Category-5 PVP information from S4

Milk Jugz

@ZeiramMR

No, I don't prejoin anything. Does that make a difference??

ZeiramMR

And to clarify, looking at the description/rewards before the event slice starts is not the same as pre-joining a bracket (at least I think so). The former just establishes seed teams for your initial queues. I was in the second bracket for the Nightcrawler PVP based on the scores that were posted yesterday.

WelcomeDeath

Stax the Foyer said:

Welcome Death said:

The rockett said:

This isn't about the scores, this is about the people that missed the CPs at the old bench mark compared to the new one.  Yes this is only 1 event cause......wait for it......it's only been one event.  How the heck can i have data for more than one event when this is the only one.  Also, when you say more people got the CPs in your bracket, that's great. What about the slice?  1 bracket doesn't make the slice. I will be tracking this more to show. If anybody wants to add to the next post, please do from the other slices.  I really don't care about the wins at 40 or heck make the CP at 50, but put the CPs back in progression and not placement. 

If you use SL5/6 as an example, I will point out again that SL1-6 never had a chance for the 4* cover in progression. Only way was in 6 in 1st place.  How many 3/4* players got these?  I would imagine 0 since we know some 5* players would drop down to 6 for this. 

I'm sorry, let me qualify.  Every single bracket in s5 cl8 saw a 50% increase in people that got cp.  A 70% increase in cl7.  Probably 100% increase in cl6 and cl5.  Manage your brackets better or have less friends.
Furthermore, ever think that they intentionally created a bottleneck?  Before, if you had 500 people in a bracket and all 500 ate cupcakes to 1.2k, all 500 would get cp.  Part of their job is to gate resources.  None of the pvp changes in the last year and a half would have taken place if people weren't scoring 6,000 points every event.  So maybe stop doing that, too.  You don't get to cause the problem and also whine about the repercussions.

For comparison purposes, the CL5 and CL6 slots that earned CP are, if not apples and oranges, maybe limes and oranges. Those players may get some CP, but won't have access to the 4* progression cover, and have significantly lower ranking rewards than the equivalent CL7 and CL8 slots.

 It's the CL7 and CL8 slots that are really equivalent to 1200 under the old system, because they give the CP and (at least a chance at) the 4* cover.

 Plus, you didn't need to finish at 1200 under the old system to get CP, so it may not be a direct comparison to compare 1200+ finishers under the old system and 1200+ finishers under the new system. There were times when I would finish under 600 and still get the CP and the 4* cover.

So...i thought the discussion was about the amount of people getting cp now as opposed to before.  Not about the exact same rewards vs the exact same rewards. When cl9 comes out will we complain that the cp in 7 and 8 isnt any good anymore because top 50 in 9 get a 4*?  That just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining.
 But I also dont think the numbers are likely far off for cl7 and cl8.  Maybe in s3 and s4, sure.  But s1 was probably close to normal compared to what it was in the old system, and s2 and s5 were much much higher than they were before which, incidentally, is totally ignored even in the separate thread on the topic that rockett also created.  I can't believe he didn't see it in this thread and/Or couldn't get it on Line.  Only giving data that supports a specific viewpoint and whitewashing the rest of it is disingenuous at best.  Either way your suggesting to disregard cl5 and cl6 who get the exact same amount of cp as 7 and 8 in a discussion about lost cp doesn't really hold water.  If we are discussing total net rewards gained do we also discount anyone that didn't get the 4* cover before because their cp wasn't "as good" as those in top 5?  Maybe only placement 1-5 should count, too.  And only 1st in cl7 because they get 2 4* covers instead of one?  Idk, I dont make the rules about what to include.  Let me know!

Stax the Foyer

Welcome Death said:

Stax the Foyer said:

Welcome Death said:

The rockett said:

This isn't about the scores, this is about the people that missed the CPs at the old bench mark compared to the new one.  Yes this is only 1 event cause......wait for it......it's only been one event.  How the heck can i have data for more than one event when this is the only one.  Also, when you say more people got the CPs in your bracket, that's great. What about the slice?  1 bracket doesn't make the slice. I will be tracking this more to show. If anybody wants to add to the next post, please do from the other slices.  I really don't care about the wins at 40 or heck make the CP at 50, but put the CPs back in progression and not placement. 

