mexus said: I actually managed to get to 900 points in Raging Fire but damn it was stressful and costed me 700 HP in shields and thank to having to shield all the time it took me longer that it would if I could have played 40 straight matches. It's really bad that the reverted back to this torture versus system instead of just keeping it win-based and adding the 15CP into progression rewards (which was what people actually missed). We need to gather WBAS and have the developers go back to Win-Based progression by gathering lots of data and showing digits. https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/68278/win-based-appreciation-society-wbas/p1
I actually managed to get to 900 points in Raging Fire but damn it was stressful and costed me 700 HP in shields and thank to having to shield all the time it took me longer that it would if I could have played 40 straight matches. It's really bad that the reverted back to this torture versus system instead of just keeping it win-based and adding the 15CP into progression rewards (which was what people actually missed).
We need to gather WBAS and have the developers go back to Win-Based progression by gathering lots of data and showing digits.
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/68278/win-based-appreciation-society-wbas/p1
Jwallyr said: Qubort said: WEBGAS said: Is there not intended to be a difference between Placement (i.e. competitive) and Progression (i.e. noncompetitive) rewards in PvP? It seems obvious to me that the Progression reward scheme is at least supposed to be a less-competitive option for more casual players. If it's not, what's the incentive for casual players to compete in PvP at all? Are we supposed to be checked out entirely from PvP and just play PvE? Is that good for the game? I would say no.
Qubort said: WEBGAS said:
WEBGAS said:
shartattack said: Jwallyr said: Qubort said: WEBGAS said: the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better. Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding. Otherwise, why advance your roster? When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"
Jwallyr said: Qubort said: WEBGAS said:
a 3* roster can hit 575-650 if they shielda 4* roster can hit 800-900 if they shield2 boosted 4s can get you to 1200A casual player gets more ROI in pvp for time spent than in pve.the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better. Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding. Otherwise, why advance your roster? When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"
Addaran said: a 3* roster can hit 575-650 if they shielda 4* roster can hit 800-900 if they shield2 boosted 4s can get you to 1200A casual player gets more ROI in pvp for time spent than in pve.the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better. Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding. Otherwise, why advance your roster? When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair" Doesn't make sense. That's why there's different SCL. Someone at SCL 1 shouldn't have to compete with higher roaster. And you should diffinitively get full progression with it. Not have your 1* roaster ganked by 3* cause you now have enough points.
aesthetocyst said: OJSP said: mega ghost said: It's after 3AM, how active could it be? 3AM where? in the US? that’s when Europeans climb while having their breakfast.. And late in the day in Asia. It's a global game after all.
OJSP said: mega ghost said: It's after 3AM, how active could it be? 3AM where? in the US? that’s when Europeans climb while having their breakfast..
mega ghost said: It's after 3AM, how active could it be?
Orion said: So wins-based PvP had players.....1) Joining CL levels way below their roster strength. 5* players playing in CL5 and CL6 in order to get that 15 CP.2) Hitting anyone regardless of strength and point value because a win was a win.3) Deliberately losing matches to get down to a lower point value to see easier matches again.None of that sounds like PvP they way the devs wanted it to be played. So it was rolled back until they find a better solution. Neither system is perfect, but the current system seems a whole lot more what the devs intended PvP to be that what we had last season.
shartattack said: Jwallyr said: Qubort said: WEBGAS said: Is there not intended to be a difference between Placement (i.e. competitive) and Progression (i.e. noncompetitive) rewards in PvP? It seems obvious to me that the Progression reward scheme is at least supposed to be a less-competitive option for more casual players. If it's not, what's the incentive for casual players to compete in PvP at all? Are we supposed to be checked out entirely from PvP and just play PvE? Is that good for the game? I would say no. a 3* roster can hit 575-650 if they shielda 4* roster can hit 800-900 if they shield2 boosted 4s can get you to 1200A casual player gets more ROI in pvp for time spent than in pve.the game gives you a sense of progression as your roster gets better. Watching your roster get stronger should be rewarding. Otherwise, why advance your roster? When i started playing pvp, my thought was " i need to build up my roster to get the higher rewards" not "why can't i have everything right when i started--that's not fair"
Jwallyr said:2) If you see someone that looks like an easy (i.e. quick) win, is it impossible for even a low-ish number of points to be an efficient use of time? I've absolutely looked at two opponents and thought "Hmm, that's a lot of points but a really bad matchup for my preferred team. Maybe I'll attack this other team that isn't as many points but I have a strong likelihood of a fast win."Obviously the wins-based progression provides an incentive for the quick wins, but the points system also provides an incentive for quick wins, if they're quick enough that it's still a reasonable points-per-minute-played ratio. I'm not clear on why the wins-based progression is significantly worse in this regard.3) If you're deliberately losing matches, you're investing time tanking your rating so that you can later on have easier (and presumably quicker) wins. I'd be really interested to see actual numbers on whether that strategy is quicker than simply playing the longer wins at appropriate MMR.So... yeah, I'm still not clear on why these problems are better served by nuking the workable Versus Progression system for "placement lite" instead of 1) making CLs matter and 2) making rewards track to CLs.