Retaliation Change Suggestion

Feyda

With the recent change making it possible for low ranked players to attack the top ranked players, its going to get harder and harder to maintain your points. If someone much lower ranked than you attacks, you have the option to retaliate which is usually not a good idea (they will have the option to retaliate your retaliation and will probably get a lot more points from doing it ending in a net loss for you).

How about instead of retaliation you get the chance to DEFEND against the attack. If you beat their team, you regain all lost points from their attack but it doesn't count as an attack against them (net gain/loss = 0) preventing a slugfest that greatly favors the lower ranked opponent. I can't count how many times I've been shooting for progression rewards only to get the points needed to pass a threshold, but end the match and find out I lost 50-100 points from attacks.

Since the AI isn't smart enough to successfully defend 95% of the time, I think this would be a great way to combat some of the frustration of losing tons of points to people that frankly aren't worth your time to retaliate on.

mischiefmaker

I like the concept, but there's a problem: almost everyone can beat almost everyone. So as long as you're diligent about playing your defending opportunities, your score never goes down. Assuming your opponent gets to keep the points s/he gained from beating you, that means that scores will massively inflate.

Feyda

I suppose you have a point there, though I'm not sure inflation would get totally out of hand. Time spent defending would be time you recoup lost points but your original total wouldn't be going up. Perhaps a successful defense doesn't trigger a retaliation and halves the number of points that the attacking player earned while restoring the points to the defender would be more balanced. It would still cause inflation (devs have stated they want progression rewards more obtainable) but at a slower rate.

Spoit

mischiefmaker wrote:

I like the concept, but there's a problem: almost everyone can beat almost everyone. So as long as you're diligent about playing your defending opportunities, your score never goes down. Assuming your opponent gets to keep the points s/he gained from beating you, that means that scores will massively inflate.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Unknown

mischiefmaker wrote:

I like the concept, but there's a problem: almost everyone can beat almost everyone. So as long as you're diligent about playing your defending opportunities, your score never goes down. Assuming your opponent gets to keep the points s/he gained from beating you, that means that scores will massively inflate.

I think the crucial point is that your score doesn't go up either.

The more time you spend defending, the less time you spend attacking. It's a choice you have to make. Not a bad idea.

Nemek

Spoit wrote:

mischiefmaker wrote:

I like the concept, but there's a problem: almost everyone can beat almost everyone. So as long as you're diligent about playing your defending opportunities, your score never goes down. Assuming your opponent gets to keep the points s/he gained from beating you, that means that scores will massively inflate.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. We've already seen a ton of complaints about how the last couple of tournaments can be won by anyone who puts in the time. This would be exacerbated when scores are now in the 10,000s or whatever.

Unknown

so instead you prefer the top end of tournaments to be within 100 points and decided by whoever the matchmaker doles out 3 losses in the final 5 minutes? right now i think the main reason people are winning is they have a team of 140s that no one wants to attack or are sheilded.

keep the tournaments 2 days long and it should reward those who put in effort. I personally like this idea of defend as it short circuits the endless retaliation loop and gives me a way to protect my progression that I've worked a couple hours on. more and more the tourney style is encouraging to only play in the final 2h because any progression unshielded from day 1 is gone by then.

Unknown

abuelo wrote:

mischiefmaker wrote:

I like the concept, but there's a problem: almost everyone can beat almost everyone. So as long as you're diligent about playing your defending opportunities, your score never goes down. Assuming your opponent gets to keep the points s/he gained from beating you, that means that scores will massively inflate.

I think the crucial point is that your score doesn't go up either.

The more time you spend defending, the less time you spend attacking. It's a choice you have to make. Not a bad idea.

But, compared to current, your score WOULD go up.

Currently: You lose points (lets say a modest 35 points, even). Most of the time (at higher ranks anyhow) you skip the retaliation, because since they are lower rank, they don't offer you enough points to risk them just retaliating again. Instead, you fight someone else, who gives you 30 points lets say. So, one loss, one win, net change in points: -5.

With the proposed change: You lose points. You do the retaliation, get those points back. Net change in points: 0.

