pvp points based on roster strength

heroguy35

I'm in the 2-3 transition with my highest level at 100. I was attacked in pvp several times today losing 25-30 points each to maxed xforce, blade, lthor teams and yet I only get 6-10 points for a retaliation victory because they have less points then I do. Does anyone else find this ridiculous? With the current system I get punished for playing the game sooner than someone else. This happens every event. I shoot up to 500 or so and then get smacked down by monster teams with no points for retaliation simply because they waited longer to play. I understand that's a viable strategy and use it sometimes myself but it seems broken.

Base pvp points on roster strength so it doesn't matter when you choose to play. So if I choose to battle someone else in the 2-3 transition I get 25 points or something close to that. If I choose to stomp on a 1* team I only get 12-15. If I wanna boost up and tackle the big boys I get 30-50 points. Using this system I would be able to retaliate against teams who attack me and actually earn my points back or even gain points if it's a maxed 3* team. It would drastically cut down on the maxed team ripping through level 50-94 teams because they would only be getting 10-15 points instead of 30+ if that weaker team has significantly more points and would make competition at the top tougher which may cut down some of these ridiculously high scores being put up now while at the same time allowing players to start whenever they would like without getting beat back down by teams 3 times as powerful.

wymtime

definatly difficult being in the transition range. My only advice is to start later. Wait till there is a little over 24hours left in the event and then enter. You should still be able to climb to the 600+ range and score top 100. I have a full level 3* team and I ahve been hit for 50 points and could only retalitate for 1, so this issue will not go away. Once you get to a full 3* roster you get to hit some people for 50 points and once you get up high enough you use those 50 point nodes to shield hop. Imagine in 3-6 months when you get to gain 150 points for 3 matches. This is the reason people can achieve 1300+ scores because at a certain point they are scoring 40-50 points a match. You are foced to shield right away becuase you can loose the points as well but that is the risk v reward.

Keep plugging away, and start a little later than you normally would and see if that helps.

Nellyson

I completely agree. How the points are based is really badly done. If they want to keep the same system for the first fight, I'm fine with that. But to punish you in the retaliation for 1-6 points is just mockery. I think the retaliation system should be based on the level of the team that you win with. If you're a maxed 3 retaliating against another maxed 3 then yes, 1-6 is fine. However, if you have low level 3s or maxed 2 , you should get more points than then attacker hit you for. The problem is implementing something like this. I think it would probably be too difficult and thus they don't think it's worth it. Plus, the current system is working for them, regardless if it's working for us.

MarvelMan

Im too lazy to channel my inner Phantron and go with a long "rage" (its really more of a explanation) about how your final point total is in keeping with your roster strength and poke all the holes that are obvious in your suggestion. Ill leave just the observation that it is unfair.

heroguy35

MarvelMan wrote:

Im too lazy to channel my inner Phantron and go with a long "rage" (its really more of a explanation) about how your final point total is in keeping with your roster strength and poke all the holes that are obvious in your suggestion. Ill leave just the observation that it is unfair.

I'm aware that there are "holes" in my suggestion but it's just that...a suggestion. There are obvious "holes" in the current pvp system and every other event structure for that matter as well. There are elements in the current system that are "unfair" as well (a few of which I mentioned). There will never be a system that makes every single player happy 100% of the time. In my opinion a system based on roster strength in some form (not EXACTLY) like I suggested seems to be a bit more balanced.

I understand that the current structure is in keeping with your roster strength to a certain degree in that high leveled rosters score the most points followed by 2-3 transition and so on. Changing the point structure to being based on roster strength in the example I mentioned would allow ALL players an equal chance at those high scores and level the playing field.

I'm assuming you have a high level roster and therefore disagree with the idea but I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of those with rosters not as strong as yours would agree that the current structure has just as many "holes" in it as the idea I proposed.

GrumpySmurf1002

heroguy35 wrote:

Changing the point structure to being based on roster strength in the example I mentioned would allow ALL players an equal chance at those high scores and level the playing field.

This is where the logic falls apart.

PvE is the place where all players have a (mostly) equal chance at high scores. You're playing vs the environment, scaled (perhaps not always well) to cater to your roster. This is where 2* rosters (and sometimes 1*) are all over the leaderboards.

There's no reason to believe that a 1-week player who maybe has a max IM35 should have the same chance as someone with 10 max 3*s at winning a PvP. It's player vs player for a reason, if you're not as strong, you should not be competitive.

Now, do I agree with the proverbial wall? No, I think having an arbitrary cutoff to where you can stop collecting points is silly. I think 2* players should be able to find increasingly difficult matches to play. But I also think that once they stick their head up near the top, if a max player finds them, oh well. You get knocked back down, and then you try again.

fmftint

how about make separate brackets that the player can choose to play in
1 star bracket: 1 star roster only 2-4 star locked
2 star bracket: 1-2 star roster only 3-4 star locked
3 star bracket: 1-3 star roster only 4 star locked
4 star bracket: full roster available

or make brackets by level
50 capped
100 capped
200 capped
open

MarvelMan

I am typically in the 5-20 range for PVP, and top 50 for PVE, so yes I have a high-ish roster. But Ive also been described as having "an overdeveloped sense of fairness" and basing points on roster strength is MASSIVELY unfair. Those with developed rosters are already sharted, why should it be even harder on them?

