Time Gem Season Updates *Updated (10/19/17)

1…78101213…39

Comments

  • Meander
    Meander Posts: 267 Mover and Shaker
    Vhailorx said:
    Jarvind said: 
    Meander said:
    tiomono said
    So I'm copping out, and whiny? 70% of the replies in this topic have been whiny. I was not whining but expressing my happiness over a change. Let me be happy.
    Yes. Using your wife and kids as an excuse is a cop out.
    Holy smokes, dude. Did you like, read that after you typed it? That's some serious addict mentality.
    I don't think meander meant that responsibilities to family aren't important.  Just that a player using family as a prop to justify something that is basically unrelated to family is inappropriate.
    This.  I'm not saying don't have a wife and kids or don't give them the time they deserve. In fact,  please do.  I do.  I know many family men in big alliances.  I'm saying don't dishonor them by using them as a strawman excuse to why you can't play the game. To me it comes off as dishonest,  and the IMPLICATION (all caps because people on this forum apparently don't understand subtext) is that people who have reached the rewards previously don't have the responsibilities that you do.  Thus the "nerds" comment.  You never said it.  You implied it.  Subtext is key in writing. 
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    edited October 2017
    Mustache1 said:
    @Brigby please pay attention to who is saying what. I recognize the folks saying noooo! As higher end players, thus the players who were likely paying d3's salary. I also notice the folks who are saying yay! Are people I've never seen before which likely means they are lower tier, newer players who aren't buying starks all the time. Can we rename Versus to Adv. Story mode? Maybe pve2?
    I'm a 1400 day player, recognize me?  And we arent saying yay, we are saying that we understand the change, please stop conflating the two and making this a black and white issue, and come live in the gray with the rest of us.  

    //Removed Sarcastic Comment Eliciting Negative Response -Brigby
  • Xenoberyll
    Xenoberyll Posts: 647 Critical Contributor
    Another example of how D3 sucks at reading their stats and player feedback.

    This change is great for not competitive players who are probably the masses, trying to get to 4star land.

    It’s awful for the Veterans who play 4star and 5star land because they have to fight harder matches and now need to do that more while also probably not getting the former 1200 points reward.

    It’s not great for the whales either but many of them do 40 matches and top 10 anyhow. Their not whale teammates might break away tho, leading to alliance problems.

    While the mass of lower star rank players is a lot bigger than the veterans and whales, i hope they’ll make up a bigger impact on money spent and life time value and use that weight to show D3 how they’re wrong.
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    I kinda get why they remove it though. Takes 40 wins to get to 900 for the 4 star now, cp was at 1200. How many wins would the devs have put that? 20 wins per 100 points? That's 60 wins making it a 100 wins overall.

    Not saying they should have removed, but probably a major reason behind it.
  • Meander
    Meander Posts: 267 Mover and Shaker
    edited October 2017
    smkspy said:
    I kinda get why they remove it though. Takes 40 wins to get to 900 for the 4 star now, cp was at 1200. How many wins would the devs have put that? 20 wins per 100 points? That's 60 wins making it a 100 wins overall.

    Not saying they should have removed, but probably a major reason behind it.
    I get that option,  but put it at 100. People will gladly do it. It's seriously a better option than opening a scl5 bracket in the last hour and rushing to 16 wins and t5. I've done that twice in tests. How is that fair to players that played day 1? How is that fair to people that should be in scl5? This format sounds good to lower level players at first because they may luck into t5. When it's the norm,  vets will spread out and take all the ranking.  Then there will be complaints of "why can this guy use 5* in scl5?" 
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Mustache1 said:
    Spudgutter said:
    Mustache1 said:
    @Brigby please pay attention to who is saying what. I recognize the folks saying noooo! As higher end players, thus the players who were likely paying d3's salary. I also notice the folks who are saying yay! Are people I've never seen before which likely means they are lower tier, newer players who aren't buying starks all the time. Can we rename Versus to Adv. Story mode? Maybe pve2?
    I'm a 1400 day player, recognize me?  And we arent saying yay, we are saying that we understand the change, please stop conflating the two and making this a black and white issue, and come live in the gray with the rest of us.  

