How do you like the PVP Test?

mpqr7

Let me know your thoughts. I tried to include all possible options.

Magic

The answers seem biased. I don't see a reason why would you say Championed 4 is medium and put it in the same category as beginner.
5* champions is Endgame roster
4* champions is Advanced roster
4* transition/3* champions is Medium roster
3* transition and under is Beginner

The way I see it you are looking for confirmation that 5* rosters don't like it as they have to suffer the 5* MMR for 40 fights and all the others like it (with the exception of some that don't have a strong opinion or didn't play yet - like myself). And surely this survey will show that. No sure why you need that in the form of a poll.

Daiches

So boring.

broll

Magic said:

The answers seem biased. I don't see a reason why would you say Championed 4 is medium and put it in the same category as beginner.
5* champions is Endgame roster
4* champions is Advanced roster
4* transition/3* champions is Medium roster
3* transition and under is Beginner

The way I see it you are looking for confirmation that 5* rosters don't like it as they have to suffer the 5* MMR for 40 fights and all the others like it (with the exception of some that don't have a strong opinion or didn't play yet - like myself). And surely this survey will show that. No sure why you need that in the form of a poll.

It's a fair point, the poll was made with the expected answer in mind (which makes it a biased poll).  That being said, we all know how this is gonna turn out and I don't see any intended malice involved.  He just wanted to get a quick view of the data that a dev could see (at least that's my guess) to show a glaring problem with the test.

Beer40

I voted other. I posted something similar in another thread as my initial reaction but its a little different, so here's my final reaction.

I liked: Being able to reach the final cover at my (relatively) own pace.

I disliked: Having the 15 CP removed from progression.

So that's why I voted other. I both liked and disliked the event. Here's my solution to get me to fully embrace the changes: Move the progression cover to 36 wins and make 40 wins the 15 CP.

For my roster (all 3's around 180-240, 18 4* champions with a 273 average and the rest all under leveled, and all 5* under covered/under leveled) I feel like this is a good challenge to reach 40 wins in this time frame. 

mpqr7

I grouped all people below 5*s as the same level, because in my own personal experience, the game was super fun and interesting before I had any championed 5*s, and then as soon as I started championing my 5*s, each PVE and PVP match became interminably long, and the only thing I care about is championing more 5*s, so winning 3*s and 4*s doesn't mean much other than champion farming. And it's so slow to make progress, because I need to hoard cp and LTs for 6 months in order to hope to get a guarantee of a new champion 5*, because getting a 5/1/5 5* is kind of useless in PVP (even more useless than having a lv 450 5*).

So in my memory of my own personal mpq gaming history, it was a fantastic and fun experience of fast matches and lots of quick progress when I was in the 1*, 2*, 3* and 4* meta, and that's why I put them all in the same group. I feel that I'm not alone in this regard.

babinro

Not enjoying the changes.

I recently finished my climb with 42 wins and shielded in 1st...there's 9 hours to go so we'll see if top 10 is a possibility.

I've used roughly 35 health packs this event where typically I'm used to using around 20.

The end result as expected from the announcement was far more time played and resources used for a CHANCE at the same rewards I earned before.  It's extremely hard to feel good about that experience.

If D3 kept the 15 CP on win number 40 and added additional bonus rewards to top 10 then I'd be on board. 

The recent PvE changes that 'required' 5 clears all came with BONUS rewards.  Granted the forums complained about these changes but that was a far more agreeable way to implement a more time consuming and challenging event.

I will say that being able to hit some weaker teams which opened up more roster diversity on my part was refreshing and made the 40 win grind more tolerable.  That's an unexpected positive that came out of this but admittedly it was only a positive in the earlier stages of the event.  Doesn't take long to get matched with top tier teams endlessly.

TetsujinOni

babinro said:

Not enjoying the changes.


I will say that being able to hit some weaker teams which opened up more roster diversity on my part was refreshing and made the 40 win grind more tolerable.  That's an unexpected positive that came out of this but admittedly it was only a positive in the earlier stages of the event.  Doesn't take long to get matched with top tier teams endlessly.

