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

1…2122242627…32

Comments

  • Akari
    Akari Posts: 492 Mover and Shaker
    I am possibly shielded to end of event at 77 wins (may add 3-4 to that by end). In retrospect, I earn rewards at just about the same level, but the 4* cover just doesn't come instantly and I have to just hope and see I do well enough for the 15 cp, which I probably did. I just don't like that the extra 15 cp is no longer a guarantee and that I won't actually know if I get it for another 2 days.
  • Silverblade
    Silverblade Posts: 51 Match Maker
    sh81 said:
    I think the rewards spaced at 4 wins is clever.  I keep thinking "well its only a few more and then I get the next one..." when I reach a reward.  Its always just a little more, which makes it easy to keep plugging away.

    Im also finding myself just playing 10 minutes here or there to get to the next reward, no time crunch, no stresses about shields or hits or whatever, just a few games as I fancy it...


    This is how I feel. I scored 40 wins without breaking a sweat, just in the first 2 days. So yeah, I deffintively like it. Otherwise I'd never score the 4* cover, i don't have a 900+ points roster, and would never, because the rich get richer and those who can't score 4*s will still be unable to do so...
  • nigelregal
    nigelregal Posts: 184 Tile Toppler
    I have a solid 5* Roster and this was easy to get to 40 wins. I just hit the same Panthos teams over and over going up to 1100 pts then back down to 500 and up again. 

    I will get top 10 easily and no longer have to stress about shield hopping. 
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    mpqr7 said:

    The thrill of progression points was that if you chose the right challenging team, you could get 75 points, so you could progress quickly, winning a new prize every other match. But here, you are forced to wait 4 wins no matter what, before receiving a prize. And each match is harder and more tedious than the next.
    Yeah, that's definitely a downside of the new system.

    Before, you had a choice: Go for easy targets for 20 points each or go for the harder targets for 60 points. Now the choice is obvious.
  • DesertTortoise
    DesertTortoise Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    That seems mostly reasonable, @broll . I do think that's probably too much HP since the current system itself really keeps a lot of HP in player's pockets since less people require shields. I'll let the higher MMR, more PvP oriented players provide suggestions if that's enough of a progression reward incentive to doom themselves in placement at SCL9/10.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    DesertTortoise said:
    That seems mostly reasonable, @broll . I do think that's probably too much HP since the current system itself really keeps a lot of HP in player's pockets since less people require shields. I'll let the higher MMR, more PvP oriented players provide suggestions if that's enough of a progression reward incentive to doom themselves in placement at SCL9/10.
    I don't disagree, I had that thought as well.  I felt it was best to propose something more agressive then less and let devs tone it down if they think it's too much.  Alternatively, there's always the option of providing more ways to spend CP as an option to address HP creep.
  • Skrofa
    Skrofa Posts: 388 Mover and Shaker
    First time ever I went above 900 points without shielding.
    I didn't even get the Ragnarok cover...

    More people playing for wins does mean more points. However... More points don't mean more rewards....

    For me the "whichever comes faster" idea that was proposed earlier might be the best.

    But I am not really a pvp player so...
  • GurlBYE
    GurlBYE Posts: 1,218 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    broll said:
    shusheshe said:
    I played the way I normally do (except sans shield) and 27 wins got me to 1006, which is the highest I've hit since cupcakes disappeared.    

    This goes exactly to what the devs said in discord about people not playing as they intended.  Cupcakes only became a thing to fix a problem caused by people not bothering to play PvP (especially lower rostered players).  This change offered in a massive influx of lower rostered players essentially fulfilling the absent role that cupcakes tried to fix.  This is ultimately very good for PvP if this level of play stays up.

    From what I'm reading it sounds like there are two thing that need to be fixed:
    1.  15 CP out of top 10 and back into progression in some form (even if it's points based, see my earlier suggestion about hybrid progression rewards).
    2.  Find a way to have 5* rosters not have to play way more than normal against their tougher foes.  My suggestion to that is SCLs 9 and or 10  (see below).

    If SCL9 and/or 10 had the 4* at like 20-25 wins would that be reasonable to people playing in 5* land?  There would probably still need to be some reward at 40 wins in that rank, but maybe a second 4*, an LT, or a 5*?

    Here's my proposal for rewards.  This would lower the 4* requirement for people in 5* (by using SCL 9 /10), adds something more worthwhile to most 5* players for 40 wins if they want to fight for it (I used LT, but could be a second 4* or 5*), and spreads the rewards out more then they are today to discourage people jumping down to lower SCLs.


    Edit: Link to non-downsized version for easier reading http://i.imgur.com/7r2XrGc.jpg
    Edit 2: A few minor tweaks.

    What do you think?

    @Brigby so this can be forwarded on as a suggestion.
    I dig this system,

    but I can't say I understand the thought process behind 1200 points across the board for SCL1-7 rewarding less than 15.

    The system inherently doesn't work super well for high points, and SCL has no bearing on who you fight against from what we've seen in game thus far. So if by some miracle someone in SCL 1-5 gets to 1200 I don't exactly think them getting like 1 CP seems reasonable. Almost better to just have a token

    Other than that funky detail I dig it


  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    GurlBYE said:
    broll said:
    shusheshe said:
    I played the way I normally do (except sans shield) and 27 wins got me to 1006, which is the highest I've hit since cupcakes disappeared.    

    This goes exactly to what the devs said in discord about people not playing as they intended.  Cupcakes only became a thing to fix a problem caused by people not bothering to play PvP (especially lower rostered players).  This change offered in a massive influx of lower rostered players essentially fulfilling the absent role that cupcakes tried to fix.  This is ultimately very good for PvP if this level of play stays up.

    From what I'm reading it sounds like there are two thing that need to be fixed:
    1.  15 CP out of top 10 and back into progression in some form (even if it's points based, see my earlier suggestion about hybrid progression rewards).
    2.  Find a way to have 5* rosters not have to play way more than normal against their tougher foes.  My suggestion to that is SCLs 9 and or 10  (see below).

    If SCL9 and/or 10 had the 4* at like 20-25 wins would that be reasonable to people playing in 5* land?  There would probably still need to be some reward at 40 wins in that rank, but maybe a second 4*, an LT, or a 5*?

    Here's my proposal for rewards.  This would lower the 4* requirement for people in 5* (by using SCL 9 /10), adds something more worthwhile to most 5* players for 40 wins if they want to fight for it (I used LT, but could be a second 4* or 5*), and spreads the rewards out more then they are today to discourage people jumping down to lower SCLs.


    Edit: Link to non-downsized version for easier reading http://i.imgur.com/7r2XrGc.jpg
    Edit 2: A few minor tweaks.

    What do you think?

    @Brigby so this can be forwarded on as a suggestion.
    I dig this system,

    but I can't say I understand the thought process behind 1200 points across the board for SCL1-7 rewarding less than 15.

    The system inherently doesn't work super well for high points, and SCL has no bearing on who you fight against from what we've seen in game thus far. So if by some miracle someone in SCL 1-5 gets to 1200 I don't exactly think them getting like 1 CP seems reasonable. Almost better to just have a token

    Other than that funky detail I dig it


    The reason for downscaling the CP by SCL is to discourage higher rosters from jumping way down to get that CP and because rosters that low frankly shouldn't be getting CP because of the oops a 5* wrecked my scaling problem.

    I would love to see them make some adjustments to MMR so that you are fighting people more appropriate to your SCL. People say that would limit it to much, but maybe something where you only fight people from 3 SCLs near you.  For example someone in SCL6 fights people from SCLs 5-7.  Everyone fights people in there SCL + or -1.  SCLs 1 and whatever the current max are would do +2 higher and +2 lower since they don't have people on both sides.  If 3 SCLs still isn't big enough maybe widen it to 5.  There should be some proportional change in difficulty to match your SCL, but I acknowledge it's harder to fix in PvP than PvE.
  • SpringSoldier
    SpringSoldier Posts: 265 Mover and Shaker
    I got Wolverine and I didn't even make it to 900. My highest score was about 890 and dropping constantly. But it doesn't matter anymore. I've played every character I had, since defense wasn't an issue: Medusa, Bl4de, C4rol, Dr. Strange 3*, Iron Fist 3, Agent Venom, Coulson, R&G 4* at 7 covers unleveled (so Medusa can use those tiles to heal my team which was very wounded)- it was a lot more fun than usual. I admit, if there were more rewards from progression, I might have been tempted to play even more. I'm not going for placement though, since I don't have extra hp to spend on shields and my rooster isn't strong enough to stay at this level.

