Versus "Progression"

Jwallyr

Thus spake the Google:

pro·gres·sion

prəˈɡreSHən/

noun
          the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.

By this definition (the topmost at Google, and one that makes obvious sense) the point-based "progression" rewards for Versus are patently not "progression", because you can't reliably "progress" from the beginning (no rewards) to the end (full rewards). With win-based progression rewards, someone like me with a life (40 hour a week job, wife and kid, extracurricular responsibilities, etc.) could play games here and there when time permitted, and I could reasonably expect to eventually achieve the progression rewards for my CL.

My experience with the points-based PvP "progression" in the past is that there was a hidden equilibrium point (usually somewhere around 750 points) that essentially there was nothing I could possibly do to break through, and the topmost "progression" rewards were 100% out of reach. As a result, I would typically play a burst of games (the earlier the better) with as aggressive a team on offense as I possibly could to reach the 2nd Hero Points reward, and then ignore the event from then on. Having something to work toward in the win-based (i.e. actual) progression rewards system kept me interested, and I ended up playing *more* than 40 games, as I would get sucked into the placement race.

Which reminds me... when the top player in the placement has a score of around 750-800 in my bracket, does it even make sense to have a reward for 1200 points? Does anybody ever even get that reward? Apparently at the higher brackets you can earn that many points, but at CL 4 I *never* see anybody with a score even close.

I have read a couple of threads on this topic, and it seems that there are other issues at higher CLs that might reasonably make players reluctant to play a full 40 games per event. I am 100% in support of fixing those issues, whether they involve a gradual compression in numbers of wins actually required to achieve the top rewards so that the highest CLs aren't a slog, tweaking the rewards themselves so that players with well-developed rosters aren't incentivized to slum the lower CLs, etc. I don't see any inherent incompatibility with a win-based progression system and graduated rewards to keep those veteran players engaged in the CLs that they are intended to be in.

What I don't understand is how "progression" rewards can rationally be based on a score that fluctuates up and down, with hidden equilibrium points that essentially cap the achievable rewards, or why I would want to play any more than the absolute minimum number of games with which I can feel satisfied in such a system.

/rant

hunky_funky

I'm totally with you

thetimelord

Agreed, I loved win based progression

Starfury

If we're only arguing semantics, the progression rewards are progression rewards because you can only win more rewards, you can never lose any of the rewards.

hunky_funky

Most of the people whine about removing 15 cp prize. The simple decision is to include 15 cp and leave win based system. The problem is, that devs don't want to give cp that easily, so everybody is suffering. Those who like win based system and those who against it. Who will say that, it's more time or health packs consuming, just want free cp.

Starfury

hunky_funky said:

Most of the people whine about removing 15 cp prize. The simple decision is to include 15 cp and leave win based system. The problem is, that devs don't want to give cp that easily, so everybody is suffering. Those who like win based system and those who against it. Who will say that, it's more time or health packs consuming, just want free cp.

For me the problem with win-based system was that suddenly all fights were declared equal (and I was expected to slog through 40 of them for a 4* cover)

The old system favored choosing your fights well with tougher opponents generally being worth more.

Win-based favored trying to find the easiest seals to club (timing it weel to get up to 10 seed teams, playing around with the retaliation system to get more easy fights, deliberately losing dozens of matches so you go back down in ranking)

There have been far more issues with win-based than just the placement of the cp.

hunky_funky

Well, maybe you right. But if, for example, there was 4 star cover at 35 wins and 15 cp at 40, less people would be upset about it. Yeah, they would write something you just wrote, but not in every discussion, in every poll and every comment. And devs would saw it and think: "Hmmm... yeah, people have some pros and cons, but most are OK with new system, so let's just leave it and work on some improvements". Not just roll back to this frustration. I don't think that every other phone game has that type of outdated pvp system (don't know for sure). Don't wanna argue with nobody, just personal opinion.

shartattack

If you are playing cl4, you should be concerned with filling out a 2* farm and champing 3*s.  A single cover 4 won't help you for a long time

Jwallyr

Starfury said:

hunky_funky said:

Most of the people whine about removing 15 cp prize. The simple decision is to include 15 cp and leave win based system. The problem is, that devs don't want to give cp that easily, so everybody is suffering. Those who like win based system and those who against it. Who will say that, it's more time or health packs consuming, just want free cp.

For me the problem with win-based system was that suddenly all fights were declared equal (and I was expected to slog through 40 of them for a 4* cover)

The old system favored choosing your fights well with tougher opponents generally being worth more.

Win-based favored trying to find the easiest seals to club (timing it weel to get up to 10 seed teams, playing around with the retaliation system to get more easy fights, deliberately losing dozens of matches so you go back down in ranking)

There have been far more issues with win-based than just the placement of the cp.

"I was expected to slog through 40 of them for a 4* cover"

Translation: "It took too many wins to justify the quality of the reward."

Fine. Adjust the number of wins down and/or the quality of rewards up. Is the nature of the system (steady, controllable number of wins vs. a shifting, unreliable score total) itself really the problem there?

"The old system favored choosing your fights well with tougher opponents generally being worth more."

There's still a system that favors choosing your fights well to advance your score. It's called Placement, and that reward scheme still exists. What I don't get is why it's better to have 2 slightly different score-based reward schemes (one rewards based on end score, one on whatever your highest score was over the course of the event) and call one of them "progression" while leaving those of us that want to be able to play games wherever they fit into our schedule without a reasonable option to participate.

"Win-based favored trying to find the easiest seals to club (timing it weel to get up to 10 seed teams, playing around with the retaliation system to get more easy fights, deliberately losing dozens of matches so you go back down in ranking)"

Sounds like all of the strategies you're describing would have a negative impact on your actual score, and therefore affect your Placement negatively. Why should players that can't/won't invest the continuous chunks of time to pump their score but *are* willing to invest time intermittently into single games have no option for rewards, even if they're willing to adopt these strategies that will actively hinder building their score?

Like, basically it sounds like you want (or at least expect) the exact same set of players to get the rewards from both progression and placement rewards: those that are willing/able to invest time in the specific ways that make score pumping possible. Meanwhile, everybody that can't/won't play in that manner have no worthwhile option to participate in Versus events on a "here and there" basis. How does that advance the game maker's goals of increasing engagement?

In my opinion, the "Progression" rewards seem to be explicitly intended for players to be able to work their way down the list, without necessarily being as worried about the metagame, or being super strategic about picking their opponents or gaming their rating. Points-based rating does not fulfill these objectives. Meanwhile, for players that *are* worried about the metagame and the complexities of strategy, Placement rewards are designed to appeal to their competitive spirit and team composition/enemy selection, etc. and make that a fun option. I would really like to see both categories of players have an option that fits their different needs, vs. having two different "competitive" rewards schemes that fundamentally are based on the same thing.

broll

They should have called it regression this season.  That's the true 'Reality' of this change.

Jaedenkaal

Jwallyr said:

Thus spake the Google:

pro·gres·sion

prəˈɡreSHən/

noun
          the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.

By this definition (the topmost at Google, and one that makes obvious sense) the point-based "progression" rewards for Versus are patently not "progression", because you can't reliably "progress" from the beginning (no rewards) to the end (full rewards). With win-based progression rewards, someone like me with a life (40 hour a week job, wife and kid, extracurricular responsibilities, etc.) could play games here and there when time permitted, and I could reasonably expect to eventually achieve the progression rewards for my CL.

/rant

On the other hand, when you win progression rewards, it is because you are, by definition, progressing.

What you really seem to be arguing is that some PVP behavior that resulted in unilateral progress in a Wins-based progression system (once again) no longer results in unilateral progress under the points-based PVP system. Which I don't think anyone would refute.

But saying that a reward isn't a progression reward because you can't/won't "progress" to it is a bit silly.

Jwallyr

How am I "by definition" progressing when I play for a bit, get to (let's say) 700 points, and have to go do something else, and I come back and have been attacked and lost over a hundred points? Am I "progressing" on the several games that I have to play just to get my points back up to their previous range? How can I "progress" to the 1200 point reward when I will constantly be losing points due to being a high-value target for other players?

I think it seriously boils down to this- what's the point of the "progression" rewards scheme? If it's to reward exactly the same set of players that are willing/capable to play the substantial bursts of games at specific times to get their score up, which basically is the same tactic that's required (in addition to shields) to be competitive in Placement, then great! The points-based progress does that. If it's to provide a different reward scheme for potentially different players to have some avenue for advancement (or "progress" one might even say), the points-based progression scheme leaves something to be desired.

