PvP Matchups - Why? Someone Explain

Infrared

It does not feel fair for newer players to get bullied by veterans who they have no chance of beating. And it does not feel fair for veteran players who have invested so much in the game to be handicapped so that newbies can get ahead. The game uses MMR and sharding to try and strike a balance.

Very new players will tend to get grouped together in the same bracket, and have a good chance at ranking reasonably high because there are few or no veterans in their brackets. After a certain amount of easy tournaments, they start to get sharded together into more normal brackets. New players who were used to the easy brackets may find that things suddenly got more difficult, not realizing that this is what the game is normally like.

From 0 to 500 points or so, match ups are based on the player's MMR. People are supposed to be matched against others with around the same win/loss ratio. Mostly this means people with similar roster strength, but it also includes people with weaker rosters who win a lot through boosting/luck/skill. It also means people with strong rosters can get into the same MMR as those with weaker rosters if they lose a lot. This can happen intentionally (i.e. tanking) or not. Those at the top of each tournament get attacked A LOT simply because of their high points. Being attacked so much lowers their MMR, so they might even end up in 2* land when the next event starts. Once someone crosses 500 or whatever (the numbers seem to keep changing) MMR matters less. People with weaker rosters will see much harder match ups. And after 800 points or so MMR is completely ignored .

I suppose the intended result is for new players to be competing among themselves for the lower tier rewards, and the veterans fight it out for the top tier. Kind of like amateur and professional leagues. But that analogy does not hold up too well, as others have stated in previous posts.

One possible alternative is to let players choose in each event which kind of bracket they want to compete in. MMR brackets, or free for all (no MMR or sharding). The MMR brackets will have lower value rewards, possibly no 4* covers. The free for all ones will have no 2* rewards, and lots of ISO. Veterans should naturally want the free for all brackets, and let the newer players have an easier time transitioning in the MMR brackets. This will also negate the need for shield cooldowns if the only reason for them is that newer players are discouraged when they see obscenely high scores.

Mikaveus

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

Mikaveus wrote:

Really? Outside of shield hopping costing tons of HP and using every last boost, I don't see that happening with most players. And your "usable X-Force" is probably a team I would salivate to see compared to the maxed XF's and 4hor's that make Top 5 so freakin' ridiculous. Heck, Top 10 is a buffet of pain.

3* and 4*s are very close in power? Sorry. The sheer volume of XF and 4hor at the top begs to differ. Devil Dino is moving in on that claim as well. Only one who isn't getting in on that action is Invisible Woman who is close to a 2* in power.

LIKE versus LIKE is fair and less frustrating. Unless you're the type who jollies in lording over a loaded roster over those who aren't there yet. Maybe this is fixed by modifying the reward tiers. I know this is fixed by match-making the teams correctly. If not by * then by sum of levels for the entire team. That way my 166, 166, 130 (462) doesn't have to be demolished by a 270, 270, 130 (670).

The overall HP cost of hopping to 1300 is much less than that of buying covers directly, especially when you factor in HP gained from the tournament you reach 1300 in. I think I typically used 5 three hour shields (375 HP). I would climb to about 600 and maintain that until I was ready to climb. Then I would push as high as I could (825-900) with 5 health packs and shield. Come back every three hours and hit two 40+ point targets until I hit 1300. That would also get me top 25 or top 10 if lucky. Total HP earned from PVP was 250-300 (100 progression, 100 top 50 alliance, 50-100 personal placement). That is only a net loss of 125 HP, which would be made up in the next PVP.

Feel free to attack my 221 XF and 166 Hood anytime you see them. Please wait 10 minutes or so after queuing to give me a chance to shield.

It is easy to make arguments when you take half a quote. What I said is that the power difference between 3 and 4 is much less than the gap between 2 and 3. XF and 4hor are better than all 3*s, but they are still beatable by a three star team. Devil Dino is weak and is merely used as a meat shield to try to slow attackers down while hopping. If the game did not punish you for using a suboptimal team, you may see a larger variety of teams towards the top.

