Do we even need retaliations in the game?

Spencer75

I love retaliations, especially with the new system where you only get one shot to beat a team.

I love beating a team worth 15 points with a weaker roster than me and seeing that team turn around and try to retaliate against me and lose, giving me another 15 points.

I'm learning what level of teams I can beat and not worry about them being able to reliably retaliate. In the old 3 try system you simply couldn't do this.

Unknown

Managing retaliation is the key to do well. Like mentioned above there's actually a pretty good incentive to attack a weak team now. Ideally you'd want to beat up all the weak teams you can and then shield, that way if they somehow beat you, you're still okay, but you have a pretty good chance of scoring points from their failed retaliations. Although it sucks for the little guy, being able to bully weaker rosters actually adds a lot of depth. You're not going to climb very high on beating up people with weak rosters (they likely aren't worth much), but you definitely want those guys to have you queued up when you're about to shield.

That said, I didn't have problem beating 141X2 teams in this tournament with my 2 level 92 characters (level on DD is generally irrelevent minus the one or two guys that somehow had him at level 100).

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Although it sucks for the little guy, being able to bully weaker rosters actually adds a lot of depth.

Arguable, but if the match-making were doing what Demiurge says it's supposed to, you shouldn't be able to see significantly weaker teams in any numbers. I don't think it's MMR's only problem, but the least surmountable one is that I don't see how you can prevent intentional manipulation of it, particularly when that's probably more interesting than the actual game. Skip Tax After Three Skips (nice PR coup, that) and tweaking what team sits on the server is fiddling around the edges that'll barely slow down people being people.

How does Blizzard do it for stuff like Starcraft and Hearthstone? I don't know if that works to people's satisfaction. I guess the big difference there is you should actually lose more than rarely, as well.

Unknown

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'weak rosters'.

I've not seen a fight that wasn't either 85/85/85 or tournament character/85/85 (or some variation with 3 star 100+) in weeks.

Unknown

abuelo wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'weak rosters'.

I've not seen a fight that wasn't either 85/85/85 or tournament character/85/85 (or some variation with 3 star 100+) in weeks.

Stalk the top 10s everyone keeps kvetching about! Not in the pay-to-register event, though.

Presumably you don't tank? My appalling performance in the LRs I get on for sometimes lets me see the odd Wolvie/OBW still but, yeah, I couldn't tell you when I last played an actual match against anything sub-85.

Unknown

Eddiemon wrote:

Twysta wrote:

Actually that's a really good point. Retaliations should let you gain all the points you lost back.
So if someone with a lower points value attacks you and hits you for 40.
You should be able to win that back with a successful retaliation, surely that's the point of a retaliation?
To at least break even?

- Obviously the opposing player wouldn't lose the total 40 points he earned because then what would be the point in fighting higher ranked opponents?.

That would turn PvP into a case of 'who has the most time to play' as long as you have a reasonable roster.

Is this a problem? People that play the game should be penalized? If you played for 10 hours total per tournament, and I played for only 5, I have no reason to cry that you got better rewards. This is only for retaliations, after all. If nobody attacks me, I have my earned points. If lower ranked players attack me and they get their 40-50 points, and I lose 40-50. With a retaliation, I regain my 40-50 and they lose 4-5, where is the problem? They are at a net positive and i've lost nor gained anything. It slows down my rise to the top even. If, by chance, I get hit from a higher ranked player, I may just have to skip the retaliation, and am at a net loss. Where is the severe downside to this system? Playing more gets me more progression. Retaliating only puts me back on track.

Unknown

ToxicIntent wrote:

Eddiemon wrote:

Twysta wrote:

Actually that's a really good point. Retaliations should let you gain all the points you lost back.
So if someone with a lower points value attacks you and hits you for 40.
You should be able to win that back with a successful retaliation, surely that's the point of a retaliation?
To at least break even?

- Obviously the opposing player wouldn't lose the total 40 points he earned because then what would be the point in fighting higher ranked opponents?.

That would turn PvP into a case of 'who has the most time to play' as long as you have a reasonable roster.

