I miss win based PVP progression...

Jwallyr

Phumade said:

Jwallyr said:

Phumade said:

Jwallyr said:

So I have a slow Friday and not much better to do than play the PvP event. The time slice for which I signed up ends in 53 minutes, and I'm currently in 4th place with 482 points. The top player has 510 points.

So, I'm SURE someone can totally get 700 points in the next 55 minutes and snag that 1200 point progression reward! I'm so glad they put that back in! /sarcasm

Not sure what your point is?  even 500 level rosters don't try to gain 500 points in 1 hr.


How many levels are in the team your using?  If you can't break 1000 between all three chars you'll be hard pressed to brake 900 at this late stage of the event.

Your climbing in the most competive part of the event.  Even big 450+ get hammered this late in the event

My point is that some combination of the following is true:
1) Points-based "progression" has driven enough people back out of the Versus mode that there isn't a population enough to support a growing "points pool" to allow even a single player at the low CL to achieve even the modest rewards (due to CL) that are available.
2) The Points-based "progression" system isn't even designed for even a single player at the low CL to be able to achieve the full set of rewards.

Like, OBVIOUSLY I'm not expecting to get 500 points in an hour. The fact that nobody is **even close** to achieving the full set of progression rewards hints that something is completely broken.

I've included your full posts because I wasn't sure if I missed some important pont

First off?  What modest rewards (due to CL) are you missing?  If your complaining about not getting the 700, 800, 900 reward (p.s.  no one else in your bracket is getting those rewards either?  so it doesn't seem like rewards are going to inappropriate rosters or cheating behvior, or even to sandbagged rosters?  (I don't think your even complaining about the fellow players in your bracket?)

LOL,  Did you really think a SCL1 roster full of 2*/3* chars was gonna hit 1200 and get the 1 cp reward????
hahahahahahahahahaha

The progression table was not designed to enable all players in the SCL to make top progression.  Plain and simple.  SCL 1 appropriate rosters (which is probably some mix of 2*/3*) cannot hit 1200 (which is top progression in scl1).  

The 0 to 1200 point spread comes from a era when all players competed in the same time slice.  In fact, the point progression structure predates time slices.

Some lazy accountant just cloned the point structure and assigned prizes that were appropriate for the intended audience,  but was not set at achievable point levels for those types of rosters.

If that really is your concern,  Why don't you write it up as that issue vs. a vague complaint of not being able to climb 500 points in 1 hr.

lol

Dude, did you miss the "/sarcasm" tag at the end of my post? That should have made it abundantly clear that I wasn't seriously suggesting that 500 points in an hour was remotely plausible.

So here's why it's stupid.
1) Lower CLs have lower rewards. This is perfectly sensible, if the intent of the CLs is for players to self-segregate based on skill and roster development. The better-developed rosters and more experienced players should naturally gravitate towards the CLs with better rewards as they become achievable.

2) Lower CLs have the same point schedule for rewards. In and of itself not a problem, but...

3) Apparently point totals are universal across the entire base of players participating in a PvP event.

Due to these 3 factors, it is essentially impossible for low-CL players to achieve the higher progression rewards in their CL, despite these rewards already being adjusted down to account for the lower CL. So the rewards that are apparently balanced downward to match the CL remain 100% out of reach, because the point system (with the MMR implicitly being a component) is 100% disconnected from CLs,

So, once again, it comes back to what the point of progression rewards are, particularly when they are designed such that 0% of the playerbase that *can* achieve the rewards (say, Versus CL 1) *wants* them? If you have to have a well-established 4* roster to get to 1200 points, and you have to get 1200 points to get a worthless one-star cover in CL1... why is it even there?

I'm starting to realize that the brokenness of the points-based progression system is just one facet of the larger, completely incoherent and nonsensical Versus system. The Wins-based progression at least made more sense, but with MMR and Points being universal across the entire playerbase and rewards being distributed piecemeal based on CL... it's just madness.

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

I've included your full posts because I wasn't sure if I missed some important pont

First off?  What modest rewards (due to CL) are you missing?  If your complaining about not getting the 700, 800, 900 reward (p.s.  no one else in your bracket is getting those rewards either?  so it doesn't seem like rewards are going to inappropriate rosters or cheating behvior, or even to sandbagged rosters?  (I don't think your even complaining about the fellow players in your bracket?)

