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?
shardwick said: 22 pt wins is punching down? My average amount of points for a win is about 25 pts in a regular event. I tend to get more pts per win in Shield Sim. The things I would do to get 300 pts for just five or six wins.
Brigby said: DyingLegend said: Brigby what will the reward structure for the win based season look like? Will there be a preview? As of right now, I unfortunately don't have that information, but I'll be sure to request those details from the development team.Orion said: Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing? I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them.
DyingLegend said: Brigby what will the reward structure for the win based season look like? Will there be a preview?
Orion said: Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing?
broll 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? Such a fallacy. Just because someone is new doesn't mean they aren't paying (and vice versa). I paid more for this game in my first month than I have most of the rest of the game combined due to spending lots on HP for roster slots. If the game is only being held up by a handful of whales then it's doomed to fail as they leave by various ways of attrition. They need to continue attract new paying customers to keep going. Always catering to vets isn't going to achieve that.
Xenoberyll 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. 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.
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.
Vhailorx said: Spud:The words "me" and "i" do not appear in my post. And my statements about pvp expectations are informed by more my own subjective expereince. Obviously i can't claim clairvoyance. But i do read lots of comments. And talk to people in my alliance family. Most of the time when i encounter a "player X has a strong roster but cant hit 575" even a brief inquiry into the problem reveals that player X CAN hit 575 and beyond, but didn't understand how pvp worked (and no surprise, demi doesn't do a great job explaining it, even in the forums).As for getting 300 points quickly, i allowed a generous cushion by saying 5-6 matches. 6 matches at 50 points each is not that hard to find with liberal skipping. Even you suggest that 51 points is "settling."Look, i get that pvp was impenetrable and frustrating to a lot of players. And i am happy to see that change. Does that change really also have to significantly impact the ability of experienced 5* transitioners to get cp from pvp? If not, then demi is really just using the former change as cover for the latter change. And that sucks.
Spudgutter said: Again, no offense, but all i see in your response is "me" "me" and "I."Read some of the comments of the people who have 4* and get smacked down trying to get to 575. It happens. And not everyone can get 300 points in 5 or 6 matches. I have three champed 5*, and sometimes even after skipping dozens of 30 or 40 point matches, i have to settle for 51 points. It's annoying and frustrating, and just further evidence that climbs can vary amongst people.Once you realize that *your* experience =/= *other* peoples experience, i hope that you see this is better for the long term health.
ronin-san said: -snipped for clarity-Orion said: Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing? I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them. So without concrete information as to the why, you walked into an already quarreling senate, donned your gas mask, pulled the pin, and said, "We'll have a chat on the morrow, lads".My kids get upset when I tell them to do something they don't like, and don't first get an explanation as to why.Exactly what was the outcome you expected, when you dropped in to sprinkle in dissent, and dashed out?This is freaking childish, Brigs. Shame on you, and shame on your manager, who advised you to do this. Incomplete information caused a craptonne of dissent. No matter what side of the fence you're on regarding this change, the way this was handled was tactless. Enjoy your "How are we doing" Surveymonkey comments.
-snipped for clarity-Orion said: Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing? I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them.
Milk Jugz said: Pants1000 said: Vhailorx said: Spudgutter said: Vhailorx said:Also, it's silly to suggest that this change lets you play whenever you want. That's only true if you only care about progression; placement still works on the same schedule. And if you really only care,about progression then PVP was already "play whenever you want" unless you got into shield hopping. First off, its not silly, it makes more sense then the current system, you just cant or wont see it.Ill give you a real world example. Event starts, you join, play a few matches. Put the kids to bed, play some more, hit maybe 400-600 points. Wake up in the morning, play match while brushing your teeth or drinking coffee. Play a match while at the gas station standing in line on the way to work. Play a match or two while on a break or in the restroom at work. Get home, and play some more.Now, in the current example, while at work during the day, you are flogged down 100-400 points, and never make that back up, and lose the progression. Some people dont feel like making that climb again, because they know the outcome is the same.In the new win based model, they are more then halfway to a 4*. Encouraged to keep playing, one could almost day.Too suggest that this game was already "play when you want for progression" is to be seriously detached from the casual player, no offense. And the casual playerbase, i think we can more than agree on, is way, way, way more people then those getting over 1200. If you only care about progression. I.e. playing to 900 points for the 4* and then putting the game down, then pvp was already basically play when you want. It's pretty unusal to take hits below 500-600 or so. So the first part of any climb is absolutely play when you want. Spend 30ish minutes at your convenience climbing to 600ish. The riskier part of climbing to 900 is 600-900. Getting 300-ish points takes 5-6 matches (unless you punch down with futile 20 point matches). 5 or 6 matches takes about 20-25 minutes. So that is basically the only requirement for 900 in the old system: at some point during last 48 hours of an event (preferrably not during the last couple of hours) you must spent 20-25 minutes to rush from 600 to 900. That does't seem like an particularly strict schedule to me. Especially not compared to an alternative that is: at any time the 60 hours of each pvp event you must spent approximately 140 minutes playing 40 matches.It's not some vast quality of life improvement for players. It's a modest-to-significant improvement for some players and a modest-to-significant steo backwards for others. Your experience is that of a well-developed 5* roster who uses shield check rooms. What you described is not true for the vast majority. Unusual to take hits below 500-600? LOL! It depends on the boosted characters, but if I push to 500-600 and don't shield, I'll usually be hit back to 300-400 in a couple hours. I've hit 575 and been hit back below 250 on multiple occasions.20-25 minutes to run from 600-900? Again, that's not the case for most people. Many people spend much longer than that, often not making it because they get hit repeatedly during the process.Getting to 875, winning another match, but getting hit for -100 in the process is the most frustrating thing that happens in this game. This change removes that pain point, which is why I like it.I fully support making the CP more attainable for the top players. I think it's dumb to have t10 get it in CL6-8. Give constructive feedback and hopefully the devs will make adjustments/compromises for everyone. Giving it to t50 in CL9 seems like the most likely scenario. I don't have a well developed 5* roster and I don't use any shield check rooms. I hit the targets the game presents to me. I'll concede I skip a lot of low point targets and I skip alliance mates. I don't have an issue hitting 1200. Again, no coordination, no shield checks, just skip low point targets and alliance mates. I do it in less than 40 wins and I am guaranteed the 15 cp at the end.
