A couple upcoming changes to PvP events

Nemek

Moghwyn wrote:

Bucky76 wrote:

Perhaps make skipping free...but if you skip you get no or much less ISO on your next win.

Like that idea. Reduce the ISO reward of the selected battle node by a small amout (e.g. 5%) every time you skip, capped at maybe 25%. Resets to 100% once you win or the event is over.

Yeah, I'd be a fan of that, too. Say every battle is worth 200 points, but then subtract 5 points for every skip you did right before that battle. So it doesn't feel like you're directly taking away ISO from the player, but instead reducing their prize.

Unknown

So let me get this straight, you are changing the matchmaking so that you can get matched up with people far above you, and then are going to add a iso cost to skipping?

Are your designers really that stupid?

Unknown

zhadum wrote:

So let me get this straight

No need to be insulting. They are talking about matching people based on matchmaking rating, without limiting it to those of similar score. In theory, those teams aren't any stronger than the ones at a similar score. In practice, I'm not so sure that's true.

Unknown

zhadum wrote:

So let me get this straight, you are changing the matchmaking so that you can get matched up with people far above you, and then are going to add a iso cost to skipping?

Are your designers really that stupid?

No, but you are.

Unknown

I suspect the increased cost of shields will have the opposite effect. Basically, anyone who isn't swimming in HP will not be able to afford to shield and we'll devolve back into a giant cluster-f in the last half an hour of the tournament except the top 5 places will already be claimed by people who don't need the extra HP they earn by being there.

DirigiblePilot

Misguided wrote:

Top progression is 2400 still. If anyone has started, can you check shield costs, please?

Phantron wrote:

Shields now cost 100/200/400 for the newest tournament.

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

zhadum wrote:

So let me get this straight

No need to be insulting. They are talking about matching people based on matchmaking rating, without limiting it to those of similar score. In theory, those teams aren't any stronger than the ones at a similar score. In practice, I'm not so sure that's true.

Because their matchmaking rating has proven to be such a good, reliable, method of finding even matches.</sarcasm>

Unknown

zhadum wrote:

Because their matchmaking rating has proven to be such a good, reliable, method of finding even matches.</sarcasm>

I don't disagree with you, as I just stated, but keep it civil, please.

Bcorm

Misguided wrote:

Bcorm wrote:

I'm not quite sure exactly how your MMR is calculated but I'm afraid that these new changes might penalize and frustrate players. I noticed that I was seeing a lot of 50 point matches lately, the problem was there was no way I could beat them, even with the optimal combination of boosts. If these changes take place it would further frustrate people in my position. It would cost Iso to skip a battle I have no chance of winning or I burn 3 to 6 health packs to try and hope I can pull it off. Then after, hope I don't get 0 Iso as a reward and been attacked 5 times during the match. I'm not saying the MMR system is completely broken but it does need some tweaking before things playing off it are implemented further exacerbating the problem. I've noticed that I've been receiving 0 Iso rewards roughly 70% of the time so to institute these changes would make the Tournament system basically an Iso and Health Pack drain. I'm sorry if this comes across as whiney, that's not my intention, I just feel that with these changes and a flawed MMR it will just further the gap between players and be more of a test of wallet strength, not strategy.

Rewards should be 70 or 140 (and it sounds like these may increase?) never 0. Not sure what you are referring to here.

I was referring to the rewards for winning the match. I've been getting 0 Iso roughly 70% of the time, 70 about 20% of the time and 140 10% of the time.

Unknown

ApolloAndy wrote:

I suspect the increased cost of shields will have the opposite effect. Basically, anyone who isn't swimming in HP will not be able to afford to shield and we'll devolve back into a giant cluster-f in the last half an hour of the tournament except the top 5 places will already be claimed by people who don't need the extra HP they earn by being there.

