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.Tiomono: i really don't get your argument. Old mpq pvp takes time and can definitely chew into a player's ability to spend time with family. But new mpq pvp takes about 2x as many matches to get the same rewards! Is it really better for your family if you spend twice as much time playing pvp on a slightly more sporadic schedule? Sounds like a push at best to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Justice Jacks said: 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. Maybe I can help here, then. This change doesn’t directly affect ME in the least. I average 70-80 matches per PVP already (during last test had an alliance mate reach 400 in a single event just because the counter was there). I am able to place t5 CL8 every event I want the covers. I lose nothing. That YOU don’t realize how much YOU lose is what is trying to be pointed out. Currently, in my CL8s, 1200 isn’t even enough for t25. So 10-15 players will be dropping down a CL level. But CL7 in my shard is similar, so now this 10-15 crowd out CL7 in addition to the 5-10 currently in CL7 that would have had to drop anyway to get CP. Now you have 15-25 people dropping into CL6 and 5 and poof, no CP for those that hadn’t been getting to 1200 historically. And since most that wanted this can’t even get to 900 consistently, not only have you lost your chance at CP, but you’ve also given away your ability to secure the cover/iso/HP placement awards that currently are accessible.
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.
Way to accept demi's premise without question.
Why do you have to lose cp tp help new players? That's a false, or at least entirely arbitrary, choice.
elvy75 said: the only way i can see this fixed to some amount is if devs open cl9 in pvp and put CP to t25 or even t50. smh
corytutor said: Or leave all cp in win progression
Milk Jugz said: This is most certainly a divided issue. People with low level rosters can now achieve the 4* cover- Great!! But, people with high level rosters now have to play twice (at best) matches to get that same reward and there is no guarantee of getting the 15 cp at the end- Against much harder opponents too!! That is a huge step backwards on incentive to build your roster. At this point I'm pretty much resigned that win based is going to be here to stay. So, I'll attack this from a different angle. If the issue is low level roster vs high level roster why not open up CL9 with points based progression?? That will keep high level rosters out of lower CL levels opening placement there for the people that really need those rewards. Open CL10 with the same structure. As you build your roster though the first 8 CLs eventually you can graduate to the real competition in CLs 9 and 10.....I for one would never drop out of CL9 if that was the case
Vhailorx said: Spud said: They are basically saying that i am giving up some cp so that newer players have easier access to 4*, thus hopefully keeping them engaged so they do get to the 1400 day mark like me.Way to accept demi's premise without question. Why do you have to lose cp tp help new players? That's a false, or at least entirely arbitrary, choice.
Milk Jugz said: elvy75 said: the only way i can see this fixed to some amount is if devs open cl9 in pvp and put CP to t25 or even t50. smh corytutor said: Or leave all cp in win progression Or how about this? Milk Jugz said: This is most certainly a divided issue. People with low level rosters can now achieve the 4* cover- Great!! But, people with high level rosters now have to play twice (at best) matches to get that same reward and there is no guarantee of getting the 15 cp at the end- Against much harder opponents too!! That is a huge step backwards on incentive to build your roster. At this point I'm pretty much resigned that win based is going to be here to stay. So, I'll attack this from a different angle. If the issue is low level roster vs high level roster why not open up CL9 with points based progression?? That will keep high level rosters out of lower CL levels opening placement there for the people that really need those rewards. Open CL10 with the same structure. As you build your roster though the first 8 CLs eventually you can graduate to the real competition in CLs 9 and 10.....I for one would never drop out of CL9 if that was the case I'm pretty sure this got buried in a flurry of comments
Richyyy said: corytutor said: Or leave all cp in win progression Where are they suposed to put it that wouldn't lead to a similar-length complaint thread? The 4* is already at 40 wins. They'd want it to require meaningful additional effort. So 60? 70? The time requirement per PvP just gets insane, even if you're making it 'achievable' for everyone.
scottee said:Also, the devs have stated that giving out the 15 CP will award more CP per event than players were achieving by the 1200 progression. If their claim is true, more CP will be entering the player economy, so it's overall more rewards.
broll said: Xenoberyll said: 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. That math only works if you assume 0 losses. It's easy to get -100 or -200 in a very short time the higher you go (sometimes minutes). It's those defensive losses that keep people rising much above a certain level (unless the go nuts with shields).
Xenoberyll said: 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.
sinnerjfl said: scottee said:Also, the devs have stated that giving out the 15 CP will award more CP per event than players were achieving by the 1200 progression. If their claim is true, more CP will be entering the player economy, so it's overall more rewards. Yeah well, that's a big frigging LIE. Most brackets in CL7/CL8, top 25 is over 1200 easily.This does not factor in either people who hit 1200 and dont bother shielding.Currently there is a lot more than 10 people hitting 1200 per slice.