Time Gem Season Updates *Updated (10/19/17)

ronin_san · October 2017

Brigby said:

show previous quotes

DyingLegend said:

Brigby what will the reward structure for the win based season look like? Will there be a preview?

As of right now, I unfortunately don't have that information, but I'll be sure to request those details from the development team.
show previous quotes
Orion said:

Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing?
I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them.

So without concrete information as to the why, you walked into an already quarreling senate, donned your gas mask, pulled the pin, and said, "We'll have a chat on the morrow, lads".

My kids get upset when I tell them to do something they don't like, and don't first get an explanation as to why.

Exactly what was the outcome you expected, when you dropped in to sprinkle in dissent, and dashed out?

This is freaking childish, Brigs. Shame on you, and shame on your manager, who advised you to do this. Incomplete information caused a craptonne of dissent. No matter what side of the fence you're on regarding this change, the way this was handled was tactless.

Enjoy your "How are we doing" Surveymonkey comments.

Milk Jugz · October 2017

broll said:

show previous quotes

Mustache1 said:

@Brigby please pay attention to who is saying what. I recognize the folks saying noooo! As higher end players, thus the players who were likely paying d3's salary. I also notice the folks who are saying yay! Are people I've never seen before which likely means they are lower tier, newer players who aren't buying starks all the time. Can we rename Versus to Adv. Story mode? Maybe pve2?

Such a fallacy. Just because someone is new doesn't mean they aren't paying (and vice versa). I paid more for this game in my first month than I have most of the rest of the game combined due to spending lots on HP for roster slots. If the game is only being held up by a handful of whales then it's doomed to fail as they leave by various ways of attrition. They need to continue attract new paying customers to keep going. Always catering to vets isn't going to achieve that.

I'll concede to your point as most of my spending was in the first year of playing to build roster spots. However, I will counter it with this: Have you ever seen a Line buy club room??? Those buys happen 24/7, it's one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. Some of these people spend more in a couple days than I have in 2+ years........

broll · October 2017

Xenoberyll said:

show previous quotes

smkspy said:

I kinda get why they remove it though. Takes 40 wins to get to 900 for the 4 star now, cp was at 1200. How many wins would the devs have put that? 20 wins per 100 points? That's 60 wins making it a 100 wins overall.

Not saying they should have removed, but probably a major reason behind it.

That’s reasoning the 40 wins are a realistic number. It isn’t. 900/40 means 22.5 points per match. I average more than twice that for my matches and 20 wins is what i need at most for reaching the 900 points mark. I don’t need 40 matches to reach 1200 even with attacks coming in.

That math only works if you assume 0 losses. It's easy to get -100 or -200 in a very short time the higher you go (sometimes minutes). It's those defensive losses that keep people rising much above a certain level (unless the go nuts with shields).

corytutor · October 2017

Its true. Some of those guys are 100,000 in on a game.

Spudgutter · October 2017

Vhailorx said:

Spud:

The words "me" and "i" do not appear in my post. And my statements about pvp expectations are informed by more my own subjective expereince. Obviously i can't claim clairvoyance. But i do read lots of comments. And talk to people in my alliance family. Most of the time when i encounter a "player X has a strong roster but cant hit 575" even a brief inquiry into the problem reveals that player X CAN hit 575 and beyond, but didn't understand how pvp worked (and no surprise, demi doesn't do a great job explaining it, even in the forums).

As for getting 300 points quickly, i allowed a generous cushion by saying 5-6 matches. 6 matches at 50 points each is not that hard to find with liberal skipping. Even you suggest that 51 points is "settling."

Look, i get that pvp was impenetrable and frustrating to a lot of players. And i am happy to see that change. Does that change really also have to significantly impact the ability of experienced 5* transitioners to get cp from pvp? If not, then demi is really just using the former change as cover for the latter change. And that sucks.

