Phantron wrote: Changes to MMR isn't ever going to address the transition issue because transition is a matter of cover dilution. Let's say there are 5 guys who are top tier, and the rest are a tier below. As you have more and more characters in the game the chance of pulling those 5 top tier is just going to be lower and lower regardless of how much competition there is. Imagine an year from now and we have 100 heroes and there are still 5 best ones. How would you ever get the 5 top ones even if you can win every event with some kind of hack when the chance of any of those 5 hero being offered as a prize is merely 1 out of 20? I don't think transition players are having problem getting 3* covers, but they're having problem getting the right 3* covers because you can't win what's never offered, and when someone like Sentry is offered you'd expect intense competition and you still have to deal with all the veterans who have a roster advantage and like to compete for the sake of competing. Yes balance can address some of it but it's hard to see more than 5 characters occupying the 'top tier' status at any given time, because otherwise none of these characters would really be top tier if too many characters are 'top tier'. The rotation on seasons character sort of helps it, but there doesn't seem to be any attempt to ensure the heroes chosen are the best ones. Thor is vaulted in season 8, and he's still a top 5 character especially after Sentry is nerfed since he's only used less because Sentry is better and have identical colors.
DrStrange-616 wrote: Phantron wrote: Changes to MMR isn't ever going to address the transition issue because transition is a matter of cover dilution. Let's say there are 5 guys who are top tier, and the rest are a tier below. As you have more and more characters in the game the chance of pulling those 5 top tier is just going to be lower and lower regardless of how much competition there is. Imagine an year from now and we have 100 heroes and there are still 5 best ones. How would you ever get the 5 top ones even if you can win every event with some kind of hack when the chance of any of those 5 hero being offered as a prize is merely 1 out of 20? I don't think transition players are having problem getting 3* covers, but they're having problem getting the right 3* covers because you can't win what's never offered, and when someone like Sentry is offered you'd expect intense competition and you still have to deal with all the veterans who have a roster advantage and like to compete for the sake of competing. Yes balance can address some of it but it's hard to see more than 5 characters occupying the 'top tier' status at any given time, because otherwise none of these characters would really be top tier if too many characters are 'top tier'. The rotation on seasons character sort of helps it, but there doesn't seem to be any attempt to ensure the heroes chosen are the best ones. Thor is vaulted in season 8, and he's still a top 5 character especially after Sentry is nerfed since he's only used less because Sentry is better and have identical colors. Yes! I'm advancing in the game, sort of, but horizontally and not vertically. I've won a lot (to this newb) of 3* covers, but being able to get enough covers for any one character to make them playable is tough. I have 39 roster spots. The breakdown is: 1*: 2, maxed 2*: 10, maxed except two who are fully covered, but not fully leveled and Ms Marvel with 4 covers 3*: 25 1, 9 covers (LThor who will be fully covered in the next millennium. ) 1, 6 covers 3, 5 covers 1, 4 covers 7, 3 covers 6, 2 covers 6, 1 cover 4*: 2, 1 cover I'm not sure when I'll ever have enough coves to make a few 3* really playable. Maybe that's the plan. Just to keep me grinding, paying for roster slots and advancing horizontally, and slowly, slowly, slowly moving up vertically.
