Please cancel losing points in tournaments

jredd

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Thanks for this feedback, y'all. I don't post here often, but I read a ton of the posts here and I really appreciate the insight of this community.

tl;dr: We're not happy that progression rewards are so unattainable, and we're making some changes in the next update that should help a bit. But the fact that high-end PvP uses a competitive rating system means that, ultimately, at some point your rating will level out until your team gets better or you come up with new strategies.

long: We want the top end of most PvP events to be more about player skill, team composition, and character advancement than about the amount you play (it's about both, but initially, our PvP events skewed towards playtime too strongly). This means that at some point, we want the score to work like a rating system. Until / unless your characters or your skill change, you'll eventually arrive at a rating that roughly reflects your team and you, and from there things will feel "zero sum".

We're finding the balance between a rating system where backsliding is difficult and you get to progress no matter what - like things work when you have a low rating - and one where skilled players with superior teams can find success in a reasonable amount of time.

It's not cool that the progression rewards are so unachievable, though, and I'd like to fix that. I expect that upcoming changes to PvP events in the next major update will both give you more options for protecting your rating and raise the average score for everybody. After I see how that plays out, I expect to revisit the progression reward thresholds and make sure the best rewards are within reach.

something that might help would be to have a team's score in a pvp locked in when they start the event. you could base it on the average level of a players' top 15 characters on their roster. so in essence the score you get for beating that team is based on how good their roster is compared to yours, not how many points they have in the event.

as it is now, the more points you have in the event the more points another player gets for defeating you, correct? this means that the better you do, the bigger the target you put on your back. and it also leads to the fluctuations you see in node scores (when it says a match is worth 40, and you end up with 25).

if the score that player's team was constant, and based on how good their roster is, neither of those things would happen. if you have a 3* roster, your point value will remain the same whether you have 100 points or 750 points.

this would also, perhaps discourage really strong 4* teams from poaching lesser teams, because they are not going to get as many points as if they were to go after another player with a comparable roster. and similarly, if a 3* roster player wants to take on a 4* the rewards will be better than if they went after 3* or 2* rosters.

For losing points. i think that if you are attacked by a stronger roster, the amount of points you lose should be less than if you are attacked by a lesser roster, thus increasing the value of a retaliation match. so often i've been attacked by a maxed out 4 star team to lose 50 points only to have my retaliation worth 7 because of the other player's score in the event. this makes no sense.

let's say that the max loss to a 4* team for a 3* player was 15 points. that 4* player's roster is set when he enters the pvp at say 65 points. that's a net gain of 50 for me if i can successfully retaliate. this, to me, would make it significantly more fair for all of the players in that particular bracket.

And speaking of brackets. with every team having a set value, you could open up the entire bracket for selecting instead of having the same unbeatable 4 teams cycle through when you are looking for a match. if it was this way, anyone is a potential target, but you will have to select the matches that maximize your point gain, obviously.
you will have guys with 3 star rosters able to hunt down other 3* rosters, 4 vs 4, and so on. you will achieve more points for attacking stronger rosters. so, a 4* team might only get 1-5 points for attacking a 2* roster. it would be an option, but how many guys are going to want to play 100 2* rosters to get 100 points? those guys will want to attack other 4* rosters to get big points.


i could ramble on, but by now you probably get the idea that i'm proposing.

Arsael

when one plans to attack another team he expects that the points received are in fact those indicated, especially if you take risks in 'attack the strongest teams to exceed 1000 points.
It 'frustrating sometimes receive significantly less points (the last time instead of 40, were 11) and risking not only not to exceed the target of the 1000 but having to use another shield op worse being attacked.

please change this system, effectively giving as prize points indicated before the battle

digitaljoel

Nightglider1 wrote:

If the devs think that this would make the Legendary token too achievable at 1300, then bump up the required score. I play PVP for progression rewards, not placement rewards, and am considering sitting out Season XX because the constant score fluctuations are just too demoralizing.

This!

