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

FokaiHI

Raise the ISO to 1000/ match. Problem solved. People won't care how many matches they have to play. 

TheVulture

An interesting idea; no way am I chasing 40 wins in PvP - since the matches are far more arduous than PvE on the whole - but I'll certainly dabble and see if those CP are reachable. 

ValekBoss

Brigby said:

maltyo9 said:

DrDevilDinosaur said:

This... Might actually be good.
Going to be some wailing and gnashing of teeth about putting the final prog reward over to placement, but whatever

I'm just curious as to what placement you have to get for the CP.

Brigby any info on this would be appreciated.

The CP that was originally the final progression reward will be allocated to the top 10 placement ranks.

We found that there were actually more players that reached top 10 compared to 1200 points, so moving it to placement will actually end up awarding it to more people! 

LOL....

Xenoberyll

Why don't you combine the systems and have the progression rewards up to the 4star cover at wins and leave the 15cp at 1200 points. Wouldn't it be fun to see how many players stop at 1200, earning the CP but not the 4star cover because no way in hell they'll do 40 matches?

atomzed

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone. Please keep in mind that this is still just a test run. The developers will be reviewing the feedback after the event is over, and making any necessary adjustments after that.

Brigby, i am a 5* player who hits 1200 for almost all my PVP. but despite that, i rarely ever reach top 10. most of my top 10 in my brackets have 1400- 1800 points.

please re-consider, it is insane that D3 believes the 15 CP will be given to more people.

Magic

I am intrigued by this change. Since I can hit 900 when I care to (but recently mainly stopped at 575-650) but I can't push to 1200 it sounds good. I also never get top10. Either way - I won't see the extra CP unless I snipe the bracket. In the current system it is not possible at all.

I will take a fight against any "weaker" team, regardless of the points. So getting 40 wins should be doable but you have to play during the whole event. I normally join 1 day before the end if I want 900 or 8 hours if 600 is my goal. That won't be possible anymore.

Maybe first 10 wins should be against the seed teams?

Not sure if I will participate in this test. As I normally try to take the offseason off... I am waiting more for the change in PvE.

Tony_Foot

Pleased with this change, a step in the right direction. 40 wins is a bit high but it's a starting point. We can all run two star teams right?

BearVenger

This PvP change, coupled with the PvE increase from 4 -> 5 feels like a move to a sloggier, grindier MPQ experience that will feel hellish for veterans and newcomers alike. I love this game, but there's only so much grinding I can do before it feels like a job.

I look forward to the "day off" after a PvP end, when I only have to focus on day's DDQ and PvE sub. After a day of rest, I can start PvP and make it to 1200 in PvP in a few bursts over the 36-hour window. If this new model becomes the season standard, I would feel obligated to start the new PvP right after the old one ends, just so I could Make It To 40 Wins.

In the current PvP format, the incentive is to raise my score as fast as possible until I reach my equilibrium (900 for my roster) and then strategically punch above my weight to 1200. There's no incentive to lay gratuitous waste to players with weaker rosters if their scores are lower than mine. Now, with this new format, I'll have to look out for the quickest and least damaging wins and cycle through my qs for sacrificial lambs. I can climb later, but my first priority is just to punch my dance card.

Currently, players with lower rosters get hit when folks are climbing. I get hit when stronger rosters with fewer points are climbing. But with this new format, lower-level players are going to get guys tap-dancing on their face. Is it personal? No, it's just for wins.

I know a fun workaround: I'll find a buddy, and we'll trade wins against each other using our least favorite teams! Then once we've gone sluggo against each other for 80 matches and entry-level prizes, we'll eventually climb.

(Except by then, we'll be too disinterested to play more MPQ.)

But if we were to take it to the next level (placement awards), then it will be relentless cutthroat playing to scavenge 15 CP. So much for upper-mid players like me getting Command Points to gamble on 5* hopes.

Winners: Low-level players who will get endless parades of "You were beaten by" messages, reminding them they're only there to be fodder. Hopefully, insurance covers PvPTSD sessions.

Winners: Mid-level players burnt out chasing 40 wins to elevate their rosters.

Winners: Upper-mid players, burnt out on 40 wins, followed by parades of 5* players going sluggo on them to pad their scores.

Winners: Top-tier players rewarded with 48 hours of non-stop cutthroat battling to claim the few available CP prizes.

Winners: Spouses who vaguely remember the person they married.


The other thing that makes this feel irrelevant is that it's done during the offseason. Without increased incentives, for most upper-level players, this is the time we scale back our playing (except for me; I just jump through whatever hoops are needed to get 4* covers and CPs). Since none of the metrics evaluate for "fun", you'll just see which players enjoy repetitive grinding more than the others. These offseason events, for multiple reasons, don't resemble what the setup would look like in the regular season.

Also, as the new format requires more matches to progress than the current format, it could be easy to read the numbers to say, "Look at how many more matches they're playing! These guys love it!" Nope, I'm just grinding to get X-Force.

ammenell

if you don't care about placement (let's just assume), losing a match is irrelevant - even better, your score falls and you don't see high level rosters only. 
pls correct me if I'm wrong? 
do defensive wins count? 

