Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

Unknown

orionpeace wrote:

Q: Yeah, that’s too much math. How about some more examples?
A: OK! Here you go:

A (200) attacks B (500): If A wins, A gains 64, B loses 32. If A loses, A loses 2, B gains 4.

And they don't see the risk versus reward issue here?

If I'm player A, at worst I stand to lose 2 points, but if I win I get 64. And in the current PvP MMR, player A can see a players with 800+ too, gaining 75, risking 1 point, while player B loses 38. You get hit twice like that during a hop and you lose more points than you could possibly gain in one match. At at 800+ you are unlikely to find that kind of point differential.

Maybe it will work out, but I'm not seeing this as an improvement to the game.

Whether they needed to fix Boosting is debatable. I'm just not sure this change is a net positive to players who regularly score 800+.

Math, like basic competency, eludes the devs...

aesthetocyst

orionpeace wrote:

Q: Yeah, that’s too much math. How about some more examples?
A: OK! Here you go:

A (200) attacks B (500): If A wins, A gains 64, B loses 32. If A loses, A loses 2, B gains 4.

And they don't see the risk versus reward issue here?

If I'm player A, at worst I stand to lose 2 points, but if I win I get 64. And in the current PvP MMR, player A can see a players with 800+ too, gaining 75, risking 1 point, while player B loses 38. You get hit twice like that during a hop and you lose more points than you could possibly gain in one match. At at 800+ you are unlikely to find that kind of point differential.

Maybe it will work out, but I'm not seeing this as an improvement to the game.

Whether they needed to fix Boosting is debatable. I'm just not sure this change is a net positive to players who regularly score 800+.

Some of the justification for this change given here by a mod was that points were being created that "shouldn't have been there". Looking at the cumulative effects of this and other scoring changes ... points are still being "minted" out of thin air at the low end. Assuming boosting comes to an end, then this is an argument over form and scale, not, ultimately, over substance. Pts are still being created, the only difference is the intent of the players, did they mean to win or lose.

EDIT: Should have noted that pts being "minted" at the low end is nothing new, it's always been that way, and has to be to get the event off the ground and assist players in climbing. What's new is that the recent change (dividing loss pts by 1000 instead of 800) increased this "minting" ... and the following...

Now perversely, beginning at 333 on up, if an attacker loses, pts will be destroyed! (Well, it's perverse IMO)

If a player at 400 attacks a player at 400, and loses, attacker loses 15, defender gains 13, 2pts go *poof*.

If a player at 1001 attacks a player at 1001, and loses, the attacker loses 38, the defender gets 13, the slice as a whole loses 25pts.

Considering the 9-1 claimed ratio of wins to losses (which would have included all boosting that had been going on?), and the small portion of PVP action that occurs at high scores, the pts destroyed will not balance the pts created, not even close, thankfully. But this side effect seems really weird and undesirable to me.

Boosting may have been inflating the number of matches lost by the attacker, but I'd be hardpressed to believe it was by a significant amount. Could the devs share data?

With each tweak, this PVP stuff gets curiouser and curiouser.

I still see this as a much better fix for part of PVP's problems:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30147&start=80#p362756

Aside from scoring and lack of variety in events, queuing and visibility need work as well. We'll get there someday?

TL;DR - Reduced pts from defensive wins will (slightly) intensify the problem of dry slices by removing pts from the event.

TheOncomingStorm

I don't get why do many people are saying defense wins no longer matter. If anything they matter more now.

Most my def wins are from players much lower than me. I don't get many points any way. The win is important bc it prevents a large points loss.

Stax the Foyer

Demiurge_Will wrote:

A (500) attacks B (200): If A wins, A gains 11, B loses 2. If A loses, A loses 32, B gains 21.

Afterwards, C pulls A aside and explains to them how the skip button works.

lokiagentofhotness

ArkPrime wrote:

I stopped there. Whenever there's a big post and I spot complete nonsense I tend to skip the rest of the post.