Is this a problem? People that play the game should be penalized? If you played for 10 hours total per tournament, and I played for only 5, I have no reason to cry that you got better rewards. This is only for retaliations, after all. If nobody attacks me, I have my earned points. If lower ranked players attack me and they get their 40-50 points, and I lose 40-50. With a retaliation, I regain my 40-50 and they lose 4-5, where is the problem? They are at a net positive and i've lost nor gained anything. It slows down my rise to the top even. If, by chance, I get hit from a higher ranked player, I may just have to skip the retaliation, and am at a net loss. Where is the severe downside to this system? Playing more gets me more progression. Retaliating only puts me back on track.

It's a problem because the people who can devote 7-8 hrs a day or more to the game are likely to be a) kids, b) students or c) out of work, meaning they likely don't have a large disposable income.

During the week I can only play MPQ for around 30-45 hours before / after work, and maybe an hour or so at night. If that means I will never place high in a bracket - I have no incentive to spend money on building my roster.

Unknown

Veracity wrote:

abuelo wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'weak rosters'.

I've not seen a fight that wasn't either 85/85/85 or tournament character/85/85 (or some variation with 3 star 100+) in weeks.

Stalk the top 10s everyone keeps kvetching about! Not in the pay-to-register event, though.

Presumably you don't tank? My appalling performance in the LRs I get on for sometimes lets me see the odd Wolvie/OBW still but, yeah, I couldn't tell you when I last played an actual match against anything sub-85.

Tanking in LRs is about to become my new hobby. LRs tend to run when I'm at work, and can't play. However, I will have enough time to put a noob team together and throw it to the wolves.

Unknown

How do you even retaliate? I do not know how.

Unknown

MonkeySlut wrote:

How do you even retaliate? I do not know how.

It's just the red nodes you get after someone attacks you, letting you hit them back.

Changed my mind. We do need them, because they cause shielded players to get hit, which is a good thing. Not so sure we need them able to go back and forth eternally to no one's benefit between people above whatever the reduced point loss threshold is.

Vohnkar

Retaliation would be ok if for instance when I attack someone that is worth 25-30 points to me (i would be around 15-20 for him), he retaliates for that amount. The problem is if I keep playing and climb up the ranks eventually I'm hit by around -35+ points, that hurts a lot.

In the PvP event of DD I was trying to reach top 1 on my bracket, seeing that noone in the top 15 was lvl 85+ I was trying to get there, when I finally got to the 500+ points I was being hit for -25+ points. I Tried to climb faster using some boosts, but eventually I gave up and shielded at 630 points. (top 1 was 730) because all my matches were 20 points worth and I was being hit for more than that. I hope 630 will be enough to at least top 15 and get some 3* covers.

Its a shame that people with lvls 40s is higher in ranks than 80+s

Spencer75

abuelo wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'weak rosters'.

I've not seen a fight that wasn't either 85/85/85 or tournament character/85/85 (or some variation with 3 star 100+) in weeks.

When i say weak roster i mean 15 daredevil/85 Thor/85 OBW...it's all relative...

that roster will often cede points to me in retaliations...if i'm shielded, all the better, no risk of them taking points from me...

Unknown

allorin wrote:

ToxicIntent wrote:

Eddiemon wrote:

Twysta wrote:

Actually that's a really good point. Retaliations should let you gain all the points you lost back.
So if someone with a lower points value attacks you and hits you for 40.
You should be able to win that back with a successful retaliation, surely that's the point of a retaliation?
To at least break even?

- Obviously the opposing player wouldn't lose the total 40 points he earned because then what would be the point in fighting higher ranked opponents?.

That would turn PvP into a case of 'who has the most time to play' as long as you have a reasonable roster.

Is this a problem? People that play the game should be penalized? If you played for 10 hours total per tournament, and I played for only 5, I have no reason to cry that you got better rewards. This is only for retaliations, after all. If nobody attacks me, I have my earned points. If lower ranked players attack me and they get their 40-50 points, and I lose 40-50. With a retaliation, I regain my 40-50 and they lose 4-5, where is the problem? They are at a net positive and i've lost nor gained anything. It slows down my rise to the top even. If, by chance, I get hit from a higher ranked player, I may just have to skip the retaliation, and am at a net loss. Where is the severe downside to this system? Playing more gets me more progression. Retaliating only puts me back on track.

It's a problem because the people who can devote 7-8 hrs a day or more to the game are likely to be a) kids, b) students or c) out of work, meaning they likely don't have a large disposable income.

During the week I can only play MPQ for around 30-45 hours before / after work, and maybe an hour or so at night. If that means I will never place high in a bracket - I have no incentive to spend money on building my roster.