Pants1000 said: Vhailorx said: Spudgutter said: Vhailorx said:Also, it's silly to suggest that this change lets you play whenever you want. That's only true if you only care about progression; placement still works on the same schedule. And if you really only care,about progression then PVP was already "play whenever you want" unless you got into shield hopping. First off, its not silly, it makes more sense then the current system, you just cant or wont see it.Ill give you a real world example. Event starts, you join, play a few matches. Put the kids to bed, play some more, hit maybe 400-600 points. Wake up in the morning, play match while brushing your teeth or drinking coffee. Play a match while at the gas station standing in line on the way to work. Play a match or two while on a break or in the restroom at work. Get home, and play some more.Now, in the current example, while at work during the day, you are flogged down 100-400 points, and never make that back up, and lose the progression. Some people dont feel like making that climb again, because they know the outcome is the same.In the new win based model, they are more then halfway to a 4*. Encouraged to keep playing, one could almost day.Too suggest that this game was already "play when you want for progression" is to be seriously detached from the casual player, no offense. And the casual playerbase, i think we can more than agree on, is way, way, way more people then those getting over 1200. If you only care about progression. I.e. playing to 900 points for the 4* and then putting the game down, then pvp was already basically play when you want. It's pretty unusal to take hits below 500-600 or so. So the first part of any climb is absolutely play when you want. Spend 30ish minutes at your convenience climbing to 600ish. The riskier part of climbing to 900 is 600-900. Getting 300-ish points takes 5-6 matches (unless you punch down with futile 20 point matches). 5 or 6 matches takes about 20-25 minutes. So that is basically the only requirement for 900 in the old system: at some point during last 48 hours of an event (preferrably not during the last couple of hours) you must spent 20-25 minutes to rush from 600 to 900. That does't seem like an particularly strict schedule to me. Especially not compared to an alternative that is: at any time the 60 hours of each pvp event you must spent approximately 140 minutes playing 40 matches.It's not some vast quality of life improvement for players. It's a modest-to-significant improvement for some players and a modest-to-significant steo backwards for others. Your experience is that of a well-developed 5* roster who uses shield check rooms. What you described is not true for the vast majority. Unusual to take hits below 500-600? LOL! It depends on the boosted characters, but if I push to 500-600 and don't shield, I'll usually be hit back to 300-400 in a couple hours. I've hit 575 and been hit back below 250 on multiple occasions.20-25 minutes to run from 600-900? Again, that's not the case for most people. Many people spend much longer than that, often not making it because they get hit repeatedly during the process.Getting to 875, winning another match, but getting hit for -100 in the process is the most frustrating thing that happens in this game. This change removes that pain point, which is why I like it.I fully support making the CP more attainable for the top players. I think it's dumb to have t10 get it in CL6-8. Give constructive feedback and hopefully the devs will make adjustments/compromises for everyone. Giving it to t50 in CL9 seems like the most likely scenario.