Sure, i was using the quotes as a paraphrase, didn't come across properly. You worded your post to be able to apply to the reader in first person, but i am trying to imply that you experience is not the norm for most people. For vets, sure, it is absolutely the norm.

Again, hitting 575 the "proper" way, and hitting 575 when you had the time, are not the same thing, thus the implication that playing whenever you want is slightly better for a vast number of people

Justice Jacks · October 2017

Spudgutter said:

Again, no offense, but all i see in your response is "me" "me" and "I."

Read some of the comments of the people who have 4* and get smacked down trying to get to 575. It happens. And not everyone can get 300 points in 5 or 6 matches. I have three champed 5*, and sometimes even after skipping dozens of 30 or 40 point matches, i have to settle for 51 points. It's annoying and frustrating, and just further evidence that climbs can vary amongst people.

Once you realize that *your* experience =/= *other* peoples experience, i hope that you see this is better for the long term health.

Maybe I can help here, then. This change doesn’t directly affect ME in the least. I average 70-80 matches per PVP already (during last test had an alliance mate reach 400 in a single event just because the counter was there). I am able to place t5 CL8 every event I want the covers. I lose nothing. That YOU don’t realize how much YOU lose is what is trying to be pointed out.

Currently, in my CL8s, 1200 isn’t even enough for t25. So 10-15 players will be dropping down a CL level. But CL7 in my shard is similar, so now this 10-15 crowd out CL7 in addition to the 5-10 currently in CL7 that would have had to drop anyway to get CP. Now you have 15-25 people dropping into CL6 and 5 and poof, no CP for those that hadn’t been getting to 1200 historically. And since most that wanted this can’t even get to 900 consistently, not only have you lost your chance at CP, but you’ve also given away your ability to secure the cover/iso/HP placement awards that currently are accessible.

Brigby · October 2017

ronin-san said:

show previous quotes

-snipped for clarity-
Orion said:

Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing?
I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them.

So without concrete information as to the why, you walked into an already quarreling senate, donned your gas mask, pulled the pin, and said, "We'll have a chat on the morrow, lads".

My kids get upset when I tell them to do something they don't like, and don't first get an explanation as to why.

Exactly what was the outcome you expected, when you dropped in to sprinkle in dissent, and dashed out?

This is freaking childish, Brigs. Shame on you, and shame on your manager, who advised you to do this. Incomplete information caused a craptonne of dissent. No matter what side of the fence you're on regarding this change, the way this was handled was tactless.

Enjoy your "How are we doing" Surveymonkey comments.

I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.

The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.

broll · October 2017

Milk Jugz said:

show previous quotes

Pants1000 said:

Vhailorx said:

Spudgutter said:

Vhailorx said:

Also, it's silly to suggest that this change lets you play whenever you want. That's only true if you only care about progression; placement still works on the same schedule. And if you really only care,about progression then PVP was already "play whenever you want" unless you got into shield hopping.

First off, its not silly, it makes more sense then the current system, you just cant or wont see it.

Ill give you a real world example. Event starts, you join, play a few matches. Put the kids to bed, play some more, hit maybe 400-600 points. Wake up in the morning, play match while brushing your teeth or drinking coffee. Play a match while at the gas station standing in line on the way to work. Play a match or two while on a break or in the restroom at work. Get home, and play some more.

Now, in the current example, while at work during the day, you are flogged down 100-400 points, and never make that back up, and lose the progression. Some people dont feel like making that climb again, because they know the outcome is the same.

In the new win based model, they are more then halfway to a 4*. Encouraged to keep playing, one could almost day.

Too suggest that this game was already "play when you want for progression" is to be seriously detached from the casual player, no offense. And the casual playerbase, i think we can more than agree on, is way, way, way more people then those getting over 1200.

If you only care about progression. I.e. playing to 900 points for the 4* and then putting the game down, then pvp was already basically play when you want.