  • AlluAllu
    AlluAllu Posts: 86 Match Maker
    I got 40 wins and I believe my highest score was something like 650. I used my 3-star champs.
  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    OJSP said:
    1224 pts. 96 wins. I could stop at 97 and just do 1 more to preserve the score.. or go big and do 4 matches in the next hop and ignore the score. :lol:
    You sure that hopping MORE than usual, in an off-season test event, is the metrics you want the devs to get from this?
    S1 is going crazy hopping like it's the end of the season, too.
    Not sure if we're not digging our own holes here.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    aesthetocyst said:
    Way back in the dark ages, the best advice I got regarding PvP, specifically whether I could score higher than 700, was:

    "Of course you can. Just play."
    I don't know how it worked back in the day, but I 'just play'ed a lot pre 4* and never got to 900, even with shields, and it led me to quit trying after 10+ futile and frustrating attempts.
  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    I can't remember exactly where I was when I hit 900, but it was something like 34 or 35 wins, so not too out of line from 40.

    But the climb was much more relaxed and stress free. I started slice 1 about five or six hours after it started and climbed to about 16 wins. Later on, I think I got to 28 wins and threw up a shield, as I was in the top 10. Both times I was hit on occasion, but nothing ridiculous like it usually is. 

    Normally I don't care much about placement, but I had the HP to spare, so I did it figuring I would still drop as others climbed above me, which I did, but not by much. I did my final push to 40 wins last night, which got me to 986 points and shielded out for the rest of the event. Again, I was hit a few times, but nothing like it used to be above 800, where I would win a match for 30 points, only to come out of it and see I lost 90 because I'd been hit by three or four people during that one match.

    I'm currently in 8th place with 7 hours to go. I don't expect to remain in the top 10, but that hopefully should be good for top 25. Until someone took 7th place from me at 1025 points, the gap between me in 7th at 986 points and the guy in 6th was 143 points (1139). This is also the most amount of points I've ever scored in any PvP event; an off season event that's supposedly much less active. 

    I agree with many comments that they need to figure out a way to restore the 15 CP for the high-end players, but everything else about this test was pure bliss. If they roll out SCL-based scaling for PvE, then I hope this change will be hot on its heels. 
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    OJSP said:
    broll said:
    aesthetocyst said:
    Way back in the dark ages, the best advice I got regarding PvP, specifically whether I could score higher than 700, was:

    "Of course you can. Just play."
    I don't know how it worked back in the day, but I 'just play'ed a lot pre 4* and never got to 900, even with shields, and it led me to quit trying after 10+ futile and frustrating attempts.
    But you are comparing 700 to 900.. There is a significant difference there. (Even if back in the dark ages a win would only give a maximum of 50 pts)
    My point exactly.  The point of aesthetocyst's friend's advice seems to be that anything is achievable, just play the game and that's not true the way the game is currently.
  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 2,744 Chairperson of the Boards
    broll said:
    aesthetocyst said:
    Way back in the dark ages, the best advice I got regarding PvP, specifically whether I could score higher than 700, was:

    "Of course you can. Just play."
    I don't know how it worked back in the day, but I 'just play'ed a lot pre 4* and never got to 900, even with shields, and it led me to quit trying after 10+ futile and frustrating attempts.
    Pepperidge Farm remembers...

    Sorry, couldn't resist.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    OJSP said:
    broll said:
    My point exactly.  The point of aesthetocyst's friend's advice seems to be that anything is achievable, just play the game and that's not true the way the game is currently.
    Well.. the advice to get 700+ now is still also just play. Getting 900+ however, requires other things to fall into place too. If you've been following my posts here, I got to 800+ 3 times this event, just playing.
    The statement 'Well.. the advice to get 700+ now is still also just play.' is incorrect and you contradict that with the rest of your statement.  What you're saying is the advice to get over 700 but below 900 is just play, 700+ implies get to any value over 700 including 12 million...  

    So I made a poor assumption based on a semantically poor statement, no need to beat this dead horse any longer.  Let's not detract from the topic at hand.

Categories