Live PVP

Malcrof

i wonder how it would be if there was a live PVP. You are in-game, and you play against someone else who is currently in-game. You select the appropriate level range for your fight (limits based on roster) and you are given a live opponent.

Would be crazy fun, and very different from fighting AI

They would need to disable team-ups and whaling (other than normal damage whales).

Winner gets a prize. No points or progression, just nice prizes and some real PVP.

Or, you get the choice to play as the AI in a random PVE. Someone is playing a PVE and you get to play their sub's bad guys (subs stay the same, you just get to control the enemies).. and the player never knows

JamieMadrox

I like the idea of a live 1-on-1 PVP "quick match". That would be something I could get behind. I don't see the need for restricting whales or boosts or TUs though.

Malcrof

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I like the idea of a live 1-on-1 PVP "quick match". That would be something I could get behind. I don't see the need for restricting whales or boosts or TUs though.

Restricting the deadpool SUPER WHALES would be the big one... or it turns into a mess, fast...

Maybe limit it to 1 team up, like the AI PVP?

JamieMadrox

Malcrof wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I like the idea of a live 1-on-1 PVP "quick match". That would be something I could get behind. I don't see the need for restricting whales or boosts or TUs though.

Restricting the deadpool SUPER WHALES would be the big one... or it turns into a mess, fast...

Maybe limit it to 1 team up, like the AI PVP?

Superwhales is limited to DP points though so that would end quickly on it's own. I can't see people using it for an event that's not going to garner them any specific prize.

Malcrof

Jamie Madrox wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I like the idea of a live 1-on-1 PVP "quick match". That would be something I could get behind. I don't see the need for restricting whales or boosts or TUs though.

Restricting the deadpool SUPER WHALES would be the big one... or it turns into a mess, fast...

Maybe limit it to 1 team up, like the AI PVP?

Superwhales is limited to DP points though so that would end quickly on it's own. I can't see people using it for an event that's not going to garner them any specific prize.

Good enough point, and would take less coding to implement.

slidecage

with them trying to limit the amount of people online at a certain time i doubt this would ever happen. It would be fun but i highly doubt it

Pwuz_

If this type of mode were enabled, a 5-10 second timer would be required for making a move. Without a timer a player could start a match, walk away and hope his opponent forfeits while he is inactive for the duration.

Failing to move within that time would need to both forfeit the turn as well as include an additional penalty. How many times Have I sat there starring dumbfounded at the screen looking for a 2nd move as my only obvious move blatantly sets up a match 5.

Without a penalty, good players may intentionally skip their turn for a more favorable match next move. A fair amount of Team Damage and AP drain seem reasonable.

Unknown

A live match would take at least twice as long as a normal game since the AI takes almost no time at all beyond some unavoidable animation time. It'd likely take longer because whoever is behind will probably want to take more time both to try to salvage his position and hope the other guy gets tired of waiting.

Given whoever goes first has a huge advantage in this game you'd also have an awfully hard time making this remotely fair. I guess you can have the second player take two moves in a row on his first turn but most of the time that's still not going to make a difference because if the board started with any match 4/5, it's going to be gone by the time the second player gets to move unless you've multiple match 4 and only match 4s on the board.

For the individual move timer just make the computer pick a move for you at random if you failed to act on time. It's too complicated to figure out anything else since as pointed out occasionally it can be a good idea to forfeit your move and it'd be difficult to come up with a generalized algorithm to figure out just how much of an advantage that translates to. You can just make the AI take the first move the hint would've given you, which from what I can tell is never a match 4/5?

Unknown

I much prefer this type of pvp but the question is do the devs have the current tech and if they do would be it too pricey to implement?

Malcrof

Phantron wrote:

A live match would take at least twice as long as a normal game since the AI takes almost no time at all beyond some unavoidable animation time. It'd likely take longer because whoever is behind will probably want to take more time both to try to salvage his position and hope the other guy gets tired of waiting.

Given whoever goes first has a huge advantage in this game you'd also have an awfully hard time making this remotely fair. I guess you can have the second player take two moves in a row on his first turn but most of the time that's still not going to make a difference because if the board started with any match 4/5, it's going to be gone by the time the second player gets to move unless you've multiple match 4 and only match 4s on the board.

For the individual move timer just make the computer pick a move for you at random if you failed to act on time. It's too complicated to figure out anything else since as pointed out occasionally it can be a good idea to forfeit your move and it'd be difficult to come up with a generalized algorithm to figure out just how much of an advantage that translates to. You can just make the AI take the first move the hint would've given you, which from what I can tell is never a match 4/5?

Interesting point.. could always implement a RNG / Coin Flip type thing for first move.

Unknown

Malcrof wrote:

Interesting point.. could always implement a RNG / Coin Flip type thing for first move.

But if this is supposed to be anything serious you'd definitely have some games where whoever goes first just ends up with a huge lead that cannot be caught and if these games are meaningful it wouldn't be fair. I think you'd have to do just two games with alternating starts with tiebreakers going:

1. # of wins (if you win both games you obviously win the whole thing)
2. Most number of characters downed
3. Least damage taken (if it's most damage done, this sort of penalizes true healing characters in a bizarre way)

Of course, that'd make this even longer, so this shouldn't be in a format where you're expected to play 50 games. Maybe it'd be cool if you've a single elimination event setup like this?

TxMoose

Phantron wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Interesting point.. could always implement a RNG / Coin Flip type thing for first move.

But if this is supposed to be anything serious you'd definitely have some games where whoever goes first just ends up with a huge lead that cannot be caught and if these games are meaningful it wouldn't be fair. I think you'd have to do just two games with alternating starts with tiebreakers going:

1. # of wins (if you win both games you obviously win the whole thing)
2. Most number of characters downed
3. Least damage taken (if it's most damage done, this sort of penalizes true healing characters in a bizarre way)

Of course, that'd make this even longer, so this shouldn't be in a format where you're expected to play 50 games. Maybe it'd be cool if you've a single elimination event setup like this?

a tiebreaker could be both play the same AI team - could be a standardized team (ultron or sentry waves? or big enchilada?) and whoever is most efficient (least damage taken, etc), would get the win - have to start with exactly the same board though. I agree that whoever has first move has a huge advantage in a head to head, so if it was to be for anything worthwhile, it would have to be a one&one plus some sort of tiebreaker.