Why PVP is stupid

jredd

How are you supposed to do well in pvp with less than a fully covered and levelled roster?

if there are 500 people in a bracket, why do i get to a point where my only options are the same 4 teams i cannot beat?

why is it that as soon as you start to do well, you're basically just putting a huge target on your back? (unless you shield...)

why does the score you receive depend on how many points you have/your current placement? a team's score should be based on the average level of the top 15-30 characters inter roster. too often i'm attacked by 4* rosters to lose 30+ points only to find the retaliation is worth 3? really?

why are you allowed to be pummelled by multiple people simultaneously and end up losing upwards of 150-200 points during the coarse of playing one match?

doing well in pvp is extremely skewed towards people who's rosters are already fully developed. it needs a serious overhaul make it more balanced and enjoyable for people with developing rosters.

acescracked

When is your game coming out? Can I be a beta tester?

GurlBYE

In part I agree, but I understand that when it comes to competitiveness and games where people customize their team of choice, some leveled some not, there will always be disparity. Unfortunately it's just how it is.

I feel like there should be some alternative pvp structure similar to simulator but instead of just being unboosted, its a great opportunity to give us rental heroes, like a heroic but everyone is fully leveled, we have a choice of say 1/3 of the games characters each season, everyone's on the same playing field. (say 20 3 stars, 10 4 stars, all level 150)
May even inspire some people to use characters they hadn't considered before, and would give more people ways to get more points.


Just beware OP you are just going to get a lot of people trying to belittle you etc for the negative criticisms against the system because most here just played through the pain and wish that on future players. You also didn't provide any suggestions or better ideas, which while obvious should be written out anyway to foster discussion. Just try to mix a lil honey with your vinegar.

Unknown

One of the main reasons i only play 200 - 500 pts. I made one PVP grind and ended up losing 665 points. I'll play in SIM all day until I hit the wall and give up. I'm not worried about the legendary token as I'll probably get my 6th

I wish there was more of a Live Action Arena where you could play in a head to head match up with someone. You could still do matchmaking by roster or set the points up to where level variation would earn you very few points in beating an easy team to very high points for beating a higher level team relative to your roster level.

They should also make it to where if a higher level team beats you and you retaliate with a win, the point values are worth it.

PVP isn't bad or stupid, just odd at times. Tinykitty shield experation...


Just my .02

EDITED: The Live Action Arena would be a scenario where it's two humans playing against each other and not a player playing against another persons roster that's being controlled by an AI.

GurlBYE

OJSP wrote:

Please see the many threads in the forum containing tips from various players on either how to rank high or score high.. in order of their latest update, in the Tips and Guides section..
here's one of them: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32426 (1000 pts)
or this: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30912 (1000 pts)
or perhaps this one: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31794 (800 pts)
or if feeling a bit ambitious: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31255 (1300 pts)
or a general climbing tip: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29293

I know probably you just needed to vent, but I hope you might find some answers in one of those threads.

At core though it seems he's not so much looking for those answers because even without peeking(mainly cause I've seen em) I know the answers all try to circumvent the ops main point (which was stated ina more definitive way)

Dodging not having a strong roster.
Late entries
Shields
Using co-coordinating shields

It's a catch 22 of the reward system of pve in pvp. They at glance seem to both be structured in a choose how to progress way, but full participation in pvp doesn't happen without boosted characters or leveled 3 stars. It's something to accept. (yeah I know 2 star rosters can straggle on up to 300 points consistently when they have boosted dudes but i think you get me)
The reward structure itself even inviting the ideas that 2 star rosters can normally got up to 800 and having tokens as high as 950 are both a bit misleading, and a bit outdated.

Dragon_Nexus

PvP feels a little broken now. I've said in another thread I feel lucky that my 3* roster was pretty much complete by the time they brought out the 1000 point and 1300 point prizes because I really don't need the 3* rewards any more and placing in top 25 or even top 50 has become way harder. Used to be 700 points would get me top 50 easy, maybe top 25 in a quiet bracket.

I don't know how the 2* to 3* transitioner is meant to get any 3* rewards now in PvP. The competitive nature of it has screwed towards those who already have the covers that are up for grabs. I end up selling most of the 3* covers I win.

jredd

aesthetocyst wrote:

jredd wrote:

How are you supposed to do well in pvp with less than a fully covered and levelled roster?

if there are 500 people in a bracket, why do i get to a point where my only options are the same 4 teams i cannot beat?

why is it that as soon as you start to do well, you're basically just putting a huge target on your back? (unless you shield...)

why does the score you receive depend on how many points you have/your current placement? a team's score should be based on the average level of the top 15-30 characters inter roster. too often i'm attacked by 4* rosters to lose 30+ points only to find the retaliation is worth 3? really?

why are you allowed to be pummelled by multiple people simultaneously and end up losing upwards of 150-200 points during the coarse of playing one match?

doing well in pvp is extremely skewed towards people who's rosters are already fully developed. it needs a serious overhaul make it more balanced and enjoyable for people with developing rosters.

You must have interesting 'remedies' for all of these concerns. You didn't include them in the OP because ... you are letting the suspense build?

constructive post, thanks for your input...


a huge step would be to have 4-5 nodes of increasing difficulty accompanied by increased point rewards. or just have all 500 teams in a bracket attackable at anytime, again with different point values based on how 'good' the rosters are.

you shouldn't ever get to a point where you can't win match.

GurlBYE

OJSP wrote:

Sorry for the long answers..

Eh its fine

GurlBYE wrote:
Hidden: Show
At core though it seems he's not so much looking for those answers because even without peeking(mainly cause I've seen em) I know the answers all try to circumvent the ops main point (which was stated in a more definitive way) which main point? with all the questions, i was lost trying to find the point.. i had to do a separate edit, trying to answer the questions..

Dodging not having a strong roster. i'm not sure what this means.. or how this relates to the issue in PvPs..
Late entries
Shields
Using co-coordinating shields
except the first point, the subsequent 3 points above is just playing a smart game.. with a bit of gambling, in terms of late entries (of those 3, i only do Shields.. i joined late for a couple of events, only because i couldn't join any earlier.. the success rate was probably 33% for me, but someone in the forum has a lot more success in sniping for late brackets and performing well..)

It's a catch 22 of the reward system of pve in pvp. i agreeThey at glance seem to both be structured in a choose how to progress way, but full participation in pvp doesn't happen without boosted characters or leveled 3 stars. It's something to accept. (yeah I know 2 star rosters can straggle on up to 300 points consistently when they have boosted dudes but i think you get me) sure.. i play in a casual alliance.. our season target is just the 10-pack.. doing well in events is up to us.. occasionally we get newer players joining and asking for advice.. then they improve and move on.. unfortunately, in this game, either we spend a lot of time trying to improve, or a lot of money.. with the power creep, of course there's going to be a problem with newer players or those who have weaker rosters. The reward system is not brilliant, like most people have mentioned and many have offered alternatives.. But, unless the developers decide to take up one of the ideas and change the current system, all the posts similar to this, is just about venting frustrations.. If they're really asking for advice, they probably would phrase things differently.. I usually take the approach of providing solutions for the problems first, then complain if things really get on my nerves..(which i appreciate, things have probably hit OP's nerves..)
The reward structure itself even inviting the ideas that 2 star rosters can normally got up to 800 and having tokens as high as 950 are both a bit misleading, and a bit outdated.What's giving you that idea? Just because the reward is a cover 1 tier higher than our roster, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be possible to get with our roster. I actually realised quite early in the game, initially we have an easier way to get the 3*s from placement rewards. (as many of my alliance mates did, sniping late brackets)

We could only reach the top progression rewards more easily and regularly with a strong roster. As far as i recall, before the change in the scoring system, I could only manage to get around 600 at most with a pure 2* roster, and got beaten down to 400s without a shield.., getting a top 100 placement (if i got it) with around 600 with 1 shield was enough for me to gain a 3* cover and stay HP neutral for the event..

With soft capping my 3*s at 94 and good boosted 2*s, it became slightly easier to reach 650, but it's not always enough for a top 100 placement because i started competing with other transitioners and i would start seeing high level 3*s, so sometimes i had to break shield right at the end of events and try to get that 3*.

Fortunately for me, this was also around the same time DDQ was introduced, so I could get the 3*s another way if that didn't work. I only managed to get to 800 regularly when my 3*s were soft capped at 120 (and i only raised their levels from 94 once i got most of them fully covered).

I think the 800 points reward is not for someone looking to win their first few 3* covers. There's the Story events to do that.

To me, the 950 points reward is just another extra reward for someone trying to get 1000, it's like a consolation prize if we didn't get to 1000.

1-The ops point was pvp is advantageous to people with better rosters, hence the first line, how are we supposed to advance in pvp without fully covered and leveled characters.

2-Every solution for getting higher points revolves around avoiding fighting people with better rosters, by either a- shielding, b- joining late for placement, c- playing the times where they aren't and hope they don't retaliate.

3-It's quite simply clear that the 800 point 3 star is a remnant of when 3 stars were the top award and 4 stars are closer to what 5 star are now, a lucky dice roll, if that. and each roll takes quite a bit of dedication to get to.

4- People are venting their frustrations repeatedly in hopes that the developers catch on because they enjoy the game, otherwise they'd have left without a peep. Getting feedback venting or suggestions, shows that you have vested people, if those complaints regardless of how far apart are in chorus and getting worse, well you aren't addressing the problem.

5-Yes but anecdotes and dodging around the pvp system doesn't make it correct. yes those are solutions but someone joining the game has no idea how joining brackets late works. Thats an issue.

6- part of what makes getting to 650 now harder is the 10,000 Legendary and the 1300 legendaries. During an event like a day ago the lowest of the top 10 was 1200.
(as an aside its not unique to pvp, During last pve, I was 80-ish in placement, my score? 200 over the legendary token, the issues re getting worse, not better, no it wasn't for a new 4 star either)

7- as i mentioned, story events aren't the place for it either anymore, unless people join late and miss out on iso and such.

8- At that point an event token is literally a joke, even if it shines gold, someone who can get to 950 doesn't need it. I think there should be more heroics level things all over the game but thats not the topic at hand.

we're roughly on the same page though. Just clarifying some points, the numbers just correlate to general points.

jredd

interesting suggestions, doesn't this mean, 1* rosters would be targetable by 4*s? I know the points value will be little, but if someone only needs a few points to reach 1000 or 1300, what's stopping them from doing a very quick match, or several in quick succession whilst shield hopping?


nothing stopping them. that's the point. you need 5 points. jump in an easy node and win your quick 5 points. make it so the retaliation, if successful is brutal. you're at 650-700 points (where i typically hit the roadblock), jump into a 2-3* match node and win some points. but again, make the retaliation sting a little more than if you attacked a 3-4* team(and somehow managed to win).

Right now, it just seems to me like you can't get a better roster without getting the higher progression rewards, but you need a better roster to get the better rewards. but it's the chicken and the egg, but you end up with neither.

cyineedsn

jredd wrote:

nothing stopping them. that's the point. you need 5 points. jump in an easy node and win your quick 5 points. make it so the retaliation, if successful is brutal. you're at 650-700 points (where i typically hit the roadblock), jump into a 2-3* match node and win some points. but again, make the retaliation sting a little more than if you attacked a 3-4* team(and somehow managed to win).

Right now, it just seems to me like you can't get a better roster without getting the higher progression rewards, but you need a better roster to get the better rewards. but it's the chicken and the egg, but you end up with neither.

'

That prospect scares me a bit. I think 4* or even buffed 3* teams would find a happy medium between points/risk and just mercilessly beat down weak 2* rosters into infinity to get their points, and then shield and shrug off the retaliations.

Or even worse, PVP alliances could coordinate on line with a PVE alliance of level capped chars to massacre the low level chars using weaker 3* teams, then shield up, and let the PVE alliance feast on the huge retaliations.

mgallop

Imho there are two things that need to be balanced in PvP:

1) Transitioners need to get 3* covers. This is currently messed up because 800 is a bit high and the placement awards are all being taken by people going for legendaries/season score. Possible solution: bump down the reward tiers a bit. Move 3 covers to t25, 2 to t50 or t100, and 1 to t200. Also, move the 3* cover down to 575 or 650, which both makes it more attainable, and allows players who have good rosters but have featured undercovered to get to it, float there, and push with a better featured character. To make higher placement better, just give a bunch of ISO (what 4* transitioners actually need) -- if t5 were 10 or 20k iso, I would fight way harder for it. Alternatively: easy and hard PvP, where easy has a 3* required and rewards 3, hard has a 4* featured, rewards 4s.

2) There needs to be progression and the game needs to reward you for getting better. This is the huge problem with the OP's suggestion. If PvP isn't rewarding you for having a better roster by making it easier, whats the point of progressing in this game. Theres already PvE which scales to your roster and where its better to have an under leveled team, PvP should be easier once you start using a Hulkbuster/Jean Grey then it is when you're using Ares/OBW or Fist/Cyclops. On 2, D3 seems to be in the sweet-spot at the moment, tho Silver Surfer may be ruining it, as 4* and 4* transition PvP is as healthy as its ever been. Please don't ruin that to make 2 and 3* PvP more pleasant.

OneLastGambit

Hmmm one suggestion that I think could be taken on board is the one of making a revenge attack worth far more.

I too have been attacked by someone who knocked me back by 80 points only to find getting revenge would give me 2, that doesn't seem fair to me.

In response to the OP I'll simply say this , accept your limitations. I know my roster can't place above 200 so I don't try to. I aim for the progression rewards and then stop. When I first started playing I was lucky to get even 100 points so I did the same then, I played to my limit and accepted I couldn't go further at that time. Now my roster is better my limitation has increased and I get better rewards, but again I have a limit and I accept it.

It is slow and requires patience but I think that's what PVP is all about, the long game. Quicker and better rewards come with PVE.

jredd

cyineedsn wrote:

jredd wrote:

nothing stopping them. that's the point. you need 5 points. jump in an easy node and win your quick 5 points. make it so the retaliation, if successful is brutal. you're at 650-700 points (where i typically hit the roadblock), jump into a 2-3* match node and win some points. but again, make the retaliation sting a little more than if you attacked a 3-4* team(and somehow managed to win).

Right now, it just seems to me like you can't get a better roster without getting the higher progression rewards, but you need a better roster to get the better rewards. but it's the chicken and the egg, but you end up with neither.

'

That prospect scares me a bit. I think 4* or even buffed 3* teams would find a happy medium between points/risk and just mercilessly beat down weak 2* rosters into infinity to get their points, and then shield and shrug off the retaliations.

Or even worse, PVP alliances could coordinate on line with a PVE alliance of level capped chars to massacre the low level chars using weaker 3* teams, then shield up, and let the PVE alliance feast on the huge retaliations.

if you only get 5-10 points for beating those teams, you're going to be playing an awful lot to accumulate points. they could build in some diminishing returns type deal where if you beat, say 10 of those teams, the points you gain from these matches drops off to 1.

puppychow

mgallop wrote:

Imho there are two things that need to be balanced in PvP:

1) Transitioners need to get 3* covers. This is currently messed up because 800 is a bit high and the placement awards are all being taken by people going for legendaries/season score. Possible solution: bump down the reward tiers a bit. Move 3 covers to t25, 2 to t50 or t100, and 1 to t200. Also, move the 3* cover down to 575 or 650, which both makes it more attainable, and allows players who have good rosters but have featured undercovered to get to it, float there, and push with a better featured character. To make higher placement better, just give a bunch of ISO (what 4* transitioners actually need) -- if t5 were 10 or 20k iso, I would fight way harder for it. Alternatively: easy and hard PvP, where easy has a 3* required and rewards 3, hard has a 4* featured, rewards 4s.

I agree that 3* covers should be pushed lower on the progression ladder. I think 600 pts is more suitable, because transitioners still have a good shot at reaching that level, and the cover would REALLY be helpful to these players.

For me personally, the only things I need are the 1k cover (unless I maxed covered already) or the legendary token. The rest is pretty much iso.

TxMoose

jredd wrote:

a huge step would be to have 4-5 nodes of increasing difficulty accompanied by increased point rewards. or just have all 500 teams in a bracket attackable at anytime, again with different point values based on how 'good' the rosters are.

now that sounds familiar. pretty sure we have that system in place via story mode, or pve....

puppychow

OneLastGambit wrote:

It is slow and requires patience but I think that's what PVP is all about, the long game. Quicker and better rewards come with PVE.

I second this opinion. Look at my roster. I built it on the back of pve. Take for example Iceman. I managed to grab two covers from his debut pve event, and got the missing green cover off the venom vault. One more pink cover from top 100 alliance reward, one blue off an Ice Breaker token, and the last blue off the 1,000 points progression.

Top 100 pve is doable if you're persistent and consistent in clearing nodes every 8 hours, and then do minimal grind on top of that.

For transition players, I think they should focus more on pve rather than worrying about placing in pvp events.

OneLastGambit

puppychow wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

It is slow and requires patience but I think that's what PVP is all about, the long game. Quicker and better rewards come with PVE.

I second this opinion. Look at my roster. I built it on the back of pve. Take for example Iceman. I managed to grab two covers from his debut pve event, and got the missing green cover off the venom vault. One more pink cover from top 100 alliance reward, one blue off an Ice Breaker token, and the last blue off the 1,000 points progression.

Top 100 pve is doable if you're persistent and consistent in clearing nodes every 8 hours, and then do minimal grind on top of that.

For transition players, I think they should focus more on pve rather than worrying about placing in pvp events.

Just had a look at your roster, why so many MBW and what in the name of bill funk is classic Hawkeye doing in there?! Im jealous of your roster slots, only have 29 myself and have nick fury, thing and hulkbuster waiting to be recruited or expire

mgallop

MBW is the best team-up in the game, bar none. A lot of people in top PvP alliances have tons of lvl 1 MBWs w/ 5 blue and 0 purple covers just for team-ups. (I had 1, but the roster slow monster ate it).

OneLastGambit

Ah I see. I'm still in 2* land yet (booked my ticket to 3* island though) so team ups aren't that relative at my level in PVP. Good looking roster though, are you just collecting everyone?

Unknown

Watch out for the sharks. One must be a game developer to have an opinion. Also, if you suggest any changes, look out for the same who'll lob rotten veggies at you because they won't like that it trims the loops they have come to abuse.

GurlBYE

puppychow wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

It is slow and requires patience but I think that's what PVP is all about, the long game. Quicker and better rewards come with PVE.

I second this opinion. Look at my roster. I built it on the back of pve. Take for example Iceman. I managed to grab two covers from his debut pve event, and got the missing green cover off the venom vault. One more pink cover from top 100 alliance reward, one blue off an Ice Breaker token, and the last blue off the 1,000 points progression.

Top 100 pve is doable if you're persistent and consistent in clearing nodes every 8 hours, and then do minimal grind on top of that.

For transition players, I think they should focus more on pve rather than worrying about placing in pvp events.

The issue is every single person who gives advice fails to acknowledge everything that changes and why the players seems so much more frustrated then with what you went through.

The game was sorta built around a few things. Placement, top 50 is supposed to help hero points out as well, helping to slowly develop your roster.

Essentials are 2, 3 and 4 stars, putting people aiming for 3 stars a distinct disadvantage.
Sure top 100 alliances help, they aren't an option for all.
1,000? No most can't reach that. It's not uncommon for maybe 20 of each bracket to make it.

Playing optimally, should get you top 20, not top 100. Even when top players deal with boosted enemies in pve, they have alternate similarly leveled teams.

Legendary tokens slapped in makes 2 and 3 star players have to earn 4 stars in legionaries just to place.

The event that I got 100 overr legendary token and got 80th in? She hulk was the prize. Shes not in any top strategy.

You think players shouldn't worry about it because i think you also realize how skewed the situation is in favor of players who don't need the covers.
Except unless players consistently tank every other even they will face veteran brackets with people who can clear nodes not only faster and get more optimal scores, have better teams, and have essentials.

I just think after the new 5 star and the new 4 star after are introduced they need to sit down, make new accounts, and see what they can make happen with roughly 5 dollars in purchases a week after 2 weeks, no alliances, to take a serious look at how they can try and balance it out to benefit new and old players.