Lethal Intent Versus Matchmaking Poll

stowaway

Hulk and Thor PvPs seem like strange choices for trying a new system. They're inherently grindy due to the high health pool. And Kingpin was new, so hardly anyone had one that was significantly better than the loaner. I'll vote after Gamora's is over. 3* Thor is my best character anyway, so being able to pair him with both Loki and Hood, instead of having to choose between them, wasn't exactly a typical PvP experience.

Unknown

I have voted Better than Before, but have some caveats:

Day 450 Player
Highest 4* is L230 X-Force
Most 3* are fully covered and 110+, with 8 or 9 maxed, but I do not have max 3* Thor

In all of the 'new' match-making events, I have generally been able to find more valuable matches than before and used less skips during the climb up to ~800 points. At any point where I have crossed into the top 20 of an event and not shielded, I have been quickly attacked repeatedly for almost a whole play session's points. The new key seems to be either to shield in the spotlight or wait for a final burst climb.

Kingpin PvP was significantly better than the Iron Man PvP, but I think that was by virtue of almost no one having his covers. I do not have 3* Thor maxed (he's L120 base), so this PvP event has been a huge challenge given the number of max-level Thors out in the wild. I score 600+ on most PvP, 800+ easily within reach, and have crossed 1000 (and 1300 before that) only a handful of times. This event has been absolutely crushing on my health pack usage -- with arguably the best 3* in the game buffed (and a contender for top character after X-Force nerfs go through), I have barely managed to hold on to 650. It has not been uncommon for me to have to use 2-3 health packs per win, meaning some play sessions were only able to recover the points lost since the last climb. If a new character PvE were also running and competing for my health packs, I likely would have struggled to stay over 500 for this event.


Given that 3* Thor is the best of his tier, and arguably the strongest character in the game with the featured buffs, my struggles are probably a healthy thing for the game. We are going to have a lot more PvP's where Beast or Quicksilver are featured than where Thor is featured. With most everyone's health going up, matches will get longer and more abilities will be fired on both sides. I expect the added pressure on health packs to continue -- potentially creating a real pinch once exciting PvE offerings return.

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

The problem is it's only 3* players who are forced to fight above their level, 2* fight at and below, 4* fight at and below, 3* fight at and above, mostly above

It is my understanding (and this may be totally untrue, I can't verify) that 3* rosters can fight 2* rosters? There just comes a certain point where there are no 2* rosters to pair against and they give you something more point appropriate than roster appropriate. 2* rosters have the same problem, when no more 2*'s become available to fight they get 3* opponents.

I wonder what the new match system considers a 220 4* character to be, because those are basically the strength of "really good 3*" for the most part. I wonder also if having a character at 166 would benefit you until you are ready to level him to 270.

cletus1985

Lerysh wrote:

Sports is a bad analogy because in sports every team has access to the same resources typically. Ownership is steeped in so much cash they can get/do whatever they want. All teams are "supposedly" created equal. You play a season worth of games to see who is actually the best and then you have a playoffs. In MPQ every player does not have the same resources. Or even the same desires. When season rewards went in scores saw a significant jump, because players actually cared about their score again. This made it quite difficult for 2* players to earn 3* covers from PvP because the top of the brackets are full of people who don't even want the 3* covers. They are there for the 1300 (now 1000) points and season score.

It's more like a chess tournament, where you bring your ranking in with you and everyone gets paired based on that ranking so the top 2 rankings have the best chance to meet in the finals. Except people were manipulating their ranking to get easier matches, and the ranking system still didn't take into account player resources (roster strengths), and the best ranked people still don't want the actual top 5 rewards typically and are just there for season score and 1000 point progression.

If everyone joined their slice when it opened, played when they had free time, and didn't use shields to extend their scores, the brackets would settle into a ranking of "who played the most" (effort) and "who got hit the least" (roster strength). So I ask again, what's wrong with that? It takes effort to place now is the problem? Really?

The bolded line above is probably one of the biggest factors in making PvP so unbearable for newer players and should really be addressed. If there was an option when you entered PvP that let you sacrifice covers for say "double iso-8" rewards and they let those unwanted covers trickle down to those who still need them, PvP would be a lot more rewarding. So if you don't want the covers and place 2nd you get 10,000 iso instead of 5,000, your normal 100 HP, and maybe add on the 1,500 from the covers as well (not sure it would be necessary). Then the guy who got 6th now gets 3 covers, 11th 2 covers, etc..etc..., but gets the same iso and HP as they would've earned in original placement (to keep resources more within the intended balance).

Not saying this is a plausible fix since I know nothing about programming, but I think something along these lines would definitely benefit the entire playerbase without completely changing the infrastructure already in place.

Unknown

I am finding better matches early on. Not just a blowout until 500. Unfortunately, now I find I can step away for a couple of hours and lose 100 pts with a pretty decent defensive team in place. I also find that once I get to 650-700ish, I only have options on fighting roughly 6-8 people, no matter how much ISO I waste skipping...it's the same people. I had started hitting 1k before the change, with shields and a decent roster. Now I push the whole event, fighting off defensive losses and burning health packs. It has began to feel like PVE, a repetitive slog, and I refuse to play PVE. I liked breaking out towards the end and rushing a hop, but now it seems pointless to break shield and not be able to get any fresh faces to fight.

Unknown

PVP is still a miserable slog. SHIELD Simulator is functionally unplayable - the pathetic awards, combined with the new MMR slog, make it pointless. I'd rather it was removed completely than continue in the current form, since I'm not going to get anything useful out of it but it's going to seriously hurt my season score if I skip it.

My approach to PVP is going to be aim low unless I need the cover, and only shield when I need the cover. I'm going to hoard HP until I'm confident the crazy release schedule has slowed down.

Vinmarc43

Not enough answer choices, I feel somewhat ok, but not all pvp feel the same since your last tweek. But it still feel more of a grind now and retaliation are still very bad.

Vhailorx

About my roster: 3*-->4* transition player. I have several good 3* characters covered and leveled. Several more 3* characters cover-maxed but not leveled. I have a 5/5/3 xforce at 166 (R.I.P.), and no other 4*s leveled above 100.

My experience:

Smash Hit and Blind Justice over the weekend of April 11/12 were terrible. Constant attacks from around 200 points, all 250/166/166 opponents or better after the seed teams. I am in a top 100 pvp alliance and basically havdn't had less than 600 for a pvp even since some time in january. I struggled just to get 500 in these two events, and had absolutely no fun doing it. While I and other players would probably have adapted to that system over time to make it slightly less horrible, I can't easily see it would ever have been a fun experience. I would likely quit the game before continuing to play under that pvp system.

Since April 13, PVP is noticeably better. I find that my equilibrium point (ie the point value above which I must shield or lose points) is around 400. So still quite a bit lower than the old system where I could typically sit unshielded up to 600. I also noticed a smoother difficulty curve in the opponents I would see. After the seeds, I got mixed 2*/3*at around 100 opponents up through 300-400 points, then I would get mostly 3*s in the 120-150 range through the 600. It was only in the high 600s and above that I would finally max teams (hood/xforce or xforce/loki or thorverine). And shield hopping from 700 or 750 up to 1k is not a lot of fun, especially when it MUST be done in 8 and 3 hour increments. PLEASE change the shield cooldowns! I understand why they were implemented, but the way they force players to schedule competitive pvp play is absurd and absolutely no fun.

All that being said, I still find the current system less enjoyable than the old one. It takes me longer to achieve the same outcome in terms of total points. And it also costs more in HP to achieve very high scores because the increased attack rate means it is even more important to push early (which then requires more shields, or dropping back down to 400 after achieving the desired prog reward).

So the 4/13 stopped me from outright quitting in frustration, but I still don't like the new system and am considering scaling back my total involvement in the game. I would urge Demiruge not to consider the lack of feedback post 4/13 to mean that the current mmr system is ideal or even superior to the old system for players in my position.

Also I didn't vote in the poll as it wasn't clear to me what the right answer is. The current mmr is better than the 4/11-4/12 version, but worse than the pre-april mmr in general. the poll only offers "better than before" and "worse than before," and my answer is yes.

Druss

Day 420 ish

have 15 or so Lv166's + XF 220

Hate it - impossible to use anything other than your A-team as otherwise painting a hugh target on your back.

All event facing Lv 290 Lthor, 200+ XF, +top tier L166 3* or better.

Made me quit top alliance as I'm not prepared to grind like crazy (PvE?) to get to even the minimum 600.

stevenbrule

I'm another one in the "I hate the MMR change, but this is slightly better than it was a few before" category. Maybe I've just figured out how to climb more effectively in the new MMR, though.

rixmith

Here is how I'd like to see roster-based matchmaking work (I have more than a dozen 3* characters at 166, and have X-Force 5/5/2, IW 4/4/5 and Fury 3/3/2 @166 for my usable 4*'s):

Offer me any team that is worth more than 25 points
Offer me teams that are slightly weaker than mine (say level 120 - 140) that are worth 20 or more points
Offer me lower level teams (2* and level 90 - 120 3* teams) that are worth 15 or more points
Hopefully these criteria generate a large enough pool of opponents, but be able to add lower point matches to the pool if it is not of sufficient size

My thinking for this is:

There is no point in attacking a team of equal or greater strength if I'm going to lose it all back (if not more) on their retaliation. But if the battle is worth more than 25 it is likely worth risking it.
If a slightly weaker team decides to boost or just go at a retaliation that is a reasonable risk I have to take
If I'm attacking a level 94 or 100 team for 15 points they are only losing a couple of points

Does that seem reasonable?

monstermike

Well, I think the changes are well. I placed top 100 in the kingpin event, with 502 points. 186th place in the Thor event with 350ish points.

In this event, Lethal Intent, I have 220 points or so, and was sitting around 60th place. I joined the first slice a few hours ago, so maybe that is it.

I have no 3* maxed, but multiple at level 104, which are my highest leveled guys. I have yet to hit a wall of 166 or 270 teams in any event since the changes. While prior, I'd see teams of that nature at 150pts or so.

You can look at my roster here (sorry ugly link):
http://cymmina.gamependium.com/mpq/roster/#CzA0EYAYwZmcDcMYWqGBWDCBMAOVMYHGXDQ0DYU4SC5UjANlR3RIWAHZQBOF5DiQF+lHEPC8+YLKRzhplDKXApesLAnDl1SxjrrFE8PnUEImLPCxyRISKVwIxwQjI4LgvuRzZgSwLg1sHECzeQsw1HsmFC46KBjyeNA7RAweJk8XJBlyeWMpLFBxIWIlEpyUDDpZBAw2YHIvdJRaaPqFdrT6wzpICJwedq97TFBu8QthultIIA

Pylgrim

I believe that the poll questions need to be more specific to show both the intention and the experience of the voters. For example (taken from what I read frequently in the forums):

-Worse. Anything that is not bashing easy 2* teams well into 700 points is bad for me.
-Worse. I used to score 600 but now I cannot go above 400!
-Worse. It now takes more time/healthpacks to reach the scores I once did.
-Worse. I'm getting attacked a lot and I used not to.
-Many things changed but the overall result is still the same for me.
-Better. There are more difficult teams to beat more I'm getting more points per battle.
-Better. I'm seeing less easier teams but also less harder teams than before.
-Better. Opponents are in average harder in the beginning, but there's a less noticeable wall after 500.
-Better. I'm actually getting attacked less and the retaliations are against teams I can beat.

I myself would vote for the first "better" there.

metabelian

Lerysh wrote:

Sports is a bad analogy because in sports every team has access to the same resources typically. Ownership is steeped in so much cash they can get/do whatever they want. All teams are "supposedly" created equal. You play a season worth of games to see who is actually the best and then you have a playoffs. In MPQ every player does not have the same resources. Or even the same desires.

I'm guessing you don't watch sports much.

Maybe we should call up the NCAA and tell them how the men's bball tourney needs changing. One seeds picking on and "beating down" those poor sixteen seeds? Clearly we should have the one seeds play against the one seeds (and a few two seeds here and there) and the sixteen seeds play against the sixteen seeds (and a few fifteen seeds) because clearly it's unfair for some teams to be better than others.

chaos01

I vote unplayable. I have three maxed 3 stars. Once they are gone my level 140-102's don't stand a chance against constant 290/270/166 teams. I am not willing to spend ISO skipping a bunch. I played the entire Thor event not playing a single 94 team. So one level less my butt. My last season score was 6500+, I won't even hit 3500 at this rate.

