Devil You Know PVP information from S4 and beyond plus other comments

KGB

5.7.?

Not sure when mine flipped/opened but I joined last night (Tuesday) just as the World series game 1 started. Played casually while watching the game and got 20 wins. Came back today in the final hour and got 8 more for the 3* cover.

1 - 1371
2 - 1130
3 - 1121
4 - 1068
5 - 1063
6 - 1005
7 - 990
8 - 975
9 - 963
10 - 956

My 675 score was good for 45th place which is typical for me.

So in my bracket 9 players got the 10 cp that wouldn't have gotten it before (or maybe they could have pushed for 1200 but didn't bother since they had T10 locked up and perhaps 40 wins).

Clearly joining later (final couple of days) makes for much easier brackets. This is probably how Demi computed the idea that the same number of players would be getting the 10 cp reward.

KGB

Vhailorx

As rockett noted, it is a bit of a fallacy to compare results across systems (i.e. x number of people bit 1200 in the nightcrawler event. Ergo x nimber of people would have done the same in the old system) since people behave based on incentives.  And the two systems present vastly differen incentives.  Plenty of people (like myself) finished well below 1200 even though they have the rosters to,get there because they went for late brackets or knew they couldn't get top 10.  Conversely, some small number of people no doubt got lucky brackets and finished top 10 even though they had never hit 1200.  

It would be much more useful (and requre mich more data) to compare results from a new system event to results from an old system event to see bboth how many people are actually losing out on cp, as well as how players are playing differently in response to the changes incentives.  

Collecting this data is just a part of what it would take to take a thorough look at what effect thus change has had.

Pants1000

If nothing else I've learned s4 scores are nuts.

The rockett

Just wait for this pvp.  Great 3* with massive damage and big health. Very good all around char. 

The rockett

@Sandmaker the bottom line is that they have shifted CPs from progression to SL5/6. This hurts more people than helps. Here is the current data from this last event.  Now I can only talk about S4 because well.......that's all I have of all data. Also, I will have to make some assumptions as well since we don't have people that actually play in these brackets. 

Here are the CPs receivered from each SL 

SL1-
Rank 1-10- 1CP
10 CPs given out 

SL2-
Rank1-10- 2CP
20 CPs given out 

SL3-
Rank 1-10-5CPs
50 CPs given out 

SL4-
Rank 1-10-10 CPs 
100 CPs given out 

SL5-
Rank 1-10-15 CPs 
150 CPs given out 

SL6-
Rank 1-10-15 CPs
150 CPs given out 

SL7-
Rank 1-17 CP 
Rank 2-10 16CPs
161 CPs given out 

SL8
Rank 1-18 CP
Rank 2-10 16 CPs
161 CPs given out. 

Now, S4 had the follow brackets and yes I will have to assume that S1-5 did not have bracket flips

SL1-1 total 10 CPs given out 
SL2-1 Total 20 CPs given out 
SL3-1 Total 50 CPs given out 
SL4-1 Total 100 CPs given out 
SL5-1 Total 150 CPs given out 
SL6-2 Total 300 CPs given out 
SL7-3 Total 483 CPs given out 
SL8-4 Total 644 CPs given out 
Total CPs given out=1757

Now we had 84 people miss the 15 CP rewards (1260 CPs) plus the 90 people (1350 CPs) that would have received this rewards already. That is a total of 2610 CPs that would have been rewarded. Now, if we look at this difference of rewards in old system to new system it is 853 CPs or 56.8 players. Are you trying to tell me that 56.8 players got the 4* cover in S4 then in the old system?  You will also have to include players that would have got 1200 in the old system and now are saying, This sucks and not hitting the 4* cover now.  Which there is a lot of them. Furthermore rewarding players in S4-6 with more CPs then before that didn't even have a chance for the 4* cover in progression is a joke. 

Spudgutter

I have to imagine there are plenty of people who like this change and never visit the forum. 

Your casual person who plays pretty regularly, but isnt looking to make this a part time job.  They do pretty decent, play pve to progression, and play whenever they feel like it. Getting 40 wins against comparable 3* rosters over the course of 2.5 days?  You bet your sweet bippy there are 60 people out there getting those covers.  We have had, what, at least 4 or 5 forumites, who we already agree are minority of players, say they like it?

Throw in the fact that everytime someone says they like it, they get 3 or 4 responses from a 1000 day vet telling them they shouldn't? 