People who are swimming in HP can just save up 2500 needed to buy the 4 star covers (or 1250 for 3 star covers) after they got their first one. With the cost being they are, you're taking a huge gamble especially for the 4 star when you can simply just save up HP. Looking at the rate I was getting pummeled today (which is consistent with everyone else), there is just no way to ensure you can hold your rating now unless you're constantly shielded, but it takes 400X3 = 1200 to be fully shielded for the 3 days the event lasts. Even if you manage to get away with say 5 blocks of 8 hours, that's still 1000 HP. Compared to the 2500 HP cost to directly upgrade a cover, that's an awfully risky move to make.

Spoit

Bcorm wrote:

Misguided wrote:

Bcorm wrote:

I'm not quite sure exactly how your MMR is calculated but I'm afraid that these new changes might penalize and frustrate players. I noticed that I was seeing a lot of 50 point matches lately, the problem was there was no way I could beat them, even with the optimal combination of boosts. If these changes take place it would further frustrate people in my position. It would cost Iso to skip a battle I have no chance of winning or I burn 3 to 6 health packs to try and hope I can pull it off. Then after, hope I don't get 0 Iso as a reward and been attacked 5 times during the match. I'm not saying the MMR system is completely broken but it does need some tweaking before things playing off it are implemented further exacerbating the problem. I've noticed that I've been receiving 0 Iso rewards roughly 70% of the time so to institute these changes would make the Tournament system basically an Iso and Health Pack drain. I'm sorry if this comes across as whiney, that's not my intention, I just feel that with these changes and a flawed MMR it will just further the gap between players and be more of a test of wallet strength, not strategy.

Rewards should be 70 or 140 (and it sounds like these may increase?) never 0. Not sure what you are referring to here.

I was referring to the rewards for winning the match. I've been getting 0 Iso roughly 70% of the time, 70 about 20% of the time and 140 10% of the time.

That's a bug. Double check you iso totals before and after a match to see if it's just not showing the prompt, and then email support

bahamut685

Charging us to skip is counter intuitive, when 95% of matches include level 80-120 opponents for level 30 players, especially when those opponents are 10 point matches at best. so maybe adapt match making to also consider hero levels, or else tournaments are going to become a desolate wasteland, and even more of a pay-to-win feature.

Unknown

Bcorm wrote:

Misguided wrote:

I was referring to the rewards for winning the match. I've been getting 0 Iso roughly 70% of the time, 70 about 20% of the time and 140 10% of the time.

Send an email to support. The only two rewards for a PVP battle are 70 and 140. Has anyone else ever received 0?

Unknown

bahamut685 wrote:

Charging us to skip is counter intuitive, when 95% of matches include level 80-120 opponents for level 30 players, especially when those opponents are 10 point matches at best. so maybe adapt match making to also consider hero levels, or else tournaments are going to become a desolate wasteland, and even more of a pay-to-win feature.

Hey, welcome to the forum. Stick around.

Nemek

Phantron wrote:

ApolloAndy wrote:

I suspect the increased cost of shields will have the opposite effect. Basically, anyone who isn't swimming in HP will not be able to afford to shield and we'll devolve back into a giant cluster-f in the last half an hour of the tournament except the top 5 places will already be claimed by people who don't need the extra HP they earn by being there.

People who are swimming in HP can just save up 2500 needed to buy the 4 star covers (or 1250 for 3 star covers) after they got their first one. With the cost being they are, you're taking a huge gamble especially for the 4 star when you can simply just save up HP. Looking at the rate I was getting pummeled today (which is consistent with everyone else), there is just no way to ensure you can hold your rating now unless you're constantly shielded, but it takes 400X3 = 1200 to be fully shielded for the 3 days the event lasts. Even if you manage to get away with say 5 blocks of 8 hours, that's still 1000 HP. Compared to the 2500 HP cost to directly upgrade a cover, that's an awfully risky move to make.

It's still a bit too early to tell. Also, if you're getting to 2400, there's a pretty good chance you're getting the 1st place 4* as well, so now we're looking at 5000HP of upgrades.

