Changes to Versus Matchmaking [Update]

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

So, in all seriousness, how should it work instead?

I think, rather than force us into tiers, they should do what people have been asking for ages: set up easy/medium/hard (or more) reward tiers and let people self-select, with some limitations (eg, no one with a 166 can pick easy). There are other things that would improve the system - tying points won to level disparity, for example - but the trouble is you can't balance all the things they're trying to balance and have everyone in the same brackets competing for the same prizes and end up with a reasonable system.

In all honesty, I think PVP needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up, or it's just going to get worse.

rednailz

Seems like good news. Pretty peeved about KK cover rewards. We just go tthem...ugh.
Hopefully they will change the cover orders otherwise a week after release my KK would be 2/0/5 +1 extra green, and I didn't put in much effort for her. Could have got another yellow I guess...

I think it speaks volumes on how new charecter release covers are messed up. Ranodm my backside. My cyclops had 5 black within a week of release, and my KK will have 6 green and 0 purple in a week if the same structure stands.

Good to see every changing and evolving PvP matchmaking though.

spccrain

Nooneelsesname wrote:

spccrain wrote:

Xforce thing off topic. He's fine. Yes he's strong... He should be. IMO a 4* should be able to thwamp 2 3*s, a 3* 2 2* etc. Not the point though.

Matchmaking by roster defeats the point of progressing.

Since you think this is off topic this is the last thing I'll say on it.

I'm fine with X Force staying the way he is, I just want to know.

The reason I thought this was relevant is under the new system 4*s get to thwamp 3*s, 3*s don't get to thwamp 2*s. Which I think speaks to the point you're making with your last sentence.

Actually from my experience the HM matchmaking system that they are implementing with the Hulk PvP is 4* struggle against 4*, 3* struggle against 3*, etc. haha I meant no disrespect with my comment though hope none was taken.

Unknown

spccrain's suggestion is a good one.
Have transitioning players lose few points when a 3* or 4* player marches over them. I truly think this is the best suggestion as it eases the frustration of not being able to climb at all for transitioning players, but also eliminates the horrible grind experienced by players with established rosters. I personally enjoy the Khan pvp much more than the IM40 pvp.

Like the other "top 0.5%" that has been referred to - I got stomped to pieces during my transition. I will also agree that I probably had an easier time getting some fully covered 3*s simply because of the amount of them now, the % chance of the one I wanted being drawn or as a event reward was higher - so I am sensitive to the newer player's plight.

I have not read that the intent of the changes is to provide transitioning players the upper hand in placement rewards - its more the ability to for transitioning players to get their progression rewards. Will even confirmed that in the Heavy Metal event it was still the same group of upper tier players that placed well (albeit lower scores).

However, what I am not reading is that the change we saw in heavy metal actually accomplished its goal.
I am also not reading complaints from the transition players that the Khan pvp has been unbearable. In fact, quite the opposite.
I read that 3/4 transition players hated the change because they saw 270/270/290 after seed teams. The established "top 0.5%" of players despised the change to the point some outright quit.

Also, in my opinion, Hulk was a very poor choice to reintroduce this change. Lvl 290 hulk after seed teams, with boost nerf in place and thora nerf, is going to simply frustrate the 3/4 star players to no end. This also happening at the last leg of the Kingpin PVE.... People spend enough time on MPQ and tripling or quadrupling the amount of time required to hit progression rewards does no one any favours nor does it make anyone more enjoyable.

In fact, the change to the MMR will also provide an even bigger advantage to players who work together out of game, as whenever D3 implements a new change, the player base figures out the best way to get around whatever we don't like.
A perfect example is shield cooldowns - the stated intent of the cooldowns was to reduce out of game communication. Instead the effect (in my opinion) was that out of game communication not only increased - but made it so that there was a HUGE advantage to those who have large networks. Implementing a change should actually address the issue it intends to fix. I do not see the change to the MMR as providing transitioning players with the ability to more quickly build its roster - again, as Will said, the people who placed well before the MMR fix placed well after the change.

Therefore, spccrains idea is good, and I strongly reiterate his request to have this examined.

