level is more than capable of competing for top 10 with optimal play.

    As I said above, where I have to start 'competing' is when I want to break into the top 5. But just showing up and playing optimally, in most cases, gets me top 10.

    When it's a desirable character and SCL9ers drop down, yeah, okay, that changes.

    But I'd argue THAT'S the exception, not me somehow being faster than other optimal players with stronger rosters.
  • TeamStewie
    TeamStewie Posts: 357 Mover and Shaker
    I think the bigger problem is how much when you enter a bracket affects your placement.

    I know about all the rooms and stuff where you can get information about when your slice flips but there is rarely any info for my particular bracket until a couple of hours after it starts. I wind up having to make my best guess based on past starts and sometimes I get lucky but a lot of times I wind up in the 900s.

    Every time it happens I want to throw my phone because I know even if I clear as optimal as possible the best I can hope for is a t20 but most likely I'll wind up t50 instead. 
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    DFiPL said:
    Phumade said:
    DFiPL said:
    Phumade said:
    Level 460 is not competing for T5 in scl9, and barely competing against 470s for Top10.  You have to go to scl7 or lower if you want to play for the 4* prizes.
    Disagree re: SCL7 or lower.

    My highest character is 462. I have all of TWO 5* in the 460+ range. I have sixteen 5* champions. I routinely, when I can be bothered to not oversleep, hit top 10 in SCL8. That's, like, muscle memory. Where I have to 'compete' is T5 or higher, and even then, I've finished in the top three on a couple occasions. I don't play the 'flip' game. I join when I join and roll with it.

    That said, no, I'm not going to be managing any of that in SCL9.

    But neither do I have to drop all the way down to SCL7 to be competitive for 4* prizes. That's nonsense.
    I see plenty struggle in scl8.  You may be one of the fortunate few blessed with the ability to play at a high tier.  But I’m pretty confident that your account would be the minority when measured across all 5 slices and all the brackets in each slice.  I know when I play in the first bracket of scl 8, regardless of time bracket, I routinely get smoked for T2, and I actually try to play on schedule.  Congrats on your wins.  It’s gotten to the point, that it’s not worth the effort to drop an scl when the margins to win are tighter due to the lower health pools.

    we can all point to many exceptions to the rule, but that doesn’t mean the rule is wrong.
    My point is, where you're talking about getting 'smoked' in SCL8 ain't top 10.

    A roster at my level is more than capable of competing for top 10 with optimal play.

    As I said above, where I have to start 'competing' is when I want to break into the top 5. But just showing up and playing optimally, in most cases, gets me top 10.

    When it's a desirable character and SCL9ers drop down, yeah, okay, that changes.

    But I'd argue THAT'S the exception, not me somehow being faster than other optimal players with stronger rosters.
    Why don’t you keep track of the scores and rosters of the people who finish behind you.  Let’s just say the rank 10-15 players.  I think you will find that they are all consistently 455-465 rosters.  Who are probably within 5m of your overall time for the sub.

    Iam okay with splitting that difference to say

    465-475 rosters are competing for T5 or better in scl8, with no misses and within 5m of the total time open + close.

    455 - 465 are the bulk of rosters who will be in that T5-t20 range.  That’s pretty consistent with my experience and expectation and probably what any avg player could have done with Original posters roster and don’t forget you will see  two profiles in that range.  455-465 roster who play optimal and made every clear plus bigger rosters who actually missed nodes while competing for T5 or better.  

    But it overall I would buy you asseration that a 460 player should be competes for scl8 t10 cutoff, if they make every node and can. Finish within 10m of the overall  sub time.  The only way that player gets pushed to t11-t20 is when a bigger roster misses one or two nodes or when everyone else roster boosts


  • abmoraz
    abmoraz Posts: 712 Critical Contributor
    Phumade said:
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:

    prove me wrong.
    Well, I had some well-reasoned responses ready for you, until I got to the well-known "I'm trolling" line of "Prove me wrong".  So I guess you hooked me.

    /as someone else stated: under the current system, it's impossible to improve in MPQ unless people ahead of you quit or choose not to play an event.  That's not a sustainable system.
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,939 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2019
    Great discussion!

    I have a lot of random thoughts just reading through but I guess my main thought is that any changes made will create their own set of problems. We think it’s easy, but it’s not. 

    - Just do progression-only? God no. That’s DDQ. And it’s so boring. And that’s only like 5 nodes. Some people skip it altogether. But I need the iso. I’ve maxed every one star for variety. Still a chore. Please don’t make PVE another DDQ. I joined at 994 last event and so played progression only and it was such a slog. I climbed to 97 to finish but geez it was terrible. 

    - Just do timers? Then the top rosters will always win without having to work for it. The current setup allows for a skill element of timing your clears and winning the game of chicken. You can beat a roster way better than yours if they mistime their grind and run out of time.  Remove that and you can’t really do anything. 

    - Open up more time slices? I could be on board but they want enough players to open up CL10. Spreading the players even thinner with more slices would make that even harder. Not to mention they would be giving out more rewards, messing up the precious game economy. 

    - Don’t place me with 550 rosters! Umm... you can already self-select by dropping down in CL. @Phumade suggested this and it was a good point. If they just group you with like-rosters for the same prizes, what is the incentive to advance? The 4* tier is more fun, and some don’t advance because of the harder PvP mmr. Remove the PVE advantage (that one SHOULD get for having a better roster) and there’s no reason to level your 5s. 

    These ideas have been floated time and again. And while our system isn’t perfect, I really think it’s better than other options people often suggest. 
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:

    prove me wrong.
    Well, I had some well-reasoned responses ready for you, until I got to the well-known "I'm trolling" line of "Prove me wrong".  So I guess you hooked me.

    /as someone else stated: under the current system, it's impossible to improve in MPQ unless people ahead of you quit or choose not to play an event.  That's not a sustainable system.
    If by trolling you mean bluntly telling op about the realities of the game, guilty as charge.  Maybe I was the one who got trolled by assuming he understood the entire scope of mpq and the real size power and speed of the biggest rosters. And not realizing he could only speak from the perspective of a new 5* roster player stuck on a bad schedule.  I admit he’s not the first person in that boat nor will he be the last person in that situation.

    i fully agree with your second statement except to say, it’s survived 2000 days.  Which imho is no longer a speculation of sustainability, but a DEMONSTRATION of sustainability.  

    And honestly if if they kept the lights running for 6+ years across several hardware generations, then the devs are free to implement as they think best. The actual results will speak for themselves.  I don’t need to speculate for them about what’s sustainable.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    What I see is:

    Everyone has 24 hours a day.

    Group A has not much time to play PvEs optimally because they chose to use those time for real life matters such as for work or for spending time with their families etc, As a result, they missed out on good placement rewards.

    Group B chose to dedicate a portion of their time to play optimally; thus, they get good placement rewards.

    Group C would like to play optimally but none of the timeslices available is suitable for them.

    Challenge 1: Group A don't want to live a life like those in Group B. However, they want what Group B is getting. Typically, they want something like non-timed PvEs and/or shifting placement rewards to progression. Another suggestion would be unique conditions to win a match.

    However, there are a lot of potential issues. If there's a tie, it will still be time-based. Whoever can achieve the win conditions faster will have a higher chance of getting top 10. So, players who really want to win the prizes will keep on re-rolling the board until they can get a board that are perfect to them. This would be similar to the effect of "tapping". At the end of the day, Group A will gain new game playstyle in PvE but they still won't get top placement rewards.

    The point is Group A is still unlikely to see any major changes in their placement rewards even when new win conditions are implemented. The reasons are

    1) Timeslices are unlikely to go away.

    2) In case of ties, it will still be time-based. This means that players who start exactly when the PvE opens will have an advantage over those who don't. Since Group A don't want to schedule their life around the start of timeslices, they will probably still be way back at the line for a chance at good placement rewards.

    Wouldn't it be easier to increase the number of 4* cover in progression by 1? Group A can still play PvEs without changing their lifestyles and their rate of covering 4* will increase.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    edited June 2019
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:

    prove me wrong.
    Well, I had some well-reasoned responses ready for you, until I got to the well-known "I'm trolling" line of "Prove me wrong".  So I guess you hooked me.

    /as someone else stated: under the current system, it's impossible to improve in MPQ unless people ahead of you quit or choose not to play an event.  That's not a sustainable system.
    Same here.  It's always nice when someone leaves a clue to let you know they are arguing in bad faith. 

    I always enjoy when these threads pop up from someone who has only been playing a couple of years and doesn't know we have been down this road before.  Someone mentioned we see these before, but different people come and go on the forum, so sometimes they have to be re-hashed for the uninitiated.  Cest la vie

    Its also funny how when this thread pops up, looking for suggestions (that unfortunately plenty of us know falls on deaf ears, also already mentioned), that instead of getting suggestions, they get told how entitled or delusional they are.  Some are not even sugar coated (thank you for the decorum for those that did respond courteously).

    Seriously.   Op asked if there were ways to make it more fair.  That's all.  Perfectly normal to wonder, once your roster reaches a certain point. 

    I mean, i can understand the frustration. It drives me crazy in character threads when people suggest tweaks, nerfs, buffs, etc. The devs don't listen and won't take your suggestions, so save your breath.  And yet, people do.  Weird how these same people aren't in there, chastising and shouting down those threads as well, almost lending credence to the suspicion that they are only defending the status quo because they are a part of it...

    What's that?  Some people who will suggest character changes are probably in here arguing or agreeing that placement shouldn't change?  This is my surprised face.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    jp1 said:
    Daredevil217 said:
    Great discussion!

    I have a lot of random thoughts just reading through but I guess my main thought is that any changes made will create their own set of problems. We think it’s easy, but it’s not. 

    - Just do progression-only? God no. That’s DDQ. And it’s so boring. And that’s only like 5 nodes. Some people skip it altogether. But I need the iso. I’ve maxed every one star for variety. Still a chore. Please don’t make PVE another DDQ. I joined at 994 last event and so played progression only and it was such a slog. I climbed to 97 to finish but geez it was terrible. 