There were no people with weak rosters above 1k. If anyone was stupid enough to try that at the start of the event it would take like an hour and a half to build up to 1k from seed teams, and they would be sniped to hell by all the vets that preregister (quite a lot of them do).

nevermind, i am now officially as confused as you are

El Satanno

Well, isn't this just a lively discussion?

I'll wait for the whole thing to go live before making proclamations about the imminent demise of the entire game. That said, I can definitely see the issue many have already raised in light of the huge problem I have with PvP: Getting hit by guys way, way, way down the ladder.

Unless I'm mistaken, currently the system works like this:

• Player A has 800+ points, and can be seen universally.
• Player B has 0 points, attacks player A.
• B wins, earning 50 points. A loses 35 points.
• A gets a chance to retailiate for 6 (or some other trifling sum).
• A throws phone into furnace.

Under the new system it will be:

• Player A has 800+ points, and can be seen universally.
• Player B has 0 points, attacks player A.
• B wins, earning 75 points. A loses 40 points.
• A gets a chance to retailiate for 1 (or some other trifling sum).
• A throws phone into furnace.

I'm badding the math to hell and back, but it just seems to me that being able to be hit by players from across the entire slice is infuriating no matter what the actual numbers end up being.

Eddiemon

El Satanno wrote:

• Player A has 800+ points, and can be seen universally.
• Player B has 0 points, attacks player A.
• B wins, earning 50 points. A loses 35 points.
• A gets a chance to retailiate for 6 (or some other trifling sum).
• A throws phone into furnace.

Under the new system it will be:

• Player A has 800+ points, and can be seen universally.
• Player B has 0 points, attacks player A.
• B wins, earning 75 points. A loses 40 points.
• A gets a chance to retailiate for 1 (or some other trifling sum).
• A throws phone into furnace.

I'm badding the math to hell and back, but it just seems to me that being able to be hit by players from across the entire slice is infuriating no matter what the actual numbers end up being.

Player A in the second instance should have 1200+ points. They have been benefitting from the 50% increased win value. So even when they lost the 40 points they are still 395 points ahead of where they were in the first instance.

That's the bit everyone glosses over. Everyone should have more points for the same amount of effort. And the whole fear that 'more people will attack me if I have more points' doesn't hold true because everyone who was at your level before is at your new level so there are the same number of targets in the new world.

As an additional bonus, the snipers from below are rising 50% faster, so they attack 33% less people while on trivial scores. (Yeah the math there is fun). So the phone throwing opportunities should actually decline in the new model.

Stax the Foyer

Eddiemon wrote:

As an additional bonus, the snipers from below are rising 50% faster, so they attack 33% less people while on trivial scores. (Yeah the math there is fun). So the phone throwing opportunities should actually decline in the new model.

That assumes that snipers are limited by point ceilings, and not by healthpacks, though. If they're healthpack-constrained, like most of us are in the brave new post-health-boost world, they'll be doing the same amount of fights, and just making it a bit higher than they would have otherwise.

El Satanno

Eddiemon wrote:

Player A in the second instance should have 1200+ points. They have been benefitting from the 50% increased win value. So even when they lost the 40 points they are still 395 points ahead of where they were in the first instance.

That's the bit everyone glosses over. Everyone should have more points for the same amount of effort. And the whole fear that 'more people will attack me if I have more points' doesn't hold true because everyone who was at your level before is at your new level so there are the same number of targets in the new world.

As an additional bonus, the snipers from below are rising 50% faster, so they attack 33% less people while on trivial scores. (Yeah the math there is fun). So the phone throwing opportunities should actually decline in the new model.

I do so hope you are right, as I alluded to in my opening line. We're all going to find out soon enough, eh?

daveomite

Eddiemon wrote:

El Satanno wrote:

• Player A has 800+ points, and can be seen universally.
• Player B has 0 points, attacks player A.
• B wins, earning 50 points. A loses 35 points.
• A gets a chance to retailiate for 6 (or some other trifling sum).
• A throws phone into furnace.

