Upcoming Test: Powered-Up Characters in Versus
Comments
-
If they really wanted to test it fully and be fair about it, they should put it in place at the start of a new season and run it for that full season. On top of the obvious benefits from a thorough testing standpoint, changing major game elements mid-competition is not a great policy and it's a habit they really need to break.scottee wrote:Also to those complaining about it being midseason, the two events between seasons often have at least one of the events, if not both, that are not centered around a single featured character. If they run Balance of Power or Combined Arms, that only leaves 1 event for testing. And it's possible that both are not singularly featured events.0 -
This is fantastic and I for one am really excited about this! Some thoughts:
- Probably the worst part of the game has been its repetitiveness. it sounds like it will finally make sense to use teams other than "two best characters + whatever" which is SO huge
- In the Punisher event that just ended I have a fully maxed Punisher and only used one of his abilities ONCE in the whole event. Further buffing the featured character is a great idea as it makes the event more about that character. (and for all the people constantly badmouthing the devs, it's kind of embarrassing that this didn't seem to occur to anyone else)
- Having other characters buffed through the week (or however long) is a double edged sword: it encourages roster diversity but also hamstrings you if you don't have anything invested in any of them. that said, the desv need to make money and it's nice to finally have a reason to level the B+ characters we'd otherwise never get much use out of. If they'd lower the $$ cost of iso a bit I could see it finally making sense to start buying it. I haven't needed to buy hero points in ages as once you've got a big enough roster the game pays for itself, but iso always feels in short supply and now even more so.
- Finally, it seems increasingly clear (and probably for the best) that there's going to be an X-Force nerf coming as it's hard to imagine not including him on any team you build regardless of buffs, and the devs' goal seems to be to get away from cookie cutter teams. I'm interested to see how this plays out, but if you take X-Force out of the equation it seems like PVP may finally be somewhat balanced. I will certainly miss playing with him, but he's had a good run and the more I think about it even if he ends up being wheelchaired it will probably mean an improvement to the balance of the game over the status quo. I guess the question will be how an unbuffed-X-Force compares to a a buffed three-star.
Anyway, this is awesome and I can't wait to see it in action. (And now I wish I'd leveled my Torch! See? It's working!)0 -
Unless this is implemented like Heroic PvP this will simply not work. Pretty sure that no matter how much you buff Punisher short of him one shotting the entire enemy team, you will never use his abilities over Xforce's. All this will do is increase the amount of damage you take per fight and increase the length due to them having extra hp.
Some abilities are just flat out better than other ones. Unless you're buffing it to the point where if you don't have one you simply cannot compete, there is no point. A 290 She-Hulk is just going to punish your team if she gets enough red but not be strong enough that you feel that must field your own. A 2,000 damage AoE will mess up your Hood/Loki but if you field your own 16k+ HP team the damage is negligible. It just serves to frustrate and elongate the game, things that are not needed in the current PvP meta. The issue of losing massive amounts of points through defensive losses needs to be addressed first before you can mess around with buffing random characters.
Heroic PvP would be interesting but the only one to implement it fairly would be to give everyone "loaner" characters for the week (only usable in PvP). Put a max leveled character temporarily on your roster for the week and you'd be free to respec the talents anyway you want. Keep them on the roster so you have to worry about health kits + res timers (not like current loaners where they are always at full life). People who already have that character can use either ones giving people who invested a bonus life.0 -
So the positive of this test is 2* buff will allow 2* to have more health and be able to compete with 3* teams.
#2 if you have a deep team of level 3 166 characters you will do awsome. You will be able to have the buffed characters and at level 270 even if they are not the best will be able to take damage and play against bigger teams.
#3 players will try out different teams in PVP who are in 3* transition brcause their characters wi lower levels will be buffed.
Negatives
#1 by buffing two 4* characters probably Electra and Fury, maybe star lord you are still making 4* with much more health and much more difficult to kill. Whales will still dominate and I don't mean the DP kind.
#2 d3 is looking for us to level more characters by doing this. If the boosted 3* are Gamora, Mstique, Beast, Rags, Spiderman these will most likely b under leveled characters and players will be defaulting to there A team at the end of PVP instead of going with the buffed characters.
