Brigby said: We’ll also be using this system in the S.H.I.E.L.D. Simulator that runs with each season. We won’t be using it for the season’s progression rewards though - we want those to reward consistent competition over the course of the season, and that doesn’t work if you can grind out a zillion wins to get all the rewards in just one event. No changes to lightning round rewards either - we want those to stay just as fast and cut-throat.Details:Each progression reward has a points goal and a wins goal.Once you reach either goal, you get the reward.No changes have been made to the rewards available in progression, and the points goals are the same as they were.Thresholds for the top progression rewards: 40 wins or 900 points for the 16th reward50 wins or 1,000 points for the 17th reward75 wins or 1,200 points for the 18th rewardKnown Issues:When viewing rewards in the Player Awards screen, placement rewards are displayed first instead of second.
veny said: Brigby said: .... 1st - NO WAY 75 wins is equal to 1200 points. NO WAY! Same for the difference between 900 and 1000 points and 40 and 50 wins. 1 win is the equivalent of 10 points? Really?2nd - I may sound negative, but the only thing this system changes is the frustration of endless grinding caused by situation when player is losing points faster than gaining them from games won.Main problem (unballanced teams, very difficult teams, cruel requirements with poor rewards) remain and number of wins is way too big, compared with points gained per average match.3rd - Lets be honest and constructive - PvE is easier with roster growing. PvP? Exactly the opposite. Grinding is way too cruel and rewards are pathetic compared to PvE... at least for players like me who spend 2 hours in game every day.My suggestion is very simple (it also doesnt entirely fix PvP, but gives your change much better impact people may appreciate) :1) Instead of wins, call it Kills2) Kills required will be 2 times amount of wins. F.e. instead of 75 wins or 1200 points, you need 150 kills or 1200 points. What kills? Kills of opponents characters. With up to 3 killed opponents per match "win" amount is reduced by 33%. The pain of loss will also partially dissapear since killed enemies also count, not only games wonOR, Kills required will be 3 times amount of wins (225 kills instead of 75 wins) and characters killed while defending will also count.Think about that - dont want to sound intimidating or so, but this your change doesnt change much for most players.Before posting this, i tried one match - took me 3 minutes against two maxed 2*s (I have OML and Phoenix so...). Without America Chaves being required character, it would take longer and result wouldnt be that positive. I managed to win, but my team lost half hitpoints. I am sure 75 wins in 2 days is not doable for me. And i dont even want to double the amount of time spent.Oh and i was figting some weakling anyway, since i had only 200 points - since 700 points, true OP combos come in, like 5* Gambit etc.
Brigby said: ....
Jaedenkaal said: veny said: Brigby said: .... 1st - NO WAY 75 wins is equal to 1200 points. NO WAY! Same for the difference between 900 and 1000 points and 40 and 50 wins. 1 win is the equivalent of 10 points? Really?2nd - I may sound negative, but the only thing this system changes is the frustration of endless grinding caused by situation when player is losing points faster than gaining them from games won.Main problem (unballanced teams, very difficult teams, cruel requirements with poor rewards) remain and number of wins is way too big, compared with points gained per average match.3rd - Lets be honest and constructive - PvE is easier with roster growing. PvP? Exactly the opposite. Grinding is way too cruel and rewards are pathetic compared to PvE... at least for players like me who spend 2 hours in game every day.My suggestion is very simple (it also doesnt entirely fix PvP, but gives your change much better impact people may appreciate) :1) Instead of wins, call it Kills2) Kills required will be 2 times amount of wins. F.e. instead of 75 wins or 1200 points, you need 150 kills or 1200 points. What kills? Kills of opponents characters. With up to 3 killed opponents per match "win" amount is reduced by 33%. The pain of loss will also partially dissapear since killed enemies also count, not only games wonOR, Kills required will be 3 times amount of wins (225 kills instead of 75 wins) and characters killed while defending will also count.Think about that - dont want to sound intimidating or so, but this your change doesnt change much for most players.Before posting this, i tried one match - took me 3 minutes against two maxed 2*s (I have OML and Phoenix so...). Without America Chaves being required character, it would take longer and result wouldnt be that positive. I managed to win, but my team lost half hitpoints. I am sure 75 wins in 2 days is not doable for me. And i dont even want to double the amount of time spent.Oh and i was figting some weakling anyway, since i had only 200 points - since 700 points, true OP combos come in, like 5* Gambit etc. Were you here when wins-based PVP was tested? Did you try it? This is that, OR the current system. Whichever you like. The better of both, at the same time, even. I'd say that changes quite a bit for a lot of players. Not the ones who can get 1200 points easily enough already, but this doesn't seem to be a penalty for them, either.Kills-based scoring sounds too abusable to me. Grab a match, kill the loaner, retreat (or force-close). Repeat as often as you like. Which characters you pick hardly matters since you only have to do 1/3 of the match.
thedarkphoenix said: This is a good changeIt'll be interesting to see how the pvp meta develops with this also.
dlegendary0ne said: How will this affect alliance rewards? Will they remain points based?
veny said: Jaedenkaal said: veny said: Brigby said: .... 1st - NO WAY 75 wins is equal to 1200 points. NO WAY! Same for the difference between 900 and 1000 points and 40 and 50 wins. 1 win is the equivalent of 10 points? Really?2nd - I may sound negative, but the only thing this system changes is the frustration of endless grinding caused by situation when player is losing points faster than gaining them from games won.Main problem (unballanced teams, very difficult teams, cruel requirements with poor rewards) remain and number of wins is way too big, compared with points gained per average match.3rd - Lets be honest and constructive - PvE is easier with roster growing. PvP? Exactly the opposite. Grinding is way too cruel and rewards are pathetic compared to PvE... at least for players like me who spend 2 hours in game every day.My suggestion is very simple (it also doesnt entirely fix PvP, but gives your change much better impact people may appreciate) :1) Instead of wins, call it Kills2) Kills required will be 2 times amount of wins. F.e. instead of 75 wins or 1200 points, you need 150 kills or 1200 points. What kills? Kills of opponents characters. With up to 3 killed opponents per match "win" amount is reduced by 33%. The pain of loss will also partially dissapear since killed enemies also count, not only games wonOR, Kills required will be 3 times amount of wins (225 kills instead of 75 wins) and characters killed while defending will also count.Think about that - dont want to sound intimidating or so, but this your change doesnt change much for most players.Before posting this, i tried one match - took me 3 minutes against two maxed 2*s (I have OML and Phoenix so...). Without America Chaves being required character, it would take longer and result wouldnt be that positive. I managed to win, but my team lost half hitpoints. I am sure 75 wins in 2 days is not doable for me. And i dont even want to double the amount of time spent.Oh and i was figting some weakling anyway, since i had only 200 points - since 700 points, true OP combos come in, like 5* Gambit etc. Were you here when wins-based PVP was tested? Did you try it? This is that, OR the current system. Whichever you like. The better of both, at the same time, even. I'd say that changes quite a bit for a lot of players. Not the ones who can get 1200 points easily enough already, but this doesn't seem to be a penalty for them, either.Kills-based scoring sounds too abusable to me. Grab a match, kill the loaner, retreat (or force-close). Repeat as often as you like. Which characters you pick hardly matters since you only have to do 1/3 of the match. I was trying win-based system and it was way worse than point based system.Win-based system starts to pay off later, when other players start defeating you, which usually happens around 400-500 points (after 700 or 800 it goes to extremes when it is impossible to go up and gain points fastent than losing them). On the other side, the amount of wins makes PvP even more grindy (but yeah, with guaranteed result, but question is, how much health pack will you need).I never had nerves to go above 575 points and with win-based system, i never tried, since it took way longer than with point based system.PvP has much more serious issues than flaws of ranking system - some of us simply cant win a match cuz every opponent has some OP 5* i simply cannot get.Kill-based system cannot be abused by any sane person, because:- retreating also damages your team- killing 1 character will damage your team approx. 1/3 compared to killing whole teamI see no way how to abuse this system. Unless your definition of abuse is "i send weaklings on suicide run to kill at least one enemy"On the other side, with kill based system, you could use characters/teams you would never use with points/wins based system, cuz you would lose.Sending 3*s or non-powered 4*s against maxed 5*s is extremely risky or even foolish, but with kill-based system, you could at least kill one or two characters resulting in small (but some) progress.Now you send only the most powerful characters (in 5* land, you dont have so many of them who cant compete with 5*s, unless you have own army of 5*s) and rest of roster is completely useless.