Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

Nooneelsesname

GothicKratos wrote:

An answer to a question that was not addressed to him.

Please stop.

It was a question for Will. If he doesn't want to answer it, fine. I even made a slight edit in an attempt to make it clear that I'm curious without wanting to be argumentative.

It has nothing to do with you.

fmftint

Can something please be done about the skip queue? I see the same 4 players in order over and over and over. 2 players I can't beat and 2 players who aren't worth fighting because I'll just give them a huge retal opportunity.
Would variety be so bad?

jredd

fmftint wrote:

Can something please be done about the skip queue? I see the same 4 players in order over and over and over. 2 players I can't beat and 2 players who aren't worth fighting because I'll just give them a huge retal opportunity.
Would variety be so bad?

seconded. same issue.

GothicKratos

Nooneelsesname wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

An answer to a question that was not addressed to him.

Please stop.

It was a question for Will. If he doesn't want to answer it, fine. I even made a slight edit in an attempt to make it clear that I'm curious without wanting to be argumentative.

It has nothing to do with you.

I said "I presume..."; I just said what I thought man. No need to be hostile. I didn't say you were being mean or argumentative. You asked a perfectly valid question with a perfectly valid concern.

Additionally, I didn't quote you for a reason; because I wasn't talking directly to you. There's a lot of people voicing the same concern you are. I shared my voice on the matter.

In closing, I'll go ahead and apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you or anything like that - I understand how it could have been perceived that way. That wasn't my intent at all. I was just trying to put my opinion on the topic out there.

Unknown

I made the 1000 progression reward. Tick for that.

But placement in the event itself has suffered greatly. I was consistently getting T25 in most events with an average of score of 700 - 800. Most times I would hit 800 to get the extra 3* cover. But, with this event my placement has gradually fallen and ended out of T25. So, before the changes I was mostly getting three 3* covers. Now I might end with two 3*, one 4* and 2000 extra ISO.

In all honesty, it's the additional ISO that's a bonus for me. I've just transitioned in the 3* builds with only 2 fully maxed characters. While its great to get the 4*, the actual utility I'll get from them is yet to be seen. If the progression rewards stay as is (and I doubt they will), then I'm faced with the choice of leaving my 3* alone and start to build the 4*. Until the dust settles, I think I'll continue with my investment into the 3*s.

As for the journey to 1000, I started about 1.5 days to the end and I had about 2 attacks on my way up to just over 850 where I decided to throw up my first shield mainly cos it was bedtime. Woke up to about 5 shielded losses to the value of close to 200 points. One hop to mid 900s and had I not shielded, I would have lost close to 300 points in a span of a few minutes. Another hop and I was at 1000. I know some are going all the way to 1000 unshielded but with my roster, I would have suffered greatly if I did not shield. I did find that at the higher scores, getting a winnable target was difficult. Lots of maxed out characters that were on the weekly buff list were in play and I realistically couldn't take them on. Now that buffs are on the menu, those with either 1 or 2 characters on that list could potentially stay unshielded for longer. But for me, I see no other way but to spend HP on shields cos the points loss is just too great to absorb.

Unknown

So, my conclusion is that the 1000 point reward is a lot easier to reach than before. In Falcon's event I actually got to 1000 without a shield, in CapMarv's I used a 3 hour shield because I was running out of health.
Getting the 4* with only one shield, or without any shield at all is something that basically didn't happen before.

The downside is, that this makes placement quite a bit harder, since in vet brackets, 1000 points probably won't even cut it for a top 25 finish.

Now frankly, I'll gladly trade one less 3* for an easier time at the 4* cover.

Unfortunately, I think that this probably leads to more people getting the 4* than the devs are comfortable with, which means I expect an increase of the points needed for the top progressions at the start of the next season, at the latest.

Moon Roach

Well, as Moon Roach I managed my highest points total before deciding that discretion was the better part of valour. 917 and the 3* cover suits me fine.

As Wolveroach I broke 800, which was previously unattainable. But 192 (boosted) 4/5/3 Captain Marvel, 184 (boosted) 5/5/3 Captain America and (on page 6 of my roster selection screen) level 81 1/4/1 IM40 does remarkably well for the climb, but for defence not so good. Another case of discretion being the better part etc.

