PvP Gameplay Updates

Unknown

IMO it's intuitive alright, if I face enemy I must fight (don't want to skip) but will surely lose, rather throw the unused characters. And retreat to save most health right away. (that's currently also good to keep the real defender team in place).

But is that different from recent tanking down/deleveling in pve? Is is fun? Is it good to pass time, even if just few minutes?

For me it shows the door.

I'd like to play relevant and interesting matches. Is that happening? With whatever "fixed" version of mmr and machmaking?

Unknown

Why the Devs want break this game everyday?

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

IMO it's intuitive alright, if I face enemy I must fight (don't want to skip) but will surely lose, rather throw the unused characters. And retreat to save most health right away. (that's currently also good to keep the real defender team in place).

But is that different from recent tanking down/deleveling in pve? Is is fun? Is it good to pass time, even if just few minutes?

For me it shows the door.

I'd like to play relevant and interesting matches. Is that happening? With whatever "fixed" version of mmr and machmaking?

Yeah, as someone else suggested in another thread, I think the key is to make sure you TRY those difficult fights. However, who's going to do that knowing that even if they win, they're likely to need three health packs? Maybe having an auto-heal in PvP would help alleviate this?

Unknown

Stillhart wrote:

pasa_ wrote:

IMO it's intuitive alright, if I face enemy I must fight (don't want to skip) but will surely lose, rather throw the unused characters. And retreat to save most health right away. (that's currently also good to keep the real defender team in place).

But is that different from recent tanking down/deleveling in pve? Is is fun? Is it good to pass time, even if just few minutes?

For me it shows the door.

I'd like to play relevant and interesting matches. Is that happening? With whatever "fixed" version of mmr and machmaking?

Yeah, as someone else suggested in another thread, I think the key is to make sure you TRY those difficult fights. However, who's going to do that knowing that even if they win, they're likely to need three health packs? Maybe having an auto-heal in PvP would help alleviate this?

Play with best team. Lose
Use 3 health packs. Win at 1/2 health
Use 3 more.... Oh wait 2 matches and I'm out of health packs.
Just the thing to keeps attention and loosen the grip on my wallet.

Unknown

D3PCS wrote:

Hey All,

For those that may not have hit the announcements yet, we recently posted an updated discussing some PvP changes/planned changes for matchmaking, the skip feature and the amount of Iso-8 rewarded after any PvP match.

Here is the original post: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2819

Thanks!

So basically you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt that d3p is staffed by morons.

Just removing the 0 point matches does not fix the matchmaking system, especially when you can get hit back for more points than you can earn - and now you are going to charge us for the privilege of skipping people who will hit us back for more than we get from the attack.

DD-The-Mighty

or maybe, we could actually have a matchmaking system that factors our active tournament characters? some of us don't have the luxury of maxed 2*s and 3*s, so we have to pick our fights because we keep getting paired up with point wise worthless lower level characters or teams with characters 1 star and 10+ levels above us. Yea losing in a game with 35 minute cool-downs on revives is fantastic.

Unknown

Fix matchmaking before introducing this idiotic skip tax.

You all promised 50 point matches weeks ago and then you took shielded players out of the MMR pool. So what are those of us low on a tourney ranking supposed to do now? Scrap and claw against 10 point matches we can't skip without paying for the privilege of being retaliated, while shielded people sit high above untouchable?

Your system is broken.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Fix matchmaking before introducing this idiotic skip tax.

You all promised 50 point matches weeks ago and then you took shielded players out of the MMR pool. So what are those of us low on a tourney ranking supposed to do now? Scrap and claw against 10 point matches we can't skip without paying for the privilege of being retaliated, while shielded people sit high above untouchable?

Your system is broken.

Obviously they're trying to force you to pay for shields. Spend 30 minutes playing as many matches as possible, then shield for 3 hours. Rinse, repeat. Don't have enough hp? Well, hope you have a lot of iso saved up...

Unknown

I don't skip to find easy players. I skip to find matchups worth 25+ so I don't lose points and go backwards once the inevitable retaliation happens. Playing people worth 10-15 points is a great way to end up losing points overall. And often this requires a lot of skips, because the system wants to match me up with people who are only worth 10-15 points over and over even when I'm only at like 200-250 and there must be tons of people out there worth more points to me.

But hey, I guess the skip tax means I'll get hit more often by people for whom I'm only worth 10-15 points, so I'll be able to work my way up through retaliations!

This is so silly. All the skip tax does is make me not want to play PVP events. But then the failure to reset levels after each subevent has made me not want to play the current PVE event. And the sudden money-grubbing change to boosts makes me not want to play either. One thing's for sure- there's no way I'm putting any more real money into the game while the devs are acting this way.

One of the devs needs to tell the rest to take a deep breath and stop piling on all these changes that hurt the players when they've already got people mad as hell and not going to take it any more.

Unknown

D3PCS » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:24 pm
Matchmaking

Matchmaking has been adjusted a bit to address an issue that was impacting a growing number of users. With the recently-released update, user should not longer encounter matches in PvP that result in the player being awarded 0 points for winning.

What about matches that result in players being awarded 5, 10, 15, 20 points for winning? We then get retaliated for 35+ points. It's not worth fighting those teams because we're basically guaranteeing a retaliation loss of twice as much. And now there's a skip tax so we're kind of being forced to fight those teams. We shouldn't even be offered teams that are worth less than 25 points. There should be a threshold that no matter what the team's rating, 25 points is the minimum you can gain from a team.

I am glad the ISO tax is only 10 ISO. At least that is reasonable, if implementing a skip tax when matchmaking is still broken can be seen as reasonable.

Sigh. That's my summary of the game right now. Just sigh. I'm hanging in there and I really hope things get back on track. I really loved this game.

Unknown

Tax is always the wrong thing, it punishes players for trying play the game or forcing them to stop because they cannot compete.

What needs to happen is having a compounding reward for not skipping the opponent. Like +20 ISO for each consecutive win capping out to like +200. At least you are getting a good chunk of ISO then for your constant point losses.

Unknown

Chimaera wrote:

Tax is always the wrong thing, it punishes players for trying play the game or forcing them to stop because they cannot compete.

What needs to happen is having a compounding reward for not skipping the opponent. Like +20 ISO for each consecutive win capping out to like +200. At least you are getting a good chunk of ISO then for your constant point losses.

agreed. Slight increase or a bonus for every 5 or 10 consecutive matches. So many better ways to alter player behavior bt a nudge or carrot rather than with a billy club.

Unknown

Are the changes outlined in that thread the only changes coming in to effect?

Shield prices will be the same from one tournament to the next? Boost costs are where you want them? No other nasty surprises coming up?

itstime1234

RockMonster wrote:

Are the changes outlined in that thread the only changes coming in to effect?

Shield prices will be the same from one tournament to the next? Boost costs are where you want them? No other nasty surprises coming up?

I hope you arent checking back in regularly to see if you get a reply. The last time there was a mass complaint thread with numerous great questions, the only comment that was responded to was some tongue and cheek joke about only way the changes would suck if they introduced some electric shock in an update. No response to any of the other great posts and questions.

Unknown

Chimaera wrote:

Tax is always the wrong thing, it punishes players for trying play the game or forcing them to stop because they cannot compete.

What needs to happen is having a compounding reward for not skipping the opponent. Like +20 ISO for each consecutive win capping out to like +200. At least you are getting a good chunk of ISO then for your constant point losses.

This makes complete and total sense. Which is why it will never happen.

Unknown

Not a fan of the skip tax at all. I wonder how a matching system would perform if:

- Each attacked player had 1 retaliation (currently implemented) and no boosts were allowed in pvp. Failed retaliation costs 5-10 points depending on difference of ranking
- Each offered match was within a set MMR/ranking range and gave min 10 - max 30 points
- Each retaliation gave 0.5-1.5 modifier to the points you lost. If you were attacked and the winner won 30 points, your retaliation would give 15-45 depending your current ranking compared with the current ranking of the target). So in order to gain 30 points with his attack, your opponent would have to be in the lowest limit of the allowed matching range. If when you retaliate he has the same ranking/points as you multiply 1.0x what you lost (30) = 30 points so you break even. If the opponent's current ranking is equal or above the allowed matching range you get back 1.5x what you lost (30) = 45. So the benefit for you is 15 points.

I think a system like that would be more fair for the players and the retaliations would not be crippling. It would also eliminate the 0 point or too low rewarding matches. This fact with the lack of boosts and the only 1 retaliation with penalties for losing, would make the players more careful with their retaliations and the stronger teams would be more feared than now.

There is a risk that comes with a system like this though and that is new players feeling too weak and not able to compete, but I think a new player shouldn't have to compete with high tier players. Maybe a 2 ladder tournament system for players that make the transition from 1->2 and 2->3 with different rewards (2* for low tier and 3* for high tier) would be more fair and fun for all.

Unknown

What needs to happen is that retaliations should return exactly the number of points lost. This means that if you can beat the team that beat you, you just end up at the same spots before.

Tannen

Here's an idea, to promote people shielding less and retaliating more, allow a LOSING, high ranked, player to lose no more points than they would get if they chose to retaliate.

Currently if someone much lower than you sees you unshielded they'll attack for 50 points, which you lose from your total, if you choose to retaliate, you will gain somewhere between 0-5 points. More telling, you allow them to retaliate against you for an additional 50 points. This behaviour encourages people to get to a "high" score and then shield until the end of the event. It also serves to actively discourage people retaliating anyone below them (why give someone a free shot at your points). It doesn't solve the "people joining late need a boost" because everyone that could give those players points are shielded to avoid point loss -- and are thus removed from the pool of players that the lower ones can attack. In the last hour of tournaments it actively discourages the top few from playing, even if they get passed by someone, because the risk far outweighs the gain. (ie I can unshield and hit a few people to try to gain that spot back, or I can just take whatever my current reward tier is and not risk dropping 30 ranks to two attacks)

What I'm suggesting is that in the case where a high level player is attacked by a lower one, the point loss for the hight player be restricted to the amount that they can gain back in a retaliation -- no change made to the attacker's gain. So in the first example, while the lower player still gains 50 points, the higher player loses only the 0-5 points that they can regain upon retaliation. It also means that people will be more willing to break shields later in the tournaments as losses at that point to people much lower won't drop you all the way out of the running.

One potential issue is that people could game the system to power boost a lower, colluding, player to a much higher spot quicker (eg constantly retaliating between players) as the lower player gains ~45 to each point neutral loss that the higher player takes. You could fix this issue by making each additional hit within X minutes worth 50% less until they're not worth attacking (just like the current pve logic). As a side note this also prevents people from farming the same person over and over.

Unknown

Koolbiird wrote:

The increase in ISO was all I was looking forward to. Disappointed in the result. Disappointment in this game continues.

Agreed.

Increasing the reward, taking back iso for skips, average net difference +0%
Not boosting, match time increased by 50%, iso gain per hour EFFECTIVELY HALVED
Boosting, iso net gain NEGATIVE

This game is free-iso starved, the purchasable resource has loan-shark to fraud rates, and you call this AN IMPROVEMENT.

WOW.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

What needs to happen is that retaliations should return exactly the number of points lost. This means that if you can beat the team that beat you, you just end up at the same spots before.

And no retaliating a retaliation. It's for vengeance purposes only and it's a one-time deal.