Feedback on ISO cost for skipping

Unknown

justaplayer wrote:

Blue Shoes wrote:

Why? Those people now have two incentives to retaliate. You are worth more points, and they lose ISO if they skip. What advantge do you have from taking those opponents on?

Don't look at it in terms of competing. In some tournaments I could care less about placement. I have advanced my roster very quickly with my play style. Some tourneys I enter to place some I enter not to. The ones I don't care about placement have helped me as much as the ones I do. I believe it was Sun Tzu that made it clear that you should pick your battles.

Well, I think that quote works in both our favors. Yes, I agree that tournaments that you don't care about can still be beneficial in terms of ISO and Progression rewards. I don't think that is the concern here. It doesn't make sense to sacrifice 10 ISO for a low level opponent when you are just using the tournament to mine ISO. But when you are competing, you don't have that luxury. In those instances, it only makes sense to skip low ranking players. The tax does not alleviate that problem. It only works to stop people who don't have a lot of ISO from performing well.

Unknown

Blue Shoes wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

Blue Shoes wrote:

Why? Those people now have two incentives to retaliate. You are worth more points, and they lose ISO if they skip. What advantge do you have from taking those opponents on?

Don't look at it in terms of competing. In some tournaments I could care less about placement. I have advanced my roster very quickly with my play style. Some tourneys I enter to place some I enter not to. The ones I don't care about placement have helped me as much as the ones I do. I believe it was Sun Tzu that made it clear that you should pick your battles.

Well, I think that quote works in both our favors. Yes, I agree that tournaments that you don't care about can still be beneficial in terms of ISO and Progression rewards. I don't think that is the concern here. It doesn't make sense to sacrifice 10 ISO for a low level opponent when you are just using the tournament to mine ISO. But when you are competing, you don't have that luxury. In those instances, it only makes sense to skip low ranking players. The tax does not alleviate that problem. It only works to stop people who don't have a lot of ISO from performing well.

I am not arguing for the tax I am very much against it. It is quite absurd. I was only speaking in regard of how you view the lower ranked players. You are correct though if you are taxed you are getting screwed. It is the worst idea they have come up with yet.

Honestly it is intellectual laziness. Rather than take the time to fix the search system so it matches you with opponents you have a decent chance of winning (Which is what they tell you to do in the game hints) they take the lazy way out and charge you a penalty for not using their broken matchmaking system.

Unknown

GundamRangerX wrote:

If the "skip tax" is only 10 ISO then I'm fine with it. Thanks to the Wolverine nerf, I'm no longer afraid of him and skipping every time I see one at level 70+ (which was alot). 10 ISO is nothing. How long does it take to go beat up a couple of level 1 Hammer Snipers, and that gets you two skips.

I find the only time I skip is when I'm matched with teams that I have a good chance at losing to (20+ levels higher than my guys), something I'm not in the mood to fight at this time, or worthless retals that will just open me up to losing another huge chunk of points.

Math with skips
2 skips -20 ISO
Match vs hammer +20 ISO
= 0 ISO

Math without skips
2 skips - 0 iso
Match vs hammer +20 ISO
= 20 ISO

Invalid argument.

Unknown

justaplayer wrote:

Honestly it is intellectual laziness. Rather than take the time to fix the search system so it matches you with opponents you have a decent chance of winning (Which is what they tell you to do in the game hints) they take the lazy way out and charge you a penalty for not using their broken matchmaking system.

Yea, it's a band-aid. They need stitches, he's bleeding out! I think they know it isn't a great idea. It's just that every other idea would be a complete overhaul of the entire PvP system. Even if they're currently planning on doing that, it's going to be a long time before they'd be able to release it. Even then, there would be plenty people complaining about it anyway.

Unknown

Blue Shoes wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

Honestly it is intellectual laziness. Rather than take the time to fix the search system so it matches you with opponents you have a decent chance of winning (Which is what they tell you to do in the game hints) they take the lazy way out and charge you a penalty for not using their broken matchmaking system.

