I miss win based PVP progression...

1356789

Comments

  • Quebbster
    Quebbster Posts: 8,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    mexus said:

    I actually managed to get to 900 points in Raging Fire but damn it was stressful and costed me 700 HP in shields and thank to having to shield all the time it took me longer that it would if I could have played 40 straight matches. It's really bad that the reverted back to this torture versus system instead of just keeping it win-based and adding the 15CP into progression rewards (which was what people actually missed).


    We need to gather WBAS and have the developers go back to Win-Based progression by gathering lots of data and showing digits.


    https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/68278/win-based-appreciation-society-wbas/p1


    Doesn't hurt to try I suppose. Just be aware that the devs might show you digits too. One per dev, to be specific.
  • SangFroid
    SangFroid Posts: 177 Tile Toppler
    shartattack said:
    Jwallyr said:
    Qubort said:
    WEBGAS said:

    the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better.  Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding.  Otherwise, why advance your roster? 

    When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"
    Nailed it
  • Addaran
    Addaran Posts: 72 Match Maker
    a 3* roster can hit 575-650 if they shield
    a 4* roster can hit 800-900 if they shield
    2 boosted 4s can get you to 1200

    A casual player gets more ROI in pvp for time spent than in pve.

    the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better.  Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding.  Otherwise, why advance your roster? 

    When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"

    Doesn't make sense. That's why there's different SCL. Someone at SCL 1 shouldn't have to compete with higher roaster. And you should diffinitively get full progression with it. Not have your 1* roaster ganked by 3* cause you now have enough points.
  • Jabrony_Geoff
    Jabrony_Geoff Posts: 378 Mover and Shaker
    Rare visit to pvp today. Got the 10cp and attempted to reach 900.
    Tinnykitty this.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,502 Chairperson of the Boards
    I don't miss wins based at all.  It was a deflating experience to be at 2500 and only 30 wins.   I probably lost more points to gettting sniped trying to pass 40 than I ever did on blind hops.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Addaran said:
    a 3* roster can hit 575-650 if they shield
    a 4* roster can hit 800-900 if they shield
    2 boosted 4s can get you to 1200

    A casual player gets more ROI in pvp for time spent than in pve.

    the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better.  Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding.  Otherwise, why advance your roster? 

    When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"

    Doesn't make sense. That's why there's different SCL. Someone at SCL 1 shouldn't have to compete with higher roaster. And you should diffinitively get full progression with it. Not have your 1* roaster ganked by 3* cause you now have enough points.
    That's how it should work, but not how it does.  Which adds to the confusion and frustration of newer players who never played without SCLs.
  • mega ghost
    mega ghost Posts: 1,156 Chairperson of the Boards
    aesthetocyst said:
    OJSP said:
    mega ghost said:
    It's after 3AM, how active could it be? 
    3AM where? in the US? that’s when Europeans climb while having their breakfast..
    And late in the day in Asia. It's a global game after all.
    EST in the U.S., and totally! But I tend to stick in the same timed slices for my own playing leisure and any time I've ever been able to climb to 900 it's been in the middle of the night when I've noticed decreased activity. I'm aware that people play in other countries as well, but if a large part of the playing population is in the same or similar time zones as me there's a noticeable difference (didn't we get the numbers on this once? Or was that just a poll on here?)

    Also, I was able to get to 900 this morning in about 15 more matches. All in all it took me more than 40 wins to get to 900, and most of those were just to get the last 100 points.
  • thisone
    thisone Posts: 655 Critical Contributor
    Orion said:
    So wins-based PvP had players.....

    1) Joining CL levels way below their roster strength.  5* players playing in CL5 and CL6 in order to get that 15 CP.

    2) Hitting anyone regardless of strength and point value because a win was a win.

    3) Deliberately losing matches to get down to a lower point value to see easier matches again.

    None of that sounds like PvP they way the devs wanted it to be played.  So it was rolled back until they find a better solution.  Neither system is perfect, but the current system seems a whole lot more what the devs intended PvP to be that what we had last season. 
    I don't want to go back to the dark days of tanking to fix MMR.
  • IceyOne
    IceyOne Posts: 29 Just Dropped In
    edited November 2017
    There has to be a happy compromise here. I play frequently and the points system is disheartening and discouraging to me.. The win counter way was more appealing to me as a newer player and I felt more engaged. Sure the veteran players will feel differently, sure. Thats why there has to be a happy medium.
  • BlackBoltRocks
    BlackBoltRocks Posts: 1,191 Chairperson of the Boards
    I miss it too. From the Punisher PvP:

    1) I went back to entering in the final hour, like I have been doing for the last three years, sans wins-based system where I had the liberty to enter anytime.

    2) I burnt all 10 of my healthpacks in that one hour. Contrast that to wins-based, where I could play 3-4 matches every now and then, thus conserving healthpack usage.

    3) I was at 556 points. Won a match, expecting to see my beautiful 10CP...

    ...and came out to see myself at 538 points.

    Good grief. So I had to burn another 2 healthpacks to get Surfer and Thanos back up to scratch.

    The only good thing about this is that I'd much rather grind to 2000 points, than 74 wins, for that Nightcrawler cover.
  • Keirain1982
    Keirain1982 Posts: 48 Just Dropped In
  • Jwallyr
    Jwallyr Posts: 165 Tile Toppler
    shartattack said:
    Jwallyr said:
    Qubort said:
    WEBGAS said:


    Is there not intended to be a difference between Placement (i.e. competitive) and Progression (i.e. noncompetitive) rewards in PvP? It seems obvious to me that the Progression reward scheme is at least supposed to be a less-competitive option for more casual players. If it's not, what's the incentive for casual players to compete in PvP at all? Are we supposed to be checked out entirely from PvP and just play PvE? Is that good for the game? I would say no.
    a 3* roster can hit 575-650 if they shield
    a 4* roster can hit 800-900 if they shield
    2 boosted 4s can get you to 1200

    A casual player gets more ROI in pvp for time spent than in pve.

    the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better.  Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding.  Otherwise, why advance your roster? 

    When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"
    If the ability to earn higher rewards in higher CLs with a better developed roster is not a reward for advancing your roster, that's absolutely a problem that the game devs should be fixing. However, if you're in CL1, presumably your roster is not well developed, but you should be competing against other characters without well-developed rosters. Somehow, paradoxically, the better you perform in Versus mode, the harder your opponents, so you are going to continually be beaten down by people likely outside your CL, so you're going to have trouble achieving even the progression rewards at your actual CL. What sense does any of that make?

    Like, it sounds like you think people are asking to be able to pick a random CL and achieve all progression rewards regardless of the strength of my roster, which isn't even remotely close to the case. Is it unreasonable for people with early rosters to join low CLs with appropriate rewards, and to be able to participate on a non-competitive basis (i.e. not particularly worrying about their placement) while being able to reliably achieve a lesser set of rewards? That's the question, and points-based progression answers with an emphatic "yes, it's unreasonable, you have to play competitively (including shielding) even at low CLs just to advance for the crummy rewards that you get".

    "why can't I have everything right when I started" rofl. What a ridiculous strawman.
  • Jwallyr
    Jwallyr Posts: 165 Tile Toppler
    Orion said:
    So wins-based PvP had players.....

    1) Joining CL levels way below their roster strength.  5* players playing in CL5 and CL6 in order to get that 15 CP.

    2) Hitting anyone regardless of strength and point value because a win was a win.

    3) Deliberately losing matches to get down to a lower point value to see easier matches again.

    None of that sounds like PvP they way the devs wanted it to be played.  So it was rolled back until they find a better solution.  Neither system is perfect, but the current system seems a whole lot more what the devs intended PvP to be that what we had last season. 
    1) If the rewards at higher CLs are a bad ROI for the higher players, the proper fix IMO is to correct that ROI by boosting the rewards or reducing the required investment (maybe reduce number of wins required?).

    2) If you see someone that looks like an easy (i.e. quick) win, is it impossible for even a low-ish number of points to be an efficient use of time? I've absolutely looked at two opponents and thought "Hmm, that's a lot of points but a really bad matchup for my preferred team. Maybe I'll attack this other team that isn't as many points but I have a strong likelihood of a fast win."

    Obviously the wins-based progression provides an incentive for the quick wins, but the points system also provides an incentive for quick wins, if they're quick enough that it's still a reasonable points-per-minute-played ratio. I'm not clear on why the wins-based progression is significantly worse in this regard.

