CrookedKnight wrote: Phantron, I'd be shocked if the number of points lost for a failed attack is going down. As long as attacking someone and retreating produces a net increase in points the round robin exploit is still there.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Stax the Foyer wrote: Sure, if these changes actually move the equilibrium point up. Don't forget, that equilibrium point over the past two seasons or so has also been affected by a non-trivial amount of retreat boosting to inflate scores. Those are high-value targets, especially early on in the match, that gave other people targets to climb off of. That's going away, and many of the other factors that likely drove the equilibrium point down are still here: Increased volatility due to increased match length, which increases the likelihood of losses and which uses more health packs, limiting climbs. Increased visibility to lower rosters making it more likely to be hit while floating or hopping. Plus, decreased interest from PvPers who previously scored higher. I'm not so sure that the equilibrium point is going to go up significantly. I'd be pleased if it did, but we'll see how it plays out. I think we're talking about two different points. I'm talking the point where you can sleep unshielded, which retreat boosting wouldn't effect, and obviously there's no hopping there either (no high end player is hopping at 400 points).
Stax the Foyer wrote: Sure, if these changes actually move the equilibrium point up. Don't forget, that equilibrium point over the past two seasons or so has also been affected by a non-trivial amount of retreat boosting to inflate scores. Those are high-value targets, especially early on in the match, that gave other people targets to climb off of. That's going away, and many of the other factors that likely drove the equilibrium point down are still here: Increased volatility due to increased match length, which increases the likelihood of losses and which uses more health packs, limiting climbs. Increased visibility to lower rosters making it more likely to be hit while floating or hopping. Plus, decreased interest from PvPers who previously scored higher. I'm not so sure that the equilibrium point is going to go up significantly. I'd be pleased if it did, but we'll see how it plays out.
ShazamFTW wrote: So, basically, what I've been able to pull from this: A)25 points used to be the norm for like-leveled people. Now it's around 38 or so? So that's about a 13-20 point increase depending. Not sure if the limit is still 50 I can win from one match or if it's more now. B)The progression rewards will be the same. So, it's still 1000 for a 4* & 725 for the last gasp of hero points. Those are usually the two I care about. C)If I lose on defense, I'll lose about 5-10 more points depending. I see this as an overall positive, and will let me get more 4*'s for less shields. Am I missing something here? However, this doesn't seem to address the concern that people who start on the early half of PVP's are basically food for the people that start later. I don't know if there is a good answer to that. It might just be the nature of the beast.
evil panda wrote: if we, ahem, all tried not to hit each other while unshielded....ahem...nah that would never happen
aesthetocyst wrote: evil panda wrote: if we, ahem, all tried not to hit each other while unshielded....ahem...nah that would never happen First step ... segregate shield hoppers from non-hoppers ... looks like we are stuck at step one. Tell me again why all players, regardless of experience, goals, play styles, etc, etc, etc, are in a common pool, only segregated by the most arbitrary, incidental parameter, time?
ArkPrime wrote: Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far?
Pylgrim wrote: ArkPrime wrote: Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far? Er, in the example given by Will, in the past, from a defeat where the attacker got 25 points, the loser would lose 13 points, a 52% of the points given. In the new format, it's only 50%. Yes, on the paper you are losing more points on a defeat (6 more in the example given), but you also are scoring much more when you win (13 points more). So lets say that following exactly those numbers, you win once and are defeated once: Before you'd end with a total of +12 points, from now on, you'll end with a total of +19 points. An unarguably positive outcome. Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.
Pylgrim wrote: Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.