PvP needs weight classes

alphabeta

Mr_Sinister wrote:

alphabeta wrote:

I'm confused - isn't this what SCL is for?

You are playing in the top level of the game available for a newly released character in the highest tier available through game play itself and your surprised that you are facing players with rosters at the top end of the game tree - where else do you expect them to play exactly?

I would agree with you if 5* players weren't also in 6 and 7, and not just a few. The problem remains there is no incentive for them to move into the same clearance level, so they don't. They are actively avoiding each other, even when it comes to season brackets.

I have no idea how many 5* rosters there are but there must be 000s by now atleast if not 000s. Are you saying they should all be forced into scl8 alone and have to fight it out amongst themselves for placement rewards despite having invested far more time and importantly money in the game than others who could then snap up easy placement in SCL6 and SCL7?

Before clearance levels game in there were Vet and Noob brackets and getting a noob bracket was random chance after a lot of tanking.

If there are 5* rosters now spaced out across 3 SCL levels then yes they may lock down top few places but all the 4* rosters are now able to compete for t2 - 25 where as before SCL everyone was in together and they'd be doing well to be in t25-50 because of the greater concentration of top end rosters.

Opening up SCL 9 & 10 would further help but given those top end rosters are the ones who spend and pay salaries of the developers in doing so I can't see them ever limiting how far down the SCL ladder those rosters can go so there will always be a few cruising to an easy t1 finish in SCL 6 - but that's still leaving far better placement options for the more developing rosters than before SCL came in.

Mr_Sinister

alphabeta wrote:

Mr_Sinister wrote:

alphabeta wrote:

I'm confused - isn't this what SCL is for?

You are playing in the top level of the game available for a newly released character in the highest tier available through game play itself and your surprised that you are facing players with rosters at the top end of the game tree - where else do you expect them to play exactly?

I would agree with you if 5* players weren't also in 6 and 7, and not just a few. The problem remains there is no incentive for them to move into the same clearance level, so they don't. They are actively avoiding each other, even when it comes to season brackets.

I have no idea how many 5* rosters there are but there must be 000s by now atleast if not 000s. Are you saying they should all be forced into scl8 alone and have to fight it out amongst themselves for placement rewards despite having invested far more time and importantly money in the game than others who could then snap up easy placement in SCL6 and SCL7?

Before clearance levels game in there were Vet and Noob brackets and getting a noob bracket was random chance after a lot of tanking.

If there are 5* rosters now spaced out across 3 SCL levels then yes they may lock down top few places but all the 4* rosters are now able to compete for t2 - 25 where as before SCL everyone was in together and they'd be doing well to be in t25-50 because of the greater concentration of top end rosters.

Opening up SCL 9 & 10 would further help but given those top end rosters are the ones who spend and pay salaries of the developers in doing so I can't see them ever limiting how far down the SCL ladder those rosters can go so there will always be a few cruising to an easy t1 finish in SCL 6 - but that's still leaving far better placement options for the more developing rosters than before SCL came in.

Since when is time invested a consideration to competition? Never in my opinion.

I think there should be a minimum cutoff, yes. SCL 6 is for 2-3* players, and currently we have whales saturating top placements. In other games such behavior is called griefing. You talked about the OP complaints about competition, how is a 5* player in scl6 experiencing competition? There is no challenge at all. 1200 is automatic t5, if not higher and they can roll out of bed and get that in a couple hours at most, no shields needed. It's a strange thing to be talking the fairness of competition to the OP then champion the very practice that is non competitive in regards to 5* rosters steamrolling in baby brackets.

Paying money already gives them plenty of competitive advantage, to say that it's fair for this behavior because they spend lots completely defies the intent of MMR, so I don't think They feel it's as acceptable as you make it out to be.

*Edited to be less confrontational

alphabeta

Mr_Sinister wrote:

Since when is time invested a consideration to competition? Never in my opinion.

