PVP Points

124

Comments

  • Justice Jacks
    Justice Jacks Posts: 116 Tile Toppler
    Spudgutter said:

    1) Putting "words" into quotation "marks" does not make them any "less" of an opinion. Broll did a good job of pointing out how things have been addressed, but something occurred to me.

    2)  To be clear, we are talking progression rewards, not placement.  So when we are talking about better rosters beating those that are developing, i think we all agree it's not abnormal for the higher end roster to place higher, right?  

    What we are talking about here is progression.   Currently, that goal is 900, and if you read through this thread and others, you see plenty of helpful higher end rosters giving wonderful tips and advice for reaching this target under the current system.  So i think we can all agree, that no one(well, mostly no one) has problems with developing rosters reaching these progression rewards.  

    3)  So my question is, why shouldn't they tweak pvp? If everyone is ok with people getting to 900, why shouldn't they make it a little more palatable to more people?  And before you say not everyone should hit 900, i agree.  With the tweaks, they should maybe make it CL based or something to keep the 4* reward to 7 or 8 and higher.

    4) You basically said yourself that you got to where you are after "years" of playing. You think new people read that and don't find that off putting?  You don't think the devs see a problen where half of the product they create is being actively ignored by a large portion of their playerbase?

    5)  Your solution is basically, "i had a long road to get here, and so should you."  I think that is not the best opinion for the long term health of the game.
    So many rows to hoe, but I'll give it a shot.

    1)  Right, but using quotation marks does help to distinguish a first perceived problem from a second perceived problem (including if the second perception is that the first perceived problem is not a real problem at all).

    2)  No, we don't all agree on that.  What we appear to agree on is that reaching the 900 target is achievable to many rosters that claim otherwise if they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation.  However, one group tries to help people get there if they are so inclined.  Another group says the system should be changed because its impossible, too hard, or not the way I personally prefer to play.

    3)  I disagreed with the starting premise in 2) above.  Most people understand there is a particular amount of effort required to reach 900.  As your roster advances, less effort is required to reach that milestone because your PAST EFFORT is also a factor.  Taking your argument a step further, and assuming your premise is valid, because we are all okay with everyone hitting 900 and getting the progression reward, why shouldn't D3 just give us the award at the start of the event just for joining? Or just give everyone a starting score of 900? Then new players would be even happier.  

    4)  Let's test this argument out a bit.  Everyone knows Michael Jordan got to where he was after "years" of practice and developing his knowledge and skills.  You think people read that and don't find it offputting?  Does no one want to be a professional basketball player anymore?  Does no one play the game at a lesser level as a fun past time?  In a game of checkers, should we all just start with all kinged pieces?  Why don't puzzles come already completed so we can just frame them?

    And no, I don't think the devs see a problem generally with "half" (actually well less than that as you have daily PVE, DDQ, as well as Sim, but whatevs) of the product being ignored initially (or played only for the first few hundred pts) by a large portion of the player base.  This game has always been set up to progress your roster via the PVE side and work your way up to PVP then to truly competitive PVP.  Dangling carrots in this manner is literally the profit model for an entire industry, not just this game.

    5)  We disagree on your conclusion.  Further, please stop pretending that there aren't other options.  Spending money can get your roster developed well past mine in far less time. Joining a shield-check room can get you there.  Shielding properly and picking proper targets and a proper shard can get you there.  All of these things are accessible on this very site. 

    "But I don't want to spend money, they should redesign the game."  Ok, that's your choice.  But again, it's your choice.  You have the option to make roster development faster, and the most-prized rewards more easily achieved.

    But yes, I'm not particularly excited about the idea that the awards the developed rosters have worked for (and in many cases, paid for) are given easier to newer players.  We've already made things much easier on newer players--see, e.g., DDQ and then even newer DDQ with CP awards, intercepts, increased ISO awards, expanded prologue, and on and on.  So yes, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to reward the people that have been here the longest or spent the most moreso than they do newer players in a particular subportion of the game.  There should be some in-game incentives to maximize your roster.

    And no, I don't agree that upsetting the most active, longest-tenured players of your game is a positive thing when it comes to the long-term health of the game.