Also, I feel like after slogging for 6-7 seasons and not doing well in PVP it was the carrot to make my roster better over the last 3 season, I was able to climb to 800 maybe even push for 1K. That is a straight up pipe dream now.

JamesV

Lerysh wrote:

fmftint wrote:

The problem is it's only 3* players who are forced to fight above their level, 2* fight at and below, 4* fight at and below, 3* fight at and above, mostly above

It is my understanding (and this may be totally untrue, I can't verify) that 3* rosters can fight 2* rosters? There just comes a certain point where there are no 2* rosters to pair against and they give you something more point appropriate than roster appropriate. 2* rosters have the same problem, when no more 2*'s become available to fight they get 3* opponents.

I wonder what the new match system considers a 220 4* character to be, because those are basically the strength of "really good 3*" for the most part. I wonder also if having a character at 166 would benefit you until you are ready to level him to 270.

I feel like depending on where you are in the 2-3 star transition or 3-4 star transition things can get really rough.

Since the update during Kingpin matchmaking in general has been okay for me, but there are periods of time where it will take a few hundred ISO for me to get a fight that isn't 290/270/270 or 290/270/166. I have a 228 X-Force with everyone else being 166 or lower (most non-IW 4 stars are only at 1 cover). The new matchmaking feels pretty severely like my end-game progression has been cut in half. I don't mind fighting people around my level -- or above my level at times, but the mixture of teams+levels isn't always there and earning 40-50 fights every 3 hours is pretty frustrating.

In my alliance, at least one other person in the 3-4 star transition and one in the 2-3 star transition have found the same experience.

Though part of that could easily be the characters involved, but it feels like there's a slight rounding that happens that seems to err on the side of the higher level depending on where you are in the transition.

In general I don't have a problem with the new matchmaking in concept and I don't think it should be done away with. It may just need a little more adjusting to fix the seemingly "oh, i should default you against the next tier" which almost always translates to max levels of the next tier.

lokiagentofhotness

Except that I get retalled a lot more, I've gotten used to the new MMR - even if seeing a 2star team right now is like seeing a unicorn. I got one! at 600 pts the other day, and stomped that poor team into oblivion because I was tired of fighting 166 teams and it was easy.

I don't like running out of health packs every few games, though. Can we get an increase on the number of health packs given?

20 percent less for attacks below 1000 pts is too little, though. Make it 40 percent and then we can talk.

Unknown

metabelian wrote:

Lerysh wrote:

Sports is a bad analogy because in sports every team has access to the same resources typically. Ownership is steeped in so much cash they can get/do whatever they want. All teams are "supposedly" created equal. You play a season worth of games to see who is actually the best and then you have a playoffs. In MPQ every player does not have the same resources. Or even the same desires.

I'm guessing you don't watch sports much.

Maybe we should call up the NCAA and tell them how the men's bball tourney needs changing. One seeds picking on and "beating down" those poor sixteen seeds? Clearly we should have the one seeds play against the one seeds (and a few two seeds here and there) and the sixteen seeds play against the sixteen seeds (and a few fifteen seeds) because clearly it's unfair for some teams to be better than others.

Those 32 seeds represent the BEST 32 teams in the NCAA. There are a ton that don't even make it. Hence the whole "seasons worth of games" and "playoffs". As an analogy, March Madness would be like a season in MPQ where everyone who made top 25 last season all found their way into the same bracket and could only hit each other. This is why sports is a bad analogy, which was the point.

Unknown

I am being matched with people who have maxed 270s, unfortunately my 270 is a donkey. So I'm seeing 290 Gamora/max Fury or Prof X/a.n. maxed other, ive got a 66 Gamora/a wonky xforce/and whatever 3* I feel like getting beat with. I think the only way out of this is to sell the Xforce and put myself back 5 months, that's a cheery thought.

GrumpySmurf1002

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

1000 pt progression seems impossible with any of the new changes.

Stand corrected, finally got there for the 1st time this season.