Infinity Season *Updated (9/19/17)

1…89111314…16

Comments

  • Lucifier
    Lucifier Posts: 244 Tile Toppler
    aa25 said:
    I'm surprised that many people don't seem to be bothered with the following facts:
    1. The CP is now removed from the progression. That is like one-third of the rewards is now exclusive only the 1% of the players.
    2. The super-high bar of wins for rewards. Many people have pointed out at the end of the last test that 24 wins is what it takes to hit 900 from hitting 38 pts target, which is from hitting a target at the same level with you. And in reality, you can find targets worth way more than 37 pts, so that should balance out pts loss already. There is no need to compensate anything on top of that 24 wins.
    3. There are many other solution that don't have negative impacts, but yet the devs choose to test this awful idea for a second time. (wins/pts-hybrid, pts for progression never decrease, etc.)
    4. If improving roster is not necessary to get better rewards, what is the point to improve roster ? I can just stay with a babyroster. (Not that I ever intentionally softcapped my roster anyway.)
    Edit: I edited several time to write all the stuffs that anger me at the moment.
    In general i think this system is more fair than the previous one, the progression rewards is doable for all, and placement rewards are for the best players.

    but in reality how this effected players, i will guess it is better for majority, and it is not desirable (or could be worst) for minority (which from forum, they are the vets).

    BUT still in general the lower roaster still can not get better rewards than the vets.


    1- T10 is 2% out of 500 players, not 1%, still if we really think about it, in reality it is much more than 2%,
    out of 500 players how many before was able to hit 1200 points (if we assume T25, then it is 40%, if we assume T50 then it is 20%).
    this did not effected the 500 (because from before 450 or 475 of them was not able to hit 1200).

    4- i totally agree with you about getting rewards (by being better player with better roster).
    BUT, if i switch my roaster 3* land with a 5* land, am i gonna get worst rewards (do you mean the 3* or 2* can get better placement than the 5* roster)?
    here, if you are missing the CP (because you are not hitting top10, it is not because your roaster is getting better), it is because of new system only gives CP to T10 (and logically means the T10 are better than you).
    i understand it is frustrating (especially for vets, which cp means big deal to them), i will be upset if i were you too, but this is not the case here, you get better roaster, logically you should be able to hit T10 (if you are better than them).
  • wymtime
    wymtime Posts: 3,760 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2017
    smkspy said:


    The devs want us to play pvp. IF it means that top tier players have to play a few more rounds, then so what, we lower tier players also have to play the few more rounds. But if the system, despite playing more, allows everyone to gain much needed covers, then I don't see the problem...other than top tier players not wanting others to advance their roster. 

    Placement is still there for those that want it, what harm is there for allowing everyone else to gain progression rewards with having to shield hop or line coordinate?

    here is the problem with saying as a high end player I have to play a "few more rounds". I have to play 2X as much  to get a 4* cover and I am no longer garunteed 15 CP from progression.  Now I am in direct competition for the final 15 CP, have to play significantly more.  As a lower tier player I agree progression should be attainable but why should it be at my expense??  I have suggested earlier it should be an either or score 900 points or 40 wins.  Score 1200 points or 50 wins not only top 10 get the CP for players who have scored really well for an event or because someone could not enter a event right in the beginning.

    thr reality is the CP is what is important to 5* players not the 4* cover and now it is placement that will be difficult 
  • BoyWonder1914
    BoyWonder1914 Posts: 884 Critical Contributor
    Alterationartist said:

    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 to
    a. 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.

    or

    b. 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.

    You don't know what its like to be a high-level PVP player, so stop trying to speak for them! Your "hard truth" also rings hollow when there's literally thousands of people who suggest ideal solutions for these kinds of problems on a daily basis. They literally created a section of the forums for "suggestions & feedback". What exactly makes you think your option 'b' wont develop cracks that form into new issues? Please tell me what larger base of the players directly benefited from them raising PVE progression to 5 clears instead of 4? Or the unanimous decision that 3600 was better for more players in the Hero For Hire store than 2500?

    Even better still, since we're discussing changes that helped newer people more than vets, I didn't see any newer people being ecstatic about them removing the store for just the latest 12 4-stars? Ideal solutions arose in all of these cases from people who made better suggestions that helped ALL people. 