It's pretty unusal to take hits below 500-600 or so. So the first part of any climb is absolutely play when you want. Spend 30ish minutes at your convenience climbing to 600ish. The riskier part of climbing to 900 is 600-900. Getting 300-ish points takes 5-6 matches (unless you punch down with futile 20 point matches). 5 or 6 matches takes about 20-25 minutes. So that is basically the only requirement for 900 in the old system: at some point during last 48 hours of an event (preferrably not during the last couple of hours) you must spent 20-25 minutes to rush from 600 to 900.

That does't seem like an particularly strict schedule to me. Especially not compared to an alternative that is: at any time the 60 hours of each pvp event you must spent approximately 140 minutes playing 40 matches.

It's not some vast quality of life improvement for players. It's a modest-to-significant improvement for some players and a modest-to-significant steo backwards for others.

Your experience is that of a well-developed 5* roster who uses shield check rooms. What you described is not true for the vast majority.

Unusual to take hits below 500-600? LOL! It depends on the boosted characters, but if I push to 500-600 and don't shield, I'll usually be hit back to 300-400 in a couple hours. I've hit 575 and been hit back below 250 on multiple occasions.

20-25 minutes to run from 600-900? Again, that's not the case for most people. Many people spend much longer than that, often not making it because they get hit repeatedly during the process.

Getting to 875, winning another match, but getting hit for -100 in the process is the most frustrating thing that happens in this game. This change removes that pain point, which is why I like it.

I fully support making the CP more attainable for the top players. I think it's dumb to have t10 get it in CL6-8. Give constructive feedback and hopefully the devs will make adjustments/compromises for everyone. Giving it to t50 in CL9 seems like the most likely scenario.

I don't have a well developed 5* roster and I don't use any shield check rooms. I hit the targets the game presents to me. I'll concede I skip a lot of low point targets and I skip alliance mates. I don't have an issue hitting 1200. Again, no coordination, no shield checks, just skip low point targets and alliance mates. I do it in less than 40 wins and I am guaranteed the 15 cp at the end.

You don't have a 'developed 5* roster' but you have have 4 of them champed. From my understanding once you get your foot in the door of 3 5* champs 900 becomes a breeze and 1200 is usually relatively easy. All this shows is how the level of your roster controls how far you can progress. That's somewhat true in the new meta, but while it's definitely harder for people higher up on the totem poll than it was, it's still possible. It wasn't possible for 2*/3* player before. Period. Now I totally think they need to work on fixing it so that it's not so much harder for vets than newer, that's pretty backwards, but accessible to all is good.

I wonder if accessibility is the key. One of the major problems in this game is dilution and the length of the roster progression path. This change will help to lighten 4* progression path getting new players into 4* land, which seems to be the main focus of the devs, faster. A lot of effort right now seems to focused on getting rosters to improve faster: incentivizing 5*s for the first time, focusing Latest 5*s over old, 4* featured rates (and the vaulting fiasco), Shield Training event trying to strong arm people into champing or near champing 4* within a week of release.... and now this.

shardwick · October 2017

Vhailorx said:

show previous quotes

shardwick said:

22 pt wins is punching down? My average amount of points for a win is about 25 pts in a regular event. I tend to get more pts per win in Shield Sim. The things I would do to get 300 pts for just five or six wins.

Yes, 22 points is punching down because you will leave the opppnent a retal worth much more than 22 points. This is what i mean about the problem being that many players don't understand the pvp mechanics.

And if you want higher point matches, start skipping more. That's what the rest of us do. Until you break mmr (which generally only happens at 900+ unless you have a 5* roster) high value targets are fairly plentiful. Just skip until you find them.

25 pt fights is with skipping. I rarely ever see anything over 30 unless it's a fight that's a guaranteed loss.

Spudgutter · October 2017

ronin-san said:

"I have Strange, Thanos and Panther."

You have the strongest 5* paring in the game, and you're taking issue with 51 point fights?

