Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

simonsez

udonomefoo wrote:

Yes, but while the point loss increased by 6 the point gain for a win increased by 13. Bigger points in wins, more points in the system. Not that this "fixes" the main complaints about pvp, but how is that not better, and why are you selectively ignoring that part?

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant. There has never been an issue with single battle point outcomes at the 500 point level. The problem is when you reach higher levels, fight one battle, and come out and find you've been hit four times. Instead of losing 120 points for those 4 losses, now you lose 180. But hey, my win netted me an extra 15 points. Woo hoo!!!

Buret0

DaveR4470 wrote:

It works utterly, utterly terribly when I'm at 189 points and I lose 50% of that total because I wind up matched against three teams of 3*-4* max characters on their way up who are "only" at 50 points, and are therefore "weak" teams that I "should" be beating with my mid-leveled 3* team.

It provides an enormous disincentive to play PvP at any time other than as late in the event as possible...

It depends on whether you are trying to finish strong or get a high progression reward.

I find it easier to just start the event, get up to a decent progression reward, and then stop caring for awhile. Yes, people will climb all over me, but I don't care... I a reward I probably wouldn't have been able to earn if I was making an unshielded scramble at the very end and getting beaten up by a bunch of active users on their climbs or shield hops.

You can still fight back and hit a few targets in the last 24 hours to improve your position, but PvP pretty much forces you to accept that, until you develop a decent team on Defense, you are doomed to be hit over and over.

I'm not saying that the system is good. The current system ranks you based on the quality of your roster and your willingness to buy shields, health packs, and boosts far more than your actual skill at the match 3 portion of the game.

I'd much prefer a bronze, silver, gold, platinum, etc. lifetime ranking system based on a season to season ELO (with adjustments). Like how StarCraft II makes PvP progressions in their seasons. If you are a bronze, silver, or gold level player, you will never even see a diamond, master, or grandmaster player. You'll need to start consistently beating bronze players (and sometimes beat silver players) to advance into the Silver bracket.

To prevent people from tanking, make the prizes for the brackets actually worth climbing for. If you are in a bronze bracket, make the top 250 prizes all 2*s, with only the top 10 getting a single 3* cover (plus the ISO and HP prizes still thrown in as usual). If you are in a silver bracket, slightly expand the 3* offerings. And so on. Make it so that the hardest challenge in the game is recognized and there's 4* covers thrown out to the top 100 finishers in that bracket along with nice HP and ISO prizes. Do some form of recognition for the top ten players in the game in each event or season.

I guess the only real barrier to this concept is alliance covers, but the answer to that would be that you get a cover for your alliance finish based on the bracket you are actually in. So if your alliance had a cumulative season score of 150,000 and ended up in the top 100, each member of the alliance would be given a cover based on the PvP bracket that they were in. To be honest, I'd rather see season alliance progression rewards anyway, which could also be based on bracket.

Adrock1020

I'm reading this change as "There will be more points in the pool". I'm pretty happy about that. We'll see how it goes when its actually implemented.

simonsez

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

It's relative. You will still climb faster.

Yes, it will be much quicker to reach the point where a gangbang will wipe out all the points I've spent the last 6 hours building up.

Buret0

Joey Jellico wrote:

Why lose points at all? This game is way to dysfunctional.

If they were doing a proper ELO system it wouldn't be.

puppychow

simonsez wrote:

At least you didn't drop this turd on a friday, as usual.

nah, they dropped it during the off season. By Friday, ppl are playing mpq again. hopefully.

puppychow

stevenbrule wrote:

Not sure I'm a big fan of the increased loss while on defense. This seems like it would made shields a much more essential component of the game...

Bingo! I agree that shielding is more essential now b/c the defender will lose 50% more points than before. Sniping will also hurt a whole lot more. 50% more to be precise.

Stax the Foyer

Will the points deducted from the loser in a match always be less than or equal to the the points gained by the winner, so that every match will be net positive or neutral in terms of points injected into the system?

GrumpySmurf1002

simonsez wrote:

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

It's relative. You will still climb faster.

Yes, it will be much quicker to reach the point where a gangbang will wipe out all the points I've spent the last 6 hours building up.

That's making the assumption the equilibrium point(s) won't move again as a result.

When they made the MMR changes, it shifted down about 150 points or so (where you could camp at 550-600, now you can only camp at 400 or so)

If this moves the equilibrium back, then it should also re-shift the point where the 'gangbang' hits. That would make the net effect a climb to 1k that more closely resembled the 'old way,' only faster.

