PVP suggestion

Unknown

I was just wondering if there is a way that you guys could organize the PVP events so that the playing field is somewhat more level. For example, people that have really high level characters being paired with the same. I have a decent team, but there have been numerous times where I skip matches because I don't have a chance (2-3 characters over level 200). 10 skips later, I find a team I can actually compete with.

I'm not sure how you would be able to structure it with the powered up characters changing weekly, but I think it would make the powered up events a little more interesting. It would also give those players who have low to average teams a chance to actually win the top awards, instead of the top players continuing to earn rewards to boost their already high characters (the strong get stronger, the weak stay weak). Thanks

a grumbler

totally agree!

Malcrof

a grumbler wrote:

totally agree!

Make sure to upvote when you agree (the little thumbs up on a post), this way the post gets recognition and possibly seen by devs

Viking Tacos

So there are two things that should happen in this regard

1. No more buffs for 4* characters. To my mind the point to buffs is so a player with a 2* roster has a chance against a transitioning 3* roster. Likewise 3* buffs are to enable a 3* roster to compete with 4* roster. So then what is the point to 4* buff? It just lets the wallet players reinforce their top end... Is there any real reason for 4*s to get buffed to level 350? Who does that help?

2. Adjust the points scoring system away from pure elo system based on points earned in pvp to a system that includes a "strength of schedule" or "strength of roster" component. Pve scaling takes the strength of roster into account to determine levels of opponents. I see it working where your pvp roster strength is based on your 8 highest level characters. The points you earn have more to do with pvp roster strength. If you have I high roster strength and you attack someone lower than you, you can gain from the win, but the loser doesn't lose points because they never really had a chance. On the other side of the scale a lower strength fights a greater strength and wins low guy should get some extra for the stretch win and the high guy loses points as normal. Gives folks still growing their rosters a chance against those with "mature" rosters.

Thoughts?

Unknown

Viking Tacos wrote:

So there are two things that should happen in this regard

1. No more buffs for 4* characters. To my mind the point to buffs is so a player with a 2* roster has a chance against a transitioning 3* roster. Likewise 3* buffs are to enable a 3* roster to compete with 4* roster. So then what is the point to 4* buff? It just lets the wallet players reinforce their top end... Is there any real reason for 4*s to get buffed to level 350? Who does that help?

I think buffed 4* characters don't really harm pvp all that much, only an annoyance with their high health. A probable reason for a 4* buff is to add to a new dimension of play for what you call "wallet players", or those who play high-end pvp, reaching 1300+ points. If climbing to 1000 is your goal, its completely possible to do so without viable 4* toons. Even against buffed 4* toons. I've done it before with a buffed (for the week) black panther and fist. Another reason why I'm ok with buffed 4* is that they take opposing players longer to finish matches, allowing those doing shield hops in PvP ample time to do so before being hit by other players. It may seem unfair to those without 4* covers, but that's all the more reason to work harder to hit 1000 as much as possible if you're interested to score even higher in future PvPs.

Viking Tacos wrote:

2. Adjust the points scoring system away from pure elo system based on points earned in pvp to a system that includes a "strength of schedule" or "strength of roster" component. Pve scaling takes the strength of roster into account to determine levels of opponents. I see it working where your pvp roster strength is based on your 8 highest level characters. The points you earn have more to do with pvp roster strength. If you have I high roster strength and you attack someone lower than you, you can gain from the win, but the loser doesn't lose points because they never really had a chance. On the other side of the scale a lower strength fights a greater strength and wins low guy should get some extra for the stretch win and the high guy loses points as normal. Gives folks still growing their rosters a chance against those with "mature" rosters.

Thoughts?

Good suggestions, But I'd like to add that it can be abused. For instance, If I level 8 characters that are high-tier for pvp ONLY, it will be easier for me to get placement since I will gain extra points for hitting people with more than 8 higher leveled characters. This is kinda like people keeping their character levels capped at a certain range to make PvE easier. Why should the person who invested more time and energy to build his/her roster be penalised in placement? I feel that if your roster isn't gonna cut it right now for high end pvp, then get to 800, get your needed 3* cover and shield out. Keep at it and you'll eventually have enough covers to compete with higher level opponents and hit 1000. That's what I did previously before I was able to compete against 4* rosters, and this was before the weekly buffed PvP system. Now I'm reaping the rewards for doing it with my 4* covers.

I personally think that with the whole weekly buffed characters thing going on, it has already leveled the playing field (somewhat) for those with growing rosters. Maybe they're disadvantaged against buffed 4*, but like I mentioned previously, completely possible to hit 1000 points. Keep at it and someday the growing roster will be grown up enough to take on buffed 4* rosters with their own buffed 4* toons.

Unknown

Deadpooool wrote:

Viking Tacos wrote:

Viking Tacos wrote:

2. Adjust the points scoring system away from pure elo system based on points earned in pvp to a system that includes a "strength of schedule" or "strength of roster" component. Pve scaling takes the strength of roster into account to determine levels of opponents. I see it working where your pvp roster strength is based on your 8 highest level characters. The points you earn have more to do with pvp roster strength. If you have I high roster strength and you attack someone lower than you, you can gain from the win, but the loser doesn't lose points because they never really had a chance. On the other side of the scale a lower strength fights a greater strength and wins low guy should get some extra for the stretch win and the high guy loses points as normal. Gives folks still growing their rosters a chance against those with "mature" rosters.

Thoughts?

Good suggestions, But I'd like to add that it can be abused. For instance, If I level 8 characters that are high-tier for pvp ONLY, it will be easier for me to get placement since I will gain extra points for hitting people with more than 8 higher leveled characters. This is kinda like people keeping their character levels capped at a certain range to make PvE easier. Why should the person who invested more time and energy to build his/her roster be penalised in placement? I feel that if your roster isn't gonna cut it right now for high end pvp, then get to 800, get your needed 3* cover and shield out. Keep at it and you'll eventually have enough covers to compete with higher level opponents and hit 1000. That's what I did previously before I was able to compete against 4* rosters, and this was before the weekly buffed PvP system. Now I'm reaping the rewards for doing it with my 4* covers.

I personally think that with the whole weekly buffed characters thing going on, it has already leveled the playing field (somewhat) for those with growing rosters. Maybe they're disadvantaged against buffed 4*, but like I mentioned previously, completely possible to hit 1000 points. Keep at it and someday the growing roster will be grown up enough to take on buffed 4* rosters with their own buffed 4* toons.

I don't quite understand your argument for how the roster strength can be abused. If you max 8 high-tier PVP characters, you'll have the same roster strength as someone who's maxed all characters. I don't see how that penalizes someone who has a more complete roster, seeing as they have at least as many options, if not more, while keeping the same strength. In fact, it'll likely penalize players who only raise 8 characters, since the rest of their roster is weaker than their "strength" would imply. In any case, I agree with you in that a major change isn't really needed.

Unknown

Viking Tacos wrote:

On the other side of the scale a lower strength fights a greater strength and wins low guy should get some extra for the stretch win and the high guy loses points as normal. Gives folks still growing their rosters a chance against those with "mature" rosters.

This is what I'm referring to about his suggestion. If I only have 8 maxed toons, I'd fall into the "low guy" category, giving me an advantage over those who with other max unused toons like, say, Spoderman, falcon or docock. Because let's face it, there're only so many high tiered Pvp characters like iron-fist, cyclops, Panther, deadpool (wazzzuuuuup?!), etc. when it comes to pvp after the 800 point mark.

Hope this clarifies.

Viking Tacos

Deadpooool wrote:

Viking Tacos wrote:

On the other side of the scale a lower strength fights a greater strength and wins low guy should get some extra for the stretch win and the high guy loses points as normal. Gives folks still growing their rosters a chance against those with "mature" rosters.

This is what I'm referring to about his suggestion. If I only have 8 maxed toons, I'd fall into the "low guy" category, giving me an advantage over those who with other max unused toons like, say, Spoderman, falcon or docock. Because let's face it, there're only so many high tiered Pvp characters like iron-fist, cyclops, Panther, deadpool (wazzzuuuuup?!), etc. when it comes to pvp after the 800 point mark.

Hope this clarifies.

The way I was thinking about it a roster with 8 maxed 3*s would be ranked the same as a roster with 20 maxed 3*s. They would have the same strength rating. The low guy roster would be folks who soft cap or don't have max covers.

Unknown

You have to address the way that retaliation is handled. It complete bull that a player can be attacked multiple times at once in a 5 minute stretch while you are engaged in another PVP match. That is such ****. I understand that retaliation is a necessity. It is fair, but - retaliation battles should be lined up, while one player is battling my AI character, then I should be locked against another battle. When one is finished, then it is made available for the next. If it took me 40 minutes to work through 10 battles, I should NOT lose everything in less than 5 minutes. It should take at least as long to lose points as to gain them. Plus, a win should ALWAYS return the points that were lost.

Unknown

acebirchey wrote:

It is fair, but - retaliation battles should be lined up, while one player is battling my AI character, then I should be locked against another battle. When one is finished, then it is made available for the next.

That would be way to easy to be abused.

I would suggest something like a sliding scale of diminishing returns on lost points when hit in quick succession.

For example the first lost you lose points as normal, 2nd one within a 10 min window you lose only half of those (the other person gains as normal) and so forth.

Sure that can be abused too but not as much as completely locking you out to get hit (just have an alliance member have you lined up while you can attack people freely and then shield again)

Losing 200 points in the last 10 minutes of an event because you're trying to not use a shield while other people have you as a juicy target lined up for a last minute shield hop is stupid.

Ding

They should get rid of scaling altogether. They've already made it far easier to develop a strong roster and scaling just encourages those that intentionally handicap their roster via under leveling. The people that don't level up their roster already have such a huge advantage in PvE, why should they be given any additional advantages. How would it benefit D3?