Oh god no, i have no issue. I even acknowledge this is to my detriment, because in the last few months i have been knocking at the 1200 door.

I'm just saying i understand how this helps a lot more people than it hurts. Are there plenty of things they could do to mitigate the damage? Sure. My faith in them being implemented? Zero.

Vhailorx · October 2017

Spudgutter said:

show previous quotes

Vhailorx said:

Spud:

The words "me" and "i" do not appear in my post. And my statements about pvp expectations are informed by more my own subjective expereince. Obviously i can't claim clairvoyance. But i do read lots of comments. And talk to people in my alliance family. Most of the time when i encounter a "player X has a strong roster but cant hit 575" even a brief inquiry into the problem reveals that player X CAN hit 575 and beyond, but didn't understand how pvp worked (and no surprise, demi doesn't do a great job explaining it, even in the forums).

As for getting 300 points quickly, i allowed a generous cushion by saying 5-6 matches. 6 matches at 50 points each is not that hard to find with liberal skipping. Even you suggest that 51 points is "settling."

Look, i get that pvp was impenetrable and frustrating to a lot of players. And i am happy to see that change. Does that change really also have to significantly impact the ability of experienced 5* transitioners to get cp from pvp? If not, then demi is really just using the former change as cover for the latter change. And that sucks.

Sure, i was using the quotes as a paraphrase, didn't come across properly. You worded your post to be able to apply to the reader in first person, but i am trying to imply that you experience is not the norm for most people. For vets, sure, it is absolutely the norm.

Again, hitting 575 the "proper" way, and hitting 575 when you had the time, are not the same thing, thus the implication that playing whenever you want is slightly better for a vast number of people

But that is exactly my point spud. Most of the time when people say "i have 4*s but cant hit 575" it has little to do with schedule. It's because they don't know about retaliation node values or defensive teams. And to the extent schedule matters (e.g. don't try to climb high with a weak team during high traffic times like 8 hours left or in the last 3 hours), they don't know that they can avoid those schedule problems by picking a different time slice.

When a player says "i can only play at time X, and can't reach my target score" the problem is almost never the fact that they can only play at time X. That is what i mean when i say old pvp was quite flexible if you only care about progression to 900. If you knew how the system worked you could basically climb to 900 whenever you wanted.

So to the extent that is change solves a problem, it solves the problem that demi never did a good job communicating their pvp system to players. Great! I am all for solving that problem, but how about doing it in a way that doesn't significantly hit the veteran 4*/5* transitioner class?

BoyWonder1914 · October 2017

Once they did 2 tests on this, I think we all kinda knew it was eventually coming. Honestly once they "test" anything it usually comes to fruition. They did 2 tests on CL-based scaling for PVE, and then it became permanent. I dreaded it from the get-go, and I spent hours arguing with people who are ignorant of high-level PVP play. What i think upsets me most of from this, is the constant responses of, "well I know this isn't ideal for everybody, but it WORKS FOR ME, so great change". What about the concept of working for some part of the player base, while screwing over another just screams, "good idea"????

My battle chat/# check room for slice 5 did a purge after the last full season, which was almost a month ago now, and I intentionally did not ask to be brought back in. Getting 900 points has still been absolutely nothing, and I've still been able to do it on my schedule when I want. I can join on the last day of an event, rattle off 700+ points, shield, climb to 800+, shield, and then do a final push for 900. All this complaining about how hard it is to get through 700-900 can easily by mitigated by playing smart and fast.....not being an idiot trying to climb through this zone without shielding. What did you expect? Of course people are going to hit you. Not a hard limitation to figure your way around. All you people who complain that its not so easy to find 40+ point queues, I CALL ****. Never seemed to be a problem for quite a lot of people who know how to press a freaking skip button. If you don't want to spend the iso, or you dont have the patience to look for the right q's, that doesn't mean that aspect of PVP is broken, or "unfair".