One reason people with weaker rosters would be overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal should reinforce that it would be unfair: its heavily weighted in their favor. Fairness, possibly just to me, would be that the people who have put the effort into building a roster are not dramatically disadvantaged by that roster. It would also include that people working on developing a good roster are able to make progress.

woopie

fmftint wrote:

how about make separate brackets that the player can choose to play in
1 star bracket: 1 star roster only 2-4 star locked
2 star bracket: 1-2 star roster only 3-4 star locked
3 star bracket: 1-3 star roster only 4 star locked
4 star bracket: full roster available

or make brackets by level

You'd have to limit the rewards as well to be fair. Using the current reward structure:

1 star bracket: 1* rewards except for #1 being 1 2*
2 star bracket: 2* rewards except for #1 being 1 3*
3 star bracket: 3* rewards except for #1 being 1 4* (current reward structure for all brackets)
4 star bracket: probably same as 3* except maybe a single 4* cover for top 10?

fmftint

woopie wrote:

fmftint wrote:

how about make separate brackets that the player can choose to play in
1 star bracket: 1 star roster only 2-4 star locked
2 star bracket: 1-2 star roster only 3-4 star locked
3 star bracket: 1-3 star roster only 4 star locked
4 star bracket: full roster available

or make brackets by level

You'd have to limit the rewards as well to be fair.

1 star bracket: 1* rewards except for top 1-2 being 1 2*
2 star bracket: 2* rewards except for top 1-2 being 1 3*
3 star bracket: 3* rewards except for top 1-2 being 1 4* (current reward structure for all brackets)
4 star bracket: probably same as 3* except maybe a single 4* cover for top 10?

What if you could play every sub bracket?

MarvelMan

Still make the rewards commensurate with the level of roster intended to compete in it. If you did that, the 4* rosters would ignore the 1* events (unless they were overly competitive and did it to get #1 in all).

Unknown

Even if we totally don't care what people with maxed roster thinks, there's a rather large difference between the power of certain 3*s (The Hood, Sentry, and a few others) and the rest that'd make basing PvP on roster strength pretty pointless. When your transition team gets defeated by a 3*, it's just not the same if that team has Sentry (or X Force), or Thor, or Punisher, or IM40. If someone beat you with a level 166 IM40, it can be quite challenging from his end. You'd have to know how strong certain 3*s are relative to each other and apply a different weight, but if you knew that information, you could just nerf the guys who are obviously too strong, and there's no guaranteed anyone would even know this information in general. For example, how much stronger is Punisher compared to IM40?

woopie

Agree with Marvelman, people will generally self sort for the prizes they want. Playing multiple events definitely wouldn't be allowed though as it would mess with the Season scores

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

how about make separate brackets that the player can choose to play in
1 star bracket: 1 star roster only 2-4 star locked
2 star bracket: 1-2 star roster only 3-4 star locked
3 star bracket: 1-3 star roster only 4 star locked
4 star bracket: full roster available

or make brackets by level
50 capped
100 capped
200 capped
open

For the same rewards? Then I will play in all four, thank you very much.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

For example, how much stronger is Punisher compared to IM40?

326%

Next question.

Unknown

Maybe the easy solution is: Make the points for retaliation the same as the points for the initial loss.

If I stand to lose 30 points by you beating me, I should be able to retaliate and recoup those 30 points.

Shadow

The issue of transitioning players has come up over and over again. Sure, there really is a limit to which a transitioning player is able to reach. But people are making it sound as if it is a new problem that wasn't existent previously for those who vets today. About 4 months ago, I too was in a similar position where 600+ points was the limit a transitioning player could realistically achieve. Oh yes, it was that point range too. Same as it is today. Sure, back in those days, 1300 was around the max that a vet would push to compared to the 2k today. But you also needed to push to top 50 compared to the top 100 now if you wanted to get a 3* cover for your personal placement. When a new char was released that everybody wanted, it was near impossible to get a top 50 placement. Believe I missed out on getting a sentry cover during his first PvP.

Has the devs done anything to help players in transit? The answer is yes. The devs have always tried to make things easier for the new guy since they do want to attract new people into the game. They made 2* drop like candy and then they lowered getting a 3* cover to top 100 in the bracket.

The other thing that guys in transition like to bring out is the fact that there are now more 3* covers thus making it harder to get the necessary covers from packs. I can't speak for other vets but I do know this. Most of my covers came from events and not from the packs. Don't focus on the older characters. Instead, look at the newer characters for whom it should be relatively easier to get the covers for. If you can get top 10 in your bracket for PvE, positioning yourself as a merc for hire to get into a top 100 alliance shouldn't be too difficult. That gives you 4 of the new 3* immediately and another one during the next PvE which means the new character suddenly has 5/13 covers. Getting a top 100 placement means that the character is 6/13. Suddenly, you are making lots of progress in transiting to 3*.