I think there should be a minimum cutoff, yes. SCL 6 is for 2-3* players, and currently we have whales saturating top placements. In other games such behavior is called griefing. You talked about the OP complaints about competition, how is a 5* player in scl6 experiencing competition? There is no challenge at all. 1200 is automatic t5, if not higher and they can roll out of bed and get that in a couple hours at most, no shields needed. It's a strange thing to be talking the fairness of competition to the OP then champion the very practice that is non competitive in regards to 5* rosters steamrolling in baby brackets.

Paying money already gives them plenty of competitive advantage, to say that it's fair for this behavior because they spend lots completely defies the intent of MMR, so I don't think They feel it's as acceptable as you make it out to be.

*Edited to be less confrontational

Sorry but your argument holds no water. Time invested is a factor for competition because the longer you do something the better you should get at it - in MPQ that translates to better roster, higher characters and deeper bench. Why do professional sports teams train if practice (ie time investment) doesn't factor into competition. Why do golfers practice putting or F1 have 3 practice session and only 1 racing session per event.

Why should a 5* player compete in SCL 7 for the change to place in t5 and get a 4* covers and stand a decent change of missing out and let a non 5* roster cruise to t1 in SCL 6?

Barring 5* players from lower SCls isn't a competitive spirit its the direct opposite - I've seen SCL 6 brackets with multiple 5* rosters in it and there can only be 1 winner in that group.

Before SCL there was a single 4* cover awarded for placement in PVP (as per SCL today) - a transitioning roster below 4* never stood a chance of winning that before and yet now your argument is they should have not only a chance of catching a bracket without a 5* player in it but a guarantee no 5* player would be in it.

What if I soft cap my 5*s at 360 am I allowed in SCL6?
What about soft capping at 400 or 425?

The OP is overly asking for the ability to snag an easy cover for a brand new (and pretty decent) 4* character - that's the problem.

They can get a 4* cover for that character from progression in the next PVP at 900 and could have got one from the PVE progression already.

Across SCL 6 - 8 there are 11 places that could win 1 or more 4* covers - 5 slices and maybe 5 brackets per slice (probably less in 6 but I'll be generous). So 275 placement awards in total that could earn a 4* cover across the entire game.

Frankly the devs still treat 4* covers like they are some sort of golden ticket that need to be kept for a golden few on PVP placement - there are a couple of things that could address this - 4* placement for t10 in PVP as in PVE would be a good start.

But expectations need to be realistic from the players as well - like it or not the route to transition up to 4* is progression not placement in the game today (the route to 5* transition is even worse than that but that's not the point of this thread).

Mr_Sinister

alphabeta wrote:

Mr_Sinister wrote:

Since when is time invested a consideration to competition? Never in my opinion.

I think there should be a minimum cutoff, yes. SCL 6 is for 2-3* players, and currently we have whales saturating top placements. In other games such behavior is called griefing. You talked about the OP complaints about competition, how is a 5* player in scl6 experiencing competition? There is no challenge at all. 1200 is automatic t5, if not higher and they can roll out of bed and get that in a couple hours at most, no shields needed. It's a strange thing to be talking the fairness of competition to the OP then champion the very practice that is non competitive in regards to 5* rosters steamrolling in baby brackets.

Paying money already gives them plenty of competitive advantage, to say that it's fair for this behavior because they spend lots completely defies the intent of MMR, so I don't think They feel it's as acceptable as you make it out to be.

*Edited to be less confrontational

Sorry but your argument holds no water. Time invested is a factor for competition because the longer you do something the better you should get at it - in MPQ that translates to better roster, higher characters and deeper bench. Why do professional sports teams train if practice (ie time investment) doesn't factor into competition. Why do golfers practice putting or F1 have 3 practice session and only 1 racing session per event.

Why should a 5* player compete in SCL 7 for the change to place in t5 and get a 4* covers and stand a decent change of missing out and let a non 5* roster cruise to t1 in SCL 6?