    3) If you're deliberately losing matches, you're investing time tanking your rating so that you can later on have easier (and presumably quicker) wins. I'd be really interested to see actual numbers on whether that strategy is quicker than simply playing the longer wins at appropriate MMR.

    So... yeah, I'm still not clear on why these problems are better served by nuking the workable Versus Progression system for "placement lite" instead of 1) making CLs matter and 2) making rewards track to CLs.
  • BoyWonder1914
    BoyWonder1914 Posts: 884 Critical Contributor
    Jwallyr said:

    2) If you see someone that looks like an easy (i.e. quick) win, is it impossible for even a low-ish number of points to be an efficient use of time? I've absolutely looked at two opponents and thought "Hmm, that's a lot of points but a really bad matchup for my preferred team. Maybe I'll attack this other team that isn't as many points but I have a strong likelihood of a fast win."

    Obviously the wins-based progression provides an incentive for the quick wins, but the points system also provides an incentive for quick wins, if they're quick enough that it's still a reasonable points-per-minute-played ratio. I'm not clear on why the wins-based progression is significantly worse in this regard.

    3) If you're deliberately losing matches, you're investing time tanking your rating so that you can later on have easier (and presumably quicker) wins. I'd be really interested to see actual numbers on whether that strategy is quicker than simply playing the longer wins at appropriate MMR.

    So... yeah, I'm still not clear on why these problems are better served by nuking the workable Versus Progression system for "placement lite" instead of 1) making CLs matter and 2) making rewards track to CLs.
    2.) If you end goal is a specific number of points......then yeah, it's a little foolhardy to go after low-point matches just because they're easy, when you could effectively cut the number of matches you need for said point goal in half by doing more challenging fights. I obviously can't speak for the intentions of the developers, but conceptually it makes sense for you to be rewarded for taking on tougher matches, and not being rewarded as heavily for taking on matches aren't as much of a challenge. In high level PVP (as in as you've scored higher amounts of points), these "easy" matches are no longer an option, at which point, taking on tougher matches for a mere +1 for your win total becomes quickly demoralizing. It's why rosters that see nothing but 2-boosted 4-stars at this point called it a slog. 40+ points per match when you're trying to get to 900 from 700 is much easier than 1 win per match when you're trying to get from 24 wins to 40 if it's all against the same level of opponents. Which is what lead to point 3....

    3.) "Let me lose a bunch of matches on purpose so I can stay at this easier level." Do you honestly think ANY designer would intentionally set their game up this way? Do you honestly think it was intended for a large portion of the player base to just not care about their placement at all? Again, I'm not one of the developers and can't speak for them, but I would assume not. I would figure they put the placement system there for people to chase it, not for so many people to just take the easy way out by not caring. 

    Obviously the system has it's flaws before and after win-based, but the clashing perspectives of people who care about placement and those who do not has always been a problem as well. It just became more pronounced when a system was introduced that catered more to those who do not. 
  • Heartbreaksoup
    Heartbreaksoup Posts: 356 Mover and Shaker
    My strategy, which appears to be working so far, has been (after spending the first two days playing a lot) to try to advance to the next 100 point reward each day but not go any farther.  I've climbed to 1200, and the first of three Kamala Khan covers, in SCL5.  The highest that anyone has climbed, at the time of writing, is 1480.

    I would like to get the next two Kamala Khan covers at 1400 and 1700, and hope to get the Nightcrawler at 2000, but my limited experience with PVP suggests that making big plays for lots of points in one sitting leaves you a high-and-dry target for many other players and you lose lots of points over a day.  Over the last few days, I've only lost about 30-40 points daily, which is easier to recoup than the hundreds I was down in the last SHIELD Simulator.

    Does this seem like a sensible strategy?  I'm still new enough to not really understand all the intricacies.

    The most frustrating thing so far in this attempt is getting a chance to "overcome my attacker" for the rich bounty of 9, or in one case 2 points.  That's not worth the effort!

    If I can make it to 2000 and get the Nightcrawler, I look forward to playing with some more fun and silly teams than the ones that I use to be competitive.  But I'm curious which heroes from my roster the AI assigns to other players.  Does it select my three most powerful characters, or the three that I'm using most often to be competitive, or the most recent three that I used?  Because if I can get the Nightcrawler cover, I'd be perfectly happy to play with less competitive teams so everybody else in SCL5 can beat up on me.  :smile:

Categories