Kahmon said: I found myself with some free time yesterday just before slice 3 was starting, so I signed up and started at the very beginning. First up 10 freebie seed fights. Then a few more against real teams. Then I had other stuff to do so I took a break. As I had time I would pop back on for a few fights here or there.Laundry time. Guess I'll play MPQ while it washes. Back to other stuff. A few fights before bed to help me fall asleep. Oh look, 45 wins on day 1. No stress. No pressure. Very enjoyable. Now if only there were 15 command points at 50 wins. Oh well, can't have everything.And to those who say all your feedback is ignored...There are lots of us giving feedback about how much we like these changes.Could it be improved? Definately.Will they find a happy compromise to make everyone happy? Probably not.Whatever PvP looks like in a few months, you can bet it is because they feel it is best for the majority of the player base. Some people will feel it hurts them, but they will adjust.
Kahmon said: And to those who say all your feedback is ignored...There are lots of us giving feedback about how much we like these changes.Could it be improved? Definately.Will they find a happy compromise to make everyone happy? Probably not.Whatever PvP looks like in a few months, you can bet it is because they feel it is best for the majority of the player base. Some people will feel it hurts them, but they will adjust.
Alterationartist said: I honestly can't see what people are having a problem with. The wins only affect progression, not placement. Progression has never been required, which I mentioned before, being physically unable to progress past the 575 point progression tier, so with it not being required, hard PvPers can still work their point placements, and lesser players still stand to gain by just winning, and not seething with hate for the game, its community, the matchmaking, the whales, etc.Proofhttps://imgur.com/a/shEKoWhat 5 hours of sleep looks like just getting 600 points at rank 6, and going to bed for not even a full night.New players join into the game, and see these big prizes listed at 1200 points and think 'Oh I just have to win this many battles and I can get...' only to get halfway there, leave for a while,. and get shunted back to a third of the way there.PvPers lose nothing to this, and casual players (reminder that this is a mobile game, you're not exactly getting Dark Souls caliber gamers here) can gain at their own pace and their own level of play. It prevents someone who is actively playing with moment to moment health regeneration from being punished for not playing a game the "right way" (amend a hundred extra air quotes to that).Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.If people are so worried about the progression rewards, maybe they'd feel better if the placement rewards were improved to give their strategic play more meaning and something bigger to strive for without focusing on how 'this many wins equals this 4-star'. Clearance levels were made specifically to help players on different levels with different specific roster needs, and that still comes into play here. More players might be likely to shift their clearance level to get more of a specific 3* or 4* from progression rewards, and participate in more PvP events than they would normally if they're not having to dither with their point totals and shield buying for a maybe possible sorta kinda chance at getting a cover they want from PvP.Yes, veteran players might have an issue with this, but this change isn't FOR the veteran players. It's to remove the barrier to entry for any new or returning players so people can have FUN with the game in all of its stages and at ALL points in their individual progression. If people are quick to make complaint about fighting 40 people with Champed 5*s, there still exist thousands of players who haven't even reached THAT point, and are struggling to do so because of an unintuitive progression system that gives these supposed teams complete agency over those weaker than them by way of burning the progression points of their peers. Yes, they can win their top spots, but to also stifle those weaker players from breaking out of their niche, except by way of pure luck of the draw from their tokens, is only fun to the sadistic.
Milk Jugz said: I've hit 900 in over 20 straight events and could do it in 20 or less wins, even with taking a few hits. To now have to put in DOUBLE effort for the SAME tinykitty rewards absolutely makes it a grind. This is pure madness. I, personally, don't want to see any change. But, if change has to be made the best solution is an either/or system. Example, the 4* cover is earned by winning 40 matches OR getting 900 points. Anything less is a slap in the face to some part of the player base.
Alterationartist said: Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on.
Alterationartist said: Milk Jugz said: I've hit 900 in over 20 straight events and could do it in 20 or less wins, even with taking a few hits. To now have to put in DOUBLE effort for the SAME tinykitty rewards absolutely makes it a grind. This is pure madness. I, personally, don't want to see any change. But, if change has to be made the best solution is an either/or system. Example, the 4* cover is earned by winning 40 matches OR getting 900 points. Anything less is a slap in the face to some part of the player base. So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
Milk Jugz said: So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses. Plenty of people, including myself, called for less wins to the 4* cover after the first test. This second test shows us where all that got us.Also, as pointed out in previous discussions, Versus progression rewards have never been guaranteed rewards. You need to have a roster that can get to them to even have a chance in the first place. That is how a Versus event should work. You shouldn't be able to get that cover with a roster of 2*s!!!I'm not asking D3 to be a charity to appeal to me. THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET THE COVER WITHOUT WIN BASED PROGRESSION ARE THE ONES ASKING FOR CHARITY!!!!!!!!!
So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses.
BoyWonder1914 said: Alterationartist said: Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on. These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100). It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.