Barring 5* players from lower SCls isn't a competitive spirit its the direct opposite - I've seen SCL 6 brackets with multiple 5* rosters in it and there can only be 1 winner in that group.

Before SCL there was a single 4* cover awarded for placement in PVP (as per SCL today) - a transitioning roster below 4* never stood a chance of winning that before and yet now your argument is they should have not only a chance of catching a bracket without a 5* player in it but a guarantee no 5* player would be in it.

What if I soft cap my 5*s at 360 am I allowed in SCL6?
What about soft capping at 400 or 425?

The OP is overly asking for the ability to snag an easy cover for a brand new (and pretty decent) 4* character - that's the problem.

They can get a 4* cover for that character from progression in the next PVP at 900 and could have got one from the PVE progression already.

Across SCL 6 - 8 there are 11 places that could win 1 or more 4* covers - 5 slices and maybe 5 brackets per slice (probably less in 6 but I'll be generous). So 275 placement awards in total that could earn a 4* cover across the entire game.

Frankly the devs still treat 4* covers like they are some sort of golden ticket that need to be kept for a golden few on PVP placement - there are a couple of things that could address this - 4* placement for t10 in PVP as in PVE would be a good start.

But expectations need to be realistic from the players as well - like it or not the route to transition up to 4* is progression not placement in the game today (the route to 5* transition is even worse than that but that's not the point of this thread).

Your argument was that they invested longer amounts of time and are therefore entitled to beat up on lesser teams without restrain or some fairness of competition measures being used to prevent such things. They aren't entitled to anything other than the goods they purchased.

You've seen multiple 5* rosters competing to win a level 6 bracket and only 1 could win... Yes but the others are basically assured to take up the remaining to prizes that they hardly need, pushing out others that are working their **** off against a much larger pool of players that can and will take their points, hundreds at a time.

You can dress it up any way you want but 5* players in a bracket meant for 3* transitioners is not competition, even if if there are a couple of them. It's the equivalent of letting a high school football team compete for pop Warner championship. Just because 2 high school teams decide to enter the pop warner tournament doesn't all of a sudden make it a legit competition. The actual pop warner teams have no recourse against the highschool teams and calling it competition is disingenuous best.
"Those highschool kids have more time invested, more practice under their belt, they're simply getting what's due to them beating up these children, it's all good".

I'd like to add that had SCL 8 actually brought something to the table that these players wanted, these issues probably wouldn't exist. If 9 gives a 5" for top placement, the amount of 5* in 6 7 8 will be small.

alphabeta

Mr_Sinister wrote:

alphabeta wrote:

Mr_Sinister wrote:

Your argument was that they invested longer amounts of time and are therefore entitled to beat up on lesser teams without restrain or some fairness of competition measures being used to prevent such things. They aren't entitled to anything other than the goods they purchased.

quote]

5* rosters can't see transitioning players in there MMR 99% of the time so they aren't beating up on them directly they are beating them in placement for a cover at a level above that which you say they are operating.

If the 5* rosters aren't entitled to the good by right neither is the transitional player which is what you are arguing.

SCL 6 can make a lot of sense for a 5* roster if the 4* prize is not an attractive one to them - progression will give them 2 3* covers which are likely useful to them in progressing championed 3*s and they retain same CP at higher level and shot at a 4* cover that is of use to them.

You are making some divine right of access to transitioners to 9% of the available placement spots rewarding a 4* cover at the exclusion of a segment of the player base that has once again invested considerable time and money in the game - the devs could easily have chosen to reserve prizes for those playing at that level.

They could lowered the 4* progression cover from 900 which most 2*/3* rosters won't reach either but is who you are arguing should get it via placement, but they didn't and they've actively said in the launch of SCL dropping down where the prizes where less attractive at the higher level was a feature and in the podcast that they monitor the level of players dropping down SCL levels and its not something they are uncomfortable with so for your preferred anti capitalist version of competition you might need to look for an alternative game because nothing in the history of MPQ would suggest the devs agree with your version of protectionist rewarding vs my free for all survival of the fittest.