Overall I think this is a good attemp to change PVP. I think if they just buffed 1-3* characters it would provide more diversity. I think buffing 4* as fair as it might be creates a need for a consistant A team regardless of how many * a character is. I would much rather attack a buffed IW and Fury than an unbuffed Xforce and 4Thor. If it also becomes the norm when Xforce gets his once every 3 week buff he will be crazy stupid broken with 15k health.0 -
slidecage wrote:We will see but they should of held this test off for MID SEASON just like other the other test
We like to do that where possible, but it doesn't work for this test. We're trying to shake up the standard Versus format, so the test needs to be run in the environment of a standard Versus event in order for us to get useful information. And we're not sure enough about the effect this will have to run the test for a full season.0 -
Demiurge_Will wrote:slidecage wrote:We will see but they should of held this test off for MID SEASON just like other the other test
We like to do that where possible, but it doesn't work for this test. We're trying to shake up the standard Versus format, so the test needs to be run in the environment of a standard Versus event in order for us to get useful information. And we're not sure enough about the effect this will have to run the test for a full season.
And if they run this at the beginning of a season, then there will inevitably be complaints of people expecting this to be run for the entire season, who are mad because they stopped the test early and now they cant get the score they thought they would get if the test continued to run. Its a catch-22 if ive ever seen one: theres just straight up no optimal time to run it for everyone to be happy.0 -
NorthernPolarity wrote:Demiurge_Will wrote:slidecage wrote:We will see but they should of held this test off for MID SEASON just like other the other test
We like to do that where possible, but it doesn't work for this test. We're trying to shake up the standard Versus format, so the test needs to be run in the environment of a standard Versus event in order for us to get useful information. And we're not sure enough about the effect this will have to run the test for a full season.
And if they run this at the beginning of a season, then there will inevitably be complaints of people expecting this to be run for the entire season, who are mad because they stopped the test early and now they cant get the score they thought they would get if the test continued to run. Its a catch-22 if ive ever seen one: theres just straight up no optimal time to run it for everyone to be happy.
They could give everyone a free 10-pack for participating in the test. Top 100 alliances will still be top 100 and people complaining about not reaching 4000 get the reward anyway.0 -
Are there plans for the future to carry these buffs over to Simulator in any way?0
-
General thoughts about this idea on paper:
1) Seems like an interesting way to potentially promote using counters to characters and roster diversity. This is in theory though. I don't exactly use a varied roster when up against boosted PvE characters. It's just my default go to teams. Especially at the highest tiers of competitive play.
2) People will be UPSET over this on a weekly basis.
Expect plenty of the following threads...
"Why is __________ boosted during the week where you release ______ covers/progression reward?"
"I'd have won that Xavier cover had you not boosted _____"
"Why am I being punished in _____ event for not having a leveled ______?"
"STOP boosting _____"
"______ character is worthless boosted since they have no damage abilities"
3) Fact: PvP's just got a lot tougher
More boosted characters mean tougher battles and more damage received. This will drain health packs quicker and result in lower event scores. Naturally it means fewer people will be getting the 1000 prog rewards. It should also do a good job punishing those who late join events like myself since everything just got a lot riskier. Hope you enjoy your wall of boosted Iron Fist's dealing ~800 damage a turn all week long.
The more I think about this change the more I'm disliking it...just got to wait and see.0 -
babinro wrote:
3) Fact: PvP's just got a lot tougher
More boosted characters mean tougher battles and more damage received. This will drain health packs quicker and result in lower event scores. Naturally it means fewer people will be getting the 1000 prog rewards. It should also do a good job punishing those who late join events like myself since everything just got a lot riskier. Hope you enjoy your wall of boosted Iron Fist's dealing ~800 damage a turn all week long.
The more I think about this change the more I'm disliking it...just got to wait and see.
This to me is a critical point. Restructuring the boosting system needs to come with a commitment to reevaluating Progression awards, at least as extensively as was done after SHIELD cooldowns. Now, that doesn't necessarily have to happen during the initial test, but it needs to happen.0 -
babinro wrote:General thoughts about this idea on paper:
1) Seems like an interesting way to potentially promote using counters to characters and roster diversity. This is in theory though. I don't exactly use a varied roster when up against boosted PvE characters. It's just my default go to teams. Especially at the highest tiers of competitive play.
2) People will be UPSET over this on a weekly basis.
Expect plenty of the following threads...
"Why is __________ boosted during the week where you release ______ covers/progression reward?"
"I'd have won that Xavier cover had you not boosted _____"
"Why am I being punished in _____ event for not having a leveled ______?"
