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

1…2324262829…32

Comments

  • delita007
    delita007 Posts: 32 Just Dropped In
    Fwiw it takes twice as long to get the 4* cover now from a pure time perspective. Took me 20 wins to hit 900 on the nose.

  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    delita007 said:
    Fwiw it takes twice as long to get the 4* cover now from a pure time perspective. Took me 20 wins to hit 900 on the nose.

     It all depends. I hit 900 around 34 or 35 wins, not far from 40. Did I spend more time playing overall? Maybe. But it darn sure felt a lot less stressful and way more easy. I'll take this format any day, twice on Sunday. 
  • HaywireII
    HaywireII Posts: 568 Critical Contributor
    I really enjoyed this test.  I tried to break it up into about 13 fights each of the 3 days. Today was the final day and I spent most of the day unshielded around 850 points and only was attacked once.  I was able to easily climb up to 1064 points which never would have happened with the artificial wall in place that is the current system.  Making progression only about wins and score only relevant to placement can't come soon enough for me.

    I hope they come up with something for the final command points that will make the end game players happier.  I don't think it will affect me any time soon but I'd hate a great change for me to turn into a bad change for them.
  • KinDM
    KinDM Posts: 72 Match Maker
    Pretty much every reward, I got with significantly more points than I normally would have. Additionally, the only reason I was able to play as much as I did was because (this is important) WE HAVE NO PVE EVENT RIGHT NOW. 
  • acescracked
    acescracked Posts: 1,197 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    DarthDeVo said:
    delita007 said:
    Fwiw it takes twice as long to get the 4* cover now from a pure time perspective. Took me 20 wins to hit 900 on the nose.

     It all depends. I hit 900 around 34 or 35 wins, not far from 40. Did I spend more time playing overall? Maybe. But it darn sure felt a lot less stressful and way more easy. I'll take this format any day, twice on Sunday. 
    It doesn't depend.

    Delita007's game experience was that it took twice as long to get the same reward. You found your game experience better. So who's in the right?

    Seems like PvP is a zero sum game now with an "us vs them" on both sides of the discussion. We'll have to see which player base gets screwed over. I can tell ya if I lose the 15cp every PvP that I was getting before I won't take it any day and especially not twice on Sunday!
  • revskip
    revskip Posts: 1,010 Chairperson of the Boards
    delita007 said:
    Fwiw it takes twice as long to get the 4* cover now from a pure time perspective. Took me 20 wins to hit 900 on the nose.

    That's my exact experience as well.  Hit 900 on 21 in the Vulture PVP.  Divine Champions was a brutal slog to 40.

    I wonder how many of the people who love this new system were actually spending anything at all on shields in the old system.  I spent a lot less HP (total of 0) this event for much less CP while doing twice as many fights.  I can't imagine that the bean counters want a system where more 4* covers are being given out and less $$$ is being spent for shields.  
  • delita007
    delita007 Posts: 32 Just Dropped In
    Ha I ended up doing the same thing and ended in second place as well. The fights become more about skipping to find easier teams than skipping to find more points. I wanted to get to 40 to see how long it took so I could give an informed opinion, and that opinion is I will definitely not play to 40 wins again. If this gets implemented I'll join in the end like always, push past 16 wins for the cp, and hope to shield out in the top ten. It will be unfortunate to punt on the 4* cover every event, but hopefully I can make top ten enough to get the extra cp and have it basically come out as a wash. 

    I always enjoyed PvP cause I felt like it was the only thing in the game that rewarded properly for the time you put in. For 60-90 minutes every third day I could get a 4*, some iso, some cp, some HP, and a few lottery ticket tokens. I won't be doubling or tripling my time spent in the game even if they tripled the prizes. It may be for others but its not for me. 

    PS I loved scl scaling in PvE exactly because it cut my PvE time in half. I'd happily trade my PvP prizes for getting scl scaling made permanent and then we could all put down our phones and do other stuff like normal people. Hooray!
  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    acescracked said: 

    Seems like PvP is a zero sum game now with an "us vs them" on both sides of the discussion. We'll have to see which player base gets screwed over. I can tell ya if I lose the 15cp every PvP that I was getting before I won't take it any day and especially not twice on Sunday!

    How has it not been "us vs. them" before? Pick any one of the threads concerning this topic over the past few days. It's not hard to find scores of posts on either side: some people saying in the old system the best they could do was 575 or so. Anything beyond that, they get constantly beaten down and lose more points than they gain. Contrast that with others who say they climb to 1200 in one shot, 15-20 matches in 60-90 minutes, implying that it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Us vs. them, just the same. 

    I know I've stated it elsewhere, but maybe not in this thread, so I want to clearly state that I think they do need to find a more acceptable solution for the final CP other than T10. I do sympathize with players who will lose out on that and if they want their high-end, top-tier players to remain engaged, they really should find a better solution. 

    But this actual format, where progression can't be taken away? Fantastic. No more wanting to ram my fist through my phone's screen because while at 880 and winning a match worth 25 points, I come out to see my total is 760, and I've lost 140 points while playing one match. 
  • SpringSoldier
    SpringSoldier Posts: 265 Mover and Shaker
    I don't know if this would be possible to implement, but maybe a mixed system between wins and points could be made. For example, if you win 40 matches, you get the 4*; if you get to 900 points through 23 matches, you still get the 4* and you have the possibility to climb further to 1200 points for the 15 cp. Those with weaker roosters would play more matches worth less and earn a good cover that helps them progress, meanwhile those with stronger roosters have more targets and can get the same rewards as before. It wouldn't impact hp spending, since most of those who previously dropped out at 575 or 900 were still building roosters and weren't using hp on shields; those that aim for max progression would still use them.
  • BlackWidower
    BlackWidower Posts: 250 Mover and Shaker
    I really thought this was an amazing idea.  I don't ever go for placement and it took away the massive amounts of stress PVP always seems to cause, it was more casual.