I'd also argue with the notion implicit in your argument that the 5* rosters care about 1st instinctively as winning a match in a sporting sense - maybe a few do but the vast majority see placement and progression in individual events as resource gathering and the competition such as it is take place around overall season ranking.

carrion_pigeons

alphabeta wrote:

If the 5* rosters aren't entitled to the good by right neither is the transitional player which is what you are arguing.

*Both* players are entitled to experiencing competition. That is the point of PvP. When the 5* player can go out of his way to avoid competition, and in so doing deprive the lower player of competition as well, that is a design flaw, not something to be encouraged.

You can argue that rewards are inappropriately skewed and I won't disagree with you, but the adaptations high-level players have made as a result are not good ones. The game experience is worse for all involved.

Mr_Sinister

5* rosters can't see transitioning players in there MMR 99% of the time so they aren't beating up on them directly they are beating them in placement for a cover at a level above that which you say they are operating.

Score wise, not by actually matching them. They have vastly more access to points than do the players that actually belong in the lower clearance level.

If the 5* rosters aren't entitled to the good by right neither is the transitional player which is what you are arguing.

No, I'm arguing that allowing the placements to be shared by completely unequal competitors is stupid. The 5* team will win every time, both direct match competition and indirect point accrual competition.

SCL 6 can make a lot of sense for a 5* roster if the 4* prize is not an attractive one to them - progression will give them 2 3* covers which are likely useful to them in progressing championed 3*s and they retain same CP at higher level and shot at a 4* cover that is of use to them.

I think you're turning an exception into a rule here. Does this happen? Yes. Is that why most of these rosters are in 6? No.

You are making some divine right of access to transitioners to 9% of the available placement spots rewarding a 4* cover at the exclusion of a segment of the player base that has once again invested considerable time and money in the game - the devs could easily have chosen to reserve prizes for those playing at that level.

The inverse, and current situation, is these placement rewards across 6,7, 8 and season rewards are thoroughly dominated by 5* players. What's being asked for is a greater equality, and somehow that's an affront to you. You are talking competition, but really want the continuance of non competition for 5* rosters. To you, it's totally fine they dominate.

They could lowered the 4* progression cover from 900 which most 2*/3* rosters won't reach either but is who you are arguing should get it via placement, but they didn't and they've actively said in the launch of SCL dropping down where the prizes where less attractive at the higher level was a feature and in the podcast that they monitor the level of players dropping down SCL levels and its not something they are uncomfortable with so for your preferred anti capitalist version of competition you might need to look for an alternative game because nothing in the history of MPQ would suggest the devs agree with your version of protectionist rewarding vs my free for all survival of the fittest.

Where the podcast, I'd like to listen?

I'd also argue with the notion implicit in your argument that the 5* rosters care about 1st instinctively as winning a match in a sporting sense - maybe a few do but the vast majority see placement and progression in individual events as resource gathering and the competition such as it is take place around overall season ranking.

Doesn't make much sense. Season rankings are based on event scores so placing higher than the next guy is required for a better season score. Maybe they don't care about the event placement, but that doesn't mean they won't go for it. If they care about season ranking it pretty much forces their hand, wanting placement or not.

Archangel007x

Just throwing an ideal, how about limiting the characters rarity and character level that the player can use. Choosing a character that exceeds the level limit i.e. choosing a max champ 3* on SCL4 will set it to lvl 166 for that battle.

SCL1 - 1*
SCL2 - non champ 2* and lower
SCL3 - max champ 2* and lower
SCL4 - non champ 3* and lower
SCL5 - max champ 3* and lower
SCL6 - non champ 4* and lower
SCL7 - max champ 4* and lower
SCL8 - non champ 5* and lower
SCL9 - max champ 5* and lower
SCL10 - 6*???

