Time slots

MGray

During one of the surveys you asked about times....we have several people who need a 6 am  time slot...Pacific zone
do you plan on doing anything for these people. We can't be the only ones. 

Phumade

MGray said:

During one of the surveys you asked about times....we have several people who need a 6 am  time slot...Pacific zone
do you plan on doing anything for these people. We can't be the only ones. 

Unfortunately, the world is round and everyone does not live in the same timezone.  I certainly do empathize with your issue, but some one will always be inconvenience if there is a single unified end point.  The game actually had a single unified start and end and it was a brutal experience for European and Asian players who had to do event finishes in the middle of the night.  Not to mention US players who were caught in the middle of there commutes/workdays (6am pacific is 9am eastern)

Its also worth nothing that the fundamental mechanics of PVE (i.e. points refreshed) is based on elapsed time.  This is an important concept to grasp because points and time zones are interlinked concepts that cannot be separated from each other.

Specifically, using time to regenerate points means, there will always be an optimal duration for maximizing score.  Once players realize/calculate that optimal duration.  There will always be a ideal start and finish point in time to reach theoretical maximum.  In general, the latest possible start/finish time will be the best because it allows players to see all possible results and calibrate their play based on all prior results.  It doesn't matter if you said give ever player a week to decide when they should do a 24hr cycle.  Game theory will always dictate that players should wait until the last possible moment to start their cycle and as a result a ideal finishing time will be created.

Lets use Support Circuit (which is essentially a 1 day/24hr pve sub) as an example to understand this concept.  For scoring/prize purposes, lets combine all point totals into 1 leaderboard and distribute prizes according to the current rates.  (T10 = T1%, so on down the line)

If you gave players the opportunity to start and finish support circuit anytime they want over a 1 week duration.  Optimal players will by default gravitate to the last 24 hours of that event.  Essentially, they will just play as normal but adjust their finish time to coincide will the last acceptable finish time for the week. (so they can encompass all information discovered by early players)  

They would need to redevelop the entire concept of the game and completely eliminate the concept of time in the game before they could give us Timezone free play.

Even in PVP, real life schedules and conflicts interact with the game.  I.e. people will always pick event ends that do not interfere with real life issues like work, commutes, sleep etc.



  

AXP_isme

So that’s a no then?

Alfje17

MGray said:

During one of the surveys you asked about times....we have several people who need a 6 am  time slot...Pacific zone
do you plan on doing anything for these people. We can't be the only ones. 

I can offer you a 7am slot, but you'd need to relocate to a GMT time zone.

bluewolf

This question/point has been raised numerous times in the past.  Of course, no matter what timeslots are available, some people will be left out.  But I digress.

The other issue is simply one of playerbase and rewards.  Every time you create another timeslot you create another set of high end rewards that are given out before a bracket is filled.  Some group of people who are playing non-optimally in a different slice (maybe 5) would shift over to the new one and reap the benefits.  The fact is, as far as I can tell, the playerbase is not significantly growing, and may be shrinking in net numbers (at least at the top end of the player base).  So creating another timeslot provides a bump in the "What % of players get high-value rewards" metric, which is almost certainly something the developers are paying attention to at all times, and probably is a factor in the reasoning behind the fact that the overall game rewards haven't changed in almost 2 years.  That is certainly a metric they want to strictly control.

TLDR:  If the playerbase was growing more, it would probably make it easier to add a new timeslot.

KGB

They should do away with time slots entirely in PvE. It *CAN* be done, they just don't want to do it.

The change would be simple:
measure time taken to complete a battle (from initial gem drop to victory banner) in milliseconds.
Least amount of time taken (to clear all PvE nodes say 5 times) wins.
If you don't complete a node, add a 2 minute penalty per node not finished.

Now you no longer need times slots, just finish your 5 clears whenever you want in the 24 hr time window.

KGB

HoundofShadow

You still need time slot. Think of Boss Events. Everyone starts at the same time. However, it goes without saying that in case of tie for ranking, whoever complete the nodes first will win. This means that whoever can play at that one timing will have a higher chance of getting into the top 1%. 


