Changes to Versus Matchmaking [Update]

simonsez

gamar wrote:

Making everyone kick the transitioners out of their alliance is a terrible idea

You say that as if last-day-of-season merc'ing isn't already common.

GrumpySmurf1002

Demiurge_Will wrote:

At some point it starts to beg the question of how many protections should be put in place to make things easier for the top 0.5% of players.

Infinite, obviously.

BTW, thank you for spending some time here to address people's questions/concerns.

Unknown

The game could be absolutely easier for new players but since perception trumps reality it wouldn't matter. If you're stomping a 2* team with your 4* it stands to reason whoever is stomped is not going to be very happy about it, and since this is pretty much the only thing that happens until a certain point range you're creating a lot of unhappy players. While losing points at this range really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things it's not like anyone's going to be really looking forward to being beat by teams you have no possible chance of winning.

Somehow I think 'limit on hard matchup' wouldn't have any effect addressing the issues because people tends to think a team that's as strong as theirs is way too hard and I'd hope that a team of the same strength as yours isn't labeled as 'hard'. There are enough developed rosters out there I just don't see how you can possibly not get people exactly as strong as you (minus the featured character) since 166X2 to 270X2 teams are very common. Now you might still get 2 weaker 166s but there just aren't that many Spiderman + Hulk teams out there. Most 166X2 teams can at least put up a decent fight, more so if the multiple buffed 3* feature returns.

udonomefoo

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

The big flaw I see in the logic here is that anyone that has played up to now had to go through getting stomped on by better rosters until their roster was geed enough to compete. So why do the new guys get a pass now? I understand the desire to make the first time and new user experiences better, but do it somewhere other than PVP. I had to grind out the prologue and PVE constantly for months before I was ready to even place in 3* cover territory for PVP. Now we're catering to guys that are barely 2 months in and have 2* rosters. How does this make OUR user experience better?

New players today have it harder than new players did even a few months ago - there are a lot more players with more advanced rosters.

I think you guys that are quoting this and arguing about DDQ and such are missing his point. This whole thread is about PVP, not building a roster in general. Re-read the statement with "In PVP" at the beginning of the sentence.

Also, you guys sound like my dad. His parents divorced at a young age and there was all sorts of drama and not cool things that his parents did to spite each other that negatively affected him. In short - his childhood sucked. He always would say things to me like "I never had that opportunity" or "no one ever helped me" and I always would think "so, just because your childhood sucked that means mine should too?". That's what you guys sound like. "Our experience at the beginning sucked, so everyone elses should too". Wat? That's setting the bar pretty low.

Unknown

spccrain wrote:

I realize I haven't offered a solution as of yet and that's the wrong way to go about it...so here's what I believe should happen.

Us 4*s should be able to stomp 2-3* transitioners because we have earned our place at the top...however I can see how that would lessen the morale of those players. To address that problem could you enact a "mercy" rule that would reduce the amount of pts lost from the 2-3* transitioners when attacked by a whale? I don't know how difficult the coding would be but I think that will make everyone happy.

For example:
I attack a 2-3*...he loses 5-10 pts instead of 25
Same 2-3* is attacked by another 2-3* he loses 25 like normal.

Fair enough?

That's by far the best solution I have heard of yet.

Unknown

What Will is either missing or choosing to ignore is the fact that the top players invested time and significant amounts of money into their roster in order to achieve a competitive advantage. Yes, I can still score and place highly by devoting more time than the other people who have the same high end rosters that I do. But the whole point of INVESTING time and money is to get some return on that investment. The return I'm getting now is a never ending grind against other max rosters, and it's even worse in pve, where my max roster does nothing beneficial except give me level 350 juggernauts to fight. For PvP, there is actually a very simple solution. Remove any sort of matchmaking algorithm. You can queue anyone who is within X% of your own score, regardless of roster. Period. To prevent weaker rosters from feeling ganged up on, set a maximum point loss based on current score, which would be almost zero below 300, and still very low below 600 (this seems to already be in place, or in the process of implementation). The specifics of what I'm suggesting are flexible of course, but this shouldn't be that hard. High end rosters SHOULD have it easier than lower level rosters. That's the whole point.

spccrain

Will could you at least investigate the weighted point loss system I suggested above? Then the guy above that said about doing a 20 pt match and losing 100 pts from 3 ppl would at least only lose 15-30.

Unknown

My little bit of feedback is, I just don't want my game to get significantly harder, and I truly believe that is not an unreasonable request.

I see the dev's quandary, and appreciate their efforts, because it's obvious that the pvp curve is getting steeper everyday and that's terrible for growth, but the only way they are going to come up with a solution that pleases most is by thinking way outside the box they are currently in. These proposed changes in this thread aren't as bad as Heavy Metal, but they still make my game significantly harder. I don't like it.

Unknown

jtvincible wrote:

What Will is either missing or choosing to ignore is the fact that the top players invested time and significant amounts of money into their roster in order to achieve a competitive advantage. Yes, I can still score and place highly by devoting more time than the other people who have the same high end rosters that I do. But the whole point of INVESTING time and money is to get some return on that investment. The return I'm getting now is a never ending grind against other max rosters, and it's even worse in pve, where my max roster does nothing beneficial except give me level 350 juggernauts to fight. For PvP, there is actually a very simple solution. Remove any sort of matchmaking algorithm. You can queue anyone who is within X% of your own score, regardless of roster. Period. To prevent weaker rosters from feeling ganged up on, set a maximum point loss based on current score, which would be almost zero below 300, and still very low below 600 (this seems to already be in place, or in the process of implementation). The specifics of what I'm suggesting are flexible of course, but this shouldn't be that hard. High end rosters SHOULD have it easier than lower level rosters. That's the whole point.

Top players don't buy cover packs. That's the elephant in the room here.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

You might not like my answer, but the "minor league" PvP shouldn't be part of any season score. Reasons: it'll keep vets from wasting their time with it, and keep the playing field open for transitioners; the main season prize is the 4*... transitioners don't need that yet; yes, they lose out on the 10 pack, but let's face it... that might net them two 3*s. During the season they'll have gotten 30 3*s from the DDQ. Is a 10 pack REALLY that big of a deal anymore?

I think it is for the lower end transitioners. While DDQ helps fill those holes and gaps with getting covers. I find it to still be slow at the rate of how D3 is releasing new heroes, and not to mention the annoying vaulting of old characters that I haven't even got to compete for which adds to missing out at DDQ and token drop rates at times. I know the vets think weak roster players have it easier, but Will is right when he says that there are more players with advanced rosters. It's hard to catch up in PVP and PVE. But I do support the idea of having different tiers to help alleviate the war between vets and newbies. I'll go by the analogy: putting everyone in the same pool is like having a first grader taking classes with graduate students. There needs to be a distinction of tiers and awards. Not everyone wants to play competatively since some people just like to play to collect covers and see some firework display that some heroes can do only by having a lot of covers and leveling them up. I'm one of those players. I play only to relax after a stressful day at work and I don't have the desire to be in ththe path for being awarded the biggest bully at PVP.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

The game could be absolutely easier for new players but since perception trumps reality it wouldn't matter. If you're stomping a 2* team with your 4* it stands to reason whoever is stomped is not going to be very happy about it, and since this is pretty much the only thing that happens until a certain point range you're creating a lot of unhappy players. While losing points at this range really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things it's not like anyone's going to be really looking forward to being beat by teams you have no possible chance of winning.

Somehow I think 'limit on hard matchup' wouldn't have any effect addressing the issues because people tends to think a team that's as strong as theirs is way too hard and I'd hope that a team of the same strength as yours isn't labeled as 'hard'. There are enough developed rosters out there I just don't see how you can possibly not get people exactly as strong as you (minus the featured character) since 166X2 to 270X2 teams are very common. Now you might still get 2 weaker 166s but there just aren't that many Spiderman + Hulk teams out there. Most 166X2 teams can at least put up a decent fight, more so if the multiple buffed 3* feature returns.

The stars have aligned once more, and I agree with something Phantron said. Especially the part about facing a team as strong as you being "too hard" is just a bunch of high level rosters whining they can't beat up the scrubs any more. The new system and the old system have exactly the same experience at >700 points. It's just harder to get to that 700 that it was before.

Personally I feel the points change is going to go a long way. If you can hit the retaliations for positive gain on both sides, getting to 700 won't be as hard, just a matter of time expended.

simonsez

udonomefoo wrote:

That's what you guys sound like. "Our experience at the beginning sucked, so everyone elses should too"

At least you explained why you're hearing it that way, but for the most part, no one is saying that. What they're saying is, we had to WORK to get where we are. The same should be expected of everyone. And if the end result of being at this alleged "top of the heap" is a degradation one's play experience, what's the point?

Colognoisseur

It is the lack of progression that is continuing to cause a problem.
For many players their progression is measured by how far they get in PvP and PvE. They know they're getting better because they start finishing better over time.
That incentivizes players because they feel that sense of improvement and they will try and move up to the next prize tier.
This is what motivated most of the mature rosters out there now.

The problem is there is no reward for developing that mature roster. If the number Will just laid out there, 0.5%, is correct then it means a lot of players decide the game has nothing to offer them once they reach a mature roster. Then they leave.

That could be the business model expecting those mature rosters to get bored and leave. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy so I don't think that is it. What I think it is is what I've been saying. They have nobody on the dev team that plays like the 0.5% and therefore what motivates us is as difficult for Will to understand as it is for me to understand the difficulty in creating an easy and hard PvP bracket. I don't code so I don't know. The devs don't play like the 0.5% so they don't know.

If it is really just 0.5% then they are maybe making the right decision not to provide any progression. As the game exists now a new dedicated player would take well over a year to develop a top tier roster. The less of the current 0.5% that are around to impede that might be exactly what MPQ nessd to thrive long term.

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

The stars have aligned once more, and I agree with something Phantron said. Especially the part about facing a team as strong as you being "too hard" is just a bunch of high level rosters whining they can't beat up the scrubs any more. The new system and the old system have exactly the same experience at >700 points. It's just harder to get to that 700 that it was before.

Personally I feel the points change is going to go a long way. If you can hit the retaliations for positive gain on both sides, getting to 700 won't be as hard, just a matter of time expended.

From experience you can hit basically the spot where extra points are no longer generated without shields if you played enough and win enough of your games, so now you can hit 1000 by just playing (and it was possible even before this change). Oddly enough, since shielded players do not have an equilibrium spot this change doesn't help them nearly as much as points gained with shields is more tied to how many and how much you get per hop, though one would assume you'd start out shielded somewhere close to what you can get via playing. For example if gravity caught up to you at 800 points, it's going to be pretty expensive in terms of shield hops to hit to 1000 compared to someone who dodged gravity at the same spot.

simonsez

Colognoisseur wrote:

The problem is there is no reward for developing that mature roster

Exactly this. You can't use a B level team in PvP because it will be open season on you now, regardless of your point level. And there's little opportunity for sub-optimal teams in PvE when the scaling is off the charts.

Unknown

Demiurge_Will wrote:

DrUnpleasant wrote:

If someone told me a year and a half ago that my reward for playing so much would be to face other similarly strong players for exactly the same rewards as new players then I'd have quit long before I did.

The strength and depth of your roster was still the most important deciding factor in who came out on top in Heavy Metal, and that will continue to be the case going forward.

It's a factor, sure, but more important now is having the time.

Every match you lose on the climb (due to tougher opponents) means playing 2 more matches to make up that loss = time.

