Nefarious Foes - Matchmaking Test - Discussion
Comments
-
I'm facing teams levelled relatively equal to me or quite a bit harder. It makes individual matches harder, now strategic and fun at times, but it also means i can only play two or three before my team is dead. I managed more matches with sentry daken, making only three green matches then wr (ten moves or less). Previously it wouldn't get like this until 500 points plus. So this may push points down overall, but progress is also so slow that i really want to boost constantly just to speed it up a little bit. Guess I'm going to throw in hood to help it along
I should mention that i am in three star land, early levels, only maxed sentry for obvious reasons.0 -
This change seems perfectly ok with me, at very least at the early stages of climbing. Made it easier in fact. See various teams – from non-maxed 1star rosters to maxed laken-sentry-hood teams. Do not have a problem with any of these. Will see how it goes – but so far so good.0
-
LordWill wrote:Let me say I've been following this and cannot believe some of the posts....
This is a test. They are TRYING to fix stuff that people have been whining about for months. It seems no matter what they do, people find a reason to complain.
They said this was a test, they have given everyone fair warning and asked for our help. They stated they could roll back the changes if need be and people are talking about quitting? Seriously?
They aren't going to be perfect but they have done a much better job of communicating and working on the game. Cut them some slack.
Furthermore the only way for them to test Matchmaking changes is to do something like this on a massive scale. Doing it on a small server with even 100 people wouldn't give them the information they need. Looking at what happens "in the real world" helps them to make "real world fixes".
Guys, they asked for our help. The least we can do is show them we care and help with feedback and constructive comments. We all want the game to be better.
Hypothetical. What do you think the reaction would be if Blizzard tried to fix a problem and ended up completely breaking WoW on a weekend with exclusive, rare rewards? Oh right, it wouldn't happen, because they have a test server. They know that it's not smart to implement incredibly volatile changes to how important elements within the game without testing them in-house first. This implementation is just awful.0 -
From what I see, one of the the intentions behind this test was might have been to try and promote roster width. After all, it's something the devs want to push since the beginning and meeting so many tough to beat teams does indeed force you to rotate as much as possible your roster.
Plus of course a more layered structure for PvP where the
and rosters have a better time by not being targeted by stronger rosters.
So all in all, not a bad idea, in theory.
But there are many issues with the implementation:
- Nefarious foe is one of the worse event for trying to promote roster width. You have a very limited number of viable villains (and hence teams) because of the tremendously high bonus they have. On a side note, if the devs want to promote roster width they should get rid of as many bonuses to specific characters as possible.
- Shields, progression reward, the whole PvP structure has to be adapted to this new paradigm. Otherwise it's going to be extremely frustrating.
- Fighting a with a team and fighting a team with a are not the same thing at all. Damages and health don't exactly scale proportionally to the hero's level, so it's much more dangerous, time or medpack consuming to play at higher level. If beforehand veterans were at an advantage in PvP, it's now the other way around. Quite a dangerous thing for a game entirely based on the progression aspect.
- Lots of players in my alliance (a very laid back and casual one) only play PvP up until they reach the famous wall of difficulty (500-700 points, your mileage might vary). It allows them to reap some nice rewards and maybe a top100 if lucky. It does take a certain type of player to continue further and fight the uphill battle that comes afterwards. So moving the difficulty wall right at the beginning of a PvP might very well result in a whole category of players stop playing PvP altogether.0 -
This is nothing i can really like.
There is a lot of opponents same or higher level than mine for any match, be it LR or PvP, so it ends out being a healthpack burning change.
For example, this LR i started out at 5 healthpacks, was through them, including one wipe, after four battles and then i got a seed team. **** to cheer me or what for?
This is simply rediculous. This way, climbing to a higher level in PvP is madness, as you can save all healthpacks and try to get some half decent opponents without a to high risk of loosing points or sentry bombing from scratch.
Or you can do LR for grinding some Iso for a better transition, which will not solve any of the issue above, but will consume healthpacks, so you can't even try the above.
As it looks right now, i get the gutted feeling, that the changes are simply made to encourage health pack sales.0 -
Ok, feedback time....
Started with a wall of 166s with zero points (basically a lot of names I recognise) which is a really tempting start.... Then there was a "tweak" so i skipped about 30 (ish) times and then got an army of people with unlevelled 3*s, underlevelled 2*s and 1*s until I hit 300 or thereabouts (sorry for hitting you all, blame the MMR....
) and now a selection of maxed 2*s, fairly levelled 3*s (130+) and the occasional maxed 3* team.
If you told me they'd removed MMR entirely and were now purely basing targets on relative score I would probably believe you... it seems really random compared to normal.
As far as my roster goes... lvl 210 Xforce, 10 lvl 166, bunch of 130+ and own every character with a few duplicates of low levels for tanking and sending alliance TUs. I normally tank (cause facing 166s from 0 points doesn't interest me) but only to a point where i'm facing maxed 2*s with an occasional 100+ 3* mixed in.