I am in the same boat as you... I play maybe 1-3 hours cumulatively for each tournament and have to be happy with what I get. If I could dedicate more time, I probably would. Working full time at 10 hours a day and then coming home to see my 4 children takes up the majority of my time. I can play after the kids go to bed, but I have to get up early in the mornings to go into work. Weekend events let me play more often, but the family obligation is still there, limiting my time. I can get to about 600 points in the 2-3 hours of play and that's fine by me. This sense of entitlement sickens me, as we all have to work at what we want. I could sacrifice my family time to play a "casual" game, but why? So that I can get 1 or 2 more 3* covers? Let's be honest here, those that play more deserve to earn more rewards. If you work 10 hours less than your coworker, do you deserve to earn the same paycheck as them? No, What is so "unfair" about this situation?

Unknown

ToxicIntent wrote:

I am in the same boat as you... I play maybe 1-3 hours cumulatively for each tournament and have to be happy with what I get. If I could dedicate more time, I probably would. Working full time at 10 hours a day and then coming home to see my 4 children takes up the majority of my time. I can play after the kids go to bed, but I have to get up early in the mornings to go into work. Weekend events let me play more often, but the family obligation is still there, limiting my time. I can get to about 600 points in the 2-3 hours of play and that's fine by me. This sense of entitlement sickens me, as we all have to work at what we want. I could sacrifice my family time to play a "casual" game, but why? So that I can get 1 or 2 more 3* covers? Let's be honest here, those that play more deserve to earn more rewards. If you work 10 hours less than your coworker, do you deserve to earn the same paycheck as them? No, What is so "unfair" about this situation?

Because the game should reward ability over availability otherwise what is the point in even pretending it's a competition? May as well just dish out a cover for every hour played.

Unknown

Because shields last for 24 hours it's not hard to play exceptionally well in a short stretch and then shield for the next 24 hour and still finish at a decent place.

Now the game probably does favor the guys who can play at odd hours, but with the recent change, it seems quite possible to actually catch up to people who are shielded from playing at odd hours because the point loss formula is somehow tweaked. I shielded at 710 with 24 hours left at #1 and finished as #5. I think that's a pretty good balance, and hitting 710 is not an unusually high score. I also skipped playing at the end which I certainly could have, because I didn't want to deal with the headache of attacking/reshielding and possibly still failing anyway. It looks like you can't solely rely on having a big early lead from a shield now, but it's also not so easy to overcome that you're wasting your time shielding.

Unknown

abuelo wrote:

ToxicIntent wrote:

I am in the same boat as you... I play maybe 1-3 hours cumulatively for each tournament and have to be happy with what I get. If I could dedicate more time, I probably would. Working full time at 10 hours a day and then coming home to see my 4 children takes up the majority of my time. I can play after the kids go to bed, but I have to get up early in the mornings to go into work. Weekend events let me play more often, but the family obligation is still there, limiting my time. I can get to about 600 points in the 2-3 hours of play and that's fine by me. This sense of entitlement sickens me, as we all have to work at what we want. I could sacrifice my family time to play a "casual" game, but why? So that I can get 1 or 2 more 3* covers? Let's be honest here, those that play more deserve to earn more rewards. If you work 10 hours less than your coworker, do you deserve to earn the same paycheck as them? No, What is so "unfair" about this situation?

Because the game should reward ability over availability otherwise what is the point in even pretending it's a competition? May as well just dish out a cover for every hour played.

This would only make sense if everyone was playing the same heroes with the same levels.

D3 can't make everything favouring what works for you. I don't see those in the West coast grumbling about tournaments that end at 09:00 while those in the East sees it as 12:00.

ToxicIntent stated it best. We should all have a life outside MPQ. If time should permit us to enjoy a few rounds, then great. But we should not build our lives around a game. If a 3* cover is more important than story time for your child, you may want to rethink things.

mischiefmaker

Tell your kids stories about that one time you shielded just in time to prevent -180 points in attacks and ended up in first place. Everyone wins!

Unknown

mischiefmaker wrote:

Tell your kids stories about that one time you shielded just in time to prevent -180 points in attacks and ended up in first place. Everyone wins!

Hah!

I think in summary I could give or take retaliations, I don't care either way. It's the impact they have on feature decision making/perception because people are worried about points that makes me wonder if the benefits outweigh the negatives.