It could certainly be as atrocious as you're assuming, but I'm cautiously optimistic it won't be. Not-so-quietly the scoring for top 100 has dropped like a rock (down 30k from Season 12 to Season 14), so rather than reducing the progression again, I'm guessing this is also a solution to restore the numbers to where the current progression was calibrated.

Wonko33

It will be hard to get and maintain a high finish but pretty fast to earn rewards until 600-700 and earn enough to get the 4k season reward. So for some more casuals might not be so bad and less matches means more saved health packs for PvE.

Good luck to the competitive PvP-ers though the sniping is going to be awful.

Wonko33

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

When they made the MMR changes, it shifted down about 150 points or so (where you could camp at 550-600, now you can only camp at 400 or so)

Are those pretty well accepted values or just your observations? IDK I haven't played much PvP in the last 3 seasons. I tried with the DP PvP Sunday and I did not get hit at all until mid 700s (but I had fully leveled DP +hood and xforce 220 so could be that)

fmftint

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Before the change, if Ada and Bea both have 500 points and Ada attacks Bea and wins, Ada would gain 25 points and Bea would lose 13. After the change, Ada would gain 38 points and Bea would lose 19.

Yes, because if there's one thing everyone's been asking for is, "Please make us lose more points when we get attacked!!". Dammit, the tone-deafness is so maddening at times!

At least you didn't drop this turd on a friday, as usual.

It's relative. You will still climb faster.

RELATIVE??! Right now if I leave the game unshielded above 500 I will return to -150, under this new system I will return to -225.

Stax the Foyer

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

That's making the assumption the equilibrium point(s) won't move again as a result.

When they made the MMR changes, it shifted down about 150 points or so (where you could camp at 550-600, now you can only camp at 400 or so)

If this moves the equilibrium back, then it should also re-shift the point where the 'gangbang' hits. That would make the net effect a climb to 1k that more closely resembled the 'old way,' only faster.

It could certainly be as atrocious as you're assuming, but I'm cautiously optimistic it won't be. Not-so-quietly the scoring for top 100 has dropped like a rock (down 30k from Season 12 to Season 14), so rather than reducing the progression again, I'm guessing this is also a solution to restore the numbers to where the current progression was calibrated.

Sure, if these changes actually move the equilibrium point up.

Don't forget, that equilibrium point over the past two seasons or so has also been affected by a non-trivial amount of retreat boosting to inflate scores. Those are high-value targets, especially early on in the match, that gave other people targets to climb off of.

That's going away, and many of the other factors that likely drove the equilibrium point down are still here: Increased volatility due to increased match length, which increases the likelihood of losses and which uses more health packs, limiting climbs. Increased visibility to lower rosters making it more likely to be hit while floating or hopping. Plus, decreased interest from PvPers who previously scored higher.

I'm not so sure that the equilibrium point is going to go up significantly. I'd be pleased if it did, but we'll see how it plays out.

Ebolamonkey84

Phantron wrote:

So rather than waiting for devs to come up with scenarios why don't we just come up with our own? Here's my understanding based on what's posted, feel free to correct if they're wrong:

Scenario A: A has 1000 PvP points, B has 1000 PvP points

A attacks B
If A wins, A gets +37 and B gets -37 (A gets 25 + 50% = 37)
If A loses, A gets -12 and B gets +12 (A loses 1/3 of what he would've won, rounded down)

Sceario B: A has 500 PvP points, B has 500 PvP points, both take half the point loss for being at 500 points
If A wins, A gets +37 and B gets -18
If A loses, A gets -6 and B gets +12

Is this correct?

My interpretation was this:
Scenario A: A has 1000 PvP points, B has 1000 PvP points

A attacks B
If A wins, A gets +37 and B gets -37 (A gets 25 + 50% = 37)
If A loses, A gets -37 and B gets +12 (A loses 1/3 of what he would've won, rounded down)

Scenario B: A has 500 PvP points, B has 500 PvP points, both take half the point loss for being at 500 points
If A wins, A gets +37 and B gets -18
If A loses, A gets -18 and B gets +12

There were two separate changes, a boost to the overall points gained and a reduction in defensive win points. Nothing was mentioned about reducing the the point loss from an offensive lost. This means losses on offense will actually reduce overall points in the system, which was not possible before.

Hopefully Will can clarify this and let us know if the cap is still 50 or also got a bump to 75.

TheOncomingStorm

fmftint wrote:

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Before the change, if Ada and Bea both have 500 points and Ada attacks Bea and wins, Ada would gain 25 points and Bea would lose 13. After the change, Ada would gain 38 points and Bea would lose 19.

Yes, because if there's one thing everyone's been asking for is, "Please make us lose more points when we get attacked!!". Dammit, the tone-deafness is so maddening at times!

At least you didn't drop this turd on a friday, as usual.

It's relative. You will still climb faster.

RELATIVE??! Right now if I leave the game unshielded above 500 I will return to -150, under this new system I will return to -225.

That's only part of the relativity story. The number of fights it took you to recover the 150 will be the same for 225.

udonomefoo

fmftint wrote:

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Before the change, if Ada and Bea both have 500 points and Ada attacks Bea and wins, Ada would gain 25 points and Bea would lose 13. After the change, Ada would gain 38 points and Bea would lose 19.

Yes, because if there's one thing everyone's been asking for is, "Please make us lose more points when we get attacked!!". Dammit, the tone-deafness is so maddening at times!

At least you didn't drop this turd on a friday, as usual.

It's relative. You will still climb faster.

RELATIVE??! Right now if I leave the game unshielded above 500 I will return to -150, under this new system I will return to -225.

or, like grumpy speculated, you'll be able to sit above 500 and hardly get hit at all

or, you'll get hit with 5 defensive losses for -150 instead of 8 defensive losses for -150 and be in the exact same place except that it only took you 12 matches to get to 500 instead of 18

or, I could just stfu.

DrStrange-616

More shields?

Let me be the first to invoke Wodgin's law - It's a money grab!



We've been hypno-hustled!

PS - I don't actually think it is a money grab, but y'all know we were headed there. I don't know what to think of this. I'm glad they're addressing this, but there are bigger problems in pvp and this might even make those worse. Dunno.

GrumpySmurf1002

Wonko33 wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

When they made the MMR changes, it shifted down about 150 points or so (where you could camp at 550-600, now you can only camp at 400 or so)

Are those pretty well accepted values or just your observations? IDK I haven't played much PvP in the last 3 seasons. I tried with the DP PvP Sunday and I did not get hit at all until mid 700s (but I had fully leveled DP +hood and xforce 220 so could be that)

They are only my observations.

But this is also referring more to climbing early, sleeping (unshielded) and coming back to the score next day. Smash and grab climbing on the last day wouldn't see the equilibrium, you're shooting past it and climbing to, again as simon affectionately called it, the 'gangbang' wall. Which yes, is somewhere around 700-800, depending on roster strength.

GrumpySmurf1002

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Sure, if these changes actually move the equilibrium point up.

Don't forget, that equilibrium point over the past two seasons or so has also been affected by a non-trivial amount of retreat boosting to inflate scores. Those are high-value targets, especially early on in the match, that gave other people targets to climb off of.

That's going away, and many of the other factors that likely drove the equilibrium point down are still here: Increased volatility due to increased match length, which increases the likelihood of losses and which uses more health packs, limiting climbs. Increased visibility to lower rosters making it more likely to be hit while floating or hopping. Plus, decreased interest from PvPers who previously scored higher.

I'm not so sure that the equilibrium point is going to go up significantly. I'd be pleased if it did, but we'll see how it plays out.

I think we're talking about two different points. I'm talking the point where you can sleep unshielded, which retreat boosting wouldn't effect, and obviously there's no hopping there either (no high end player is hopping at 400 points).

aesthetocyst

Should have left pts lost unchanged, and increased pts won. That would have help mitigate the ridiculous extremes the risk/reward ratio on offense in late stages of a PVP around here. It would still be ridiculous, but at least slightly less ridiculous.

There have been many spans in recent PVPs in which I have produced more points on defense than on offense. I have explained to many a player that 1) PVP is more about what you don't lose than about what you do win, and to players and devs that 2) a player can only win one match at a time, but lose an unlimited numbers of matches in the same span of time.

I appreciate what the devs wanted to do here, but they just amplified both points.

The devs are obsessed with correcting what they perceive as potential cheating, but do little to encourage / reward their idea of just gameplay. As if there is a religion here, but no on bothered to publish the holy writ.

(For instance ... don't get me started on the crash penalty.)

As egregious as boosting by some alliances is, it was also useful to have the option of helping a friend from time to time. Ya know, buddy is low on HP, needs 10pts to hit 1000, doesn't want to risk a late hop? Helping just got real expensive. No good deed goes unpunished. At least now you know you'll be punished, and by exactly how much

Sure am glad I got all those pts on defense last night.