"STOP boosting _____"
"______ character is worthless boosted since they have no damage abilities"
3) Fact: PvP's just got a lot tougher
More boosted characters mean tougher battles and more damage received. This will drain health packs quicker and result in lower event scores. Naturally it means fewer people will be getting the 1000 prog rewards. It should also do a good job punishing those who late join events like myself since everything just got a lot riskier. Hope you enjoy your wall of boosted Iron Fist's dealing ~800 damage a turn all week long.
The more I think about this change the more I'm disliking it...just got to wait and see.
Regarding your last point, i dont think that a harder game is necessarily a bad thing. I get where youre coming from: "i can faceroll with xor but with this change i cant as much", but this line of thinking impies that facerolling with xor is somehow still enjoyable in the first place. It might be for the first month, but after a while it just gets extremely stale. Longer games opens up the possibility for more choices to be made each game and more strategic depth (like def tiles being marginally better), and that sounds a lot better than the tedium we (or at least i) are experiencing right now. Getting rewards trivially is fun, but if that means that you deal with the tedium that is facerolling with xor every single pvp and experiencing very boring gameplay, then you have to ask yourself why youre playing this game in the first place. Whiel this wont solve everything and will inevitably cause complaints (as will any feature that is implemented in general) this seems like a step in the right direction for more interesting gameplay and longevity of the game.0 -
My biggest problem with this is that if you're not lucky enough to have the go to team for that week you're SOL. I'm at over 300 days played now and have just finally started to consistently hit the 1k progression without a mighty struggle. My roster is not deep by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sitting on a huge pile of characters that are fully covered but I don't have the ISO to invest in them to level them up. That situation only will only continue to get worse as they continue the non stop addition of new characters. If I hit a bad week where my buffed sure characters are not leveled enough to be competitive then what am I to do? Am I supposed to be content with not being able to compete at a high level for an entire week?0
-
NorthernPolarity wrote:Regarding your last point, i dont think that a harder game is necessarily a bad thing. I get where youre coming from: "i can faceroll with xor but with this change i cant as much", but this line of thinking impies that facerolling with xor is somehow still enjoyable in the first place. It might be for the first month, but after a while it just gets extremely stale. Longer games opens up the possibility for more choices to be made each game and more strategic depth (like def tiles being marginally better), and that sounds a lot better than the tedium we (or at least i) are experiencing right now. Getting rewards trivially is fun, but if that means that you deal with the tedium that is facerolling with xor every single pvp and experiencing very boring gameplay, then you have to ask yourself why youre playing this game in the first place. Whiel this wont solve everything and will inevitably cause complaints (as will any feature that is implemented in general) this seems like a step in the right direction for more interesting gameplay and longevity of the game.
Until they address the issues with the current PvP setup this is a bad idea. Harder games are a bad thing when you are restricted by how many health kits you have / how long you can play for and by the way the point structure works in PvP. If every game takes 5 minutes and you're hit 3 times during that period of time, what's the point of playing?0 -
radav wrote:My biggest problem with this is that if you're not lucky enough to have the go to team for that week you're SOL. I'm at over 300 days played now and have just finally started to consistently hit the 1k progression without a mighty struggle. My roster is not deep by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sitting on a huge pile of characters that are fully covered but I don't have the ISO to invest in them to level them up. That situation only will only continue to get worse as they continue the non stop addition of new characters. If I hit a bad week where my buffed sure characters are not leveled enough to be competitive then what am I to do? Am I supposed to be content with not being able to compete at a high level for an entire week?
I dont think this will end up being as bad as you make it out to be. Even in the current format, you can argue that "if i dont have the featured im sol", but this is mitigated by the fact that you have xf or whatever who is unconditionally good. The new format only boosts 3*s to 4* tier so if you dont have the featured then you can just use xf and it will straight up be just as good. This format makes sense assuming everyone is balanced: your unboosted 4*s are your reserves in case you dont have the featured, and if all characters are equal then you are basically just as competitive. Honestly in the current state of the game as long as you have xf youll still always use him in the new format anyways so it doesnt change much except make different team comps more viable. Still seems better than the current system.0 -
dkffiv wrote:NorthernPolarity wrote:Regarding your last point, i dont think that a harder game is necessarily a bad thing. I get where youre coming from: "i can faceroll with xor but with this change i cant as much", but this line of thinking impies that facerolling with xor is somehow still enjoyable in the first place. It might be for the first month, but after a while it just gets extremely stale. Longer games opens up the possibility for more choices to be made each game and more strategic depth (like def tiles being marginally better), and that sounds a lot better than the tedium we (or at least i) are experiencing right now. Getting rewards trivially is fun, but if that means that you deal with the tedium that is facerolling with xor every single pvp and experiencing very boring gameplay, then you have to ask yourself why youre playing this game in the first place. Whiel this wont solve everything and will inevitably cause complaints (as will any feature that is implemented in general) this seems like a step in the right direction for more interesting gameplay and longevity of the game.
