Versus "Progression"

Quebbster

bluewolf said:

Welcome Death said:

Jwallyr said:

j0nats said:

tldr version, if you wanna play high level pvp, you gotta earn it.  those guys youre seeing with big rosters, they put in hours and hours into thiis game, some spending serious $$$.  and quite a number doing both.  theyve earned it

I'm not saying I wanna play "high level pvp", I'm saying I want to be successful >>in progression rewards<< (i.e. the closest thing to "casual rewards" in the lowest CLs of PvP.

I'm aware that MMR for no defensible reason is completely divorced from CL, and that apparently rewards are badly paced between the CLs as well. These are independent problems that should be fixed. They also have no bearing on whether a fluctuating points total is a rational basis for >>progression<< rewards as a less rewarding avenue for deliberately more casual players.

Like, OBVIOUSLY I'm building my roster. OBVIOUSLY I'm not expecting to be competitive at "high level" PvP. Why is it somehow bizarre or unreasonable for me to expect to be able to achieve solid progression rewards in the lowest CLs of PvP without scheduling my life around shield hopping? Placement already exists to be the intensely competitive reward scheme, so having a second "placement lite" based on points feels like a bait-and-switch.

I have stated elsewhere, progression should be static in pvp.  Same rewards cl1-cl8.  Only placement should differ.  Its already that way in sim.  Cl should just decide the placement rewards you get.  It doesnt make sense otherwise.

It would make sense that rewards differ if the score targets differed. Ex:  SCL 2 gives out 2*s, but max progression is 350 or whatever.  (I admit to not being familiar with the SCL 2 rewards).  Obviously that is not our system. But that would at least be somewhat logical.  And I realize:  programming effort would be needed.  But it would seem fairer.

I suspect there is some technical reason all rewards ladders go all the way up to 1200. It is probably easier to fill out the steps that are already there instead of removing the ones that are unlikely to be reached. Plus, motivation! And slummers might get those rewards!

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

I'm not saying I wanna play "high level pvp", I'm saying I want to be successful >>in progression rewards<< (i.e. the closest thing to "casual rewards" in the lowest CLs of PvP.

.

To keep this simple.  The avg roster who consistently achieves 1200 is a 350-400 level roster.  The specifics of the actual score of course depend on exact event, team comps/ buffs, and skill of player.  But you need to be able to field a 3 char team  thats at least in the ballpark of 350-400 to have a reasonable expectation of success.  Even a 270 level team (ie. unbuffed 4* champ) would have problems reaching 1200 without being played by an experienced T5 scl8 veteren (who uses the full arrary of scoring tactics like collabloration blah blah vs.  trying to play lone wolf style.)

900-1200 is really considered high level play.  In the advanced meta, where alliances play sniper/enforcer/baker/blah blah.  1200 is an important marker that alliances try to cross or prevent other players from crossing.  Advanced tactics are employed in this range and even small groups of 4 players working together can easily cross 1200 or completely supress scorers/otherplayers from doing so.

Whether or not you intend to play these tactics or games.  Once you cross 900, your score/team is instantly acessible to the entire roster of advanced competive players.  So be prepared to be hit on by players who do work together and collaborate on hit vs skip.

So be realistic in understanding that the top end of the progression table is smack in the middle of the score range that competive alliances monitor and patrol

Hotnfresh

For the first time in 3 years I'm not playing PvP because--- I'm just tired. Tired of the flip flopping, making a change and reverting back to ZERO change. Tired of seeing the same few players with bigger rosters, always being low on the totem pole. Already tired of Gambit... so, so tired of him. 

There is nothing driving me to play. Rewards are lame in PvP. Good placement rewards are top 10.  Changes that need to be made are moving at a slothish pace. There needs to be either/both--- more interesting rewards and a broader placement reward system.

The devs goal seems to be to bore me into complete disinterest. Why would you make 2 divisions of a match 3 game exactly the same? Try using some boss mechanics. Or give PvP better rewards, seems as it would be considered more difficult than PvE.

This is truly getting BORING, d3. Do something already.

Jwallyr

Just dropping in to say that I'm at #4 in my relatively low CL (I think like 3 or 4) with a score of 482, with the highest player having a score of 510. I'm pretty sure it's outright *impossible* for me to climb to 725 (for heroic points) in 50 minutes, much less the 1200 point "progression" reward. I'm pretty sure that the top player in my bracket can't hope to come close either.

So... what's the point in having those rewards? It's obviously not inspiring players to participate and drive up the point total, at least not in the gradual, piecemeal sense that many commenters in this thread seem to think is still viable within the points-based progression system. I've thrown a few hours of games into this event, and I've *already* hit the "play a game and lose more points than you gained" glass ceiling, and I'm barely 1/3 of the way through the progression rewards list.

It's just nonsense. Like, I guess maybe I'll play a few games to try and stay top 10 in my bracket since I bothered this hard anyway, but the rewards are just completely broken. It's so demotivating.

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

Just dropping in to say that I'm at #4 in my relatively low CL (I think like 3 or 4) with a score of 482, with the highest player having a score of 510. I'm pretty sure it's outright *impossible* for me to climb to 725 (for heroic points) in 50 minutes, much less the 1200 point "progression" reward. I'm pretty sure that the top player in my bracket can't hope to come close either.

So... what's the point in having those rewards? It's obviously not inspiring players to participate and drive up the point total, at least not in the gradual, piecemeal sense that many commenters in this thread seem to think is still viable within the points-based progression system. I've thrown a few hours of games into this event, and I've *already* hit the "play a game and lose more points than you gained" glass ceiling, and I'm barely 1/3 of the way through the progression rewards list.

It's just nonsense. Like, I guess maybe I'll play a few games to try and stay top 10 in my bracket since I bothered this hard anyway, but the rewards are just completely broken. It's so demotivating.

LOL  Its simple.

Maybe its before your time in the game,  but before scl we had 1 unified progression table.  When they split up into scl  they gave all scl the same prog table benchmarks (ie. top 2 levels at 900/ 1200 points).  This was done as a matter of convience and speed.  There are some tweaks in the sense that each tier has different rewards, but they kept the using the same structure that was designed for rosters who can and do hit 1200 regularlly.

I'll certainly agree that the appropriate ceiling for scl4 is probably right at that 600-700 point range


I.e. the real problem for lower tier scls.  Is that:

1.  While they are awarding apropriate prizes, these prizes are set at point levels that are not realistic for the rosters they are designed to reward.

i.e.  The top prize for scl4 should be awarded at 700 not 1200.

ZootSax

Phumade said:

LOL  Its simple.

Maybe its before your time in the game,  but before scl we had 1 unified progression table.  When they split up into scl  they gave all scl the same prog table benchmarks (ie. top 2 levels at 900/ 1200 points).  This was done as a matter of convience and speed.  There are some tweaks in the sense that each tier has different rewards, but they kept the using the same structure that was designed for rosters who can and do hit 1200 regularlly.

I'll certainly agree that the appropriate ceiling for scl4 is probably right at that 600-700 point range


I.e. the real problem for lower tier scls.  Is that:

1.  While they are awarding apropriate prizes, these prizes are set at point levels that are not realistic for the rosters they are designed to reward.

i.e.  The top prize for scl4 should be awarded at 700 not 1200.

This is equally true in PVE.  I slummed down in SCL1 for one event and only 4 people in a bracket of 1,000 hit the top progression.  It's wholly unreasonable to expect players to hit goals based on rostering a 2*, 3* & 4* when the best prizes for the level are 3*'s..and even those are only for the very top-finishing rosters.