Milk Jugz said: Alterationartist said: ............ I've hit 900 in over 20 straight events and could do it in 20 or less wins, even with taking a few hits. To now have to put in DOUBLE effort for the SAME tinykitty rewards absolutely makes it a grind. This is pure madness. I, personally, don't want to see any change. But, if change has to be made the best solution is an either/or system. Example, the 4* cover is earned by winning 40 matches OR getting 900 points. Anything less is a slap in the face to some part of the player base.Also, while you are correct this change is not for veteran players what you fail to take into account is that it affects veteran players negatively. So even if it's not for them, it still affects them and not for the better.
Alterationartist said: ............
Alterationartist said: Milk Jugz said: So this is of detriment to you because you can reach 900 points to get a 4* in an event. And not even really so much of a detriment since you're not LOSING the ability to get that reward. But what of those many who, try as they might, cannot get to 900 points even WITH 40 wins, 50 wins, 100 wins, or more? Are they to be forced to permanently suffer without anything to show for it, just because you have to win more matches to get the same thing you always do? Why not propose less wins, like 30-ish, instead of saying no change or a compromised change be made?Needs of the many. D3 isn't a charity appealing to you and the group of people with your exact situation. They're a business, and a business needs masses. Plenty of people, including myself, called for less wins to the 4* cover after the first test. This second test shows us where all that got us.Also, as pointed out in previous discussions, Versus progression rewards have never been guaranteed rewards. You need to have a roster that can get to them to even have a chance in the first place. That is how a Versus event should work. You shouldn't be able to get that cover with a roster of 2*s!!!I'm not asking D3 to be a charity to appeal to me. THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET THE COVER WITHOUT WIN BASED PROGRESSION ARE THE ONES ASKING FOR CHARITY!!!!!!!!! That's a very destructive way of addressing it. Insinuating that a player 'shouldn't be able' to get something is itself an issue. Why would you actively desire a mechanic and enable the attitude that we should be beating this knowledge into the heads of lower tier players, If that were the case, then that prize shouldn't even be able for a player to obtain, instead of being put in front of them to let them know of what they shouldn't be 'allowed' to get.Speaking on my point, this is supposed to bring and keep more players into the game, and marketing the old system using your words can only be viewed as a method of actively discouraging players.
Alterationartist said: BoyWonder1914 said: Alterationartist said: Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on. These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100). It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.Would it be better toa. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.orb. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway.
Milk Jugz said: Alterationartist said: BoyWonder1914 said: Alterationartist said: Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on. These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100). It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.Would it be better toa. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.orb. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway. I have your "c" option and it didn't fall from the sky or is all that impossible. It's been said from the first test. Make it an either/or system, that is the most common sense approach and should be tested, like this pathetic system is being tested.
Alterationartist said: Milk Jugz said: Alterationartist said: BoyWonder1914 said: Alterationartist said: Speaking of, I fail to see how 40 wins is a grind compared to the old progression. Just to get to 1000 tiny globe icons is about 20-30 wins at minimum, not counting being attacked during your climbs, and it sucks spending HP on shields to keep it there for your next climb or Health packs to extend that climb, when there's so many better things to spend it on. These misconceptions of high level PVP play are so abundant in this thread it's not even funny. If you want to speak on your personal experience of being able to hit progression now when you couldn't before for whatever reason, good for you. But for the love of god, quit trying to talk like you've been in the shoes of people who know how to hit 900+ points in PVP regularly without 40+ MATCHES. Please also stop trying to talk like there still doesn't exist a base of players who DO still care about their placement (t25, t50, t100). It's funny to me that you are all so quick to pass off our issues with this system as a product of our roster being developed to where it is, yet fail to realize that you're all going to eventually get to the same point we are with consistent roster development. If it helps one portion of the player base, yet screws another, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. I'd hardly call this change an active screw to the high level PvP players, but it is of a great benefit to progressing players. But there's a completely different distinction that can be made.Would it be better toa. not make a change, benefit no one, and keep the game in its current state with no method of improving the player experience put in place.orb. Make a change that benefits more players than it hinders, and focus on how to improve the situation for those hindered by the change in a later update.Someone is likely going to immediately suggest a c option to the tune of 'trying to devise a super extra special edit that benefits everyone and hinders no one', but the hard truth of the matter is that ideal solutions like that do not fall from the sky. And even solutions that seem ideal at first, can develop cracks that form into new issues down the line, which inevitably turns them into a b solution anyway. I have your "c" option and it didn't fall from the sky or is all that impossible. It's been said from the first test. Make it an either/or system, that is the most common sense approach and should be tested, like this pathetic system is being tested. I wouldn't call that a 'common sense' approach, so much as a 'he who chases two rabbits' approach. The big issue that's going to pop up is how to balance these two measurements, and more importantly, programming this. There could be all sorts of anomalies and exploits that could pop up in that system, where people could get the same reward twice or even not get a tier reward at all, born of a conflict of two measured bits of data. It sounds incredibly easy to say, but it's still a c option that has a high probability of being just as big of a burden.Not common sense. Something like this requires way more thinking than just saying it