A post supporting the MMR change

Azoic

I've seen a lot of players complaining about the latest change in the MMR. I've seen posts complaining about hitting "the wall" right after seed nodes. Do these folks not realize that they are part of the wall, so it should not matter?

You are in the same boat as the 94 players. We down the seeds, and the teams we face are 94s--equal levels. So how does this change screw you over? We all have to fight folks our own levels until we merge in the high-end. I used to see some players in the 40s/60s and whatnot, but now 94s mixed with up to 130 (I did see an odd 220 thrown in).

I think this encourages roster diversity. So you can't walk all over 94s to an easy 600+ points...now you get hurt (like we do/did). So you might not be able to use your favorite team the whole time. You might have to switch it up depending on who you are facing.

The 3* progression reward was entirely out of reach before, which is ironic since the 2* transitioner is the one that actually needs the cover at 900 (now 800) points. Now? I was just about to earn it and got hit for a good amount. And that's fine...I know that it is actually possible to get that high without hitting a wall at 500+.

Also, this really helps address the other annoyance--snipers. I'd expect that unless you really want to risk getting into a fresh 20 person bracket with 30 min left, that people won't be trying to join so late, since the climb is harder.


All that said, I would welcome a lowering of points you lose when hit. And D3 might want to consider a 3*/4* event choice: If you select the 3*, then you are limited to a 110 and below roster, with the top progression being a 3* while the 4* event is 111+ and results in a 4* cover. You have to pick one and can't compete in both. I think something like that would severely help alleviate tension between the transitioners, although the 166+ group will still probably be upset not being able to plow through 94s.

Unknown

Azoic wrote:

All that said, I would welcome a lowering of points you lose when hit. And D3 might want to consider a 3*/4* event choice: If you select the 3*, then you are limited to a 110 and below roster, with the top progression being a 3* while the 4* event is 111+ and results in a 4* cover. You have to pick one and can't compete in both. I think something like that would severely help alleviate tension between the transitioners, although the 166+ group will still probably be upset not being able to plow through 94s.

This. SOOO much this. Or raise the point value you can hit someone for at reasonable score differentials. Under the new MMR, players swaping retaliations need to have +EV for both players or else points are going to stagnate pretty bad.

If, under the current MMR choices, they let me check a box that said "I super swearzies to not use my 4*s" and it locked them out, I'd go back to being a 3* player just so I could see 2* rosters. 3*/4* rosters are in a tough spot right now. I get that they shouldn't really be beating up on 2* rosters to advance their scores, farming out the top scorers on rolling fields of noob farms, but the alternate is a blood bath from the jump where every point has to be hard earned and protected. People were shielding in my bracket with 500 points, and with good reason.

Unknown

there are two sides to this.

As a 2* player you say this is fair because everyone is fighting in their own league. From my view it is not fair because i have been grinding since almost the start of the game to be at the 3* level, and at the moment it feel doesn't feel like i advanced, because not even the beginning of the event is easier with a lot bigger roster. What you say is that the game shouldn't be easier at all when someone is further ahead in the game.

Stax the Foyer

Azoic wrote:

Also, this really helps address the other annoyance--snipers. I'd expect that unless you really want to risk getting into a fresh 20 person bracket with 30 min left, that people won't be trying to join so late, since the climb is harder.

I don't know what you think high scorers mean when we talk about snipers, but this change doesn't help that, at all.

We're being hit more, and hit over a wider range of points.

Unknown

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Azoic wrote:

Also, this really helps address the other annoyance--snipers. I'd expect that unless you really want to risk getting into a fresh 20 person bracket with 30 min left, that people won't be trying to join so late, since the climb is harder.

I don't know what you think high scorers mean when we talk about snipers, but this change doesn't help that, at all.

We're being hit more, and hit over a wider range of points.

I think he meant that there is a strategy in pvp when you join at the end of the event (30-60 mins left), and hope you get in a new bracket. Earlier this was easier because in 1 hour you could get to 600 with a bigger roster, but with this change, it is really hard to quickly advance in points

Arondite

primakov wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Azoic wrote:

Also, this really helps address the other annoyance--snipers. I'd expect that unless you really want to risk getting into a fresh 20 person bracket with 30 min left, that people won't be trying to join so late, since the climb is harder.

I don't know what you think high scorers mean when we talk about snipers, but this change doesn't help that, at all.

We're being hit more, and hit over a wider range of points.

I think he meant that there is a strategy in pvp when you join at the end of the event (30-60 mins left), and hope you get in a new bracket. Earlier this was easier because in 1 hour you could get to 600 with a bigger roster, but with this change, it is really hard to quickly advance in points

He did mean that, and that's not sniping so he's wrong.

OP, what you don't seem to understand is that it's not fair for top end players to face top end competition and be rewarded the same thing you got for wading around the kiddie pool.

Unknown

Azoic wrote:

I think this encourages roster diversity. So you can't walk all over 94s to an easy 600+ points...now you get hurt (like we do/did). So you might not be able to use your favorite team the whole time. You might have to switch it up depending on who you are facing.

On the contrary.
What happens when all you see are A-type teams ? You need to use your own A-team. All the time. There is much much less roster diversity now. I have to use XForce, no question asked, and Hood for 80% of the fights. Why ? Because I see an ocean of Xforce/Hood, ad this since I left the seed teams at 70 points. Yes, before I would rotate my teams like crazy to reach 700-800. And then switch to A-team only.
Now every match is a possible death trap and I have to use the best of my roster all the time. Which of course slows everything down (health pack are not infinite) and makes things even worse for everyone, what a pretty vicious cycle.

But the irony here is your complete short-sightedness on the matter. What happens if you win more ? You'll get faster in 3* land. What will happen there ? You'll be shredded to death by 3* and 4* teams. You have effectively traded an annoying 2*->3* transition for a later but utter hell in newbie 3* land. Me, with my 4* and bazillion of maxed 3*, will manage eventually. What I actually lost is not the possibility or the means to place well, but time and the fun in doing so. I can still place top 5, but it will be a long an horrid process. It's also unrealistic that I'll reach 1000 as easily as before, but then again, what are 4* worth those days anyways ?
Think about it twice, in the end you might very well be the one who got the shortest end of the stick.

Azoic

Wasing around in the kiddie pool is hard when they are your own level. Why should ppl with maxd 2* only be able to attain a 2* in pvp?

I am really disappointed to see so many "vets" whine about easy mode being taken away. I applaud the folks admitting they shouldn't be able to farm 94s. And the others, I imagine you buy a game and knock it down from normal to casual or easy, eh? We each have our own climbs ow, and I hope it stays.

And I am not worried about when I get to 3* land. At 94 I fight 130s. As I level up my guys, I will face more partially leveled 3's. And when I am 135, I wont cry about the 166s. This is the same as moving to 94, and having to fight them as a 75.

Thanks again, Devs!

Unknown

Just a heads up: 94 vs 94 is way way easier than 166 vs 166 or 270 vs 270. Just sayin'.

Arondite

Azoic wrote:

Wasing around in the kiddie pool is hard when they are your own level. Why should ppl with maxd 2* only be able to attain a 2* in pvp?

I am really disappointed to see so many "vets" whine about easy mode being taken away. I applaud the folks admitting they shouldn't be able to farm 94s. And the others, I imagine you buy a game and knock it down from normal to casual or easy, eh? We each have our own climbs ow, and I hope it stays.

And I am not worried about when I get to 3* land. At 94 I fight 130s. As I level up my guys, I will face more partially leveled 3's. And when I am 135, I wont cry about the 166s. This is the same as moving to 94, and having to fight them as a 75.

Thanks again, Devs!

Don't thank them yet - this is very obviously a mistake as a result of poor or limited testing. Expect things changed back to resemble more closely the old system, pal.

If you can't understand the MULTIPLE times I've explained how this is a problem, I don't know that it can be made more clear.

If you and I are in DIRECT competition - IE, you can get the same prizes I can (or more specifically, you can place in the same top 100 I can) then I should be able to attack you directly, as well as anyone else I am in direct competition with. Why? Because WE ARE COMPETING.

If I am competing DIRECTLY WITH YOU and my roster is better and more developed than yours, I SHOULD DEFEAT YOU. If my roster is significantly better than yours, I SHOULD WALK OVER YOU LIKE GARBAGE. But ONLY if they have us competing directly for position, of course. What RPG with pvp is this not the case in?

If they want to filter us out and make vets fight vets and whatnot, that's fine. There are RPGs with systems like that in place. But those same RPGs also have prize tiering. If you're in the kiddie pool, you compete for prizes that are useful to you - low scorers get 2 stars, mid get a 3 star, high get multiple 3's. Vets get 3 star for low scores, multiple 3's for mid scores and 4 for high scores. This sort of system is not only commonplace in RPGs with pvp elements, but is so common it is actually the norm.

Wanna see a feeding frenzy? Did you think the old system was unfair? Try playing Rage of Bahamut. You're just outright competing against everyone, and if you're a new player and haven't whaled it up, good luck! You simply cant compete. Period.


Again, I summarize, so that MAYBE you can take my meaning this time.

If you (and your peers) and I (and my peers) can be bracketed together in such a way that we are competing for the same positions that reward the same prizes, it is only fair that those who have a better roster as a result of putting in more time, money, and/or effort defeat those with lesser investments. The greater the gap, the more handy a defeat is justifiable.