So, in my little world I like the increase in points available. The change gave me more points, and with 13 hours to go higher positions than I normally get at this stage. What the final positions will be is a mystery only time will solve, but right now it's looking good. Tentative thumbs-up.

puppychow

WolfmanX25 wrote:

Now frankly, I'll gladly trade one less 3* for an easier time at the 4* cover.

Unfortunately, I think that this probably leads to more people getting the 4* than the devs are comfortable with, which means I expect an increase of the points needed for the top progressions at the start of the next season, at the latest.

Agreed. I'm in the same boat. Used to flirt w/ 1,000 but not actually reaching last season. The scoring change made it easier to reach, but so is everyone else. If D3 wants to have only the same number of players obtain 4* covers as before, they have 2 choices: a) increase the points required to get the top reward to say 1200 points, or b) revise the scoring formula downward. Since players are shielding more in order to keep their scores, I think given a choice of the two D3 would pick option (a).

Unknown

Bit baffled by it all really. Keep reading people are basically sleepwalking to 1k rewards now but I hit 800 and then it takes me 5+ minutes to win a round, and in that time have lost double the points. Can only assume you are all ninja's.

Dev's will change it before long anyway. They always do. Amazing to think how many changes pvp has gone through since the game started. I just accept it now really.

babinro

Figured I'd chime in now that I've had some solid time with the changes.

1) This is amazing for vets and 4* transitioners
Sure it'll take free to play vets over 6 months to cover a new 4* but this offers a realistic transition to probably 5 times more players than it did before.

The Falcon PvP was for a Star-Lord Yellow, Thor Yellow first and Captain Mavel Covers. It was also the first pvp event of the season which plenty of people will deliberately skip for season bracket reasons. That's about as low priority as you can get these days and yet my score of 1027 was barely keeping me in the top 25!

2) Losses on offense are FAR less punishing.
Simply put the cost in health packs was punishment enough and this game respects that on offense. Losing like 10 points when you typically gain 35-60 leads to better experience and encourages taking on more risky battles than you might have before.

3) This change helps separate placement and progression rewards.
Don't want to be competitive? Well now you don't have to fight it out with top elite just to get a 4* prog reward. The 'competitive' placement folk will be fighting it out around 1300-1700 ranges most likley. You are less likely to get in their way and they are less likely to bring you down out of fear or taking their place.

Concerns:

1) Getting battered down below 1000 is still highly discouraging.
I'm not sure that this demands any kind of fix or attention but if you get hit for -150 in the span of a single match around 950 points then it's extremely discouraging. The game is designed to take it easy on players below 1000 points so it might be worth considering a safety net to hits until 1000 as well. Beyond that point it's free for all competition for placement.

2) Rank 101 - 200 = 500 ISO and a single 3* cover.
I don't have the data on this but if my placement is dropping from top 5's and top 10 finishes to top 25 or possibly even top 50 finishes then that means others are experiencing the same things as well. Scale this back enough and you'll probably find plenty of people struggling for that single *** cover. I STRONGLY recommend you increase the accessibility of these for lower tiers.

Fantastic changes all around D3.
Thank you for making the game genuinely more fun.

Buret0

The top ten in Top Gun for my slice all ended with points between 1200 and 1733.

Anyone without a maxed out roster trying to climb from 800 to 1000 was getting sniped as soon as their shields dropped by people with level 240+ characters and sub 400 scores.

I had never been passed 675 in an event before, so getting the 800 progression felt good. I was kind of hoping that a 150 Bullseye, 230 Falcon, and 175 Magneto would scare people away. Yeah, there's not a lot of damage there, but no one wants to fight a 10 minute battle.

I wasn't getting hit by a lot of high level groups, because they didn't want to get involved in a drawn out battle, but the snipers didn't care how long they were exposed for, so those hit me pretty hard.

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

Can something please be done about the skip queue? I see the same 4 players in order over and over and over. 2 players I can't beat and 2 players who aren't worth fighting because I'll just give them a huge retal opportunity.
Would variety be so bad?

If you are retaliated against (I think that't how you say that), it doesn't take points from you. I think....

tanis3303

traedoril wrote:

If you are retaliated against (I think that't how you say that), it doesn't take points from you. I think....

Ooohhhhh yea it does ...But thanks, I needed a chuckle!

Unknown

tanis3303 wrote:

traedoril wrote:

If you are retaliated against (I think that't how you say that), it doesn't take points from you. I think....

Ooohhhhh yea it does ...But thanks, I needed a chuckle!

Are you sure about this? I have never received a notice showing that I lost points due to a retaliation, nor have I been posted that I was re-attacked... that's terrible, attacked twice by the same person after I attack them.

Ebolamonkey84

traedoril wrote:

tanis3303 wrote:

traedoril wrote:

If you are retaliated against (I think that't how you say that), it doesn't take points from you. I think....

Ooohhhhh yea it does ...But thanks, I needed a chuckle!

Are you sure about this? I have never received a notice showing that I lost points due to a retaliation, nor have I been posted that I was re-attacked... that's terrible, attacked twice by the same person after I attack them.

How much were the people you were hitting worth? If they were worth more than 45 points, they are probably not going to hit back unless you went past them in point value. It is not worth hitting a retal for <38 points when there are better targets out.

SnowcaTT

Never had even hit 900 before, but hit high 800 in Falcon pretty easily.

When I hit 940 this morning I thought: hey, it might finally be time to try my first shield-hop ever. First 900, then first 1K finish (day 439). Even leveling didn't help me do these earlier, but now having a couple of maxed + boosted characters + tons of extra points made this relatively easy. Two shields, one hop - that's another reason I never did this before, I haven't had the time to run events that high.

I hope they keep it this way, 4* transition would finally sort of be a thing (assuming ISO bumps come from somewhere).

Unknown

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

How much were the people you were hitting worth? If they were worth more than 45 points, they are probably not going to hit back unless you went past them in point value. It is not worth hitting a retal for <38 points when there are better targets out.

I have hit people in varying amounts. Does it just say "You were attacked" like normal or does it do something else. I may have just not noticed if someone attacked me a second time. It seems like it would be a vicious cycle of the same two people hitting each other repeatedly.

Ebolamonkey84

traedoril wrote:

Ebolamonkey84 wrote:

How much were the people you were hitting worth? If they were worth more than 45 points, they are probably not going to hit back unless you went past them in point value. It is not worth hitting a retal for <38 points when there are better targets out.

I have hit people in varying amounts. Does it just say "You were attacked" like normal or does it do something else. I may have just not noticed if someone attacked me a second time. It seems like it would be a vicious cycle of the same two people hitting each other repeatedly.

As far as I know, it just looks like a normal attack.

grifterx777

Sorry, I don't know if this is the right thread to be asking this question. But is anybody else experiencing the wrong points available to win after beating someone? I took my shields down and queued up a couple of nice targets. One guy had 25 points available so I went for him. After the match it said +6. What gives? The next guy had 45 points! I attack him, win, and I get 17 points. Is this a bug?

Buret0

grifterx777 wrote:

Sorry, I don't know if this is the right thread to be asking this question. But is anybody else experiencing the wrong points available to win after beating someone? I took my shields down and queued up a couple of nice targets. One guy had 25 points available so I went for him. After the match it said +6. What gives? The next guy had 45 points! I attack him, win, and I get 17 points. Is this a bug?

No, it means that by the time you beat them, their score had dropped significantly from when you queued them up.

The points available from the win is loaded when you get assigned the matchup, not at the time you enter the node to look at the score.

So if they had 800 points when you first got assigned the matchup and you had 400, the match might be worth 50 points. If you then wait to attack them and go after another target or maybe quit playing for awhile (or shield and wait even longer) then the target that you have lined up may not be at 800 points. In fact, if they were sitting unshielded at 800 for any period of time, they probably were sitting at 500 or less. So while the score was calculated based on the difference between a 400 and an 800, the final result may have been based on two very different scores.