Vhailorx said: Spudgutter said: Vhailorx said:Also, it's silly to suggest that this change lets you play whenever you want. That's only true if you only care about progression; placement still works on the same schedule. And if you really only care,about progression then PVP was already "play whenever you want" unless you got into shield hopping. First off, its not silly, it makes more sense then the current system, you just cant or wont see it.Ill give you a real world example. Event starts, you join, play a few matches. Put the kids to bed, play some more, hit maybe 400-600 points. Wake up in the morning, play match while brushing your teeth or drinking coffee. Play a match while at the gas station standing in line on the way to work. Play a match or two while on a break or in the restroom at work. Get home, and play some more.Now, in the current example, while at work during the day, you are flogged down 100-400 points, and never make that back up, and lose the progression. Some people dont feel like making that climb again, because they know the outcome is the same.In the new win based model, they are more then halfway to a 4*. Encouraged to keep playing, one could almost day.Too suggest that this game was already "play when you want for progression" is to be seriously detached from the casual player, no offense. And the casual playerbase, i think we can more than agree on, is way, way, way more people then those getting over 1200. If you only care about progression. I.e. playing to 900 points for the 4* and then putting the game down, then pvp was already basically play when you want. It's pretty unusal to take hits below 500-600 or so. So the first part of any climb is absolutely play when you want. Spend 30ish minutes at your convenience climbing to 600ish. The riskier part of climbing to 900 is 600-900. Getting 300-ish points takes 5-6 matches (unless you punch down with futile 20 point matches). 5 or 6 matches takes about 20-25 minutes. So that is basically the only requirement for 900 in the old system: at some point during last 48 hours of an event (preferrably not during the last couple of hours) you must spent 20-25 minutes to rush from 600 to 900. That does't seem like an particularly strict schedule to me. Especially not compared to an alternative that is: at any time the 60 hours of each pvp event you must spent approximately 140 minutes playing 40 matches.It's not some vast quality of life improvement for players. It's a modest-to-significant improvement for some players and a modest-to-significant steo backwards for others.
Spudgutter said: Vhailorx said:Also, it's silly to suggest that this change lets you play whenever you want. That's only true if you only care about progression; placement still works on the same schedule. And if you really only care,about progression then PVP was already "play whenever you want" unless you got into shield hopping. First off, its not silly, it makes more sense then the current system, you just cant or wont see it.Ill give you a real world example. Event starts, you join, play a few matches. Put the kids to bed, play some more, hit maybe 400-600 points. Wake up in the morning, play match while brushing your teeth or drinking coffee. Play a match while at the gas station standing in line on the way to work. Play a match or two while on a break or in the restroom at work. Get home, and play some more.Now, in the current example, while at work during the day, you are flogged down 100-400 points, and never make that back up, and lose the progression. Some people dont feel like making that climb again, because they know the outcome is the same.In the new win based model, they are more then halfway to a 4*. Encouraged to keep playing, one could almost day.Too suggest that this game was already "play when you want for progression" is to be seriously detached from the casual player, no offense. And the casual playerbase, i think we can more than agree on, is way, way, way more people then those getting over 1200.
Vhailorx said:Also, it's silly to suggest that this change lets you play whenever you want. That's only true if you only care about progression; placement still works on the same schedule. And if you really only care,about progression then PVP was already "play whenever you want" unless you got into shield hopping.
Vhailorx said: shardwick said: 22 pt wins is punching down? My average amount of points for a win is about 25 pts in a regular event. I tend to get more pts per win in Shield Sim. The things I would do to get 300 pts for just five or six wins. Yes, 22 points is punching down because you will leave the opppnent a retal worth much more than 22 points. This is what i mean about the problem being that many players don't understand the pvp mechanics.And if you want higher point matches, start skipping more. That's what the rest of us do. Until you break mmr (which generally only happens at 900+ unless you have a 5* roster) high value targets are fairly plentiful. Just skip until you find them.
ronin-san said: "I have Strange, Thanos and Panther."You have the strongest 5* paring in the game, and you're taking issue with 51 point fights?
Spudgutter said: Vhailorx said: Spud:The words "me" and "i" do not appear in my post. And my statements about pvp expectations are informed by more my own subjective expereince. Obviously i can't claim clairvoyance. But i do read lots of comments. And talk to people in my alliance family. Most of the time when i encounter a "player X has a strong roster but cant hit 575" even a brief inquiry into the problem reveals that player X CAN hit 575 and beyond, but didn't understand how pvp worked (and no surprise, demi doesn't do a great job explaining it, even in the forums).As for getting 300 points quickly, i allowed a generous cushion by saying 5-6 matches. 6 matches at 50 points each is not that hard to find with liberal skipping. Even you suggest that 51 points is "settling."Look, i get that pvp was impenetrable and frustrating to a lot of players. And i am happy to see that change. Does that change really also have to significantly impact the ability of experienced 5* transitioners to get cp from pvp? If not, then demi is really just using the former change as cover for the latter change. And that sucks. Sure, i was using the quotes as a paraphrase, didn't come across properly. You worded your post to be able to apply to the reader in first person, but i am trying to imply that you experience is not the norm for most people. For vets, sure, it is absolutely the norm. Again, hitting 575 the "proper" way, and hitting 575 when you had the time, are not the same thing, thus the implication that playing whenever you want is slightly better for a vast number of people
Brigby said: ronin-san said: -snipped for clarity-Orion said: Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing? I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them. So without concrete information as to the why, you walked into an already quarreling senate, donned your gas mask, pulled the pin, and said, "We'll have a chat on the morrow, lads".My kids get upset when I tell them to do something they don't like, and don't first get an explanation as to why.Exactly what was the outcome you expected, when you dropped in to sprinkle in dissent, and dashed out?This is freaking childish, Brigs. Shame on you, and shame on your manager, who advised you to do this. Incomplete information caused a craptonne of dissent. No matter what side of the fence you're on regarding this change, the way this was handled was tactless. Enjoy your "How are we doing" Surveymonkey comments. I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.
Brigby said:I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.