Rod5 said: Lucifier to be honest, it was busy hour (so many online players, last 1 or 2 hours of the event), but the idea still the same. How many times do experienced players have to say that climbing late for weaker rosters is not advisable? Not sure if you're expecting sympathy, but you're unlikely to get much. 3Thor has been around for a long time so having him champed is hardly a competitive advantage, you need to just play a bit smarter.
Lucifier to be honest, it was busy hour (so many online players, last 1 or 2 hours of the event), but the idea still the same.
Gari said: Its hopeless Vhairlox. I think people have to be prepared to quit pvp
Spudgutter said: Gari said: Its hopeless Vhairlox. I think people have to be prepared to quit pvp And if you are the devs, what would you rather have? 100 high end pvp players, who rarely play pve, and get to 900 or 120+ in as few matches as possible? Or 1000 beginning and mid tier players, who play pve and only play pvp to 575, and dont have everyone rostered? If it were me, i would design a game that *encourages* playing more, not less. The current pvp system of playing for a bit, then shielding, then play one or two match hops is bonkers to me. That play style that has turned into the current meta may work for some, but obviously (obvious to some, not so obvious to others...) doesn't work for the vast majority of players. I am like several others that have my fingers crossed for a hybrid, but at the end of the day, it's a business, and they would probably rather have more people engaged.And if I'm being completely honest, it would be nice if some of the people on here, trying to compare their 3 and 4 star transition (from back before there was even champing or clearance levels) would actually quit. Then we would stop seeing all the comments about how it was tough for them, so it should be tough for those coming up. But my guess is, they will be just as ingenious as before, and discover or create a new meta. And this argument will become a memory, just like true healing and every other "game changing" hurdle through the years.
Gari said: Spudgutter said: Gari said: Its hopeless Vhairlox. I think people have to be prepared to quit pvp And if you are the devs, what would you rather have? 100 high end pvp players, who rarely play pve, and get to 900 or 120+ in as few matches as possible? Or 1000 beginning and mid tier players, who play pve and only play pvp to 575, and dont have everyone rostered? If it were me, i would design a game that *encourages* playing more, not less. The current pvp system of playing for a bit, then shielding, then play one or two match hops is bonkers to me. That play style that has turned into the current meta may work for some, but obviously (obvious to some, not so obvious to others...) doesn't work for the vast majority of players. I am like several others that have my fingers crossed for a hybrid, but at the end of the day, it's a business, and they would probably rather have more people engaged.And if I'm being completely honest, it would be nice if some of the people on here, trying to compare their 3 and 4 star transition (from back before there was even champing or clearance levels) would actually quit. Then we would stop seeing all the comments about how it was tough for them, so it should be tough for those coming up. But my guess is, they will be just as ingenious as before, and discover or create a new meta. And this argument will become a memory, just like true healing and every other "game changing" hurdle through the years. If you had an alliance who would you want? 575 scorers who can never win anything? Or we get 900 scorers who can push for that t100 prize.? Yes you will be playing more, thats what they want. Youd be playing for THE SAME PRIZES! And i thought slavery was dead. The old system, you can simply snipe for t10 even with a weak roster. For many thats their ladder. Win based will kill it for them, but is anyone arguing that? And who says less people are playing? I have new people who transited in 6 to 9 months, and they could do it. Now youd be spending at least double the time, with lousy ranking. How is that a win?
bluewolf said: Can we at least wait until the preview is up, with rewards tables, before we decide whether we like it?
Alsmir said: j0nats said: maybe the win based progression only applies to season rewards? i still prefer the current system. there is a reason pvp is not called pve. and its because its not pve gating the 15 cp from progression and keeping it in top 10 placement will directly impact those of us trying to transition into 5 star land, but not strong enough to be in top 10. also, for those that keep whining about being hammered in pvp blah blah... guess what.? we went thru that too. but instead of whining, we clawed, scratched (sometimes bought) our way to improving our rosters. Yes, let's continue this endless cycle of stupidity. It sucked for you? So it must suck for everyone else. A perfect attitude to never make any improvement.
j0nats said: maybe the win based progression only applies to season rewards? i still prefer the current system. there is a reason pvp is not called pve. and its because its not pve gating the 15 cp from progression and keeping it in top 10 placement will directly impact those of us trying to transition into 5 star land, but not strong enough to be in top 10. also, for those that keep whining about being hammered in pvp blah blah... guess what.? we went thru that too. but instead of whining, we clawed, scratched (sometimes bought) our way to improving our rosters.
jackstar0 said: Not thrilled to see no changes thus far...
My gripe with this format hasn't changed. The number of different opponents I see late on in the event is still only about 5, which means triple-tapping or worse, if I want the 40 wins.
They may not lose progression, but they'll lose points and possibly placement and I might antagonise a member of the wrong alliance. I've heard they can be worse than our mods used to be. :wrysmileit'sajokepleasedon'tbanmeemoji:
There must be some method of opening up available opponents. How about adding in the 5 players either side of me in the table, but only if currently shielded.