BearVenger

OJSP said:

It requires a player to have a certain type of MMR for this to work and a good knowledge of how MMR works, otherwise our defensive team would be invisible and we are playing harder matches for nothing.  

We could beat stronger teams with weaker teams, but the matches would take longer than usual, we risk losing the match and spending more health packs. 

I think that there are enough people that through experimenting (we'll have to get 40 wins anyway) and communication, we'll figure out the parameters to build the most attractive/least attractive teams.

I do think this will encourage roster diversity. Beast and Venom will get their day while the A-listers heal.

BearVenger

Per @Brigby 's first post:

"The number of Wins a player has isn't affected by defensive matches - if you successfully defend from another player's attack, it won't go up."

NMANOZ

Will we see this system used for Season rewards too?

Kjempen

entrailbucket said:

"This is quite possibly the worst change that has ever been made in this game.  How is one supposed to prevent another player from hitting progression rewards if we can't take away points from them?  Please reconsider this, or let us give -1 win for each time we beat a player, or something."

So, for some players it's all about personal progression, while for other players (as shown above) , it's all about stunting/suppressing other players progress. Let me guess, you also give your teammates your worst teamups (just for your xp)? And never help/give tips to alliance mates in alliance events? 

Bowgentle

ammenell said:

if you don't care about placement (let's just assume), losing a match is irrelevant - even better, your score falls and you don't see high level rosters only. 
pls correct me if I'm wrong? 
do defensive wins count? 

Points are irrelevant, 5* players only see other 5* rosters from 0 points onwards.

So in theory I now have to win 40 matches against dual 5* champ teams instead of about 25 for 1200+.
And that's just for a 4* cover.

Thanks Demiurge.

Spoit

Bowgentle said:

ammenell said:

now make the 4* cover something useful, don't bomb your test because you are greedy and give out elektra or mordo. 

It's Xforce Black.

..... lol. Yeah, that will totally give them useful info about how many people are willing to grind

broll

Vhailorx said:

HaywireII said:

mr_X said:

40 matches for a 4* cover. Darn lets just make pvp just as grindy as pve.

Story Event players are typically doing 9 nodes x 4 plays each day of a 3 day event for their progression prize so that's 106 matches for that 4 star cover.  40 sounds like a deal.

Story Mode also has the final command points at the end of the progession so it does seem odd they wouldn't leave the Versus mode final command points in progression and move it to placement.  It would be nice if they move it back.

Sure, but here are two counterpoints:

(1) people complain all the time about the time investment required by pve (which just went up from 4/6 to 5/6).  I dont think they wanted pvp to become more like pve in terms of reward:time efficiency.

(2) very few of the 36-54 daily matches in pvp are difficult.  The three trivial nodes can be cleared in 30-60 seconds most of the tims.  In pvp 5* players are facing 5* champs as soon as they clear the seeds.  30+ matches against 450+ opponents is quite a bit different than grinding down trivial nodes.

Counterpoint to (2).  In PvP you can literally pick the difficulty of the matches.  I can't speak to how different it is for 5*, but certainly at 4* level you could choose easy matches (even if they only are worth 5-20 points) if you are focused on getting number of wins vs points.  

broll

Daiches said:

Wow, that's the dumbest idea I have ever seen. I don't think anyone will enjoy getting progression by beating the same seals over and over and over and over and over, but if that's the toxic environment they want to create, okay.
And taking away 15cp from that many people in scl 6 to 8 to give them to people in scl 1-5, who actively shouldn't be spending cp yet until you introduce scl based scaling? Dumb dumb dumb.

You don't think anyone will like this?  Have you seen the positive replies in this very thread?

This change is bad for a very small percentage of players based on what I'm reading (mainly those in 5* land and/or regularly easily hitting 900-1200 with less than 40 wins), but it's probably a positive change for 90% or higher of the players.  One of the biggest complaints for as long as I've been playing is the fact that PvP progression is hard to get because it's like walking a sand dune, the higher you get the faster you backslide.  This takes that out and let's all progress be guaranteed (which is what progress should be IMO) and makes it easier for anyone who's willing to put the time in get max PvP progression (and without throwing money/resources away on shields)

It would be nice if they counted defensive wins also, that would make the number sting a little less and make 40 wins much easier for people also trying for placement (since they'd be the target of more attacks).

Borstock

corytutor said:

 In my brackets the top 100 put over 1200 up. So 90 people just got the shaft on cp. 

What the holy heck bracket are you talking about? I play SCL8 and if I hit 900 and shield, I'm usually t25.

broll

shardwick said:

PVE needs progression only and it needs it yesterday. For pvp lower the wins needed, keep cp in progression and add a new 5* token to the game that can only be obtained by getting top 10 in scl8 and up. Lower clearance levels get heroics or heroic 10 packs for top placement.

A 5* for T10 in SCL8?  So basically everyone stops playing and it becomes a snipe hunt... (even more so then it already is)

Mercator

get out of slice 2 or 5 and come play in slice 1,3 or 4  ... then you know what hes talking about