My thoughts on Feast

[Jigokunoreizasan]

I was with you all the way until point decay, 1000 seems pretty steep don't you think? as well as the hourly decay would also be kind of harsh since some people still want to do PvE content... forcing them to pvp all day everyday until the season is over is kind of unnecessary.

[Cynric]

I was with you all the way until point decay, 1000 seems pretty steep don't you think? as well as the hourly decay would also be kind of harsh since some people still want to do PvE content... forcing them to pvp all day everyday until the season is over is kind of unnecessary.

1000 is definitely a bit much. Maybe I'd lower it to 100 max unless they overhaul literally everything even point gain /loss. And 10 games could be a lot depending on queue time for role. I think RDPS would have to wait(not even play just wait) for like almost 2 hours worth of time for pvp a day just to maintain their ranks, and honestly even though some of us are no-lifeing it right now, we totally have lives outside of the game and I think a lot of us have raid days too. So maybe like 2 - 3 games max.

They'd never make it that difficult to maintain it anyway.

[Zetsumei_Tsunarashi]

I was with you all the way until point decay, 1000 seems pretty steep don't you think? as well as the hourly decay would also be kind of harsh since some people still want to do PvE content... forcing them to pvp all day everyday until the season is over is kind of unnecessary.

There has to be some kind of incentive to keep people queuing throughout the season.

In the current environment, feast season consists of a heavy push in the first week or so to gain as high of a point value as possible, and once people are comfortable that their position in the ladder is relatively stable, all of those players will stop queuing so they don't risk losing anymore points. They will only queue up if their position becomes compromised, which doesn't happen regularly because most of the competitors have also stopped queuing. This leaves only people below the top 100 left in the queue, and the queue times become so long that it becomes nearly impossible to reach the point values that the people who played in the first week were able to achieve during that initial period of high activity.

The point decay gives players a reason to keep doing matches. In the scenario where players have to do a set number of matches to avoid a penalty, as long as the number of matches required is not an excessive amount, it's fair to have a harsh penalty, since you have a reasonable amount of time to avoid the penalty. It ensures that people can't just sit on their points the whole season, and without a harsh penalty, people would just ignore the requirement. In the slow decay scenario, yes there is a constant decay, but it's slow enough that you can recover from it as long as you play a few games per day. Either scenario I feel is a reasonable solution that would serve to eliminate the current problem.

[Jigokunoreizasan]

snip

I agree there needs to be some sort of penalty for sitting on points, but 1000 is just to much, 1000 is about 45-50 wins worth. 100 points is a reasonable decay, it's 4 wins worth.

[Zetsumei_Tsunarashi]

I agree there needs to be some sort of penalty for sitting on points, but 1000 is just to much, 1000 is about 45-50 wins worth. 100 points is a reasonable decay, it's 4 wins worth.

The number is not so important, it just has to work out so that the penalty for failing to complete the requirement is greater than the risk of losing all the matches. Otherwise people will avoid taking the risk. So for example, let's say the requirement to avoid the penalty is 5 matches per day, and failing to complete this is -100. You have to weigh this against the risk of losing all 5 of those matches. So if you lose 15-20 points per loss, you may decide that it's better to just not queue as the difference is not very much. Whereas if it was say -200 it's definitely better to do the 5 matches. So yeah it doesn't have to be -1000 but you see the issue.