Under the new system it will be:

• Player A has 800+ points, and can be seen universally.
• Player B has 0 points, attacks player A.
• B wins, earning 75 points. A loses 40 points.
• A gets a chance to retailiate for 1 (or some other trifling sum).
• A throws phone into furnace.

I'm badding the math to hell and back, but it just seems to me that being able to be hit by players from across the entire slice is infuriating no matter what the actual numbers end up being.

Player A in the second instance should have 1200+ points. They have been benefitting from the 50% increased win value. So even when they lost the 40 points they are still 395 points ahead of where they were in the first instance.

That's the bit everyone glosses over. Everyone should have more points for the same amount of effort. And the whole fear that 'more people will attack me if I have more points' doesn't hold true because everyone who was at your level before is at your new level so there are the same number of targets in the new world.

As an additional bonus, the snipers from below are rising 50% faster, so they attack 33% less people while on trivial scores. (Yeah the math there is fun). So the phone throwing opportunities should actually decline in the new model.

I guess except for those snipers who don't climb, they snipe, snipe, lose on purpose a few times, snipe for more, again and again. Factor that into that mathematical solution you've worked up too.

Now, on to commenting on several of the posts throughout this thread.

I've remained quiet in this conversation, mainly because honestly, I'm actually pretty offended by half of the posts from people who just assume everyone who scores high is a cheater, which I am most certainly not.

Obviously, what I've learned from this thread after reading all of it:

Vets: liars and cheaters.
Anyone scoring high: cheaters.
Anyone playing more than you do: cheaters and exploiting the fact the game is always on.

I climbed just fine before shards, CD's, mmr changes, etc. I climbed pretty much fine after the changes, most of them at least. Am I cheating? Absolutely not. Have I ever retreated? Yes, only in the last season or so. Did I do that all the time? No. In fact, last pvp of the season, I climbed up normal, and still scored better than 495 people in my bracket.

Just because some of you may choose not to do something, doesn't make it bad. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it evil. Just because you may not want to play everyday, but I do, doesn't make me the devil.

So you come into this forum feeling vindicated proclaiming all vets and anyone who can and do climb a cheater, just because you choose not to as you might injure your thumb or something. I don't know.

"Retreating" is a BUILT in function of the game and has long since been. Does that mean top alliances in Season 1 like Xmen, SHIELD, 5DV, Tacos, Django, etc were sitting around all day retreating to get those high scores? No. When Reckless outscored everyone in S1, was it due to retreating? No. Slobofix was close to Reckless' score too... was she retreating? No. Or long time dominate teams like Xmen, 5DV, SHIELD, RAIDERS, Sparta, Tacos, Crews and a long list of others, were they all just retreating this whole time? No. Have there been insane scores out of the blue... yes, but that's not all about retreating like what's being discussed here.... they just outscored you.

Has there been a massive increase in retreating? Yes. Why? Ask the devs. That all came to be because, first and foremost, the devs woke up one day and decided to force everyone entering a pvp to see maxed teams immediately. Then, they started boosting various characters, including 4*'s. For a "vet" like me, that means when I enter a pvp at any point beyond a few minutes after it starts, I see things like a maxed featured character, teamed with max Hulkbuster and maxed Iron Fist or Kingpin. That's when I'm at 0 points.

That means a massive drain on health packs like never before, there's no way around it, I don't care what anyone says, this one point cannot be stressed enough. Remind me, how many "free" health packs do you have at max? 5. Five. Unless you get tons and tons of free ones... as I'm sure many of the newer players who only score 500 must have hundreds of them laying around. Right? Not even close.

That health drain, combined with the massive length of just one match like that is astronomically different from any previous version of MPQ to the point of insane. Oh, and don't worry noobies... there's a long line of vets who won't even agree with me on that. But, I'm just trying to explain the logic behind whoever started the whole "retreat boost" craze.... because #1, it saved a ton of health packs for them overall.