Yea, it's a band-aid. They need stitches, he's bleeding out! I think they know it isn't a great idea. It's just that every other idea would be a complete overhaul of the entire PvP system. Even if they're currently planning on doing that, it's going to be a long time before they'd be able to release it. Even then, there would be plenty people complaining about it anyway.

It really isn't tough to fix a SQL query if you are a programmer. This is a logic problem with the matchmaking system. I shouldn't have a queue full of opponents that are much more powerful than I am. The rating system shouldn't really account for a heck of a lot when you are playing the AI. It isn't the AI's rating it is my opponents. What should be being accounted for is the strength of the team I am facing as well as level. The AI isn't very good but I think that is by design I could easily make logic suggestions that would improve that enormously but it would make it to hard to win.

For instance the AI if we wanted a good opponent would check when they got 50 Environment Tiles and popped it. To see if it had actions. It would also take more actions when the became more available after a tile cascade. Doing this however would make the AI a monstrosity to face.

With that in mind though our opponent queue should be beatable without killing our whole team. I have faced some where I only survived with a few hit points and one match with only 1 hit point (I am not kidding)

In all honestly they should do away with health packs and heal the team. Then the queue wouldn't be quite as big of an issue.

Unknown

justaplayer wrote:

Blue Shoes wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

Honestly it is intellectual laziness. Rather than take the time to fix the search system so it matches you with opponents you have a decent chance of winning (Which is what they tell you to do in the game hints) they take the lazy way out and charge you a penalty for not using their broken matchmaking system.

Yea, it's a band-aid. They need stitches, he's bleeding out! I think they know it isn't a great idea. It's just that every other idea would be a complete overhaul of the entire PvP system. Even if they're currently planning on doing that, it's going to be a long time before they'd be able to release it. Even then, there would be plenty people complaining about it anyway.

It really isn't tough to fix a SQL query if you are a programmer. This is a logic problem with the matchmaking system. I shouldn't have a queue full of opponents that are much more powerful than I am. The rating system shouldn't really account for a heck of a lot when you are playing the AI. It isn't the AI's rating it is my opponents. What should be being accounted for is the strength of the team I am facing as well as level. The AI isn't very good but I think that is by design I could easily make logic suggestions that would improve that enormously but it would make it to hard to win.

For instance the AI if we wanted a good opponent would check when they got 50 Environment Tiles and popped it. To see if it had actions. It would also take more actions when the became more available after a tile cascade. Doing this however would make the AI a monstrosity to face.

With that in mind though our opponent queue should be beatable without killing our whole team. I have faced some where I only survived with a few hit points and one match with only 1 hit point (I am not kidding)

In all honestly they should do away with health packs and heal the team. Then the queue wouldn't be quite as big of an issue.

Closest I got to that besides winning with all covers dead was having 1 cover left at 8 health.
Getting down to a single hit point is awesome! Haha

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

Closest I got to that besides winning with all covers dead was having 1 cover left at 8 health.
Getting down to a single hit point is awesome! Haha

In the sense that surviving it that was cool yes but the fact that I had to burn health packs or enter a fight with **** characters not so much. Those are my choices unless I wait the ridiculous period of time until my characters heal or grind **** matches that I am guaranteed to win for 20 ISO.

NorthernPolarity

I feel like this was a really lazy way to incentivize the player to not skip. Instead of adding a system that punishes the player, why not do something like not giving increased iso rewards and instead give the player an iso bonus for winning x matches without skipping or dying? Same effect, but the player feels a lot better.

Unknown

NorthernPolarity wrote:

I feel like this was a really lazy way to incentivize the player to not skip. Instead of adding a system that punishes the player, why not do something like not giving increased iso rewards and instead give the player an iso bonus for winning x matches without skipping or dying? Same effect, but the player feels a lot better.

It is lazy and shouldn't be done. They need to fix the matchmaking queue before blaming us for skipping opponents. A little self introspection from them would go a long way.