franckynight wrote: Pylgrim wrote: EpicBeastmode wrote: Why....would...you...change...it...back...now....? I could really care less about which mmr system is used quite honestly. Its a bit annoying that you changed it back to the old system of "wait til the last few hours and hop your way past everyone to the top," after players had to deal with the 20-30 point range for nearly 2 days.. but whatever. I found the new system more challenging but who wants that. THIS THIS THIS THIS An update on my experience throughout the event, which had been positive until now: As I said previously, I was finding the event challenging and slow-progressing BUT fair. Only players with "easy" teams for me to beat handed out less than 20 points. Teams that would reward 30-40 were at my best team's level and above. Progressing was a strategic combination of hitting the "difficult" teams when my guys were fully healed to get more points, then attack the weak teams for few points until my guys definitely needed healing, rinse and repeat. This was fair on the people with strong teams as they don't get attacked that much, AND fair on the weak teams as when they get attacked they are only losing a handful of points. Indeed, I myself didn't get attacked much by teams that would steal more than 10 points from me (as I would be too "hard" for them) so most of my attacks came from people with much stronger teams than mine but many more points than me, so I lost very few. All in all, it worked as a slow, but methodical and sure progression. I got 800 points playing regularly through the event and I I remained top 5 the whole time. Then, I woke up to find that they had "fixed" the MMR back to the old ways. Sure enough, the status quo was restored and where the top 5 had been comprised of players with all kinds of rosters (though, admittedly more on the top side) with 800-950 points, now the top 5 looks like every other top 5 in the recent history of the game: Whales with fully maxed rosters and over 1200 points. Unshielding in a vain attempt to climb got me attacked for 70 points in the time I got 22. In other words, BACK TO THE WORLD WHERE AGGRESSIVE SHIELD-HOPPING AND SENTRY BOMBING ARE THE ONLY WAYS TO BE COMPETITIVE. Back to the world where whales can ignore an event for its duration, have a quick an easy climb to 900 points in the last few hours on the backs of much weaker teams from whom they steal 40 points a pop, then drop $20 to shield hop and Sentry bomb their way into the 1300s+. Joy!! Cannot help to think that the very vocal group of players that raged against these changes were precisely those who found their winning "strategy" no longer as effective as before. I quit sentry bombing a long time ago but im still part of those"whales" that allow you to keep playing this game for free and lamenting on the forum every single day about those darned whales..
Pylgrim wrote: EpicBeastmode wrote: Why....would...you...change...it...back...now....? I could really care less about which mmr system is used quite honestly. Its a bit annoying that you changed it back to the old system of "wait til the last few hours and hop your way past everyone to the top," after players had to deal with the 20-30 point range for nearly 2 days.. but whatever. I found the new system more challenging but who wants that. THIS THIS THIS THIS An update on my experience throughout the event, which had been positive until now: As I said previously, I was finding the event challenging and slow-progressing BUT fair. Only players with "easy" teams for me to beat handed out less than 20 points. Teams that would reward 30-40 were at my best team's level and above. Progressing was a strategic combination of hitting the "difficult" teams when my guys were fully healed to get more points, then attack the weak teams for few points until my guys definitely needed healing, rinse and repeat. This was fair on the people with strong teams as they don't get attacked that much, AND fair on the weak teams as when they get attacked they are only losing a handful of points. Indeed, I myself didn't get attacked much by teams that would steal more than 10 points from me (as I would be too "hard" for them) so most of my attacks came from people with much stronger teams than mine but many more points than me, so I lost very few. All in all, it worked as a slow, but methodical and sure progression. I got 800 points playing regularly through the event and I I remained top 5 the whole time. Then, I woke up to find that they had "fixed" the MMR back to the old ways. Sure enough, the status quo was restored and where the top 5 had been comprised of players with all kinds of rosters (though, admittedly more on the top side) with 800-950 points, now the top 5 looks like every other top 5 in the recent history of the game: Whales with fully maxed rosters and over 1200 points. Unshielding in a vain attempt to climb got me attacked for 70 points in the time I got 22. In other words, BACK TO THE WORLD WHERE AGGRESSIVE SHIELD-HOPPING AND SENTRY BOMBING ARE THE ONLY WAYS TO BE COMPETITIVE. Back to the world where whales can ignore an event for its duration, have a quick an easy climb to 900 points in the last few hours on the backs of much weaker teams from whom they steal 40 points a pop, then drop $20 to shield hop and Sentry bomb their way into the 1300s+. Joy!! Cannot help to think that the very vocal group of players that raged against these changes were precisely those who found their winning "strategy" no longer as effective as before.