So, you come out 5 ahead in this proposed system, with the same effort. It gets even more unbalanced at the higher ranks where you can be losing 40-50 points easily now. And those teams pinging you for 40-50 points are highly likely to be an easier target than the teams already up in near you in points. Net effect, like michiefmaker said, massive inflation of scores. Players return to their previous rankings faster and easier, and then push the scores even higher.

Feyda

Unless they can come up with a way for your team to actually defend itself, I feel like something is needed to be able to push for progression. Was gunning for the 1000 point progression reward and just got attacked by the SAME team 5 times in a row for over 30 points loss every time. That's without me retaliating on them, they just keep pulling my name up in the Matchmaker. At my current level of points the best matches I can hope for are only worth 17-23 points so even if I fight continuously, that team is causing me to lose points. At least with the Defend system I would be able to keep my head above water.

Nemek

Catalyst wrote:

right now i think the main reason people are winning is they have a team of 140s that no one wants to attack or are sheilded.

Is THAT a bad thing? The people with 140s probably should be winning. They've obviously put in a lot of effort (or money) to get there.

Unknown

Feyda wrote:

Unless they can come up with a way for your team to actually defend itself, I feel like something is needed to be able to push for progression. Was gunning for the 1000 point progression reward and just got attacked by the SAME team 5 times in a row for over 30 points loss every time. That's without me retaliating on them, they just keep pulling my name up in the Matchmaker. At my current level of points the best matches I can hope for are only worth 17-23 points so even if I fight continuously, that team is causing me to lose points. At least with the Defend system I would be able to keep my head above water.

Yeah, MMR needs fixing. No one should have so few targets that they can quickly cycle through targets to continually hit a single target. Or perhaps, once you hit someone, they get placed on a list that hides them from that opponent for so many matches.

Unknown

In the post Ragnarok nerf era there's really no such thing as a team strong enough to dissuade someone from attacking. Even a team of 140s doesn't really mean anything if that team is worth 30 points over a weaker team that's worth 15 points. This is especially true in a boosted character tournament. Ares tournament might as well be called Ares and sidekicks. Two of his move can basically kill everyone that isn't himself in that tournament (Sunder can take out two guys with its two part attack). Why would anyone be worried about your level 140 when a level 85 Ares can kill them in one move?

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

In the post Ragnarok nerf era there's really no such thing as a team strong enough to dissuade someone from attacking. Even a team of 140s doesn't really mean anything if that team is worth 30 points over a weaker team that's worth 15 points. This is especially true in a boosted character tournament. Ares tournament might as well be called Ares and sidekicks. Two of his move can basically kill everyone that isn't himself in that tournament (Sunder can take out two guys with its two part attack). Why would anyone be worried about your level 140 when a level 85 Ares can kill them in one move?

Not true. Yes, the top end of players have no fear attacking anyone. But those who are not yet rocking 3* teams, how strong a teams is certainly is a factor in choosing opponents. A 10 point match can be preferable to a 30 point one if it will save you a health pack sometimes. High level hulks especially, because the green bomb the black can be.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

Phantron wrote:

In the post Ragnarok nerf era there's really no such thing as a team strong enough to dissuade someone from attacking. Even a team of 140s doesn't really mean anything if that team is worth 30 points over a weaker team that's worth 15 points. This is especially true in a boosted character tournament. Ares tournament might as well be called Ares and sidekicks. Two of his move can basically kill everyone that isn't himself in that tournament (Sunder can take out two guys with its two part attack). Why would anyone be worried about your level 140 when a level 85 Ares can kill them in one move?

Not true. Yes, the top end of players have no fear attacking anyone. But those who are not yet rocking 3* teams, how strong a teams is certainly is a factor in choosing opponents. A 10 point match can be preferable to a 30 point one if it will save you a health pack sometimes. High level hulks especially, because the green bomb the black can be.

You're severely overestimating the impact of having a high level team. If people acted the way you claim, you wouldn't hear all these guys crying about those hits for -50 all the time. The levels mean nothing compared to the potential point gained. Someone you attack for 10 is just going to retaliate you for 30, unless that team literally has no chance of beating you. In the current tournament that'd be if you found a team that has a level 6 Ares.

