"Tanking" should be looked into...

I_am_Zero

It seems like most of the members of this forum know about the "tanking" maneuver to allow them a temporary boost in the next tournament. For those that don't know, tanking means going into a fight with a low level team, retreating, then yielding, so that the low level team will be seen in the tournament. When they get attacked over and over again, the system will put them in easier match ups for the next tournament.

I believe the system should be tweaked so that it doesn't take into account your last played team, but the combination of the 3 top players you've used for PvP tournaments. For instance, if I played Iron Man 35 for 75% of the tournaments, Modern Storm for 40%, and Juggernaut for 35%, then that will be the team that the computer uses in non-retaliation match-ups. If I use another team member that makes him get above Juggernaut, like Thor, then that will be the 3rd team member in my line up. If I want to use Classic Storm and keep the other team members where they are, then I would have to use her for 41% of the tournaments. For retaliation rounds, the team that was used will be the team that is displayed.

I believe this will allow low level players to still compete in these tournaments and place relatively high, if they were placed in a slow bracket, and will force high level players to compete against their true competitors. This might also help bring the point disparity down. In my bracket, the difference in points between 1st and 2nd is currently 363. It could be that the 1st place person grinded his/her way to the top or it could be that they tanked the last tournament and now gets an easy ride to 1st place. If it's the latter, then the point disparity should be much less. If it's the former, than way to go, 1st place person, you deserve it.

The loss in Tournament Points (TP) should be tweaked as well. If I have 300 TP, I shouldn't lose 30 TP to someone who has 1100 TP and lose 40 TP to someone with 700 TP. It makes me not want to spend HP on health packs because what's the point? I don't know how the match making process works for the No Holds Barred tournament, but someone with much much higher TP should not reap those kinds of rewards.

Unknown

Really, you want to hamstring the AI further by making random team combinations rather than change the matchmaking algorithm to reduce/eliminate tanking as a strategy.

And that point difference is probably real. For most high level players any effect of tanking from the Lightning Rounds is now long, long gone -- unless they tanked during Doom or maybe even DA. If they were actually competing then there's no chance there's any effect left.

I built up a nearly 300 point lead over #2 yesterday (which evaporated last night due to attacks) and that was with me playing equal or higher leveled opponents entirely. The NHB tourney is a killzone right now -- at least at the high level there's no team you can field that's intimidating. Two L141 3* and L115 Ragnarok? Killed them just as easily as some poor soul who is still running Thor/C Storm/Spidey and battled their way up into the upper rank matches.

I sorely want scoring altered as well, but I've said that enough times now.

Unknown

There can be a negative affect as well. If you tank low enough that your opponents are all low level teams that can't climb the ranks then you're going to have to grind more against them since they won't be offering a lot of points.

I_am_Zero

I don't see how it would hurt the AI. If you play a Rag/Mag/Spidey team for 75% of the tournaments, then the AI will play Rag/Mag/Spidey, no difference. But, it means that you can't just go in and throw in Bag-Man/Yelena/Hawkeye to get a better spot next time, that's all. The only time it will start to affect the AI is when you are transitioning from a 2* team to a 3* team.

Unknown

I think you are looking for a solution to something that isn't a problem. Tanking doesn't keep newer players from competing. It will occasionally mean they get smacked by someone with a much more powerful roster, but you just skip and move on. The bigger issue here is why do people go to the trouble to do it? Because the game punishes you for doing well by eventually limiting you to an absurdly low number of potential opponents, making it, at some point, impossible to gain any ground, because your selection is so limited.

This problem exists precisely because matchmaking ISN'T based on score, which I'm certain is an attempt to allow newer players to compete in tournament.

The real problem is that all of this is invisible to the player, so when someone is suddenly being confronted with high-level 3* characters everywhere, they have no idea why.

I_am_Zero

Maybe it isn't a problem, but how is it a punishment that you have to compete against people on the same level as you? So what if you have to fight the same 10 people over and over and over. That's the price you pay for being top dogs in a sea of puppies. Maybe you won't be able to grind to 1300 TP anymore since those easy 30-35 TP teams are no longer an option for you. Then, it doesn't matter what bracket you are in since you'll only be getting 10-15 TP per fight, but being able to fight more often, putting you in the same category as low level teams that are getting 20 TP per fight who maybe can't fight as often.

Unknown

You're missing the point. You become forced to attack the same people over and over, which is neither fun for the attacker or the person on the receiving end. And this isn't about having to face difficult teams vs pushover teams either. Once you get to a certain point, winning any match is fairly trivial. And if you are a newer player that gets on a roll during a tournament, and suddenly finds themselves confronting nothing but high-level Ragnarok/Spidey teams, it can be like hitting a brick wall. This is a problem that affects everyone, eventually, if they are playing competitively.

Going back to your original post, are you saying you lost 30 points to someone with 800 points higher than you, because I don't believe that for an instant.

I_am_Zero

You are right. I had taken a screen shot of one of the instances and I didn't bother to look at where I lost the points. It was actually in the S.H.I.E.L.D. Versus tournament. Whoops!!


I think the problem is the early adopters were able to get many more prizes and were able to get high level teams much more quickly than people who are starting now. So, the pool of high level teams is very small. Yes, it would not be fun having to play the same people over and over again, but as time goes by, other people will be winning the tournaments, not just the top dogs, and you will start seeing that small pool get bigger. Right now, it's no fun, sure, but again, that's the price you pay for being top dogs. Give it a couple of months when more tournaments come out and more people get the covers they need to build better teams, instead of the top dogs always getting the top prizes and grinding to 1300+ to get more covers, then you'll start seeing the variety you want. *shrug*

Unknown

I think your impression that only a few people are winning tournaments is mistaken. This is something the devs keep an eye on and have commented on a couple of times.

My feeling is that the issue we are talking about is going to be a problem even when the pool you describe gets bigger, it just might take a little longer to hit that point. But eventually, the way the system now works, you run out of people to fight. And if you happen to be in the very unfortunate circumstance of being in a high-scoring bracket (as happened to me the other day) it is very frustrating, as you have no one you can attack that won't wind up costing you far more points when they retaliate, and all you can do is watch is you fall steadily down your bracket.

Now, your other point, that the game is harder for new players is a big, big deal. That is something we should definitely be talking about and should be worked on! The fallacy in the original post is that tanking is somehow related to the plight of newer players.

In some ways newer players have it both better and worse. The recruit tokens are fantastic, but not if you are low on cover space. I'm not sure what low end cover space costs these days, but given the number of people that have commented on it, I think they should lower the cost of the initial spots a bit more. You want new players getting lucky and getting a 2* cover. That should motivate them to want to play more, not dread the decision they now have to make.

Here's an idea, maybe you should get a free cover slot the first time you get a 2*, 3*, or 4* cover.

Unknown

I just started trying the tanking strategy a little bit (I am by no means a top dog yet but I'm working on it slowly). It isn't nearly as powerful as you'd think and actually kind of hurt me a bit on my run to hit 1100 in the NHB tournament. There were very few opponents worth anything after 900 pts (I started my run in the 700 pts area after tanking in a lightning round). So yes tanking may make it a little easier in the early parts of a tournament (in the 0-700 range) but it ends there and doesn't really change final placement all that much. If a top dog wants first place, they are going to get first place with or without tanking. Not much us little puppies can do about it. Fortunately a lot of them already have all of the top tier rewards so us little guys are getting a chance.

I actually think tanking helps the mid-level guys the most. It gives us a chance to get to the top 25 in a tournament and have an opportunity to get a good reward (although I've been able to do it most of the time without tanking). As you do so, and put in the time and effort, you climb your way towards being one of the big dogs.