LOL,  Did you really think a SCL1 roster full of 2*/3* chars was gonna hit 1200 and get the 1 cp reward????
hahahahahahahahahaha

The progression table was not designed to enable all players in the SCL to make top progression.  Plain and simple.  SCL 1 appropriate rosters (which is probably some mix of 2*/3*) cannot hit 1200 (which is top progression in scl1).  

The 0 to 1200 point spread comes from a era when all players competed in the same time slice.  In fact, the point progression structure predates time slices.

Some lazy accountant just cloned the point structure and assigned prizes that were appropriate for the intended audience,  but was not set at achievable point levels for those types of rosters.

If that really is your concern,  Why don't you write it up as that issue vs. a vague complaint of not being able to climb 500 points in 1 hr.

lol

Dude, did you miss the "/sarcasm" tag at the end of my post? That should have made it abundantly clear that I wasn't seriously suggesting that 500 points in an hour was remotely plausible.

So here's why it's stupid.
1) Lower CLs have lower rewards. This is perfectly sensible, if the intent of the CLs is for players to self-segregate based on skill and roster development. The better-developed rosters and more experienced players should naturally gravitate towards the CLs with better rewards as they become achievable.

2) Lower CLs have the same point schedule for rewards. In and of itself not a problem, but...

3) Apparently point totals are universal across the entire base of players participating in a PvP event.

Due to these 3 factors, it is essentially impossible for low-CL players to achieve the higher progression rewards in their CL, despite these rewards already being adjusted down to account for the lower CL. So the rewards that are apparently balanced downward to match the CL remain 100% out of reach, because the point system (with the MMR implicitly being a component) is 100% disconnected from CLs,

So, once again, it comes back to what the point of progression rewards are, particularly when they are designed such that 0% of the playerbase that *can* achieve the rewards (say, Versus CL 1) *wants* them? If you have to have a well-established 4* roster to get to 1200 points, and you have to get 1200 points to get a worthless one-star cover in CL1... why is it even there?

I'm starting to realize that the brokenness of the points-based progression system is just one facet of the larger, completely incoherent and nonsensical Versus system. The Wins-based progression at least made more sense, but with MMR and Points being universal across the entire playerbase and rewards being distributed piecemeal based on CL... it's just madness.

LOL is that your only point?
  Low-level players can't reach the highest reward tier,  because the accountant forgot to reset the point ranges to be achievable by the target audience?

hahhaha

Seriously,  why the long winded defense on something that EVERYONE already agrees about?

If I didn't say it clearly the first time.

Everyone agrees that low level rosters (i.e. 2*/3* rosters) can not realistically achieve the the highest progression tier in the lowest SCL. (which is 1200)

Demi would be wise to revisit the point spread structure to be realistic ranges of the rosters the play in that scl.


To be honest,  you would need to raise the top progression to around 2000 to accomodate the 450+ level rosters.  If you want to game to resemble actual scoring.  I'd be fine with cutting off the top prog tier at 700 for the first 4 scl.  Maybe cut the table at 900 for scl 5-6, and 1200 for 7-8, and honestly 2000 for scl9.

You might think thats a hard stretch goal,  but the T10 scl8 players can consistently score that.

Jwallyr

My only point is that Versus rewards are completely FUBARed, and the points-based progression reward scheme is a major symptom of that?

Um, yeah. Look at the thread title?

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

My only point is that Versus rewards are completely FUBARed, and the points-based progression reward scheme is a major symptom of that?

Um, yeah. Look at the thread title?

LOL So you came to rabble rouse on that point?


Hard to take your comments seriously when you don't even understand the issues

Would you have a problem with points based progression if the 4* was awarded at 500?  or if Wins based gives the 4* at the orginal target of 80+ wins (what the devs were originally considering)


The scheme of wins or points is a neutral prize structure that says nothing about the effort it takes to achieve the top prize until you give it objective criterias like specific wins or points.  

What's been clearly lost in the discussion is what the actual targets should be in light of players, and actual play styles.

