1 man's view of pvp - how NOT to fix the shield system

atomzed

hurcules wrote:

mjh wrote:

atomzed wrote:

The best solution will be to separate the elite from the typical players, by having a league system

While this may be true this solution has an even greater problem. The same rewards being given for lower tier play which some will argue is more unfair than the current system. Why level your roster when you can stay in the low-mid tier range and get the same rewards?

I think atomzed forgot to put in the part where different leagues would have different rewards and rewards structure.

Hurcules is correct, the elite league will have to have a different rewards system. May be more iso? Double iso with no covers?

There were also other suggestions on this thread, about how there can be other ways of separating the elite from the typical players. Trophies is one of them, which the elite will chase but not so much for the typical players.

Regarding the removal of shields, I am not in favour of it, as it will make the typical player's life much more difficult. The elite players can use max carnage, JG, HB as their defensive shield; less people will attack them. The typical player may bring out their max 3*... And they will be attacked by the 4* players.

atomzed

throvolos wrote:

Let's think about an implementation of the league system that is VOLUNTARY. This removes the burden of casual players from having to constantly perform well to not get dropped down a league.

PvP leagues for each event which help to separate the "elites" from the "casuals". A player cannot join more than one league per PvP event.

Casual Leagues
Rules: Current PvP shielding rules.
Casual Bronze (free entry, max individual pt reward = 2*, no alliance rewards, cannot use 3* or 4* heroes). 1st place = 5 heroic packs (or something like that)
Casual Silver (free entry, max individual pt reward = 3*, no alliance rewards, cannot use 4* heroes) 1st place = 5 heroic packs
Casual Gold (free entry, max individual pt reward = 4*, no alliance rewards), 1st place = 5 heroic packs

"Elite" Leagues
Alliance PvP leagues would require the Alliance Leader to spend the required ISO before anyone in his alliance could compete in these events. Alliance members could donate ISO to the Alliance. No limit to what heroes can be used.
Alliance Bronze (50k ISO (~1k per member), individual point and placement rewards, alliance point and placement rewards), top placing alliances get Bronze trophy
Alliance Silver (250k ISO (~5k per member), individual point and placement rewards, alliance point and placement rewards), top placing alliances get Silver trophy
Alliance Gold (1000k ISO (20k per member), individual point and placement rewards, alliance point and placement rewards), top placing alliances get Gold trophy

Alliances could boast how many trophies they have (which could just be an icon on their alliance page, or have some other benefit, like faster damage regen on heroes, or whatever). It would give the Elite players bragging rights ("We have over 30 Gold PvP trophies!" etc), and would give them reason to play on the Alliance Leagues.

This is just a very rough idea, but it shows how you can solve the PvP elite vs casual problem without having to reinvent the wheel.

This is an interesting proposal! I was hoping to tap on the collective wisdom to generate more potential solutions. Thanks!

evil panda

Am I the only one who read IceIX's posts in the other thread and took away the message that, "no, we're not planning anything and don't want to change anything for fear of making it worse"?

Because that's exactly what my opinion is on the matter. There has been so much grief regarding pvp scoring and progression, and now we're in this uneasy equilibrium where it's not perfect but we're getting used to it, and for the most part progression is more attainable.

Why on earth should we try to mess around with it again?

simonsez

evil panda wrote:

Am I the only one who read IceIX's posts in the other thread and took away the message that, "no, we're not planning anything and don't want to change anything for fear of making it worse"?

Honestly, I didn't get that at all. He said they're engaged in ongoing discussions, and that these things get heated. Hardly sounds like they've decided to just sit tight. Sounds more like some of them want to gut shield-hopping, and others realize this is too drastic of a move. Either one side will win, or they'll end up doing something that's a compromise. Didn't sound like reluctance to change is the majority opinion.

evil panda

Ok, that's a fair opinion. Reasonable people can take away different things from that thread. I do feel that they've gotten to a decent balance, so I hope the 'nays' win this one

danae

Assuming the devs wanted everyone on an equal footing with regards to PVP (this is a big assumption), would limiting the number of shields a player could use in one PVP event do the trick? It would probably be detrimental to their revenue so it's probably not the way they would want to go.

Turbosmooth

Segregation will never happen. It would alienate the whales. They play to kick butt and not just play with each other.

