Brigby and Cthulu - when we will get feedback?

firethorne

Welcome Death wrote:

Before the participation trophy was placed at 575, 3* players pushed for 800 for the 3* cover, to 1000 for the 4*. Yes, 1000. The difference was you HAD to get there to get any 4* progress in pvp, so a lot more pushed, and the MMR rules for pvp protected them from much higher rosters (like they still do!).

Before the 575 change, cupcakes also still existed. A 3* player could get 75 points for taking out two 1*'s and the featured loaner. Getting 200 points in a single shield hop without taking any hits was possible. It isn't anymore.

tanis3303

GurlBYE wrote:

Welcome Death wrote:

Crnch73 wrote:

Welcome Death wrote:

It would be great if it were a 3* only and a 4* only store, tokens in progression. Move the 3* token to 575 for pvp, keep the 3* cover as is. Put the 4* token at 1k, the 10 cp at 1100, give people a reason to push again and use hp for shields. Pve just add to progression somewhere.

this makes sense, I just hope they don't take your advice... I have a hard time getting above 750 in PVP so I would miss that 10cp. That being said, those are just my personal gripes so I can adapt if need be. My ideal (even if not realistic) would be to remove the standard token at SCL7 and above, make that elite... then make the 3* where the elite used to be. Again, if impractical I am fine with any sort of change, I just hope they keep the 10CP within striking distance for me.

First, I applaud you for admitting this progression makes sense, even if it doesn't personally benefit you. Let's face it, getting half of a 4* cover BEFORE the 3* makes no sense.

So it makes more sense to move the half of 4 star beyond the 4 star

but makes no sense to move the 3 before the half of 4 star.

That's not logic, that's you just defending your own idea.

The worst part is you aren't actually thinking about what that will do.

More players will stop playing pvp at all if they only go to 575 now.
They certainly didn't fight to the top when 25 was there so how would your idea change that.

For what it's worth (which ain't much) he's right IMO...I only play to 575 nowadays, and if they push that CP up much higher on the ladder, I'm likely to stop PvPing all together...

OneLastGambit

Welcome Death wrote:

It would be great if it were a 3* only and a 4* only store, tokens in progression. Move the 3* token to 575 for pvp, keep the 3* cover as is. Put the 4* token at 1k, the 10 cp at 1100, give people a reason to push again and use hp for shields. Pve just add to progression somewhere.

After reading your post again and the many replies to it, I'm actually curious why you would want the scores to be higher? They are already pretty outrageous t10 is usually 2.5-3k in my bracket. If it's competition you're after surely those guys are the ones to chase?

I agree with adding more rewards in, even when I disagreed with your implementation I still agreed with the more rewards part (you'd have to be a bit mental not too really). However you don't increase engagement by moving the finish line mid-race, you do it by offering more prizes along the current course. Just for clarification in this analogy the finish line (for many) is the 10cp.

WelcomeDeath

Wow, a lot to reply to yet again. Here goes:

Magic wrote:

The fact that you don't understand the backlash on your comments show you are living in a bubble. Is that bubble multiple 5* so you need points in the shards to climb - be a man and admit if you are in that boat.

Ok, I do actually have multiple 5* (6 champs currently) but I do not and cannot climb off of 4* and 3* rosters, MMR simply does not allow that until after i get my cp at 1200, and then those battles are worth about 5 points. So, no, i do not need them to climb off of.

Crowl wrote:

The cp is fine where it is right now, acting as a useful incentive to bridge the gap to the 3* and 4* covers that are the limit for many players or as just a reason to go beyond 300 for others, pushing it back out past the 4* cover would be a bad idea as it wouldn't get people playing more so much as it would see people practically dropping pvp entirely, which was presumably the reason why it was added where it is now.

The cp was added where it is now as an apology for ending cupcakes. The fact that it is so artificially low makes no sense. A 2* roster can hit 575 if they push. Add that to pve progression and they could graduate directly to 5* with enough hoarding. I dont see an issue with pushing it past the 4* cover, or even putting it at 900 and the 4* at 1k where it always was, if that makes more sense.

OneLastGambit wrote:

You are right it is possible to hit 900 without a champed 4* roster. I know because late last season I had none of the boosted 4* so I decided to try climbing to 900 justusing the boosted 3s to see how possible it is. I achieved it but I'd be lying if I said it was easy or worth it. The amount of time I spent climbing didn't feel like it was worth the effort and if that 4* cover had been at 1k (like you suggest) I would not have bothered. This is what people will do, it won't drive them to compete more it will just make them stop climbing as the reward does not reflect the effort needed. For players above the transitioner level yeah sure they probably will but then they would do anyway so why bother changing it? The change doesn't really benefit anyone and the whole purpose of putting that cp there originally and lowering the score for the 4* cover was to help transitioners. Asking people with incomplete rosters to compete with people who have complete rosters so that they can complete their rosters seems counter productive.
3* covers don't help transitioners unless their transition is the 2->3* one.