How many more figured they may as well not even share that they liked it because a) they dont want to deal with the responses, and b) the collective mind has already been made up, so it isn't like anyone is going to change their opinion, so why bother? 

Vhailorx

Spudgutter said:

I have to imagine there are plenty of people who like this change and never visit the forum. 

Your casual person who plays pretty regularly, but isnt looking to make this a part time job.  They do pretty decent, play pve to progression, and play whenever they feel like it. Getting 40 wins against comparable 3* rosters over the course of 2.5 days?  You bet your sweet bippy there are 60 people out there getting those covers.  We have had, what, at least 4 or 5 forumites, who we already agree are minority of players, say they like it?

Throw in the fact that everytime someone says they like it, they get 3 or 4 responses from a 1000 day vet telling them they shouldn't? 

How many more figured they may as well not even share that they liked it because a) they dont want to deal with the responses, and b) the collective mind has already been made up, so it isn't like anyone is going to change their opinion, so why bother? 

I think you wildly overestimate the number of "casual" players dedicated enough to mpq to grind 40 wins per event. But not so dedicated to already have a strong roster and know how to hit 900.  No doubt there are some.  But 40 wins is a lot!  And by definition casual players don't grind.

Justice Jacks

Vhailorx said:

As rockett noted, it is a bit of a fallacy to compare results across systems (i.e. x number of people bit 1200 in the nightcrawler event. Ergo x nimber of people would have done the same in the old system) since people behave based on incentives.  And the two systems present vastly differen incentives.  Plenty of people (like myself) finished well below 1200 even though they have the rosters to,get there because they went for late brackets or knew they couldn't get top 10.  Conversely, some small number of people no doubt got lucky brackets and finished top 10 even though they had never hit 1200.  

It would be much more useful (and requre mich more data) to compare results from a new system event to results from an old system event to see bboth how many people are actually losing out on cp, as well as how players are playing differently in response to the changes incentives.  

Collecting this data is just a part of what it would take to take a thorough look at what effect thus change has had.

Almost precisely accurate to say people that reached 1200 in this event would have in old system too.  Probably a bad assumption to assume that many that didn't reach 1200 (but finished in the 1-1.2k range) would also not have reached 1200 in the old system.  In short, whatever number of people reach 1200 in a post-win world, a greater number would have reached (or had the ability to reach) 1200 in a pure progression world.    

AlexxKats

Pants1000 said:

If nothing else I've learned s4 scores are nuts.

It ain't bound to s4. It's people working together.

One along, can build a hut.
A group can build in the same time a wooden home (i like to picture those Norwegian wooden cabins deep in the woods for some reason)
Many groups can build (in the same time)a cute 2 story concrete house
etc...

fight4thedream

Vhailorx said:

Spudgutter said:

I have to imagine there are plenty of people who like this change and never visit the forum. 

Your casual person who plays pretty regularly, but isnt looking to make this a part time job.  They do pretty decent, play pve to progression, and play whenever they feel like it. Getting 40 wins against comparable 3* rosters over the course of 2.5 days?  You bet your sweet bippy there are 60 people out there getting those covers.  We have had, what, at least 4 or 5 forumites, who we already agree are minority of players, say they like it?

Throw in the fact that everytime someone says they like it, they get 3 or 4 responses from a 1000 day vet telling them they shouldn't? 

How many more figured they may as well not even share that they liked it because a) they dont want to deal with the responses, and b) the collective mind has already been made up, so it isn't like anyone is going to change their opinion, so why bother? 

I think you wildly overestimate the number of "casual" players dedicated enough to mpq to grind 40 wins per event. But not so dedicated to already have a strong roster and know how to hit 900.  No doubt there are some.  But 40 wins is a lot!  And by definition casual players don't grind.

They may not grind 40 times for every 4* cover but they at least know if they desired to do so they could. It's all about the power of perception. Although we do not know the intended goal of these changes, if the purpose is to increase user engagement in PvP then you will have a difficult time arguing why the old system is better in accomplishing that goal. Top level players are still playing PvP at an impressive rate and I am sure some of them, like myself, are even playing more matches to reach that progression goal.

The question is whether there has been or will be an increase in play from those who are not playing at the top level. And that is something you and I will probably never know.

Obviously, this change comes at the disadvantage of those who benefited from the old system. And yes, many of those who benefited from the old system are loyal, paying customers and they are well within their right to criticize these changes. But keep in mind we still don't have the whole picture here. Only the devs know what it is they are trying to accomplish with these changes.