The other, what I think would be an easier solution, would be to open events to only transition players that have "historic" rewards such as patch, Lcap, human torch, hood, Lthor etc (characters that have been out for a while which most established players already have maxed). which are either: a) not eligible to 4 star roster players; or b) limit the characters that are able to be used to 2* and below (exactly like DDQ). This would provide transition players with the ability to gain targeted, needed covers so that they can have a roster they aren't worried about being stomped in the pvp events with 4* rewards.

Just my 2 cents.

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

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.

While I take your point, the game was already a massive time-sink before these changes. Top end PvE can take up 25% of your waking hours, Deadpools Daily, LRs, an increasingly competitive Shield SIM...and now this time increase? I'm all for effort but being in a top 10 Alliance already took a lot of effort - more effort wasn't needed.

Demiurge_Will

orionpeace wrote:

Having 3* rosters battle 3* rosters is a harder climb than 2* rosters battling 2* rosters. So, while with a significant increase in time played the 3* player can climb higher, it is now possible for a 2* player to be in the top 50 and for very few if any 3* players to even see that player.

I think you might be misremembering what life was like with 2-star characters. The average match length (in both time and turns) for higher-level teams is significantly less than lower-level teams, and the win rate is higher.

It's not likely in the new matchmaking system that a 2-star player could be in the top 50 without being visible to players with better rosters. There would have to be no 3-star players in the event and an unusually large number of unshielded players.

In Heavy Metal, people with better rosters got to any particular point score more quickly, while taking fewer losses, than players with worse rosters. Players that are saying that worse rosters give you an advantage are mistaken. It may be true that the relative advantage of a better roster is less than it was before these changes, but it's still the intention (and judging by Heavy Metal, it appears to still be the case) that better rosters are better.

Nooneelsesname

spccrain wrote:

Nooneelsesname wrote:

spccrain wrote:

Xforce thing off topic. He's fine. Yes he's strong... He should be. IMO a 4* should be able to thwamp 2 3*s, a 3* 2 2* etc. Not the point though.

Matchmaking by roster defeats the point of progressing.

Since you think this is off topic this is the last thing I'll say on it.

I'm fine with X Force staying the way he is, I just want to know.

The reason I thought this was relevant is under the new system 4*s get to thwamp 3*s, 3*s don't get to thwamp 2*s. Which I think speaks to the point you're making with your last sentence.

Actually from my experience the HM matchmaking system that they are implementing with the Hulk PvP is 4* struggle against 4*, 3* struggle against 3*, etc. haha I meant no disrespect with my comment though hope none was taken.

Thanks, no worries.

In response to your other post about how much time PvP is going to take under this new system, I'm concerned that that might be one of their goals. Will said that one of the metrics they use to determine how much a player is enjoying the game is how often they play and length of session. I think there might be a disconnect where under the new system what they think is "enjoyment" is actually people pursuing the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

This would lead to people playing the game but actually resenting Marvel and its characters on the whole, which I think is the opposite of what a game like this is trying to accomplish. A player who is able to have a quick few enjoyable sessions of the game in which they feel accomplished due to the amount of time, money and past effort they have invested would then have a positive view of Marvel and time to go see Avengers 2 and watch the Netflix shows and read the comics and actually live the rest of their lives.

Unknown

I've no idea how to feel about this until I see it working. Or not. I'm tempted to think this is a positive change, but I've been burned way, waaaaay too many times in the (extremely recent) past

Unknown

All the complaints about having to fight for position remind me very much of old 2* land. In order to fight for top 100, you would have to claw your way up against 166/166 teams, not winning every match, while simultaneously getting beat down by other 2*, 3*, and 4* teams. After all that, you could suffer an unfortunate series of attacks on your last hop, and end out of T100 range with no hope of reclamation. You could either shield for T200, or drop down to T300 or lower by giving up.

It seems 3* is the new 2*.

Der_Lex

spccrain wrote:

It honestly SHOULD be easier as your roster gets better.

[/quote]

Either that or a better roster should give players access to new content/prize tiers (or at least more so than the current system). That way, having a 3-4* roster also feels "worth it" without that feeling coming at the expense of 2* players, and would make it feel worth it that you're fighting more powerful opponents from the start. Although that still wouldn't fix the 'one step forward, ten steps back' feeling that was the real source of frustration for me during Heavy Metal, since from 300-400 points onward I was already having trouble outpacing points lost with points won from matches (ad that was with a fast team of an almost maxed XFist and a decently leveled IM40), and this was the first time ever that i've shielded below 750 points to make sure I could get to that 1k. That's a huge difference between the casual stroll to 950 without a single attack that I had during Teenage Riot. There has to be some kind of middle ground between these, but the new system doesn't seem to fix the problem, but merely moves it from 2-3* transitioners to 3-4* transitioners.

