Why PVP is stupid

OneLastGambit

GurlBYE wrote:

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.

Understand what you are saying but I am a new player (day 59) and I'm not having so much trouble, it just requires patience. I have managed a few top 100 places and even top 50 and top 20 once each (PVE), both times with a reasonably well covered lvl 81 2* roster, so I really don't think it favours old players at all, it favours players that are A. willing to put the effort in or B. Players who play strategically. Ideally you would be a combination of both of those, I personally don't get much free time as my working days are 10 hours, so in the spare time I do have I put in the effort to get what I need.

Sometimes it seems a bit like people complain because they can't get things exactly how they want them. The game isn't supposed to learn how to play you, you are supposed to play it.

Accept you can't have everything, and be grateful for what you can get. With patience you will eventually be able to get higher and higher and better and better rewards. Be honest if as soon as you started the game you could get all the best rewards and win first place in every event would you enjoy it? I really doubt it.

slidecage

pvp is stupid it should be called sonofasuckerwhoattackedmeinthelastsecondofthefreakingevent

optimus2861

OneLastGambit wrote:

Understand what you are saying but I am a new player (day 59) and I'm not having so much trouble, it just requires patience. I have managed a few top 100 places and even top 50 and top 20 once each (PVE),

On day 59, the game may still consider you a new player and be placing you in brackets with other new players. Those brackets are a cakewalk for anyone willing to put in some effort, absolutely. Are the top finishers in your brackets equipped with max 3* / 4* rosters, or mostly 2* like yourself? That will tell you whether you're in the newbie brackets.

GrumpySmurf1002

jredd wrote:

doing well in pvp is extremely skewed towards people who's rosters are already fully developed.

Player vs player benefits the strongest players? You're right, that does seem weird.

XandorXerxes

OneLastGambit wrote:

Sometimes it seems a bit like people complain because they can't get things exactly how they want them. The game isn't supposed to learn how to play you, you are supposed to play it.

Accept you can't have everything, and be grateful for what you can get. With patience you will eventually be able to get higher and higher and better and better rewards. Be honest if as soon as you started the game you could get all the best rewards and win first place in every event would you enjoy it? I really doubt it.

1) People don't "complain" because they want everything handed to them (well, some might) - people "complain" because they see something that they feel isn't as good as it could be and they want to try to improve it. To use the same argument - people make valid suggestions, but those who do well in the current system complain about people wanting to change the system, because that might make it harder for them to do as well.

As for enjoying having everything without in-game effort and taking 1st all the time - I'm pretty sure the whales are happy with their status.

2) I'll include myself in this group - we don't want first place every event. We want a system that won't take hours upon hours of work and then say "too bad, here's a pittance for your trouble" at the end. We want a system that allows for progression, instead of dangling the needed rewards out of reach. The added legendary token at the end of PvE was pretty fantastic, except it requires a part-time job to achieve. I'd rather open a side business or take a part-time job and just buy the covers if I'm going to do that. If you enjoy the grind, I'm happy for you (legitimately, no snark) but I can't bring myself to do it.

I like the game - a lot, I've put in a ton of hours according to Steam - I'd like to keep playing it. I'm iso starved and getting that last bit to reach 1,000 in PvP for 4* covers has never been a terribly fun experience for me (Iceman's PvP was particularly awful), but I'm going to have to do it for another 6-8 months just to progress in the game. There are a lot of people who won't be willing to do that, assuming they even make the 3* transition - though DPD (for 3*s) I think is pretty do-able for the casual folks.

OneLastGambit

Fair points I guess.

I'm not sure about my brackets but no. 1 in my bracket has carnage, kingpin, star Lord hulk buster, thoress, prof x all fully covered and levelled. I currently sit at rank 89 with my mostly 2* covered but not max levelled roster.

In PVE it's not about your roster it's about timing and (sometimes) grinding. I'm at rank 89 after two full clears of this node plusdoing the essentials twice more, I'd hardly call that a grind.

EDIT : I also am missing Elektra for essentials.and still expect to place top 150 and get the legendary token.

Crowl

One thing that seems like it would improve pvp would be for it to be split up into two or three different tiers, base them on max/average roster level or something along those lines and give out rewards accordingly such as the 2* pvp getting only a 3* cover as the top prize.

GurlBYE

aesthetocyst wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

Playing optimally, should get you top 20, not top 100.

Well, that's arbitrary. Define "optimally"? And playing "optimally" should get you top 20 out of 500? That's 97th+ %tile. That's not optimal, it's extraordinary! Top 20 of 500 is not a participation reward, it's an achievement to strive for.

Optimal usually means, best, most favorable.
In terms of points, no it's quite clear optimal means the best you can.
There's nothing arbitrary about that word.
Optimal and perfect are close friends. Clearing at max score every 8 hours + grinding until you can't anymore shortly before subs end.


And you did the exact same thing everyone who is further in game does, just say hush up and play DDQ.
No one is asking for instant gratification, but if you just take my words and make them out to be as such I can't reliably put the effort into explaining myself further, or making a rebuttal when from square UNO, you can't use DDQ to progress without having the 3 stars.

And comparatively, itll seem easier for new players but the ways it's not should be immediately apparent. There was a conversion from covers to HP last year. I've seen the changes. There's a path in front of us now yeah, that's the hugest difference and the 'coddling'.

If you feel it's all fine, thats dandy. We have differing opinions and have to accept that.

simonsez

GurlBYE wrote:

Optimal usually means, best, most favorable.
In terms of points, no it's quite clear optimal means the best you can.

If you think you're playing optimally, and you're not making T20, then "optimal" and "best you can" are two different things here.

GurlBYE

simonsez wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

Optimal usually means, best, most favorable.
In terms of points, no it's quite clear optimal means the best you can.

If you think you're playing optimally, and you're not making T20, then "optimal" and "best you can" are two different things here.

Just to keep you up to speed.

He said playing optimally should get you top 100.

I said it should get you top 20.

So I didn't bring myself in at all.
Not a personal discussion.

Unknown

Not following the same sort of lines of logic but like.

The "Need stupid AI to defend your score" part of PVP is probably the stupidest part.

Makes it not exactly true PVP, and REALLY cuts down on the number of viable characters, with how often the AI screws up certain moves. You got to idiot-proof a defensive team when you're building one and all.

Dragon_Nexus

colwag wrote:

Not following the same sort of lines of logic but like.

The "Need stupid AI to defend your score" part of PVP is probably the stupidest part.

Makes it not exactly true PVP, and REALLY cuts down on the number of viable characters, with how often the AI screws up certain moves. You got to idiot-proof a defensive team when you're building one and all.

Gotta have dat rainbow.
I'd love to leave Captain Marvel and Cyclops as my defense so she can take a hit, absorb colours and Cyclops can fire them off, but I know full well the AI will squander the 9 reds for her move instead of saving for one more to let Cyclops hit out. Same deal for black. It's a fun offensive team, but it sucks on defense.

I love it when She Hulk is boosted and the main 3* doesn't use green. I like to imagine her firing off her green at every opportunity.

mgallop

The big problem with a lot of suggestions to make progression easier is that they also remove the point of progression. You should have an easier time of it ESPECIALLY IN PVP when you have a better roster. You should also be able to punch above your weight if you are smart or spend time/money. Both are currently true. Also, if you play optimally, you will get t20 or t10 in PvE with the exception of getting a really insane bracket for release events: just hit the refresh every 8 hours, and grind at the end. I've t10ed the last 5 or 6 new character events doing so all in vet brackets, and not finishing the grind in at least 1 sub, I even t2ed R&G despite not finishing one grind, and finishing another significantly too early. Your ability to grind will not be helped by having a better roster, as fighting level 300 Jugs/Ares/Hood will phuc you up.

jimstarooney

jredd wrote:

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


You cant do well without a decent roster nor should u expect to.

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?

Because you have reached your wall,if u want to rank higher shield up and wait for the hits

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...)

