Field Commander set: can the requirements to earn it be reviewed?

[Iscah]

The requirement of 100 Seal Rock wins to obtain the Field Commander coat is utterly frustrating, especially since you get no progress at all from anything but a win – no matter how well you played or how narrow the victory was. It seems an excessively high wall to lock glamour behind for what is supposed to be casual content – by comparison, you're guaranteed your primal mounts after less than a hundred unsynched victories, but this will take on average 300 twenty-minute fights with no possibility of it becoming easier over time.

Ideally I would like to see it simplified in general – perhaps 100 matches rather than 100 wins – but if lessening it is not an option then perhaps is it possible to shift the requirements for it from pure wins to some kind of cumulative points total?

The current requirement is essentially reaching 100 x 800 points, so a cumulative total of 80,000 points would be the same target, but then you'd still be making progress towards it with a fail while getting there faster by winning.

[Nikoto]

Theoretically, yes, they can be reviewed.

Will they? No. Enjoy the suffering.

[Esmoire]

I quite like where it is. 300 matches theoretically, though the better you get, the fewer it will take.

[Iscah]

I quite like where it is. 300 matches theoretically, though the better you get, the fewer it will take.

It just doesn't seem to be anything much to do with skill. My proportion of wins hasn't gone up over time, and everyone else wants the same thing so everyone improves equally and we're back to a game that's so balanced that everyone comes close to winning but can't.

It's a massive amount of luck, and you're guaranteed to have more frustrations and losses than wins, for which you get nothing at all.

[Commander_Justitia]

In the past you just went full premade with 7 PvP friends and played the 24 version of the mode, because 72 would have never popped, because we didn't have Frontline daily rotation yet. And then you had a 90-100% winrate.

Nowadays you suffer through RNG matches with 72 players forced sized maps, with only being able to join with 3 PvP friends. Your impact is smaller. You probably need 300 matches to get 100 wins. But the advantage is you don't need to wait hours for Seal Rock to pop anymore.

I would recommend them to let players play with their friends again more in PvP...and reintroduce 24 mode

[Kansene]

It just doesn't seem to be anything much to do with skill. My proportion of wins hasn't gone up over time, and everyone else wants the same thing so everyone improves equally and we're back to a game that's so balanced that everyone comes close to winning but can't.

It's a massive amount of luck, and you're guaranteed to have more frustrations and losses than wins, for which you get nothing at all.

Pretty much. I did 3 Seal Rocks today and 2/3 matches we lost because one of the teams decided they would relentlessly spawn camp us even when we were in last place and the winning team got to keep node after node in peace on their own side of the map. Literally nothing our team could've done to salvage the situation because it was just red killing their own chances at victory and dragging us down with them.

[DrWho2010]

It will take a long time since now you can only play Seal Rock once every 4 days. Just gonna have to be patient.

[Nikoto]

It will take a long time since now you can only play Seal Rock once every 4 days. Just gonna have to be patient.

I mean, no? You can just keep doing the roulette over and over on that day, but it's definitely slower seeing as there's 3 other maps to cycle through.

[Esmoire]

It just doesn't seem to be anything much to do with skill. My proportion of wins hasn't gone up over time, and everyone else wants the same thing so everyone improves equally and we're back to a game that's so balanced that everyone comes close to winning but can't.

It's a massive amount of luck, and you're guaranteed to have more frustrations and losses than wins, for which you get nothing at all.

This is actually a lapse in basic numeration as well as competition psychology.

First of all, everyone has "randomness", including your opponent. The micro is things like where nodes spawn, the teammates you get, etc. To some extent this is true in any form of competition where you are matched with people. You get people whose total sum of ability or output is worse than your opponent. Of course, it leaves out the basic fact that your opponents often have a deficit to make up for. FL, RW, CC, PvP in any game, any sport, you have lost to opponents who have had worst circumstances to overcome, because they were better than you.

The macro is your ability to mitigate randomness. This is why people in very random games like poker or TCGs can have positive winrates. Of course in the micro you can have bad luck, unwinnable situations. However, your strategy or ability is to win more often than other people against degrees of "luck", and this degree of influence is your statistical individual influence. Furthermore, a matchmaking system always has a degree of retention, VS players exiting the system, as well as degree of investment. You should be winning more the more you play, and if you are not, it is a lack of ability. Because micro circumstances affect a game, but your macro individual performance, over so many games, will increase the likelihood of performing well, shotcalling well (mitigated against randomness of how much players assigned to you respond).

And I can prove this. I myself, who I would consider above average, have a about a 39% first place rate, 28% third place rate. This means that, weighed against 71 people, over so many games (about 2k FL matches), I have increased my chances of a first place win by about 18%, which isn't bad. This is mostly solo queue. Goes up when I queue with good players, goes down when I queue with people who are new, which has been a lot lately since I have been getting a lot of people into PvP their first time. People who are way better than me can get over 40% first place winrates, and of course even just one friend you play with can increase that drastically, especially if you are on comms, but I don't want to bring that into the picture since not everyone can have that. And, of course, it is worth mentioning for all the times you can get a stack on the enemy team, you can get a stack on your team, which again, is equally random for everyone unless you yourself form the stack.

All statistical evidence suggests that, the more you play, if you are at all improve, you will win more often. This has been checked against thousands of permutations, you should have about 33.33% average first place winrate. Less when you are new (basically fodder for the better players to build BH and get more wins), and more with your experience. A mere cursory glance at achievements shows a majority of people have generally a low number of total games, but a lot of people are entering the system, that means anyone who wants the coat, and they don't suck at the game, will get it marginally faster than 300 matches. Even if it's just 280 matches or something that's not too bad.

And honestly, if you can't win 100 matches of Seal Rock, you are not a Field Commander. You are a Cadet, and that coat isn't for you. It is a glamour that has prestige. It is also the one PvP 100 win achievement with reward intervals, too, so you are getting stuff before you even reach 100.

[Commander_Justitia]

And I can prove this. I myself, who I would consider above average, have a about a 39% first place rate, 28% third place rate.

You know this winrate in the pic used to be a lot better. 2 revamps and its even sub 50%. If I would play another 1000 matches I would probably be sub 40% like you.

It is a bit too much clusterfck nowadays. It used to be more useful to win just by leading people.

The Field Commander set should be dyeable btw, it is not even really pure white..