    And I know I couldn't address every issue fully, nor do I care to take on the next round of questions/comments to move the PVP game to a participation-ribbon solution.  So I'll step out at this point.   Good luck.  Hopefully one day I'll be able to q your roster.  Please make the effort in-game so that I can.
  • acescracked
    acescracked Posts: 1,197 Chairperson of the Boards
    Borstock said:
    If it makes you feel any better, I couldn't reach 900 in Real Steel, and I have 35+ champed 4* characters, including the boosted St4rLord, Medusa, and Cycl4ps. I just barely cleared 800, and I couldn't even hold that.
    Would be cool if MMR could dynamically change based upon the characters you use.

    I'd really like to try and see if I could hit 900 using just my boosted 4*s. Would like to see how it is now on the "otherside".  With those boosted 4*s I personally think 900 should be hit but hey maybe not.

    One thing is Medusa matches are super slow so you are out longer. Even more so for Medusa mirror matches.
  • granne
    granne Posts: 852 Critical Contributor
    Medusa is the only boosted 4* champ I have this week, and I hit 900 in both Morse Code and Real Steel. It wasn't as easy as those weeks when I have 2 or more, but it wasn't that hard either. The hardest part was finding targets worth hitting, points-wise.

    I accidentally signed up for S2 for Stay on Target, though, so who knows. My streak may be broken.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Justice Jacks said:
    Spudgutter said:

    1) Putting "words" into quotation "marks" does not make them any "less" of an opinion. Broll did a good job of pointing out how things have been addressed, but something occurred to me.

    2)  To be clear, we are talking progression rewards, not placement.  So when we are talking about better rosters beating those that are developing, i think we all agree it's not abnormal for the higher end roster to place higher, right?  

    What we are talking about here is progression.   Currently, that goal is 900, and if you read through this thread and others, you see plenty of helpful higher end rosters giving wonderful tips and advice for reaching this target under the current system.  So i think we can all agree, that no one(well, mostly no one) has problems with developing rosters reaching these progression rewards.  

    3)  So my question is, why shouldn't they tweak pvp? If everyone is ok with people getting to 900, why shouldn't they make it a little more palatable to more people?  And before you say not everyone should hit 900, i agree.  With the tweaks, they should maybe make it CL based or something to keep the 4* reward to 7 or 8 and higher.

    4) You basically said yourself that you got to where you are after "years" of playing. You think new people read that and don't find that off putting?  You don't think the devs see a problen where half of the product they create is being actively ignored by a large portion of their playerbase?

    5)  Your solution is basically, "i had a long road to get here, and so should you."  I think that is not the best opinion for the long term health of the game.
    So many rows to hoe, but I'll give it a shot.

    1)  Right, but using quotation marks does help to distinguish a first perceived problem from a second perceived problem (including if the second perception is that the first perceived problem is not a real problem at all).

    2)  No, we don't all agree on that.  What we appear to agree on is that reaching the 900 target is achievable to many rosters that claim otherwise if they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation.  However, one group tries to help people get there if they are so inclined.  Another group says the system should be changed because its impossible, too hard, or not the way I personally prefer to play.

    3)  I disagreed with the starting premise in 2) above.  Most people understand there is a particular amount of effort required to reach 900.  As your roster advances, less effort is required to reach that milestone because your PAST EFFORT is also a factor.  Taking your argument a step further, and assuming your premise is valid, because we are all okay with everyone hitting 900 and getting the progression reward, why shouldn't D3 just give us the award at the start of the event just for joining? Or just give everyone a starting score of 900? Then new players would be even happier.  

    4)  Let's test this argument out a bit.  Everyone knows Michael Jordan got to where he was after "years" of practice and developing his knowledge and skills.  You think people read that and don't find it offputting?  Does no one want to be a professional basketball player anymore?  Does no one play the game at a lesser level as a fun past time?  In a game of checkers, should we all just start with all kinged pieces?  Why don't puzzles come already completed so we can just frame them?

    And no, I don't think the devs see a problem generally with "half" (actually well less than that as you have daily PVE, DDQ, as well as Sim, but whatevs) of the product being ignored initially (or played only for the first few hundred pts) by a large portion of the player base.  This game has always been set up to progress your roster via the PVE side and work your way up to PVP then to truly competitive PVP.  Dangling carrots in this manner is literally the profit model for an entire industry, not just this game.

    5)  We disagree on your conclusion.  Further, please stop pretending that there aren't other options.  Spending money can get your roster developed well past mine in far less time. Joining a shield-check room can get you there.  Shielding properly and picking proper targets and a proper shard can get you there.  All of these things are accessible on this very site. 

    "But I don't want to spend money, they should redesign the game."  Ok, that's your choice.  But again, it's your choice.  You have the option to make roster development faster, and the most-prized rewards more easily achieved.