Until they address the issues with the current PvP setup this is a bad idea. Harder games are a bad thing when you are restricted by how many health kits you have / how long you can play for and by the way the point structure works in PvP. If every game takes 5 minutes and you're hit 3 times during that period of time, what's the point of playing?
If everyones games is taking longer as well then presumably taking defensive hits will be mitigated as well.0 -
Nobody who runs any kind of reputable competition does this. You don't just change the rules half way through your season as a test while people are competing for prizes that matter to them. It would be like the NFL deciding to try out a move from 11 to 15 players per team, but just in November, then change it back. Pre-seasons and off-seasons are appropriate testing grounds. Regular seasons are not.Demiurge_Will wrote:
We like to do that where possible, but it doesn't work for this test. We're trying to shake up the standard Versus format, so the test needs to be run in the environment of a standard Versus event in order for us to get useful information. And we're not sure enough about the effect this will have to run the test for a full season.slidecage wrote:We will see but they should of held this test off for MID SEASON just like other the other test
If you're concerned enough about the effects that you don't want to commit to running the test for a full season, it stands to reason you shouldn't be dropping them into the middle of the season either. Make a mock season starting after this one, have representative prizes to make it as close to a real season scenario as possible and have it run for however long as you want to test for. That's fair and reasonable. What you're doing now is not. It's amateur hour.0 -
NorthernPolarity wrote:
If everyones games is taking longer as well then presumably taking defensive hits will be mitigated as well.
Attacks will be focused on higher point players and it will be much harder to climb. Currently the best strategy is to surge quickly and get your score up before others notice you, then shield. Longer delays will let people see your actual point total more accurately. Speed is king because the current system is broken.0 -
NorthernPolarity wrote:I dont think this will end up being as bad as you make it out to be. Even in the current format, you can argue that "if i dont have the featured im sol", but this is mitigated by the fact that you have xf or whatever who is unconditionally good. The new format only boosts 3*s to 4* tier so if you dont have the featured then you can just use xf and it will straight up be just as good. This format makes sense assuming everyone is balanced: your unboosted 4*s are your reserves in case you dont have the featured, and if all characters are equal then you are basically just as competitive. Honestly in the current state of the game as long as you have xf youll still always use him in the new format anyways so it doesnt change much except make different team comps more viable. Still seems better than the current system.
So once XF is neutered to 3* + territory with GT and the rest of the 4* then when faced with the situation described who do I fall back on then?0 -
Demiurge_Will wrote:slidecage wrote:We will see but they should of held this test off for MID SEASON just like other the other test
We like to do that where possible, but it doesn't work for this test. We're trying to shake up the standard Versus format, so the test needs to be run in the environment of a standard Versus event in order for us to get useful information. And we're not sure enough about the effect this will have to run the test for a full season.
Sounds made up.0 -
I'm gonna be in the minority here but this sounds like a terrible idea.
Combined Arms/Balance of Power are awful PVP's experience for anyone with a developped roster and this seems to be
aiming at the same thing. So basically you want to negate the advantage of people having actually developped
their roster now?
Also, as it was already mentionned, * & **'s characters scale horribly and get so overpowered past their normal maximum level (Juggs, Ares, Daken etc). There's nothing fun playing against grossly overpowered characters. (as in, every PVE event)
The only thing I will agree with is the featured *** getting a bigger buff.
If you want to diversify PVP, go back to running different types of events. You guys haven't done this anymore because quote "it didnt sell more cover packs". Or, run two concurrent PVP events, regular and this screwball PVP you are suggesting. We already have a concurrent PVP with Shield Simulator but the rewards are worthless and it lasts a whole season so it hardly counts.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.9K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.7K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 508 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 424 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 300 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.7K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements