Changes Coming In Season XIII

Arondite

Azoic wrote:

It sounds like a lot of ppl complaining about hitting the wall are the folks running with 166+. You guys are the wall. These changes were meant so even the folks with owning pvp with 5 166s couldn't prey on all the 94s. Now you have to fight equal teams to do your climb. I just said to my wife the other day how annoying it is that every retaliation opportunity I get is against 166-270s, so I habe to skip.

I am going to enter pvp in awhile and will update if I hit the wall, too. My max is profx at 112, and I dont have any fully covered 3* yet.

Ok, I entered. Mainly using my 107 cage/IF combo. One team after the seed had a 220 xf for some reason, but others were all 94s. I skipped that one and another pair of 94s. I climbed to about 200 and ran into some 130s. I can handle that.

Really didnt see 166s until 400+, but could still find 94 teams worth good pts anyways. So I am liking the changes. I honestly don't see how you all complain just because you don't have it easy anymore...equal teams. I think this could address the annoying sniping, too, since you can't quickly hop on the 94s.

Good job, devs!!

I'm guessing you've never played any sort of competitive online game with any sort of marked progression (such as gear, cards, items or levels) before, or else you'd know that in any game with rpg-like elements the entire point of becoming stronger is to be able to compete with the top opponents while walking over the little opponents to get there.

If there's a kiddie pool that's competing for prizing identical to the upper end players, the game will end up dying very quickly because that's not how tangible progression is supposed to work. Game Design 101, and what have you.

GrumpySmurf1002

Some data: last 6 events for me:

Army of One - 49 matches won - scored 1099
Mind Games - 52 matches - 1044

Boosted Characters Implemented:

Hot Shot - 39 matches - 981
Fatal Attraction - 48 matches - 1023
Krakadoom 45 matches - 1052

Whatever they call this implemented:

Heavy Metal - 30 matches (so far) - 433 (and soon to drop again I'm sure)

That's just a brutal impact.

snlf25

In the the time it took to type that you probably dropped back down to 385. I've won and lost and won back 300 points the last two days. I have just over 300 points and I'm top 20 in my bracket. And I fear this is exactly how the devs wanted this to work.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

Azoic wrote:

It sounds like a lot of ppl complaining about hitting the wall are the folks running with 166+. You guys are the wall. These changes were meant so even the folks with owning pvp with 5 166s couldn't prey on all the 94s. Now you have to fight equal teams to do your climb. I just said to my wife the other day how annoying it is that every retaliation opportunity I get is against 166-270s, so I habe to skip.

I am going to enter pvp in awhile and will update if I hit the wall, too. My max is profx at 112, and I dont have any fully covered 3* yet.

Ok, I entered. Mainly using my 107 cage/IF combo. One team after the seed had a 220 xf for some reason, but others were all 94s. I skipped that one and another pair of 94s. I climbed to about 200 and ran into some 130s. I can handle that.

Really didnt see 166s until 400+, but could still find 94 teams worth good pts anyways. So I am liking the changes. I honestly don't see how you all complain just because you don't have it easy anymore...equal teams. I think this could address the annoying sniping, too, since you can't quickly hop on the 94s.

Good job, devs!!

I'm guessing you've never played any sort of competitive online game with any sort of marked progression (such as gear, cards, items or levels) before, or else you'd know that in any game with rpg-like elements the entire point of becoming stronger is to be able to compete with the top opponents while walking over the little opponents to get there.

If there's a kiddie pool that's competing for prizing identical to the upper end players, the game will end up dying very quickly because that's not how tangible progression is supposed to work. Game Design 101, and what have you.

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

SnowcaTT

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

Some data: last 6 events for me:

Army of One - 49 matches won - scored 1099
Mind Games - 52 matches - 1044

Boosted Characters Implemented:

Hot Shot - 39 matches - 981
Fatal Attraction - 48 matches - 1023
Krakadoom 45 matches - 1052

Whatever they call this implemented:

Heavy Metal - 30 matches (so far) - 433 (and soon to drop again I'm sure)

That's just a brutal impact.

Nice Data! I never keep track of number of matches, maybe I should.

I've been watching how it's gone during the day, you are in my bracket, staying near T10 line with me. Monkey62792 (also wrecking crew) went to 600 right away and was getting as many wins as losses immediately, had to shield. It says something that he did it this morning around 600 points and STILL is the only one that is over 600 (just heard that he had 8 D wins over that time: for 12 total points).

I certainly don't feel the need to push to 500 now, I'm sitting at 450 or so and seeing what happens here in slice 5 - equal number of defensive wins and losses (while my XF is one less yellow cover than yours, it is leveled quite a bit higher). I don't shield hop or try to hit T25 most of the time - very casual play. But it's interesting seeing the desperation of my defensive wins - anyone has to chase the points and take a match they might not have last week. Certainly wouldn't have last week at this point in the event.

I don't see how I could possibly finish beyond 600 without shield hopping at this point. I'd agree that at my (and your) current level of 450 points, I've run nearly as many matches as I usually do during full events.

27.5 hours left, one player slightly above 600, 2nd at 578, 11 more between 550 and 500. 9 of those 13 currently shielded at those levels.

Der_Lex

gamar wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Azoic wrote:

It sounds like a lot of ppl complaining about hitting the wall are the folks running with 166+. You guys are the wall. These changes were meant so even the folks with owning pvp with 5 166s couldn't prey on all the 94s. Now you have to fight equal teams to do your climb. I just said to my wife the other day how annoying it is that every retaliation opportunity I get is against 166-270s, so I habe to skip.

I am going to enter pvp in awhile and will update if I hit the wall, too. My max is profx at 112, and I dont have any fully covered 3* yet.

Ok, I entered. Mainly using my 107 cage/IF combo. One team after the seed had a 220 xf for some reason, but others were all 94s. I skipped that one and another pair of 94s. I climbed to about 200 and ran into some 130s. I can handle that.

Really didnt see 166s until 400+, but could still find 94 teams worth good pts anyways. So I am liking the changes. I honestly don't see how you all complain just because you don't have it easy anymore...equal teams. I think this could address the annoying sniping, too, since you can't quickly hop on the 94s.

Good job, devs!!

I'm guessing you've never played any sort of competitive online game with any sort of marked progression (such as gear, cards, items or levels) before, or else you'd know that in any game with rpg-like elements the entire point of becoming stronger is to be able to compete with the top opponents while walking over the little opponents to get there.

If there's a kiddie pool that's competing for prizing identical to the upper end players, the game will end up dying very quickly because that's not how tangible progression is supposed to work. Game Design 101, and what have you.

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

In that case we would need separate events with separate prize pools, because the current situation actually penalizes players for being 'endgame players'. I'm fine with only fighting other high level 3/4* players for entire events if the prize pool reflects the level of play. But if we're competing in the same events as 'lower level' players, it is no more than fair that we get to attack them from the get-go as well

Unknown

Der_Lex wrote:

gamar wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Azoic wrote:

It sounds like a lot of ppl complaining about hitting the wall are the folks running with 166+. You guys are the wall. These changes were meant so even the folks with owning pvp with 5 166s couldn't prey on all the 94s. Now you have to fight equal teams to do your climb. I just said to my wife the other day how annoying it is that every retaliation opportunity I get is against 166-270s, so I habe to skip.

I am going to enter pvp in awhile and will update if I hit the wall, too. My max is profx at 112, and I dont have any fully covered 3* yet.

Ok, I entered. Mainly using my 107 cage/IF combo. One team after the seed had a 220 xf for some reason, but others were all 94s. I skipped that one and another pair of 94s. I climbed to about 200 and ran into some 130s. I can handle that.

Really didnt see 166s until 400+, but could still find 94 teams worth good pts anyways. So I am liking the changes. I honestly don't see how you all complain just because you don't have it easy anymore...equal teams. I think this could address the annoying sniping, too, since you can't quickly hop on the 94s.

Good job, devs!!

I'm guessing you've never played any sort of competitive online game with any sort of marked progression (such as gear, cards, items or levels) before, or else you'd know that in any game with rpg-like elements the entire point of becoming stronger is to be able to compete with the top opponents while walking over the little opponents to get there.

If there's a kiddie pool that's competing for prizing identical to the upper end players, the game will end up dying very quickly because that's not how tangible progression is supposed to work. Game Design 101, and what have you.