2* rosters already have the advantage in PVE; they do not need an extra advantage in PVP as well. D3 needs to give out more 3* covers to ease the transition, especially if their future goal is to set up a similar progression to 4*s.

221 XF and 166 Hood is beatable, so that works towards your argument. I think there must be a wow factor that scares most away. Or on the flip side, I must wear a "dinner served" sign since my team doesn't sport a 4* character in that rarefied air. Attempting to climb in one swoop from 600 to 900 is impossible with my roster. I get attacked WAY too often. So I'm forced to shield early just to maintain let alone climb.

And I absolutely argue the parts of your quote that bear arguing. I don't know how you can accurately measure the dip between levels because 2* teams seem to plateau at 400 and I'm getting my butt handed to me 200 points above them. Evaluating characters, there are still 2* characters that can hold their own in a 3* setting (OBW, Ares, even Daken). It makes sense that some 3* characters can do the same with a 4* setting (Hood most popular). However, put a team of 4* characters against a team of 3* and it will probably look like a 3* team bullying a 2*.

And don't you dare short change the Dino! That red freak flips the board until I'M red in the face.

Seriously, it's always him and another 4* so good luck if you've only got 2 166's and whatever juiced up character (probably less than 166) is featured.

Ultimately, I think you only alienate people by forcing these transitions. So many players on my alliance are hoarding covers and adding roster space, but are so hesitant to spend iso past level 94. And can I blame them? They get to thrive with PvE and not get butchered in both formats. I'M THE SUCKER who went and maxed some good 3* characters and now I get to struggle on both venues. Make the field more level, so that it's a fair fight. If people want to spend money and get covers and levels sooner, then so be it. But don't have my hybrid racing a muscle car!

Spoit

Phantron wrote:

Spoit wrote:

lokiagentofhotness wrote:

Phantron wrote:

Outside of X Force who is not balanced by any stretch of imagination there is very little power increase between 3* to 4*. If X Force didn't exist in the game, Thor wouldn't necessarily be the best character to use in non shield hopping situations because her extra HPs usually just means your team has a lower chance of winning on defense but it'd take longer to lose, which only matters for a shield hop. X Force's dominance is no worse than Sentry's dominance and both are product of poorly thought out balance and it just happens right now the guy who holds the most imbalanced character title is a 4* instead of a 3*. Even a pure power build like Thor + Fury + featured can be held in check by just having The Hood. There isn't an effective way to fight X Force without your own, just like there wasn't an effective way to fight Sentry without your own. That's what imbalanced means.

Is X-Force really impossible to fight without your own X-Force?

No, it's just phantron's usual lobbying to get X character nerfed

I'm sure you were constantly fighting pre nerf Ragnarok without your own, or pre nerf Sentry without your own Sentry? Of course if you can beat Ragnarok without Ragnarok which you had to do at some point in PvE because you can't even use Ragnarok when the AI uses Ragnarok then technically you don't have to have to have X to defeat X but good luck doing that 10 times in a row against a guy who can sometimes infinite on a single red match. For any particular one fight you don't need X Force to beat X Force, but after a certain point you'll just see him show up in at least half of the fights and if you want to have a reasonable shot at beating him and also not immediately stomped on a retaliation it'd be a really good idea to have your own X Force. If you don't have a fully developed roster, X Force can pretty much kill almost everyone in the 6800 or lower HP class in one major move. This isn't a handicap you can reliably overcome when you got to play 10 games in a row against him which happens all the time.

Sentry....really was never that big a threat on defense. sure sacrifice or supernova could do a bit of damage, but he'd never actually pull off the combo himself. Come on on phantron, plenty of teams could beat him.

And yeah, rags was fast, but remember back then we had thorverine too, much less cstorm feeding red. Remember that the AI only cast powers once per turn, and you could use that green that was generated as well

Unknown

Eddiemon wrote:

You're not so special that you deserve to be #1 even though you cannot beat every or even most opponents.

Please don't make up arguments that I never made. I never said that I deserve to be #1. But I believe that I ought to have a fair shot at it.

So the matchmaking is designed to match you with harder and harder challenges until you cannot advance and then that rank is a proper reflection of where you are compared to others in your shard.