A couple things here...it is currently possible to get to the 4* cover with a little effort? Then whats the problem? If players arent willing to put in the effort to move to the next tier, then they shouldnt move to the next tier. Also.. if 3* covers dont help 3* players, then why are they put in progression AFTER what is essentially half of a 4* reward and well into what many people are saying is no man's land for 3* players?

GurlBYE wrote:

So it makes more sense to move the half of 4 star beyond the 4 star

but makes no sense to move the 3 before the half of 4 star.

That's not logic, that's you just defending your own idea.

The worst part is you aren't actually thinking about what that will do.

More players will stop playing pvp at all if they only go to 575 now.
They certainly didn't fight to the top when 25 was there so how would your idea change that.

Valid point on this one. Ok, put the 10 cp at 900 and the specific cover back at 1k. Easy peasy. The vaulted token? Just forget it, its causing too much anger as is, eliminate that. 3* players certainly werent easily making 1300 when it was 25 cp, youre right! But why should they? Shouldnt it be 4* territory and then a shot at 5*? I really dont get why so many people dont want more 4* in progression. Anyway, while 1300 was not very easy, 900 was easy if people pushed for it. I know many blame cupcakes for this, and I would believe that...if s2 pvp didnt exist. There were no cakes in s2. There was very little coordination. In fact, the top rosters in s2 to this day intentionally dont shield and hit people to lower scores there for easier placement. But 3* players made 900 in s2...and that became much harder after cupcakes were abolished...but it wasnt the cakes, cant lose what you never had. It was the new progression that caused the issue, with so many giving up at 575. If you still dont believe me, I give you shield sim. The rules there for scoring are exactly the same as regular pvp except the breakpoint is set at 2k instead of 1k...but 3* players can climb off one another all the way to 1900 or so....and can make 2k. The reason this is still true is because there were no secondary changes to sim other than eliminating cakes. It works because so many push. Regular pvp could be the same, and was for a very long time, even in the post 5* world.

Daredevil217 wrote:

Welcome Death wrote:

Let's face it, getting half of a 4* cover BEFORE the 3* makes no sense.

Wrong. A 3* cover costs 20 CP. 10 CP is half of a 3* or a 6th of a 4*. Seems fair.

Because I'm sure thats what most cp is spent on, buying covers directly and not using the LT store, and I'm sure thats what you do with your cp. Lets not pretend. People use cp 90% of the time to buy tokens.

Daredevil217 wrote:

Welcome Death wrote:

Before the participation trophy was placed at 575, 3* players pushed for 800 for the 3* cover, to 1000 for the 4*. Yes, 1000. The difference was you HAD to get there to get any 4* progress in pvp, so a lot more pushed, and the MMR rules for pvp protected them from much higher rosters (like they still do!).

I would love the data to back this up (specifically the bolded). My guess is the players who hopped, spent money on the game and pushed then are the same ones doing it now, only with better rosters.

I'm guessing the ones who aren't now, didn't then but many will actually play PVP just for the "participation trophy" so overall it sees more traffic under this model than the old one. But I don't have the statistics that you do. So please share.

I would love those statistics as well! Alas, I dont have access to player engagement numbers.

firethorne wrote:

Welcome Death wrote:

Before the participation trophy was placed at 575, 3* players pushed for 800 for the 3* cover, to 1000 for the 4*. Yes, 1000. The difference was you HAD to get there to get any 4* progress in pvp, so a lot more pushed, and the MMR rules for pvp protected them from much higher rosters (like they still do!).

Before the 575 change, cupcakes also still existed. A 3* player could get 75 points for taking out two 1*'s and the featured loaner. Getting 200 points in a single shield hop without taking any hits was possible. It isn't anymore.

See above re: s2

OneLastGambit wrote:

After reading your post again and the many replies to it, I'm actually curious why you would want the scores to be higher? They are already pretty outrageous t10 is usually 2.5-3k in my bracket. If it's competition you're after surely those guys are the ones to chase?

I agree with adding more rewards in, even when I disagreed with your implementation I still agreed with the more rewards part (you'd have to be a bit mental not too really). However you don't increase engagement by moving the finish line mid-race, you do it by offering more prizes along the current course. Just for clarification in this analogy the finish line (for many) is the 10cp.

I dont want top scores to be higher. I used to chase scores, but ended up getting bored with it. Just too much work scoring 4k in an event. In fact I usually go to shards with lower scores for easier placement and dont usually do shield checks, so I'm not helping there. I would like to see the earned tokens for vaulted characters added to BOTH pvp and pve (where lower rosters currently have the advantage), and thought restructuring to a system where you actually have to improve your game to get higher rewards made sense. You have an issue with the finish line being moved, finally something we agree on! It definitely bothered me when they moved half the finish line to what was formerly less than half the race back in September...creating the 10 cp at 575 we are debating here today.

NewMcG

Welcome Death wrote:

A 2* roster can hit 575 if they push. Add that to pve progression and they could graduate directly to 5* with enough hoarding.

Sure, at 10 CP an event, and the "typical" 300 Latest Legendary pulls to max a couple latest legends, they'll be right there in *carry the 2* 750 events. Probably a realistic, legit complaint that this is how a 2* player would skip straight to 5* play...

Daredevil217

Welcome Death wrote:

Because I'm sure thats what most cp is spent on, buying covers directly and not using the LT store, and I'm sure thats what you do with your cp. Lets not pretend. People use cp 90% of the time to buy tokens.

Sadly since vaulting it's becoming much more normal. There's a LOT of waste now that we are only pulling from 12 characters so it's becoming much more of an option for me to buy covers directly. Also it's the best way to complete older toons now (spent 120 to finish Rulk and Punisher). I've already saved up 240 CP to spend on two Peggy covers (I'm at 10 currently). I am trying to pull ONE non-red before she leaves and am having no luck so may have to buy a third as well. Very very sad.

As for you not having statistics about what moving the goalposts has done for the game, I figured as much. You say make it harder and people will push more. I say make it harder and people will say "it's not worth it". I also maintain more people play PVP now than ever before due to the 575 CP being where it is, and you risk losing that. But we are both just wildly speculating.

As much as I've enjoyed the spirited debate, the fact is, your suggestions won't get implemented anyway. It would anger way too much of the player-base at a time when the company is on thin ice. So, moving the conversation back to something meaningful I'm wondering what people think of the developers narrowing down the decisions to vault or store? I don't like the idea of having to pay for the chance at an old 4, especially if old threes are mixed in. For the love of god, please keep them separate!

Alsmir

This is pathetic. 5* player making suggestions how to make it harder for anyone below his roster strenght.

OneLastGambit

Welcome Death wrote:

Wow, a lot to reply to yet again. Here goes:

OneLastGambit wrote:

You are right it is possible to hit 900 without a champed 4* roster. I know because late last season I had none of the boosted 4* so I decided to try climbing to 900 justusing the boosted 3s to see how possible it is. I achieved it but I'd be lying if I said it was easy or worth it. The amount of time I spent climbing didn't feel like it was worth the effort and if that 4* cover had been at 1k (like you suggest) I would not have bothered. This is what people will do, it won't drive them to compete more it will just make them stop climbing as the reward does not reflect the effort needed. For players above the transitioner level yeah sure they probably will but then they would do anyway so why bother changing it? The change doesn't really benefit anyone and the whole purpose of putting that cp there originally and lowering the score for the 4* cover was to help transitioners. Asking people with incomplete rosters to compete with people who have complete rosters so that they can complete their rosters seems counter productive.
3* covers don't help transitioners unless their transition is the 2->3* one.

A couple things here...it is currently possible to get to the 4* cover with a little effort? Then whats the problem? If players arent willing to put in the effort to move to the next tier, then they shouldnt move to the next tier. Also.. if 3* covers dont help 3* players, then why are they put in progression AFTER what is essentially half of a 4* reward and well into what many people are saying is no man's land for 3* players

OneLastGambit wrote:

After reading your post again and the many replies to it, I'm actually curious why you would want the scores to be higher? They are already pretty outrageous t10 is usually 2.5-3k in my bracket. If it's competition you're after surely those guys are the ones to chase?

I agree with adding more rewards in, even when I disagreed with your implementation I still agreed with the more rewards part (you'd have to be a bit mental not too really). However you don't increase engagement by moving the finish line mid-race, you do it by offering more prizes along the current course. Just for clarification in this analogy the finish line (for many) is the 10cp.

I dont want top scores to be higher. I used to chase scores, but ended up getting bored with it. Just too much work scoring 4k in an event. In fact I usually go to shards with lower scores for easier placement and dont usually do shield checks, so I'm not helping there. I would like to see the earned tokens for vaulted characters added to BOTH pvp and pve (where lower rosters currently have the advantage), and thought restructuring to a system where you actually have to improve your game to get higher rewards made sense. You have an issue with the finish line being moved, finally something we agree on! It definitely bothered me when they moved half the finish line to what was formerly less than half the race back in September...creating the 10 cp at 575 we are debating here today.

Well like I said it was far more effort than it was worth. For example climbing to 900 using a 3* roster took a few hours (only 1 shield) and many many many many matches where I yo-yo'd up and down. Its not that it cant be done with a little effort, it's that it requires a great effort to do it. The kind of effort which (had I not been purposely testing this) I would not have been willing to expend just for a cover and a bit of CP. The game structure you suggest would be increasing the amount of effort needed and reducing the valuable rewards at the same time. The issue with rewarding 3* to 3* players and moving the ability to obtain 4* away from them is that they will just tread water. Yes 3* are still useful but will they help a 3* player move into 4*? Nope. Even the 4* champ rewards won't since even if they max champ all 3s they would still only have 3 covers of a bunch of 4s which is of no good to them.

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here but this part of your response - which I have bolded - reads a bit like your bothered by the fact that lower players were granted access to something which previously only 1200 players were. If that's the case then there would be no reasoning I could present to you which would be palatable for you. If that's not the case then I don't understand why you are bothered that other players get half the prizes you do? It's not deducted from the prize you earn, you still obtain everything you did before (if you're still playing to the same level) so I really can't see why this bothers you? A change that helps lower players progress quicker is a positive change for the whole community since your mmr will start to contain more players quicker - and thus provide you with more targets.

Crnch73

in my opinion, until they fix MMR, then I don't see how they can push rewards back. Even if pushing them back makes sense from a hierarchy standpoint, the MMR can destroy this. For instance, I have maybe hit 900 in 6 total PVP events in my 2 years of playing this game. However, around 600 points or so, I start seeing teams (90% of the time) with 2 champed and boosted 4's, plus a very high featured character. Example: the red shift PVP. At 600-650 points, I could barely find any matches that didn't feature the following team... Switch boosted to near 400, Teen Jean and the Thing both boosted to about 380. I don't think I could beat that team, but that's the only team I was able to find. Also, I got hit by a few teams with boosted Switch, champed boosted Jean, and OML at around 370.

Luckily, the 900 point reward was agent venom, who isn't worth the hassle. And the way the vaulting has been going, I get a lot of his covers from LT's anyways. But overall, I didn't stand a chance thanks to MMR. Until they fix it (read: I don't want it to be easier, I just want it to be more fair and appropriate to rosters) then pushing the rewards back will feel like a punishment.

Fightmastermpq

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

Daredevil217

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

Nah... I just want to be a 4* player.

5* land sounds much less fun.

GurlBYE

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

As much as you guys let everyone in the forum know how unfun the game has become.

No i don't want to be a 5 star player.

PVE sucks and PVP is the same team ad nausem.
You fight the same players and use the same teams for everything
maybe 5% of all rewards are actually meaningful to you.

I actually get disappointed when 5's pop out instead of 4s.

GurlBYE

mexus wrote:

You're all talking about the 10 CP reward to require higher points - based on what? I can't find the source to this suggestion. Halp mi.

He was likely just bored because this discussion has **** to do at all with feedback on figuring out what to do about vaulting.

thats an interesting word to censor considering it's not at all vulgar, this forum is weird.

OneLastGambit

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I probably could make the jump to 5* if I wanted to as I have a few usable 5s that need iso. My issue with 5* tier is all to do with team composition, I hate the current meta of OML Phoenix and up until recently it was a very dull tier (Goblin started to change my mind here). The diversity and novel mechanics of the 4* tier is why I've purposely remained in it. The 5* MMR and Scaling just solidified my decision.

Now I find myself thinking there are some interesting mechanics in the 5* tier and I wouldn't mind being in it - but it's problems still remain and as a result so do I.

Fightmastermpq

OneLastGambit wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I probably could make the jump to 5* if I wanted to as I have a few usable 5s that need iso. My issue with 5* tier is all to do with team composition, I hate the current meta of OML Phoenix and up until recently it was a very dull tier (Goblin started to change my mind here). The diversity and novel mechanics of the 4* tier is why I've purposely remained in it. The 5* MMR and Scaling just solidified my decision.

Now I find myself thinking there are some interesting mechanics in the 5* tier and I wouldn't mind being in it - but it's problems still remain and as a result so do I.

Ugh. That's the problem with forums, everyone seems to miss the forest for the trees. Let me help you out.........



Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants the best rewards, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

GurlBYE

mexus wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

mexus wrote:

You're all talking about the 10 CP reward to require higher points - based on what? I can't find the source to this suggestion. Halp mi.

He was likely just bored because this discussion has tinykitty to do at all with feedback on figuring out what to do about vaulting.

thats an interesting word to censor considering it's not at all vulgar, this forum is weird.

So the rantings about 10 CP as a harder-to-reach rewards are basically based upon a speculation from a user, who is not a MPQ developer, and this is nothing in anyway that's been officially confirmed hence something probably won't happen?

Correct.

Wjohnson992

GurlBYE wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

As much as you guys let everyone in the forum know how unfun the game has become.

No i don't want to be a 5 star player.

PVE sucks and PVP is the same team ad nausem.
You fight the same players and use the same teams for everything
maybe 5% of all rewards are actually meaningful to you.

I actually get disappointed when 5's pop out instead of 4s.

This certainly is the most attractive option.

OneLastGambit

Fightmastermpq wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants to be a 5* player, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I probably could make the jump to 5* if I wanted to as I have a few usable 5s that need iso. My issue with 5* tier is all to do with team composition, I hate the current meta of OML Phoenix and up until recently it was a very dull tier (Goblin started to change my mind here). The diversity and novel mechanics of the 4* tier is why I've purposely remained in it. The 5* MMR and Scaling just solidified my decision.

Now I find myself thinking there are some interesting mechanics in the 5* tier and I wouldn't mind being in it - but it's problems still remain and as a result so do I.

Ugh. That's the problem with forums, everyone seems to miss the forest for the trees. Let me help you out.........



Most of this thread reminds me of this awesome quote....everyone wants the best rewards, but no one wants to put in the effort to get there.

In your second quote you say everyone wants the best rewards. First time around you said everyone wants to be a 5* player. Though they sound the same they mean something totally different. It's a little difficult for us to read your intent if you misquote yourself lol
Everyone does want the best rewards, but I don't think being a 5* player can be classed as a reward currently, which is why so few want to become one. People like myself are happy earning 5* covers but have no intention of using them to their full potential as it makes the game less enjoyable.

It aint about difficulty brother, its about enjoyment.

Personally I get the most enjoyment out of this game when I'm not even playing for a prize, when I'm just messing about in SIM trying different teams.

Fightmastermpq

OneLastGambit wrote:

In your second quote you say everyone wants the best rewards. First time around you said everyone wants to be a 5* player. Though they sound the same they mean something totally different. It's a little difficult for us to read your intent if you misquote yourself lol
Everyone does want the best rewards, but I don't think being a 5* player can be classed as a reward currently, which is why so few want to become one. People like myself are happy earning 5* covers but have no intention of using them to their full potential as it makes the game less enjoyable.

It aint about difficulty brother, its about enjoyment.

Personally I get the most enjoyment out of this game when I'm not even playing for a prize, when I'm just messing about in SIM trying different teams.

Holy ****, no. The point is that you have to work hard to get what you want. What you want is CP, it's the best reward, and they don't give it away lightly - you have to work for it. That's it. Everyone wants CP, no one wants to play for it. They want it handed to them on a silver platter for participating.

OneLastGambit

Fightmastermpq wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

In your second quote you say everyone wants the best rewards. First time around you said everyone wants to be a 5* player. Though they sound the same they mean something totally different. It's a little difficult for us to read your intent if you misquote yourself lol
Everyone does want the best rewards, but I don't think being a 5* player can be classed as a reward currently, which is why so few want to become one. People like myself are happy earning 5* covers but have no intention of using them to their full potential as it makes the game less enjoyable.

It aint about difficulty brother, its about enjoyment.

Personally I get the most enjoyment out of this game when I'm not even playing for a prize, when I'm just messing about in SIM trying different teams.

Holy tinykitty, no. The point is that you have to work hard to get what you want. What you want is CP, it's the best reward, and they don't give it away lightly - you have to work for it. That's it. Everyone wants CP, no one wants to play for it. They want it handed to them on a silver platter for participating.

I think maybe you might be hyperbolising a bit but I get your point. In my opinion covers are better than CP (RNgesus is a fickle deity) I do work for what I get (I've been a t1 player in pve and a 900 player in pvp), I have no problem putting in the effort when I feel it's worth it. Being a 5* player is not.