Moon Roach

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Hi, all,

First, we’re reducing how many points a loss costs. Previously, if you had 800 or fewer points in an event, a loss would cost you less points than your opponent gained, using this fomula: [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 800. We’re changing this so that if you have 1000 or fewer points in an event, a loss costs you [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 1000. (Above 1000 points, you’ll lose as many points as your opponent gains.)

Can you explain what will now happen with defensive wins? If I'm at 500 and see someone at 1000 for 50 points, and lose, what do I lose and what does he get?

udonomefoo

Demiurge_Will wrote:

In Heavy Metal, people with better rosters got to any particular point score more quickly, while taking fewer losses, than players with worse rosters. Players that are saying that worse rosters give you an advantage are mistaken. It may be true that the relative advantage of a better roster is less than it was before these changes, but it's still the intention (and judging by Heavy Metal, it appears to still be the case) that better rosters are better.

TY for hanging in here and continuing to reply.

fight4thedream

Going to try to keep this brief and to the point:

Will, thank you for taking the time to address the community's various concerns. I know there will be those of us that will not like the decisions you make but it shows that you do care about the game and are trying to improve it as best you can.

I'm simply going to echo the idea that PvP should be split into tiers. I understand you mentioned you do not have the resources at the moment to fully explore the possibility of implementing such a system but I do think this should be set as a high priority. Although there are variety of ways to go about doing it, I believe simply locking out star tiers would provide a simple solution and encourage building roster strength.

I think for the time being there should be two PvPs:
1* and 2* PvP that locks out 3* and 4* characters (for the sake of brevity will be referred to as Pv1)
3* and 4* PvP that locks out 1* and 2* characters (for the sake of brevity will be referred to as Pv2)

Pv1 will have lower ISO, HP drops and reward 2* characters and older 3* characters and the top rewards would be a token for 3* + character. As previously suggested, Pv1 should not be considered for Season rewards or you can make a minor league season.
Pv2 will have higher ISO, HP drops and reward new(er) 3* and 4* characters and the top rewards would be an extra 4* cover

By offering tiered PvPs and restoring the 2* transition as a challenging but worthwhile struggle you ease the player into understanding that part of the fun of the game is going up against stronger teams, losing, growing your team and becoming stronger then winning. It also helps to build a sense of progression and would hopefully allow you to do more with the top end part of the game.

Of course all this is much easier said than done, and I understand you don't have the resources at the moment to attempt such a re-working but if the player base continues to grow with new players and the current reward structure does not change you are going to end up with a lot of frustrated players.

I think everyone here, you, me, the dev supporters and bashers all want to see this game flurish and continue to grow but honestly i feel as Ben Grimm feels:

"In all honesty, I think PVP needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up, or it's just going to get worse."

Or in other words-



Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Anyway, thank you and all of your team for your hardwork. Please do continue to communicate your reasoning and rationale behind game changes when you can.

Best wishes,
fight4thedream

Demiurge_Will

Moon Roach wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Hi, all,

First, we’re reducing how many points a loss costs. Previously, if you had 800 or fewer points in an event, a loss would cost you less points than your opponent gained, using this formula: [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 800. We’re changing this so that if you have 1000 or fewer points in an event, a loss costs you [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 1000. (Above 1000 points, you’ll lose as many points as your opponent gains.)

Can you explain what will now happen with defensive wins? If I'm at 500 and see someone at 1000 for 50 points, and lose, what do I lose and what does he get?

The points formula doesn't care whether it was the attacker or defender that won - it's the same formula for defensive wins.

In your example, the score difference is so great that you'd lose ~1 point and they'd gain ~1-2 points (depends exactly how the rounding works out).

tanis3303

Demiurge_Will wrote:

orionpeace wrote:

In Heavy Metal, people with better rosters got to any particular point score more quickly, while taking fewer losses, than players with worse rosters. Players that are saying that worse rosters give you an advantage are mistaken. It may be true that the relative advantage of a better roster is less than it was before these changes, but it's still the intention (and judging by Heavy Metal, it appears to still be the case) that better rosters are better.

