My 2cents on the NEW PVP

Unknown

The intention of d3 is good, but to me this is a forced diversity. its like d3 saying "i am done with balancing char".

i dont think 2* should be buffed to 170 i would more appreciate if it is like 150 or something.
3* should be 250 not 280.

i mean i put so much time and effort to build up my roster but to play with anything u want to shove it to me, thats not nice d3.
lets face it, not everyone planning to max out all char.
and if i max out a 3star i would still like a slight edge over a buffed 2*
and if i max out a 4star i would still like a slight edge over a buffed 3*

atm, whatever msg i m getting from d3 is, use these weekly buffed chars or be doomed, iso them up if u could.

i believe a true diversity will come if they just slightly decrease lvl on buffed chars.
and there will be a finding the new meta game everyweek, which is a plus for me, and truly live up to putting themselves in the strategy category.

Trisul

Unforced diversity > forced diversity > monotony

Unforced diversity can only happen in a truly balanced metagame (which is fairly difficult to achieve).

thanos8587

imo the feature character should receive the largest buff, otherwise the whole feature thing is irrelevant.

second the 2 and 3 star buffs are too large. they make games way more grindy and not fun. also rotate the buffs each pvp, not for each whole week. its already stale in the daken pvp to see the same buffed characters.

i like the idea, i just think it needs adjustment. i think it makes it alot more interesting for the 1 and 2 star players to keep them engaged.

PeterGibbons316

noisnam wrote:

and if i max out a 3star i would still like a slight edge over a buffed 2*
and if i max out a 4star i would still like a slight edge over a buffed 3*

I think you are missing the point. I believe they are trying to get rid of the stale version of PvP where everyone uses 270 XF/4hor teams, and diversify the rosters as well as the player base that is able to finsh in/near the top.

So if you had a max HT/Patch/Loki this time, you probably did very well. Probably much better than someone with a 270 XF/4hor and not much else.



The only thing I really don't like about the new PvP is that with so many buffed characters, you run in to harder teams, that take longer to fight, are more likely to get off their nukes, requiring more health packs. So it changes the meta. If this continues we should see a shift in the number of people using characters that have true healing, AP steal, and defense tile generation.

Unknown

yeah, but right now its what d3 pick for us to play, not what we want to play with.
i mean i dont think it is a bad change, i just think they can do better on applying this changes.

my concern is should buffed 2* be buffed over non buff 3star.

i m gonna use ares and punisher as an example.
they are both 3 active cheap ap damage dealer.

now ares is 170 and pun is 166. with the 2 star scaling it is a no brainer to pick ares. (there goes the diversity)
but if ares is in 150. he is probably still having better stat than a 166 pun since he scale from 2 star. but now ares is closer to pun and there is a choice to make here. which is well depended on who will be pairing with them(there is diversity i am looking for.)
what you are having now is not diversity, its rotation.

Unknown

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

noisnam wrote:

and if i max out a 3star i would still like a slight edge over a buffed 2*
and if i max out a 4star i would still like a slight edge over a buffed 3*

I think you are missing the point. .

i think u missing my points . thano gets it dough.

SymmeTrey

I tend to agree. I really like the concept but, the more I have played, I think that the buffs are too large. To me, the maxed buffed 3*'s should be a little lower than they are currently, and, to a lesser degree, the the buffed 2*'s should perhaps be a little lower, too.