  • Doc L
    Doc L Posts: 279 Mover and Shaker
    aa25 said:
    I'm surprised that many people don't seem to be bothered with the following facts:
    1. The CP is now removed from the progression. That is like one-third of the rewards is now exclusive only the 1% of the players.
    2. The super-high bar of wins for rewards. Many people have pointed out at the end of the last test that 24 wins is what it takes to hit 900 from hitting 38 pts target, which is from hitting a target at the same level with you. And in reality, you can find targets worth way more than 37 pts, so that should balance out pts loss already. There is no need to compensate anything on top of that 24 wins.
    3. There are many other solution that don't have negative impacts, but yet the devs choose to test this awful idea for a second time. (wins/pts-hybrid, pts for progression never decrease, etc.)

    I mentioned point 1! Seriously, this is an understatement on a massive scale. I feel like this move to progression is less 'all inclusive' and more 'restrictions on 5* pulls'. In normal Cl 7 or 8, like 100+ of the players can have 1200+ in each shard. That's knocked down to 10 per shard... Yes, you can get 4*, but stopping the 5*. Point 2 is also very valid, I'm @21 wins and 865 points, and I'm not looking for best points like I normally would. And this is running 2 x 4*, one 5*.

     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 to
    a. 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.

    or

    b. 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.
    (Apologies, phone quoting is baaaaad...)

    I quote both posts here - first, a lot of people who aren't at the sharp end are commenting on what's good and bad for those players. It's a very different experience there. My wife is a 3* to 4* player, and I wouldn't assume to know what's best at her level. And the point remains - change that hinders a significant proportion of your player base is a bad choice, even if it improves for others. 

    As for an option 'c', this change has been 3-5 months in the making at least (the first test was two months back due to the Defenders). There has been time to think of a better solution for all, and the suggestions on here have been good.

  • Alterationartist
    Alterationartist Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    edited September 2017
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.

    And why wouldn't they want to stick with what we have? The current system is the one that benefits the vets most heavily.
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    wymtime said
    smkspy said:


    The devs want us to play pvp. IF it means that top tier players have to play a few more rounds, then so what, we lower tier players also have to play the few more rounds. But if the system, despite playing more, allows everyone to gain much needed covers, then I don't see the problem...other than top tier players not wanting others to advance their roster. 

    Placement is still there for those that want it, what harm is there for allowing everyone else to gain progression rewards with having to shield hop or line coordinate?

    here is the problem with saying as a high end player I have to play a "few more rounds". I have to play 2X as much  to get a 4* cover and I am no longer garunteed 15 CP from progression.  Now I am in direct competition for the final 15 CP, have to play significantly more.  As a lower tier player I agree progression should be attainable but why should it be at my expense??  I have suggested earlier it should be an either or score 900 points or 40 wins.  Score 1200 points or 50 wins not only top 10 get the CP for players who have scored really well for an event or because someone could not enter a event right in the beginning.

    thr reality is the CP is what is important to 5* players not the 4* cover and now it is placement that will be difficult 

    Fair enough, and I agree with you to extent. I'm a high end 4 star player, so yeah, that extra CP is important. The obvious solution is to put back that CP at the tail end of progression. Everyone wins with that, but concerning placement, as with pve, the new system is just something players have to adjust their strategy towards. 

    I screwed up in the current pvp by selecting the very last slice, and easily hit 40 wins within a night and a half. Now I have two days of the event left and have a terrible chance at placement unless I shield, which I won't.

    But just like the blowback to vaulting, this change will benefit everyone once players figure out how to work the system. Just the way that games go.
  • Blindman13
    Blindman13 Posts: 504 Critical Contributor
    The odds of a hybrid scoring system of either wins or points ever getting implemented are slim and none. Those claiming it is a common sense solution are being close minded. You see the two options in front of you, and acknowledge that each method had benefits, so you think the best way would be to have your cake and eat it too. Setting aside the complexity of programming such a concept (which would be ripe for having issues), imagine trying to explain that method to a new player in a simple pop-up screen in the game. These changes appear to be coming to make the Versus mode more inviting to newer players, if they can't understand the scoring system they will be lost before they get started. (Even more so than they already are)

