pvp points based on roster strength

Polares

Let's just eliminate retaliations and everybody will be happy (except D3 of course )

Unknown

Fievel wrote:

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.

^ I like this; I want a chance to get my lost points back 100%.

esoxnepa

I am still in **-*** transition.

I have felt there should be some encouragement, and minor compensation, for people to stay unshielded, and earn some minor HP and ISO for all the loses one can take.

So for ever loss one has while UNshielded, one would receive 2 hp and 100 iso (or sensible values).

So all those people shield hopping for top scores, wouldn't lose out on anything, but all the new players and those stuck in transition, would get some help to make the climb to 3* land.

It doesn't help fix the lose >40 points, but I feel like it would make more targets available, and provide a small trickle of HP and ISO to help progress over weeks and to reduce the sting of waking up to 10 losses.

Of course D3 is in the game to make you buy HP, so this free HP wouldn't fit their model.

Unknown

A system like the OP suggested would only inverse the problem. You can't base points off of pure roster strength because it would be unfair to the top players. They have no options for "boosting up for a 30-50", they can only take down or even. 2* transition rosters already have an advantage in PvE.

What actually has to happen is fixing MMR and tanking so that people with a half dozen 166s stop being able to even fight 2 star transition teams. I would approve of a match making system based on roster strength. Points have to be based on points tho.

MarvelMan

KevinMark wrote:

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? tinykitty 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.

If transition players and vets are both sharted (which is currently the case), then it is already easier for the transition player as there are more rewards that are valuable to the transition player available to them. In a non-sharted scenario, the vets will pull the top spots, leaving only a few of the top 100 for transitions. In sharting, almost all top 100 spots go to transition players. Unless a transition player's MMR is seriously out of whack (it does happen) they should be facing similar strength squads until they reach 600 or 700 (its varied in the past), which is where their roster strength isnt enough to get traction, and that is often enough to get top 50 or so.

Fighting 270 XFs, and getting hit by them, is the standard for a decent 3* roster so transition players should be happy that they see 2* and transition teams (if they dont, its an MMR problem) and occasionally get hit by them (if its more than occasional, its an MMR problem). A side note is that MMR is manageable: MANAGE IT.

Im curious, how many players in your brackets are 1300+? One or two? Or the entire top 10, plus a few, so the top 20 is all 1.1k+? There is a significant difference. Crazy bracket points shouldnt really mean anything to the transition player as they cannot, and should not, be competing for the top slots. Plus, dont base bracket strength off the top 2 players, look further down. Like what is the threshold for T10 or T50. And yes, I know that is not visible unless you are close to it.

By no means am I saying tinykitty the transition players. Transition players just need to have reasonable expectations, which generally does NOT include a T10 finish. Im not entirely removed from that myself, as Im missing out on quite a few 3* covers. I was just starting my transition when Sentry hit so Im aware of the "plight" of current players. I hoarded HP (have spent $0) and used it to get the last level(s) on a few select 3*s which has massively helped me compete. (That just highlights Phantron's point that one reason the transition is difficult for some is that HP was/is spent unwisely.) Also hoard boosts, particularly the +1 to all, and use them efficiently.

Sentry bombing, if anything, makes it easier for transition players as that is not a very difficult team to beat and is worth a lot of points if they find one, not that transition players even are playing at the range where that really starts. Plus, you can start Sentry bombing with an incomplete Sentry. I think I had 3Y, 3G when I started. That REALLY helps the transition player, particularly if they smartly manage MMR so they see teams susceptible to low level bombing (use either Daken, boost and avoid teams with Hood).

Unknown

I am at the late stages of the transition and I am fine with points as they are. My complaint is with the opponents I can see. Let's get rid of the MMR system in its entirety. Change the system so that I can see anyone who is between 75% and 150% of my current point total. This will allow for more 30 point values at all levels of climbing and not getting stuck in the 17-20 point rut. Additionally, as you go higher, you will see more 166s and it will naturally limit anyone who cannot take them on yet. This seems to be a simple solution that solves the MMR issues, but please poke holes in it.

MarvelMan

papa07 wrote:

I am at the late stages of the transition and I am fine with points as they are. My complaint is with the opponents I can see. Let's get rid of the MMR system in its entirety. Change the system so that I can see anyone who is between 75% and 150% of my current point total. This will allow for more 30 point values at all levels of climbing and not getting stuck in the 17-20 point rut. Additionally, as you go higher, you will see more 166s and it will naturally limit anyone who cannot take them on yet. This seems to be a simple solution that solves the MMR issues, but please poke holes in it.