To be honest, in terrms of actual effort.

low level rosters should probably do 40 fights based on the fact that they play matches with 1/2 the health.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if 3* player wins 40 fights against 3* rosters faster than 5* players win 40 fights against 5* rosters.

In light of that fact.  40 wins for 4* players is reasonable,  but 5* players should have their win totals cut to 20 matches to reflect that 5* matches take longer and they fight more health.  I'd certainly support wins based prog if the table considered the amount of time it takes to win a 5* match.

MpqTron

Phumade said:

Jwallyr said:

My only point is that Versus rewards are completely FUBARed, and the points-based progression reward scheme is a major symptom of that?

Um, yeah. Look at the thread title?

LOL So you came to rabble rouse on that point?


Hard to take your comments seriously when you don't even understand the issues

Would you have a problem with points based progression if the 4* was awarded at 500?  or if Wins based gives the 4* at the orginal target of 80+ wins (what the devs were originally considering)


The scheme of wins or points is a neutral prize structure that says nothing about the effort it takes to achieve the top prize until you give it objective criterias like specific wins or points.  

What's been clearly lost in the discussion is what the actual targets should be in light of players, and actual play styles.

To be honest, in terrms of actual effort.

low level rosters should probably do 40 fights based on the fact that they play matches with 1/2 the health.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if 3* player wins 40 fights against 3* rosters faster than 5* players win 40 fights against 5* rosters.

In light of that fact.  40 wins for 4* players is reasonable,  but 5* players should have their win totals cut to 20 matches to reflect that 5* matches take longer and they fight more health.  I'd certainly support wins based prog if the table considered the amount of time it takes to win a 5* match


40 wins for a 4 star player is also ridiculous. I always hit the 900 cover with points based pvp and I've got 36 4 star champs so firmly in 4 star land. In the wins based season I only had time to hit 40 wins twice all season, ended up with my lowest score for ages and found it a massive grind. Wasted hitting 900 with about 20 wins every time. Wins based pvp was properly broken for the 4 star meta 

NotBAMF

I just want some change--almost ANY change--from the current system next season.

Killabee

I am a product of change, I used to prefer the wins based then my roster got strong enough to get 900 every pvp event. There are both pros and cons to both pvp formats. There is a clear frustration when you are simply strong enough to get 900 shields or not. There is also a clear frustration when your mmr only allows queuing strong opponents. 

drexyl

For people that are deep into 4* then wins based is great.  They have rosters that can beat any AI team they are paired against with little to no use of health packs and get the points they need.

For the rest of us that are still in 3* working on 4* then it sucks because after a few wins then you start getting paired with nothing but championed medusa/rocket/gamora combos and the like.

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

Phumade

drexyl said:

For people that are deep into 4* then wins based is great.  They have rosters that can beat any AI team they are paired against with little to no use of health packs and get the points they need.

For the rest of us that are still in 3* working on 4* then it sucks because after a few wins then you start getting paired with nothing but championed medusa/rocket/gamora combos and the like.

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

I think you mean the opposite.  Let me paraphrase your intent.

Points progression is better for people deep into 4* tier.  They have rosters that can beat any ai team they are paired against with little to no use of health packs and get the points they need.

Wins progression is better for people working on 4*.  Points progression sucks because after a few wins then you start getting paired with nothing but championed medusa/rocket/gamora combos and the like.

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher scl points based.


Hopefully that captures your original intent. Apolgize if otherwise.  It was hard to understand your original point without adjusting some things.

vinsensual

drexyl said:

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

Phumade said:

drexyl said:

For people that are deep into 4* then wins based is great.  They have rosters that can beat any AI team they are paired against with little to no use of health packs and get the points they need.

For the rest of us that are still in 3* working on 4* then it sucks because after a few wins then you start getting paired with nothing but championed medusa/rocket/gamora combos and the like.

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

I think you mean the opposite.  Let me paraphrase your intent.

...

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher scl points based.

You "paraphrased" him almost verbatim. LOL

BoyWonder1914

drexyl said:

For people that are deep into 4* then wins based is great.  They have rosters that can beat any AI team they are paired against with little to no use of health packs and get the points they need.

For the rest of us that are still in 3* working on 4* then it sucks because after a few wins then you start getting paired with nothing but championed medusa/rocket/gamora combos and the like.

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

Your point contradicts itself. Your MMR doesn't change much as you get deeper into 4-star land, 2-boosted 4-stars becomes the norm for higher point levels after champing even just 2 4-star champs. It gets easier as you champ more, because that means you're more likely to have boosted champs for that week, but the big difference between point-based and win-based was the requirement of 40 wins for progression rewards. You'll have to fight these teams regardless, so most people prefer only needing to fight them 20 ish or so times to get to 900+, as opposed to needing to fight them just under 40 times to get the same reward they used to get at 900 points. 

Keep champing your 4s, and your experience will get easier under the points-based system. If you happen to have at least 2 of the 4s for that week boosted, you'll probably eventually get to a point where the only way to advance is by pushing through mirror-matches, or other dual boosted teams. These matches are much harder, and though you usually can outsmart the A.I., it's not a guarantee if the board is not in your favor. For the additional risk however, you have a payoff of a much higher point reward for winning the match, which advances you closer to progression reward thresholds with less matches. Under the wins system, every win is only +1, so you effectively had to slog through this portion just 1 match at a time. 

A deep 4-star roster can succeed under either system, but it's much more grindy for wins-based because of MMR. People attempted to game this by just sticking around the lower point levels for easier qs, but not everyone has the time/patience for that. 

Phumade

vinsensual said:

drexyl said:

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

Phumade said:

drexyl said:

For people that are deep into 4* then wins based is great.  They have rosters that can beat any AI team they are paired against with little to no use of health packs and get the points they need.

For the rest of us that are still in 3* working on 4* then it sucks because after a few wins then you start getting paired with nothing but championed medusa/rocket/gamora combos and the like.

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher points based?

I think you mean the opposite.  Let me paraphrase your intent.

...

Why not just make the level 1-6 wins based and the higher scl points based.

You "paraphrased" him almost verbatim. LOL

LOL  I think his last point was his real intention and I re wrote the middle 2 sentences to reflect that intent.  But I apologize he really meant that people past the 4* transition want wins based pvp.  LOL

Raud

I also miss win based PVP progression.

mega ghost

Raud said:

I also miss win based PVP progression.

Size queen. 

drexyl

I'm on day 868.   I have 120 roster slots.  I'm mostly FTP.  I have TWO championed 4 stars: Carol(amazing) and Kingpin(Thanks for the nerf right after I champed him).  I have ONE maxed 3*.  I'm not new.

I don't play to compete with the whales.  I'm not trying to pass any judgement.  If you have great rosters then cool beans.  I play because I want to develop MY roster.

I do all of the PVE but then there is nothing else to do but pvp.  My focus is to get 3stars so that I can eventually get the guaranteed 4*s champed.

My main thing is I just need the 10 pack and with the current system its a real pain to get 300 points in any given pvp.

With the wins system at least there was variety in the teams I could chose to fight and I didn't have to worry about a match being worth 50 points or 2 points.  At least I'm making progress with every win.  I did feel that the number of win required for the 10 pack were high but that's whatever.

I'm not trying to take points based away from you "big dogs".  I don't care what you guys do.  Give us little guys a way to just get the 3 stars and 10 packs with the win based system.

That's all my point was.

  

Phumade

drexyl said:

I'm on day 868.   I have 120 roster slots.  I'm mostly FTP.  I have TWO championed 4 stars: Carol(amazing) and Kingpin(Thanks for the nerf right after I champed him).  I have ONE maxed 3*.  I'm not new.

I play because I want to develop MY roster.

I do all of the PVE but then there is nothing else to do but pvp.  My focus is to get 3stars so that I can eventually get the guaranteed 4*s champed.

My main thing is I just need the 10 pack and with the current system its a real pain to get 300 points in any given pvp.

What you are asking for is realistic for your defined roster.

I read your comments as a 3* player transitioning to 4* tier, which translates to fielding teams avg 200-270 levels/char pre buffs. Hitting 900pts would be an amazing achievement in today's meta, but 450 seems like a reasonable an achievable target if you can field at 750 total levels between the 3 chars.

That said if the sum total of your team's levels can't break 300 total levels, then your gonna have a devil of a time breaking 500. What are the total levels of qued enemies?

 If your skipping and only seeing 350+ 4*, then your probably front running with respect to other similar rosters.

 We can give you advice tailored to your roster in pvp but you need to provide pretty detailed info.

 1: What times are you playing? Points don't exist in the first few hours. even massive 500 level 5* have to generate points match by painstaking match.

 2: What range of target values are you seeing at the exact time you played?, If you only see 75 point matches, your score is well below the current equilirbrum, play as lazy and snipey as you want. a 2000 pt mega whale won't hit back if they know your current score is 200. If all you see are 1 pt matches of 2* teams, it means your visible score is over 200 points higher than the current equillbirum. Every roster can que you and hit you for massive points, (your worth a max of 75 points to ever person who's actively playing in a match.  Once they finish the current match,  you will be immediately shown as a target que.  You have less than 3 min to get shielded before hits roll in.

 3. what are the relative levels between the 2 teams? If my team has 300 level advantage over the target, I can hit impunity and expect no retaliation.

 Learning to play to 450 is not hard by stretch, but you have to do several things. 450 for a 3* to 4* roster is not play at your own convience..

Sandmaker

aesthetocyst said:

drexyl said:

I'm on day 868.... 

You quite a bit more advanced than my alt account is.

Playing my alt account to 300 is far less painful and time consuming than playing my main account to 40 wins.

Like, by an order of magnitude.

Yeah... and the reward difference is also more than an order of magnitude.

Why are you comparing 300 point to 40 wins? The equivalent needed to get the 10 pack was 12 wins. 8-10 of which could be done with seed teams. 

Milk Jugz

Sandmaker said:

aesthetocyst said:

drexyl said:

I'm on day 868.... 

You quite a bit more advanced than my alt account is.

Playing my alt account to 300 is far less painful and time consuming than playing my main account to 40 wins.

Like, by an order of magnitude.

Yeah... and the reward difference is also more than an order of magnitude.

Why are you comparing 300 point to 40 wins? The equivalent needed to get the 10 pack was 12 wins. 8-10 of which could be done with seed teams. 

Here's that 8-10 seeds thing again.... I've never had more than 3, doesn't matter if I join at start, an hour in, 3 hours, 6, 12, or a full day. If, if, if, if I get seeds it's only 3

Quebbster

Milk Jugz said:

Sandmaker said:

aesthetocyst said:

drexyl said:

I'm on day 868.... 

You quite a bit more advanced than my alt account is.

Playing my alt account to 300 is far less painful and time consuming than playing my main account to 40 wins.

Like, by an order of magnitude.

Yeah... and the reward difference is also more than an order of magnitude.

Why are you comparing 300 point to 40 wins? The equivalent needed to get the 10 pack was 12 wins. 8-10 of which could be done with seed teams. 

Here's that 8-10 seeds thing again.... I've never had more than 3, doesn't matter if I join at start, an hour in, 3 hours, 6, 12, or a full day. If, if, if, if I get seeds it's only 3

You have probably reloaded the queue Before you started the event. In order to get 10 seed teams you need to load your queues at event launch and then not reload them Before you start playing. The longer you wait to start the greater the risk your queues will be reloaded.

broll

Milk Jugz said:

Sandmaker said:

aesthetocyst said:

drexyl said:

I'm on day 868.... 

You quite a bit more advanced than my alt account is.

Playing my alt account to 300 is far less painful and time consuming than playing my main account to 40 wins.

Like, by an order of magnitude.

Yeah... and the reward difference is also more than an order of magnitude.

Why are you comparing 300 point to 40 wins? The equivalent needed to get the 10 pack was 12 wins. 8-10 of which could be done with seed teams. 

Here's that 8-10 seeds thing again.... I've never had more than 3, doesn't matter if I join at start, an hour in, 3 hours, 6, 12, or a full day. If, if, if, if I get seeds it's only 3

It's totally a thing.  I've seen it myself a few times.  You're only gonna see it if you join early in a fresh bracket.  You're probably more likely to see it if you join late to a fresh bracket.