I consider myself 'swimming in HP' nowadays (13K HP, all from tourneys) and I probably still wouldn't consider buying a 4* cover upgrade (partly because after I do complete the 4* covers, I'll have nothing to play for.)

We'll all test the water with this Ares tournament to see how things shake out and develop much more accurate conclusions then.

Unknown

ApolloAndy wrote:

I suspect the increased cost of shields will have the opposite effect. Basically, anyone who isn't swimming in HP will not be able to afford to shield and we'll devolve back into a giant cluster-f in the last half an hour of the tournament except the top 5 places will already be claimed by people who don't need the extra HP they earn by being there.

Whenever you implement a steep pay wall for something: education, becoming a partner of your firm, this game, etc...all you do is allow the rich to get richer. If they were trying to create parity..well this isn't it. Thinly veiled added cost to play as I see it. Just add it to the list of other things: nerfs that allow you to avoid damage/heal, nerf to healing.times, increased costs of things, increased progression reward points, 500 hp progression rewards and winning rewards dropped to 100...etc. I don't entirely blame them though as it is a business and this is their job and how they bring bread home. So I can respect business.
As a player though, its kinda garbage.


My BIGGEST dislike maybe of all due to the "wow" factor? Making the devil dino lvl no longer repeatable. Why? Because it has a hp reward -.- I mean...really?

I.really wanna see how this round ends up. Personally, All i want is patches (even then.no way I add ISO until I see what the 4**** ends up looking like). I already have 5 punisher covers covering dust in my inbox (along with 1/1 rag, purple mag, 2 blue dooms, and 0/0/2 im.....wanted to wait to sell to see how many unusable 3*** I could have at one time lol.

DirigiblePilot

Misguided wrote:

bahamut685 wrote:

Charging us to skip is counter intuitive, when 95% of matches include level 80-120 opponents for level 30 players, especially when those opponents are 10 point matches at best. so maybe adapt match making to also consider hero levels, or else tournaments are going to become a desolate wasteland, and even more of a pay-to-win feature.

Hey, welcome to the forum. Stick around.

Yes, you'll certainly love what you see- a bunch of people arguing over a (in the end) pointless video game.
I'm sorry, that was a bit caustic. I really do enjoy this game, and I like arguing about it as much as the next guy, but I really am worried about the direction the developers are taking. Shouldn't they see the huge amount of uproar and revise their ideas a bit? We can only hope...

Unknown

bongo king wrote:

I would like to see a cap on the number of people who can attack each player simaltaniously this way you don't loose 80 point after winning a fight which that is the most frustrating part of the tournaments.

This.

If you can only fight one match at a time yourself then your team should only be able to be fought by one person at a time.

Spoit

BrenH wrote:

bongo king wrote:

I would like to see a cap on the number of people who can attack each player simaltaniously this way you don't loose 80 point after winning a fight which that is the most frustrating part of the tournaments.

This.

If you can only fight one match at a time yourself then your team should only be able to be fought by one person at a time.

With the way it queues up matches, that's not really possible. It stores a handful of matches in reserve. You can still skip through matches if you have a momentary connection interruption, see: the 'empty slot' bug a few months ago

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

BrenH wrote:

bongo king wrote:

I would like to see a cap on the number of people who can attack each player simaltaniously this way you don't loose 80 point after winning a fight which that is the most frustrating part of the tournaments.

This.

If you can only fight one match at a time yourself then your team should only be able to be fought by one person at a time.

With the way it queues up matches, that's not really possible. It stores a handful of matches in reserve. You can still skip through matches if you have a momentary connection interruption, see: the 'empty slot' bug a few months ago

Yeah that's true.

What if they changed the Pvp to a single arena instead of having 3 to choose from and just randomise which arena it is at the start of the event.
This way each skip prompts a call to the server for a fresh opponent.
Probably still far too difficult to achieve as it would require an almost total reworking of the Pvp setup.