People keep talking like this new change is better than the last, which must have been better than the one before, of course. Congratulations then... enjoy your new MPQ and relish all those low point victories when teams switch from climbing, to becoming snipers themselves, and pound the daylights out of people climbing.

Just like if I'm ever over 1,300 again, and I get that sniper from 200 or less points.... (yes, those absolutely happen, often)... he gets 75 points. Oh, I can hit the retal right? For what? 1 point.. maybe a few points in the new system? Wheee. Sure, I'll just hit that! But, oh no! During that one 10-15 minute long match due to a fully maxed team with 2 maxed 4*'s boosted...30-50k health at least.... I'm sniped by 2 more, destroying me for over 150 points. But i won that 1 point retal at least? Score! That's perfection, right?

Ah, yes. Fun times. Stay classy.

Der_Lex

Demiurge_Will wrote:

A (200) attacks B (500): If A wins, A gains 64, B loses 32.

So, is anybody who is less math illiterate than I able to calculate how many points B would have lost under the old system?

And if this number is less than 32, how is this change not detrimental to top end players trying to hit 1k with as few shields as possible?

aesthetocyst

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

I don't get why do many people are saying defense wins no longer matter. If anything they matter more now.

Most my def wins are from players much lower than me. I don't get many points any way. The win is important bc it prevents a large points loss.

Absolutely defensive wins were important, in this game in which losing massive amounts of points in a short time is common, and not entirely within the player's control, but gaining massive amounts of points is not. It has ever been common to hear of friends losing 100+ pts in a flash (or more) due to a technical failure, or a miscalculation, or not being able to schedule life around the game. Those big losses hurt, and players remember them for a long time.

Points on defense were the only mitigator. Now they only mitigate 33% as much. The most I had received on defense in a short time span lately was 45pts, now that would be 15.

Streeeeeeetching to find the positive, now, if attacking a rival and it goes south, you'll only be "gifting" them a third as many pts. Ha. Of course, this only goes so far. One of the attractive things about bouncing off friendlies is that, if you do lose, at least you were giving them pts, now, not so much.

My most common use of the retreat button, and what I have encouraged others to do, is to use it to get out of a match that has bogged down. No matter how many points the match is worth, if it isn't resolved quickly, the longer it drags on, the larger a loss being risked. Daveomite just referred to a theoretical 10min match. Yikes. Hanging in a match for 10min at high score is suicide.

How do the devs know the difference between bailing out and boosting?

aesthetocyst

Eddiemon wrote:

Player A in the second instance should have 1200+ points. They have been benefitting from the 50% increased win value. So even when they lost the 40 points they are still 395 points ahead of where they were in the first instance.

That's the bit everyone glosses over. Everyone should have more points for the same amount of effort. And the whole fear that 'more people will attack me if I have more points' doesn't hold true because everyone who was at your level before is at your new level so there are the same number of targets in the new world.

As an additional bonus, the snipers from below are rising 50% faster, so they attack 33% less people while on trivial scores. (Yeah the math there is fun). So the phone throwing opportunities should actually decline in the new model.

Eddiemon, I agree that's what is being hoped and assumed by the optimists here, but I point I have not seen mentioned is that relationship of the point difference between attacker and defender, as a basis to calculate the pts won or lost, has not also been altered? That is, the range of points possible has been increased 50%, for both winning and losing, but what takes to realize those pts has remained the same?

Say, if you are at 700, and q'd a player at 1000, they are currently worth around 40pts to you, give or take. By attacking them you only risk losing 7. Ignoring possible losses by being attacked while you play this match, unless it's an impossible lineup for you, it's a no-brainer! And soon they will be worth about 60, and you'll only being risking loss of about 10 or 11. Sounds like an improvement, right?

For the attacker, considered in isolation, absolutely it's an improvement.

But his action doesn't occur in a vacuum. While he is out fighting, others are q'ing him, and he will likewise look 50% more valuable to them.

So the line here has been, hey, don't worry, everyone will be more valuable so it all balances out. I predict it will not. The same illogic was trotted in regards to matches taking longer due to character nerfs, boost nerfs, and health boosts. The logic breaks because players can only win one match at a time, but lose an unlimited number of times, in the time that match takes.

Consider, you are at 600 and choosing targets, and this is what you see:

1. A very easy match, can win in <2min, ... currently worth 5pts, will be worth 8pts ... downside is 27pts, will soon be 40pts
2. A typical match, can win in ~3min ... currently worth 20pts, will be worth 30pts ... downside is 18pts, will be 27pts
3. A typical match, can win in ~3min ... currently worth 30pts, will be worth 45pts ... downside is 12pts, will be 18pts
4. A difficult match, can win in ~5min ... currently worth 30pts, will be worth 45pts ... downside is 12pts, will be 18pts
5. A difficult match, can win in ~5min ... currently worth 40pts, will be worth 60pts ... downside is 6pts, will be 9pts
6. A tough match, can win in >5min ... currently worth 45pts, will be worth 68pts ... downside is 3pts, will be 5pts

Based on my experience, a lot of players, particularly while at low scores and not shielded, see a match like #6, and take the shot instantly. Their biggest risk they think is downing some characters. They will probably lose, but only a few points.

I look at these matches and think #3 is the way to go, quick points, lower risk. It's about risk and reward, a longer, harder fight for 10 more pts isn't worth the risk, esp. while hopping.

But as pts increase 50%, I believe more players will gravitate to the more valuable targets. We shall see!

TL:DR .... As Points won/lost increases, risk/reward shifts upward, more attention will be concentrated on fewer targets.

Unknown

Der_Lex wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

A (200) attacks B (500): If A wins, A gains 64, B loses 32.

So, is anybody who is less math illiterate than I able to calculate how many points B would have lost under the old system?

And if this number is less than 32, how is this change not detrimental to top end players trying to hit 1k with as few shields as possible?

Probably about 21 ~ (32 / 1.5).

The new system is attack and shield focused. It means that people with faster climbs benefit as they are less likely to be a target before they shield. If you're a mid-tier grinder you'll be hit less but for more points, roughly evening things out. If you've just made a series of attacks and haven't shielded, the retaliations against you are going to be much more painful. Overall, hitting progression should be easier for a shield hopper, assuming you weren't using defensive wins to prop you up before. If you were climbing 60 pts each hop before, it should conceivably be about 85-90 points now => You hit progression faster.

fmftint

daibar wrote:

Der_Lex wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

A (200) attacks B (500): If A wins, A gains 64, B loses 32.

So, is anybody who is less math illiterate than I able to calculate how many points B would have lost under the old system?

And if this number is less than 32, how is this change not detrimental to top end players trying to hit 1k with as few shields as possible?

Probably about 21 ~ (32 / 1.5).

The new system is attack and shield focused. It means that people with faster climbs benefit as they are less likely to be a target before they shield. If you're a mid-tier grinder you'll be hit less but for more points, roughly evening things out. If you've just made a series of attacks and haven't shielded, the retaliations against you are going to be much more painful. Overall, hitting progression should be easier for a shield hopper, assuming you weren't using defensive wins to prop you up before. If you were climbing 60 pts each hop before, it should conceivably be about 85-90 points now => You hit progression faster.

plus your initial climb should be higher/faster. if previously youd push to 600 those same fights will put you at 900

Malcrof

When does this go live?

aesthetocyst

Malcrof wrote:

When does this go live?

Defensive points reduced 5/26. Win/loss points magnified at start of S15.

Unknown

It all comes down to this: the matchmaking in PVP sucks, and changing the points gained or lost from a fight is not going to fix anything. When a player on their first fight can be paired with a top ranked player, and the total scores won and lost from that match are calculated by the difference in rank, that's broken. It makes no sense. It's why I don't even try in PVP, because I play this game (or any game) to have fun, not to be thrown into a rage unbecoming a man of my age who has a wife and children to consider.