Sure, but that's a case of the rich getting richer. It's self perpetuating. The better rosters earn the prizes and they continue to get better because they have the better rosters. That's not "fair" in most people's minds.

I'm not sure why this concept baffles so many people.

I'm not sure why it escapes you either.

It's player vs player. In order for you to advance ranks people have to drop ranks. And that should only happen if you can or would be able to beat them. You have no right or entitlement to be #1 over players with 166 teams that you don't have a hope of beating.

Again, please do not attribute arguments to me that I did not make. I never said that I have a right or entitlement to be #1. Read what I said, don't make stuff up. it doesn't make you look very good.

It's a competetion, points matter, rosters don't.

Actually rosters do matter, they are all that matters.

It is set up so the best win and those who aren't the best don't win. Pretty much like most competetions everywhere.

Actually, it's not set up for the "best" to win. It's set up for the best rosters to win. I could be a much better player than you if we were matched equally. You could have just spent your way to a better roster. A great roster could have very little to do with whether you are a better player or not.

The matchmaking algorithm doesn't give a rats about your roster. Its aim is to be actually fair, unlike your aim which is to be unfair.

Merely saying this doesn't make it so.

Fair is the people who win the most matches getting the best prizes.

No fair is people with the best ability to win matches against comparable teams getting the best prizes. Unfair is me getting matched against teams that I have no hope of beating, making it impossible for me to even have a chance of a prize.

Unfair is where you take the best people and tell them that even though they have the best rosters and have put time into the game, they can only fight each other and get one prize, while people who couldn't possibly beat them get the exact same prize.

Here's where you are wrong. The "best" people don't necessarily have the "best" rosters. I could be a much better player than you on even ground, but instead I lose to you because only because you have a better roster. Better roster does not equal better player.

Fair is everyone fights everyone and the people who win the most win.

Not it's not. It reinforces the rich getting richer. That's generally considered unfair. That's why middle school teams aren't matched against high school teams and high school teams aren't matched against college teams.

Even pro sport leagues recognize this. Weaker teams get higher draft choices to help improve the league competition. MPQ is what would happen if the NBA or NFL league champions got the number one draft choice every year. No one would think that fair, I'm not certain why you think MPQ should be any different.

Unfair is where people are prevented from winning because you want to cause some subgroup to win on attributes other than their ability to beat everyone.

You're still confused. Your 166 roster beating my 94 roster has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with you having a better roster. Better roster does not equal ability to play the game.

Unknown

grifman wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about pvp so maybe better minds than mine can explain it to me:

1) I have level 94 to 100 characters. Why when I get to about 400 to 500 points in pvp am I being matched against 166+ level opponents that I have little chance of beating? Why doesn't D3 set a level cap so that no one fights any more or less than some set number of levels, say 20 (or whatever would be reasonable) above or below your current level? At least then I'd have some chance to win. I'm certain it can't be hard to institute an upper or lower cap on who you have to face. What's purpose is served to match me against teams that I cannot beat?
...
Your 166 roster beating my 94 roster has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with you having a better roster. Better roster does not equal ability to play the game.

Right here. I'd say I win about 60% of the matches I fight with 60-94-94 vs 60-166-166. You do have a fair shot; you're just not a good enough player yet. Sorry. You need to train more, figure out better combinations, or invest in other strategies, eg having a good alliance with decent team-ups, minor boosting, etc. Also realize that you're probably going to lose 100 times before you figure out how to beat them 1 out of 3 times. It's funny, but I think I learned the most while tanking with random character combinations and taking the matches semi-seriously. It's amazing what matches you can win with the right luck.

However, I've won maybe 1% of matches with 60-94-94 vs 60-166-270X Force. That guy is way too tough.

atomzed

grifman wrote:

[
You're still confused. Your 166 roster beating my 94 roster has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with you having a better roster. Better roster does not equal ability to play the game.

Grifman, this game has been set out to be exactly that... that a better roster has a good advantage to win the game.

If it's other wise.... Then why should I level or upgrade my characters?