Could have merit. You'll still see a vast majority of players who are below you, just because there will always be fewer at the top, but I like the limiting. You wont get the 49 or 50 pt matches, but you also wont get hit for -45 all the time.

I think MMR needs to be around, otherwise the 2* and transition players will just get beat to smithereens any time they pop above the lower bracket for someone with a 3* roster: the balance point where their rosters arent strong enough will be significantly below 600 pts.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

If transition players and vets are both sharted (which is currently the case), then it is already easier for the transition player as there are more rewards that are valuable to the transition player available to them. In a non-sharted scenario, the vets will pull the top spots, leaving only a few of the top 100 for transitions. In sharting, almost all top 100 spots go to transition players. Unless a transition player's MMR is seriously out of whack (it does happen) they should be facing similar strength squads until they reach 600 or 700 (its varied in the past), which is where their roster strength isnt enough to get traction, and that is often enough to get top 50 or so.

I don't understand how most top 100 spots go to transitioning players when 600 is the 166 wall and it is barely enough to make top 100. Maybe I don't understand sharting fully. In High Stakes I started seeing 166s around 500 points. It was a pain to climb to 600 with skipping 70% of the time and looking for profitable retaliations. I had to play non-stop the last 4 hours as much as my health packs allowed for that, of course because I kept falling out of top 100. I don't know the final rankings as we can't see the leaderboards right now but I went to 635 and I was ~80th in my bracket. Got 47 points loss at the end and scored top 100. I'm not sure if there are crazy scores below top 10 as I can't see it but usually top 10 is filled with 1300+.

As an easygoing transitioner I'm not expecting top 10 or higher. Just top 100. Thanks for the tips but I cannot see myself shielding to keep my score or playing non-stop last hours just to score t100. If this goes on like this, I will probably stop playing the game altogether soon. I usually score 300 and leave it there to avoid burnout. This time I decided I wanted some Thor covers, so I scored till 600 to get some netting me only one. Barely in that.

Unknown

It's mostly about what rank people think they should be entitled to be getting at different stages of development of their roster. I'm currently at the tail end of my 2-3 star transition and have been in a casual alliance my entire playing career. My progress can only be described as slow but steady. I've been through months and months of the same scenario you mentioned there, being hit by Max rosters with little points for retaliation and running into 166 walls when I go over 700. My solution is to skip those Max roster retaliations and stop playing when I reach 700. Invariably this will get me in the top 100 every time, top 50 sometimes and top 25 very rarely. I take my single 3* reward and say thank you very much because in my mind I don't have a good enough roster to enjoy being in top 25+ regularly. It's because we all enjoy this game so much that we have an inflated idea of how much returns we should be getting for our efforts, if it's straight forward to rank very well consistently at any level then D3 would lose all the sales from those impatient enough to spend money to buy resources. The fact that it is still relatively easy to rank in 100 for a single 3 star means that it's not impossible to keep improving your roster but not at the rate that some would like, and that's the kind of pace that doesn't bother a causal player like me.

Edit: forgot to mention that I do use a single shield at 700 to keep me there. Otherwise I'll be bashed down to under 100 but I figured spending 75 HP for a 3 star cover is worth it when I get 25-50 back from rewards

Unknown

KevinMark wrote:

MarvelMan wrote:

If transition players and vets are both sharted (which is currently the case), then it is already easier for the transition player as there are more rewards that are valuable to the transition player available to them. In a non-sharted scenario, the vets will pull the top spots, leaving only a few of the top 100 for transitions. In sharting, almost all top 100 spots go to transition players. Unless a transition player's MMR is seriously out of whack (it does happen) they should be facing similar strength squads until they reach 600 or 700 (its varied in the past), which is where their roster strength isnt enough to get traction, and that is often enough to get top 50 or so.

I don't understand how most top 100 spots go to transitioning players when 600 is the 166 wall and it is barely enough to make top 100. Maybe I don't understand sharting fully. In High Stakes I started seeing 166s around 500 points. It was a pain to climb to 600 with skipping 70% of the time and looking for profitable retaliations. I had to play non-stop the last 4 hours as much as my health packs allowed for that, of course because I kept falling out of top 100. I don't know the final rankings as we can't see the leaderboards right now but I went to 635 and I was ~80th in my bracket. Got 47 points loss at the end and scored top 100. I'm not sure if there are crazy scores below top 10 as I can't see it but usually top 10 is filled with 1300+.

As an easygoing transitioner I'm not expecting top 10 or higher. Just top 100. Thanks for the tips but I cannot see myself shielding to keep my score or playing non-stop last hours just to score t100. If this goes on like this, I will probably stop playing the game altogether soon. I usually score 300 and leave it there to avoid burnout. This time I decided I wanted some Thor covers, so I scored till 600 to get some netting me only one. Barely in that.

I wonder how this 166 wall works because mine seem to only appear over 700 at ALL stages of the development of my roster. I've heard some have them appear at 600 points and 500 points but don't know if it's dependant on your MMR or roster level. Can people let me know if they actually noticing their walls appearing at higher point totals as they improve their roster or do they stay the same every time?

MarvelMan

KevinMark wrote:

MarvelMan wrote:

If transition players and vets are both sharted (which is currently the case), then it is already easier for the transition player as there are more rewards that are valuable to the transition player available to them. In a non-sharted scenario, the vets will pull the top spots, leaving only a few of the top 100 for transitions. In sharting, almost all top 100 spots go to transition players. Unless a transition player's MMR is seriously out of whack (it does happen) they should be facing similar strength squads until they reach 600 or 700 (its varied in the past), which is where their roster strength isnt enough to get traction, and that is often enough to get top 50 or so.

I don't understand how most top 100 spots go to transitioning players when 600 is the 166 wall and it is barely enough to make top 100. Maybe I don't understand sharting fully. In High Stakes I started seeing 166s around 500 points. It was a pain to climb to 600 with skipping 70% of the time and looking for profitable retaliations. I had to play non-stop the last 4 hours as much as my health packs allowed for that, of course because I kept falling out of top 100. I don't know the final rankings as we can't see the leaderboards right now but I went to 635 and I was ~80th in my bracket. Got 47 points loss at the end and scored top 100. I'm not sure if there are crazy scores below top 10 as I can't see it but usually top 10 is filled with 1300+.

As an easygoing transitioner I'm not expecting top 10 or higher. Just top 100. Thanks for the tips but I cannot see myself shielding to keep my score or playing non-stop last hours just to score t100. If this goes on like this, I will probably stop playing the game altogether soon. I usually score 300 and leave it there to avoid burnout. This time I decided I wanted some Thor covers, so I scored till 600 to get some netting me only one. Barely in that.

Sharting is a "gentle" nudge that pushes people with better rosters into the same bracket, but doesnt prevent lower roster people from ending up in them as well. Those people are REALLY screwed, and it sounds like youve been there.

On the other hand, sharting also leaves brackets where there are very few top players. Ive seen ones where low 700s take the top spots. And it wasnt even a loki reward one. In one obscene one a RL buddy of mine, who is pretty casual, took first with about 680. In brackets like that, its pretty easy for a transition person to shine and pick up multiple 3*s, or even a 4*. I know that that is how I grabbed my first ones. Compare that bracket to mine for the last PVP where I edged in at #5 with 1360 or so. Also, in the Sentry PVP just before Anniversary I think I was around 1800 and barely in top 10.


I think one issue is that you are an "easy going transitioner," which is even more difficult for progression than the hardore transition where its grind, grind, grind all while optimizing HP/time/etc. Makes it easier for you to get knocked down below the threshold where you get anything useful. It also sounds like that means you dont manage your MMR. Pretty important piece there. I only tank a little, and only every third or fourth PVP, but I can see 2*s into the mid 600s still worth decent points (23-27). PM if you need some tips on how to do that.

MarvelMan

futongus wrote:

I wonder how this 166 wall works because mine seem to only appear over 700 at ALL stages of the development of my roster. I've heard some have them appear at 600 points and 500 points but don't know if it's dependant on your MMR or roster level. Can people let me know if they actually noticing their walls appearing at higher point totals as they improve their roster or do they stay the same every time?

Without managing my MMR I see the "wall" from the start. As in if I dont have seed teams my first match can be a 166/166/270, or even 3x 270 (yup, seen it), worth 25 points.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

futongus wrote:

I wonder how this 166 wall works because mine seem to only appear over 700 at ALL stages of the development of my roster. I've heard some have them appear at 600 points and 500 points but don't know if it's dependant on your MMR or roster level. Can people let me know if they actually noticing their walls appearing at higher point totals as they improve their roster or do they stay the same every time?

Without managing my MMR I see the "wall" from the start. As in if I dont have seed teams my first match can be a 166/166/270, or even 3x 270 (yup, seen it), worth 25 points.