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

In that case we would need separate events with separate prize pools, because the current situation actually penalizes players for being 'endgame players'. I'm fine with only fighting other high level 3/4* players for entire events if the prize pool reflects the level of play. But if we're competing in the same events as 'lower level' players, it is no more than fair that we get to attack them from the get-go as well

Well, IMO when you have endgame roster competing in the same event as 1* roster "fair" is an utterly nonsensical concept in the first place so

Der_Lex

gamar wrote:

Der_Lex wrote:

gamar wrote:

Arondite wrote:

I'm guessing you've never played any sort of competitive online game with any sort of marked progression (such as gear, cards, items or levels) before, or else you'd know that in any game with rpg-like elements the entire point of becoming stronger is to be able to compete with the top opponents while walking over the little opponents to get there.

If there's a kiddie pool that's competing for prizing identical to the upper end players, the game will end up dying very quickly because that's not how tangible progression is supposed to work. Game Design 101, and what have you.

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

In that case we would need separate events with separate prize pools, because the current situation actually penalizes players for being 'endgame players'. I'm fine with only fighting other high level 3/4* players for entire events if the prize pool reflects the level of play. But if we're competing in the same events as 'lower level' players, it is no more than fair that we get to attack them from the get-go as well

Well, IMO when you have endgame roster competing in the same event as 1* roster "fair" is an utterly nonsensical concept in the first place so

Only if you assume all players in the same event should be capable of winning the top prize. I have never assumed that this was the case with MPQ, and the prize pool reflected that it wasn't: lower level players could win a 2* cover that would be useful for them, transitioners had a shot at a 3*, and the higher level players duke it out at the top for the 4*. I don't think anyone with a 2* roster should be able to get 1st place in a pvp event, I certainly didn't when I was at that stage of the game.

The new matchmaking system penalizes those who have put the most money and/or time in the game. This is just as unhealthy for the game in the long run as too many transitioning players hitting a wall. It's good that D3 is looking into new ways of dealing with matchmaking, but I think that when they get back in the office on monday (poor timing for an change like this, btw), they'll quickly see that this particular change is a lot worse for a lot of players than their previoys system.

GrumpySmurf1002

SnowcaTT wrote:

Nice Data! I never keep track of number of matches, maybe I should.

I've been watching how it's gone during the day, you are in my bracket, staying near T10 line with me. Monkey62792 (also wrecking crew) went to 600 right away and was getting as many wins as losses immediately, had to shield. It says something that he did it this morning around 600 points and STILL is the only one that is over 600 (just heard that he had 8 D wins over that time: for 12 total points).

I certainly don't feel the need to push to 500 now, I'm sitting at 450 or so and seeing what happens here in slice 5 - equal number of defensive wins and losses (while my XF is one less yellow cover than yours, it is leveled quite a bit higher). I don't shield hop or try to hit T25 most of the time - very casual play. But it's interesting seeing the desperation of my defensive wins - anyone has to chase the points and take a match they might not have last week. Certainly wouldn't have last week at this point in the event.

I don't see how I could possibly finish beyond 600 without shield hopping at this point. I'd agree that at my (and your) current level of 450 points, I've run nearly as many matches as I usually do during full events.

27.5 hours left, one player slightly above 600, 2nd at 578, 11 more between 550 and 500. 9 of those 13 currently shielded at those levels.

Yeah, the sad part is that 433 includes probably 100 points worth of defensive wins so far. Overall I'm only sitting at about 100 less than I typically would at this stage, but having to repeatedly claw back to this point is really irritating.

Unknown

gamar wrote:

Well, IMO when you have endgame roster competing in the same event as 1* roster "fair" is an utterly nonsensical concept in the first place so

Its the fairest of all game sets. Every low level player can pull of a shock result in ranking, then eventually those low players become the midrange players and then top players, where they should feel the benefits of their work. This is how the leagues in British football work, even the lowest amateur team is connected to Manchester United, they can rise to meet them in the league or draw them in the cup.
I'm politically a fan of communism, but in games and sports, giving all the kids a medal just isn't fun.


Edit: Even if they wanted a balanced game, its not working as intended and is broken from top to bottom.

Arondite

gamar wrote:

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

Do you not? I could list a couple.

Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, et al.

Pretty much all of them, y'know.

In an RPG you get the same rewards for fighting those rats whether you're level 1 or level 100. The thing is, those XP and Item rewards are a pittance for end-game play. The rewards themselves didn't change, though, just how valuable they were to the player.

We're of the same opinion here - you and I don't feel very differently about this. We're just approachign the same resolution through the face of different problems. The flat truth of it is as follows

- If 1* through 4* players all stand to gain the same rewards, the PvP scene should be a veritable shark pool of everyone fending for themselves with the 1* players getting squandered to the bottom tier rewards. Harsh, but fair.

- If 1* through 4* players have different reward tiers based on their star level, it is then fair to filter them in such a way that they compete with other players of the same or similar caliber, such as to encourage meaningful, tangible progression.

Unknown

Der_Lex wrote:

Only if you assume all players in the same event should be capable of winning the top prize. I have never assumed that this was the case with MPQ, and the prize pool reflected that it wasn't: lower level players could win a 2* cover that would be useful for them, transitioners had a shot at a 3*, and the higher level players duke it out at the top for the 4*. I don't think anyone with a 2* roster should be able to get 1st place in a pvp event, I certainly didn't when I was at that stage of the game.

The new matchmaking system penalizes those who have put the most money and/or time in the game. This is just as unhealthy for the game in the long run as too many transitioning players hitting a wall. It's good that D3 is looking into new ways of dealing with matchmaking, but I think that when they get back in the office on monday (poor timing for an change like this, btw), they'll quickly see that this particular change is a lot worse for a lot of players than their previoys system.

I'm not saying 1st place. If anything, I would say top 100, because any prize below that is literally worth less than spending 10 minutes in a lightning round. The set of players with "endgame rosters" is far, far larger than the set of non-consolation prizes handed out. You're a new player, thrown into an event with your low level roster, and all you see is 166 teams so you can't get "a few" points, you can get NO points, and even if you did, you get hammered like a nail if you peek above 300 points. Oh, and all those players doing the hammering? Most of them got THEIR 3* covers when 3* characters were only 50 levels higher than 2* characters and there were no 4*s worth worrying about. Is that "fair"? Of course it isn't.

(Not to mention that, since they still have the "ceiling" where player segregation ends, don't worry, no 2* player is getting first, the top 10s will remain full of endgame rosters (as they should)

Arondite wrote:

gamar wrote:

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

Do you not? I could list a couple.

Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, et al.

Pretty much all of them, y'know.

Really? You encountered Imp and Wolf in the Temple of Fiends? You were fighting Blue Imp and Eaglet in Death Peak? You must have played a different Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger than I did.

brysonian

This new change has ruined pvp for me. Last few seasons I was able to get to 5 or 600 easily without too much effort. I am at 200 and getting killed by people I try attacking. Seems like ai is getting to pop off powers way too easily. I barely got to use any powers before my team was dessimated the last few matches I tried. Seriously considering quitting pvp after this change. Went from fun to frustrating waste of time.

Unknown

These changes sounds scary. I finally have 2 166 characters but what's the point if I become I target if I go high enough score?

And I shudder to think the 166 wall being even lower than it was.

Why couldn't u just give us the multiple powered up characters thing

If you want to do some 'testing' release an event that doesn't matter

Arondite

Arondite wrote:

gamar wrote:

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

Do you not? I could list a couple.

Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, et al.

Pretty much all of them, y'know.

Really? You encountered Imp and Wolf in the Temple of Fiends? You were fighting Blue Imp and Eaglet in Death Peak? You must have played a different Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger than I did.[/quote]

That's not the discussion we're having lmao. We are talking about the difficulty of the enemy defeated vs the reward gained by defeating them, not what area of the effing map they're found. If D3 is going to crank us up to "end game bosses" we should get end game rewards, and the opposite should be true for players who are just starting off.

If they want to normalize it and have everyone getting Wind Swords, then shove everyone into s pit and let the most developed players come out and get them.
If they want to put you against similar strengths, that's fine, but you can't do that and still give the same middling rewards and call that fair. If you want to intensify the competition at the top end, rewards need to be tiered to accomodate that.

Your rookies (level 1) should be getting wood swords for placing well (aka 2 stars).
Your early transitioners (level 25-30) should be getting wind swords (2/3 star rewards)
Your late transitioners and end gamers (lv 50-99) should be getting Gumotai a Blades (4 star rewards).

That gives everyone meaningful progression that relates to the difficulty of the game they're facing. That's fair. What's not fair is having to slog through guys with maxed out teams that can wreck me on a lucky cascade (and doing so knowing full well I'll be retaliated against) and having my progression tugged down to 550 from 850 for the same rewards the guys in the kiddie pool are playing for. There is no world where it makes sense that a 1 star player can score similar to a 4 star player if they're playing for the same prizes.