So hypothetically speaking, if you institute a "league" system, such as a semi pro (2* teams) and a pro (3* teams). Let's ignore the details (which is terrible complicated), and assume that in this "ideal" version, the semi pro league and pro league will receive the same rewards (which is what you wanted as a fair shot of winning).

In this scenario, why should I even level up OR get 3* covers at all? Cos my competition is stiffer when I get in the pro league. Why should I get into a tougher league when the rewards are the same?

In fact, this situation is already happening in pve, where ppl deliberately kept their rosters under levelled, as a high level character makes the scaling worse.

So if your ideal version of pvp happens, then there's absolutely no reason to level my characters. I should just keep it as high as I could levelled them, without getting out of the semi pro league.

Let's talk about the difficulty of implementing such a 2 league system. How do we determine whether some one gets into the pro league? By number of 3* max level? Or by number of max cover 3*? But not all 3* are made equal... if my max 3*is a beast, I am as good as having a 2* team.

Before you reply, let me just add that I do recognise the fact the frustration of this wall that 2* tranSition players are facing. I suspect this is why pve was created such a way that it gives greater advantage to those who has a poorer roster.

If you wanna propose a "2 league" system, you really have to handle the difficulty of implementing it.

If you could propose a good model, balancing the need to encourage ppl to level their players and giving "fairer" competition, I would be glad to hear it.

And oh, I wanted to point out that the way the game rewards your "skills" is through health packs system. The better you are, the less health you lose per game, the less health packs you use. Also, you may be good enough that you can use your 2* team to beat a patch/ hulk team.... but to beat a Xforce/thorina team, the challenge is too great and you have no room for error. So of course you will lose... because the game wants you to invest in better character.

Unknown

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

1) In most RPGs I have played, the opponents get harder as you progress in the game and you need to level up in order to be able to beat them more easily.

Yes, but I'll also bet that in almost every RPG you level up by your level 20 character fighting level 20 enemies so that you can then fight those level 30 enemies on a level playing field. Not by fighting level 30 characters over and over again. So your analogy fails.

The overall HP cost of hopping to 1300 is much less than that of buying covers directly, especially when you factor in HP gained from the tournament you reach 1300 in. I think I typically used 5 three hour shields (375 HP). I would climb to about 600 and maintain that until I was ready to climb. Then I would push as high as I could (825-900) with 5 health packs and shield. Come back every three hours and hit two 40+ point targets until I hit 1300. That would also get me top 25 or top 10 if lucky. Total HP earned from PVP was 250-300 (100 progression, 100 top 50 alliance, 50-100 personal placement). That is only a net loss of 125 HP, which would be made up in the next PVP.

Everybody isn't in a top 50 alliance. I'm also not sure how you "make it up the next pvp" if you are running a 125 HP deficit every time.

2* rosters already have the advantage in PVE;

What's the advantage? I'll also note that pve takes much longer to get a reward than pve.

they do not need an extra advantage in PVP as well.

What advantage? I'm just asking for a level playing field.

D3 needs to give out more 3* covers to ease the transition, especially if their future goal is to set up a similar progression to 4*s.

That is one thing we agree upon.

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

If it's other wise.... Then why should I level or upgrade my characters?

Why do you level up your character in an RPG when your enemies are also increasing in abiliies/difficulty? What's the point there? Yet people still play those games. Because it's fun, collecting stuff is fun, whether it's characters, new magic spells, new weapons, etc.

In this scenario, why should I even level up OR get 3* covers at all? Cos my competition is stiffer when I get in the pro league. Why should I get into a tougher league when the rewards are the same?

Why is it going to be stiffer? Your 3's will be matched against other 3's. Or are you saying you can only beat 2's with your 3's and can't handle other 3's?

So if your ideal version of pvp happens, then there's absolutely no reason to level my characters. I should just keep it as high as I could levelled them, without getting out of the semi pro league.

I've never suggested a league.

Let's talk about the difficulty of implementing such a 2 league system. How do we determine whether some one gets into the pro league? By number of 3* max level? Or by number of max cover 3*? But not all 3* are made equal... if my max 3*is a beast, I am as good as having a 2* team.

