The problem with 40 wins.

A_Wise_Man

So, there's been a lot of discussion about 40 wins in pvp and a lot of negative responses in these forums.  So why all the backlash?  
I believe  (Though I obviously don't know) that the devs arrived at 40 wins after a lot of discussion and really believed it would go over well, especially since that number was supposedly lower than the number originally planned.  After all, a lot of players will hit pve nodes 5x a day for progression for a total of about 50 hits a day (more including one time nodes and loaner nodes).  Over the same 2.5 days that's 125 hits, so 40 hits shouldn't be a big deal, so youd think.
There are a few issues to factor in, one being that it takes a lot more wins to get to the 3*, 4*, 10 cp, etc.  Another is the loss of cp in progression.  But I think the main issue people are having is the payoff.  
In pve, if I'm hitting 50 nodes a day to make progression, almost half of those are really easy (the 3 trivials and the 2* node).  Even more of them are easy if you pick a lower scl.  In about 30 minutes a day you're earning about 20-25k iso, not including sub rewards or progression rewards, and sometimes more if RNG smiles upon you and you get a few 1k or 2k iso intercepts.  
Now switch to pvp.  For just hitting nodes the maximum payoff per node is 280 iso (no skips plus a 2* cover or the 250 iso reward), but that doesn't pay out very often.  It's usually 100 iso or as low as 70 if youre skipping just to where the bonus zeroes out and not paying skip tax.  In an ideal scenario where the 2* or 250 iso is dropping 50% of the time (I feel like it's usually around 15%, but I don't track it), that's about 7600 iso for the entire 40 wins if you don't skip at all, or use boosts.  The real number is likely much lower.  Add in the fact that pvp battles usually take about 3 minutes apiece for a total of at least 2 hours and you're looking at about 60 iso/minute for pvp play.
  Let's say you have a bad pve day and it takes an hour to clear and you only get 20k iso.  That's still 444 iso/minute from pve.  It could be as high as 833 iso/minute if you clear in 30 and get the 25k instead.  Regardless, at a minimum you're earning 7 times the amount of stuff playing pve for similar time spent playing pvp, doesn't even compare.  I think if pvp nodes were adjusted to pay out more at the low end and much more at the high end (add intercepts or give like a 1% shot at 1k iso or something), people would be much more willing to grind out wins.  

Daredevil217

There are several threads discussing the changes to PVP.  Just so you know, mods and Brigby are closing these threads and asking people to post there.

Also, the TLDR version of your post (PVE is a better ROI than PVP) has even discussed to death in said threads. 

Dragon_Nexus

Time is the major factor. You can't just compare it to PvE, because I can do four clears of the nine nodes in less than an hour.

There's no way I can acrue 36 wins in PvP in that time with the non-stop boosted 4* teams I have to slowly chew through with their 30k+ health.

I enjoy the game most when it's a race to the power AP. Get the AP, hit an enemy and it dies. PvP isn't like that at all. It's why I dropped from SL8 to 7, I could clear a lot quicker. When it got to the point where I had to use Red Hulk's AoE twice to clear every node, things started to feel grindy.

broll

@Dragon_Nexus is right.  The problem is time investment and how time investment actually goes up as your roster progresses which is backwards.  It's possible that part of the XP change is so that SR can be a better gauge of rosters and set SCL 9 and/or 10 to a lower number of wins to reflect the different amount of time investment.  I think that would solve a lot of problems.  We'll have to see if that's actually where they go with this.  

Dragon_Nexus

In the end, I'm absolutely all for the win based system. I much prefer it to the more stressful points system where I'd get to 875 points, skip a bunch of 5* teams or 20 point wins, scrape out a win and see my score is now 789. So I try again and again and give up maybe getting back to 805 and cursing the fact I'd dared go for a 4* cover.

The issue is the wins are simply not rewarding. You need to get something with every win, like how PvE does it, and the 4* cover at 40 wins is just too much.

Basic example. If you got 2000 ISO at 4 wins, I'd rather they gave me four rewards of 500 ISO instead. It's really disheartening to spend 5+ minutes on a fight, go to the post-match statistics and see "Wins - 22...to 23!" and get 2XP as the only reward.

DAZ0273

And of course now you will not even get 2XP.

I agree - the win based system does devalue a hard fought win unless it happens to be a significant checkpoint.

bluewolf

Dragon_Nexus said:

In the end, I'm absolutely all for the win based system. I much prefer it to the more stressful points system where I'd get to 875 points, skip a bunch of 5* teams or 20 point wins, scrape out a win and see my score is now 789. So I try again and again and give up maybe getting back to 805 and cursing the fact I'd dared go for a 4* cover.

The issue is the wins are simply not rewarding. You need to get something with every win, like how PvE does it, and the 4* cover at 40 wins is just too much.

Basic example. If you got 2000 ISO at 4 wins, I'd rather they gave me four rewards of 500 ISO instead. It's really disheartening to spend 5+ minutes on a fight, go to the post-match statistics and see "Wins - 22...to 23!" and get 2XP as the only reward.

New and improved!  No more XP for wins! (in about 3 hours.)

I totally agree with the utter boringness of seeing the wins count tick up by one (although we might get 70 iso from the match).  I also posted in the bugs area that the node screen wins counter is very laggy when updating the wins count.  That doesn’t help anything.

[Deleted User]

I find the spacing of rewards encouraging.

I play 10 minutes, get the 4 wins, get the next prize.  It encourages a "little and often" approach for me.

My usual MO at the moment is to play a solid hour and climb to 20ish.  Then, over the next couple of days just chop away at it with 4 wins here, 4 wins there...

DAZ0273

The problem is that nothing differentiates win from win.

At least if I play PvE and beat the 5* node which for my roster is quite hard in SCL7 due to lack of covered characters, I'm rewarded with more points and it feels like an achievement.

I have no issue with wins based generally and am grateful that progress is saved but have found it to be a bit dull compared to the rush of points target play.

broll

What if in addition to the win count your ISO reward varied based on how many points you won?  So I think the default per win ISO is like 140 right?  So  maybe there was a multiplier to that based on points your opponent was worth.
< 26 - 250  ISO (cause let's be serious the 140 is a joke)
26-50 - 500 ISO
51-65 - 1000 ISO
Every point past that is an extra 100 ISO per, so a max hit of 75 would be 2000 ISO.

Would that help at all with the win based system for vets?

DAZ0273

I'm not a veteran myself but that sounds pretty good to me. It also means that PvP regains an extra layer of engagement - taking on bigger scores (which more often than not = harder fight) brings its own risk/reward. I suppose it might encourage some full out and out clubbing for easy iso but then as points don't matter in most cases they can party on if they can find the targets.

Blindman13

broll said:

What if in addition to the win count your ISO reward varied based on how many points you won?  So I think the default per win ISO is like 140 right?  So  maybe there was a multiplier to that based on points your opponent was worth.
< 26 - 250  ISO (cause let's be serious the 140 is a joke)
26-50 - 500 ISO
51-65 - 1000 ISO
Every point past that is an extra 100 ISO per, so a max hit of 75 would be 2000 ISO.

Would that help at all with the win based system for vets?

I like this.  
Another option (which I'm sure was suggested elsewhere) would be to make tougher fights more valuable in progression:
< 26 points = 1 Win
26-50 points = 2 Wins
> 50 points = 3 Wins
Seed teams would always be 1 win.
With 3 nodes available, you can give each node a different win count available. 
This would mean a 5* player would only need to beat 14 other 5* teams for full progression, or they could grind away clubbing 40 seals for the same results. This would truly allow for faster progress as your roster grows in strength without setting the goals so high that small rosters can't even hope to reach them.


Maybe even do both? I have a almost fully champed 4* team, and I'd be happy to churn out 20 matches worth 2 wins each - especially if I knew I'd get 500 ISO for each one. 

broll

Blindman13 said:

broll said:

What if in addition to the win count your ISO reward varied based on how many points you won?  So I think the default per win ISO is like 140 right?  So  maybe there was a multiplier to that based on points your opponent was worth.
< 26 - 250  ISO (cause let's be serious the 140 is a joke)
26-50 - 500 ISO
51-65 - 1000 ISO
Every point past that is an extra 100 ISO per, so a max hit of 75 would be 2000 ISO.

Would that help at all with the win based system for vets?

