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

1…1011131516…38

Comments

  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    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. 
    No, i have already conceded several times that i am losing out on potential cp.  I have also been asking for a hybrid system or wins being lowered.  

    What i am waiting for is some concession that this helps more people than it hurts. I have arguably the best three 5* champed.  Panther, thanos and strange.  My pvp and pve are a breeze compared to what they were 500 days ago.  

    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.

    You might not like to pay that cost, and i don't either, but i understand it
  • corytutor
    corytutor Posts: 414 Mover and Shaker
    Except that that explanation is a lie
  • elvy75
    elvy75 Posts: 225 Tile Toppler
    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
    corytutor Posts: 414 Mover and Shaker
    Or leave all cp in win progression
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    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
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    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
  • elvy75
    elvy75 Posts: 225 Tile Toppler
    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.

    If they really wanted to help little players while keeping old players happy, cp should stay in progression. Since they want to make it a grind, let it be the same as pve (story). Not everyone will want to get to that many fights, but those that want to would have the option
  • Richyyy
    Richyyy Posts: 305 Mover and Shaker
    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.
  • elvy75
    elvy75 Posts: 225 Tile Toppler
    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
    thanks for reposting it, as i haven't pay attention to all comments
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    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.

    You read between the lines how you want, but this is how i interpreted it.

    Do i wish there was a 4* ddq, especially since there are more now than there were 3* when they introduced it?  Absolutely. But they have their mind set on keeping the vets like you and i from climbing to far away from new players.  See my comment a couple pages ago about what a newer player has to do to get to our point.

    I also said i didn't like the choice they are giving us, just that i understand it
  • corytutor
    corytutor Posts: 414 Mover and Shaker
    edited October 2017
    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.
    Yes. Its more play. But theyre already shoving that down your throat anyway so you might as well make it achievable. Its supposed to generate more cp right? Then dont exclude it to all outside t10
  • sinnerjfl
    sinnerjfl Posts: 1,276 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.
  • Uncletas
    Uncletas Posts: 31 Just Dropped In
    Just as most decisions in this game and many like it, it comes down to money.  This is why they don’t show data. It is like oml nerf (not enough health packs) it the hfh store with the higher amount. It would be my guess that they have data showing the money they lose on most people getting shields they will make up with health pack sales and people still buying shields to get the cp from placement. 
  • Xenoberyll
    Xenoberyll Posts: 647 Critical Contributor
    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).  
    I mentioned attacks. They still don’t make me take 40 matches till 1200 points. I know that others may have it harder in that regard but i don’t think my experience is exotic either. There’s a lot of room between 20 and 40... Also it doesn’t adress my biggest gripe, the loss of the CP reward.
  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 589 Critical Contributor
    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.
    That is true for CL7/8, not necessarily CL6. However this will now make people choose between a 4* and CPs though, which doesn’t sound to me like more rewards are being distributed more fairly/generously.

    Ill-conceived, just poorly thought through generally and not receptive to any feedback of which much was constructive. 

    Disappointing, really disappointing.
  • ronin_san
    ronin_san Posts: 980 Critical Contributor
    To clarify. It doesn't matter to which side of the aisle you're on regarding PVP changes. IF you get half the information from the developer, from the community guy (as opposed to the dev team themselves), all while the dev guy takes off for the night, you enable the community to rage, here / there, due to the lack of concrete information.

    We don't know the end result. We don't know the new reward structure. But when you change bedtime for the kids, when you knew they were reticent to change, you'd better come up with more than "we'll talk in the morning over cheerios".


    That's my gripe, first-and-foremost. Pseudo-informed Brigby looks a dirtbag, because his boss or dev team said, "Please announce this controversial change then punch out for the night".
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2017
    Xenoberyll said:
    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).  
    I mentioned attacks. They still don’t make me take 40 matches till 1200 points. I know that others may have it harder in that regard but i don’t think my experience is exotic either. There’s a lot of room between 20 and 40... Also it doesn’t adress my biggest gripe, the loss of the CP reward.
    Yes, in Ravager Clan (I remember that specifically because I outlined it in forum) I hit 900+ in 20 matches, including 2 losses.

    @broll
    I would not consider my 4 champ 5s as a well developed (I like how you chopped well off my comment in your comment) 5* roster. Especially since only one is considered top tier (Thanos), two near top tier (Phoenix and Parker), and what's the majority consensus on Ock? I believe I've heard dumpster fire more than anything else, regardless of how I feel about him.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    broll said:
    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.
    You don't have a 'developed 5* roster' but you have have 4 of them champed.  From my understanding once you get your foot in the door of 3 5* champs 900 becomes a breeze and 1200 is usually relatively easy.  All this shows is how the level of your roster controls how far you can progress.  That's somewhat true in the new meta, but while it's definitely harder for people higher up on the totem poll than it was, it's still possible.  It wasn't possible for 2*/3* player before.  Period.  Now I totally think they need to work on fixing it so that it's not so much harder for vets than newer, that's pretty backwards, but accessible to all is good.

    I wonder if accessibility is the key.  One of the major problems in this game is dilution and the length of the roster progression path.  This change will help to lighten 4* progression path getting new players into 4* land, which seems to be the main focus of the devs, faster.  A lot of effort right now seems to focused on getting rosters to improve faster: incentivizing 5*s for the first time, focusing Latest 5*s over old, 4* featured rates (and the vaulting fiasco), Shield Training event trying to strong arm people into champing or near champing 4* within a week of release.... and now this.
    There's the one I was referring to, I was on mobile and couldn't find it easily

Categories