Misleading PvP nodes -- can we fix this please?

Unknown

theHappyDance wrote:

daibar wrote:

theHappyDance wrote:

Not exactly. I made a previous post regarding my more detailed thoughts on how this could be implemented, and massive scores wouldn't be possible in that system. Players could still grind for top placement once they reached progression, but their score gains would fall off pretty sharply since it would be based on enemy level vs their own score (so higher their score, less gain from enemies of any given level, so scores would be fairly predictable since theres a maximum level of enemies they'd face). There would be the issue that it'd mean whoever grinded the most would win the bracket, but that's less an issue in my mind than all the issues associated with the current system.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29639&p=358506#p358506

I thought we also made counterpoints about throwing up 270 IW + Elektra, and how it discourages people from leveling their characters to max, since if they can win with say level 140's cover maxed, they'll get more points. That might have been a different thread though.

With the original problem: fixing this problem leads to the problem of excess data transfer and battery usage. This has been discussed before and the issue of excess data use is a bigger problem than having exactly accurate PVP points. Further, it's a pain to have to be connected at all times, particularly if your device or carrier doesn't have the greatest reception.

This not a valid point. Please reread what I wrote it in its entirety.

You'd see enemies of differing level based on your point score, which would be tied to progression, and would have no relation to their score whatsoever. It doesn't matter what team you field against them. You'd get the same amount of points no matter what. But you'd be encouraged to start using your better teams as you progressed because enemy teams would transition to be higher level as you did so, and sic would be quicker work with higher tier characters once you reached that stage. Your reasons for fielding 270's would be that they'd become necessary if you wanted to grab the 4* cover since you'd be facing 4*'s at that level no matter what. And once you'd cleared progression rewards, you'd be facing basically all 4*'s to compete for top placement (extra HP / ISO rather than cover rewards).

Ah yes, ignore that not levelling characters part; that must have pertained to a similar suggestion on the forums.
?? However, I still don't understand. I'm specifically talking about gaming the system, not going the straightforward route that most people take. What would prevent a person at 1000 from throwing up an easy team so that everyone could farm them? Do you have a separate post somewhere else in that thread? I'm coming at this from the point of a player who wants to help his alliance and the community out by giving them free points. Perhaps at 2* level people would throw up a Bagman/Moonstone to end their run. At 3* maybe Spiderman/GSBW. Or are you ranking different character teams differently, not just based on level?

make the point value based on the strength of the enemy team

Teams like magstorm. Good on offense, horrible on defense. How would you rate these properly? Wouldn't this encourage everyone at 2* level to use only MagStorm?

nodes... have all of them refresh after each match instead of just 1

That'd eat up more data/battery.

I've stated numerous times that the only way they'll ever fix PvP is to shift over to making all the covers progression rewards

Fundamentally disagree. PVP provides that rush of adrenaline of trying to rank, trying to hit higher, within a limited time frame. It's part of what makes this game great, and the competition worthwhile.

Unknown

Reread what I said again please. You wouldn't gain points based on the enemy team's points. You'd gain them based on their level. There'd be no way to game the system because throwing up an easy team would just mean people would get less points from playing against you.

Regarding magstorm, I think they'd get bored and they'd branch out since there'd be no risk beyond losing a couple health packs if there weren't any point loss on reprisals.

Unknown

theHappyDance wrote:

Reread what I said again please. You wouldn't gain points based on the enemy team's points. You'd gain them based on their level. There'd be no way to game the system because throwing up an easy team would just mean people would get less points from playing against you.

Regarding magstorm, I think they'd get bored and they'd branch out since there'd be no risk beyond losing a couple health packs if there weren't any point loss on reprisals.

How are you rating whether a team is 'easy'? It sounds like the proposed system completely favors strong on offense, garbage on defense even more than the current system. Seems like it'd lead to less diversity as defensive characters would see less play.

The line of thinking seems... limited to one play style. Why did we see these types of rosters before the change?
X-Force 270 + 94 Moonstone.
2 characters leveled up to 166, the rest far below.
2 characters leveled up to 94, the rest 50 or below.

Your previous suggestion of "make it so that whatever score is displayed on screen at the time you enter is the score you get when you win the match" seems far more reasonable, despite the point creep here too.

Unknown

Your complaint sounds to me like you're saying that it's bad because it encourages players to use teams that have good synergy and are effective / efficient together instead of taking 10 minutes for a match in order to discourage attackers.

What you're ignoring is if there's no point loss, and no need to protect your score, there's also no risk of testing out teams you don't normally use to experiment, or cross-tier pairings etc..

It would mean players could play entirely at their own pace over the course of the event, instead of having to shield, worry about reprisals and all that rubbish. Would it be perfect? No. But it would be much, much better than the current system, and would encourage people to play more since they'd have some reasonable guarantee of obtaining rewards appropriate to their roster level, and they'd only have to compete with themselves. Most of us, or at least a sizable portion, would prefer that to the current competition of who can grind the most (and/or spend the most on shields, HP's etc..)

Unknown

My complaints were more around:
1. Point inflation due to people giving free points with weak teams.
2. The removal of defensive strategy altogether from the game.
3. Grinders winning as opposed to having a meta-strategy around teams and shielding.

I'm not sure how you see your system as promoting less grinding, because it seems that's exactly what it'll lead to. Is it a simpler game? Yes. Less stressful? Probably. More fun? For some yes, for some no. We're definitely different types of players who prefer different types of competition.