What is your roster like? Anything over level 166?

MarvelMan

Paintsville wrote:

What is your roster like? Anything over level 166?

Of course!

I probably have over a third of the 3*s leveled, and XF is covered but not fully leveled.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

Paintsville wrote:

What is your roster like? Anything over level 166?

Of course!

I probably have over a third of the 3*s leveled, and XF is covered but not fully leveled.

Cool. I was just curious because my highest character is level 167 X-Force, and there he will stay for awhile. I am always trying to see how my roster measures up with people who have issues with MMR, since I never have. I don't tank, and want to make sure I never have to.

OnesOwnGrief

I have a pretty deep nonmaxed 3* roster. Just got my first 166 a couple weeks ago. From my year of playing I have learned a few things. Roster doesn't matter when boosts are involved with the right characters. There are obviously underpowered 3* characters that won't see you to 800+ even at 166. Very little matters when you scroll through your retaliations and a 190 5/5/3 XF, 155 Mags and 140 Hood got trumped by a 94 OBW, Storm,2* Mag team.

Punter1

Rather than roster strength why not offer bonus points for beating stronger teams. You'd see 2 point totals, the original points based on your actual PVP points, which would still work on the same format as current and form the basis for retaliations. BUT a 2nd amount of bonus points that would be calculated based on the team you take into the fight compared to the team you're fighting.

For simplicity in the example I'll avoid boosted toons.

Example -
Max 5 bonus points - 70+ average team level difference (taking 3x max 2*s into a max max 3* fight)
4 bonus points - 60+ level diff (average 106 vs 166)
3 bonus points - 40+ level diff (average 126 vs 166)
2 bonus points - 30+ level diff (average 136 vs 166)
1 bonus point - 10+ level diff (average 156 vs 166)

You could also be penalised - though not as harshly for taking a heavy weight team into an easy fight:
-1 bonus point - 40- level diff (lvl 166 vs lvl 126 or below)
-2 bonus point - 70- level diff (lvl 166 vs lvl 94 or below)

Few things this does:
- Encourage taking on a challenge - right now everyone looks for the easiest match and takes their best toons into it. If you were compensated for attempting to win more difficult matches that would bring more of a puzzle challenge into the game - which I think is a good thing (along with why the Gauntlet challenge was exciting)
- Encourage roster diversity on the climb - using mixed teams to maximise your points, which in turn creates...
- ...Roster diversity on defensive teams you can see
- If you're own points on defensive losses aren't penalised by easier teams picking you off, you're still encouraged to take in as strong a team as you believe you can win with, also if you get beat by a stronger team from below, BUT get bonus points from beating them back it can be worthwhile to retaliate

Boosts would need to be taken into effect - maybe using an ISO cost boost reduces the bonus by 1 pt, and using an HP cost boost means no bonus.

MarvelMan

Punter1 wrote:

Rather than roster strength why not offer bonus points for beating stronger teams.

Ill leave the math to someone else, but the stick portion would likely have to outweigh the carrot as with the current way defense is determine you would be a massive target using 2*s at higher points, and multiple people would hit you as a result completely negating any benefit you got for using that lower team.

That said, I really like the concept.

Unknown

Getting more points for fighting stronger team doesn't work because there's more to a team's strength than its levels. Sentry + Hood at level 166 is nothing like Daredevil + Captain Marvel at 166, for example. You'd have to already know how strong every character is relatively to make the adjustment and if someone knows this stuff they should be fixing in the game instead of implementing this. Although I can see some kind of automated system that adjusts either the points or the character levels as a function of frequency of use, the problem with that system is that due to availability someone like Sentry isn't actually used that often overall so it still doesn't solve the problem.

The topic posed is basically asking some kind of PvP scaling that somehow balances everything, and look at how well it worked in PvE.

Eddiemon

Important notice:

Sharding is where groups of players are broken out into different server spaces, or 'shards'.

Sharting is where you think you are going to pass gas and 'follow through'. Often after a meal high in cheese or spices. Or haribo sugar free gummy bears. While the term is a portmanateau of '****' and 'farting' it's mostly **** lava when you get right down to it. May contain corn.

Now that you know the difference you will see why these quotes may be a concern...

Sharting is a "gentle" nudge that pushes people with better rosters into the same bracket, but doesnt prevent lower roster people from ending up in them as well. Those people are REALLY screwed, and it sounds like youve been there.

On the other hand, sharting also leaves brackets where there are very few top players.