    Personally, I am in favor of Wins based progression, but I agree that 40 wins for a 4* is waaay too many. I am more willing to participate in Versus and try for progression awards if I know I won't get knocked back down if I don't shield.  I don't want to waste my HP on shields; i would rather add roster spots. This actually improves the system somewhat for higher level players because you should have more unshielded targets like me who climb up looking for wins and leave them selves open to you so you can gain points.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    You might take option B over A by a wide margin and so might some others. But there are plenty of us here who would take A over B. Again, there needs to be a different solution. You, obviously have no idea what it's like to play higher level Versus. This is a horrible change at the top end. There is a big difference in 40 matches against 3* characters than against 5* characters. Even when you consider 3* v 3*, 5* character damage output is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than 3* and one cascade with just 2 critical matches and you can be down upwards of 20K health. 3* just can't do that kind of damage to each other. I find myself having use 2-3 health packs AFTER EVERY MATCH. Now the matches I need to get the cover I was able to get with 20 wins has been DOUBLED!!!!! Effectively doubling the amount of health packs I need. And that also doesn't mention the health pools. Do you know how much health a 450 Thanos and a 450 Black Panther has? Or that you can't damage Panther for more than around 6.5K at a time or your gonna get panther smacked?!? Stop talking like you understand the GRIND we have to go through, this change effectively doubles the amount of time it will take me to get the same tinykitty rewards I was getting before.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2017
    Milk Jugz said:
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    You might take option B over A by a wide margin and so might some others. But there are plenty of us here who would take A over B. Again, there needs to be a different solution. You, obviously have no idea what it's like to play higher level Versus. This is a horrible change at the top end. There is a big difference in 40 matches against 3* characters than against 5* characters. Even when you consider 3* v 3*, 5* character damage output is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than 3* and one cascade with just 2 critical matches and you can be down upwards of 20K health. 3* just can't do that kind of damage to each other. I find myself having use 2-3 health packs AFTER EVERY MATCH. Now the matches I need to get the cover I was able to get with 20 wins has been DOUBLED!!!!! Effectively doubling the amount of health packs I need. And that also doesn't mention the health pools. Do you know how much health a 450 Thanos and a 450 Black Panther has? Or that you can't damage Panther for more than around 6.5K at a time or your gonna get panther smacked?!? Stop talking like you understand the GRIND we have to go through, this change effectively doubles the amount of time it will take me to get the same tinykitty rewards I was getting before.
    And you aren't even getting the most valuable reward for that grind (cp) unless you finish top 10, which is already a pain in the **** and about to become a lot more competitive.

    Alterationartist: do you really think this change solves more problems than it creates?  Or does it just solve problems you care about a create ones that don't affect you?
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2017
    I'll add this to the argument, while vaulting was created to get players a 4 star roster faster, it benefitted high end players more than low end players. Vaulting allowed high end players to build those remaining new characters faster and stronger whereas their old 4s had already been built. 

    New players suffered from this because they had little access to finishing their vaulted 4s. Yeah, they had access to newest 4s faster too, but the consequence was also putting their scaling at a level they weren't ready for, fixed by scl scaling fwiw.

    So this pvp change benefits lower end players a bit more than upper end, maybe the upper end, already being upper end, should give this those guys a win to keep lower end players playing the game . Without those lower end guys, we won't have a game to play.

    And that's what all these changes reflect, a game that is convoluted after 3 years, that certain step are taken to keep new players rather than losing them once they realize that building a 100+ roster  takes either a lot of money or a major sinkhole in time. I think us vets tend to forget that when it comes to us losing out on reawards.


  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2017
    Vhailorx said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    You might take option B over A by a wide margin and so might some others. But there are plenty of us here who would take A over B. Again, there needs to be a different solution. You, obviously have no idea what it's like to play higher level Versus. This is a horrible change at the top end. There is a big difference in 40 matches against 3* characters than against 5* characters. Even when you consider 3* v 3*, 5* character damage output is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than 3* and one cascade with just 2 critical matches and you can be down upwards of 20K health. 3* just can't do that kind of damage to each other. I find myself having use 2-3 health packs AFTER EVERY MATCH. Now the matches I need to get the cover I was able to get with 20 wins has been DOUBLED!!!!! Effectively doubling the amount of health packs I need. And that also doesn't mention the health pools. Do you know how much health a 450 Thanos and a 450 Black Panther has? Or that you can't damage Panther for more than around 6.5K at a time or your gonna get panther smacked?!? Stop talking like you understand the GRIND we have to go through, this change effectively doubles the amount of time it will take me to get the same tinykitty rewards I was getting before.
    And you aren't even getting the most valuable reward for that grind (cp) unless you finish top 10, which is already a pain in the tinykitty and about to become a lot more competitive.