    To be fair, i can't belive they didnt get your input before making this change. (Sarcasm/attempt at humor)
    Honey, if you didn't say yay then I wasn't talking to you. Go practice falling down, i'll be there in a minute. 
    Well, i like to think i was, in some way, so maybe you need some practice falling down?  I dont even know what that is supposed to suggest.  Is that suppised to be some sort of insult?  Will we fall down together? Are you coming on to me?!?
  • D4Ni13
    D4Ni13 Posts: 745 Critical Contributor
    edited October 2017
    smkspy said:
    I kinda get why they remove it though. Takes 40 wins to get to 900 for the 4 star now, cp was at 1200. How many wins would the devs have put that? 20 wins per 100 points? That's 60 wins making it a 100 wins overall.

    Not saying they should have removed, but probably a major reason behind it.
    I think the major reason of CP removal (if this is official) was the fact that now the 4* is basically accesible to everybody, whereas before only the ones who managed to get to 900 got the cover. I mean it was a lot harder for lower rosters to get that reward. So it should come as a 'balance' decision. Of course, a lot of you will disagree that it is balance this way, but this is likely the reason...

  • Xenoberyll
    Xenoberyll Posts: 647 Critical Contributor
    smkspy said:
    I kinda get why they remove it though. Takes 40 wins to get to 900 for the 4 star now, cp was at 1200. How many wins would the devs have put that? 20 wins per 100 points? That's 60 wins making it a 100 wins overall.

    Not saying they should have removed, but probably a major reason behind it.
    That’s reasoning the 40 wins are a realistic number. It isn’t. 900/40 means 22.5 points per match. I average more than twice that for my matches and 20 wins is what i need at most for reaching the 900 points mark. I don’t need 40 matches to reach 1200 even with attacks coming in.
  • Philly484
    Philly484 Posts: 173 Tile Toppler
    It's still not a great move on any part. Low level players are only looking at ohh I get a 4* character and drudge through and get it over with no problem. To many variables at play that low tier players still don't realize. The lower SCL's will be flooded with high rank players, you are losing more rewards than gaining vs old system; that's less CP for everyone, then once newer players hit the 4* progression they will start complaining about not having the CPor the ISO they need to level champs. 

    As others have pointed out as well, they assume that their will be more need for #, when that is not the case. As I stated big flaw is finding a friend to just sit and hit each other back and forth with a quick KO roster to get to 40 wins very fast, then go back to normal play to make high placement rewards. So how exactly in the end does this help newer players?
  • Mustache1
    Mustache1 Posts: 17 Just Dropped In
    Spudgutter said:
    Mustache1 said:
    Spudgutter said:
    Mustache1 said:
    @Brigby please pay attention to who is saying what. I recognize the folks saying noooo! As higher end players, thus the players who were likely paying d3's salary. I also notice the folks who are saying yay! Are people I've never seen before which likely means they are lower tier, newer players who aren't buying starks all the time. Can we rename Versus to Adv. Story mode? Maybe pve2?
    I'm a 1400 day player, recognize me?  And we arent saying yay, we are saying that we understand the change, please stop conflating the two and making this a black and white issue, and come live in the gray with the rest of us.  

    To be fair, i can't belive they didnt get your input before making this change. (Sarcasm/attempt at humor)
    Honey, if you didn't say yay then I wasn't talking to you. Go practice falling down, i'll be there in a minute. 
    Well, i like to think i was, in some way, so maybe you need some practice falling down?  I dont even know what that is supposed to suggest.  Is that suppised to be some sort of insult?  Will we fall down together? Are you coming on to me?!?
    So, you attack my opinion saying you were living in a grey area. Then I say hey, I wasn't talking to those that are in the middle. To which you respond that you actually were saying yay. You're confusing, my friend. I'm not feeding troll anymore. 
  • reapermort
    reapermort Posts: 13 Just Dropped In
    Alsmir said:
    PvP under the old system
    Top spots for season (even in CL6) - 5 star rosters with a couple of 4* players.
    900 points in any event almost impossible for anyone without 4* characters, 1200 points pretty much only for developed 4* rosters and above. Similar story for placement. 3* players or lower, transitioners can just suck it and either whale or play for a couple more years to compete. No events, no place in PvP for weaker rosters who want to compete against fairly matched opponents, while receiving decent rewards. CL5? Lower? Doesn't matter, mmr doesn't care and as long as you have enough points you will get clubbed by stronger rosters.

    In the meantime, comments from vets were: l2p, git gud, it's fair.