    - Just do timers? Then the top rosters will always win without having to work for it. The current setup allows for a skill element of timing your clears and winning the game of chicken. You can beat a roster way better than yours if they mistime their grind and run out of time.  Remove that and you can’t really do anything. 

    - Open up more time slices? I could be on board but they want enough players to open up CL10. Spreading the players even thinner with more slices would make that even harder. Not to mention they would be giving out more rewards, messing up the precious game economy. 

    - Don’t place me with 550 rosters! Umm... you can already self-select by dropping down in CL. @Phumade suggested this and it was a good point. If they just group you with like-rosters for the same prizes, what is the incentive to advance? The 4* tier is more fun, and some don’t advance because of the harder PvP mmr. Remove the PVE advantage (that one SHOULD get for having a better roster) and there’s no reason to level your 5s. 

    These ideas have been floated time and again. And while our system isn’t perfect, I really think it’s better than other options people often suggest. 
    While I disagree with a lot of this, it is one of the better reasoned and rationally explained responses for the side of keeping things the same, so thanks for that.

    I had a long response typed up, but to avoid another dumpster fire I’m going to just leave that out. 

    Sidenote:

    I would like to say this... just because a discussion has been had in the past doesn’t mean it has no merit in the present. Some new ideas might come up, things have changed, new people might get involved. It’s a silly notion to argue that something should have a cap on the amount of times it can be examined.

    Just post your roster and experience level in the main post.  I don’t bother posting to a lot of threads because I know their play experiences bear no resembalance to what I saw and experienced.  99% of the info you want/ need iis already out and documented.
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 1,081 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2019
    I’ll continue to post as I see fit, but thanks for the suggestion. 

    I could easily point out how you have continued to be rude and condescending through the entire course of the discussion. Each time you make a post, or how your “points” have flipped flopped several times to suit your argument. However, I’ve decided you have been coming at me with far too much arrogance for me to continue to engage.

    No loss to you since I only have 2 years experience, thousands of hours in, and enough money invested that I should be invited to shareholder meetings. I’m a total newb.

    Understanding how something works and agreeing that it should work that way are separate things.
  • jp1
    jp1 Posts: 1,081 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:
    abmoraz said:
    Phumade said:

    prove me wrong.
    Well, I had some well-reasoned responses ready for you, until I got to the well-known "I'm trolling" line of "Prove me wrong".  So I guess you hooked me.

    /as someone else stated: under the current system, it's impossible to improve in MPQ unless people ahead of you quit or choose not to play an event.  That's not a sustainable system.
    Same here.  It's always nice when someone leaves a clue to let you know they are arguing in bad faith. 

    I always enjoy when these threads pop up from someone who has only been playing a couple of years and doesn't know we have been down this road before.  Someone mentioned we see these before, but different people come and go on the forum, so sometimes they have to be re-hashed for the uninitiated.  Cest la vie

    Its also funny how when this thread pops up, looking for suggestions (that unfortunately plenty of us know falls on deaf ears, also already mentioned), that instead of getting suggestions, they get told how entitled or delusional they are.  Some are not even sugar coated (thank you for the decorum for those that did respond courteously).

    Seriously.   Op asked if there were ways to make it more fair.  That's all.  Perfectly normal to wonder, once your roster reaches a certain point. 

    I mean, i can understand the frustration. It drives me crazy in character threads when people suggest tweaks, nerfs, buffs, etc. The devs don't listen and won't take your suggestions, so save your breath.  And yet, people do.  Weird how these same people aren't in there, chastising and shouting down those threads as well, almost lending credence to the suspicion that they are only defending the status quo because they are a part of it...

    What's that?  Some people who will suggest character changes are probably in here arguing or agreeing that placement shouldn't change?  This is my surprised face.
    Thanks for this. I’m glad some people can decipher my intentions from the OP, especially after all the feces being flung around.
  • Malcrof
    Malcrof Posts: 5,971 Chairperson of the Boards
    i would like an option to join pvps as progression only. This way, all the competitive people can smack me around for points all they want, and my retals do nothing to them. The downside is 0 placement rewards, the upside, we can stay casual and remove all stress or need for shielding. I accidentally got a t20 finish in a pvp (yeah it happened with 3 wins, all seeds), and felt guilty about it, considering what others have to do for it, so if an option pops up to just be able to play with no red nodes removing the teams i can actually beat if i get a chance to play, would be great.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Malcrof said:
    i would like an option to join pvps as progression only. This way, all the competitive people can smack me around for points all they want, and my retals do nothing to them. The downside is 0 placement rewards, the upside, we can stay casual and remove all stress or need for shielding. I accidentally got a t20 finish in a pvp (yeah it happened with 3 wins, all seeds), and felt guilty about it, considering what others have to do for it, so if an option pops up to just be able to play with no red nodes removing the teams i can actually beat if i get a chance to play, would be great.
    Huh

    I didn't know i wanted a variation on this until you said it.  The number of wins would have to go down, 75 is still way too high.

    Also weird, if you went back even 2 to 3 years ago, and looked at threads asking for pvp changes to make it more "fair," there were similar arguments that it would *never* happen.  And yet, here we are today, with wins based.  Something that I, and others in this very thread need to remember; never say never.

Categories