That's just the nature of off-season PvP having 3-choice team composition for MMR to work from. No guaranteed 3* in the center slot means a lot more possible teams - more like Simulator than normal PvP.

evade420

For a 5* player it's brutal for progression and so so for placement. Problem is if you play the same amount that you normally would to get to 1200 you still wont get all progression so fail .
40 5* PvP matches would take forever , and marks the first time I've missed the 4* cover in at least year 

smkspy

At win 37 with 1 day to go. I like that I'll eventually hit 40 teams to guarantee a 4 star cover. But just like regular pvp, once I get this high I start seeing the same teams over and over. 

Maybe I'll see better(easier) teams in a couple of hours after I get hit for one or two hundred points.

I don't know cause I've never played a pvp day one to finish.

Celerial

3* roster in early stages of transitioning to 4.  I voted other because I'm just not sure how I feel about it yet.  

I think it needs some tweaks but I like the thought behind the changes.

aa25

I'm a 4* player and never use any kind of outside-the-game coordination if that matters. (Although, can you really use it or be effected by it when you're under 900 ?) I totally hate the current implementation in the test. I probably wait for an official feedback request thread to pop up and I will express my opinion there.

Dotproduct

It's the furthest either in score or participation I've had in PvP ever (early roster, only 1 4*champ). 

Although it was still scored the fact that I could get progress that effectively couldn't be taken away made me more confident to play. 

Pollozz

My roster is on the 4's, and I've really like this new system. Why?, because I've always find PvP to be very frustrating and unrewarding for someone who doesn't have a strong roster. I know people on the 5 land don't like it, and just read the reasons and they are very valid. They need to find a middle point. But once again, from my point of view is fantastic being able to get the 4 cover without being stress because I am just one victory away from the 900 mark, I break shield, got the win, but at the end, is too bad u got -49 points because two people attacked you and you were not fast enough. This happened to me so many times, that for the last 3 months I just decided not to play PvP beyond the 575 mark, because is simply not fun and very frustrating. On this event I will gladly do the 40 fights.

Rod5

I found it dull, repetitive and just generally boring. I was less incentivised to go for higher points/harder matches and instead resorted to breaking out of MMR and fighting weak teams quickly to get to 40 wins.

And if you don't want to get hit, just play PvE...

Orion

Pretty telling that the vast majority of people with champed 5*s hated the test.  They're the ones that got screwed the most.  Instead of 50+ CL8 people getting to 1200 and getting the 15 CP, now only the top 10 get it.  I had to drop down to a lower CL to make sure I got top 10 and the CP.  if they run this test again, all of the brackets from CL5 to CL8 will be vets sandbagging to get the CP.  I'm pretty sure that's not what the devs intended.

Khanwulf

I think the issues highlighted by 5* players are real, but from other comments the spread on matches played and speed varies wildly. There are a few going "ya I did 60+ in no time, hur" and others playing at 4* still finishing progression or not at all.

That's a huge difference. As much I'd suggest as the usual experiences with Versus. Only the change affects one or another class in different ways. Obviously the best solution is going to end up being mixed at some levels, however being able to AT ALL hope for a 4* cover and play for progression is a huge quality-of-life change for many. And it will draw Versus populations way upwards, making the system better.

Compromises? Perhaps drop the cover to 36 and put 10 CP at 40 wins plus 10 at placement? And/or, widen the placement rewards such that top-25 receive some or all CP?

I'm afraid something like that may be the best that can be done unless or until SCL in Versus limits hero tier AND provides significantly different rewards, such that SCL 8+ are a proper 5* playground... as the matchmaker creates for them anyway, at the moment.

--Khanwulf

Ducky

***Closing this thread as the poll is not objective in the least and slants towards upper end play. A simple Yes/No poll with options for sitting out and not caring is more than sufficient. People can elaborate their roster's circumstances in posts if they so choose***