Arondite

Lerysh wrote:

Just a heads up: 94 vs 94 is way way easier than 166 vs 166 or 270 vs 270. Just sayin'.

Oh god jesus this.

I can run a pair of 94's against AI 94's for 10 matches without needing health packs. Just because of health pools you won't see that at the 4 star tier.

Unknown

Azoic wrote:

Wasing around in the kiddie pool is hard when they are your own level. Why should ppl with maxd 2* only be able to attain a 2* in pvp?

Why should ppl with maxd 3* only be able to attain a 3* in pvp?
Why should ppl with maxd 4* only be able to attain a 4* in pvp?
Because guess what ? It's exactly what was happening.
For a 3*-only roster to reach a 1000 was quite a difficult endeavor.

Now it doesn't mean I agree with the way the 3* was handed at 900. I agree it should have been much lower to be a significant carrot for the 2* players willing to go the extra mile and play the shield game.

Azoic wrote:

And I am not worried about when I get to 3* land. At 94 I fight 130s. As I level up my guys, I will face more partially leveled 3's. And when I am 135, I wont cry about the 166s. This is the same as moving to 94, and having to fight them as a 75.

I admire your optimist and your utter confidence. Don't forget that all 3* players also have an Xforce on retainer though and as Lerysh said 3* and 4* matches are much bloodier than 1* and 2* matches can be.

Unknown

Also, with the new system, where if you get in top 50 (top 10%) as a 2* player, at any given time in a pvp, expect to get gangbanged really hard, and get back a few hundred points, since then everyone can see you, and your easy climb to top 50 will not see that good anymore.

Arondite

Oh, and if you think this system is better because it's fair, wait til the whales figure out how to game it.

Spoiler alert - you sell off all your characters above level 94, then cover max an x force and level him to 94 and do the same for Thoress.

Even with their levels reduced, the sheer utility and power provided by their covers will leave them totally dominant over a 2 star roster. A 94 5/5/3 x force can solo any 2 star team pretty easily, and played properly will end the match with more health than he started it with thanks to Recovery.

Talk about easy roads to 1st place and 1k points. That is, as long as I'm the only one doing it. But if that system remains, it won't be long before everyone catches on and copies it. Then where will you legitimate 2 star players be? Even worse off than before, directly competing with the whales who now see you regardless of score thanks to the new MMR system. Formerly, you'd get hit w couple of times while they climbed to 600 and you could safely and easily hit 400 per pvp. Now they'll all be hitting you from event start to event end thanks to MMR, and you'll be scratching and clawing for 200.best wishes!

thisone

Progress in the game includes being able to beat people with much lower leveled rosters than yourself, that's kind of where pvp comes into it. In sport placing well means your progress means you get seeded against people with a lesser amount of experience until the later rounds. So it's not like a totally new concept mpq invented.

It's short sighted to lower the bar for newbies then choke them with that bar once they start to level their 3* as they will just quit, faster progression =less time invested =easier to walk away

Stax the Foyer

Azoic wrote:

Wasing around in the kiddie pool is hard when they are your own level. Why should ppl with maxd 2* only be able to attain a 2* in pvp?

I agree that's a problem, but the fundamental problem there is the reward tier placement. Revamping the ranking system to create an untouchable kiddie pool of 2* players is like constantly burning scented candles instead of taking out the trash. It doesn't address the underlying issue.

Ranking rewards in this game are a zero-sum game, progression rewards aren't. If this change is meant to make some progression awards artificially accessible to lower rosters without changing their accessibility to higher rosters, there's no reason not to just lower those progression awards for everyone to a level where they can be reached by the lower rosters. (If this change is meant to make ranking awards artificially accessible to lower rosters, that's a whole different can of worms.)

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

Lerysh wrote:

Just a heads up: 94 vs 94 is way way easier than 166 vs 166 or 270 vs 270. Just sayin'.

Oh god jesus this.

I can run a pair of 94's against AI 94's for 10 matches without needing health packs. Just because of health pools you won't see that at the 4 star tier.

I actually feel mostly this way about 166 matches with my 270 XF 270 Thor as well tho, espeically with XF healing himself. If 166 matches were easier to find this change wouldn't be such a big thing really. But at over 600 points it seems like the only thing I see is 270 teams. Which I guess is fair as a 4* player, but makes for a **** of a climb.

Unknown

Hey OP? I've been playing this game for over a year. I have spent *checks steam* almost 2500 hours building a roster full of maxed-out high-tier 3*s (Thor, Daken, Magneto, Sentry, Hood, Hulk, Patch, Steve Rogers, and currently finishing my Blade and Deadpool). And you know what? Coasting to 400 or so before hitting the people who are on my level? I earned that.

And not only is this a matter of entitlement, as in "this is a big reason why I went for the tougher roster in the first place and taking this from me is a huge **** move", this is a matter of necessity. 2* players have to struggle to hit 600? Big **** deal, you don't need 600 to make significant progress. Progress for you is top 100 and maybe a few HP progression rewards. Progress for me is, for the most part, 1k or first place. The amount of ISO you need to finish a character? 69530. ISO I need to finish a character? 172764 or 430437. Oh, and 3* battles eat more health packs. Like, way more health packs. Unless you want to run Daken/Patch/Loaner, which works great against 2*s and stops working against quite a few 3* teams and turns you into a big fat target.

Seriously, this change is just awful.

Unknown

Budget Player Cadet wrote:

Hey OP? I've been playing this game for over a year. I have spent *checks steam* almost 2500 hours building a roster full of maxed-out high-tier 3*s (Thor, Daken, Magneto, Sentry, Hood, Hulk, Patch, Steve Rogers, and currently finishing my Blade and Deadpool). And you know what? Coasting to 400 or so before hitting the people who are on my level? I earned that.

And not only is this a matter of entitlement, as in "this is a big reason why I went for the tougher roster in the first place and taking this from me is a huge **** move", this is a matter of necessity. 2* players have to struggle to hit 600? Big tinykitty deal, you don't need 600 to make significant progress. Progress for you is top 100 and maybe a few HP progression rewards. Progress for me is, for the most part, 1k or first place. The amount of ISO you need to finish a character? 69530. ISO I need to finish a character? 172764 or 430437. Oh, and 3* battles eat more health packs. Like, way more health packs. Unless you want to run Daken/Patch/Loaner, which works great against 2*s and stops working against quite a few 3* teams and turns you into a big fat target.

Seriously, this change is just awful.

Ok, no, you have not earned the right to bully noob farms. You may have gone for a 3* roster because of that reason, but it's not a right. It was a game mechanic, and a semi-broken one especially with MMR tanking going on.

There are other ways to make the climb to 500+ easier and the climb to 1000 attainable than allowing 4* rosters to beat up on 2* rosters. Like increasing points for matches vs points lost. I actually climbed to 500 quite easily, it was staying at 500 that was the major problem. I've been hit way way more in this one event than I was all last season. Because why go after a 270 XF when you can just search out a Loaner/166/166 team? Now they have no choice and my team starts looking appetizing if its worth the correct number of points. If instead of farming noobs you had to farm retaliations (which would be worth more than you lost either almost always or a vast majority of the time) would that really be so bad? We could all elevate each others scores and anyone who wanted 1000 points would just have to put in time.

Unknown

You know what could help? If matchmaking system get reset each time you start event and only count characters you used. You wiped seed teams with your 1*? Get matched with other 1*. Want to roll over them with your 2*? Have fun on those 3 last nodes and now you'll fight 2* since you get 'registered' as having 2* team. Same with 3* and 4*.

This awards deep roster (ability to change tiers multiple times), gives you diverse fights over whole climb, keep difficulty level fair for everyone and gives advantage to people with top roster since once you get past point where you get matched with everyone else, you will need that 'best' characters to stay/fight for top spots.

dkffiv

Azoic wrote:

Wasing around in the kiddie pool is hard when they are your own level. Why should ppl with maxd 2* only be able to attain a 2* in pvp?

I am really disappointed to see so many "vets" whine about easy mode being taken away. I applaud the folks admitting they shouldn't be able to farm 94s. And the others, I imagine you buy a game and knock it down from normal to casual or easy, eh? We each have our own climbs ow, and I hope it stays.

And I am not worried about when I get to 3* land. At 94 I fight 130s. As I level up my guys, I will face more partially leveled 3's. And when I am 135, I wont cry about the 166s. This is the same as moving to 94, and having to fight them as a 75.

Thanks again, Devs!

As a top of the food chain PvPer I haven't really noticed a difference this PvP. Matches aren't worth as many points but I'm also facing really easy fights. I think you fail to realize there are far more 3*'s than 2*'s. 2* vs. 2* you know what you're fighting. 3* vs. 3/4* you're at the mercy of what you have covered vs. the best of the best. I was crushing LCap + GSBW teams with my Xforce and 290 IM40. I'm destroying weak 3* rosters, they're unable to see anything except rosters like mine and you're in lala land. As soon as your Beast hits 116 and you try to compete, prepared to get stomped on. Then you'll complain that what's the point in leveling characters if you score worse than you did months before.

This change doesn't affect me but I recognize what is bad for the rest of the community. You need to think outside your narrow view.