EpicBeastmode wrote: Why....would...you...change...it...back...now....? I could really care less about which mmr system is used quite honestly. Its a bit annoying that you changed it back to the old system of "wait til the last few hours and hop your way past everyone to the top," after players had to deal with the 20-30 point range for nearly 2 days.. but whatever. I found the new system more challenging but who wants that.
stephen43084 wrote: You, me, same page. I have been saying for about a week now, the landscape of the game has changed between the number of characters, vaulting covers, more players with more developed rosters, etc. Transitioning and cover distribution need to be re-evaluated. MMR and sharding just punish different groups of players; they do not address the problem with transitioning from a 2* to 3* roster. I really think the developers need to determine how long the transition process should take for a regular player; then, insure there is path/process in place so that they can be successful. For me this means that they need to stop being stingy with the 3* covers. Even if each player got one 3* star cover each time it was available it would still take approximately a year to get someone cover maxed, and as the pool of characters expands, that timeframe is going to get longer. The whole concept that getting any 3* covers at all increased their values is old and outdated for the current game environment. LR's and tokens used to give 3* covers with much greater frequency, and that was with less characters in the pool. In theory, the greater the pool of covers the harder it will be to get any one specific character cover maxed and specced correctly. Therefore, to adjust, covers should become more available to compensate (likewise iso for leveling and HP for roster slots). However, the current paradigm does the opposite. It makes it even harder to get covers. Making covers rare has a value only to extent there is realistic chance of getting those covers (primarily through hard work, not chance (getting covers through tokens as part of rewards is work, but it is treated as chance)). The current system creates a disillusioned player base. It's simple. Determine a reasonable timeframe transitioning players should be able to make progress; then, provide the means for them to meet your standards of that timeframe.
Phantron wrote: stephen43084 wrote: You, me, same page. I have been saying for about a week now, the landscape of the game has changed between the number of characters, vaulting covers, more players with more developed rosters, etc. Transitioning and cover distribution need to be re-evaluated. MMR and sharding just punish different groups of players; they do not address the problem with transitioning from a 2* to 3* roster. I really think the developers need to determine how long the transition process should take for a regular player; then, insure there is path/process in place so that they can be successful. For me this means that they need to stop being stingy with the 3* covers. Even if each player got one 3* star cover each time it was available it would still take approximately a year to get someone cover maxed, and as the pool of characters expands, that timeframe is going to get longer. The whole concept that getting any 3* covers at all increased their values is old and outdated for the current game environment. LR's and tokens used to give 3* covers with much greater frequency, and that was with less characters in the pool. In theory, the greater the pool of covers the harder it will be to get any one specific character cover maxed and specced correctly. Therefore, to adjust, covers should become more available to compensate (likewise iso for leveling and HP for roster slots). However, the current paradigm does the opposite. It makes it even harder to get covers. Making covers rare has a value only to extent there is realistic chance of getting those covers (primarily through hard work, not chance (getting covers through tokens as part of rewards is work, but it is treated as chance)). The current system creates a disillusioned player base. It's simple. Determine a reasonable timeframe transitioning players should be able to make progress; then, provide the means for them to meet your standards of that timeframe. Unless they're going to make it so that you can get every 3* in about 3 months I don't see how making things more accessible is going to do anything. It's just not going to be THAT accessible no matter what and you've to make things ever more accessible to combat the dilution issue as you release even more 3*/4*. They really need to take a page from MTG and have two set of format, everything and one where you're restricted to a pre-selected roster at the start of some interval of time (say, every 3 months). What MTG figured out a long time ago is that you can't just expect a new guy to get the cards someone who has spent thousands of dollars and years collecting, because if you de-value that then you screwed your most loyal guys, but if you always let the veterans have an edge then you won't have new blood either, so they have a format that includes everything (favorable for veterans) and a format that's restricted to recent stuff (likely favors new guys). Since it should cost next to nothing to run online events I don't see any logistic issue. The prizes for these events can be tailored for eache vent. I'd imagine the 'everything' event should be more similar to Elite events where you compete for iso/HP but not covers, while the 'recent character only' type events will be geared toward getting covers.
Leugenesmiff wrote: When are the free tokens going out? Have they said?