Bishop

Mr_Sinister wrote:

5* rosters can't see transitioning players in there MMR 99% of the time so they aren't beating up on them directly they are beating them in placement for a cover at a level above that which you say they are operating.

Score wise, not by actually matching them. They have vastly more access to points than do the players that actually belong in the lower clearance level.

If the 5* rosters aren't entitled to the good by right neither is the transitional player which is what you are arguing.

No, I'm arguing that allowing the placements to be shared by completely unequal competitors is stupid. The 5* team will win every time, both direct match competition and indirect point accrual competition.

SCL 6 can make a lot of sense for a 5* roster if the 4* prize is not an attractive one to them - progression will give them 2 3* covers which are likely useful to them in progressing championed 3*s and they retain same CP at higher level and shot at a 4* cover that is of use to them.

I think you're turning an exception into a rule here. Does this happen? Yes. Is that why most of these rosters are in 6? No.

You are making some divine right of access to transitioners to 9% of the available placement spots rewarding a 4* cover at the exclusion of a segment of the player base that has once again invested considerable time and money in the game - the devs could easily have chosen to reserve prizes for those playing at that level.

The inverse, and current situation, is these placement rewards across 6,7, 8 and season rewards are thoroughly dominated by 5* players. What's being asked for is a greater equality, and somehow that's an affront to you. You are talking competition, but really want the continuance of non competition for 5* rosters. To you, it's totally fine they dominate.

They could lowered the 4* progression cover from 900 which most 2*/3* rosters won't reach either but is who you are arguing should get it via placement, but they didn't and they've actively said in the launch of SCL dropping down where the prizes where less attractive at the higher level was a feature and in the podcast that they monitor the level of players dropping down SCL levels and its not something they are uncomfortable with so for your preferred anti capitalist version of competition you might need to look for an alternative game because nothing in the history of MPQ would suggest the devs agree with your version of protectionist rewarding vs my free for all survival of the fittest.

Where the podcast, I'd like to listen?

I'd also argue with the notion implicit in your argument that the 5* rosters care about 1st instinctively as winning a match in a sporting sense - maybe a few do but the vast majority see placement and progression in individual events as resource gathering and the competition such as it is take place around overall season ranking.

Doesn't make much sense. Season rankings are based on event scores so placing higher than the next guy is required for a better season score. Maybe they don't care about the event placement, but that doesn't mean they won't go for it. If they care about season ranking it pretty much forces their hand, wanting placement or not.

^I agree with most of Mr.sinister is saying here. Ive been reading up on these forums for years and it's always the same thing some people insist on trying to control how this game evolves. 5* players, lol you guys are the worst. At your stage of the game what do you guys have to even look forward to in the first place another 5*? 4s wouldn't really matter anymore 3s etc. if I have gotten 5*s maxed I would feel like I beaten the game and retired seriously. Legitly that is.

Teskal

First I think this should be in the suggestion section!

The Problem about scaling is not only with champed 5*.

I'm in the moment in the 2* to 3* transition. Most 3* I have are not worth to play with in the moment. So I use mostly 2* until my 3* good enough.

But I do not need to play against most 3* champed characters, same with 4* or 5*, even on the same level. There is no challenge to get only beaten within few rounds.

High Level 4* or 5* are even dangerous to 2* without even using their powers.

I think a system would be better where the stars are more important.

Maybe levels where you can play only specific *-groups of characters.
1. Level: 1* and unchamped 2*
2. Level: 2* and unchamped 3*
3. Level: champed 2* and unchamped 3*
4. Level: 3* and unchamped 4* (and any 1*/2*)
5. Level: champed 3* and unchamped 4* (and any 1*/2*)
and so on. Or something similiar.

And for players who wants it like the old system, an level with no such restrictions. Everyone, even 1* can try to get the challenge even agains 5*.

Edit: Just saw Archangel007x wrote something similiar...

Stax the Foyer

5* rosters sandbagging it at lower clearance levels is what happens when progressed players finally have some agency regarding the absurd increased difficulty and competition for similar rewards that they've had to deal with for years. Don't get mad at the players who do this. Get mad at the game design that makes this the obvious move.

After years of dealing with being squeezed into veteran brackets, we finally have a way to game the system in our favor just a little bit. So we're taking it back.



We're taking them all back.

therightwaye

To clarify my suggestion, I suppose what I'd be saying is that there would be no purpose for SCL except for ranking. Eliminate the need for SCL to play any event (any PvP event I suppose). SCL would then just a way for you to give yourself an overall score.

I would implement a weight system like this:
Events and rewards would be weighted by character level. Each event would still have brackets but those brackets would have a character level max.

Example, an SCL 6 PvP would be come a 227 max level PvP. Anyone can play this event, but only characters that are level 227 or below can be on the team. The only new feature would be to ability to cap the main character to a specific level.

In addition, I would create a OPEN bracket for each event without a level cap.

I think that roughly explains it.

_RiO_

Stax the Foyer wrote:

After years of dealing with being squeezed into veteran brackets, we finally have a way to game the system in our favor just a little bit. So we're taking it back.

I hope you do realize that the 'we' gaming the system which you speak of, are to the lower brackets meant for newer players as the "veterans" were to those old "veteran brackets". (Worse actually; since 5-star characters allow the power gap to stretch monumentally further...)

But now that it's 'you' on the winning end of that equation, it's apparantly a perfectly OK thing to do?
That attitude is not just the hallmark of a hypocrite, but of a sociopath.

Crnch73

I agree with the overall statement of this post, they would just need to implement a checks-and-balances approach to make sure people with 5* champs can't play down to the lower levels. Whether the higher levels get better rewards (I mean, what whale really cares about a random 4* for placement?!... But someone like me would LOVE it), or they make it so you aren't able to play below your max SCL while also opening up a higher level maybe? I don't know the answer, but they'd have to make sure it couldn't be exploited. Or... just fix MMR overall.

I personally have 4 champs in 4* (Cho, Iceman, Thor, 4clops), ant man is very close, but that's about it for now. I have gotten to 900 points exactly two times in my 460 days of playing. Whether that be due to me being not great at PVP, or my roster holding me back, or MMR just being crazy... I do not have the answer. But I agree whole heartedly that someone like me would benefit from the 4* rewards (placement and progression) a lot more than the people who are actually getting them. They probably don't even really care, it's just a meaningless trophy to them.

Bowgentle

Crnch73 wrote:

But I agree whole heartedly that someone like me would benefit from the 4* rewards (placement and progression) a lot more than the people who are actually getting them. They probably don't even really care, it's just a meaningless trophy to them.

Of course we care.
More champ levels for our 4s ---> more champ rewards.
Even if you have the 4 at 370, you can always start a dupe.

So pretty much everyone needs all the 4* covers they can get.

carrion_pigeons

Stax the Foyer wrote:

5* rosters sandbagging it at lower clearance levels is what happens when progressed players finally have some agency regarding the absurd increased difficulty and competition for similar rewards that they've had to deal with for years. Don't get mad at the players who do this. Get mad at the game design that makes this the obvious move.

After years of dealing with being squeezed into veteran brackets, we finally have a way to game the system in our favor just a little bit. So we're taking it back.



We're taking them all back.

Hey, by all means, keep "sticking it to the man". You are only making it more likely that whatever change eventually comes down will be unnecessarily harsh and ham-fisted, though. Like what happened to cupcakes.

I kinda wonder if your callback to the French Revolution is deliberate or not. Not like that turned out well for anybody...

Crnch73

Bowgentle wrote:

Crnch73 wrote:

But I agree whole heartedly that someone like me would benefit from the 4* rewards (placement and progression) a lot more than the people who are actually getting them. They probably don't even really care, it's just a meaningless trophy to them.

Of course we care.
More champ levels for our 4s ---> more champ rewards.
Even if you have the 4 at 370, you can always start a dupe.

So pretty much everyone needs all the 4* covers they can get.

I mean no offense here, but anyone who starts a dupe 4* because they hit the max level... that person is doing pretty well for themselves. You can't tell me that someone like that (or if that is you... then someone like yourself) cares as much about a 4* as I do. That doesn't mean you don't care, and it doesn't mean you don't still want that prize. However, it does mean that a single 4* cover means more to me than you. I am not saying you don't deserve the cover, I just believe in the model of this game, someone with an amazing roster shouldn't be able to compete at lower tiers against people with bad/developing rosters. If you have 5* champs, and you were to play against people with a few 3* champs and nothing more, you are taking a resource away from them that means more to them than it does you. That does not mean you are a bully, but it does mean that the lower person may get extremely discouraged and want to quit. If the devs can't give you incentive to play against the higher ups, that is not your problem, I agree. But that is what we are arguing here. There should be more incentive for you to play against better opponents, that way the lower guys can still earn rewards that will keep them playing. You aren't going to play SCL4 because the rewards are worthless to you, but if you play SCL6, then the guy who normally would play SCL6 will now have to play SCL5, and so on. So no matter what, it all flows downhill and the lower level people suffer.

I am not claiming to be "poor" in this game... but consider a homeless person vs. a rich person. To a homeless person, a handful of crackers for a meal means the world. To a rich person, a handful of crackers as a meal would not even move the needle; in fact it would probably be an insult and definitely not enough. Since it is the same handful of crackers, this means the same resource means more to the poor than it does the rich.

The game should be offering you a prize worth fighting for, rather than enticing you to play at a lower level, thus stalling the progression of lower level players. Similar to what someone above said, MLB never plays against AAA, NHL never plays against AHL, the NBA doesn't play against the development league. Because, the higher ups don't get challenged and the lower levels never stand a chance to win.

Stax the Foyer

carrion pigeons wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

5* rosters sandbagging it at lower clearance levels is what happens when progressed players finally have some agency regarding the absurd increased difficulty and competition for similar rewards that they've had to deal with for years. Don't get mad at the players who do this. Get mad at the game design that makes this the obvious move.

After years of dealing with being squeezed into veteran brackets, we finally have a way to game the system in our favor just a little bit. So we're taking it back.



We're taking them all back.

Hey, by all means, keep "sticking it to the man". You are only making it more likely that whatever change eventually comes down will be unnecessarily harsh and ham-fisted, though. Like what happened to cupcakes.

I kinda wonder if your callback to the French Revolution is deliberate or not. Not like that turned out well for anybody...

All the most serious posts have Goonies references.

It's not sticking it to the man, and there's no malice, it's just rational behavior on the part of the players stepping down for softer brackets. There's no way that the developers didn't see this coming. As soon as clearance level rewards were released, we all knew what was going to happen. If they were worried about this happening, they'd have designed the CL reward distribution very differently.

alphabeta

"SCL 6 can make a lot of sense for a 5* roster if the 4* prize is not an attractive one to them - progression will give them 2 3* covers which are likely useful to them in progressing championed 3*s and they retain same CP at higher level and shot at a 4* cover that is of use to them."


I think you're turning an exception into a rule here. Does this happen? Yes. Is that why most of these rosters are in 6? No.

How the hell do you know? Just because you have 2 5* champs you are automatically going to have every 4* championed - not a chance. Even if they did how do you know the extra 3* doesn't trip them into a champ level reward of an LT.

You think I'm turning exceptions into rules - I'm playing at this level and know a lot of similar players because that's the MMR I face day in day out. You're inferring I'm commenting from experience. Which has a higher evidential value do you think?

"You are making some divine right of access to transitioners to 9% of the available placement spots rewarding a 4* cover at the exclusion of a segment of the player base that has once again invested considerable time and money in the game - the devs could easily have chosen to reserve prizes for those playing at that level."

The inverse, and current situation, is these placement rewards across 6,7, 8 and season rewards are thoroughly dominated by 5* players. What's being asked for is a greater equality, and somehow that's an affront to you. You are talking competition, but really want the continuance of non competition for 5* rosters. To you, it's totally fine they dominate.

Yes what I want is the winner to be the better player - unfortunately MPQ if a free to play game not a free to win game - free to play means you can play for free, you want to win for free when most 5* rosters have spent a lot of money and played a lot of MPQ - want to win as free to play go to SCL5 - you don't just want to win you want to win the big boy prizes without a big boy roster - but you've very happy to eat big boy grills to get progression - recognising your hypocrisy yet?

They could lowered the 4* progression cover from 900 which most 2*/3* rosters won't reach either but is who you are arguing should get it via placement, but they didn't and they've actively said in the launch of SCL dropping down where the prizes where less attractive at the higher level was a feature and in the podcast that they monitor the level of players dropping down SCL levels and its not something they are uncomfortable with so for your preferred anti capitalist version of competition you might need to look for an alternative game because nothing in the history of MPQ would suggest the devs agree with your version of protectionist rewarding vs my free for all survival of the fittest.

Where the podcast, I'd like to listen?

Puzzle warrior 3 - was a few ago go have a listen

"I'd also argue with the notion implicit in your argument that the 5* rosters care about 1st instinctively as winning a match in a sporting sense - maybe a few do but the vast majority see placement and progression in individual events as resource gathering and the competition such as it is take place around overall season ranking."


Doesn't make much sense. Season rankings are based on event scores so placing higher than the next guy is required for a better season score. Maybe they don't care about the event placement, but that doesn't mean they won't go for it. If they care about season ranking it pretty much forces their hand, wanting placement or not.

How many 5* rosters play in S4 - they don't all end up in t5 - quite often they will end up only in t10 - which is exactly what the OP said had happened to him - t5 is a 4* price - 6 -10 aren't getting a 4* prize but probably could have in another slice or bracket. Even season ranking is more a badge of honour than anything - most players will have bought more 10 packs through the course of a season that they will earn finishing t1 in SCL 8 and 25 Command Points isn't even a single buy club.

Stax the Foyer

_RiO_ wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

After years of dealing with being squeezed into veteran brackets, we finally have a way to game the system in our favor just a little bit. So we're taking it back.

I hope you do realize that the 'we' gaming the system which you speak of, are to the lower brackets meant for newer players as the "veterans" were to those old "veteran brackets". (Worse actually; since 5-star characters allow the power gap to stretch monumentally further...)

But now that it's 'you' on the winning end of that equation, it's apparantly a perfectly OK thing to do?
That attitude is not just the hallmark of a hypocrite, but of a sociopath.

One of us isn't following the other's analogy. Might be me.

Locked CLs would be the equivalent of the old veteran brackets, where as you advance, you're squeezed into increasingly competitive brackets for the same rewards. That's absurd game design.

CLs had the chance to fix that, but they botched the implementation, or are too tight-fisted with rewards to implement them properly. The rewards are slightly better in higher CLs, but not by enough to justify the increased competition and reward dilution. The fact that people are playing at lower reward levels proves that.

People picking the reward level that gives them the best reward/effort doesn't make them a sociopath. It just means they're making rational decisions. But thanks for calling me a sociopath for ... understanding math?

Mr_Sinister wrote:

You are making some divine right of access to transitioners to 9% of the available placement spots rewarding a 4* cover at the exclusion of a segment of the player base that has once again invested considerable time and money in the game - the devs could easily have chosen to reserve prizes for those playing at that level.

The inverse, and current situation, is these placement rewards across 6,7, 8 and season rewards are thoroughly dominated by 5* players. What's being asked for is a greater equality, and somehow that's an affront to you. You are talking competition, but really want the continuance of non competition for 5* rosters. To you, it's totally fine they dominate.

If 5*s are winning in PvP, that's what actual competition looks like.