Once again, I seriously can't wait for your MMRs to improve to the point where you can understand the frustration of people who have to grind matches 10-40 against teams that will tear your roster, and health packs a new one. All for the sake of 1 4* cover which will more than likely not make any kind of noticeable improvement to your roster capability, if getting 900 points before was difficult for you. Not everyone has the patience to grind away at the same event for 2 and half days to get the same rewards that they usually got with half the time and effort. Not everyone has the patience to keep climbing and dropping over and over again, all for the sake of finding "easy" matches to add to their win total. Everyone has an end game of improving their roster, which by default means champing more of your high level characters. You're eventually going to get to the point that all these vets have gotten to, where "easy" matches are no longer an option, and at that point I hope you remember how badly you wanted this awful change. I'm done repeating my thoughts on this matter, it's clear that all these people who wanted this only care about the now, and don't have the foresight to see what point their roster is eventually going to get to - which by the way, you STILL would have gotten to under the older system. Except now, improving your roster isn't going to make things any easier for you as time goes on..... which is ya know, kinda the point of improving your roster?

CrookedKnight · October 2017

I like win-based rewards in principle but the numbers in the previous tests have been waaaaaaaaaay out of whack, and even spacing out my play over multiple days I run out of interest before I can get to that 4* cover. I've already lost the urge to grind PvE other than new releases, so I guess this is where I check out of the game? No way to reliably progress without hitting top prizes in one of them.

ABaker84 · October 2017

@Brigby sorry u get hated on so much by these people. Thanks for all the updates and always keeping us informed before such changes go into effect. Appreciate all that you and the devs do. I may not love all the changes, but as a whole this game is awesome and for the most part is constantly getting better. Again sorry you have to deal with all the flack from those who are less understanding

Vhailorx · October 2017

Brigby said:

show previous quotes

ronin-san said:

-snipped for clarity-
Orion said:

Brigby, I would love for you to get a developer on here so they can explain the logic behind awarding the 15 CP to only the top 10 of CL6-CL8. Normally, I can understand the logic, even if I don't agree with it. But this I can't figure out. You are taking 15 CP away from rosters that could get to 1200 but not make top 10 and giving it to whom? For those rosters, the CP is the only way to progress in the game. If my progression is slowed down by too much, then what incentive do I have to keep playing?
I don't know the exact reasoning, but I'll inquire with the developers, and provide info once I hear back from them.

So without concrete information as to the why, you walked into an already quarreling senate, donned your gas mask, pulled the pin, and said, "We'll have a chat on the morrow, lads".

My kids get upset when I tell them to do something they don't like, and don't first get an explanation as to why.

Exactly what was the outcome you expected, when you dropped in to sprinkle in dissent, and dashed out?

This is freaking childish, Brigs. Shame on you, and shame on your manager, who advised you to do this. Incomplete information caused a craptonne of dissent. No matter what side of the fence you're on regarding this change, the way this was handled was tactless.

Enjoy your "How are we doing" Surveymonkey comments.

I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.

The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.

Brigby,

I find it disingenuous for d3/demi to claim that their sole motovation for moving cp from progression to placement is to make it available to more players.

If that is really the goal, then surely giving out 15cp for 40 or even 50 wins would result in even more cp going out to players.

So the real reason has to be that demi doesn't want to give out too much cp, and found some way of measuring that suggests that more people finish top 10 than get 1200 (would really love to see that data, by the way). But even if true that seems to ignore the question of whether the players who consistently get top 10 are the same player who consistently get 1200+. If not then this change is a cp transfer at best.

corytutor · October 2017

Brigby said:

I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.

The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.

@Brigby

How does 10 people in a 500 person bracket give more cp to more people when the top 25 to 50 reach 1200 for cp now?

Removing cp from progression and moving it to t10 placement only helps top rosters. They will now spread out to lower clearance levels to ensure the cp from placement, further pushing down smaller rosters.