    But yes, I'm not particularly excited about the idea that the awards the developed rosters have worked for (and in many cases, paid for) are given easier to newer players.  We've already made things much easier on newer players--see, e.g., DDQ and then even newer DDQ with CP awards, intercepts, increased ISO awards, expanded prologue, and on and on.  So yes, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to reward the people that have been here the longest or spent the most moreso than they do newer players in a particular subportion of the game.  There should be some in-game incentives to maximize your roster.

    And no, I don't agree that upsetting the most active, longest-tenured players of your game is a positive thing when it comes to the long-term health of the game.

    And I know I couldn't address every issue fully, nor do I care to take on the next round of questions/comments to move the PVP game to a participation-ribbon solution.  So I'll step out at this point.   Good luck.  Hopefully one day I'll be able to q your roster.  Please make the effort in-game so that I can.
    So many strawmen, so little time. Not sure if you are trolling for fun, or if its cognitive dissonance, or a little of both.  

    Since you don't agree with the main principle, that progression and placement in pvp are separate, why are you even arguing? 

    And my point, that you ignored, still stands unanswered.  It's ok for someone to hit 900, if "they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation." So if someone does that, they get that 4 star, but someone who plays the whole event, up and down, 40+ matches, they don't get it?  Why?  Just because that is what you had to do?  Awesome set of entitlement you are rocking there.  

    Your post is one long "Get off my lawn!"  And my ign is the same, so go ahead and follow through with your thinly veiled threat to snipe and suppress me, further proving my point that you feel you are the one to decide who gets the rewards in this game.  Please continue to show beginning players what they sometimes have to look forward to if they actually do develop their rosters.  
  • WelcomeDeath
    WelcomeDeath Posts: 349 Mover and Shaker
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Milk Jugz said:
    acescracked said:
    Spudgutter said:.   

    And my point, that you ignored, still stands unanswered.  It's ok for someone to hit 900, if "they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation." So if someone does that, they get that 4 star, but someone who plays the whole event, up and down, 40+ matches, they don't get it?  Why?  Just because that is what you had to do?  Awesome set of entitlement you are rocking there.  

    Huh, you don't see the difference? The reward is the same but your 40 matches grind might as well be played on auto mode. What's the point? Have a 40 match DDQ.

    There is some disconnect you have with understanding many players like risk/reward system and competition aspect of hitting someone and taking points from them. It's what makes first person shooters so popular. 

    You have two game modes that allow for mindless grinding (pve & ddq)...let some of us have a more fun game mode.
    Perfect response! The risk of losing points is what makes PVP different from the other parts of the game. You need to strategize, plan your moves. Whether it's with help from others through Line or solo (like myself). I hit 900, easily enough most times, playing completely solo.

    Only thing I would change is swap the 3* cover @800 with the 10 CP @575. They are definitely more valuable and it would promote more play from some people, thus more points in each slice. 
    I won't try to claim i have the answer, at least i don't think i did.  

    i get what you, aces and aes are saying, but i would argue that the pvp test was less boring for me, because i saw a wider variety of opponents, while using more of my roster than normal.  i didn't even play to 40 matches because i didn't agree with the win count, so i hoped to be a statistic that showed a person that gets to 900 every event, but didn't get the 4* in the test.

    Everyone keeps saying that if you want an endless grind, to go play pve.  well, at least in pve, every day brings new matches with different combinations of opponents.  want to guess what the the last pvp was for me from 200 points to 900 points?  medusa/cyclops.  thing/starlord.  cyclops/starlord, medusa/thing.  with the occasional im40/cyclops.  and from what i hear of the 5*, it's just as bad.  you wouldn't want to see an improvement on that?

    maybe it's because i am like you, hitting 900 solo every time with no coordination?  maybe you are on to something with switching the cp and 3* cover.  maybe they should mix the points with the wins.  maybe they come up with something completely different?  too many maybes i guess. 
  • j0nats
    j0nats Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    aesthetocyst said:
    Whoooooa! Welcome Death said something encouraging it must be true LOL

    +1 to aces, that pvp test was duller than dirt. No one cared about score, just grinding out matches. Less personal engagement, less challenge, less thrill, less spending on shields for some people. And making the 4* cover twice as much work to get as the cp pile was weird, and made for a long march for that cover.

    PvP should not be busywork. That's what PvE is for :pensive:

    Also +1 to Jugz. The problems with the PvP progression is so obvious, it's like almost everyone can see it. Except a certain class who could change it. Who must have some rationale for not doing so .... a rationale they aren't sharing.

    Hard to imagine why progressions should not become progressively more valuable as you progress. Players hit that high hump in the middle and pull the ripcord.

    Like it or not, PvP is ultimately a collaborative affair scoring-wise. So many bailing out early makes it harder for those who want to soldier on.
    Agreee... 40 matches for progression sucks.  I did not spend countless hours grinding pve, to get the covers and iso to improve my roster enough to play pvp, only for pve grinding to be ported over to pvp.


  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    acescracked said:
    Spudgutter said:.   

    And my point, that you ignored, still stands unanswered.  It's ok for someone to hit 900, if "they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation." So if someone does that, they get that 4 star, but someone who plays the whole event, up and down, 40+ matches, they don't get it?  Why?  Just because that is what you had to do?  Awesome set of entitlement you are rocking there.  

    Huh, you don't see the difference? The reward is the same but your 40 matches grind might as well be played on auto mode. What's the point? Have a 40 match DDQ.

    There is some disconnect you have with understanding many players like risk/reward system and competition aspect of hitting someone and taking points from them. It's what makes first person shooters so popular. 

    You have two game modes that allow for mindless grinding (pve & ddq)...let some of us have a more fun game mode.
    +1 for a well reasoned response.  since barely check names to keep from hitting people in my alliance, it is certainly in the realm of reason that the disconnect is on my end.  i do not see the correlation between this and a fps.  

    please check my response to jugs, what's your take on increasing player engagement beyond 575?  is it just the curse of the game to play the same people, over and over, every event? 
  • revskip
    revskip Posts: 1,011 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    acescracked said:
    Spudgutter said:.   

    And my point, that you ignored, still stands unanswered.  It's ok for someone to hit 900, if "they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation." So if someone does that, they get that 4 star, but someone who plays the whole event, up and down, 40+ matches, they don't get it?  Why?  Just because that is what you had to do?  Awesome set of entitlement you are rocking there.  

    Huh, you don't see the difference? The reward is the same but your 40 matches grind might as well be played on auto mode. What's the point? Have a 40 match DDQ.

    There is some disconnect you have with understanding many players like risk/reward system and competition aspect of hitting someone and taking points from them. It's what makes first person shooters so popular. 

    You have two game modes that allow for mindless grinding (pve & ddq)...let some of us have a more fun game mode.
    +1 for a well reasoned response.  since barely check names to keep from hitting people in my alliance, it is certainly in the realm of reason that the disconnect is on my end.  i do not see the correlation between this and a fps.  

    please check my response to jugs, what's your take on increasing player engagement beyond 575?  is it just the curse of the game to play the same people, over and over, every event? 
    Best way to increase engagement would be to move the CP at 575 up to 800.  Drop the 3* cover to 700.  The reason that 3* rosters are hitting the wall is due to the vast majority of them not playing past that first CP reward.  Which in turn leaves fewer players at their MMR available to be queued.  Which in turn leads to them getting hit quicker than they can climb.  

    If more 3* rosters (and 4* rosters who stop at 575) were pushing to 800 they would quickly see that 900 isn't that far off.  Which would improve the points in the slice, which would trickle down to a lot more rosters being able to queue higher point targets.  
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Spudgutter said:

    want to guess what the the last pvp was for me from 200 points to 900 points?  medusa/cyclops.  thing/starlord.  cyclops/starlord, medusa/thing.  with the occasional im40/cyclops.  and from what i hear of the 5*, it's just as bad.  you wouldn't want to see an improvement on that?
    I can certainly agree with you on that. As soon as I hit 900+ on Real Steel I shielded out. My climb was a slog with the last 5-6 all against Medusa/Cyclops. Can't expect anything less from Stay on Target too..... Oh well, at least after that we have Teen Jean to look forward to.....
  • Alsmir
    Alsmir Posts: 508 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2017
    Milk Jugz said:
    acescracked said:
    Spudgutter said:.   

    And my point, that you ignored, still stands unanswered.  It's ok for someone to hit 900, if "they put for the proper effort, decision making, and cooperation." So if someone does that, they get that 4 star, but someone who plays the whole event, up and down, 40+ matches, they don't get it?  Why?  Just because that is what you had to do?  Awesome set of entitlement you are rocking there.  

    Huh, you don't see the difference? The reward is the same but your 40 matches grind might as well be played on auto mode. What's the point? Have a 40 match DDQ.

