2*, 3*, and 4*s should not always be competing with each oth

evanbernstein

Now that 4* characters are being pushed heavily by the devs, I worry that I won't have a game I want to play as a 2* to 3* transitioning character (the best character I have is 3* Captain America at level 127 [who is set to be punted] and no other 3* above 102 because I don't have enough covers).

I don't want to play PVE events where a 4* is required. I don't want to play PVP against 4* rosters. But this is the future unless things change.

I want to play the 3* game for quite awhile. I'm not even ready for it and I don't want to think about 4* yet. It seems like you could have two events running at the same time: a 3* event and a 4* event. Let people choose one or the other. I'm not sure what to do about alliances, but maybe they have to be in one or the other. While this might be awkward for some, it might actually be great. Maybe my alliance would finally break top 100.

It seems like people would be a lot happier if 4* players were playing in 4* land, 3* players were playing in 3* land, and 2* players were playing in 2* land. I'm not sure how it would work (I'm not the game designer) but it seems like something like this is in order to give players things they want to aspire to, but letting them have fun where they are.

Unknown

I feel the same way. I'm stuck with a 2* roster and I keep getting facerolled by the 3* teams, thus never earning a high enough rank to grow my 3* covers. I do not believe in the pay/mod to win game model. I will earn my team through grinding the old fashioned way.

Unknown

i made a post about this same issuse i am fine with 3*'-1* fighting it out in pvp, but 4* should be no where near this pvp group at all

iLL619

I agree I'm a 2*- 3* transition day 76.. The need to keep certain levels to battle each other than others getting stomped by high 3* and 4* in PvP.. Change rewards too.. Tokens you get and you use and get another 2* you don't need wooooow

slidecage

like said before in the PVP there should be two going on at once

3 and 4 star roaster only
1 and 2 star only.

the 3 and 4 would have better prizes. and i really do think we may see something like this starting with the major 4 stars coming i can see events like this happening.

And those who DONT want to put money into the game, how do you expect them to make changes when you wont give them a penny.

DC1972

This is the first game I have actually spent money on just to be somewhat competitive but it is frustrating that the same players and alliances win the top prizes every time since they started much earlier or spent more money which just makes their rosters that much stronger for the next event. I won't spend more to catch up. The game definitely needs more tiers as suggested although 3* and 4* may need to be split as those 4* can still kill the 3*. The Balance of Power events were fun since things were on a more level playing field.

[Deleted User]

evanbernstein wrote:

Now that 4* characters are being pushed heavily by the devs, I worry that I won't have a game I want to play as a 2* to 3* transitioning character (the best character I have is 3* Captain America at level 127 [who is set to be punted] and no other 3* above 102 because I don't have enough covers).

I don't want to play PVE events where a 4* is required. I don't want to play PVP against 4* rosters. But this is the future unless things change.

I want to play the 3* game for quite awhile. I'm not even ready for it and I don't want to think about 4* yet. It seems like you could have two events running at the same time: a 3* event and a 4* event. Let people choose one or the other. I'm not sure what to do about alliances, but maybe they have to be in one or the other. While this might be awkward for some, it might actually be great. Maybe my alliance would finally break top 100.

It seems like people would be a lot happier if 4* players were playing in 4* land, 3* players were playing in 3* land, and 2* players were playing in 2* land. I'm not sure how it would work (I'm not the game designer) but it seems like something like this is in order to give players things they want to aspire to, but letting them have fun where they are.

I agree with your overall message, however given the mixture of rosters spanning the entire 1-4* spectrum, you cannot just simply confine players to "4* land" if they possess a 4* cover. However, the matchmaking in this game does incontrovertibly LACK in the intelligence department. They need to consider multiple factors, which can be challenging, but I'm sure they're staffing some relational algebra gurus who can feasibly provide a solution.

They need to weigh factors such as and consider averages:

- total number of each category of covers (1-4*)
- total number of covers given per category
- average of each aforementioned category

and then match players against other like-roster players, the competitive pools for each event also needs to reflect that and they need to create enough classes to appropriately classify players in a way that they are not overmatched, that way rewards are based on time input and luck of the cascade instead of people who can overmatch younger rosters with more mature rosters

Overall--I agree with you and I hope that the incessant cry for revamping these systems is falling on the right ears (or reaching the right eyes) because it's creating a negative experience for a lot of people. But one thing that has always plagued online gaming is terrible matchmaking...but it does not give a developer a license to ignore the problem because "everybody else does it" and it's the de factor standard. People that take on these challenges are what separate good game makers from average game makers. This game has enough merit based on the Marvel brand ALONE, because we all know, and not to throw mud on anybody's name, that it's NOT because of how demiurge is pitifully handling the development of the game.