Any argument presented for or against these changes is operating from only one part of the puzzle (no pun intended). It's natural that those playing the meta-game would argue for their own interests. But equally so, it makes just as much sense for a newer or casual players to argue in favor of a system that grants them a new avenue towards perceived progress.

To your point of whether more casuals will grind "40" wins that is something only the devs will be privy to. But I will argue it doesn't even matter if they actually grind out 40 wins every event. As long as they perceive PvP as a more rewarding experience and as a result play more matches, whether it be 5 or 40, then the devs have made progress in accomplishing that goal.

I am sure they will be looking over their numbers over the next few months and make adjustments accordingly. It is your choice if you wish to continue play in this new system or not. Just keep in mind that for the devs, what you do speaks louder than what you say.

Stax the Foyer

Counterpoint:  I think asking players to grind out 40 wins may be beneficial in the short term, but counterproductive in the slightly longer term, for two reasons:

1)  In the shorter term, 40 wins is a lot, because it's that amount, every time.  No shortcuts.  No runs of good luck.  40 wins, every time.  Even people who liked the idea of a wins-based system are coming to grips with how much of a grind this is.  And this should be the honeymoon phase, where people are excited.  I've seen burnout happening even faster than I'd have predicted, and I've been a pessimist on this.

2)  In the longer term, 40 wins doesn't get any easier.  In some ways, it gets harder as your roster gets better, because of MMR.  Even someone who can stomach the 40-win grind on a regular basis is going to notice that it doesn't get better as their roster does.

This will result in short term engagement upticks, certainly.  I'm very skeptical that the system as currently structured will be good for almost anyone long-term.  This is completely independent of the higher-end issues with this system.

madoctor

I was in one of the 4.7 brackets. Scored over 1.2k, but had a misplay and did "ONLY" 35 matches. So I ended up without the 4* cover AND the 15CP.

Nice of the devs to show the middle finger to players like me. Good game.

The rockett

Also,
i would like to say Thank You to everybody reaching out me on Line with data.  I don't know if others are tracking this for others slices like this, but please continue to send this to me.  I will start adding it to the info I have as well.  

ZeroKarma

I think what we are going to find is a split depending on the slice you choose that will change some of the approach moving forward. Slices where cooperation is high and the scores are high? Well, then you are going to see a large volume of people that would have gotten CP in the past, that will no longer receive it. Wild west slices where people rarely cross 1200 will see an uptick. Is this a purposeful selection on D3's part? Who knows. 

See, the thing isn't the scoring. S4, as an example, has a large number of well-developed rosters that are going to be competitive no matter what. People will continually hop, not just for scoring, but to get into and stay in the top 10 for CP. People could choose not to hop, and they would simply be overtaken. 1200 will never be enough to guarantee top 10 in that slice and so this decision is going to adversely select against that specific shard. 

I think the D3 approach for placing 4* in a win-based progression will be fantastic for continued engagement amongst lower level rosters. Play when you want, hit a bunch of people and never worry about getting hit back. Get a 4* as a participation trophy and ignore placement. 

At the same time, it would seem to alienate another contingent in this game, which is the high-level veteran player that spends a ton of money on health packs and shields to score very highly. It's a shame that there isn't a happy medium which could be implemented to appease both sides, because this game needs the high level spenders as much as it does the incremental purchase folk. 

Bowgentle

ZeroKarma said:

I think what we are going to find is a split depending on the slice you choose that will change some of the approach moving forward. Slices where cooperation is high and the scores are high? Well, then you are going to see a large volume of people that would have gotten CP in the past, that will no longer receive it. Wild west slices where people rarely cross 1200 will see an uptick. Is this a purposeful selection on D3's part? Who knows. 

See, the thing isn't the scoring. S4, as an example, has a large number of well-developed rosters that are going to be competitive no matter what. People will continually hop, not just for scoring, but to get into and stay in the top 10 for CP. People could choose not to hop, and they would simply be overtaken. 1200 will never be enough to guarantee top 10 in that slice and so this decision is going to adversely select against that specific shard. 

I think the D3 approach for placing 4* in a win-based progression will be fantastic for continued engagement amongst lower level rosters. Play when you want, hit a bunch of people and never worry about getting hit back. Get a 4* as a participation trophy and ignore placement. 

At the same time, it would seem to alienate another contingent in this game, which is the high-level veteran player that spends a ton of money on health packs and shields to score very highly. It's a shame that there isn't a happy medium which could be implemented to appease both sides, because this game needs the high level spenders as much as it does the incremental purchase folk. 