Because the better you do the more you are worth

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?

Hmmm...

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?

Because its all about being fast my friend,if u havent got a fast team pvp is not for you

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.

TheRealJRad

Of what's mentioned, +1 for the retaliation nodes. The amount you lose vs the amount you can gain back is just silly. I've lost 30-40 points, and can only get 1-5 points back? What sense does that make? You're essentially discouraging retaliation.

I mean, I still feel like the points loss is a bit crazy anyway (amount, not concept), but that's for another time.

mgallop

One interesting idea, albeit one that would be crazily open to abuse would be to make retaliation nodes worth 1.5 times as much as normal nodes (up to a certain cap). Retaliation nodes are going to be naturally lower because you always attack people w/ more points than you, preferably way more points: I'm only going to hit someone if they're worth 50+ to me, which means my retal node is only going to be around 25 or 30 points, and its worse if they're way up... On the other hand, if real nodes were actually worth more, then you could have allies boost each other by climbing way up and hitting for a few points, and then allowing a huge retaliation...

Quebbster

mgallop wrote:

One interesting idea, albeit one that would be crazily open to abuse would be to make retaliation nodes worth 1.5 times as much as normal nodes (up to a certain cap). Retaliation nodes are going to be naturally lower because you always attack people w/ more points than you, preferably way more points: I'm only going to hit someone if they're worth 50+ to me, which means my retal node is only going to be around 25 or 30 points, and its worse if they're way up... On the other hand, if real nodes were actually worth more, then you could have allies boost each other by climbing way up and hitting for a few points, and then allowing a huge retaliation...

One thing to keep in mind is that if I hit you on the way up, when you retaliate against me I may be worth a lot more points than the node shows. I have been able to get retaliations worth 60+ points just by waiting while my attacker climbs... though I wouldn't say no to them being worth 100 points instead.

amusingfoo1

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.

No offense, and I'm saying this as someone who is in three-star land, but with less than complete covers and limiting myself to level 120, and as someone who has finished top-10 in the last two PvE events (yes, in the big-kid brackets), this is a load of ****. Essentially, you're saying that the PvP prizes are not designed to help those who can actually use them (except for the first place and 1k+ point progressions). Competitiveness aside, that's a systemic failure.

And as someone who's only managed to make the 800-point progression once (though I can make 650 pretty consistently. And a friend of mine still in 2* land can steadily make 5-600), that's pretty frustrating.

I think a lot of the problem with balance comes from allowing people to not have to play at the same time (you can't do a round-based system like Swiss, for instance, which would solve many, if not most, of the balance problems). So I'm not sure what the solution is, but the problems are certainly there. "Go away" (boiling down what you just argued) is not really an answer.

mgallop

amusingfoo1 wrote:

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.

No offense, and I'm saying this as someone who is in three-star land, but with less than complete covers and limiting myself to level 120, and as someone who has finished top-10 in the last two PvE events (yes, in the big-kid brackets), this is a load of ****. Essentially, you're saying that the PvP prizes are not designed to help those who can actually use them (except for the first place and 1k+ point progressions). Competitiveness aside, that's a systemic failure.

And as someone who's only managed to make the 800-point progression once (though I can make 650 pretty consistently. And a friend of mine still in 2* land can steadily make 5-600), that's pretty frustrating.

I think a lot of the problem with balance comes from allowing people to not have to play at the same time (you can't do a round-based system like Swiss, for instance, which would solve many, if not most, of the balance problems). So I'm not sure what the solution is, but the problems are certainly there. "Go away" (boiling down what you just argued) is not really an answer.

I completely agree with one of your points and disagree with the other. The current rewards in PvP are messed up because its too hard to get a *** cover if you need it and, if you don't need it, you get tons (I top 5ed the last 2 events, and while the extra 1k iso from the 3rd cover was nice, I used none of the covers). The solution to this is not to change the matchmaking in my opinion. It is to have *** covers at lower progressions and lower placement.

Changing matchmaking would completely remove the point of progression, since as you got a better roster you would face better rosters and not improve your performance...