    There is some disconnect you have with understanding many players like risk/reward system and competition aspect of hitting someone and taking points from them. It's what makes first person shooters so popular. 

    You have two game modes that allow for mindless grinding (pve & ddq)...let some of us have a more fun game mode.
    Perfect response! The risk of losing points is what makes PVP different from the other parts of the game. You need to strategize, plan your moves. Whether it's with help from others through Line or solo (like myself). I hit 900, easily enough most times, playing completely solo.

    Only thing I would change is swap the 3* cover @800 with the 10 CP @575. They are definitely more valuable and it would promote more play from some people, thus more points in each slice. 
    What's with the obsession to prove that PvP is so challenging that only elite players can grasp it? We're still playing match-3 against AI.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Welcome Death said:
    aesthetocyst said:
    konannfriends said:
    anyway it seems that the general consensus Is that I shouldn't try to get 900 points.....


    Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

    Fuhgeddabout "consensus", particularly any kind of "consensus" found on this here forum. Triply so in regards to anything related to PvP in MPQ.

    Listen to yourself. Play. See what happens, see who's scoring what, give it some thought. And never keep trying.

    Listen to the knitting circle naysayers around here and they'll have you believing no one ever progresses and no one ever hits whatever number in whichever game mode.

    Of course you can do it.

    You figured out how to get up to 797, damn good start. Keep building the roster, keep playing the events, keep watching. Hit up some of the old hands around here, just about everyone is willing to help.


    Agreed 100%.  The vets sometimes forget their roots, dont listen to them.  If more 3* players pushed and played more, 900 would be easy (see the pvp test where I saw several 3* players in my bracket shielded at 900+, because they had to play 40 matches, not just hit 575 and give  up).  Should you be getting top 5 in your bracket?  No.  Should you be able to hit the progression point that gives out rewards for the next tier? Yes, you should.  You don't now, but hopefully the pvp test sticks or they fix progression so that more in your tier will push.  Either way, dont give up on it.  Take advice from vets helping you, ignore anyone who is condescending.  Not worth your time.
    And why did you see so many 3* players hitting 900?  Several reasons:
    • More lower levels played this event (likely because the point loss was the reason they don't typically play)
    • More lower levels playing means more total points available for people to climb easier
    This is my point as to why some change to progression needs to happen.  Cupcakes/grills, whatever are thing because the low level players in PvP are an endangered species and like any ecosystems where survival of the fittest exists, losing one species negatively affects the overall ecosystem in some way because the food chain is all related.  it's the same thing here.  Something has to be done to encourage/revitalize the low level PvP.  Win based may not be the answer, I've suggested others, but something needs to be done.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,501 Chairperson of the Boards
    Alsmir said:

    What's with the obsession to prove that PvP is so challenging that only elite players can grasp it? We're still playing match-3 against AI.
    The difference is that placements and results are based on how efficiently you play compared to another  real person and not an ai.

    This analogy may help.

    You can be taught to ride a surfboard (well enough to stand catch and ride a wave) in about a day or two.  But learning how to surf in a lineup with real people takes years of effort to learn the etiquette, learn the ins and outs of a specific break at all tide levels, and then acquire the skills to be first on wave ahead of real people.

    Anytime a ranking involves 2 people with competing objectives (i.e. I finish higher than you) you should expect an exponentially higher level of competition vs if its man vs computer.


  • GurlBYE
    GurlBYE Posts: 1,218 Chairperson of the Boards
    I still can't see how higher tier players don't realize that we don't see the 75 points all the way up to 900 they do. 
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Phumade said:
    Alsmir said:

    What's with the obsession to prove that PvP is so challenging that only elite players can grasp it? We're still playing match-3 against AI.
    The difference is that placements and results are based on how efficiently you play compared to another  real person and not an ai.

    This analogy may help.

    You can be taught to ride a surfboard (well enough to stand catch and ride a wave) in about a day or two.  But learning how to surf in a lineup with real people takes years of effort to learn the etiquette, learn the ins and outs of a specific break at all tide levels, and then acquire the skills to be first on wave ahead of real people.

    Anytime a ranking involves 2 people with competing objectives (i.e. I finish higher than you) you should expect an exponentially higher level of competition vs if its man vs computer.


    I'm fine with that.  Progression (IMO) should be teh get taught to ride a surfboard.  Placement should be the learning to surf in a lineup.  Instead they both fall into the later category more or less right now.

Categories