And actually I've come to see tanking as somwhat of a kindness. On my aforementioned run to 1100 I was around 870 pts when I came across The Ladder running his tanking squad. It was an easy and welcome 20 pts or so. As he and others put it "its a way to give back to the community." I've started doing that in rounds I don't care about just to help a few people get some quick points.

Unknown

Tanking only helps lightning rounds and it only helps those that can make top 25 get into the top 5. It doesn't affect newer players whatsoever since they can't sniff the top 25 for that shift to matter to them.

Unknown

DumDumDugn wrote:

Tanking only helps lightning rounds and it only helps those that can make top 25 get into the top 5. It doesn't affect newer players whatsoever since they can't sniff the top 25 for that shift to matter to them.

I think this is actually a description of the issue.
Ideally rigged, semi-experienced players should be able to have a decent shot at some villain covers, and new players should have a good chance at heroic tokens.

As it is, there are so many people tanking (and there will only be more as time goes on...), that there are always a bunch of massively overpowered teams, regardless of the pool.

If you take a step back and look at the system from the perspective of an outsider, you'd see a bunch of massively powered teams in the same pools as a bunch of kittens and go ****?!

I think the OP is simply trying to suggest a system where this wouldn't be the case, and I have to agree.
(though I'm also torn, because tanking is a really easy source of ISO! )

Unknown

Something no one has mentioned is that if you tank, the higher level teams can't find you since you aren't in their bracket. So while some may complain about getting only 10 points per win, they are also less likely to get attacked by those same teams which are much weaker.

In the upper brackets anyone you attack will generally retaliate if you are worth the points or save you for that last attack before time runs out if they know your points are rising. This is most apparent in lightning rounds where the top guy can get a lead of 100 points simply because he tanked the last 3 rounds while the rest of the top 8 are pretty much taking points from each other and will not catch up.

Also, trying to justify or explain how tanking isn't unfair seems rather naive to me. Or you know you are cheating the system and are trying to convince yourself you aren't a cheat. A real world example would be golfers who have a handicap which doesn't reflect their game. That's discouraged in golf and this should be discouraged in this game.

Unknown

I'd rather spend our time trying to find creative solutions to the problems that plague the matchmaking and scoring, rather than debate whether tanking is bad or not. All I was thing to say before is that tanking is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

Unknown

Fair enough. And I wasn't specifically singling you out. It's difficult in any form of discussion or debate to not bring up something someone else has said while trying to get a point across and I have been trying to avoid using any names or even attributing things said to specific people.

And yes, the real problem is not tanking. A better matchmaking system would help. But ultimately, people are creative and so will find ways to exploit almost any system. As I said before, it's all about what you can get away with.

It might be beneficial to have a 10minute timer before you can be matched with the same person again. I have noticed that I'm not seeing the same 5-10 people over and over again recently but they still do repeat fairly often.

Personally, I'd like to have an attack button next to each of the top 10 in any given tournament. Sure it'd be really hard to stay up there but hey, anyone who manages to stay up top really deserves to be there. Pretty sure most would disagree with me so I'm not gonna argue for it. I just think it'd be more fun and exciting in terms of competition.

Unknown

I must say, the more I think about it, the more I like to OP's original idea.
(the fact that I tank tremendously, and would miss it notwithstanding.... )

A system that would match based on your "most used team" would:

A) ensure that others in your pool are of similar experience (because they'd have been working with their teams for a comparable amount of time)
And
encourage players to "branch-out" from their go-to teams and work with other characters...

I think this is a good proposed system.. But maybe I haven't thought it out fully?
...please do poke holes in it...

Unknown

Nah, I didn't think you were singling out any one person.

casuist wrote:

And yes, the real problem is not tanking. A better matchmaking system would help. But ultimately, people are creative and so will find ways to exploit almost any system. As I said before, it's all about what you can get away with.

It might be beneficial to have a 10minute timer before you can be matched with the same person again. I have noticed that I'm not seeing the same 5-10 people over and over again recently but they still do repeat fairly often.

