Progression Reward Changes in Versus Tournaments (7/20/17)

1…1617192122…32

Comments

  • wymtime
    wymtime Posts: 3,760 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    Borstock said:
    I'm definitely open to the possibility that 40 is just too high. But the people who think it should be 15 because that's what they can get when they basically game the system using LINE... I don't know. That doesn't feel like a puddle of tears I should care about. 
    I think you need to stop saying The complaints are line players.  The reality is the people who score 1200 have 5* over level 450.  One big advantage is 5* players tend to be willing to score higher and really high end players climb way early and sometimes push into the 3000 point range by using shields and yes coordination.  The fact is because 5* players score higher when a player with a championed 5* goes into PVP they find 60+ point matches because of MMR.  5* players have to face championed 5* and it is the same meta team over and over again since 5* tier is not diverse nor are they buffed.  Too many players in the 4* range just don't push in PVP and because they don't (and a lot of it because the experience you have voiced) it is harder for 4* players to get 900+.  this test significantly impacts 5* players who do not spend massive money on the game.  Is teat is a very real negative experience and our voice will be herd.  Go ahead and have fun grinding this event for 40 wins for your X-force cover.  
  • jamesh
    jamesh Posts: 1,600 Chairperson of the Boards
    sinnerjfl said:
    Once again, the devs of this game looking at metrics and imposing a conclusion from those metrics while
    totally ignoring real problems that will occur in-game from this (mainly playing twice as much in PVP).

    Remember everyone, they're totally reading our feedback and not doing whatever the heck they want.
    Have you got any reason to believe that he's lying when he says that the win targets are lower than what many people who currently achieve those rewards get?

    Looking at the comments on this thread, it looks like people are having wildly different experiences in PVP, which means it is difficult for any one of us to generalise our experiences to the entire player base.  In contrast the developers do have metrics about how many matches people take to reach certain progression goals on average.

    It's possible that they've got the numbers wildly wrong, but that's why they're running a test rather than rolling this out permanently.  The best thing to do would be to participate: if 40 wins is too much, stop playing when you think the extra effort isn't worth the reward.  That will also give them feedback.
  • revskip
    revskip Posts: 1,019 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    Borstock said:
    I'm definitely open to the possibility that 40 is just too high. But the people who think it should be 15 because that's what they can get when they basically game the system using LINE... I don't know. That doesn't feel like a puddle of tears I should care about. 
    It took me a total of 21 wins in Junkyard Wars, just hit exactly 900.  In slice 5 which is one of the driest slices for points.  In slice 4 I could have probably waited a little longer to join and hit it in 15 or so.   

    Very little of my climb to 800 involved "gaming" anything and in fact was slightly more difficult because I had to skip friendlies who were worth decent points because they were also simultaneously climbing.  Getting to 1200 with a 4* roster usually does involve using Line but I was hitting 900 pretty easily once I had 5-10 4* champs even before joining a check room and it was never taking more than 25-30 matches.  Hell I hit 900 just riding Peggy/IM40 without either being boosted a few times when the boost lists weren't complimentary to my roster.  

    If it takes you a lot more matches to get to 900 you are probably either climbing at the wrong time, climbing with teams that are too slow or not using shields effectively.   
  • jamesh
    jamesh Posts: 1,600 Chairperson of the Boards
    wymtime said:
    Borstock said:
    I'm definitely open to the possibility that 40 is just too high. But the people who think it should be 15 because that's what they can get when they basically game the system using LINE... I don't know. That doesn't feel like a puddle of tears I should care about. 
    I think you need to stop saying The complaints are line players.  The reality is the people who score 1200 have 5* over level 450.  One big advantage is 5* players tend to be willing to score higher and really high end players climb way early and sometimes push into the 3000 point range by using shields and yes coordination.  The fact is because 5* players score higher when a player with a championed 5* goes into PVP they find 60+ point matches because of MMR.  5* players have to face championed 5* and it is the same meta team over and over again since 5* tier is not diverse nor are they buffed.  Too many players in the 4* range just don't push in PVP and because they don't (and a lot of it because the experience you have voiced) it is harder for 4* players to get 900+.  this test significantly impacts 5* players who do not spend massive money on the game.  Is teat is a very real negative experience and our voice will be herd.  Go ahead and have fun grinding this event for 40 wins for your X-force cover.  
    One thing to note is that under the system being used for this test, specific point totals don't matter any more.  It doesn't matter if the point leader is at 3000 or 500: neither case is going to provide more help in achieving progression goals.  And the placement rewards are all about your score relative to other people, so it doesn't matter there either.

    I think we'd need a number of tournaments with these rules before we can really see what the effect will be.  I suspect it will result in lower scores, but it might also see more engagement and more teams to be matched against at all levels.  It will result in a different optimum strategy, and it is difficult to say what that will be exactly.
  • sinnerjfl
    sinnerjfl Posts: 1,276 Chairperson of the Boards
    jamesh said:
    sinnerjfl said:
    Once again, the devs of this game looking at metrics and imposing a conclusion from those metrics while
    totally ignoring real problems that will occur in-game from this (mainly playing twice as much in PVP).

    Remember everyone, they're totally reading our feedback and not doing whatever the heck they want.
    Have you got any reason to believe that he's lying when he says that the win targets are lower than what many people who currently achieve those rewards get?

    Looking at the comments on this thread, it looks like people are having wildly different experiences in PVP, which means it is difficult for any one of us to generalise our experiences to the entire player base.  In contrast the developers do have metrics about how many matches people take to reach certain progression goals on average.

    It's possible that they've got the numbers wildly wrong, but that's why they're running a test rather than rolling this out permanently.  The best thing to do would be to participate: if 40 wins is too much, stop playing when you think the extra effort isn't worth the reward.  That will also give them feedback.
    I dont know what their metrics tell them since they wont share them so who knows?

    But I know that most people in the 4* tier do not play 40 matches in PVP every event, that is crazytown.

    Ok sure, people in 2* or 3* tier might play 40 matches, the problem here is those matches are probably a lot faster since the health pools are much much smaller.

    40 matches in SCL4/5 does not equal 40 matches in SCL7/8.

    That's just the developpers ignoring reality and not really playing their own tinykitty game at higher levels.

    And Ill say it again, our feedback is ignored 100% of the time, they will do whatever they think is best because thats the way they operate (Vaulting, 5 clears instead of 4 etc etc.). They do not give a tinykitty what we think, the almighty metrics is what's important to them.
  • konannfriends
    konannfriends Posts: 246 Tile Toppler
    I'm in 3* star land. I wanted to maybe get a vulture in one of the last event opened my bracket and seen people in the top 20 at 3000 points. You all sound a bit selfish. A vast majority of players are in the stage I am. Not to mention getting 4* characters isn't really easy. I will happily ground out 40 matches if I want that character. If I don't then I won't grind out 40 matches. I do think 40 matches is A lot. Maybe 30.  Either way if y'all stop playing you won't be missed. Then maybe I can actually place in top 50 in a pvp
  • turbomoose
    turbomoose Posts: 809 Critical Contributor
    This can't happen soon enough, I'm trying to get to the ten pack reward and every time I put the shields down I'm attacked before I finish the one fight that will get me the reward 

    seems very unfair to me that it's set up this way 
  • Doc L
    Doc L Posts: 279 Mover and Shaker
    edited July 2017
    Borstock said:
    I'm definitely open to the possibility that 40 is just too high. But the people who think it should be 15 because that's what they can get when they basically game the system using LINE... I don't know. That doesn't feel like a puddle of tears I should care about. 
    I'm sorry, but this is not quite right. Most who score 900 are not in those rooms, especially since D3 removed cupcakes. To take my own experience, our alliance doesn't use Line like that, we play however our targets drop. I know half a dozen people in other alliances who all do the same. At the same time, I know a couple of people who do as you suggest, certainly it's done, but really not as often as you think. 

    As for your MMR, aestocyst, revskip and wymtime have previously said, there is something it right, and there hasn't been for a while, for some players. The Shield Levels were supposed to help this but seem to have compressed the problem at some levels. And I really want D3 to look at this primarily, this is the issue. This is completely the issue. I mean, one quick fix which is pretty easy to program in, is to simply program bots/AI characters in at the levels where you don't have enough targets giving enough points. Or remove the ability in PvP to target your own alliance and at the same time remove names, to cut back on Line if that is what they think the issue is. There are so many ways they can make it easier for those such as yourself Borstock, without making it more work for all. Quality of Life means less playing, and combining this with the increase in PvE time, it all seems the opposite of QoL.

    konannfriends said:
    I'm in 3* star land. I wanted to maybe get a vulture in one of the last event opened my bracket and seen people in the top 20 at 3000 points. You all sound a bit selfish. A vast majority of players are in the stage I am. Not to mention getting 4* characters isn't really easy. I will happily ground out 40 matches if I want that character. If I don't then I won't grind out 40 matches. I do think 40 matches is A lot. Maybe 30.  Either way if y'all stop playing you won't be missed. Then maybe I can actually place in top 50 in a pvp

    The vast majority I think are not at your level. - I thought the most used character in the game is 2* Wolverine, and the majority are at the 2* level. Either way, I understand your frustration, honestly. Having played PvP in all its incarnations, it's better now than it's ever been. Sounds hard to imagine, and a number of changes by D3 have set it backwards in the past, but it's less pain than it used to be. I would also suggest asking people to be less selfish, when you're asking them to increase their playing time by two or three times, is not really a fair one. What everyone wants is a better system for all, and altering MMR, targets, etc, to make your experience better, not just the same but for better rewards, which is what D3 is currently offering. 

    Seeing the rewards previewed now, it is as I suspected - you only get the 4* for 40 wins in CL 7 or 8, but CP @15 goes down to CL 5, which means two things for this test - players will try and play above their roster to get the 4* in higher CL, and players who comfortably get 1200 now without problems will drop down in CL to get the CP, as it is more important than the 4* to them (option to get 5* covers, plus specifically non-vaulted 4* who are generally stronger than the vaulted ones). Which will most likely lead to the next change I imagine, making the people who can play in certain CL more set, making CL 7 and 8 much higher, and making a maximum level you can enter into the lower CL (so no jumping up or dropping down). It's something players lower down have been asking for, so I'm sure it's been discussed.

  • Daiches
    Daiches Posts: 1,252 Chairperson of the Boards
    turbomoose said:
    This can't happen soon enough, I'm trying to get to the ten pack reward and every time I put the shields down I'm attacked before I finish the one fight that will get me the reward 

    seems very unfair to me that it's set up this way 
    This change will not help you AT ALL to get that season ten pack. If anything there will be much less points available for you. You will still lose points just the same. Only progression won't be tied to your score besides the one that matters most.
  • jamesh
    jamesh Posts: 1,600 Chairperson of the Boards
    Daiches said:
    turbomoose said:
    This can't happen soon enough, I'm trying to get to the ten pack reward and every time I put the shields down I'm attacked before I finish the one fight that will get me the reward 

    seems very unfair to me that it's set up this way 
    This change will not help you AT ALL to get that season ten pack. If anything there will be much less points available for you. You will still lose points just the same. Only progression won't be tied to your score besides the one that matters most.
    That will be true if they make the progression rewards for individual tournaments win based and season progression rewards point based.

    It's not obvious to me that it'd make sense to change one but not the other: if they think it is a problem to miss out on tournament progression rewards due to defensive losses, wouldn't it also be a problem to miss out on season progression rewards for the same thing?
  • mikebdot
    mikebdot Posts: 9 Just Dropped In
    So, ISO is a scant resource, yet there are people that still want to keep the system as it is. You know...where everyone skips matches like crazy trying to find one that is 'worth it'. With this new system I will skip exactly zero matches. I want the extra ISO and I don't give a **** about getting hit back. 

    For the people at the top, the climb will be much easier. If y'all are too afraid to play each other at the top then you probably shouldn't pretend you are super heroes and villains. 
  • FokaiHI
    FokaiHI Posts: 272 Mover and Shaker
    mikebdot said:
    So, ISO is a scant resource, yet there are people that still want to keep the system as it is. You know...where everyone skips matches like crazy trying to find one that is 'worth it'. With this new system I will skip exactly zero matches. I want the extra ISO and I don't give a tinykitty about getting hit back. 

    For the people at the top, the climb will be much easier. If y'all are too afraid to play each other at the top then you probably shouldn't pretend you are super heroes and villains. 
    This wouldn't be true for me. I will skip Panthos and BB all day. its not worth the health packs. 
  • FokaiHI
    FokaiHI Posts: 272 Mover and Shaker
    sh81 said:
    OJSP said:

    I just hope when the change is implemented, the numbers are tweaked so we don't need to play 40 matches to get to the equivalent of 900 points in an event. I know it might be what some players are already doing now, but i think that is either due playing inefficiently (except the frontrunners who might need to beat 5 pt matches to get there) or they might not have the appropriate roster to be getting that score to begin with.

    Anyway, we've had our say. Lets try the event out and see how it goes.

    I think when you have to know the best strategies, timings, communication tools/rooms/apps as well as ideal cooperation with others, PVP is miserable.

    I have none of that, and I find PVP to not be very accessible at all.

    AND, if it takes all that effort to get *somewhere* I question if its worth it.

    So I play, I do as well as I can, I get kicked down, I build up again...  Seriously, 575 is an epic effort and is easily the best part of 40 matches for me.  And all I want to do is play a game and get something back.

    I think these changes remove nearly all the issues I have with PVP.  I can play, when I want, and to a level I choose.


    I think it's completely opposite than miserable with coordinated communication with others. In all that effort, you tap into another community of players. Your not restricted to the terrible "alliance chat". It makes pvp a lot better. 
  • Silverblade
    Silverblade Posts: 51 Match Maker
    I am loving the new system. Just started and scored the 10 Cps already. 16 wins is easy. And 40 wins by the third day is certainly within reach no matter how high or low is your roster and SCL. So yeah I'm all in for this.

Categories