I don't get how people always think their high level team actually matters and then spend all their time crying about how their team is getting bulldozed. You're getting bulldozed precisely because your high level team is no deterrent whatsoever to someone with 3 level 85 2 stars.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Kyosokun wrote:

Phantron wrote:

In the post Ragnarok nerf era there's really no such thing as a team strong enough to dissuade someone from attacking. Even a team of 140s doesn't really mean anything if that team is worth 30 points over a weaker team that's worth 15 points. This is especially true in a boosted character tournament. Ares tournament might as well be called Ares and sidekicks. Two of his move can basically kill everyone that isn't himself in that tournament (Sunder can take out two guys with its two part attack). Why would anyone be worried about your level 140 when a level 85 Ares can kill them in one move?

Not true. Yes, the top end of players have no fear attacking anyone. But those who are not yet rocking 3* teams, how strong a teams is certainly is a factor in choosing opponents. A 10 point match can be preferable to a 30 point one if it will save you a health pack sometimes. High level hulks especially, because the green bomb the black can be.

You're severely overestimating the impact of having a high level team. If people acted the way you claim, you wouldn't hear all these guys crying about those hits for -50 all the time. The levels mean nothing compared to the potential point gained. Someone you attack for 10 is just going to retaliate you for 30, unless that team literally has no chance of beating you. In the current tournament that'd be if you found a team that has a level 6 Ares.

I don't get how people always think their high level team actually matters and then spend all their time crying about how their team is getting bulldozed. You're getting bulldozed precisely because your high level team is no deterrent whatsoever to someone with 3 level 85 2 stars.

I know it makes a difference because I play, and it's how I act. And given multiple choices, I'm going to go for the team that's the best mix of point value and ease. Others will act the same.
Having a high level team won't completely prevent you from being attacked, but it will 100% get you attacked less.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

I know it makes a difference because I play, and it's how I act. And given multiple choices, I'm going to go for the team that's the best mix of point value and ease. Others will act the same.
Having a high level team won't completely prevent you from being attacked, but it will 100% get you attacked less.

It's less but it's not enough to make people pass up a team that's worth 30 points for one that's worth 15 points. Sure, if both teams are worth the same, you'd attack the lower level one, but high level team naturally tends to be worth more.

Spoit

Phantron wrote:

Kyosokun wrote:

Phantron wrote:

In the post Ragnarok nerf era there's really no such thing as a team strong enough to dissuade someone from attacking. Even a team of 140s doesn't really mean anything if that team is worth 30 points over a weaker team that's worth 15 points. This is especially true in a boosted character tournament. Ares tournament might as well be called Ares and sidekicks. Two of his move can basically kill everyone that isn't himself in that tournament (Sunder can take out two guys with its two part attack). Why would anyone be worried about your level 140 when a level 85 Ares can kill them in one move?

Not true. Yes, the top end of players have no fear attacking anyone. But those who are not yet rocking 3* teams, how strong a teams is certainly is a factor in choosing opponents. A 10 point match can be preferable to a 30 point one if it will save you a health pack sometimes. High level hulks especially, because the green bomb the black can be.

You're severely overestimating the impact of having a high level team. If people acted the way you claim, you wouldn't hear all these guys crying about those hits for -50 all the time. The levels mean nothing compared to the potential point gained. Someone you attack for 10 is just going to retaliate you for 30, unless that team literally has no chance of beating you. In the current tournament that'd be if you found a team that has a level 6 Ares.

I don't get how people always think their high level team actually matters and then spend all their time crying about how their team is getting bulldozed. You're getting bulldozed precisely because your high level team is no deterrent whatsoever to someone with 3 level 85 2 stars.

Name one high level person who talks about their team deterring anything. They're the ones who are saying that there is no such thing the most. For all your talking about weeping strawmen, you're doing an exceptional job point out exactly why the -50 points thing is ****.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

Yeah, MMR needs fixing. No one should have so few targets that they can quickly cycle through targets to continually hit a single target. Or perhaps, once you hit someone, they get placed on a list that hides them from that opponent for so many matches.

This. Please.