Edit: the thing about adding time is that the clock might need to be started at the server end to prevent any form of cheating from the end-user device. This means that if your connection is terrible, then your timing will be increased. Let's say you timed your completion to be 30 seconds, but due to your connections, you end up being recorded as 45 or 50 seconds. 

MegaBee

KGB said:

They should do away with time slots entirely in PvE. It *CAN* be done, they just don't want to do it.

The change would be simple:
measure time taken to complete a battle (from initial gem drop to victory banner) in milliseconds.
Least amount of time taken (to clear all PvE nodes say 5 times) wins.
If you don't complete a node, add a 2 minute penalty per node not finished.

Now you no longer need times slots, just finish your 5 clears whenever you want in the 24 hr time window.

KGB

How simple would that be to actually implement?

Phumade

KGB said:

They should do away with time slots entirely in PvE. It *CAN* be done, they just don't want to do it.

The change would be simple:
measure time taken to complete a battle (from initial gem drop to victory banner) in milliseconds.
Least amount of time taken (to clear all PvE nodes say 5 times) wins.
If you don't complete a node, add a 2 minute penalty per node not finished.

Now you no longer need times slots, just finish your 5 clears whenever you want in the 24 hr time window.

KGB

You would still have an ideal start and finish time.  If you don't believe me,  go first in that event and report back your exact team and play orders.  I guarantee you that the subsequent players will use that information to generate an even faster time.  

Efficient market theory will guarantee that later players will incorporate your play strategy to generate a superior score.

If you don't believe me that later players have an information advantage,  consider the first run of Fight for Wakanda, where every shard after shard 1 knew that the main event nodes where bugged and to give increased time.

Personally I'm okay with your idea as long as the last valid timezone matches with my current one and I'm able to leverage the information gained from prior players to build an optimum team (i.e. gritty vs thorokye, and determine if using Big thanos will be faster / more efficient than little thanos)

But again this only matters for competitive players.  if your just casual play, I'm okay with doing away with timezone as long as its still workable for West coast america players.

Edit an actual example is the April/may SS contest.  While the actual competition was time independent.   People who submitted their SS early basically gave a roadmap for later players to revamp their strategies and post a better solution.  If I recall, Day 1 submissions where around 120 points, and on the last day players submitted SS in the high 180 range.

Imagine how unfair it would be if the last time for a valid submission coincides with 8pm west coast time which is  what 4am London time?

KGB

Phumade said:

KGB said:

They should do away with time slots entirely in PvE. It *CAN* be done, they just don't want to do it.

The change would be simple:
measure time taken to complete a battle (from initial gem drop to victory banner) in milliseconds.
Least amount of time taken (to clear all PvE nodes say 5 times) wins.
If you don't complete a node, add a 2 minute penalty per node not finished.

Now you no longer need times slots, just finish your 5 clears whenever you want in the 24 hr time window.

KGB

You would still have an ideal start and finish time.  If you don't believe me,  go first in that event and report back your exact team and play orders.  I guarantee you that the subsequent players will use that information to generate an even faster time.  

Efficient market theory will guarantee that later players will incorporate your play strategy to generate a superior score.

If you don't believe me that later players have an information advantage,  consider the first run of Fight for Wakanda, where every shard after shard 1 knew that the main event nodes where bugged and to give increased time.

Personally I'm okay with your idea as long as the last valid timezone matches with my current one and I'm able to leverage the information gained from prior players to build an optimum team (i.e. gritty vs thorokye, and determine if using Big thanos will be faster / more efficient than little thanos)

But again this only matters for competitive players.  if your just casual play, I'm okay with doing away with timezone as long as its still workable for West coast america players.

Edit an actual example is the April/may SS contest.  While the actual competition was time independent.   People who submitted their SS early basically gave a roadmap for later players to revamp their strategies and post a better solution.  If I recall, Day 1 submissions where around 120 points, and on the last day players submitted SS in the high 180 range.

Imagine how unfair it would be if the last time for a valid submission coincides with 8pm west coast time which is  what 4am London time?