Don't feel the newly re-tweaked MMR is an improvement over the origional, but at least the game isn't asking me to hit nothing but forumites like it was at the start of the test
Incidentally.... at the risk of seeming overly negative..... running a test like this on an event with a BRAND NEW 3* and, much more so, in an event with a large number of MASSIVELY buffed characters seems stupid to me. Trying to work out if the MMR is sensible when a lvl 94 2* villain is buffed to being significantly stronger than a lvl 166 3* hero is going to be much tougher. Should have tested it on a normal PvP with a buffed Loki and Ragnarok rewards.0 -
I'm not sure a test should have been made on a PvP that is not similar to other PvPs...
How could we draw conclusions when you play against lvl 332 Hood/Daken/Sentry/Cmag... Or whatever.
My main concern is that this PvP was a way of winning Mystique covers, and even if I don't mind the beta-testing, I would have preferred to get Ragnarok or whatever character's covers instead of a newly released.
The test should have been made with "pretty old" characters first, so as to make sure everyone was at the same level, and then, with newer featured characters. So as to get 2 separate experiences...
But beta-testing on Nefarious Foes is not the best way to prove either the new system is good or bad.
For the time being, I don't even see myself going over 800... I'm being hit constantly at 400...0 -
arktos1971 wrote:I'm not sure a test should have been made on a PvP that is not similar to other PvPs...
How could we draw conclusions when you play against lvl 332 Hood/Daken/Sentry/Cmag... Or whatever.
My main concern is that this PvP was a way of winning Mystique covers, and even if I don't mind the beta-testing, I would have preferred to get Ragnarok or whatever character's covers instead of a newly released.
Maybe, this is the reason. So that people stay in this Betatest and keep fighting, as they might want to earn mystique covers? Some might simply drop out, if MM doesn't work well and not come back...0 -
Beta testing changes in a PVP for new covers is ok to ensure maximum participation.
What should have been done though is test this in a standard PVP without mega-boosted chars.
Well at least they were quick to roll back most, if not all changes. Haven't started playing so I can't comment on how MMR behaves now, but my first node looks like a regular maxed 2* roster now, so about what I'd expect.0 -
It was very hard to begin with, some real spankings. But now it seems okish? I'm not going to make the final score I'm used to that's for sure, so that will cost me but perhaps not the end of the world. Is it better? Nope, but it sure is different.0
-
It's totally bananas for me. Just done three skips. Started with a max team, then got 180's, then 90's, then 180's again.0
-
The problem I see with this is now that we're facing a real challenge right from the start, we're all struggling to hit the lower tier progression rewards. For 1 and 2* players this may be great, but for 3* and vets it's a big ol' no-prize.
If the point of this is so we all face our respective challenges from the start they should implemented progression and placement rewards based accordingly on your experience and roster. Similar to how the Simulator works, there would be an "easy" PVP node and a "veteran" PVP node. And for 2* players maybe there's a "normal" PVP node.
What I mean by that is there would be a reward structure where:
1* players would play the "easy" node, and only face other 1* players. Their progression rewards might be something like a 2* cover at 500. #1 would get a single 3* cover, top 50 would get more 2* covers to allow for transitioning.
2* players would play the "normal" node and only face other 2* players. Their progression and placement rewards would offer more the chances to finish off their 2* characters and earn some 3* covers.
Vets would only face other vets and rewards would focus on new 3* and 4* covers.
Theoretically no "normal" player would enter the "easy" node and no Vets would ever enter the "easy" or "normal" nodes because there's nothing there for them to win, which would allow transitioning players to evenly duke it out to progress to the next tier. While vets can slug it out amongst themselves for the latest and greatest. This would also allow the player to chose when they think they're ready to face a greater challenge rather than the 166 wall smacking them in the face. It's never made sense to me why someone playing day one could win a 4* cover or why someone on day 380 (like myself) has to grind past 2* cover rewards to start getting anything worthwhile.0 -
Did a bit more tanking this morning to test the tweak. Can't say that tanking lowered the ranges of my opponent on the whole. I still see a real wide swing of teams anywhere from maxed 3*s down to some 1* teams all with varying scores from 0-200. For the record the max level of characters on my roster are 140 (Have 7 of them at that level). That does include sentry daken hood so they are buffed to 280. Really not sure what to make of the current mmr system at the moment.0
-
So I dropped in to this event last night and beat my initial three nodes. My next set of nodes are all lower level. I went from this:
To this:
0 -
As a 3* player after they did the role back MMR felt mixed. I probably saw some very low 2* teams becuas I got going right when the Dev's rolled things back and I was one of the few 3* players playing. I took a break came back and saw some transition 3* teams, some 2* teams and some full level 3* teams. I was not attacked at all over night with over 400 points scored. I did leave Sentry, Daken, Hood team in so I was probably skiped becuase I was not worth enough points. With the roll back I will be interested to see how things go for the rest of the PVP.
On a note that I said before and reiterated by Bowgentle is to test a new MMR use a standard PVP 1 character buffed. With so many buffed characters it has thrown off MMR in the past Look at Balance of Power, Children of Adom, Avengers Assemble(Don't know if this is the right name), and Combined arms. All these PVP's let 2* compete with 3* and caused MMR's to go all over the place. After those PVP it normally takes a week to get MMR back to normal.