    Alterationartist: do you really think this changes more problems than it creates?  Or does it just solve problems you care about a create ones that don't affect you?
    Haha!!! Option B, option B!!!!!!

    @Alterationartist
    In all seriousness though, there is a subtle difference., we have been where you are before. You have not been where we are
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    Milk Jugz said:
    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.
    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!!!!!!!!!
    Wanting a better system isn't charity. I mean I could play that card too. It wasn't that long ago when high level players were begging and pleading for a better pve system. Charity would be if players wanted to only do like 10 wins for max rewards. Here? You have people that are more than willing to do 30+ wins to get max rewards. I want everyone to be able to get max rewards if they're willing to put in the work, or shields, to get them no matter if they're brand new and in CL1 or have been playing the game since day 1.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    And by cherry picking which comments you want to rebut, it seems like you are insistent on sticking with you presumption instead of being open to other ideas that are based on reality.  See how easy it is to paint with broad strokes?

    smkspy said:
    The devs want us to play pvp. IF it means that top tier players have to play a few more rounds, then so what, we lower tier players also have to play the few more rounds. But if the system, despite playing more, allows everyone to gain much needed covers, then I don't see the problem...other than top tier players not wanting others to advance their roster. 

    Placement is still there for those that want it, what harm is there for allowing everyone else to gain progression rewards with having to shield hop or line coordinate?

    Ultimately, more customers playing pvp means more hits for everyone else. More customer engagement means the game lasts even longer.
    I am not trying to stifle competition, and agree with what you are saying, but two points;

    If i saw a 20-25% increase in play time, then i would understand (comparing 4 clears to 5 in pve).  But it isnt.  It isnt just a few more matches, for some it is double, on already tricky matches(they weren't kidding, cascades at the 5* level are brutal) that require a lot more health packs. If i could just use different team after different team, experiment with who works together, that would be great.  This isn't that, i am forced to use 1 or 2 health packs after every match.  I no longer can play when i want, i have to play around the them regenerating. 

    Removing the cp from progression is a big step back.  I stop around 900-1000, so this doesn't impact me personally, but it has been a carrot at the end of a stick for a long time, and for that to go away is another ome of the steps back i was mentioning 
  • Alterationartist
    Alterationartist Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    Milk Jugz said:
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    You might take option B over A by a wide margin and so might some others. But there are plenty of us here who would take A over B. Again, there needs to be a different solution. You, obviously have no idea what it's like to play higher level Versus. This is a horrible change at the top end. There is a big difference in 40 matches against 3* characters than against 5* characters. Even when you consider 3* v 3*, 5* character damage output is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than 3* and one cascade with just 2 critical matches and you can be down upwards of 20K health. 3* just can't do that kind of damage to each other. I find myself having use 2-3 health packs AFTER EVERY MATCH. Now the matches I need to get the cover I was able to get with 20 wins has been DOUBLED!!!!! Effectively doubling the amount of health packs I need. And that also doesn't mention the health pools. Do you know how much health a 450 Thanos and a 450 Black Panther has? Or that you can't damage Panther for more than around 6.5K at a time or your gonna get panther smacked?!? Stop talking like you understand the GRIND we have to go through, this change effectively doubles the amount of time it will take me to get the same tinykitty rewards I was getting before.
    So being a high level versus player only requires getting 20 wins ever during a 3-day PvP event and calling it quits?
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    Alterationartist:  yes, many 5* rosters get to 1200+ on 20-30 wins.  Most people than shield out rather than quitting, especially if they are in a competitive alliance,
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    And by cherry picking which comments you want to rebut, it seems like you are insistent on sticking with you presumption instead of being open to other ideas that are based on reality.  See how easy it is to paint with broad strokes?

    smkspy said:
    The devs want us to play pvp. IF it means that top tier players have to play a few more rounds, then so what, we lower tier players also have to play the few more rounds. But if the system, despite playing more, allows everyone to gain much needed covers, then I don't see the problem...other than top tier players not wanting others to advance their roster. 

    Placement is still there for those that want it, what harm is there for allowing everyone else to gain progression rewards with having to shield hop or line coordinate?