If you use SL5/6 as an example, I will point out again that SL1-6 never had a chance for the 4* cover in progression. Only way was in 6 in 1st place.  How many 3/4* players got these?  I would imagine 0 since we know some 5* players would drop down to 6 for this. 

I'm sorry, let me qualify.  Every single bracket in s5 cl8 saw a 50% increase in people that got cp.  A 70% increase in cl7.  Probably 100% increase in cl6 and cl5.  Manage your brackets better or have less friends.
Furthermore, ever think that they intentionally created a bottleneck?  Before, if you had 500 people in a bracket and all 500 ate cupcakes to 1.2k, all 500 would get cp.  Part of their job is to gate resources.  None of the pvp changes in the last year and a half would have taken place if people weren't scoring 6,000 points every event.  So maybe stop doing that, too.  You don't get to cause the problem and also whine about the repercussions.

For comparison purposes, the CL5 and CL6 slots that earned CP are, if not apples and oranges, maybe limes and oranges. Those players may get some CP, but won't have access to the 4* progression cover, and have significantly lower ranking rewards than the equivalent CL7 and CL8 slots.

 It's the CL7 and CL8 slots that are really equivalent to 1200 under the old system, because they give the CP and (at least a chance at) the 4* cover.

 Plus, you didn't need to finish at 1200 under the old system to get CP, so it may not be a direct comparison to compare 1200+ finishers under the old system and 1200+ finishers under the new system. There were times when I would finish under 600 and still get the CP and the 4* cover.

So...i thought the discussion was about the amount of people getting cp now as opposed to before.  Not about the exact same rewards vs the exact same rewards. When cl9 comes out will we complain that the cp in 7 and 8 isnt any good anymore because top 50 in 9 get a 4*?  That just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining.
 But I also dont think the numbers are likely far off for cl7 and cl8.  Maybe in s3 and s4, sure.  But s1 was probably close to normal compared to what it was in the old system, and s2 and s5 were much much higher than they were before which, incidentally, is totally ignored even in the separate thread on the topic that rockett also created.  I can't believe he didn't see it in this thread and/Or couldn't get it on Line.  Only giving data that supports a specific viewpoint and whitewashing the rest of it is disingenuous at best.  Either way your suggesting to disregard cl5 and cl6 who get the exact same amount of cp as 7 and 8 in a discussion about lost cp doesn't really hold water.  If we are discussing total net rewards gained do we also discount anyone that didn't get the 4* cover before because their cp wasn't "as good" as those in top 5?  Maybe only placement 1-5 should count, too.  And only 1st in cl7 because they get 2 4* covers instead of one?  Idk, I dont make the rules about what to include.  Let me know!

You can tell that I wasn't just talking about lost CP from the part where I didn't just talk about lost CP in my post.  Saying that raising a different distinction doesn't "hold water" is nonsensical, it's an additional point that stands on its own.

Just saying "more people got the 10 CP reward," even if true, doesn't capture the effect of this change.  Of course some people are going to get CP who didn't before.  Randomly distributing CP to players at the end of the event could be done in such a way that the total number of CP rewards was increased, but that alone doesn't mean that it makes it a good idea, even if a whole bunch of new people earned CP that way.

Looking at total CL5 and CL6 reward package matters because players dropping down to CL5 and CL6 are giving up a shot at a 4* progression cover for a chance at 10 CP, if bracket luck doesn't screw them.  If people feel compelled to drop down to CL5 to have a chance at it (I know a lot of people who did that), that's a significant downgrade under the new system even for the people who get it.  

Looking at how that the rewards are distributed under the new system doesn't ignore the CL5 and CL6 CP earners, but it does contextualize it.  For a lot of players, they feel compelled to choose between the CP and the 4* progression cover.

They can gate resources if they have to (PvP seems like an odd place to do it, given the greater amount of CP in PvE and the comparative ease of obtaining it there), but how they do it is also worth discussing.  

WelcomeDeath

Stax the Foyer said:

Welcome Death said:

Stax the Foyer said:

Welcome Death said:

The rockett said:

This isn't about the scores, this is about the people that missed the CPs at the old bench mark compared to the new one.  Yes this is only 1 event cause......wait for it......it's only been one event.  How the heck can i have data for more than one event when this is the only one.  Also, when you say more people got the CPs in your bracket, that's great. What about the slice?  1 bracket doesn't make the slice. I will be tracking this more to show. If anybody wants to add to the next post, please do from the other slices.  I really don't care about the wins at 40 or heck make the CP at 50, but put the CPs back in progression and not placement. 