Except this wasn't the case, at least not early in the event. What I experienced, and what it seems most of the higher tier players also experienced, was maxed 270 teams right after the seeds. While that seems inherently "fair" its really not. A fight of lvl 94 Ares/Storm/ lvl 60 Loaner vs lvl 94 OBW/Moonstone/ lvl 60 Loaner is NOT the same thing as a fight of 270 Xforce/270 Thor/249 Featured. The 2* players can walk away from their fight in good shape, due simply to the fact that the AI is kinda dumb, and the health of 2* characters is easy to chew thru. The 4* player is simply not walking away from their fight healthy. Its a slog, and one, possibly two of your characters are limping away in need of a health pack to continue fighting, and thats barring any miracle AI cascades that just wipe you out completely. And since the next fight you are offered is more of the same 270/270/249 fare, you have NO CHOICE but to use those same two characters again to even have a fighting chance. Two, maybe three fights of this and you're out of health packs, and you've probably also been attacked for anywhere between 17 and 50 before you're ready to try climbing again. It's like treading water in a shark tank...yea, you can do it for awhile, but you're gonna get bit a lot, and eventually you're just gonna wave the white flag.

Meanwhile, the 2* guys can keep climbing off each other, and this presents the new and different problem that I saw towards the end of the Heavy Metal event. I waved the flag at around 350 in Heavy Metal after climbing to close to 450 several times and being almost instantly knocked back down by incoming attacks. When I finally decided to try again there was about 10 hours left in the event. By then, all the transitioners had climbed to the 7-800s, and I was able to que them up over and over, leeching off their points since no one in their right mind is gonna fight a 270/270/249 team for 22 points when we can fight a 110/153/Loaner team instead for the same 22 points. So instead of steamrolling thru them to get to 7-800 points like I would do under the old system before meeting up with my fellow high end PvPers to slug it out for the top prizes, I was steamrolling thru them at the very end of the event, when taking a hit from me actually crippled their chances of placing. I know taking a loss of X points from a team you have little to no chance of successfully retaliating against is frustrating, I spent months having that exact thing happen to me. But taking that loss with mere hours left to make up those points is even worse.

Spccrain's "Mercy" rule idea is the best band-aid fix to the whole "bullying" problem I've seen mentioned. Its a great idea, and its a great temporary fix while you guys take a long hard look into the real problem - throwing EVERYONE into the SAME pool, for the SAME rewards, is NEVER going to be "fair". Someone is always going to get the shaft.

Unknown

I think one of the main problems is the healing system. Even if you win but getting your characters beaten means you need to wait hours for them to recharge. I think vets would be less frustrated to see tougher opponents if they always entered a battle at full health. Pair that with point scores that would give bonus for your opponent strength and not placement and that might make tough fights desirable.

I understand there must be some mechanism limiting using the same characters over and over. But the current healing system looks far from optimal. I'd prefer a system that would let you use each hero in no more than X fights during Y hours but always fight full health. That wouldn't make tough wins such a frustrating experience that it is now.

Unknown

where are the multiple powered up chars? cmon

acescracked

As a person gets a 270 xforce, 270 4hor, 270 fury and very developed roster of 3*s then they will what 90% of the time matched against same roster? This also will make pve nodes scale much higher. Then...what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

BTW, in heavy metal the climb wasn't the worst part it was the frequency of getting hit. Since you match similar rosters, I don't think the pool of advanced rosters is all that many. Especially with time slices, which I still think was a horrible idea for PvP (pve yes).

anamosity

Does this new MMR system look at team depth at a certain level or just the top numbers?
I have a 166 hulk and thor so that I could compete in the old pvp system. I'd move up with lower characters, having fun with people I didn't have fully covered or iso to level. I'd only pull out the big guns over 550, I got a fair bit of 2* retaliations against my 105 3*'s too which was fine because the climb was varied and interesting.
The new system seems to think I only have the 166 people, this means I HAVE to play with them and the climb is a slog and my available play time gets me a lot less in return.

simonsez

acescracked wrote:

what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

"None", and "yes"

This question has been asked dozens of times recently, after the GT nerf, after the let's-buff-everything PvP test, and now after this matchmaking change. I've yet to see a compelling answer that makes me feel otherwise. I can't even recall an attempt at a compelling answer.