    Ultimately, more customers playing pvp means more hits for everyone else. More customer engagement means the game lasts even longer.
    I am not trying to stifle competition, and agree with what you are saying, but two points;

    If i saw a 20-25% increase in play time, then i would understand (comparing 4 clears to 5 in pve).  But it isnt.  It isnt just a few more matches, for some it is double, on already tricky matches(they weren't kidding, cascades at the 5* level are brutal) that require a lot more health packs. If i could just use different team after different team, experiment with who works together, that would be great.  This isn't that, i am forced to use 1 or 2 health packs after every match.  I no longer can play when i want, i have to play around the them regenerating. 

    Removing the cp from progression is a big step back.  I stop around 900-1000, so this doesn't impact me personally, but it has been a carrot at the end of a stick for a long time, and for that to go away is another ome of the steps back i was mentioning 
    I'm in the same boat, as I use all my health packs reaching 40 wins, but really, isn't it a small price to pay after 5 star players got scl pve that allows you to clear scl 8 quite easily. I mean, look, there has to be some give and take when it comes to gameplay. I agree about losing to final co.thlugh
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2017
    Shardwick:  if you want everyone to get the top rewards if they are willimg to put in the work. Then why the **** do you support this **** new system that takes the very best prize (cp) and ensures that only 2% if players can ever get it?

    Vets would be WAY less upset if cp were available for 40 wins, or if they were still at 1200 points.  
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    shardwick said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    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.
    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!!!!!!!!!
    Wanting a better system isn't charity. I mean I could play that card too. It wasn't that long ago when high level players were begging and pleading for a better pve system. Charity would be if players wanted to only do like 10 wins for max rewards. Here? You have people that are more than willing to do 30+ wins to get max rewards. I want everyone to be able to get max rewards if they're willing to put in the work, or shields, to get them no matter if they're brand new and in CL1 or have been playing the game since day 1.
    Alterationartist played that card, I was responding to it.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    smkspy said:
    Spudgutter said:
    Alterationartist said:
    vinsensual said:

    Alterationartist said:
    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
    If you're gonna defend this new progression system by claiming the "needs of the many," you should support this option C because it increases the amount of the population in that "many." Dismissing the resolution because you can speculate problems is just being antagonizing. 
    This new progression solves more problems now than it creates. Developing a third option will take even more test runs, more programming, more time. I'm all for option C being made over option B, but I would take Option B over Option A by just as wide of a margin. I would prefer taking this system as the primary one for a season or two while developing a third option system, but it seems like the vets are insistent on just sticking with what we have now until option C is made and ready for release.
    And by cherry picking which comments you want to rebut, it seems like you are insistent on sticking with you presumption instead of being open to other ideas that are based on reality.  See how easy it is to paint with broad strokes?

    smkspy said:
    The devs want us to play pvp. IF it means that top tier players have to play a few more rounds, then so what, we lower tier players also have to play the few more rounds. But if the system, despite playing more, allows everyone to gain much needed covers, then I don't see the problem...other than top tier players not wanting others to advance their roster. 

    Placement is still there for those that want it, what harm is there for allowing everyone else to gain progression rewards with having to shield hop or line coordinate?

    Ultimately, more customers playing pvp means more hits for everyone else. More customer engagement means the game lasts even longer.
    I am not trying to stifle competition, and agree with what you are saying, but two points;

    If i saw a 20-25% increase in play time, then i would understand (comparing 4 clears to 5 in pve).  But it isnt.  It isnt just a few more matches, for some it is double, on already tricky matches(they weren't kidding, cascades at the 5* level are brutal) that require a lot more health packs. If i could just use different team after different team, experiment with who works together, that would be great.  This isn't that, i am forced to use 1 or 2 health packs after every match.  I no longer can play when i want, i have to play around the them regenerating. 

    Removing the cp from progression is a big step back.  I stop around 900-1000, so this doesn't impact me personally, but it has been a carrot at the end of a stick for a long time, and for that to go away is another ome of the steps back i was mentioning 
    I'm in the same boat, as I use all my health packs reaching 40 wins, but really, isn't it a small price to pay after 5 star players got scl pve that allows you to clear scl 8 quite easily. I mean, look, there has to be some give and take when it comes to gameplay. I agree about losing to final co.thlugh
    Absolutely. I give more time, sure.  But double?  Then throw me a bone; tweak mmr or something a little bit.  Lower the win count at higher scl.  Hybrid win/point system.  Anything. Just repeating the test with longer parameters doesn't help any.

Categories