With my idea you can still have several different 24 hr time slots (as the game has now). In fact there is no reason not to do so because there are so many players playing and there are only 1000 per bracket so there needs to be a way to put players into different brackets etc.

You just pick 1 of 5 times slots (as you do now) and have 24 hrs to complete your clears (as you do now). The difference is there is no start/end clear stuff, no points refresh etc. Just the total time taken to do all your clears which you can do at your leisure (ie a few now, a few in a few hours from now etc).

I 100% agree that players can forward on info (ie what worked best) to future players to help them. That's perfectly fine and expected/normal. In fact one other thing my idea would allow is the creation of 'all time leaderboards'. For example the 1st time an event is run (eg the current Venon Bomb), the fast 20 times for each sub AND the fastest 20 times for the entire event are designated as the 'all time leaders' (these fastest 20 are across all players, not per bracket). You can view the names of the players and the times achieved (for bragging rights/strut your stuff etc). Next time the event is run, if a faster time is achieved, it replaces the lower time but with a bonus given out (replace an 11-20 time get an couple LTs, replace a 6-10 time, get an extra couple LT's + some ISO/RISO, replace a 2-5 time, get 3 LT's+ISO/RISO, replace the top team, get a random 5* cover of the current 5* essential+ISO/RISO). Then players have extra reasons to try and achieve better/faster times.

The difference with my idea is that there are no more excuses about timezones not matching up with where you live, refresh timers and start/end clears not meshing with your real life etc.

KGB

The rockett

Phumade said:

MGray said:

During one of the surveys you asked about times....we have several people who need a 6 am  time slot...Pacific zone
do you plan on doing anything for these people. We can't be the only ones. 

Unfortunately, the world is round....

  

Um....no it is not.  Right? @DjinnBabba
The world is flat.  

Phumade

KGB said:

Phumade said:

KGB said:

They should do away with time slots entirely in PvE. It *CAN* be done, they just don't want to do it.

The change would be simple:
measure time taken to complete a battle (from initial gem drop to victory banner) in milliseconds.
Least amount of time taken (to clear all PvE nodes say 5 times) wins.
If you don't complete a node, add a 2 minute penalty per node not finished.

Now you no longer need times slots, just finish your 5 clears whenever you want in the 24 hr time window.

KGB

You would still have an ideal start and finish time.  If you don't believe me,  go first in that event and report back your exact team and play orders.  I guarantee you that the subsequent players will use that information to generate an even faster time.  

Efficient market theory will guarantee that later players will incorporate your play strategy to generate a superior score.

If you don't believe me that later players have an information advantage,  consider the first run of Fight for Wakanda, where every shard after shard 1 knew that the main event nodes where bugged and to give increased time.

Personally I'm okay with your idea as long as the last valid timezone matches with my current one and I'm able to leverage the information gained from prior players to build an optimum team (i.e. gritty vs thorokye, and determine if using Big thanos will be faster / more efficient than little thanos)

But again this only matters for competitive players.  if your just casual play, I'm okay with doing away with timezone as long as its still workable for West coast america players.

Edit an actual example is the April/may SS contest.  While the actual competition was time independent.   People who submitted their SS early basically gave a roadmap for later players to revamp their strategies and post a better solution.  If I recall, Day 1 submissions where around 120 points, and on the last day players submitted SS in the high 180 range.

Imagine how unfair it would be if the last time for a valid submission coincides with 8pm west coast time which is  what 4am London time?

With my idea you can still have several different 24 hr time slots (as the game has now). In fact there is no reason not to do so because there are so many players playing and there are only 1000 per bracket so there needs to be a way to put players into different brackets etc.

You just pick 1 of 5 times slots (as you do now) and have 24 hrs to complete your clears (as you do now). The difference is there is no start/end clear stuff, no points refresh etc. Just the total time taken to do all your clears which you can do at your leisure (ie a few now, a few in a few hours from now etc).

I 100% agree that players can forward on info (ie what worked best) to future players to help them. That's perfectly fine and expected/normal. In fact one other thing my idea would allow is the creation of 'all time leaderboards'. For example the 1st time an event is run (eg the current Venon Bomb), the fast 20 times for each sub AND the fastest 20 times for the entire event are designated as the 'all time leaders' (these fastest 20 are across all players, not per bracket). You can view the names of the players and the times achieved (for bragging rights/strut your stuff etc). Next time the event is run, if a faster time is achieved, it replaces the lower time but with a bonus given out (replace an 11-20 time get an couple LTs, replace a 6-10 time, get an extra couple LT's + some ISO/RISO, replace a 2-5 time, get 3 LT's+ISO/RISO, replace the top team, get a random 5* cover of the current 5* essential+ISO/RISO). Then players have extra reasons to try and achieve better/faster times.

The difference with my idea is that there are no more excuses about timezones not matching up with where you live, refresh timers and start/end clears not meshing with your real life etc.

KGB

That doesn’t help the op at all

same 5 time zones,  except it’s now more important to be the last player to go because they can in corporate all prior before the times get locked.

 all the best players will congregate around those 5 end points,  speed rush the finish, and report back to the various pve rooms about play order and team comps.

This is actually more difficult for engineering because you concentrate the server load around 5 discreet end points vs forcing players to spread out the load over the optimal refresh duration.

id be even more pissed because it would be mandatory to read up on the latest speed run team to be viable for placement.  I kinda get the sense OP wanted a less intense experience not a more intense experience.

when people complain about time zone it really means they want less penalty for random play and still be viable for placement.  Any system that involves times by DEFAULT creates an incentive to be the last player.  It’s intrinsically tied into the concept of elapsed time

edit
im okay with systems that make it harder for casual players in an effort to streamline play for vets.  It doesn’t really impact my play, but I think it’s important to be objective of the consequences for both casual and comp players and not just trade one time zone based system for another timeOne based system without acknowledging who is actually benefiting and losing under the change.

HoundofShadow

How do you deal with players who will definitely retreat matches in order to get a favorable board so that they can get the shortest clear time? 

KGB

HoundofShadow said:

How do you deal with players who will definitely retreat matches in order to get a favorable board so that they can get the shortest clear time? 

You time is the sum of all the attempts (successful or not) to do the clears. So if you retreat (or outright lose), the time you spend deciding to retreat (or lose) gets added to your score. If that's not enough of a penalty (ie 1-2 seconds before retreating) an additional time penalty for loss/retreat can be added. This time penalty is the same concept as what's needed for someone who doesn't do all the clears (ie does 1 match in 2 seconds and tries to submit 2 seconds as their clear time).

KGB

KGB

Phumade said:

That doesn’t help the op at all

same 5 time zones,  except it’s now more important to be the last player to go because they can in corporate all prior before the times get locked.

 all the best players will congregate around those 5 end points,  speed rush the finish, and report back to the various pve rooms about play order and team comps.

This is actually more difficult for engineering because you concentrate the server load around 5 discreet end points vs forcing players to spread out the load over the optimal refresh duration.

id be even more pissed because it would be mandatory to read up on the latest speed run team to be viable for placement.  I kinda get the sense OP wanted a less intense experience not a more intense experience.

when people complain about time zone it really means they want less penalty for random play and still be viable for placement.  Any system that involves times by DEFAULT creates an incentive to be the last player.  It’s intrinsically tied into the concept of elapsed time

I don't understand your point here at all. Either you misunderstand my concept or I misunderstood what you wrote.

If Usain Bolt runs first in a 100M dash and posts a 9.85 time, what difference does it make that he went 1st or last. Either the rest of the competitors can beat that time or they can't. Many sports (downhill skiing, speed skating, drag racing etc) are done this way.

Unless you believe some secret knowledge is going to be developed for PvE events that have been running for years (and if there is, it will definitely be common knowledge the next time the event it run) you either have the roster to make the fastest clear times or you don't. When you do so in your 24 hour window makes no difference.

If it's really *that* big an issue they can simply hide everyone's times and only reveal them after the sub closes. I'd be totally cool with that.

My concept totally removes all penalty for random play because you play when you want with no timers/points refresh. You can do 3-4 battles, come back a few hours later and do 10 more, come back later and do 10 more etc on your time since it's only cumulative time taken to complete the battle that matters.

KGB

Phumade

KGB said:

Phumade said:

That doesn’t help the op at all

same 5 time zones,  except it’s now more important to be the last player to go because they can in corporate all prior before the times get locked.

 all the best players will congregate around those 5 end points,  speed rush the finish, and report back to the various pve rooms about play order and team comps.

This is actually more difficult for engineering because you concentrate the server load around 5 discreet end points vs forcing players to spread out the load over the optimal refresh duration.

id be even more pissed because it would be mandatory to read up on the latest speed run team to be viable for placement.  I kinda get the sense OP wanted a less intense experience not a more intense experience.

when people complain about time zone it really means they want less penalty for random play and still be viable for placement.  Any system that involves times by DEFAULT creates an incentive to be the last player.  It’s intrinsically tied into the concept of elapsed time

I don't understand your point here at all. Either you misunderstand my concept or I misunderstood what you wrote.

If Usain Bolt runs first in a 100M dash and posts a 9.85 time, what difference does it make that he went 1st or last. Either the rest of the competitors can beat that time or they can't. Many sports (downhill skiing, speed skating, drag racing etc) are done this way.

Unless you believe some secret knowledge is going to be developed for PvE events that have been running for years (and if there is, it will definitely be common knowledge the next time the event it run) you either have the roster to make the fastest clear times or you don't. When you do so in your 24 hour window makes no difference.

If it's really *that* big an issue they can simply hide everyone's times and only reveal them after the sub closes. I'd be totally cool with that.

My concept totally removes all penalty for random play because you play when you want with no timers/points refresh. You can do 3-4 battles, come back a few hours later and do 10 more, come back later and do 10 more etc on your time since it's only cumulative time taken to complete the battle that matters.

KGB

That not true at all.  Even in those sports you mention, conditions change that advantage either early or late competitors.  For example in the very last Olympics a Snowboard won a gold medal in skiing because she took a different line than the other traditional skiers.  She essentially saw a faster line that wasn't obvious to the other more experienced skiers and had the benefit of going after the T30 skiers had done their final runs!  (I tell you this definitively as a ski coach, and if every other skier had taken her line she would have definitively lost).  There are many examples in sports where competitors want to go last to see exactly what lines were taken and what times/scores they need to post (go look at any snowboard comp to see the value of going last).

To pull this back to mpq,  You would be dead wrong to assume that the first player to do a clear isn't at a serious disadvantage compared to the same roster going last with the practice of going last.

I pose this as a simple question.  The high level comp rosters are built to have multiple ways to attack a board type (good heavy, tile movers, etc)  plus they have specialized builds that are designed to counter specific pairings.  I.E. how to beat royal family, beat gladiator/thor.  It isn't one size fits all.  The difference between using thorokye vs gritty is pretty marginal for high level players.  One pair might be 2 turns faster than the other based on the enemies.  The difference in 2 turns will absolutely be outcome determinantive in your proposal

The difference maker won't be that I run thorokeye and you run gritty.  It will be whether my 470 thorokeye is faster than my 470 gritty.  and that info will come from other players who have similarly sized roster who can report with specificity on what worked and didn't work.

Sm0keyJ0e

...and that info will come from other players who have similarly sized roster who can report with specificity on what worked and didn't work.

Actually I don't understand what you're saying either. Outside of Simulator PVE, the same enemies are found in every repeat of every event. There is no "scouting" needed and, in fact, there is no disadvantage to going first or advantage to going last. The competitive landscape is not changing as you pose in your skiing example. Wi-fi doesn't suddenly get worse late in the event.

Phumade

Sm0keyJ0e said:

...and that info will come from other players who have similarly sized roster who can report with specificity on what worked and didn't work.

Actually I don't understand what you're saying either. Outside of Simulator PVE, the same enemies are found in every repeat of every event. There is no "scouting" needed and, in fact, there is no disadvantage to going first or advantage to going last. The competitive landscape is not changing as you pose in your skiing example. Wi-fi doesn't suddenly get worse late in the event.

Sure the competive landscape changes.   Isn’t that the very essence of what they are arguing about in the Hodor room as we speak?  How node optimization depends on

“

so, if you have the full info on

1. when you cleared each node

2. how fast they regenerate

3. how long it will take you to grind each

you can get

4. at what time exactly they gain each point near the end

and therefore what order is best for you in that particular sub.”

There the research was focused on the refresh timing, but if it’s a pure speed run,  the research will focus on the exact configurations of supports, char builds, what model phone/tablet or pc hardware the game was run on, how many turns each match took etc (is thanos 5 overkill or could thanos3 do it in the same number of turns based on enemy health)

That info is all dependent on logging information on how specific configurations perform and then having someone else with a similar roster that matches perform the exact same path with a new iterative change.  I.e. someone run the same path with an iPad Pro vs Samsung galaxy.

and if you want to rely on your past historical data, that’s fine and I encourage you to do that  But someone else will have  no issues with performing verification runs to to ensure the model is consistent on each run of an event.  they won’t rely on BriGby to announce a change, they will know it when results are inconsistent with expected values.

I also fully expect that as new hardware is release each quarter, someone will provide data on how that changed times/point values restarting the entire process.  I distinctly remember Fightmaster saying many years ago that optimal clear order was pretty much defined based on largest to smallest.  Now the focus is on fast the timer regenerates and determine the exact time to hit a node.

my overarching point is that optimal is a continuous improvement process not a one and done deal.  You might feel 24hrs is a small enough window for competition/production, but in truth optimal can be broken down and tested on a run by run basis, with each run either validating the model or providing insight for new areas of investigation.

KGB

LOL. My head is going to explode from all this.

My system would be an infinite improvement over the current model because anyone, anywhere could compete for the the top spot on their own schedule and not by refresh timers or joining a fresh bracket in the opening few seconds etc. That's what PvE should be striving for.

If all these micro optimizations can be done based on other players reporting and your own prior experience, that's fine. That's the whole idea behind the T20 all time leaderboard idea I posted where times should be getting progressively faster each time the event is run.

If everyone also wants to try and finish in the last 10 minutes of the 24 hr time slot that's fine too. Just don't complain if you don't finish due to unforeseen circumstances like server overload (which can be compared to the course changing in skiiing that we both referenced as examples).

KGB

Sm0keyJ0e

Ok this is where I jump out of this convo. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

my overarching point is that optimal is a continuous improvement process not a one and done deal

Are you trying to say that this process gets improved mid-sub, and the ones who go at the end have a distinct advantage? That is like saying they invented a new wax that allows for .02s speed improvement for downhill skiing and your downhill skier is midway through their run.

Phumade

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Ok this is where I jump out of this convo. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

my overarching point is that optimal is a continuous improvement process not a one and done deal

Are you trying to say that this process gets improved mid-sub, and the ones who go at the end have a distinct advantage? That is like saying they invented a new wax that allows for .02s speed improvement for downhill skiing and your downhill skier is midway through their run.

You don’t think they do that already?  They have wax technicians that apply different waxes based on coach reports  and racer feedback.  But in actual practice they have different skis with different preps pre staged at the top.  They absolute change there gear based on racers who went  first.  There is a reason why they run reverse order and then rest of the field race. 

https://gearpatrol.com/2017/11/08/profile-curtis-bacca/

Here an article on what a ski tech will do to improve times and performance.  He literally took an athletes snowboard and regrinded a new structure between the training run and race run to improve placement based on the difference between what they thought would happen the days before the event to the actual morning run to the scored race run.

“Wescott botched his first trial run and Bacca was forced to scramble. He rushed from the race start back down to the wax room, where he grabbed a Nordic ski tech looking for some insight on ironing in overlays — a foreign concept in the world of snowboarding. After a lightning tutorial, Bacca decided to go for it. He worked quickly, rushed back through security, and made it back to the top of the course with little time to spare. Wescott won heat after heat, and eventually took home the gold medal. 

Bacca describes it as his crowning achievement. “I’d like to have that every day in life. I got really in tune with the weather and the wind and the snow, and all the elements that were coming together. It was like I had this intuitive sixth sense. Sometimes I make good calls, but this was different.”