If I'm fighting Omega weapon, give me Masamune.

wymtime

gamar wrote:

Der_Lex wrote:

Only if you assume all players in the same event should be capable of winning the top prize. I have never assumed that this was the case with MPQ, and the prize pool reflected that it wasn't: lower level players could win a 2* cover that would be useful for them, transitioners had a shot at a 3*, and the higher level players duke it out at the top for the 4*. I don't think anyone with a 2* roster should be able to get 1st place in a pvp event, I certainly didn't when I was at that stage of the game.

The new matchmaking system penalizes those who have put the most money and/or time in the game. This is just as unhealthy for the game in the long run as too many transitioning players hitting a wall. It's good that D3 is looking into new ways of dealing with matchmaking, but I think that when they get back in the office on monday (poor timing for an change like this, btw), they'll quickly see that this particular change is a lot worse for a lot of players than their previoys system.

I'm not saying 1st place. If anything, I would say top 100, because any prize below that is literally worth less than spending 10 minutes in a lightning round. The set of players with "endgame rosters" is far, far larger than the set of non-consolation prizes handed out. You're a new player, thrown into an event with your low level roster, and all you see is 166 teams so you can't get "a few" points, you can get NO points, and even if you did, you get hammered like a nail if you peek above 300 points. Oh, and all those players doing the hammering? Most of them got THEIR 3* covers when 3* characters were only 50 levels higher than 2* characters and there were no 4*s worth worrying about. Is that "fair"? Of course it isn't.

(Not to mention that, since they still have the "ceiling" where player segregation ends, don't worry, no 2* player is getting first, the top 10s will remain full of endgame rosters (as they should)

Arondite wrote:

gamar wrote:

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

Do you not? I could list a couple.

Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, et al.

Pretty much all of them, y'know.

Really? You encountered Imp and Wolf in the Temple of Fiends? You were fighting Blue Imp and Eaglet in Death Peak? You must have played a different Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger than I did.

When I started I had to earn all my 2* in PVP. I had to score 50-75 to get three 2* and I had to stay up till the end of the event to because ther were no shields. The biggest problem is the devs have eliminated the 1-2* transition by dropping 2* almost every match. You can get 13 covers of a 2* in a week. Because of this the 2* player base has gotten huge, and there is a huge number of new characters being released. What this does is it makes 2* players very HP poor. They struggle to open up enough roster slots for the new characters, and because of it they don't shield hop, or at least use multiple shields. There is a disparity between rosters even at the 3* level. I have 16 3* at 166 and Xforce at level 205. My wife basicly runs Loki Patch at 166 as her A team. She can win but struggles to hit 700. She just uses 1 shield. Becuase she does not have anyone with a big nuke or AOE and she does not hop she gets top 50.
true transitioning 2* rosters who have 7-9 covers of the buffed 3* can hit top 100. It might mean shield hopping, it might mean yo-young up and down but it is possible.
For me top 10, top 5 is possible but I normally land in the top 25 with spending 225 HP in PVP. When I transition i shielded, I hopped I did what I had to do to get my 3* covers and I am FTP. Players can, it is just are they willing.

Unknown

gamar wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Azoic wrote:

It sounds like a lot of ppl complaining about hitting the wall are the folks running with 166+. You guys are the wall. These changes were meant so even the folks with owning pvp with 5 166s couldn't prey on all the 94s. Now you have to fight equal teams to do your climb. I just said to my wife the other day how annoying it is that every retaliation opportunity I get is against 166-270s, so I habe to skip.

I am going to enter pvp in awhile and will update if I hit the wall, too. My max is profx at 112, and I dont have any fully covered 3* yet.

Ok, I entered. Mainly using my 107 cage/IF combo. One team after the seed had a 220 xf for some reason, but others were all 94s. I skipped that one and another pair of 94s. I climbed to about 200 and ran into some 130s. I can handle that.

Really didnt see 166s until 400+, but could still find 94 teams worth good pts anyways. So I am liking the changes. I honestly don't see how you all complain just because you don't have it easy anymore...equal teams. I think this could address the annoying sniping, too, since you can't quickly hop on the 94s.

Good job, devs!!

I'm guessing you've never played any sort of competitive online game with any sort of marked progression (such as gear, cards, items or levels) before, or else you'd know that in any game with rpg-like elements the entire point of becoming stronger is to be able to compete with the top opponents while walking over the little opponents to get there.

If there's a kiddie pool that's competing for prizing identical to the upper end players, the game will end up dying very quickly because that's not how tangible progression is supposed to work. Game Design 101, and what have you.

I don't know a single RPG or online game where you get just as much in victory points/rewards for continuing to fight level 1 rats when you're at endgame strength. The second part of your statement is the problem - it's stupid to have everyone in the same "pool" with the same rewards. But I don't know of a single game where endgame players are served up easy battles to "walk over"

Are you serious? First, we talk about online pvp ranking in games - so of course endgame players destroy noobs, but even if those players don't fight directly with newbies, they destroy any goons easily (cause everyone starts at the beginning of tournament at the same level of competition/enemies).
It doesn't make any sense to separate noobs from veterans if ranking is reseted for every pvp - every player can and should vs with anyone, if noobs are fighting only with themselves and got the same amount of points as vets battling other vets at the start of pvp (and there aren't any tiers) - the system is flawed (and I will add one more time - It doesn't make any sense).
I see your post as trolling or some kind of misunderstanding.

Unknown

I'm not a fan of theses changes. What was a fun blast has now entirely turned into an epic zzz. The progress rewards will have to come down probably 2 rungs? I used to love this game and now it's like going to work. The thrill has gone.

Unknown

Demiurge_Will wrote:

turul wrote:

The flipside to that is that higher-level players see less super-easy targets. You’ll generally see opponents with a minimum difficulty of roughly one star level below you. (Players with maxed 3-star teams will see maxed 2-star teams and stronger, for example.) If there's a shortage of opponents worth a meaningful number of points in this band, you can be matched with easier teams than that. And if you climb high enough in the event, anyone can see you as an opponent, even if they’re much higher level.

bolded part not very fun...

This is necessary so that people can't climb to the top of an event, invulnerable to those around them, by fielding an intentionally under-leveled team or some quirky strategy along those lines. The spot at which this happens depends on everybody else's behavior, but usually we're talking about a situation where you're in the top 5-10% of high scores.

This may sound great in theory, but is awful in practice. The old system worked far better. I have had a very difficult times during this HM PVP, as have a lot of people, finding matches worth over 20 points -- and those were against 280/270/166 opponents that would have been much higher point matches under the old system. I also saw 220+ teams after clearing my first three set up mstches. I'd see those teams in the old system, but not at match #4 and every match thereafter. This change to PVP has made the game far less fun to play and in very new to it -- Day 85.

I want to be able to enjoy this game. I hope you'll consifer this and the other comments about how much this PvP change is not liked before the next event starts.

whitecat31

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Matchmaking Changes
We’re shifting matchmaking calculations to achieve the following aims:

[*]The removal of hidden rating makes it so that purposely losing to get easier fights stops being effective.
[*]Newcomers to PvP stop getting pounded on quite so badly, and retaliation fights are more likely to be within reach.
[*]The flipside to that is that higher-level players see less super-easy targets. You’ll generally see opponents with a minimum difficulty of roughly one star level below you. (Players with maxed 3-star teams will see maxed 2-star teams and stronger, for example.) If there's a shortage of opponents worth a meaningful number of points in this band, you can be matched with easier teams than that. And if you climb high enough in the event, anyone can see you as an opponent, even if they’re much higher level.
[*]The experience of suddenly hitting a wall and seeing much harder teams is reduced. The upper bound on how difficult a team we match you with gradually increases as it becomes harder to find good matches for you, so you can still expect matches to get harder as you climb higher in an event.[/list]

This change will be a part of the Versus event starting on the evening of 4/2 and all Versus events that follow. Balance of Power will be unaffected by these changes.
.

Whatever changes you have done, please reverse them. I start the game and I am facing maxed teams after the first three easy teams. I am suddenly facing teams that are maxed level teams. Also when I hit them, they are 40+ point targets. Why do you do this to them, and why do you do this to us?
We should not have to have some brutal climb all the way to the top. Your match making systems is punishing people with good teams by making them only see others with good teams. It is based on average level, and it makes the game very unenjoyable. What is the point of working up to get the great hero level, if the joy of it is ruined and you can't show off? Yeah in the old system the new players may take a few hits, but that is what the ladder up is all about. They won't know what a challenge is anyway because you make it too easy for them. If people who are reading this only care about winning, I would advise nobody to ever level past 94 on anything, because it will game this horrible matchmaking system.