If you use SL5/6 as an example, I will point out again that SL1-6 never had a chance for the 4* cover in progression. Only way was in 6 in 1st place.  How many 3/4* players got these?  I would imagine 0 since we know some 5* players would drop down to 6 for this. 

I'm sorry, let me qualify.  Every single bracket in s5 cl8 saw a 50% increase in people that got cp.  A 70% increase in cl7.  Probably 100% increase in cl6 and cl5.  Manage your brackets better or have less friends.
Furthermore, ever think that they intentionally created a bottleneck?  Before, if you had 500 people in a bracket and all 500 ate cupcakes to 1.2k, all 500 would get cp.  Part of their job is to gate resources.  None of the pvp changes in the last year and a half would have taken place if people weren't scoring 6,000 points every event.  So maybe stop doing that, too.  You don't get to cause the problem and also whine about the repercussions.

For comparison purposes, the CL5 and CL6 slots that earned CP are, if not apples and oranges, maybe limes and oranges. Those players may get some CP, but won't have access to the 4* progression cover, and have significantly lower ranking rewards than the equivalent CL7 and CL8 slots.

 It's the CL7 and CL8 slots that are really equivalent to 1200 under the old system, because they give the CP and (at least a chance at) the 4* cover.

 Plus, you didn't need to finish at 1200 under the old system to get CP, so it may not be a direct comparison to compare 1200+ finishers under the old system and 1200+ finishers under the new system. There were times when I would finish under 600 and still get the CP and the 4* cover.

So...i thought the discussion was about the amount of people getting cp now as opposed to before.  Not about the exact same rewards vs the exact same rewards. When cl9 comes out will we complain that the cp in 7 and 8 isnt any good anymore because top 50 in 9 get a 4*?  That just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining.
 But I also dont think the numbers are likely far off for cl7 and cl8.  Maybe in s3 and s4, sure.  But s1 was probably close to normal compared to what it was in the old system, and s2 and s5 were much much higher than they were before which, incidentally, is totally ignored even in the separate thread on the topic that rockett also created.  I can't believe he didn't see it in this thread and/Or couldn't get it on Line.  Only giving data that supports a specific viewpoint and whitewashing the rest of it is disingenuous at best.  Either way your suggesting to disregard cl5 and cl6 who get the exact same amount of cp as 7 and 8 in a discussion about lost cp doesn't really hold water.  If we are discussing total net rewards gained do we also discount anyone that didn't get the 4* cover before because their cp wasn't "as good" as those in top 5?  Maybe only placement 1-5 should count, too.  And only 1st in cl7 because they get 2 4* covers instead of one?  Idk, I dont make the rules about what to include.  Let me know!

You can tell that I wasn't just talking about lost CP from the part where I didn't just talk about lost CP in my post.  Saying that raising a different distinction doesn't "hold water" is nonsensical, it's an additional point that stands on its own.

Just saying "more people got the 10 CP reward," even if true, doesn't capture the effect of this change.  Of course some people are going to get CP who didn't before.  Randomly distributing CP to players at the end of the event could be done in such a way that the total number of CP rewards was increased, but that alone doesn't mean that it makes it a good idea, even if a whole bunch of new people earned CP that way.

Looking at total CL5 and CL6 reward package matters because players dropping down to CL5 and CL6 are giving up a shot at a 4* progression cover for a chance at 10 CP, if bracket luck doesn't screw them.  If people feel compelled to drop down to CL5 to have a chance at it (I know a lot of people who did that), that's a significant downgrade under the new system even for the people who get it.  

Looking at how that the rewards are distributed under the new system doesn't ignore the CL5 and CL6 CP earners, but it does contextualize it.  For a lot of players, they feel compelled to choose between the CP and the 4* progression cover.

They can gate resources if they have to (PvP seems like an odd place to do it, given the greater amount of CP in PvE and the comparative ease of obtaining it there), but how they do it is also worth discussing.  

I dont know that a single 4* cover constitutes a significant downgrade, but maybe I undervalue 4* covers.