PvP Fix...I think I'm on to something here...

tanis3303

I have an idea. I'm seeing a lot of white knights calling out vets, thinking we are against this change because we can't bully 2* players. But that's not it at all, it's the fact that because we're hitting teams that have a 95% chance to successfully retaliate, we're treading water, possibly losing ground, by playing the game with the mmr as it stands now. I'm not against a fair fight, in fact I'm actually kind of enjoying the longer fights, it lets me discover new synergies and tricks rather than just steamrolling thru opponents in a few moves.

What if we did this: Remove the point loss to the defending player for a successful retaliation. The attacker still gets his points, possibly even more than they're expecting if the original attacker has climbed higher. But the guy who struck first, and already won what was probably a grueling battle, gets to keep his points. Also, if the original defender attempts the retaliation node and loses, no one gains or loses points. I already got mine from the original attack, and he already lost his, no reason to rub salt in it. His characters are down, but otherwise there is no downside to losing.

For me, this solves 99% of my issue with the new MMR. I'm fine with a fair fight, but winning said fair fight to see you have lost 50 or so points to the guys you just beat makes it seem pointless. I think this has a great chance to develop a little diversity in PvP as well...the only reason I stick to the same 4 squaddies is because sometimes, when all the stars align, they actually successfully defend an attack. I would be much more inclined to break out Fury, She Hulk, Ckye etc etc if it didn't put a glowing, flashing "FREE Points!!" sign over my head.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Stax the Foyer

tanis3303 wrote:

I would be much more inclined to break out Fury, She Hulk, Ckye etc etc if it didn't put a glowing, flashing "FREE Points!!" sign over my head.

You'd still regret breaking out those characters, though. You wouldn't lose any points from the one retaliation attack, but with the new MMR system, you can be queued by anyone once you get high enough.

Put a She-Hulk team out there at over 700 points and everyone is going to take a swing at you.

You'll get hit by newborn babies running Stormneto.

You'll get hit by medieval serfs grinding ISO for their vassals with a boosted Ares team.

You'll get hit by particularly ancient redwoods who have gained an approximation of sentience and who really love Squirrel Girl.

You'll get hit by players on a moon. Not our moon. Europa, probably. Attempt no retaliations there.

rixmith

Another alternative would be to simply not lose points for any losses until you reach some threshold (maybe 300 allowing anyone who wanted to play enough to get there the ability to get the first Event Token). Vets could climb part way against 2* rosters and it wouldn't matter as the 2*'s wouldn't even see those losses until they hit the 300 point threshold. 1* and 2* rosters could get the 200 point 2* cover which may be quite valuable to them and then get a Token.

MarvelDestiny

Yet another option is to reset the floor at every progression reward. I doubt this would affect gameplay very much, most of us are too competitive to relax until we hit The Wall. At least at that point we know that when we are hit we won't lose multiple hours of work. Shields would still be important to keep from losing points above the last threshold.

Malcrof

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You'll get hit by particularly ancient redwoods who have gained an approximation of sentience and who really love Squirrel Girl.

You'll get hit by players on a moon. Not our moon. Europa, probably. Attempt no retaliations there.

You have a knack for writing, loved those.

btw, i enjoy SG! I use her loads on grey and green PVE subs!

TxMoose

MarvelDestiny wrote:

Yet another option is to reset the floor at every progression reward. I doubt this would affect gameplay very much, most of us are too competitive to relax until we hit The Wall. At least at that point we know that when we are hit we won't lose multiple hours of work. Shields would still be important to keep from losing points above the last threshold.

while I like this idea, they would lose a ton in shields as people would hop level to level, wait for health packs to reload, then hop again when they're ready. shields is a money-maker in the game and thus this will never get traction with those that matter.

that said, its fun to play what if... one thing they could incorporate into this is that at every level, you only play other teams in that level. the 2* teams would battle in the 300-400 levels. transitioners in the 400-600 levels. *** players in the 600-800 levels (maybe higher) and so on... it would be a major accomplishment to make it to the 'next level' but then you wouldn't have to pony up hp to shield, making it a non-starter.