Once in a while I can make the push to 1k and get a 4*, but trying to push to 1300 for the legendary isn't even an option. Most of the time I get to 990, then get defeated multiple times (sometimes losing over 100 points!) while trying to get the last 10 in a single match. That's the part that's most frustrating. That I can lose 4 times in the amount of time it takes me to finish one match. Well, that and getting 17 points when it told me I would get 36.

Separate scores sounds like a very interesting idea to me.

Unknown

something that might help would be to have a team's score in a pvp locked in when they start the event. you could base it on the average level of a players' top 15 characters on their roster. so in essence the score you get for beating that team is based on how good their roster is compared to yours, not how many points they have in the event.

as it is now, the more points you have in the event the more points another player gets for defeating you, correct? this means that the better you do, the bigger the target you put on your back. and it also leads to the fluctuations you see in node scores (when it says a match is worth 40, and you end up with 25).

if the score that player's team was constant, and based on how good their roster is, neither of those things would happen. if you have a 3* roster, your point value will remain the same whether you have 100 points or 750 points.

this would also, perhaps discourage really strong 4* teams from poaching lesser teams, because they are not going to get as many points as if they were to go after another player with a comparable roster. and similarly, if a 3* roster player wants to take on a 4* the rewards will be better than if they went after 3* or 2* rosters.

For losing points. i think that if you are attacked by a stronger roster, the amount of points you lose should be less than if you are attacked by a lesser roster, thus increasing the value of a retaliation match. so often i've been attacked by a maxed out 4 star team to lose 50 points only to have my retaliation worth 7 because of the other player's score in the event. this makes no sense.

let's say that the max loss to a 4* team for a 3* player was 15 points. that 4* player's roster is set when he enters the pvp at say 65 points. that's a net gain of 50 for me if i can successfully retaliate. this, to me, would make it significantly more fair for all of the players in that particular bracket.

And speaking of brackets. with every team having a set value, you could open up the entire bracket for selecting instead of having the same unbeatable 4 teams cycle through when you are looking for a match. if it was this way, anyone is a potential target, but you will have to select the matches that maximize your point gain, obviously.
you will have guys with 3 star rosters able to hunt down other 3* rosters, 4 vs 4, and so on. you will achieve more points for attacking stronger rosters. so, a 4* team might only get 1-5 points for attacking a 2* roster. it would be an option, but how many guys are going to want to play 100 2* rosters to get 100 points? those guys will want to attack other 4* rosters to get big points.


i could ramble on, but by now you probably get the idea that i'm proposing.

This may be the smartest idea I have ever seen. The biggest pain in the butt is having mutltiple snipes while you are grinding for that 1k 4*. The worst is when you go to look at who is sniping you and you see a bunch of 4* chars and the retaliation is 15 points. They wait until you have moved way up the list and then hit you for 50-60, knowing you wont retaliate because they are not worth the trouble. The system is flawed and needs to be fixed. It is being abused by those who can abuse it and everyone trying to get their rosters better gets destroyed by those abusing the system. I can't tell you how many times I have been attacked 4 or 5 times by the same 4 star team because I am top 5. If I was a set point reward, I would not be worth it to them to attack me that much and hard. PLEASE take this Genius's advice and implement his system.

Monged4life

that sounds good but would need fine tuning. If retaliation points were always worth it when a comparable team attacks you, events could quickly turn into X attacks Y, Y attacks X back, X attacks Y back, Y attacks X back, Y attacks X back, and so on and so on. The retaliation score being linked to board position makes this less likely to be the case.

simonsez

jredd wrote:

something that might help would be to have a team's score in a pvp locked in when they start the event. you could base it on the average level of a players' top 15 characters on their roster. so in essence the score you get for beating that team is based on how good their roster is compared to yours, not how many points they have in the event.

This is a great plan if you want 3* rosters to dominate PvP. They can Hulk bomb or Patch/Loki to get tons of points against 4* teams, who can do nothing about it without offering up a fat retal node; and there are no targets 4* rosters can hit that would be worth as many points as these 3*s get for beating 4*s.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

jredd wrote:

something that might help would be to have a team's score in a pvp locked in when they start the event. you could base it on the average level of a players' top 15 characters on their roster. so in essence the score you get for beating that team is based on how good their roster is compared to yours, not how many points they have in the event.

