PVP Points
Comments
-
So many rows to hoe, but I'll give it a shot.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.
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.3 -
Would be cool if MMR could dynamically change based upon the characters you use.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.
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.0 -
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.1 -
So many strawmen, so little time. Not sure if you are trolling for fun, or if its cognitive dissonance, or a little of both.Justice Jacks said:
So many rows to hoe, but I'll give it a shot.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.
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.
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.
0 -
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.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.4 -
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.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.
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.7 -
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.acescracked said:
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.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.
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.
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.6 -
I won't try to claim i have the answer, at least i don't think i did.Milk Jugz said:
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.acescracked said:
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.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.
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.
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 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.0 -
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.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
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.
0 -
+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.acescracked said:
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.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.
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.
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?0 -
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.Spudgutter said:
+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.acescracked said:
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.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.
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.
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?
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.1 -
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.....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?
1 -
Getting in the 575-600 point range is usually good enough for Top 100 (sometimes as low as Top 125, but that's rare) and doing that for a season puts me in the Top 15% of all players for the season, even with practically no simulator progress. I honestly don't think shifting the CP to 800 would have the dramatic effect that you expect. Hell, I only hit 300 in progression the last event that that still put me firmly in the Top 200. The vast majority of players in this game seem to put little-to-no effort into PVP. That's just the way it is with the system as it stands now. The lower CP target hasn't affected that in the slightest, as this was the same as back when I was a 2* player.revskip said: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.
To put it another way, if I followed the general consensus of not hitting any targets less than 38-40 pts (the break-even point for scoring), I would likely have to stop at 300 or less in my progression. In my MMR, large point targets are very difficult to find, except for late in events if I'm starting from the beginning. I hit a 50 point win in the Colossus event around the 200 pt progression in the last 6 hours or so, but that was HUGE compared to what I usually see. My progress from 300-600 is generally on numerous 22-35 pt matches, and that's after skipping dozens just to find something that juicy (the 16 wins to the 575 progression in the off-season was fewer wins than it took my to hit 575 the last time I did this season a couple events ago, so that <35pts match average is what I expect to see, with or without taking any defensive losses). Hitting a sub-20pt match to reach a progression threshold is common, as the points just dry up. That's the story for me to get to 575 with a roster of 10 champed 4*'s. Why would I expect it to be any easier with a higher point threshold? If 575 was a breeze with 45+ pt matches all the way, but it clamped down after 600-700, I could agree with you that raising to 800 would increase engagement. Getting 575 is pulling teeth now, though, so raising the CP to 800 would likely just drive myself and others out at 400 or less unless engagement really did raise as dramatically as you suggest.5 -
I got 1247, and only just slid into top ten with a Champed Thing and Cyclops without any BC in slice one.The only room I still have active in line is the old shield room - and that's more about future fight these days. So I'm pretty sure it'd still be a cake walk for you.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.
I think for a lot of players it isn't about possibility. I tend to think it's more about cost / benefit analysis. They dedicate a lot of time, and effort to get up to whatever progression point to see most of their effort and time to be wasted - unless they sink more cost into it through HP. And then it only takes one unlucky hit whilst hopping for them to lose yet more points. (It happens, I came out of my first battle of hop almost even after losing 60 somehow to a hit. Think it was just an unlucky retal.) At that point it becomes pay to lose for them. The cost of time/money is not being outweighed by their potential benefits.
And Shields bring about another kind of cost in the form of time too - the cool downs, the waiting. Depends on how busy your life is, and stuff but expect some people struggle to fit the shield hopping schedule in and prefer a pick up and play style. It's the biggest criticism I've heard from mates who have given it ago. They prefer something they can play in the car whilst waiting for the missus, or on the train they can put away if they see someone they know get on at another station. The worlds on demand - we are getting more impatient due to it.
There's also the frustration and stress they feel from this detracting from their experience. Gaming for a lot of people is a form of escapism from these and the real world. And this is just a few of the costs.
And for that they get an extra cover for a four they don't have the covers/iso to make usable, and 4* Sam Wilson they don't want to champ. Meh. Why would they bother investing the resources?
So for some people the costs are not worth reaching that point. But t's still possible.5 -
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.Milk Jugz said:
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.acescracked said:
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.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.
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.
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.
0 -
And why did you see so many 3* players hitting 900? Several reasons:Welcome Death said:
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.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.- 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
4 -
Yea, that is exactly my experience as well. Changing the rewards around might seem like a great idea to some, but it would further ruin PVP if it didn't work. Seems like a risky idea to me, so I can't support it.ZootSax said:
Getting in the 575-600 point range is usually good enough for Top 100 (sometimes as low as Top 125, but that's rare) and doing that for a season puts me in the Top 15% of all players for the season, even with practically no simulator progress. I honestly don't think shifting the CP to 800 would have the dramatic effect that you expect. Hell, I only hit 300 in progression the last event that that still put me firmly in the Top 200. The vast majority of players in this game seem to put little-to-no effort into PVP. That's just the way it is with the system as it stands now. The lower CP target hasn't affected that in the slightest, as this was the same as back when I was a 2* player.revskip said: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.
To put it another way, if I followed the general consensus of not hitting any targets less than 38-40 pts (the break-even point for scoring), I would likely have to stop at 300 or less in my progression. In my MMR, large point targets are very difficult to find, except for late in events if I'm starting from the beginning. I hit a 50 point win in the Colossus event around the 200 pt progression in the last 6 hours or so, but that was HUGE compared to what I usually see. My progress from 300-600 is generally on numerous 22-35 pt matches, and that's after skipping dozens just to find something that juicy (the 16 wins to the 575 progression in the off-season was fewer wins than it took my to hit 575 the last time I did this season a couple events ago, so that <35pts match average is what I expect to see, with or without taking any defensive losses). Hitting a sub-20pt match to reach a progression threshold is common, as the points just dry up. That's the story for me to get to 575 with a roster of 10 champed 4*'s. Why would I expect it to be any easier with a higher point threshold? If 575 was a breeze with 45+ pt matches all the way, but it clamped down after 600-700, I could agree with you that raising to 800 would increase engagement. Getting 575 is pulling teeth now, though, so raising the CP to 800 would likely just drive myself and others out at 400 or less unless engagement really did raise as dramatically as you suggest.
I'll add on to the person I quoted by saying that I understand the "losing points" in a versus aspect. I wonder if part of the disconnect in the argument is that, by possibly not understanding how dry the points are, they don't understand the amount of hits/time we have to invest to get to 900?
Example:
You hit 900 in 15 matches. You're open to be hit by your MMR + 15 retals.
It would probably take me 40+ matches to hit 900. I'm open to be hit by my MMR + 40+ retals.
Hits start coming in pretty quickly in the amount of time it takes to climb with our dry point matches + recovering from retals + just plain getting hit (nature of the vs).
I'm not trying to argue here. I read earlier in the post someone was asking why we stop at 575. Well, there's the reason I stop. PVP is an absolute time sink for me. And its a time sink where I can actually run backwards at certain points. For a progression player, seeing that progression come to a halt, while continuing to play, is pointless.5 -
The difference is that placements and results are based on how efficiently you play compared to another real person and not an ai.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.
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.
0 -
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.2
-
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.Phumade said:
The difference is that placements and results are based on how efficiently you play compared to another real person and not an ai.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.
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.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.6K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.5K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 498 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.3K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 98 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 419 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 295 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements