I'd like to be able to compete for only 3* prizes in PvP

MarcusGraves

So as everyone has probably noticed MPQ has finally entered the age of 4* characters becoming more numerous, popular and actually very powerful in design, but for those of us not actually transitioning into 4* land and trying to flesh out our 3* roster more to actually do so, I feel 3* transitioners end up in the crossfire of veterans duking it out for 1st place and the 1/1.3k progression and being pushed out of their chance of 3* covers.

My proposition is this, allow players when choosing our time slice to also select the option to compete for a set of rewards for more 3*s instead. The 3* prizes only bracket would have for the 1st place spot an extra cover for the 3* prize instead of a 4* and the 1/1.3k progressions would be random 3* covers instead of the 4*s.

An additional rule will be that 4*s are not allowed to be used in this prize bracket since this bracket is for players that want to develop their 3*s and we don't need players with powered out 4* rosters coming in looking for easy prizes with stuff like hulkbuster/JG/Thing/Etc.

Turbosmooth

I think it would be interesting (and I've suggested this before), to separate the PvP into different star limits.
So there would be 4 tiers. 1*, 1-2*, 1-3*, 1-4*. And you can only use the matching star characters in those tier. You would be forced the loaner for the feature character if they don't belong in that tier. This would allow vets to use their 1-2*s again. It would allow OSM to shine even more for everyone, etc.


Without the above change, my argument against lower rewards:

How would you make the transition to 4* if you're never getting them? The 3* covers are pretty ample ever since DPD started. I have been able to complete almost all of the 3*'s and even a few duplicates since then. I sell plenty of 3*s now: like 6-7 a week. (I still need a few covers for Vision and Bullseye and one more Panther black.)

I only have one 5 in my 4* collection, so you need all the 4* help you can get because by the time you max your 3*s, you will want some starter progress into 4*.

optimus2861

From your lips to the devs' ears.

I've been advocating for separate brackets for a while now, at least for 4* PvE release events. I'm certainly not opposed to seeing separate brackets in PvP either, but it doesn't affect me as much at the moment because I don't try to chase rank in PvP. I just get my 400-600 points, collect my progressions, and call it a day.

Anyway, with separate 3*/4* prize brackets, 3* players get to compete with players at their level for prizes they need, and 4* players get to do the same. What's not to like about that?

Ding

Some might think it's already unfair how easy it is to develop a 3* roster now, and that to make it even easier isn't fair to the vets.

It's like a child that can have a phone until they're 12. Imagine how they feel if their younger sibling is told that they'll get a phone at 10 and the yonger sibling complains that they want a phone at 7.

Unknown

KK Bundy wrote:

Some might think it's already unfair how easy it is to develop a 3* roster now, and that to make it even easier isn't fair to the vets.

It's like a child that can have a phone until they're 12. Imagine how they feel if their younger sibling is told that they'll get a phone at 10 and the yonger sibling complains that they want a phone at 7.

Such is true. Life isn't always fair. If there was a company overseeing the entire world their message board would be full of people complaining that their younger siblings got phones after shorter waits than they did, or that they were randomly selected by RNG to become cancer patients.

Difference is MPQ is in a competitive marketplace and has to be actively chosen by players over other games or apps. Especially given that PvP is a huge part of the game, it would help to attract new players if you can demonstrate it is possible for them to catch up. With the exception of masochists, players don't tend to like to put themselves at a permanent unfair disadvantage.

DDQ helps people catch up. The slow 3-4* transition holds vets back and contributes to helping people catch up. It still takes a long time to catch up, but it seems that this is the compromise that D3 are happy with in terms of allowing catch up and being fair to vets.

People are constantly lobbying for the 3-4* transition to be sped up. If this happens it's a fair assumption that the 2-3* transition will receive another aid to keep the equilibrium between catching up and fairness to vets at the 'optimal' compromise position. This separate bracket idea is a good possible solution to that conundrum, particularly with the psychological boost of 3* players being able to fight for top 10 PvP finishes for the first time in thegame, but I rather imagine we'll get a tweak to DDQ instead.

Ding

Grantosium wrote:

KK Bundy wrote:

Some might think it's already unfair how easy it is to develop a 3* roster now, and that to make it even easier isn't fair to the vets.

It's like a child that can have a phone until they're 12. Imagine how they feel if their younger sibling is told that they'll get a phone at 10 and the yonger sibling complains that they want a phone at 7.

Such is true. Life isn't always fair. If there was a company overseeing the entire world their message board would be full of people complaining that their younger siblings got phones after shorter waits than they did, or that they were randomly selected by RNG to become cancer patients.

Difference is MPQ is in a competitive marketplace and has to be actively chosen by players over other games or apps. Especially given that PvP is a huge part of the game, it would help to attract new players if you can demonstrate it is possible for them to catch up. With the exception of masochists, players don't tend to like to put themselves at a permanent unfair disadvantage.

DDQ helps people catch up. The slow 3-4* transition holds vets back and contributes to helping people catch up. It still takes a long time to catch up, but it seems that this is the compromise that D3 are happy with in terms of allowing catch up and being fair to vets.

People are constantly lobbying for the 3-4* transition to be sped up. If this happens it's a fair assumption that the 2-3* transition will receive another aid to keep the equilibrium between catching up and fairness to vets at the 'optimal' compromise position. This separate bracket idea is a good possible solution to that conundrum, particularly with the psychological boost of 3* players being able to fight for top 10 PvP finishes for the first time in thegame, but I rather imagine we'll get a tweak to DDQ instead.

Maybe it's the new players that have not shown any loyalty that should accept the game isn't fair. Makes far more sense. Would you treat a customer you've had for a few days better than a customer you've had for years? Sorry, but why would anyone want to be a loyal customer? Even as a new customer you would see that sticking around gets you treated like old news.

Unknown

KK Bundy wrote:

Maybe it's the new players that have not shown any loyalty that should accept the game isn't fair. Makes far more sense.

Sorry, but that won't work as a business model. D3 won't attract many new players by being completely unappealing to new players.

KK Bundy wrote:

Would you treat a customer you've had for a few days better than a customer you've had for years? Sorry, but why would anyone want to be a loyal customer? Even as a new customer you would see that sticking around gets you treated like old news.

The sad truth of it is many industries are led by companies that treat new customers better than long term customers. It can be a numbers game.

I also don't think it's obvious to new players that being a veteran of the game will get you treated as 'old news'. I've only been playing for 4 months and before I visited the forum I didn't know there was a time before DDQ. For a short time I thought all the characters had been available from the start of the game and odds of getting characters had never changed at all! By the time a new player realises that treatment of vets may not be as generous as treatment of new players they're either hooked or they were never going to get hooked.

However, it's relative anyway. The new players might be getting 3 star characters quicker, but vets of the early stages of the game didn't load up PvP for the first time to a sea of maxed "Fistbuster" squads. It's easy for a vet to look at beginners growing their rosters quickly and be envious but those new players are getting a trial of fire of sorts with a shortage of roster slots and a swarm of characters they can't roster unless they fork out for slots.

Ding

Well, seeing as the game has existed for almost two years I would think their business model is mostly successful. The businesses where they treat new customers better are usually ones with really high turnover where they lure new customers with great introductory offers. Even those are never as good as retention deals. Companies that are rated highest by their customers don't do either.

cletus1985

This creates an even bigger gap for the 3-4* transition though, which is why (in theory) it wouldn't work. I'm a 3-4* transitioner and I can tell you it's no cakewalk already, but if you take out all the 3* transitioners from the PvP pool all those progression prizes become much more difficult to obtain, because I'm fighting nothing but maxed out 3* and 4* teams. There's less brackets due to less players making competition even worse and the rich keep getting richer, while those on the cusp get stuck in purgatory.

3* transition has already been made much easier since I started and the more you collect the quicker you'll progress. The problem with your proposed system is that in a month when you've moved on from 3* progression you'd absolutely hate it and be stuck in the purgatory. The current system has flaws, but it does allow progression to each level with effort. Your PvP system would make it close to impossible to get 4*'s unless you already have some maxed.

WelcomeDeath

How would this affect alliance ranking? If you have all separate brackets, you'd have 2 star players with 1000 points in pvp. Also, wouldn't you have players from higher alliances going into "easier" brackets to boost their season score? Your MMR should already be matching you up against same level players and you're rewarded at 800 pts with a 3 star, 1000 for a 4 star, so it's easier to get 3 star already.

NNCSavage

Right now I have 7 2* 94s and consider myself solidly in 2* and working on DDQ most days (25 3* in progress) and the next oal of 800/1k rewards seems far off. I have 3*torch at 1/5/3 (and sold 2 extra black covers, thx RNG) and Cyke at 3/2/2 but nothing else better than a bunch of dual cover 2/2 3/1 3*'s
working my way thru DDQ + PvE prog reward every time and sometimes getting bonus through alliance finish.

I wonder where the data says 2* teams top out at. I would have hard time believing that 800 is regularly achievable without shield hopping and even then who is paying 1-2k HP for a 3*? I've hit 590ish without shielding in back to back events so I know 600 is possible.
I would propose the 3* reward be dropped to a somewhat achievable level for a 2* -> 3* player - say maybe 575 or 650?
Heck - add a 2nd 3* to the mix at the lower level although maybe that is the intent of the 650 token.
Part of the problem might be the quantity of 3*'s, trying to pull usable covers out of 120 possibles.

Also there is the quality of 3*s: 10 top tier? maybe another 15 at a high level?
How does 4* compare percentage-wise? should the cover rewards from all events for each match up using that data?

Or maybe the same treatment for all tiers that is being planned for 4*:

prog table:
2*
2* / 40% 3* uncommon bag (I guess heroic tokens cover this already)
3*
3* / 20% 4* rare bag
4*
4* / 10% 5* legendary bag

maybe i'm just impatient though. /ramble off

Unknown

KK Bundy wrote:

Maybe it's the new players that have not shown any loyalty that should accept the game isn't fair. Makes far more sense. Would you treat a customer you've had for a few days better than a customer you've had for years? Sorry, but why would anyone want to be a loyal customer? Even as a new customer you would see that sticking around gets you treated like old news.

D3 has done little to engage and retain "loyal" customers. By arbitrarily nerfing old 2 and 3 star characters, launching many new high powered 3 star characters, and now finally puking out new 4 star characters at a break neck speed - being a well established customer, as I am, they have not treated me as an asset.

Heartburn

arm fall off boy wrote:

KK Bundy wrote:

Maybe it's the new players that have not shown any loyalty that should accept the game isn't fair. Makes far more sense. Would you treat a customer you've had for a few days better than a customer you've had for years? Sorry, but why would anyone want to be a loyal customer? Even as a new customer you would see that sticking around gets you treated like old news.

D3 has done little to engage and retain "loyal" customers. By arbitrarily nerfing old 2 and 3 star characters, launching many new high powered 3 star characters, and now finally puking out new 4 star characters at a break neck speed - being a well established customer, as I am, they have not treated me as an asset.

i agree it is seeming with all the recent "balancing" it feels like what are they going to take away next. we lost xforce/4thor, we lost defensive wins, we gained oh right a health buff to everyone except a select few making the matches take forever. Maybe if they threw in a Roster slot every 30 days you played or heck even 90 days that would be something.