NighteyesGrisu

tanis3303 wrote:

I have an idea. I'm seeing a lot of white knights calling out vets, thinking we are against this change because we can't bully 2* players. But that's not it at all, it's the fact that because we're hitting teams that have a 95% chance to successfully retaliate, we're treading water, possibly losing ground, by playing the game with the mmr as it stands now. I'm not against a fair fight, in fact I'm actually kind of enjoying the longer fights, it lets me discover new synergies and tricks rather than just steamrolling thru opponents in a few moves.

What if we did this: Remove the point loss to the defending player for a successful retaliation. The attacker still gets his points, possibly even more than they're expecting if the original attacker has climbed higher. But the guy who struck first, and already won what was probably a grueling battle, gets to keep his points. Also, if the original defender attempts the retaliation node and loses, no one gains or loses points. I already got mine from the original attack, and he already lost his, no reason to rub salt in it. His characters are down, but otherwise there is no downside to losing.

For me, this solves 99% of my issue with the new MMR. I'm fine with a fair fight, but winning said fair fight to see you have lost 50 or so points to the guys you just beat makes it seem pointless. I think this has a great chance to develop a little diversity in PvP as well...the only reason I stick to the same 4 squaddies is because sometimes, when all the stars align, they actually successfully defend an attack. I would be much more inclined to break out Fury, She Hulk, Ckye etc etc if it didn't put a glowing, flashing "FREE Points!!" sign over my head.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

I like it. You'd have to make sure the retaliation doesn't get queued at the original attacker again or you'd have an easy way to abuse the system.

Unknown

The only solution I can see is to suck it up or move on. Im not sure they care what you or I think.

NighteyesGrisu

TxMoose wrote:

MarvelDestiny wrote:

Yet another option is to reset the floor at every progression reward. I doubt this would affect gameplay very much, most of us are too competitive to relax until we hit The Wall. At least at that point we know that when we are hit we won't lose multiple hours of work. Shields would still be important to keep from losing points above the last threshold.

while I like this idea, they would lose a ton in shields as people would hop level to level, wait for health packs to reload, then hop again when they're ready. shields is a money-maker in the game and thus this will never get traction with those that matter.

that said, its fun to play what if... one thing they could incorporate into this is that at every level, you only play other teams in that level. the 2* teams would battle in the 300-400 levels. transitioners in the 400-600 levels. *** players in the 600-800 levels (maybe higher) and so on... it would be a major accomplishment to make it to the 'next level' but then you wouldn't have to pony up hp to shield, making it a non-starter.

I don't know. I'd guess that there aren't really many people who explicitly buy hp to buy shields. IIRC they upped HP output with the introduction of shields..if they lowered it again accordingly they wouldn't really lose out

Pinko_McFly

It would seem that one way to alleviate complaints from newer players would to be have your point loss determined by the level of the team that beat you. If 25 points is the middle ground, if a 270 team whoops on a level 94 team (regardless of the level 94's total points) it'd be a low point loss. If a level 270 team gets beaten by a lvl 94 team, high point loss.
This would of course need to account for boosts as well in determining point loss.
Points won can remain the same and be based on total points.
If they have the ability to match us based on roster strength, then they could figure out a formula for this as well. Should be easier since they know what team you used.

Under the old MMR I think this would address concerns by both new and vet players. A late coming 270 team that beats a high ranked 270 team, only causes a 25 point loss instead of 50.
New players that get trounced as vet teams move up the ranks lose some points but not all of their progress.

This really does not address the wall, but with less points loss, there should be more 94s available and allow more MMR options at higher point levels.
Another wall fix would be to allow them to attack shielded teams as well, or at least have the matchmaker realize that its throwing 3 166s at it in every case and then give out some shielded teams as options.

Lidolas

Didn't Dave say that the new point formula adds more points to the system? Up to 1000 points, every battle adds points to the system. You can retal back and forth all day and you both keep climbing up to that point.

Edit: spelling.

Pinko_McFly

They did reduce the amount that you lose so that should put more points in the system.

Unknown

And now for something completely different,

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You'll get hit by particularly ancient redwoods who have gained an approximation of sentience and who really love Squirrel Girl.

LOL

FaustianDeal

Stax the Foyer wrote:

You'll get hit by particularly ancient redwoods who have gained an approximation of sentience and who really love Squirrel Girl.

These players prefer Squirrel Girl over Groot because they object to how the character was depicted on screen: lack of dialog, skimpy outfit, no love interest?

What ever the tree-equivalent of the Bechdel Test is... I think guardians failed it.