Personally, I'd like to have an attack button next to each of the top 10 in any given tournament. Sure it'd be really hard to stay up there but hey, anyone who manages to stay up top really deserves to be there. Pretty sure most would disagree with me so I'm not gonna argue for it. I just think it'd be more fun and exciting in terms of competition.

Yup, gamers will exploit any system. The problem here is that it has at least the potential to adversely impact the experience of newer players. I don't think that's a major issue, but hey, I could be mistaken. If you think about it, most everything about the game rewards players for taking advantage of others, either because they are weaker or because the other person has a bunch more points, so is unlikely to retaliate.

You might not be seeing that, but I sure have, and it is a real problem. Getting stuck with the same 6 people again and again, all of whom have 100+ points less than you is not fun.

Interesting idea with the attack button. I think that would lead to piling on at the end of tournaments and make them feel like Hood lightning rounds, which isn't a good thing, but like that you're thinking outside the box.

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

Yup, gamers will exploit any system. The problem here is that it has at least the potential to adversely impact the experience of newer players. I don't think that's a major issue, but hey, I could be mistaken. If you think about it, most everything about the game rewards players for taking advantage of others, either because they are weaker or because the other person has a bunch more points, so is unlikely to retaliate.

You might not be seeing that, but I sure have, and it is a real problem. Getting stuck with the same 6 people again and again, all of whom have 100+ points less than you is not fun.

Interesting idea with the attack button. I think that would lead to piling on at the end of tournaments and make them feel like Hood lightning rounds, which isn't a good thing, but like that you're thinking outside the box.

I'm probably the only one who thinks that all the lightning rounds should work the way the Hood ones do. I actually find the others might be too easy since it's just a grind but with the Hood, there's more excitement especially in the last 3 minutes. Sure, losing points sucks but if I don't place, that's just me not being good enough to deserve the win.

The game rewards people for taking advantage of others, but that doesn't mean that players have to do it. If everyone played fairly and didn't game the system, it would work pretty well I think. We'd all be in fairly distributed brackets and new players would be matched with other new players at their level.

So even though their tournament bracket may contain max level Ragnarok teams, they'd still be able to do well if they put in the time and the effort since they'd be getting points from teams of their level. Once higher teams start tanking and contaminating the lower level player pools, this becomes more difficult and probably discouraging.

Basically, everyone would be gaining and losing points within a pool of equally matched teams and then scored against players in their tournament brackets based on how well they played. Unfortunately this is an idealistic system that really only works best when everyone is in their appropriate match making bracket.

Yup, Not having anyone to attack is a problem. I really dislike attacking lower point teams since it's just not worth it. I just noticed today that I have a wider pool to choose from now. Not sure if it's a random occurrence but I hope that positive changes are being made to improve the system.

Spoit

Oh did they finally fix it? I find that recently, it seems to get 'stuck' with a handful of people to attack, which makes me feel bad for constantly hitting the one or two people who don't have a high level spidey/rag/mag/etc 5+ times

Unknown

casuist wrote:

Personally, I'd like to have an attack button next to each of the top 10 in any given tournament. Sure it'd be really hard to stay up there but hey, anyone who manages to stay up top really deserves to be there. Pretty sure most would disagree with me so I'm not gonna argue for it. I just think it'd be more fun and exciting in terms of competition.

If you think low or mid level players have problems now, just add that. Then you ensure that there will be no chance for them to get a high ranked prize -- as soon as they pop into the top 10 they'd get destroyed by multiple high level teams looking for easy prey.

As Misguided said, all of this is indicative of the matchmaking system needing improvement. They're working on it, just slowly.

Unknown

MrMeer wrote:

I must say, the more I think about it, the more I like to OP's original idea.
(the fact that I tank tremendously, and would miss it notwithstanding.... )

Another thing I was thinking about is that this would remove the ability to go on offense with one team, then defend with another. That's not necessarily a terrible thing, but there are some characters that are great offensively, that don't really deter anyone from attacking, and it can be kind of nice to switch characters out at times.