The problem comes down to negative scoring. There is too much of it and really hurts progression. I proposed to limit the negative scores to 30 per 30 minute chunks. This would stop the gang violence in terms of just crushing someone. D3 would still make money on the shields because unshielded for more than 30-60 minutes will really start to add up. The people who want to be in the top 10 will now need to win more than others. I can win 43 matches, never reach 100 and be hammered to 700 even with three shields. Another person just wins 33 matches and has truce during shield hops and gets 1000. Really frustrating.

atomzed

Turbosmooth wrote:

Segregation will never happen. It would alienate the whales. They play to kick butt and not just play with each other.

Agree and disagree.

Segregation is problematic because it will reduce the population per bracket. It will be harder to find matches, and people may be unhappy. If segregation comes to past, they may have to reduce the number of slices available.

As for kicking butt, I disagree that they have to trash the typical players to feel superior. They already are beating the typical players.They elite players want to *beat* the other elite players to prove that they are one up over others.

TheOncomingStorm

wymtime wrote:

Deilinvega wrote:

wymtime wrote:

Will it mean D3 loses some revenue? Yes

Your point is invalid. Think of something else XD

Ant that idea would be what since you think it is all about revenue?

actually, that is not necessarily true. Just because you lose revenue in one area does not mean they can't make it up or surpass it in another.

For example they may lose some shield revenue, but if more players are happy usually that would increase new players and player retention. If the latter results in some token and roster slot sales, than it might not be a net loss.

donietsche

Without people overachieving in pvp, as it has already been said, reaching 1.3 (and in some circumstances, even 1k) for other players would be really difficult/impossible, or it would definitely cost much more in terms of required shields.

The overachieving/dominant alliances (i.e., the one that create points in a given slice), are the one dictating how much a shard will be dry or rich, hence how hard you will have to fight to hit the progression rewards.

One may be losing a few positions (nothing fancy, maybe 3 or 4) as far as the final placement is involved (this will happen when a player will decide to stop once he hit the desired progression reward, and to not fight for placement ofc), but as a player who "ride the tide" you will still have a significant net gain.

You may call them irrational consumers, but the fact is that not everyone plays to carefully maximize the resources invested: in a way, the sheer fun of (even friendly) competition and/or of helping your friends while they are making a risky climb - and the thrill of breaking personal and global records - is the end game for some players, once they have a solid roster (add to the mix the alliance management aspect and/or the diplomatic side of the game).

The creation of different tiers for pvp events may be a solution, but as someone has already stated has its drawbacks. People who already have all the 3* would definitely love to play for larger amount of iso, but the segregation could still be detrimental to the community (people playing in the lower tiers would have a harder time hitting the progression rewards).

In my opinion a simple solution would be to add the option to "donate" the 3* covers to the player immediately below you in the leaderboard, getting the same amount of iso (or slightly more) that right now one would get by selling them.

As an alternative, one could be credited the iso (same amount) AND a token, if the "donate" option is activated.

p.s. the idea that people with solid rosters that score high (or really high) in a slice play just to stomp on less defined teams is completely unrealistic (if they'd do so, they wouldn't score that high, first of all). The bigger teams are required to protect your score from snipers and late climbers, and grant you the ability to hop safely. You can see it as a race to arms.

You won't play 1 ptrs. matches once you hit 1k or above just to brag about the fact that you won against a 2* team with your 4* roster...

GrumpySmurf1002

Turbosmooth wrote:

I proposed to limit the negative scores to 30 per 30 minute chunks. This would stop the gang violence in terms of just crushing someone.

All negative scores, as in if you lose offensively too? Or just incoming attacks? Either way, you're basically giving the top alliances carte blanche to run up to obscene scores.

If they can run from 1700+ without fear of more than 60 points/hr, there's no stopping them, nor would they bother shielding much. I'm positive they can coordinate to recooperate from a 180/480 pt loss so fast it wouldn't matter. Heck, the top end would probably be all Yelena-Bagman because defense would become irrelevant.

And if you can't lose more than 60 including your own losses, well then the retreat system is back, where you just dump matches perpetually and drive everyone's score up.

BearVenger

First, I don't believe there is ever a simple, "magic bullet" solution to anything, inside or outside a mobile F2P game. Anyone who says that is näive or trying to sell you something.

My frustration, as a low-investing player, is the climb and knock-back in a PvP event. I don't want to rage-quit because I can't even get to the 725 mark anymore with retals. I don't expect I could compete with a maxed HB team for fame, glory, and top-tier prizes, and I don't want to.

(My second frustration is the scaling cost for roster slots while being fed an ever-increasing number of characters who trade off being essential, but servers and salaries don't come free in this world, and I respect D3's need to turn a profit.)

So, my two suggestions are: A floor on points before retal penalties kick in - like 500 or 800. Just let me get what I want and treat it like PvE progression. After that, I can accept having to scratch and claw to earn more.

Could it be gamed? Sure, everyone can find a loophole - like parking at 780 points and letting alliance mates tee off. But a retal floor lets me earn prizes that will encourage me to spend HP/ISO to buff a roster. It will have little effect on the Top 100 indiv/team finishers.

(As an aside, I think "passing down" covers is a kind gesture, but it could eat into D3's income by doubling the prizewinners and causing a cover glut, and the programming could have spectacularly disasterous effects.)

The second suggestion is to do something more for pride and honor and bragging rights for the top teams.

A separate tier of tournaments (while keeping everyone in the same pool of players) or a buy-in tournament. A Stark Tower or gold medals on the indiv/alliance page. A splash page that announces the top 10 season-point alliances. It's free and gives folks the attaboys they want for their investment (it's what I'd want if I were in their shoes).

JVReal

My take as a FTP person in a top 100 Alliance.

I don't think the problem is with shield hopping. Their last couple of fixes made shield hopping even MORE essential to hit the progressions.

When they increased points earned, and simultaneously increased points lost, they created an urgency for people to have to protect those points at all costs. When you can lose over 150 points during one fight, there is something wrong with the system... you had no control over it. D3 Created this shield hopping necessity, and to be critical of people responding to an environment they created is just a bit ironic. "We will increase your points gained but also increase your points lost AND decrease your defensive win points, forcing you to have to shield hop or never hit progression... but shame on you for taking the 'fun' out of the game by shield hopping."

I believe the following changes should be made:

Reduce Shield cooldowns to be a reasonable time. 3 hour shield should have a 2.5 - 3 hour cooldown... there is no reason to make it 8 hours.

Shields should be stackable, or you should be able to purchase a shield to replace one that is ending soon without having to engage in a fight. Some people hit their placement early and don't want to risk the plummets that can happen from shield hopping. You can take a fight and retreat, but you lose points, or you can take a fight and win, but be nailed 5 times during that fight losing more points than if you had retreated. How about reshielding and losing nothing? Why is that not an option?

I don't have a problem with them limiting the number of shields you can buy each PVP. This was the most reasonable suggestion I have seen someone post on this forum, congrats to the person who thought of it (not me).

They need to reduce the amount of points lost when the AI loses for you, or cap them. The AI plays horribly and we should not be penalized for it... especially full points.

They need to increase the amount of points won on true defensive wins... what I mean by that is a match where the person didn't retreat, but actually completed the entire match. If a person retreats, they lose points, but the other team gets reduced points or no points. If the match is played out to the end, then full points for the defensive win.

Defensive wins and losses need to be able to balance each other out. This would be the only way that removing shield hopping would even be plausible.

I would love to see a true PVP mode, where you search for live players who are also searching for live fights. I see this as something you can do when shielded. You are not in the general queue, so you can be moved to a standy area where you can opt to go toe to toe with another human player for points and know that this is the only fight going on at the moment. It would slow down shield hopping and allow a player the choice of gambling for more points while shielding, as the fight is voluntary.

wymtime

JVReal wrote:

My take as a FTP person in a top 100 Alliance.

I don't think the problem is with shield hopping. Their last couple of fixes made shield hopping even MORE essential to hit the progressions.

When they increased points earned, and simultaneously increased points lost, they created an urgency for people to have to protect those points at all costs. When you can lose over 150 points during one fight, there is something wrong with the system... you had no control over it. D3 Created this shield hopping necessity, and to be critical of people responding to an environment they created is just a bit ironic. "We will increase your points gained but also increase your points lost AND decrease your defensive win points, forcing you to have to shield hop or never hit progression... but shame on you for taking the 'fun' out of the game by shield hopping."

I believe the following changes should be made:

Reduce Shield cooldowns to be a reasonable time. 3 hour shield should have a 2.5 - 3 hour cooldown... there is no reason to make it 8 hours.

Agreed

Shields should be stackable, or you should be able to purchase a shield to replace one that is ending soon without having to engage in a fight. Some people hit their placement early and don't want to risk the plummets that can happen from shield hopping. You can take a fight and retreat, but you lose points, or you can take a fight and win, but be nailed 5 times during that fight losing more points than if you had retreated. How about reshielding and losing nothing? Why is that not an option?

You can do this if you choose a different shield or let your shield expire. You don't have to make another match to use a different shield.

I don't have a problem with them limiting the number of shields you can buy each PVP. This was the most reasonable suggestion I have seen someone post on this forum, congrats to the person who thought of it (not me).

Thanks that was my idea and I it would go along with your first point.

They need to reduce the amount of points lost when the AI loses for you, or cap them. The AI plays horribly and we should not be penalized for it... especially full points.

They need to increase the amount of points won on true defensive wins... what I mean by that is a match where the person didn't retreat, but actually completed the entire match. If a person retreats, they lose points, but the other team gets reduced points or no points. If the match is played out to the end, then full points for the defensive win.

When they changed the point system they change the % of points you could lose and that went down. They also lowered what you can in in a defensive win because people were retreating on purpose to people others to high scores. The few were cheating the system and they closed the loop hole. What they need to do is limit the number of people who can hit you in a short time period based on scores. So if you could only lose 10% of your score if you are under 1000 points 20% if you are over. I don't know hat th numbers should be but that would be an example.

Defensive wins and losses need to be able to balance each other out. This would be the only way that removing shield hopping would even be plausible.

See previous comments

I would love to see a true PVP mode, where you search for live players who are also searching for live fights. I see this as something you can do when shielded. You are not in the general queue, so you can be moved to a standy area where you can opt to go toe to toe with another human player for points and know that this is the only fight going on at the moment. It would slow down shield hopping and allow a player the choice of gambling for more points while shielding, as the fight is voluntary.

A real PVP would be fun if both players played quickly and without lag. To keep people honest there would need to be a 10 sec timer that if you did not move you would auto retreat. You don't want someone to just put down their phone and stop playing because you killed their best character and are not going to play, but won't retreat. This actually happens in other PVP type games. This could be really fun but would cause a big lag n the servers as well causing major crashes. I think it has merit but will not hold my breath

Heartburn

throvolos wrote:

mjh wrote:

atomzed wrote:

The best solution will be to separate the elite from the typical players, by having a league system

While this may be true this solution has an even greater problem. The same rewards being given for lower tier play which some will argue is more unfair than the current system. Why level your roster when you can stay in the low-mid tier range and get the same rewards?

A simple solution to this is to simply change the rewards, and remove the forced performance rankings (which would result if you didn't perform well enough to stay in your league).

Let's think about an implementation of the league system that is VOLUNTARY. This removes the burden of casual players from having to constantly perform well to not get dropped down a league.

PvP leagues for each event which help to separate the "elites" from the "casuals". A player cannot join more than one league per PvP event.

Casual Leagues
Rules: Current PvP shielding rules.
Casual Bronze (free entry, max individual pt reward = 2*, no alliance rewards, cannot use 3* or 4* heroes). 1st place = 5 heroic packs (or something like that)
Casual Silver (free entry, max individual pt reward = 3*, no alliance rewards, cannot use 4* heroes) 1st place = 5 heroic packs
Casual Gold (free entry, max individual pt reward = 4*, no alliance rewards), 1st place = 5 heroic packs

"Elite" Leagues
Alliance PvP leagues would require the Alliance Leader to spend the required ISO before anyone in his alliance could compete in these events. Alliance members could donate ISO to the Alliance. No limit to what heroes can be used.
Alliance Bronze (50k ISO (~1k per member), individual point and placement rewards, alliance point and placement rewards), top placing alliances get Bronze trophy
Alliance Silver (250k ISO (~5k per member), individual point and placement rewards, alliance point and placement rewards), top placing alliances get Silver trophy
Alliance Gold (1000k ISO (20k per member), individual point and placement rewards, alliance point and placement rewards), top placing alliances get Gold trophy

Alliances could boast how many trophies they have (which could just be an icon on their alliance page, or have some other benefit, like faster damage regen on heroes, or whatever). It would give the Elite players bragging rights ("We have over 30 Gold PvP trophies!" etc), and would give them reason to play on the Alliance Leagues.

This is just a very rough idea, but it shows how you can solve the PvP elite vs casual problem without having to reinvent the wheel.

The trophies could give a small stackable Iso boost for rewards 1% for bronze, 2.5% for silver, 5% for gold. Since the have to burn so much Iso and still be competitive.