    PvE used to be kinda fair, then we received CL based lvl scaling. Reward structure was untouched. Suddenly owners of developed rosters could cut their clear times in half or more. Lousy improvements in CL8 over CL 7, meant that they now face 20 minut clears in CL7 while receiving same rewards as before + easier placement. Again, anyone with weaker roster can forget about placement.
    Then the 5* essentials were introduced, that give another edge if you aim for placement. Implementing those nodes as low as in CL7 is absurd.
    During release events you have 5* rosters even in CL6.
    This is exactly why, even though I enjoy the game and even support it financially, I don't and won't recommend it too anyone.
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2017
    Meander said:
    smkspy said:
    I kinda get why they remove it though. Takes 40 wins to get to 900 for the 4 star now, cp was at 1200. How many wins would the devs have put that? 20 wins per 100 points? That's 60 wins making it a 100 wins overall.

    Not saying they should have removed, but probably a major reason behind it.
    I get that option,  but put it at 100. People will gladly do it. It's seriously a better option than opening a scl5 bracket in the last hour and rushing to 16 wins and t5. I've done that twice in tests. How is that fair to players that played day 1? How is that fair to people that should be in scl5? This format sounds good to lower level players at first because they may luck into t5. When it's the norm,  vets will spread out and take all the ranking.  Then there will be complaints of "why can this guy use 5* in scl5?" 
     
    I agree.

    @D4Ni13, another good point, likely one of several as to why they removed it.

    @Xenoberyll, but that's just you and others, but for many many other players it evens out or comes close to 40 wins anyways. 
  • Richyyy
    Richyyy Posts: 305 Mover and Shaker
    dude awesome said:
    SnagglePuss said:
    Dear d3

    If you are going to wins based progression can you at least open up the mmr. 

    Those lower roster players shouldn't complain now, about being hit multiple times in quick succession.

    Facing panthos 35 times and non-panthos a few times is..... Good for insomniacs? 

    Thanks. 
    I wish I could upvote this 1000 x's. If we're going to have to endure playing 40 matches, let's make it easier to get q's. Playing the same 5 people over and over again to get the wins is definitely no fun. 

    This I tend to agree with and I'm not a 5* player. In one of the tests I got a bunch of wins relatively early, then ended up immediately backing out of a long series of fights so that my score would drop and I could get some reasonably beatable opponents to show up. If you're going to make total wins the primary thing that matters for most players, we're not going to want to get them against tough opponents who kill our health, use up health packs and/or take an age to play. Open up matchmaking so that we're not forced into a ridiculous series of intentional losing to find some winnable matches.
  • shardwick
    shardwick Posts: 2,121 Chairperson of the Boards
    sinnerjfl said:
    scottee said:
    I'd just like to point out that this forum and this thread are both highly skewed with more high end, competitive players. That everyone has different experiences, and that some will like changes and some won't, should be obvious. This isn't a change that has an absolute better or worse.
    More play for less rewards definitively is WORSE in my book.
    I was averaging probably around 30-40 wins in the old system to get in the 700-800 range. That's winning, then getting knocked down, recover points to get to another reward, get knocked down, get my hp at 725 which is where I usually would stop for rewards, get knocked down again, do my last run to get to about 725 then shield to protect my points for placement, alliance rewards and for season.

    New system. Roughly same amount of wins, earning more rewards, saving health packs, wider range of opponents (seeing more 3* players and rarely if ever seeing the same person more than once), less stress, more likely to do a 2 pt retal since it's just another win now and not a waste of time like before.

    For me it's far better. Hybrid system would be the best system for most and maybe one day we'll get that but for now I can't wait to start the win based system.
  • sirwookieechris
    sirwookieechris Posts: 131 Tile Toppler
    IamTheBiggs said:
    This really does weaken the team play aspect. This element had become something of an integral part of my raison d'être for playing, as I'm sure is the same for many others. Once you have yours, there's less incentive to help the team score.

    After nearly 4 years, I may be out.
    Thats my biggest issue with this change. I like the idea of win-based progression. I can hit 900 with the right 4 stars boosted, but normally end around 700. Normally I join the slice 5 with only a few hours left and grind and shield at the numbers listed above. I am in an alliance that asks for 725+ so we have similar goals- I am trying for that 4* cover and my alliance is happy with my score. I never hit top 5 so I usually got 3 3* covers from placement. But now I have incentive to prejoin for slice 5 and play whenever possible. I'm more likely to hit that 4* cover, though it will likely take much more time than previously to reach certain milestones. But my score will likely suffer- losing a 3* cover or replacing them with a few 2* covers is worth it for a 4* cover, but it hurts my alliance score...

Categories