More people attack/defeat you on the climb because your strong line-up is now normal and not a deterrent = more time.

There is always an optimal team. Tougher fights = more damage to those chars = having to use sub optimal teams = more defeats = more time.

So, roster is still a factor but less so than time to play the game. Just like PvE! I'm sure you understand this...

Nooneelsesname

MarCr wrote:

Top players don't buy cover packs. That's the elephant in the room here.

And they're expecting a huge bump in users when Avengers 2 comes out and business theory worships growth over retention.

On topic enough that I think it's okay to ask this as it massively impacts PvP and I know you're reading the thread.

X Force.

There's no 4* transition. Right now it's X Force = you win PvP. Everybody else, good luck with that.

I wrote this in another thread, but the short version is that all the nerfs that have happened have been buffs. For X Force.

If I need to buy X Force covers, I just want to know. If he's getting nerfed and I don't need to I just want to know.

But I don't want to buy X Force covers and then have him nerfed for 10% resell of what I paid or just sit here while everyone who got X Force when it was super easy dominates, especially now that I don't get to dominate the tier below me.

Edit to add: You've got your 1$ ARPDAU from me and you'll probably keep getting it as long as you're making a game I enjoy. But it's a terrible feeling to be sitting on a pile of HP that I feel like I can't spend b/c at any moment the rug's going to be pulled out from under me.

Unknown

DrUnpleasant wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

DrUnpleasant wrote:

If someone told me a year and a half ago that my reward for playing so much would be to face other similarly strong players for exactly the same rewards as new players then I'd have quit long before I did.

The strength and depth of your roster was still the most important deciding factor in who came out on top in Heavy Metal, and that will continue to be the case going forward.

It's a factor, sure, but more important now is having the time.

Every match you lose on the climb (due to tougher opponents) means playing 2 more matches to make up that loss = time.

More people attack/defeat you on the climb because your strong line-up is now normal and not a deterrent = more time.

There is always an optimal team. Tougher fights = more damage to those chars = having to use sub optimal teams = more defeats = more time.

So, roster is still a factor but less so than time to play the game. Just like PvE! I'm sure you understand this...

You say this like it's a bad thing. Shouldn't the person who puts forth the most effort (plays the most) have an advantage? Everything you say here is true, and was true of the old system for scores >700. Only difference now is getting to 700 requires actual fights and not 2* farming.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

udonomefoo wrote:

That's what you guys sound like. "Our experience at the beginning sucked, so everyone elses should too"

At least you explained why you're hearing it that way, but for the most part, no one is saying that. What they're saying is, we had to WORK to get where we are. The same should be expected of everyone. And if the end result of being at this alleged "top of the heap" is a degradation one's play experience, what's the point?

I agree that everyone should have to work for their roster and the best new players will eventually get to a point where they are competitive with the best old players. If days played is the defining metric then the guy who started first will always be on top no matter what. I am all for vets with developed rosters having advantages, but those advantages cannot be so dominating that it prevents industrious new players from breaking into the big leagues eventually.

If we want to use the work analogy, you start a new job, work hard, get promoted, get raises, and go on to be a complete success. The only thing is, you never stop working hard until you retire. You have more advantages than the new guy and earned those, but your status doesn't give you the right to stop being good at your job or to get rewards for minimal effort. If you start slacking off because you "earned it" then I think it is 100% fair that someone else should be able to compete for your prizes and win through hard work of their own.

Unknown

If the problem is the gap between 2* and 4* players why don't you split events so one can choose? Like:
Event 1: Rewards like now, matchmaking favors low-level players
Event 2: matchmaking like heavy metal, rewards til 1300p in structure 25hp/iso/cover/50hp/iso/cover...
I would have no problem if anyone sees me if the rewards are right and I don't HAVE to burn through money to achieve an acceptable score. I'd like to chose when to invest. Plus: fix pve pls, you can't tell me there's a point in playing 5 days straight having no chance if you didn't play the pve before. That sucks.