    It was absolutely perfect.  Sad to see it's not permanent. 
  • Daiches
    Daiches Posts: 1,252 Chairperson of the Boards
    BlackWidower said:
    I really thought this was an amazing idea.  I don't ever go for placement and it took away the massive amounts of stress PVP always seems to cause, it was more casual.

    It was absolutely perfect.  Sad to see it's not permanent. 
    It actually added a lot more stress since you don't know if you get the only important reward, the cp, until the end of the event.

    But I guess if you never came close to that reward before, it doesn't add that stress. To you they are adding something, for everyone that can hit 1200 they are (potentially) taking away the best reward.

  • baarzo
    baarzo Posts: 33 Just Dropped In
    this type of progression is very good, I hope in the future to see it in a season
  • Over__Flow
    Over__Flow Posts: 59
    I think the win based progression is an ok idea but numbers really need to be adjusted.
    I started early(instead of my usual last 24h start) and started with winfinite to get some easy retals(otherwise make just gives me 450+ teams). After 1 day I switched to A team and slowly climbed as usual, I floated on purpose higher than usual to get some interesting retals.

    I am now almost at 1200 with 33 wins. I really do not see myself getting to 40 wins without being pounded in the process.

    As it is for me it is either progression or placement but both seems unlikely
  • BlackWidower
    BlackWidower Posts: 250 Mover and Shaker
    edited July 2017
    Daiches said:
    BlackWidower said:
    I really thought this was an amazing idea.  I don't ever go for placement and it took away the massive amounts of stress PVP always seems to cause, it was more casual.

    It was absolutely perfect.  Sad to see it's not permanent. 
    It actually added a lot more stress since you don't know if you get the only important reward, the cp, until the end of the event.

    But I guess if you never came close to that reward before, it doesn't add that stress. To you they are adding something, for everyone that can hit 1200 they are (potentially) taking away the best reward.

    You are absolutely right. I've never bothered to go past 900.
    So, yes, you're right, you would have to get top ten placement in order to get those additional 15 CP and while getting 1200 would be difficult, placement is REALLY hard.

    It would be great if you could choose, which type you wanted, or added the extra CP onto SCL 9 or something.  Dunno, man.  This just works for me personally - like people who complain about grinding in PVE, well, I wish they had MORE progression rewards so I could grind further and feel like I got something out of it.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2017
    killerkoala said:
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    Starfury said:
    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.
    On that note, do you think there's something to be said for some wins being worth more "wins" than others?

    Like beating someone worth 60 points could be worth 3 wins while a 20 pointer is worth 1?
    I'm just thinking out loud really. This sort of idea would need further thinking out I guess.




    if they changed it to +2 wins for any fight over 40 points it would be better.
    If they did that then why have it by wins at all?  If that is the best idea (not saying it is) it's probably better to make it all point based but have two different totals one for progression and one for placement.  Progression totals are not affected by losses (or defensive wins).  Placement totals are affected by both.  So for example you could end PvP with 1000 points in Progression, but only 700 in placement because of lost points.

    Edit:

    Example I fight up to 565 without getting hit, my progression and placement totals are both 565, but I'm out of health packs so I stop playing.  I come back 4-6 hours later to find I had -145 in defensive loses and +30 in defensive wins.  Now my placement score is 450, but my progression score is still 565.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    acescracked said:
    DarthDeVo said:
    delita007 said:
    Fwiw it takes twice as long to get the 4* cover now from a pure time perspective. Took me 20 wins to hit 900 on the nose.

     It all depends. I hit 900 around 34 or 35 wins, not far from 40. Did I spend more time playing overall? Maybe. But it darn sure felt a lot less stressful and way more easy. I'll take this format any day, twice on Sunday. 
    It doesn't depend.

    Delita007's game experience was that it took twice as long to get the same reward. You found your game experience better. So who's in the right?

    Seems like PvP is a zero sum game now with an "us vs them" on both sides of the discussion. We'll have to see which player base gets screwed over. I can tell ya if I lose the 15cp every PvP that I was getting before I won't take it any day and especially not twice on Sunday!
    It depends... I think that was his point....  The problem here is that the 5* experience is so vastly different from the rest of the game it's hard to make any system that works for both crowds.  They've really painted themselves into an ugly corner with the 5* tier.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    revskip said:
    delita007 said:
    Fwiw it takes twice as long to get the 4* cover now from a pure time perspective. Took me 20 wins to hit 900 on the nose.

    That's my exact experience as well.  Hit 900 on 21 in the Vulture PVP.  Divine Champions was a brutal slog to 40.

    I wonder how many of the people who love this new system were actually spending anything at all on shields in the old system.  I spent a lot less HP (total of 0) this event for much less CP while doing twice as many fights.  I can't imagine that the bean counters want a system where more 4* covers are being given out and less $$$ is being spent for shields.  
    I actually spent more on shields than I probably would have, but that was only because of the 15 CP for top 10 (which shouldn't be a thing)
  • alaeth
    alaeth Posts: 446 Mover and Shaker
    I'm at 1083 points with just over 3 hours to go... but only 28 wins.

    Apparently I'm the type of player D3 is trying to eliminate from earning CP in PvP.


    I don't have time for another grind-fest - especially not while an Alliance event is going on.  There's only so many health packs.

    If this change goes live, I guess I retire from my T100 PvP alliance and do DDP and casual Story-mode.

    Disappointing.

Categories