This is a great plan if you want 3* rosters to dominate PvP. They can Hulk bomb or Patch/Loki to get tons of points against 4* teams, who can do nothing about it without offering up a fat retal node; and there are no targets 4* rosters can hit that would be worth as many points as these 3*s get for beating 4*s.

Or, or, they could attack 4* teams. If a 3* team can beat 4* teams, well good for them. If you want to get the retal points for beating down a 3* team then have at it. Or, you could attack a 4* team and get the points back. As for the points the 4* team gets for losing to the 3* team, perhaps that needs to be thought of when determining how much a 4* team gets for beating a 4* team. Or perhaps a simple, if you lose to a teir below you, they may get 50 points, but you only lose an equivalent amount to how much you would get from defeating a similar level team. Maybe some people would choose to continue to use their 3 star teams until they got their 4* to a viable level. Maybe 4* v 4* is worth more than 3* v 3*. This would encourage people to play at their own level. The current system of 4* teams and hybrids bombing all the 3* teams is just a slap in the face to all the normal, mid range gamers. Here, spend all this time getting to the point where you have one hell of a solid 3* core, aaaaand now you suck because these elite players are going to bomb you. At the very least, make attacking any team that has no 4* in it worth almost nothing. The goal of the scaling should be to encourage players to battle with their wits and team combos and strategy, not find the easiest team. When you attack should matter much less than who you attack with. Soooo many 4* teams wait until all the normals get high enough to be worth a ton of points and just nuke their way to the top. If you are a 4* having player with several 4* characters fully covered who routinely gets to the 1000 or 1300 mark, good for you. But, you shouldnt continue to get rich on the backs of those who are attempting to rise to your level.

Unknown

Monged4life wrote:

that sounds good but would need fine tuning. If retaliation points were always worth it when a comparable team attacks you, events could quickly turn into X attacks Y, Y attacks X back, X attacks Y back, Y attacks X back, Y attacks X back, and so on and so on. The retaliation score being linked to board position makes this less likely to be the case.

But that could be really fun. Having an arch nemisis for that event almost. That sounds really superhero/supervillain to me. Almost like something you would see in a comic book. Spiderman defeats Venom, who comes back for Spiderman, has him on the ropes, then Spiderman comes back and sends Venom packing, only for Venom to retaliate and, well you get the picture. If I had to choose between going back and forth with some guy and I could switch up my chars and strategy and he would switch up his, or getting shelled 5 times by some HB & Jean Grey combo I have no chance of beating, sign me up for the killer back and forth game. I would almost sign up for that just for fun. Kind of a real time PvP. Great idea, this should be used as evidence of why we should put the plan in place.

simonsez

coachbleau wrote:

Or, or, they could attack 4* teams.

I realize that, but if one pool of players can beat targets that net them 50 points per win, and another pool of players can only get 25 points per win, which pool of players ends up dominating?

Instead of trying to devise hare-brained scoring changes that artificially boost the scores of 3* rosters, push for tiered PvP instead.

Malcrof

simonsez wrote:

coachbleau wrote:

Or, or, they could attack 4* teams.

I realize that, but if one pool of players can beat targets that net them 50 points per win, and another pool of players can only get 25 points per win, which pool of players ends up dominating?

Instead of trying to devise hare-brained scoring changes that artificially boost the scores of 3* rosters, push for tiered PvP instead.

Or just ask some of the 3* teams sitting at 1400pts or more to write up a guide. They do exist, i have one queued up now.. worth 74 points.

simonsez

Malcrof wrote:

Or just ask some of the 3* teams sitting at 1400pts or more to write up a guide. They do exist, i have one queued up now.. worth 74 points.

Yeah, I've even seen raisinbman at 1300 with a cyke and loki. But I'm not going to recommend that people go watch his stream