I miss win based PVP progression...

1234568

Comments

  • heybubheybub Posts: 213 Tile Toppler
    Totally Agree!
  • dr tinykittylovedr tinykittylove Posts: 1,459 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2017
    Sandmaker said:
    Sandmaker 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. 
    Illiterate or disingenuous?

    You're clearly both? =/

    That's his experience, who are you to say otherwise? Not everyone's the god of matching gems that you apparently are. The fact that you even own an "alt" that can hit 300 speaks worlds about how far removed you are from the experience of an actual casual player. 

    And no, you can't get to 245 with seed teams, because hitting that many seed teams pushes you ahead of the crowd. By 150, a 3* roster will start getting hit for more than than can gain from doing more seeds. So no, it's not the same in both systems. But of course you knew that, because you made quite a lovely post last month whining about how much better seed teams are in a win-based system than a points-based system.
    I don't honestly know what is wrong with your mmr or climbing times or choice of targets, but my 3* alt can generally hit 500 if I bother to play. 600+ if I want an extra token. 300 is not even a consideration. That's with at best 3 seeds or none. 
  • ursoproursopro Posts: 190 Tile Toppler
    drexyl said:
    ursopro said:
    JaGo said:

    Boy I may get Ramsey Bolton style flayed here, but wouldn't the obvious fix be just to stop losing points for a loss? In wins based you didn't lose a win if you were attacked. Why not do that for points based? I am seriously asking why that would be a bad change?

    -JaGo
    That will bring another problem which is alliance and players collusion to acquire monster scores.

    Not that it doesn't happen right now with shield check rooms but at least that requires some kind of coordination.
    MOST of us don't really care about what you alliance guys deal with?
    I don't care that you don't care, I'm just pointing out why that idea is never gonna get implemented. :*
  • drexyldrexyl Age Unconfirmed Posts: 14 Just Dropped In
    MacEifer said:
    There's arguments here I don't really agree with. I'm not addressing the entire thread, just some points that jumped out to me reading through most of it.

    - There's an argument here that people should be playing PvE because progression is faster.

    Well frankly I'm done with PvE for today and I want to play more MPQ and I want to progress more. I don't have to choose, or at least I shouldn't have to choose. It's not a compelling argument.

    - There's an argument here that says that because PvE has a linear progress reward system, it's ok that PvP doesn't.

    PvE has a ranking reward system and a linear reward system.
    PvP has a ranking reward system and another ranking reward system. 
    It's not consistent and it should be, I'll get to the "why" later.

    - There's an argument that wins based is only good for entry level players and once your roster is strong enough to blow through the chaff you'll hate it.

    Frankly this is some "tax cuts for the rich are good because everyone wants to be rich" type of arguments.
    The reason you want linear reward systems is so that entry and mid level players don't get frustrated by their lack of rewards based on the fact they're entry level players.


    Now I've worked in the Video games industry for 9 years, so let me say with some authority that rewards matter. Rewards and the perception of their fairness and attainability absolutely are essential in a game like MPQ.
    A very important aspect here is consistency. While the game switched to win based progress, both game branches were consistent with each other. You have a linear path and a ranking path to your reward structure. You can try to max out your rewards from participating in the ranked part and in the process you get some guaranteed participation rewards to ensure that your progress carries meaning throughout and encourages participation.
    It was a very good reward structure and when the win based season was rolled out I spent a solid 400 bucks for character slots because I felt the game is supporting my strategy of building my roster through participation in both branches.

    So basically, looking at it both from a user perspective and a design perspective, you can make certain assertions:

    - The game makes more sense to the user when both branches have consistent reward structures.
    - The game can retain players better if all types of users (paying, non-paying, casual, competitive) have primary and secondary progression lines in the game that seem centered on them.
    - Retention of players is important because development and license on the game can only be afforded if you have consistent revenue and Marvel licenses aren't cheap. So in order for you to have a game, I need to have a game and Joe and Jane over in the other corner need to have a game that we like and we may all like different things.
    - Flopping back and forth between reward models is bad and a semi-permanent choice needs to be made some time soon. Inconsistencies in reward models irritate players, especially in free to play titles. Irritated players generally cut down on spending.

    I won't even go into how the game feels like it's discouraging me from playing it sometimes where I feel I will progress further by not playing than I would by playing, which is a major design flaw.

    Very few of the pro-rating based arguments here feel compelling to me because they feel like "vocal-minority" arguments, where some of the high performers work with the presumption that they represent a majority slice of the playerbase because they mostly encounter and interact with other high performers. And it's not like I blame any of them for it. As a high performer however often what's good for you is not good for the game at large because the high performers don't keep the light on.

    To sum it up, wins based rewards were good for the game overall even if it wasn't good for you personally.
    Great post.
  • drexyldrexyl Age Unconfirmed Posts: 14 Just Dropped In
    What's really mind boggling about it is...they have coded both.  Offer both.

    Just don't let players play both so they double up on rewards.

    Season starts...pop up box...
    "Would you like to play in the casual smurf mode and get the 3* rewards or play with the big dogs and get some crazy stuff in 4*?"
  • AlwaysWrongAlwaysWrong Age Unconfirmed Posts: 67 Match Maker
    I've read a lot of the posts in threads on this, and not sure if this has been suggested, but I would support just making SHIELD sim wins-based progression. Most of the rewards are focused on growing earlier rosters, I doubt it's a big driver of shield buying/hopping compared to the other PVP events*, and there's lots of time to get through all the rewards. I would keep the rewards the same--don't delete any CP or cover levels or anything else. I would hope this would throw a bone to those players not ready for the full PVP competition (we 575 earners, we one-three-hour-shield buyers, we non-chosen many), and promote trying out a wider variety of teams at most MMR levels.

    *I'm sure there are a percentage of players that compete for the highest spot/alliance/season rewards who do spend on shields, but this wouldn't change that for them, and they can keep their focus on the other PVP events likely a little better.
  • General_TojoGeneral_Tojo Posts: 39 Just Dropped In
    I've given up trying for 2000 points in simulator to get that Nightcrawler cover, and a grand total of ZERO 3* covers from PVE the whole season. We need a system where it's wins-based with less wins required, or points-based but where points aren't deducted for losing on defence.
  • ZeroKarmaZeroKarma Posts: 513 Critical Contributor
    MacEifer said:


    Very few of the pro-rating based arguments here feel compelling to me because they feel like "vocal-minority" arguments, where some of the high performers work with the presumption that they represent a majority slice of the playerbase because they mostly encounter and interact with other high performers. And it's not like I blame any of them for it. As a high performer however often what's good for you is not good for the game at large because the high performers don't keep the light on.

    To sum it up, wins based rewards were good for the game overall even if it wasn't good for you personally.
    Considering the fact that the devs made an astoundingly quick about face after one season with wins-based PvP to go back to the old standby would indicate that it was NOT good for the game overall. Whether the metric was money or it was engagement, something spooked the people in charge. As much as I love Rockett, I don't think it was his forum thread.
  • spiderpoolspiderpool Posts: 76 Match Maker
    ZeroKarma said:
    MacEifer said:


    Very few of the pro-rating based arguments here feel compelling to me because they feel like "vocal-minority" arguments, where some of the high performers work with the presumption that they represent a majority slice of the playerbase because they mostly encounter and interact with other high performers. And it's not like I blame any of them for it. As a high performer however often what's good for you is not good for the game at large because the high performers don't keep the light on.

    To sum it up, wins based rewards were good for the game overall even if it wasn't good for you personally.
    Considering the fact that the devs made an astoundingly quick about face after one season with wins-based PvP to go back to the old standby would indicate that it was NOT good for the game overall. Whether the metric was money or it was engagement, something spooked the people in charge. As much as I love Rockett, I don't think it was his forum thread.
    Exactly this,  when they put out win based pvp I was sure it was here to stay because every other time they ran a "test" for a change it meant,  get used to this cause pretty soon this is how it's gonna be.  People spoke out negatively to 5 star essentials and increasing the amount of grinding to get max pve rewards to no avail. Nerfs were spoken out against heavily,  and the nerf to carnage that was supposed to be a buff is the only time I can remember  a change being undone in my 3 years of playing.  

    Based on past experience I expected I was stuck with win based pvp, and I probably would have quit.  I don't like pve, for me pvp is fun. It's fun to try and defeat strong teams,  to rush to hit 900 and shield in time.  PvP gives the strategy and rush that the boring grind of pve doesn't so turning pvp into a pve style grind fest is a deal breaker for me.  I know a lot of my alliance mates, also long time players felt the same way,  but I expected that even with complaining win based pvp was the new normal.

    The fact that they immediately reversed it was a shock and unlike anything I've seen in my 3 years with this game.  To me this immediate 180 , "sorry, sorry, sorry, here's your old pvp back" tells me much more than just forum complaining was going on. This to me means there must have been drastic decreases in pvp engagement to warrant an immediate reversal unlike anything I've seen in this game before. 
  • WumpushunterWumpushunter Posts: 627 Critical Contributor
    I still don't understand. PVE is different now, not all CL are the same some has a seperate 5 star node. So how would it impact most whales and vets if Some CLs in PVP were scored differently. It's not more complicated, win based and point based codes both already exist. It's the perfect compromise but for some reason people cant see the elegance of a solution that fixes every problem.
  • FarmerbinkFarmerbink Posts: 22 Just Dropped In
    2.) 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. 
    The only people with an experience anything like this are the people who’s trans are so frightening they don’t get hammered every time they break the shield. 

    I look at teams I *can* beat for 25-30 points, and if anything goes the slightest bit wrong, I’ve lost 60+ points in the time it takes to get two wins. There is no 40 points per win to get that 900, that’s a fantasy to the vast majority of players. It’s simply unattainable under points-based “progression.” 
  • WEBGASWEBGAS Posts: 441 Mover and Shaker
    An HYBRID systems could accomplish the goal to please all players.
    getting the rewards by reaching the requested numbers of wins or collecting a said amount of points, whichever comes first.

  • FarmerbinkFarmerbink Posts: 22 Just Dropped In
    I know it's a selfish and knee-jerk reaction, but after just breaking shield to try and get 17 measly points in the Staff Appreciation Day PvP to get to 900, winning a 30 point match (yay?!) actually being rewarded 10 points and getting hit about half a dozen times by champed 5* teams and losing 120 points, I vote for win-based!

    I'm all for a challenge, but that felt like swimming off the Farallon Islands during Sea Lion mating season.


    That’s almost exactly what happened to me. At least with win based you knew what the reward was going to be. I haven’t seen an accurate point reward in like 3 days, and am constantly getting beat down by boosted 4s and 5s while trying to eke out that last 25 (now 110) points. Thanks a lot. 
  • MacEiferMacEifer Age Unconfirmed Posts: 45 Just Dropped In
    I'm doing a bit of a dissection on some of these points at the moment, but it's going to be a few thousand words.

    For now I think the game needs a better PvP system, period. The current system for me is incredibly frustrating and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
  • shartattackshartattack Posts: 370 Mover and Shaker

    I look at teams I *can* beat for 25-30 points, and if anything goes the slightest bit wrong, I’ve lost 60+ points in the time it takes to get two wins. There is no 40 points per win to get that 900, that’s a fantasy to the vast majority of players. It’s simply unattainable under points-based “progression.” 
    if you beat someone for 25 points, you have just become a juicy 51 point retal.  You can never get ahead doing that.  Never hit below 38 points.  
  • shartattackshartattack Posts: 370 Mover and Shaker
    @mexus No one has to tell you that.   You play enough pvp and you pick up the point system.  It's not rocket science.  Plus, it has been shared across the forums, from discussions like this, to pvp guides, to alliance members.

    Also, I'm not sure what your point is.  If you don't think players who have invested time (and/or money) into playing and learning the game, as well as building up their rosters shouldn't have an advantage, then what is the point?  if you want random odds that don't require thought, effort, or skill, play a slot machine.  You play more, you learn more, you build a better roster, you perform better in events.  Isn't that how it should be?

    I'm day 522, also.  hardly "years."
  • Piro_plockPiro_plock Posts: 287 Mover and Shaker
    mexus said:
    @mexus No one has to tell you that.   You play enough pvp and you pick up the point system.  It's not rocket science.  Plus, it has been shared across the forums, from discussions like this, to pvp guides, to alliance members.

    Also, I'm not sure what your point is.  If you don't think players who have invested time (and/or money) into playing and learning the game, as well as building up their rosters shouldn't have an advantage, then what is the point?  if you want random odds that don't require thought, effort, or skill, play a slot machine.  You play more, you learn more, you build a better roster, you perform better in events.  Isn't that how it should be?

    I'm day 522, also.  hardly "years."
    Nah, I have honestly no idea hos attacking a low-pointer makes me a high pointer. I have absolutely no idea how many points "I'm worth" and why. I also don't know why I hit someone for 40 points and ends up with +22 instead. Did I just hit someone that makes me worth a lot? The secret limit seems to be 38 points. I don't understand why that is so.
    This is not explained to me in the game and I don't wanna sit on "war rooms" in an external chat to learn about this. Those who care enough to do that are a very very small fragment of the entire player-base of course and these are also the people that often ends up in the top ranks.
    PVP scoring system is based on Elo rating (chess scoring system) with K-factor of 75. There are some modifications to this (point losses are reduced for scores lower than 1.2k), but main features of the system are still there.
Sign In or Register to comment.