Dual system - EITHER points or wins would do it.
But they didn't even think of testing that.

BearVenger

Agreed with the above.

Part of my strategy for developing a strong 4* roster was being able to get to 1200 points without a lot of crazy grinding. I could snag 3 tokens, a 3* cover, a 4* cover, some ISO, HP, and CP, and usually finish t25.

If I wanted to stop at the 4* cover, I could sprint a PvP event in under an hour. If I wanted the 15 CP, I could do it over a few hops. And a great part of it was that being choosy with my qs, I could do it with a minimum of beating up lower-rostered players.

Now...40 wins is 40 wins. There's not a fast way to pull that off, certainly if I'm matched against peer-level or greater rosters. And I no longer care about spending CP on shields, because a) points don't matter, and b) I have to remain visible to fight. Shields are a concept for "the match beyond" (once I've obtained 40 wins).

Guess what? I really don't care about going further once I obtain 40 wins. My scores have been in the garbage compared to previous seasons, since I'm neither shielding nor trying to climb to a threshold. My first two PvP events this season have seen me peak in the 1300-1500 range as I rack up wins, then just let the hits drag it back down. My scores are lower because points mean nothing anymore. 

I'm starving out my season score, but at this point of needing 18 PvP wins/day, I don't really care anymore. Chores are undone. Burnout is on the doorstep.

Blindman13

Bowgentle said:

Dual system - EITHER points or wins would do it.
But they didn't even think of testing that.

I've seen this suggested many times. They probably did think about it for about 2 seconds because that's all it took for them to realize how complicated and problematic that would be for them to implement.
While this would theoretically be a decent compromise for the players, the thought of trying to retrofit this into the current code, and then explain all of it to a new player sounds like a nightmare.
This also wouldn't solve the OP's main complaint: moving CP out of progression and into placement. 

ZeroKarma

How about a system where the lower CL's that really need 4* have the win-based system and the higher CL's have a point progression? 

I'm not going to buy the concept that it's too complicated to make all customers happy. I would wager that they could run a split based on CL quite easily, just like I'm betting that they could run a regular season test to get meaningful data instead of off-season, and still have the season scores counting by points. 

elvy75

What i see in win based system as issues are following
1. CP is not last progression reward - while for developing rosters this may not seem like an issue, once you develop your 4* roster there is no other way to progress further
2. 40 wins is too grindy - yes the honeymoon of being able to get to last progression cover is still going on, but as others have said, there are no shortcuts to come to it anymore, you can't play 20 matches to 900 points as your roster becomes stronger, but will always have to do same old 40. When you are a dedicated pve player who also wants to be pvp player, that takes a lot of additional time, and thus will lead to burnout, and those happy now about win based system will become burned out pretty soon, when every single time you have to get to those 40 wins

Those issues are also connected, as if devs decide to bring cp as final progression, where will they place it? at 60-80 wins? Thus making it even more grindy! PVP needed to be changed so that newer player can compete, but i don't think in long run this is the step in the right direction. Casual players will not benefit from it, as casual players already don't try to get to max progression even in pve, hard core ones will get burn out as time investment is increased. 

What could be ways to solve those issues: 
1. devs could make additional screen to choose either win based or points based system, with CP back to progression to both.
2. devs could open CL9 that would be only points based, with cp as last reward, while leaving other CL the same

First option would allow you to choose how you want to play, but granted CP as last reward would increase grind time for those who want to have it win based, but wouldn't change much to those that can get it with points. Second option would make it that all those who can score 1200 would go there and thus leaving cl8 and bellow to lower rosters that will now have fair chance of actually winning cp as placement reward. 

BearVenger

Agreed with the above.

Part of my strategy for developing a strong 4* roster was being able to get to 1200 points without a lot of crazy grinding. I could snag 3 tokens, a 3* cover, a 4* cover, some ISO, HP, and CP, and usually finish t25.

If I wanted to stop at the 4* cover, I could sprint a PvP event in under an hour. If I wanted the 15 CP, I could do it over a few hops. And a great part of it was that being choosy with my qs, I could do it with a minimum of beating up lower-rostered players.

Now...40 wins is 40 wins. There's not a fast way to pull that off, certainly if I'm matched against peer-level or greater rosters. And I no longer care about spending CP on shields, because a) points don't matter, and b) I have to remain visible to fight. Shields are a concept for "the match beyond" (once I've obtained 40 wins).

Guess what? I really don't care about what happens once I obtain 40 wins. My scores have been in the garbage compared to