Killabee

Problem with points based pvp, it sucks for 4* transition and 4* players in general. Bust your butt to over 850, now only queue 10points or less player on day2. So sure gamble and beat some fast, but odds of beating 4 teams before getting beat down for 100 points, super high. Not cool. Easy for 5* players but i have to spend 300hp and play over 40 wins to even get a gamble chance at the 4* progression. This is equally as unfair as losing the 1200 point progression that I wouldn't get anyway. I've gotten it once ever using 2 whales on 5* rosters. We need a middle ground.

Wins based sucked for higher roster players for sure, so while good for me, I sympathize for those it affected.

Points based just sucks for people that play hard without the proper roster. 

Helen keller

Win based progression was good for the community overall, it was not good for the top 5%, maybe 10%, whatever the percentage of people with viable 5* rosters are who spend money and are active on the forums, the squeaky wheel got fixed, but frankly if the squeaky wheel is what pays the bills, it can't be ignored, it is what it is.

WelcomeDeath

If you're playing cl4, your roster isnt ready to make full progression in pvp.  

Dotproduct

Welcome Death said:

If you're playing cl4, your roster isnt ready to make full progression in pvp.  

It doesn't matter for PvP you still face the same opponents?

WelcomeDeath

Killabee said:

Problem with points based pvp, it sucks for 4* transition and 4* players in general. Bust your butt to over 850, now only queue 10points or less player on day2. So sure gamble and beat some fast, but odds of beating 4 teams before getting beat down for 100 points, super high. Not cool. Easy for 5* players but i have to spend 300hp and play over 40 wins to even get a gamble chance at the 4* progression. This is equally as unfair as losing the 1200 point progression that I wouldn't get anyway. I've gotten it once ever using 2 whales on 5* rosters. We need a middle ground.

Wins based sucked for higher roster players for sure, so while good for me, I sympathize for those it affected.

Points based just sucks for people that play hard without the proper roster. 

It's because everyone in your roster strength gives up too early.  Make progression progressive and I would bet it would be a lot easier.  Also, if you think its "easy" for 5* players to hit 10 point battles to make 1200, you've never played 5* play.  You get hit just as much, just usually by the same people instead of random people all over.

sinnerjfl

Helen keller said:

Win based progression was good for the community overall, it was not good for the top 5%, maybe 10%, whatever the percentage of people with viable 5* rosters are who spend money and are active on the forums, the squeaky wheel got fixed, but frankly if the squeaky wheel is what pays the bills, it can't be ignored, it is what it is.

It was not good either for people with good 4* rosters, sorry to burst your bubble. Its not only the 5* players who had a problem with grinding 40 wins.

Its simply too many matches, I was hitting above 1200 in ~27 wins, should I have just lost on purpose to be able to get the remaining 13 wins?

CT1888

The reward structure could do with a serious shake up - 3* cover at 800 made sense in an era when there were relatively few 4*s, but now it's just off putting for lower level players, as it is insane hard to reach ; shuffle things around a bit, drop it down several hundred points so 2* and 3* rosters have something more enticing to chase.

While I'm on this train of thought, why not squeeze the reward structure into fewer points in lower CL levels (CL1 tops out at 500, step up in 100s to 1000 at CL6, then 7 & 8 are 1200). It creates a curve by which players can hit high progression in their CL, but the driver to move up is then that the rewards on the next CL are shinier. In my head at least, this could get people playing more, as there isn't the disheartening gulf to the prizes in early play. Rewards might need tweaked to keep people from permanently sandbagging though.

[Deleted User]

sinnerjfl said:

Helen keller said:

Win based progression was good for the community overall, it was not good for the top 5%, maybe 10%, whatever the percentage of people with viable 5* rosters are who spend money and are active on the forums, the squeaky wheel got fixed, but frankly if the squeaky wheel is what pays the bills, it can't be ignored, it is what it is.

It was not good either for people with good 4* rosters, sorry to burst your bubble. Its not only the 5* players who had a problem with grinding 40 wins.

Its simply too many matches, I was hitting above 1200 in ~27 wins, should I have just lost on purpose to be able to get the remaining 13 wins?

More and more Im convinced MMR is just completely broken.

Im a 4* player and it was a cruise.  And I regularly hit key rewards at lower point totals than under the point based system.

And, on balance, I was getting more reward for less effort.

How can it be so different for you?

Or were you trying to play under old rules and chasing only high value matches?

Bruinsfan17

Couldn't they just implement both systems into PvP? When you start the current PvP you select SCL, your time slot, and wait for.... Win based progression or points progression! I'm no programmer but that seems like it could be an easy thing to set up.