Unknown

Dapptastic wrote:

I agree with your overall message, however given the mixture of rosters spanning the entire 1-4* spectrum, you cannot just simply confine players to "4* land" if they possess a 4* cover.

It doesn't have to be quite that extreme. They could simply (I say "simply" ... heh) add another option to select when entering a PvP event which caps the available roster. You enter the 3* event, any 4*s on your roster are non-selectable. 2* event? One and two star characters only.

Of course the rewards would need to be rejiggered as well. I think a 3* event would be what we have currently, 4* top reward and 3* top 150. 2* event would have a 3* top reward and 2* top 150. 4* event? Give out more 4*s!

The only real issue I have with this, however, is that with the addition of time slices, adding any other structure on top that further divides the player base will just cause smaller and smaller brackets. Good for rewards, not so good for the game.

Edit: I say to this as a selectable option because let's face it, if they put out 4 different star levels of a PvP event someone would enter all 4 and then complain that the game is too time consuming.

iLL619

cjkmpq wrote:

Dapptastic wrote:

I agree with your overall message, however given the mixture of rosters spanning the entire 1-4* spectrum, you cannot just simply confine players to "4* land" if they possess a 4* cover.

It doesn't have to be quite that extreme. They could simply (I say "simply" ... heh) add another option to select when entering a PvP event which caps the available roster. You enter the 3* event, any 4*s on your roster are non-selectable. 2* event? One and two star characters only.

Of course the rewards would need to be rejiggered as well. I think a 3* event would be what we have currently, 4* top reward and 3* top 150. 2* event would have a 3* top reward and 2* top 150. 4* event? Give out more 4*s!

The only real issue I have with this, however, is that with the addition of time slices, adding any other structure on top that further divides the player base will just cause smaller and smaller brackets. Good for rewards, not so good for the game.

Edit: I say to this as a selectable option because let's face it, if they put out 4 different star levels of a PvP event someone would enter all 4 and then complain that the game is too time consuming.

I like this idea

[Deleted User]

Plus, every PvP event sponsors a powered-up version of the featured character. So, effectively, when there are 4* PvP events...everybody "has" a 4* cover if they participate in said event.

The best way to do it, logically, is to use a weighted-factoring system, as stated above which would be reasonably fair and arbitrary, and it is feasible with relational algebra. But a lot of processing power would be needed on the backend, hopefully they don't bloat the app with more code to do this.

I think a sliding 100-pt over/under window based on your actual event score, limiting your target pool to only people within 100 pts of your score would effectively neutralize overpowered rosters from attacking less-developed rosters. And the sliding window would naturally confine players to attack other players who are the "same size," if you will, once they start climbing the ranks.

KrazyKeylime

like this idea

hesjingixen

I don't know what the solution is, but I agree that there's a problem. I have several 3* at 166, but in every pvp event, I hit a wall of "featured + 270 4hor + 270 X-force". The real catch-22 is that the only reliable way I have to get any covers for 4hor (All I have is 1 red) is to win the pvp events......which I can't do, because I don't have a 270 4hor! So people that already have full covers are winning more covers....and selling them? recruiting a second 4hor? The sad thing is, even if I was willing to spend the HP to max out a 4hor on covers, I still need at least 1 of each, but I have no way to get them aside from spending literally 100s of $ to buy packs and just hope.

There needs to be some sort of system where people that don't need the covers aren't competing with people that do.

KrazyKeylime

i put a post in the Q & A for feb in general discussion forum. up vote it if you want them to answer it.
http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23518&start=120#p295741

[Deleted User]

KrazyKeylime wrote:

i put a post in the Q & A for feb in general discussion forum. up vote it if you want them to answer it.
http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23518&start=120#p295741

dude, that thread is 7 pages deep...whatever page displays, by default, when you click the link didn't seem to have a whisper about this topic. So I tried but wouldn't bother searching 6 other pages to 1+.

KrazyKeylime

when i click it goes right to my post:
Re: February Community Q&A - Now open!
Postby KrazyKeylime » Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:08 pm

Read the full post, finally, Can we separate the events into tiers so that each transition step is represented and has corresponding rewards appropriate the the transition steps(i.e. 1* to 2*, 2* to 3*, 3* to 4*, 4*+) right now everyone is competing for the same rewards and the most helpful rewards to each particular transition is being won but people that don't really need them and are out of reach to those that need them most.

sorry for the bad link page 7 mid page

Unknown

I mentioned something similar in the previous Q&A, I think this kind of tier system would be great for the game but doubtful it would come about anytime soon. Keep bringing it up we know they do listen sometimes.