TheUnwiseOne wrote: We didn't mean to finish first. Total accident. Blame Hailmary. Always his fault.
Phantron wrote: gamar wrote: gamar wrote: I am confused by people raging against the 2.5 hour system; how are you defining "competetive"? It is really, really not difficult to play as "lazy" as you want and make top 20 or even top 10 as long as you hit each node once in the last 1 or 2 refreshes. It's MUCH better than grinding a half dozen nodes to zero at t-9 hours and t-1 hours. 2.5 hour refreshes have made it a lot less effort to get top 20 and a lot more effort to get top 5, and I'm fine with that. Someday I will learn to not post things I like about the game on these forums because that just means d3p will change it THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS The system didn't change. It was just that once everyone figured out you're supposed to only do nodes when they're at 100% as often as possible then it turns into a worse grind because everyone else is doing the same thing.
gamar wrote: gamar wrote: I am confused by people raging against the 2.5 hour system; how are you defining "competetive"? It is really, really not difficult to play as "lazy" as you want and make top 20 or even top 10 as long as you hit each node once in the last 1 or 2 refreshes. It's MUCH better than grinding a half dozen nodes to zero at t-9 hours and t-1 hours. 2.5 hour refreshes have made it a lot less effort to get top 20 and a lot more effort to get top 5, and I'm fine with that. Someday I will learn to not post things I like about the game on these forums because that just means d3p will change it THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS
gamar wrote: I am confused by people raging against the 2.5 hour system; how are you defining "competetive"? It is really, really not difficult to play as "lazy" as you want and make top 20 or even top 10 as long as you hit each node once in the last 1 or 2 refreshes. It's MUCH better than grinding a half dozen nodes to zero at t-9 hours and t-1 hours. 2.5 hour refreshes have made it a lot less effort to get top 20 and a lot more effort to get top 5, and I'm fine with that.
Sandmaker wrote: So what do you guys think about the rubberband changes for this event? From what I could tell, they were going for a semi-decent ruberbanding below rank 20-30ish, and then almost pure grind above that. It actually seems like an okay compromise to me. Let people who want to take it easy still have a chance at all the progression + 1/2 covers, and let grinders who want top placement get it through hard work (and no sleep.)
Phantron wrote: It's always pure grind for equally capable players. It doesn't look like it until the top because below around the 20th rank or so there's a vast difference in player's ability. In this event the base point look roughly like: 3X500 for essentials 3X500 for 3 very hard nodes 2X400 for 2 pretty hard nodes 2X300 for 2 average nodes 3X200 for 3 pretty easy nodes First you have to calculate how many points you get per cycle. Someone who can do all the hard nodes for roughly 3000 points will easily overtake someone who can do one less mission for 2500 points. To the guy pulling 3000 base points each cycle, the effort of the guy doing 2500 (or less) is practically nothing. It's only in the top 20 range do you get everyone's base point to be close enough and then of course it just comes down to how many additional missions you can grind to try to stay ahead, especially for the final cycle. Based on my experience on the first two days, just doing 3X500 essential + 2X400 pretty hard for 2300 was more than enough to stay in top 100. This means 2300 base points is more than what 90% of the population can do. When you're better than 90% of the population, it sure looks rubberband is generous to you, but that's getting the cause and effect wrong. It's generous to you because you're better than 90% of the population.
Lystrata wrote: There reeeally is something wrong with the scoring for these things. A player at 21st should not be getting the same lowly cover reward as a player at 150th. I decide to go for 'top 150' on this PvE, because I simply couldn't be bothered grinding for top 20, and it was pleasantly relaxing. However, my partner really wanted top 20, for the two covers, and the amount of time/health packs he had to put into it to aim for it... and then to drop to 21 in the last 4 minutes, missing out by 40 points... was absurd. Vastly different amounts of energy/time spent on the game, for ultimately the same reward (because iso/hp gains are marginal at best, irrelevant at worst, at the checkpoints between 150 and 20).
Bowgentle wrote: Lots of good stuff
Spoit wrote: Is it just me, or is RBing the wrong argument to have about this. For an event like this, even if the RBing is even weaker than it is, it's foolhardy to bother trying to grind multiple days out, because the scaling will make it impossible for you to compete in the last hour, while people with the essential super boosted character and not much else of anything can go drive the community scaling to stratospheric levels through match damage alone
Bowgentle wrote: 9) Competitive PVE in general That says it all, really. Player Versus ENEMIES. See? Enemies. Not other players. Get rid of these idiotic competitive aspects of the single player campaign. Get rid of leaderboards for PVE, get rid of giving covers out based on placement. Make covers progression based. Please. There's enough competition in PVP. Nobody enjoys the competitive aspect of PVE. Trust me. We don't. We won this event, and we hated it. Every minute of it.