Win count progression isnt an issue. Removing the best and often only reason to play from progression is only going to see less pvp play once the little guy realizes he has tno shot at placement/cp

huktonfonix · October 2017

@Brigby

While I personally hate the "wins-based" progression, I understand the drive for it. As someone who places in the top 5 of CL8 every PVP event, I understand that I represent a tiny minority of the player base and that for the vast majority being able to progress toward PvP rewards without any fear of losing progress is a very welcome change. Heck, I probably would have welcomed it myself a year and a half ago.

That said, I think the new system is poorly-executed. There HAS to be a better way to satisfy the people who want to earn rewards without fearing defensive losses.

The problem, as I see it, is that you've essentially split each PvP event into two entirely different games (placement and progression) with different and even competing objectives. As a player, it is confusing enough trying to figure out how best to navigate this structure myself, and even moreso trying to figure out what the heck my opponents working toward.

I feel like I'm standing in the middle of the Oakland Coliseum with A's and Raiders games happening on the field simultaneously, and players switching back and forth between the two games on a whim. I barely know which ball to try to catch myself, let alone what the players around me are going to do, and there is no clear direction to win the placement game. You've turned PvP into a joyless game of Calvinball.

STERLING21JJ · October 2017

Win progression is so off, its crazy, It usually takes 20-26 wins to get to 900 for a 4* reward for most people. Now your making people get to the 40 win progression for the same reward. @Brigby
ask the Devs why punish players when this is how most people develop their rosters, get better, and enjoy the game. I've been in a lot of brackets where getting top 10 is not even possible by scoring 2K points. Making the 1.2k cp reward was nice so I could get cp progression to further develop my roster. It just seems that the Devs are not making this choice with the games best interest in mind.

tiomono · October 2017

Vhailorx said:

show previous quotes

Jarvind said:

Meander said:

tiomono said
So I'm copping out, and whiny? 70% of the replies in this topic have been whiny. I was not whining but expressing my happiness over a change. Let me be happy.

Yes. Using your wife and kids as an excuse is a cop out.

Holy smokes, dude. Did you like, read that after you typed it? That's some serious addict mentality.

I don't think meander meant that responsibilities to family aren't important. Just that a player using family as a prop to justify something that is basically unrelated to family is inappropriate.

Tiomono: i really don't get your argument. Old mpq pvp takes time and can definitely chew into a player's ability to spend time with family. But new mpq pvp takes about 2x as many matches to get the same rewards! Is it really better for your family if you spend twice as much time playing pvp on a slightly more sporadic schedule? Sounds like a push at best to me.

For me it was similar time invested. I play casually I did not in any way press for placement. With my play pattern I would rarely even hit the 800 point progression for the 3*. But with my play pattern the win based allowed me to not only hit the 3* but also the 4* progression. It wasn't so much time spent total in an event it was my sporadic play times in an event that made shielding or timing shields multiple times in an event was not worth the hp cost for me.

So for me personally with my play pattern this is a very welcome change. I am not saying it works for everyone. I am not saying I was playing to my full potential before. I am only saying with my pattern of play I personally like this change.

Philly484 · October 2017

Brigby said:

I'm afraid my original comment may have appeared a bit disengenuous. The original reason for this implementation was because the developers determined there would actually be more players that achieved the CP reward if put in placement, than if they tried to acquire it in progression.

The reason I said that I didn't know the exact reasoning in the above comment, was more so that I wanted to reaffirm with the developers if this was still the case, after reviewing the results of the test. I apologize for the confusion.

That doesn't make that much sense unless its players in CL6 and lower making top 10. Out of 500 players only rewarding the top 10 the extra 15 CP versus in my CL from before there were well over 10 players making 1200 pts to get the extra CP, so that reasoning from the Devs doesn't make that much sense.

Time Gem Season Updates *Updated (10/19/17)

Comments

Welcome!

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories