I've found myself looking forward to the new PVP system.

Dragon_Nexus
Dragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
in MPQ General Discussion
I had some grumbled about the "progression through wins" system that tested between seasons. I mean, we all did, right?

But as this season wraps up, I'm finding myself REALLY wishing to try that system again. It needed tweaking, absolutely, and if they impliment it into a season I hope to God they make the season progression win based, too.

Grinding up points and hoping not to get hit too hard after 800 points has really lost its lustre compared to grinding a bunch of wins for a 4* cover. I'm looking forward to further tests of the system and its eventual implimentation.

What do you guys think? Has this season changed your mind either for or against the new system they trialed? Do tell =)
«13456

Comments

  • jredd
    jredd Posts: 1,387 Chairperson of the Boards
    i'm definitely in the camp that wants them to implement the wins for progression system. hopefully one more off-season test, and then the system goes season live either the following or the next season after.
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm beyond bored of the current one after playing for wins and I just want to play in bursts here and there. Grab a handful of rewards, take a break, and really instead of thinking that I have to hit a certain point, after I have recovered the points that I had lost, it now feels more like a video game where you do "just one more fight" or "just one more mission" because it's fun and not so much of a chore. Anyway, myself and others have advocated for a dual system (pts and wins) so I think that's the best way to go to please almost everyone. I hope that after the Sentry pve they do another test but try out a dual system instead of a wins based one.

    I will say that even in a wins based system I probably still would have avoided that She Hulk pvp like the plague that it is.
  • AlluAllu
    AlluAllu Posts: 86 Match Maker
    I think it was quite a long time between SCL scaling tests and the implementation. I'm expecting PVP changes to happen in October-ish.
  • AlexxKats
    AlexxKats Posts: 99 Match Maker
    And here i am, crossing my fingers that whatever they decide to implement will work towards making the experience better for non pvp players, without forcing additional gameplay for the same (or worse) rewards
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    Even though the new system really didn't make much of a different for me personally with regards to progression (the 575 progression is ~16 wins for me in normal events; I didn't have enough free time during the test to try and go the full 40 wins), I would also look forward to a new test.  This past week, the two generic teams my MMR offered me were Mordo/featured/4Cage and Jean/featured/4Cage.  There were some other teams out there, depending on what 5* that person had covered or if a lower-tiered player had screwed up their MMR by leveling their 5*'s when they were clearly a 2-3* transitioner, but any two of Mordo/Jean/Cage were in well over 2/3 of every team I could find.  In the test event, people were trying so hard to bait retaliations that I could find many matches against a wide range of unboosted 2*'s and 3*'s.  I could even arrange a mirror-match to bait a retaliation in-kind.  There were two different players who traded simple retaliations with me 2-4 times and that is without using Line or any outside coordination whatsoever.  In the last 18-24 hrs when placement got serious, it was business as usual, but I'm fine with that--it is PVP after all, so we can't work together the whole event. ;) The variety of opponents was an awful lot of fun, though, and I really missed that this season...
  • Philly484
    Philly484 Posts: 173 Tile Toppler
    Personally I found it more lack luster then the current state of PVP. I think it forced a few players with higher rosters to go to lower SCL, because they knew it would earn them in a top 10 spot, which still isn't fair for players who have a less developed roster, but are trying to make said progressions. Personally I did better than what I normally do as I ended top 5, but I didn't meet the progression of the actual event. It just wasn't a fun system, and the rewards were far from great.
  • Orion
    Orion Posts: 1,295 Chairperson of the Boards
    I did not like the new system at all.   As a 5* player, reaching top 10 for the CP meant that I had to drop down to a lower CL to get the placement I wanted.  If people think that sandbagging is bad in PvE, it will be much worse in PvP.

    For comparison, in Made Man, I hit 2100 and did not finish in the top 10.  So my options to get the CP would be dropping down or moving to a new slice.  Since the CP is all that I care about, CL7 (or even 6!) it is.
  • Dragon_Nexus
    Dragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    IlDuderino said:
    I am not looking forward to it as I found it far more effort for less reward, sorry. I don't want to play this game like a full time job to make meaningful progress! 
    But it was only the first test. Don't look at that test as the 100% spot on "This is how it will definitely be" result. Look at the potential instead.

    I had issues with the gaps between wins. Need to win five matches to get the next reward...feels slow and unrewarding. But hey, maybe they'll change it so the prizes are divided into 5. Instead of 2500 from going between 30 wins and 35, have it be 500 ISO with every win between the fights, for example.

    It's a work in progress, It'll get tweaked around before the final implimentation. Another point people raised that I agree with is it takes more wins and points to hit the 4* cover than it did on average with the old system. I imagine they'l tweak that, too.

    Give it time. The new PvE system was garbage for the first 2-3 attempts, but they landed on something good by the end.
  • Beer40
    Beer40 Posts: 826 Critical Contributor
    Orion said:
    I did not like the new system at all.   As a 5* player, reaching top 10 for the CP meant that I had to drop down to a lower CL to get the placement I wanted.  If people think that sandbagging is bad in PvE, it will be much worse in PvP.

    For comparison, in Made Man, I hit 2100 and did not finish in the top 10.  So my options to get the CP would be dropping down or moving to a new slice.  Since the CP is all that I care about, CL7 (or even 6!) it is.
    This highlights the biggest drawback for me: they put the CP in placement. If that's going to be the way they do it I hope they just leave the system the same. 

    Disclaimer: I am not a 5* player or a placement player. I just don't like making a system more "achievable" for more people and taking away a reward as part of it. No thanks.
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    Just hate pvp as it stands now. I very rarely even go for beyond 575 even though I have 36 champed 4s, so it is not like I don't have a roster capable of making it to 900.

    Just too much effort and too tricks to have to pull off, I find, that completely takes the fun out of it.

    Even this season, I find myself not even wanting to hit 575 in most pvp and even finishing the simulator has gotten to be such a drag.
  • Dragon_Nexus
    Dragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    GrumpySmurf1002 said:
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    But it was only the first test. Don't look at that test as the 100% spot on "This is how it will definitely be" result. Look at the potential instead.
    In the past I'd agree with you, but the PvE test rolled with no changes (other than to fix a bug).  There's definitely a non-zero chance that was what will be implemented.

    I get the value of it, but 40 wins is waaaaaaaay too high if it's supposed to equate to 900.  Most of the people that can hit 900 now can do so in 15-20 matches.  That means an extra 20-25 matches that are literally grinding for the sake of grinding.

    The argument was made that PvP is not 'designed' to be optimized the points and late climb as we have, and that's fine.  But during the test I literally did not skip until 40 wins.   I still hit 900 in ~25 matches.  

    Put the CP back, set 900 @ 24 wins  (900/37.5pts per win, the average), set the CP at 1200 @ 32 wins, and then I think most would be fine.  That leaves competition to the crazies, who are the only ones competing now anyway.
    You are absolutely wrong about the PvE test. I can't recall all the details, but the first run had enemies gain much higher levels. Not to mention the refresh was different (I forget how) and they got rid of the three easy nodes, making all the nodes the same max difficulty, even the 2* node. So you ended up having a 2* loaner to fight level 350+ enemies.

    They tweaked the current PvE system a lot before we got to what we have now.

    I don't agree with your 15-20 figure, people did the working out and got a figure of around 30 generally, and I'm more inclined to agree with that from my own experience. I think I was at a score of about 1000 by the time I'd got enough wins, but that would also have been the highest uncontested score I'd ever gotten in PvP.

    It absolutely needs tweaking, I'll never disagree with that. It was a good proof of concept and from there they can refine it into something more people will enjoy. I just recall enjoying the sensation of not giving a damn if something I was fighting was worth 20 points or 75 points. Not having to skip for 5 minutes to find something achievable that was worth enough points.
  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    What do you guys think? Has this season changed your mind either for or against the new system they trialed? Do tell =)
    Eh. I feel like PvP is in need of a major overhaul, but I rarely criticize it here on these forums because I rarely have any good suggestions for change (my daddy told me: don't come to me with complaints, come to me with solutions).

    Right now, only players with champed 5-stars can play for placement. If PvP is supposed to be the 'Vet Arena' then that's fine, but I don't think that was what it was designed to be. That certainly wasn't the original intention.

    The featured character almost always being a 3-star is lackluster. Why not showcase the top tier of characters and have some 5-star character events? With the presence of a loaner it's not like anyone is prevented from playing.

    The list of boosted characters also irritates me. You see the same 2-3 teams over and over because using anyone who isn't boosted invites too many attacks. I get that boosted characters give 5-star players a reason to use their 4-stars and prevents every PvP event from being Loaner/Medusa/Carnage, but it still feels too restrictive.

    But none of this addresses your question, which has to do with the recent trial of progression based on # of wins. My answer is: no, that doesn't excite me. Even if they lower the number of wins from the trial (as suggested by many above me) what's the difference? If it takes me 24 wins in the old system to get my progression prize or 24 wins in the new system, why would I care which method they use? I'm driving the same broken car, it's just a different color now.
  • GrumpySmurf1002
    GrumpySmurf1002 Posts: 3,511 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    You are absolutely wrong about the PvE test. I can't recall all the details, but the first run had enemies gain much higher levels. Not to mention the refresh was different (I forget how) and they got rid of the three easy nodes, making all the nodes the same max difficulty, even the 2* node. So you ended up having a 2* loaner to fight level 350+ enemies.

    They tweaked the current PvE system a lot before we got to what we have now.
    No, not the old test, yes that one had 6 iterations.  The one they just implemented.

    They rolled out test 1.  It was easier than normal, they fixed that bug, ran it otherwise unchanged for the new release, and now implemented a week ago.  No other changes.

    I don't agree with your 15-20 figure, people did the working out and got a figure of around 30 generally, and I'm more inclined to agree with that from my own experience. I think I was at a score of about 1000 by the time I'd got enough wins, but that would also have been the highest uncontested score I'd ever gotten in PvP.
    I have all of my data for PvP going back to 2015, but keeping it relevant, up to the point of the test in 2017 I was averaging 26 wins per PvP and a hair under 1500 points per. You're not gonna convince me 30 is the right number for 900. Feedback I'd gotten from others confirmed around the same, 1200 isn't more than 20-25.

    Yeah that's slice dependant a bit (s2 is a dead zone), but 30 is only 30 points per battle. That's really low, again for people that can already reach 900.
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    GrumpySmurf1002 said:

    I have all of my data for PvP going back to 2015, but keeping it relevant, up to the point of the test in 2017 I was averaging 26 wins per PvP and a hair under 1500 points per. You're not gonna convince me 30 is the right number for 900. Feedback I'd gotten from others confirmed around the same, 1200 isn't more than 20-25.

    Yeah that's slice dependant a bit (s2 is a dead zone), but 30 is only 30 points per battle. That's really low, again for people that can already reach 900.
    It also depends on how often you get hit. For me it's about 15 matches to 700 and then the race to 900 starts.
  • sinnerjfl
    sinnerjfl Posts: 1,275 Chairperson of the Boards
    I hope they never implement this win-based system, in my case it takes maybe maximum 25 matches to hit 1200.

    40 matches per PVP is ridiculous, you might say "oh I dont mind grinding for the 4* cover" but down the road, you're gonna feel the burnout, it's way too many matches compared to now.

    Take in consideration that matches at the 3* tier or 4* tier are not the same when you consider healthpools. 4* matches, characters have often over 30k+ health, 40 matches of that is a total slog.

    And restricting the big CP prize to top10 is absurd, that is not concording with the reality of PVP where often a 1200+ score does not even guarantee top25.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,495 Chairperson of the Boards
    Honestly the better your roster the less wins it takes to 900.

    a 400 5* transtion roster can do 900 in less 30 matches.

    A 450 5* roster  does it less than 25
    and so on an so on.

    A 40 win requirement is really tied to what a good 3* roster / bad 4* roster would play to get to 900.


Categories