I've not suggested pro or amateur league. All I've said is that I should be matched against comparable teams within a certain range of my level. And I know that all 3's are not created equal. But I'd sure have a lot better chance of a reward than I currently have.

Before you reply, let me just add that I do recognise the fact the frustration of this wall that 2* tranSition players are facing. I suspect this is why pve was created such a way that it gives greater advantage to those who has a poorer roster.

Thank you for acknowledging this. The answer of some just seems to be "tough luck" or something equivalent.

If you wanna propose a "2 league" system, you really have to handle the difficulty of implementing it.

If you could propose a good model, balancing the need to encourage ppl to level their players and giving "fairer" competition, I would be glad to hear it.

And oh, I wanted to point out that the way the game rewards your "skills" is through health packs system. The better you are, the less health you lose per game, the less health packs you use. Also, you may be good enough that you can use your 2* team to beat a patch/ hulk team.... but to beat a Xforce/thorina team, the challenge is too great and you have no room for error. So of course you will lose... because the game wants you to invest in better character.

The problem is that the game doesn't allow me to invest in a better character (unless I buy one) because I'm largely shut out of pvp rewards. It's a vicious circle. I need better covers to win better covers but I can't win unless I have better covers.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Outside of X Force who is not balanced by any stretch of imagination there is very little power increase between 3* to 4*. If X Force didn't exist in the game, Thor wouldn't necessarily be the best character to use in non shield hopping situations because her extra HPs usually just means your team has a lower chance of winning on defense but it'd take longer to lose, which only matters for a shield hop. X Force's dominance is no worse than Sentry's dominance and both are product of poorly thought out balance and it just happens right now the guy who holds the most imbalanced character title is a 4* instead of a 3*. Even a pure power build like Thor + Fury + featured can be held in check by just having The Hood. There isn't an effective way to fight X Force without your own, just like there wasn't an effective way to fight Sentry without your own. That's what imbalanced means.

Not true and not true.

You can beat Xforce with pretty much any sensible 3* pairing, easier with boosts of course. It is just a touch more risky than facing a given 3* team. If that's not the case why is my Xforce team beaten by a LOT of 3* teams in EVERY PvP (who are all targeting me for my high score and not being scared off by my allegedly unbeatable XForce). Are they all cheating?

As for Sentry it was a meta game issue not a mechanical match winning issue. It's true you couldn't "compete" with Sentry users without your own sentry because they would be winning matches much faster than you. On the other hand if you couldn't actually beat a Sentry team without using Sentry you are terrible at the game or are using 2* heroes.

Regarding "the wall" and the idea of only pairing vs similar levels. It's a terrible idea for a lot of reasons including, but not limited to, punishing any form of progression, simply moving the impossibility to play to the poor sods who finally get a high level 3* and then have to face loads of vets whilst being completely denied beatable teams because they only fight each other, creating a ridiculous situation where people never level 3* heroes beyond a specific cut off to stay in an MMR band (ppl already do that for PvE and WILL game the system for PvP too given the chance), etc etc.

In the end you don't win top PvP rewards because your roster isn't good enough to merit winning top PvP rewards. You get some help from bracket sharding to place higher already but I don't see a "fair" way to get more covers to transitioning players. Simply taking them from players with better rosters for no better reason than you wanting them, is not a fair way to do it. Only reasonable option is lobbying D3 for more progression centric content (like the gauntlet) , larger reward brackets or better pull rates.

With the way rewards are set up somebody (well lots of ppl actually) have to miss out. Having it based on activity and roster progression (not so much P2W below top 10 or 25) seems like a very reasonable way to go about it.

GrumpySmurf1002

grifman wrote:

The problem is that the game doesn't allow me to invest in a better character (unless I buy one) because I'm largely shut out of pvp rewards. It's a vicious circle. I need better covers to win better covers but I can't win unless I have better covers.

Covers are available via PvE and through tokens. Neither is fast, but the game does not shut you out from those options (and as others said, 2* rosters have an advantage in PvE due to uneven scaling).

Top end PvP rewards have never been meant for people building their rosters. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

[
Right here. I'd say I win about 60% of the matches I fight with 60-94-94 vs 60-166-166. You do have a fair shot; you're just not a good enough player yet. Sorry. You need to train more, figure out better combinations, or invest in other strategies, eg having a good alliance with decent team-ups, minor boosting, etc. Also realize that you're probably going to lose 100 times before you figure out how to beat them 1 out of 3 times. It's funny, but I think I learned the most while tanking with random character combinations and taking the matches semi-seriously. It's amazing what matches you can win with the right luck.

However, I've won maybe 1% of matches with 60-94-94 vs 60-166-270X Force. That guy is way too tough.

The problem is that your scenario doesn't reflect reality. I'm not going up with a 60, 94, 94 team against a 60, 166, 166 team. I'm usually facing a 166, 166, 166 team. The only time I face a team with a 60 is when there is a totally new character.

You're also missing the issue of what happens when I am on defense, where I lose a ton of points. Even if I could win with my 94 team against the AI, I don't think the AI is going to win with my 94 team against a player with a 166 team.

OnesOwnGrief

We've all hit that wall and those who are past it found some way to get through it. Either you figure out what works, wait for covers, or you buy your way out of it. When I was leveling, I could reach 800 with just 130s before I got on the sentry hop train. Sometimes 900, it just really depends on the roster. Some are much better at PvP and others simply aren't usable.

DaveR4470

I don't mind the ramp-up in difficulty of opponents -- that's really how a PvP tier is supposed to work.

What DOES bug me -- immensely -- is the amount of points I lose when defending against vastly superior teams. I'm in the 2* - 3* upgrade phase, and run a pair of maxed 2* (usually Daken and Wolverine) plus the featured character, and can fairly consistently get to about 300, or maybe even 400, points before hitting the wall of essentially unbeatable 3*+ teams. That's fine! I get a token and maybe some HP from the progression rewards. I don't bother shielding, because it's not worth the HP for me at this stage.

But then I go away, and find that the system served me up to a team with three 144s or something, and I lost 32 points by losing to them. THAT'S what's ridiculous. If I took on that team voluntarily via a node, I'd get stomped... but I'd only lose maybe 5 points. Which makes sense: the system should encourage you to TRY and take on more powerful teams by making the penalty for losing less harsh. (And, likewise, the other player shouldn't get as many points for taking on a team that isn't as big a challenge for them.) Losing more points that I would have gained by beating that team is ridiculous.

Ebolamonkey84

grifman wrote:

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

1) In most RPGs I have played, the opponents get harder as you progress in the game and you need to level up in order to be able to beat them more easily.

Yes, but I'll also bet that in almost every RPG you level up by your level 20 character fighting level 20 enemies so that you can then fight those level 30 enemies on a level playing field. Not by fighting level 30 characters over and over again. So your analogy fails.

The overall HP cost of hopping to 1300 is much less than that of buying covers directly, especially when you factor in HP gained from the tournament you reach 1300 in. I think I typically used 5 three hour shields (375 HP). I would climb to about 600 and maintain that until I was ready to climb. Then I would push as high as I could (825-900) with 5 health packs and shield. Come back every three hours and hit two 40+ point targets until I hit 1300. That would also get me top 25 or top 10 if lucky. Total HP earned from PVP was 250-300 (100 progression, 100 top 50 alliance, 50-100 personal placement). That is only a net loss of 125 HP, which would be made up in the next PVP.

Everybody isn't in a top 50 alliance. I'm also not sure how you "make it up the next pvp" if you are running a 125 HP deficit every time.

2* rosters already have the advantage in PVE;

What's the advantage? I'll also note that pve takes much longer to get a reward than pve.

they do not need an extra advantage in PVP as well.

What advantage? I'm just asking for a level playing field.

D3 needs to give out more 3* covers to ease the transition, especially if their future goal is to set up a similar progression to 4*s.

That is one thing we agree upon.

1) Actually with today's easier RPGs I would probably fight those level 30 enemies near a save point that fills up my HP and MP since they are worth more EXP.
In this game, you do not get more from beating three star teams than beating two star teams. You are also limited to 5 health packs max, which can be cut in half with one bad wipe.

2) Top 250 alliances still get 50 HP. If you can score 500-600 per PVP, you should be able to find a top 250 alliance willing to take you in. Many of the high end alliances have training alliances that can be used to help the transitioning player. I was only going for 1300 points when Xforce black or green was the prize. Since it rotates, there would be 3 PVPs (2 before 4Thor release) between each one I needed 1300 for. In those I would usually 1 or 2 shield to get top 25. (100 HP prog + 50 HP personal+ 100 HP alliance) - (150 HP)= 100 HP net gain. There is also HP from PVE to factor in.

3) Scaling is the PVE advantage for less developed rosters. The enemies 3* players face are ridiculous.

4) You are asking to get higher placement at the expense of someone that has a more developed roster than you. I would call that asking for an advantage. Let's imagine a world where there are only 4 100 man brackets, and there are 100 people at each star level with their roster (1*, 2*, 3*, 4*). In the current system, assuming an even split between brackets (which already isn't true IRL due to gentle nudging), you would expect ranking relative to your roster (1-25: 4* teams, 26-50: 3* teams, etc.). With the proposed "fairness" system, 75% of 4* players and 50% of three star players would be placing worse than they used to because they got crammed into death brackets. It would be great for newer players but **** for vets.

I feel like this board always ends up in class warfare between the haves and the have-nots when we should really want d3 to focus on how to make the game better for everyone. The game does not need to get worse for some players to get better for others.

Here are some suggestions that I have seen from others that would benefit everyone.
1) Expand reward tiers to give out more 3* covers. They already did this once because you used to need top 50 for a 3* cover.
2) Have PVP events outside of the season structure that give out older 3* covers that most vets don't need. I would love to let people get covers that I don't need, but I need to keep my score up for my alliance.
3) Have a system where you could pass down a 3* cover you don't need and still get the equivalent amount of ISO. For example, if I got top 25 and didn't need either cover, I could still get my 1000 ISO and pass down the second tier cover to 51st place and the lower tier cover to 101st.
4) Give more rewards per fight for fighting higher level opponents.
5) Raise the % chance of getting a 3* from a token already!

MarvelMan

grifman wrote:

I'm not going up with a 60, 94, 94 team against a 60, 166, 166 team. I'm usually facing a 166, 166, 166 team. The only time I face a team with a 60 is when there is a totally new character.

There is something funny going on there. Sounds like you dont manage your MMR, and it may be out of whack. I have a fairly extensive 3* roster and still often climb with a loaner, seeing 60/94/94 teams up through about 400-450, then 60/166/166 from 500 to about 700 with the occasional 1XX/166/166 team then 249/166/270 (or 221) north of there.


Reading the posts here there is a lot of complaining about the match making, but I think it is really more about the rewards and stratification of the opponents.

The rewards system is strange in that there is only one set, and as there become more and more established players at the top that means there are fewer spots for those just below that level (ie 2*->3* transitioners). Plus, with the drop off in value after the top 10 it is very difficult to make regular progress now that the frequency of each char as a reward has fallen off a cliff. Add in that some are vaulted each season.

As for stratification, that is less about MMR and more about the power of characters and how your team appears to others. There is such a narrow band during which a non maxed 3* is more powerful than the best 2*s that smart players are still using those 2*s and you dont see that many of the non maxed 3*s (and those that do use a, say, level 97 SuperSteve just get targetted left/right and down the middle). There is also a bit of confirmation bias as you probably dont recall the team composition of those you skipped for being only worth 17 points, but definitely remember the frustration of finally finding a juicy 30+ point target, only for them to appear to be tougher than you are willing to attack.

Unknown

Just because X Force does get beaten doesn't mean it's fair. It seems like people believe all the Sentry during his prime was just some sort of freak accident even though he was the fastest character in recent MPQ (2 devastating moves at 3 matches, X Force is 3/4 matches). Let's say X Force beats the average 3* team 90% of the time and the average 3* team beats X Force 50% of the time. There's no way this should be considered fair and it's probably not even this bad. If an X Force team with 40 points shows up, your expected gain is (0.5 * 40) - (0.5 - 10) = 15 points, so that's still a favorable outcome. You can be pretty sure whoever gives you 40 points on a match won't retaliate but if he does that's even better because you just do the same thing again until he stops. On the flip side, the same match viewed from the point of the X Force guy has an expected outcome is (0.9 * 10) - (0.1 * 40) - 35 (expected value of the retaliation) = negative 30 points, so he shouldn't take this game even with a 90% chance to win. The overpowered guys eventually becomes fat enough for even a weaker team to take a chance, but the reason they get so fat is because they're beating other teams easily in the first place. Balance shouldn't be wait until whoever is overpowered to become so fat from stomping everyone else that you can finally beat them (at least probabilistically). By the way, if you want to talk boosts, there's no rule that says the team with the most powerful character can't use them, and the most powerful character tends to benefit more than anyone else from the boosts.

Unknown

grifman wrote:

Several reasons:

1) For the same reason in RPG's that as you level up, your opponents do too. To maintain the challenge. Where's the challenge in a 166 team beating team of 94's? Why should you be rewarded for something anybody can do?
2) For the fun of collecting additional characters and covers

Only a small handful of RPGs have enemies that scale up in lvls together with the player, the norm in RPGs is to divide the game into many different areas and each area is occupied by enemies of a certain lvl that is increasing in lvl with each progressive area, and the game usually have some sort of gating system that prevents the player from progressing into areas they are not supposed to yet (that's how I view the current PVP wall system) In a RPG game you can't expect to be able to waltz through every region and beat the final boss without having to do alot of grinding and lvling for your own characters.

PVP is currently already like this, as your points in a PVP event increases you face increasingly more difficult opponents.For a solid max 2* roster player, they start the PVP by
1) beating down some very low lvled loaner teams,
2) as they gain more points their opponent change into max 1* or unmaxed 2*s,
3) after gaining some more points the opponent become all max 2*,
4) after gaining a bit more points the opponent now becomes a mix of max 2* and transitioning 3* teams but is usually able to skip around and still fight only 2* teams,,, eg the player is at the door steps of 3* land
5) by skipping around the player now have gained enough points and progressed enough to sneak into 3* land and is now faced with all max covered 3* opponents and unless shielded gets smacked back down to #3). This is the equivalent of in a RPG game of an underlvled player wondering into a tougher area that they are not prepared for and gets killed in the process.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

-snip- Let's say X Force beats the average 3* team 90% of the time and the average 3* team beats X Force 50% of the time. -snip-

I don't get even CLOSE to 50% defensive wins vs 2x166 3* teams... maybe 10% or thereabouts (probably less) which tends to depend if the featured hero is any use since mine is often higher level than theirs. So in Sentry for example I got more like 20% defensive wins (vs 3* only teams) whereas it'll be less than 10% if Beast is featured .

You are massively overestimating his impact TBH.

Unknown

grifman wrote:

Here's where you are wrong. The "best" people don't necessarily have the "best" rosters. I could be a much better player than you on even ground, but instead I lose to you because only because you have a better roster. Better roster does not equal better player.


You're still confused. Your 166 roster beating my 94 roster has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with you having a better roster. Better roster does not equal ability to play the game.

Let's not delude ourselves here, MPQ is a pretty simple match 3 game in which "skill" is of almost trivial importance. Success in battle boils down to mainly roster strength, whether boosts were used and luck in no particular order. Also even in PVP we are not fighting against another player, we are fighting against a dumb as a brick but fairly lucky AI while having the important advantage of being able to selectively target a particular character and always having 1st move. This game is not a test or competition of skills, ability etc.

Unknown

What I find interesting is that we don't really seem to play against the others in our bracket. Currently in TexMex I have not seen anyone in my bracket as targets. Granted I can only see those within 10 places of me, it still seems as though I should be seeing those that I am playing against more often that I do.