HoundofShadow said: Based on reddit, the reduction of wins is an error. That's one error that I've never seen before. It affects almost all win requirements of most of the rewards.
Alfje17 said: More rewards for fewer wins is a-OK by me, usually only play to 13 wins, so I might be motivated to push a bit more.
Chirus said: I'm honestly a pretty big fan of making full progression 50 wins instead of 75. It makes PVP feel less time-consuming and kinda hits the perfect goldilocks zone between "fun" and "a job" for me. While this might be a one-time bug, I wonder what others think of this. Does anyone have reservations about decreasing the progression requirements permanently? I think a lot of PVE-only players would come out of the woodwork and this could potentially liven up the PVP pool if the bar to entry was lowered some, and this would be an excellent way to do it.
Vhailorx said:Is there any reason why players would not prefer to see this new reward structure remain? It seems all upside. . .
HoundofShadow said: Of course no one would complain about that. You've already pointed out the real problem: If players can prove that they won't complain if 50% reduction in progression time also results in 50% reduction in progression+placement rewards, the dev won't have much problem doing so. Unfortunately, 48 hour sub prove that players will complain even if they need to hit each node once, mainly due to "drop in daily earnings".The difference in reduction of playtime between pvp and pve is heaven and hell. In pvp, regardless or which scl level you choose, you will be given the same difficulty level. The nodes get tougher the higher you climb and which slice you choose affects how fast you get attacked relentlessly.In pve, majority of the nodes are goons. Players can sleepwalk through these nodes if they have the appropriate rosters and they choose the appropriate scl level. On top of that, choosing scl 1 will give you enemies in scl 1 range and choosing scl 10 gives you scl 10 difficulty. The dev already has an answer for those who want to reduce their playtime in pves: play lower scl. Unfortunately many refused due to "reduce rewards". This is just a classic case of wanting the best of both world, or someone wanting their cake and eating it too. I don't think human greed is an easy problem to solve. If it's so simple, we won't be seeing corruptions all over the world.
HoundofShadow said: I won't called that entitled then. In this scenario, we are talking about (theoretically) reducing pve playtime by 50% while earning the same amount of progression rewards. That has to do with setting realistic expectation. <snip>I'm going to assume wanting to play with new hot 5 means playing with a champed version. If not, there's a 1/1/1 version to play with in pvp. Or maybe they could bring back Introducing... Or you could team that character with Odin.Wanting to champ a 5* within 6 month means that you couldn't champ the 5* within the 3 months while it was in LT. If you got it to a total of 11 or 12 covers before it leaves LT, then it's possible you could champ that character within 6 months (via sharding). If we are talking about anything fewer than 11, it starts to be a little unrealistic, unless the dev gives every 5* a feeder immediately after they leave LT. In that case, including sharding, you could champ it even with 9 or 10 covers or potentially even at 8 covers within 6 months. Given the current situation in the game, expecting to champ a 5* consistently within 6 months while you have fewer than 11 covers when it leaves LT is unrealistic.