Defensive losses should NEVER hurt much, if at all, because quite simply, the AI in this game is HORRIBLE. Now, I think that's a reasonably good thing. It's more fun to win than to lose, so when I'm playing I want to be winning. If the AI could properly see and match every single 5-match, or intelligently attack my countdown tiles or colors I clearly need like a human player would, or calculate ahead for the best possible cascades each turn, this game would be much tougher. I don't want an insanely good AI. But the AI being bad means that a vast majority of these cool characters, many of my favorite characters and strategies, are totally useless in PVP because the AI sucks at playing them and they are super easy targets. Like Vision... you know how badly the computer plays vision? The only time he's of any use is with Kamala because every time he switches between blue and yellow (read: every other turn) she is healing the team. But otherwise vision is a joke to play against. So with this big roster of characters you have created, a very small number are actually much use in PVP as long as defensive losses hurt. Everything about the game's incentives to spend time and money are opposed by the way PVP works (except purchasing shields of course, and I'll be damned if I'm going to waste that amount of very rare HP).

So either fix the matchmaking so that we are only fighting people relatively close to us in rank, or better yet, screw the whole defensive loss and just award points based on a combination of player rank and team strength, or something. I don't claim to have the best answer, because this solution may just benefit people with the most time to play, I don't know. But I do know that PVP as it stands is not fun; it's infuriating. And there's little incentive to use the big roster I've developed, which is especially funny when the rewards for ranking well in PVP are covers for a guy you would never ever use in PVP!

You need to sit down and build PVP from scratch, guys. Think about what's fun, what you want out of your players and what your players want out of a game, and build that. Because right now, as far as I can tell, PVP is not it. (PVE either, since I would like to be able to play on my own schedule, but that's another topic entirely.)

Buret0

aesthetocyst wrote:

EDIT: Should have noted that pts being "minted" at the low end is nothing new, it's always been that way, and has to be to get the event off the ground and assist players in climbing. What's new is that the recent change (dividing loss pts by 1000 instead of 800) increased this "minting" ... and the following...

Now perversely, beginning at 333 on up, if an attacker loses, pts will be destroyed! (Well, it's perverse IMO)

If a player at 400 attacks a player at 400, and loses, attacker loses 15, defender gains 13, 2pts go *poof*.

If a player at 1001 attacks a player at 1001, and loses, the attacker loses 38, the defender gets 13, the slice as a whole loses 25pts.

Considering the 9-1 claimed ratio of wins to losses (which would have including all boosting that had been going on?), and the small portion of PVP action that occurs at high scores, the pts destroyed will not balance the pts created, not even close, thankfully. But this side effect seems really weird and undesirable to me.

Yes, but doesn't this ignore shields?

When you beat someone who is shielded, you are creating a ton of extra points into the slice because the gains are now bigger and the loss remains at 0.

So if people are really interested in feeding the slice as a whole, they can climb up quickly, save a seed team, beat the seed team with a really weak party, and throw up a 24 hour shield.

People will be able to climb off that person at a higher rate than before (up to 75 points per win) and no points will be removed from the economy of the slice because the shield will protect them.

I don't know devs... sounds like you haven't really fixed the problem.

sc0ville

Buret0 wrote:

Yes, but doesn't this ignore shields?

When you beat someone who is shielded, you are creating a ton of extra points into the slice because the gains are now bigger and the loss remains at 0.

So if people are really interested in feeding the slice as a whole, they can climb up quickly, save a seed team, beat the seed team with a really weak party, and throw up a 24 hour shield.

People will be able to climb off that person at a higher rate than before (up to 75 points per win) and no points will be removed from the economy of the slice because the shield will protect them.

I don't know devs... sounds like you haven't really fixed the problem.

And someone climbs very high, early, by what? hitting 3-4 point targets that are worth hundreds of points less than them while getting hit for 30-50 points a pop?