So, to summarize, the point range that is realistically achievable by a new transition player isn't really any different from what it had been in the past. And, if a transitioning player knows how to, getting a fully covered 3* within a 4 month period is actually still possible.

FierceKiwi

Shadow wrote:

The other thing that guys in transition like to bring out is the fact that there are now more 3* covers thus making it harder to get the necessary covers from packs. I can't speak for other vets but I do know this. Most of my covers came from events and not from the packs.

I'm not sure how true that is. I know I found it pretty easy to get 6-7 covers for a character just by winning them (also easier to do back in the day since the rewards rotated back around quicker) but I eventually hit the wall where getting any cover from PvP was a struggle and some massive luck with token pulls got me my first fully covered characters after that tokens became mostly irrellevent.

GrumpySmurf1002

Shadow wrote:

The other thing that guys in transition like to bring out is the fact that there are now more 3* covers thus making it harder to get the necessary covers from packs. I can't speak for other vets but I do know this. Most of my covers came from events and not from the packs.

I can add data to this. I started tracking June 18th. Since that point, here's where my 3* or 4* have come from:

14 from standards (709 opened)
82 from Heroics (this includes all non-standard tokens, 10packs, anniversary, etc..., 360 total)
6 from Daily rewards
14 from alliance rewards (we've only been sporadic top 100)
110 from events
2 from node rewards (hulk/sentry)
27 from progression

I didn't keep track of PvE vs PvP, but I do know that PvE is a large source of the non-standard tokens (1/3 of them, not counting any regular heroics that might be in there), and roughly 20 of the 27 progression.

As far as the distribution, 222 3*s, so an average of 8 per character. Lowest are Doom and Loki (2 each), Highest is Psylocke (18) and Thor/Falcon/Hood tied at 12.
4* - 11 dino (8 purple!), 11 XForce, 6 Fury,, 5 IW

255 total. So it's about a 60/40 split in favor of events, but packs are no slouch.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

I am typically in the 5-20 range for PVP, and top 50 for PVE, so yes I have a high-ish roster. But Ive also been described as having "an overdeveloped sense of fairness" and basing points on roster strength is MASSIVELY unfair. Those with developed rosters are already sharted, why should it be even harder on them?

It is easier for them because they have maxed 3* teams compared to transitioning players who have a few characters that are around level 100. They can get hit with people who have 270 teams just like the aformentioned players who have maxed 3* teams. You getting hit by 270 and transitionings getting hit by 270. Now, what were you saying about it being unfair? Transitioning players are sharted too. It is not exclusive to 3* guys who score top 50s.

I score 300 or above that but rarely above 600. I stopped scoring above it when I discovered sharding. And guess what. Often I'm in brackets with people who score above 2000. Because of the stupid shield hopping and broken Sentry more and more players are scoring high making it even harder for transitioning players. It wasn't like this when you transitioned probably. It became like this after Sentry exploit was discovered which is not really an exploit. It wouldn't be a surprise if devs intended this all along looking at Sentry's skill set.

What you are saying is basically "dude, I worked hard, spent money on my roster (possibly). why should you have it any easier than me? **** transitioning players". Although you were one at some point and you probably didn't have to deal with brackets with scores as crazy as they are now.

I think OP's suggestion is fair. While you won't be able to attack transitioning or 2* players, transitioning players also won't be able to attack people with 1* rosters and people transitioning into 2* range. Before you ask, yes transitioning into 2* is a thing. I see lots of people with unmaxed 2* and sometimes 1*s sprinkled amongst them below 400 points in PvP.

Unknown

Transition is hard because people spend HP on the wrong things. You get about 6-7 covers from just doing whatever, but the last couple of covers you got to spend your HP on because you don't even know if the hero you want is going to be in the rotation anytime soon let alone being able to win his covers for sure. I spent 2500 HP on Magneto back when he was overpowered and he carried me through the rest of the events. I also got a lot of mileage out of Thor's covers during the time he reigned before Sentry become popular (and there was a good amount of time when Sentry wasn't around). Right now the hero to spend on would be Sentry. If you're wary of an impending nerf then you should spend HP on The Hood. The Hood is probably less of an investment because you can just get Dormammu's Aid and even if he's only level 120 or so, a level 5 Dormammu's Aid is still going to burn a lot of inferior teams that didn't bother checking your covers. Of course it'd be even better if you have Sentry but you probably want 5/5 on green/yellow so that'd cost more. You're not going to turn a 3/3/3 random 3* into anything useful unless that it's an event that featured that guy which awarded Sentry, so don't waste any resources on that guy while you can still spend resources on the powerhouses. As long as you have 1/1/1 on the key characters that's who you should be building toward.