PPPlaya wrote: People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled. What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck. For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes. My suggestion is this: Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it. If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me.
silverrex wrote: PPPlaya wrote: People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled. What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck. For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes. My suggestion is this: Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it. If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me. I vote this
_RiO_ wrote: silverrex wrote: PPPlaya wrote: People are addressing too many points. So the real problem gets muddled. What was wrong with this event in particular was the ridiculous level of rubberbanding. Sumi joined a bracket, didn't play for days and rubberbanded his way to a 2nd place finish. I was in 100th place and after a single sweep I would be in 4th. That's insane and volatile as heck. For the first 100 places, the top 10%, there shouldn't be any rubberbanding at all. If you didn't play a ton I agree that you should still be able to compete for a Beast cover but catapulting you into the Top10 is madness. If there is no rubberbanding for the top10% people who play casually can still win Beast Covers and people who put a lot more time into it can play for better prizes. My suggestion is this: Rubberbanding only to the 101st place in YOUR BRACKET, not the global one. That way you can get up into Beast range and from there on you get out of it what you put into it. If there is no Rubberbanding for the first 100, you could place yourself into 20nd place and be relatively safe for several hours. Since people would only rubberband up to 80th or 90th place you could most likely go to sleep with 6 hours to go. And the Top100 would for the most part be determined by who played the most. If there is a hole in this, please feel free to correct me. I vote this Thirded. Absolutely correct.
hex706f726368 wrote: But by the system suggested, anyone put into a bracket older than 2.5 hrs is already out of luck, sharding or not. To keep it fair, you'd have to start a new bracket, otherwise the new entrants would be a cycle behind and reliant on the leaders falling off or missing a cycle. There's no way D3 would let brackets go w/o being full, so I'm not seeing how that solution is any better. It seems worse. I DO think I should be able to join an event when it's convenient for me and not be punished. I don't care if I have to put in the same, more or less effort. Just let me PLAY on my time. I have a JOB that requires me to WORK on a schedule. Forcing me to be attendant at the end time is bad enough; I'd prefer it wasn't made worse.
Ben Grimm wrote: MikeHock wrote: Playing inefficiently? I do not bend my life around MPQ. There's your problem. This isn't a game; it's a lifestyle, a cult, it controls your life and you serve it. It is your master. If you have free time that isn't dedicated to feeding its gaping maw then it has not failed you; you have failed it. MPQ is your god, now.
MikeHock wrote: Playing inefficiently? I do not bend my life around MPQ.
PPPlaya wrote: According to your opinion it is a travesty when you join 1 cycle late because you can't Top10 anymore (Which you totally can if you don't miss any cycles but since you have a work schedule you'll probably miss a ton anyway) but it's completely acceptable that people in Europe went to sleep in first place and woke up in 250th. You maintain that you should be able to join whenever and still be able to get the top prize due to insane rubberbanding. By joining late and missing cycles you are doing a lot less than people who joined early, so I don't see why you should be able to catch up to them. Enabling a top100 finish is the compromise which seems the most fair to me. The belief that you should be able to top5 regardless of join time and cycles played seems outlandish and out of touch with reality to me. If you have a solution that fixes everything you are welcome to post it. It's evident from the thread people are NOT happy with the way it is right now. As is you will have to conform with what is best for everyone, not just you.
Phantron wrote: The rubberband is only an issue because people blame rubberband when they're outplayed since the game doesn't tell you how good the guys who passed you up are.
_RiO_ wrote: Phantron wrote: The rubberband is only an issue because people blame rubberband when they're outplayed since the game doesn't tell you how good the guys who passed you up are. Problem isn't justthe rubberband. It's the combination of the rubberband and not being able to play the last few refreshes. This will drop you far enough that you can easily be overtaken by a lot of people still further below you relying on rubberbanding. Thus dropping you even further. You can end an event in top 10 with 6 hours left on the clock. You can lose a few places due to top players competing 'normally' without much rubberband influence, but with each step back down the effect of the rubberband for the other players in your direct vicinity on the ladder becomes greater and greater. The effect snowballs and what initially is a 'small' step down of no more than 20 places, can leap into being slammed down multiple 100s of places.
Nellyson wrote: The whole PVE reward system is broken! Everyone should have the possibility to earn new covers and NOT by how they rank in the end. New character's covers should be handed out in the progression rewards. Make it completely up to the player and not how lucky you can get. And be able to earn all 3! Sure, make it ridiculously high, but then that way the totally f-d RB doesn't hurt the grinders. I personally like to start at the beginning. I like playing this game, yet I'm punished for liking to play. It's absurd. Make new characters available at a really high value. Grinders will be happy as their efforts aren't wasted and the Rubberbanders will be fine cause they'll manage to get up there as well without pissing everyone off.
LegendReborn wrote: If they want to keep rubberbanding, then they should try to rectify the perceived problem of missing rewards by only a miniscule amount of points. Part of that would be making a better progression system and another part would be creating more fair reward tiers that reflect how close scores are.
FierceKiwi wrote: LegendReborn wrote: If they want to keep rubberbanding, then they should try to rectify the perceived problem of missing rewards by only a miniscule amount of points. Part of that would be making a better progression system and another part would be creating more fair reward tiers that reflect how close scores are. How is this any different than being a few points away from a reward tier in PvP? Even if you gave everyone within say 1% of T10 those rewards then you just get the guy in 30th who's upset since he was 1 point away from getting that magic tier boost.
LegendReborn wrote: Because PVE implies that you aren't directly facing other players for the reward, at least not for the entirety of the rewards. Outside of the patch cover, there really weren't rewards for the transitioning player. The Deadpool event at least gave a deadpool cover through it.