shartattack said: is it hand-holding, or are they putting in "far more effort"? It can't be both. If the devs tweaked MMR so that grills didn't work anymore, I will still hit 1200 and place high in every event i put forth the effort. The top players will still do well. The gap would widen though. A 4* team could take down a 5* grill. They are not taking down 2 5* and a giant 4* essential.
Ducky said: The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
shartattack said: Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters. Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one. So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams. That makes many dislike pvp.
Tony_Foot said: shartattack said: Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters. Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one. So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams. That makes many dislike pvp. The 1's and 2's come from DDQ not pvp.
Daiches said: Ducky said: The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts. They did change it. Wins are back as an alternative route for progression. We're already seeing 4stars getting actual 900 points and higher much more easily because they didn't all stop playing at 575..
Daiches said: Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. Now get off my lawn.
shartattack said: Ducky said: The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts. Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters. Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one. So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams. That makes many dislike pvp.
Ducky said: Daiches said: Ducky said: The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts. They did change it. Wins are back as an alternative route for progression. We're already seeing 4stars getting actual 900 points and higher much more easily because they didn't all stop playing at 575.. They didn't change the mode at all, all they did was change the reward structure. And just because the people who were already playing and engaging are playing more doesn't necessarily mean that those who weren't engaging are. The sting of retals are still there. The threat of being a punching bag is still there. The crazy high scores at the top which probably deter a lot of ppl from even attempting the mode are also still there in most of the slices .
I think what is being missed here is that everyone is assuming the survey questions mean directly implementing those options into the existing pvp structure. what if they take those survey opinions and create a new pvp structure around those ideas? We honestly don't know the intent here.
Also the perception is that pve has better rewards than pvp, maybe if they modified/increased the rewards structure they would see more engagement.
Tony_Foot said: shartattack said: 2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play. This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me. We have discussed this before so you know my stance on it, most people do. I hate this collaborative hand holding. It's pvp, I don't go online to play Gears of War and organise with the enemy where we will meet on the map so I can kill them and then the next game they can kill me to improve my wins. It's a terrible game mechanic that people want to dress up as a fun social side of the game. No it's cheesing the game to get the best rewards for the least effort.
shartattack said: 2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play. This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me.