I like this.  
Another option (which I'm sure was suggested elsewhere) would be to make tougher fights more valuable in progression:
< 26 points = 1 Win
26-50 points = 2 Wins
> 50 points = 3 Wins
Seed teams would always be 1 win.
With 3 nodes available, you can give each node a different win count available. 
This would mean a 5* player would only need to beat 14 other 5* teams for full progression, or they could grind away clubbing 40 seals for the same results. This would truly allow for faster progress as your roster grows in strength without setting the goals so high that small rosters can't even hope to reach them.


Maybe even do both? I have a almost fully champed 4* team, and I'd be happy to churn out 20 matches worth 2 wins each - especially if I knew I'd get 500 ISO for each one. 

At that point there's no point in calling them wins if in some case 1 win = 3 wins.  I suggested they just keep using the old points and have different total for placement and progression.  Placement points can be lost and remain as they are.  Progression points are gains and not affected by losses.  This would be the best in my opinion.

mohio

broll said:

What if in addition to the win count your ISO reward varied based on how many points you won?  So I think the default per win ISO is like 140 right?  So  maybe there was a multiplier to that based on points your opponent was worth.
< 26 - 250  ISO (cause let's be serious the 140 is a joke)
26-50 - 500 ISO
51-65 - 1000 ISO
Every point past that is an extra 100 ISO per, so a max hit of 75 would be 2000 ISO.

Would that help at all with the win based system for vets?

The points system is already broken, we shouldn't be basing more things off of it, IMO. You could do what I think you're intending by having tiers of levels instead. Maxed 2*s plus loaner is around 450 levels, so anything under that can be one tier. Then maybe up to 900 levels for the next tier (200s boost to around 300, so that's not even maxed 3s)? Next tier is probably a little smaller, so up to 1200? Then anything above and you're mostly in the 5* range. 

Personally I would rather they do something like this, but give additional wins for the top tier fights (or top 2 even maybe?) So, fighting high level 4*s gives you 2 wins instead of 1, and it doesn't feel like quite as much of a grind to get to 40 wins. If you manage to break MMR or eat grills all the time, you still only get 1 point for those wins since they aren't even real matches. 

Dragon_Nexus

I am not keen on the idea of more points = more wins, but I saw someone suggest that a win streak would be a fun idea.

Maybe up to 3 so it didn't break the game entirely?

So you win, that's worth one point. But after, I dunno, three consequtive wins, wins become worth 2 points? And then up to 3 points per win?

But then I suppose this is adding layers of complexity onto the issue which could more simply be solved by lowering the targets from 40 to something more reasonable...

Uncletas

How about a easy medium hard for the three nodes?  Easy is a team that is mostly a level beneath you, medium your level, hard level above yours?  Worth 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Don’t know how it would work for five star teams. Maybe if they have all 5 stars above a certain point it is worth 3?  Horribly complicated but it is just some other way to do things. 

aesthetocyst

Dragon_Nexus said:

I am not keen on the idea of more points = more wins, but I saw someone suggest that a win streak would be a fun idea.

Maybe up to 3 so it didn't break the game entirely?

So you win, that's worth one point. But after, I dunno, three consequtive wins, wins become worth 2 points? And then up to 3 points per win?

But then I suppose this is adding layers of complexity onto the issue which could more simply be solved by lowering the targets from 40 to something more reasonable...

"Win streaks" would describe all my PvPs, so sounds awesome.

Until I eat a rare wipe because comical cascades go the AI's way, resulting in PvP taking longer solely because RNG says so.

That will not be a fun player experience.

MaskedMan

For me the problem is facing the same 3 characters 40 or 74 times.  As long as PvP works like that I won't be interested.

tanis3303

aesthetocyst said:

That will not be a fun player experience.

Announcement of this exact new system in T-Minus 3...2...1...

Jaedenkaal

tanis3303 said:

aesthetocyst said:

That will not be a fun player experience.

Announcement of this exact new system in T-Minus 3...2...1...

Might actually make defensive teams a thing, I guess...

killerkoala

the best solution would be having both "win and score progression" at the same time it will make most everyone happy. and also put CP back in progression and not only top 10, there are brackets where u can't get t25 with 1200 score.