I will look to add another comment after I climb higher and see how much I get attacked and opponents I see.0 -
SpaceBearPig wrote:gobstopper wrote:Now that you've revealed your roster progression, it's clear why you enjoy this change.
However, I question your PvP experience. I started a second account during anniversary to experience things from a beginner's perspective. It's on Day 43, and I just maxed my first 2*. The rest are underleveled and undercovered. Like you, I have hit 300 for the token in every PvP. Unlike you, I NEVER hit a "wall of 166" and NEVER get knocked down to 200, let alone get hit by any max 166s. I NEVER have to fight teams consisting of "maxed X-Force or similar." Even though my 2*s are higher leveled than yours.
I don't tank, and often I join the PvPs early because I already don't have enough time to play them on my primary account. So why is your experience so drastically different from mine? Your credibility is suspect.
Might be a roster thing, I have 36 characters in my roster, almost all are at level 55 or close that are 2*. Have all 2*, not all have maxed covers, most lack 2-3. Excluding Bullseye and Magneto who are way behind.
Every three or fourth PvP I'm able to get close to top100, most of the time not making it all the way, just get attacked too much. I'm on day 34, used to play on Steam now playing on mobile.
Max 166 may have been a overexageration, but a wall of 3* roster ranging from 100 to 166. For sure a few X-Force ranging from 100 to max, depending on how high I go.
Honestly though even getting to that 300 is hard, once i get to 220-ish i start dropping points. The last 4 events I've finished outside top 300 even 2 times, 1 time top 200 and last PvP I placed top 100 at 450 points for a yellow Hood cover. Before that the only time I've placed for a 3* cover was a top 25 placement that netted me 2xFaclcons.
I have no qualms being transparent in this issue, my IGN is SpaceLord and I'm in the Lock and Load alliance, if you choose to believe me it's up to you.
I do find this discussion facinating as I'd love to see PvP change in a positive way. The devs most likely have data that made them make a change and rolling out a change that effects such a large part of the playerbase is always going to need a lot of tweeking. I can only give my point of view.
I started a new account as well, and my experience has been exactly as SpaceBearPig described his/hers. In the very beginning, I could get up to about 100 with my 1*s, then would immediately lose 50+ points in 2-10 point chunks from retaliations. Running lvl 1 MBW and CHawkeye will do that. After I got some reasonable 2*s, I could get up to around 200 before hitting the wall. It felt like the wall would hit after a certain number of matches, as opposed to reaching a certain score (wall being defined as max 94s or 166s, didn't seem to matter). As of about a week ago, I could get to 300 for the token, but no farther before getting eaten up by the hordes back down to around the 230-250 point level. Also, once I got to this point, which was good for top 25 in those brackets, I got thrown into genpop where it's more "normal" with the top scorer getting around 1100 pts and top 10 being around 900 minimum. This would put me at top 300 or even top 400 sometimes. Now that I'm close to getting a max 2* (day 45 or so) I think I could probably hit the 400 pt HP reward. This would still land me outside of the top 100 though.
I haven't tried NF yet, but in messing around with the first few nodes, it looked like they started out vs. lvl 200+ villains that I had no chance to compete with. After skipping through them, after the fix it seems, I think I could hang with some of them with my lvl 182 **Daken. One node is 80/80/80 villains, all 1 cover.0 -
So my first set of opponents were max level 3* & 4*. I beat those last night and my second set were unmaxed 3* & max 2*. I just beat those now and this set is a mix of unmaxed and maxed 2*.
Reverse tanking?0 -
I have mixed feelings on the change. Part of it may be the event. I am seeing almost exclusively maxed hood/daken/sentry teams (to be fair, I'm running one of my own). It's a broken combo at the moment overdue for nerfing. It got better after the tweak.
MMR needs to avoid case where making your roster better makes it harder to get good rewards. Investing in covers should make it *easier* rather than harder to get meaningful rewards. At the top end, gameplay is very competitive - maxed 4* rosters and people used to spending money. If everyone is doing that, but only a few are getting rewards, most people will drop out. If I can't make top-25 with my roster, I'll probably stop playing (it's a solid roster with almost all 3* max, with solid 4* lineup).
If there is an "elite" bracket, I would want a progression 3* rather than a 2* given out at 400 points, better tokens (3* and 4* characters) and the reward be 4* covers. If I don't hit top-100 in that, it's not a big deal - it's not like I am regretting going to the big-boy pool instead of the kiddie pool.0 -
I find it very surprising that they executed the test and then dialed it back - if you didn't start the Event immediately the first 12 pages of this thread will mean nothing to you - all without making a single comment on the forums.
It would make sense to tell us how they felt the test went - not conclusions obviously, they would need more time - but did they revert because of data they saw or our response to the change.
Something...
EDIT: I take it back. It appears that David did make a post in his thread about the testing, indicating they they made another tweak to matchmaking.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.6K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.4K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 496 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.3K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 98 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 417 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 292 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements