Cupcakes,for or against?

Tryke

PorkBelly wrote:

So your opinion of cupcakes is...assorted cheeses?

Jarvind

I think they're kind of dumb personally; it takes what is supposed to be a competition and turns it into an orchestrated throwing of fights instead.

That said, unless some measure is taken to prevent it (and I don't even know what that would be), people are gonna do it, so no point getting raged about it.

TxMoose

bakers gonna bake bake bake bake...

ugh...teenage daughters...

PorkBelly

Tryke wrote:

So your opinion of cupcakes is...assorted cheeses?

I thought it would go well with a lot of the whining in this thread.

PeterGibbons316

PorkBelly wrote:

Tryke wrote:

So your opinion of cupcakes is...assorted cheeses?

I thought it would go well with a lot of the whining in this thread.

firethorne

carrion pigeons wrote:

Cupcakes are not the illness. Cupcakes are a symptom.

...

We need a better design than shields and zero-sum rewards structures. There are tons of viable design directions the designers could take, but they would all have the simple basic requirement of letting people compete by actually playing the game.

Well said. I think it is clear that cupcakes are a symptom of a much bigger problem of a poorly designed PvP system that doesn't take any advantage of one of the biggest benefits of asynchronous gameplay, the ability to play when you want. It thinks it wants to be asynchronous, with multiple day long events, but truly isn't asynchronous as you can get attacked at any time. So, what can be done? Just my own brainstorming, feel free to criticise or offer refinements...

Option 1. Base points not on current ranking, but on an algorithm comparing the two teams in question. We already have PvE that ranks nodes as trivial, easy, normal, etc. Points could be awarded along these lines, rather than where the players currently sit on the ladder. This would also help to give a more natural way for tiers to develop within a shared space, as 4 and 5 star teams wouldn't have much incentive to hit transitioning players as hard. Still, perhaps it doesn't take the best advantage of it being asynchronous. Not my favorite idea.

Option 2. Embrace asynchronous gameplay. To do this, you have to radically change the zero-sum point loss sheild hopping mess. Racing games have a lot easier time at this, as you can throw everyone the exact same challenge, and a player's time on the leaderboard is completely independent of the actions of others. And, MPQ paints itself into a corner a bit by saying the actions of the AI playing for you have just as much weight as your actions. The amount you should get penalized for the AI (probably poorly) playing your team should be minimal.

But, then the question is how to prevent the game from becoming, "He who grinds the most wins." And that brings us to...

Option 3. Risk and reward. Steer away from the current tournament system entirely. Take a page from Future Fight, in what you beat is what you get. Granted, Future Fight has a more steady progression system, where you start out with 1* characters and over time make them into 6*, feeding them hundreds of bio's (sort of like covers) along the way for each rank. So, there, awarding a cover per round isn't a big deal. Now that we have championing, something along those lines might have a little viability, but a cover per match would be a bit much, sure. That said, maybe offer CP or big iso bonuses for tackling teams well above your level. Make the game not about points in the tournament as a whole, but giving more weight and encouraging people to take on individual challenges. As said by some other people, the game is more about progression than placement anymore. Lean into that, and make progression rewards from meaningful wins instead of a series of pushover matches cooked up by their buddies. People won't want to make 1* and 2* challenges for their buddies, because 1* and 2* challenges will have measly rewards. Make players want to take on their their friends 4* and 5* teams, because they could get a few CP for a win.

TheOncomingStorm

Let's be honest pvp is broken. Perhaps it always has and always will be broken.

Top players have always been ahead of the the game and continue to overcome each new obstacle mpq throws at them.

In the end, the question that matters is what pvp supposed to be? If it is intended up be a "king of the hill" feature, then it needs to be designed that way. In other words, snipers, cup cakes, shield hopping, etc. would have to go. Until then, the current system is designed (intentionally or not) to be alliance vs alliance and many alliances cooperating together.

That said, with the pace of progression set up in mpq, one that does not provide adequate rewards for time put in, I do not view pvp as player vs player. I view it as players vs an insufficient rewards system. Therfore, whatever players can do to help each other should be encouraged. Of course there are always bullies and just mean spirited people who wear the false garments of "competition" and "because I can" as a prelude to their darker natures.

A true competitor welcomes competition. They do not detest players playing under the same rules as being unworthy adversaries. If you look at the best mpq players, they continue to be the same ones regardless of the changes.

simonsez

PorkBelly wrote:

Tryke wrote:

So your opinion of cupcakes is...assorted cheeses?

I thought it would go well with a lot of the whining in this thread.

I thought you were just cutting the cheese...

lukewin

firethorne wrote:

Option 1. Base points not on current ranking, but on an algorithm comparing the two teams in question.
Option 2. Embrace asynchronous gameplay.
Option 3. Risk and reward. Steer away from the current tournament system entirely.

None of these seem better options to the current system. And as for option 3, I highly doubt any game developer would want to take a page from a competitor's game.

I'll also add that most of the suggestions I see, could be great in theory, but implementing them might not be so easy, which I think is a big factor in them not being adopted.

simonsez

firethorne wrote:

Understood, but then why is it that the devs don't just give all placement rewards simply for participating?

If other threads are to be believed, it's still almost "impossible" to hit all the progression awards in PvP, so apparently cupcakes aren't the panacea you seem to think they are.

Ruinate

Pvp without cupcakes would be like pve heroic except worse. I see no difference between constantly fighting 395 Juggs and constantly fighting 395 Hulkbusters while using the same small handful of characters. Except in pvp, you lose points. I thought many of us hated pve. Especially the crowd that can hit top ranks in pvp.

I think it's weird when people are concerned about the integrity of pvp in this game in it's current state. This game is a p2w, character imbalanced, play against the ai, directly purchase power, low skill cap **** fest of a game. If true pvp is what you want, there are many out there. Games with a real esport backing. Games where you can make a **** load of money if you are good, not a game where you pay a **** load to be "good". League of Legends, Starcraft, Street Fighter, Counter Strike etc.

SnowcaTT

carrion pigeons wrote:

Cupcakes are not the illness. Cupcakes are a symptom.

The PvP game has always been subject to being gamed because it's always been easy to disconnect a player's score from their difficulty as an opponent. But that isn't the problem. Every competitive game requires certain behaviors in order to sit at the top. The difference between a good competitive game and a bad competitive game is whether or not those behaviors lead to an engaging experience or not.

And therein lies the problem with MPQ PvP: the biggest barrier to success is a faceless zombie horde of players who are bent on devouring you and gnawing on your bones, and you have no recourse for dealing with them in an engaging way. The only means of handling them at all is the inherently unsportsmanlike tactic of holding yourself aloof from any competition at all. Of *course* people are going to try to figure out ways to optimize shielding! It's a feature without any design advantages at all! Shielding doesn't help you play the game in a more fun way. At a fundamental level, shielding requires you to *not play the game*. It shouldn't be surprising that people are going to look at that feature and figure out ways to get some actual gaming out of it. The people who play MPQ are gamers. It isn't reasonable to give them a game, tell them "the only way to win is not to play" and expect them to just sit back and relax. That's not what gamers do. When exploits are the only way to make the game engaging, then of course exploits are going to become part of the strategy of the game.

We need a better design than shields and zero-sum rewards structures. There are tons of viable design directions the designers could take, but they would all have the simple basic requirement of letting people compete by actually playing the game.

It is a bummer this post is in the 2nd half of page 3, this is fantastic.

One idea I threw out there when I was 3* transitioning (ages ago now) was timers on your points. You attack, and each hour your "point value" to anyone drops by 1, or 5, or whatever.

The point I was trying to make eighteen months ago is coming around again - the PVP's are starting to feel like LR's. At the time, the very few 4* rosters could just run over everyone else in the last three hours with little concern about retals. Let's see...is there some situation that happens today that makes it feel the same way?

At the time I was trying to suggest some mechanism that would encourage play throughout the 2.5 day event, rather just in the last eight hours. PVP could dearly use that mechanic still today.

kalex716

simonsez wrote:

jimstarooney wrote:

It robs ppl of placement because like i said,ppl that would struggle to hit 1.3 without them can all of a sudden hit 2k as they are facing easy teams from 850 up.

And I said EVERYONE can do it, so no one's getting robbed. Are trivial nodes robbing you of PvE placement?

Can I get an invite to your line room?

Stax the Foyer

udonomefoo wrote:

I don't have a strong opinion either way, I'm just here to note that the arguments I'm seeing here about seed teams and cupcakes being the same thing are the stupidest thing I will read all day. Guaranteed.

Bravo. Well done. Please don't make me come back and explain how stupid this is. Just think about it for a couple seconds.

Exactly. I, for one, take pride in occasionally being able to bake cupcakes that are easier than seed teams.

firethorne

I just had another idea for better/more meaningful async reward structures. How about the addition of a layer of some sort of per event checklist, with rewards for specific tasks?

Like:
Defeat a team with a 2* Champion - 500 ISO
Defeat a team with a 3* Champion - 1000 ISO
Defeat a team with a 4* Champion - 1 CP
Defeat a champion featured character - 1 event token
...
...
Complete all other checklist items 25 CP

The checklist would need some more fleshing out, but I think the idea would offer more for asynchronous play and help get away from shields and a point ladder. Having it be champions would help to make sure it wasn't abused. I mean, you might end up seeing things like cupcake champion baglady matches. But ultimately, that would be more of a spotlight on flawed characters that need buffs, and could be addressed by making weak characters better balanced.

Stax the Foyer

Jamie Madrox wrote:

This should start something.

I'm against cupcakes. They're the MPQ equivalent of up up down down left right left right B A Start. Sure you're "beating the game", but you're not really playing it or challenging yourself. You're using a defect in the game to play it in a way not intended by the developers.

That said, cupcakes are just another example of the the players working around a broken system that needs an overhaul. Characters being released too quickly, ISO being in too short of supply to level characters, 5* characters being unevenly awarded to players and then so overpowered that they've broken the game. All of these are reasons why cupcakes (and shield hopping) exist.

Some of you will say I'm a hypocrite. Sure. I was a prolific baker for a few seasons (Villains Inc Season XXIII Master Baker), but I only started doing it in the first place because I felt pressured to do so by the other players in the alliances I was in. Baking is so ingrained in the psyche of the top alliances now that if you frontrun and don't bake you're ridiculed by the other players. "Eat 3 bake 1" was a phrase I saw more than once early on when I wasn't yet cupcaking a lot. Players that climb late on cupcakes and don't bake or only bake a few times are publically and privately decried for not being team players. Floating for too long and eating cakes because you have a strong 5* team is also met with negative feedback.

So now I play differently. I don't cupcake. I don't do coordinated shield hopping anymore. I rarely # check someone or skip a high value target even if I recognize their name. Cupcakes get eaten immediately and multiple times if I can find them again. I'm playing the closest to PVP that this game allows and it's been liberating.

The real takeaway from all of this discussion is that PVP needs a drastic overhaul. Specifically, we need:

1. Leagues - Tiered events with limited (by rarity) rosters and rewards that match.
   • Novice - Use only 1* or 2* characters. Rewards are 3* characters (top placement) and 2* for rest.
   • Expert - Use only 2* or 3* characters. Rewards are 4* characters (top placement) and 3* for rest.
   • Master - Use only 3* or 4* characters. Rewards are 5* characters (top placement) and 4* for rest.
   • Elite - Buy-in events with HP. Use only 5* characters. Rewards are 5* characters and increased ISO/HP/Covers/etc.
2. More ISO - Double to triple the current ISO rewards across the board.
3. Lightning Rounds - Make them 24/7 and rotate through all characters.

By no means is this a perfect fix for the issues we face as players, but it's a good start that would ensure the long-term viability of the game and player retention.

I agree with all of the suggestions you made, but I don't agree with the opening implication that if you're cupcaking you're not really playing the game or challenging yourself. As long as I have time, I can climb easily to well above progression, without cupcakes. Progression isn't a challenge for me, it's just something that takes time, like DDQ or a PvE grind. Top ranking is a challenge, but that's not one I have the schedule for lately, so I don't try for it.

Cupcaking is a different kind of challenge, which isn't for everyone, and that's fine. It gives me a chance to play with some of the other characters on my roster, which is a nice change of pace. More importantly (to me), it lets me help other people who can benefit from the cupcakes.

I'll give as good as I get, and happily engage in PvP with people who want that kind of playstyle, but generally prefer to play in a cooperative manner, and help other people reach progression or other goals. That's still MPQ, even if it's an emergent style of gameplay, rather than an intended one. I don't do it as much anymore, but that's because of MMR quirks for developed rosters, not because I don't think it's fun.

That said, I'd love the tiered gameplay above. I think the biggest reason that cupcakes exist is that the current rewards system doesn't do enough to incentivize truly competitive PvP. The only reason that high-level PvP exists this game at the moment is for pride and challenge, not because the top awards are anything special. Change the rewards, as you did in your proposal above, and you change the game.

Pylgrim

I was kind of baffled to learn that some people could be against ccs, but after reading through the thread a clear pattern has emerged: The people against are all ones that do NOT need ccs to reach the highest progression rewards and despise the fact that those who wouldn't be able to hit them can. The entitlement of certain 4* and above players is disconcerting and disgusting. First, "Hey 3* players, we don't like that your boosted characters some times can beat our unboosted 4*s, so we'll gladly support the nerfing of the whole tier," and now "hey, 3* players, we don't like that a method exists for you to reach the higher progression rewards, what was the point of nerfing you, then? Let's speak against this unholy method."

These people don't understand the desperate urgency with which 3* players need to reach 1k points. (Or maybe, they do understand and actually take some sort of grotesque pleasure in crushing or barring the people that are below them?) For you, 4* players, reaching 1k is trivial and you get to add your 20th or so championed cover to your Hulkbuster, while people who still have to finish him and for whom that 1K reward is the SOLE certain path to do so, have to fight that 19 times championed HB, Iceman, JG and/or similar with their nerfed boosted 3*s. And you'd have cupcakes removed as well? Throwing grandiose words like "challenge" and "ethics" and "integrity" while being blatantly self-serving and petty? While being mindbogglingly hypocritical as you, too, will happily eat those cupcakes reaping their admittedly unneeded benefits?

Why in the world would you speak against a system that harms you in absolutely no way, but whose removal would greatly affect a group of people? The argument of the OP for the "harm" is ridiculous. As a 3* player that has been endlessly sniped while trying to reach 1.3k on cupcakes, I can tell you how the fact that my easy-to-snack-on 3* team is giving you 70+ points while you were climbing around the 800 point mark is an undeniable benefit of this "broken system" for you.

I'm going to agree with the more grounded arguments that cupcakes are the result of a broken system, but until the system is fixed, can you please stop being antagonical to those below you? Or is it that being a 4* player is for you some kind of exclusive club (into which many of you were admitted by luck alone) that you intend to protect from us, rabble, to get into?

dan54321

I'm for cupcakes. They make the game more fun. It pretty much comes down to that.

When I bake, I feel super happy to see that people who aren't even on my team have eaten a cupcake and have gotten that little jolt of +70 or whatever -- especially when I check their rosters and see they are people with 2* or 3* rosters. I love knowing that I brightened their day a little, just as other people have done for me.

People with the strongest rosters are still getting the highest scores, as others have pointed out. Really, if you think that cupcakes are a form of cheating (and I do not -- it's a clever team-based strategy for a team-based game), you should stop eating them yourself. Would you cheat on a test because one of the other cheaters in the class left the answers lying in front of you? People who are really against cheating wouldn't do that -- since cupcake haters are doing the equivalent (and again, I don't consider cupcakes cheating personally, I'm just holding them to their own standards), something else has to explain why they are decrying cupcakes while still gorging on them.

ZeroKarma

The existence of cupcakes and snipers and massive shield check rooms on LINE are a result of the way the PvP system was built. Several months ago, I was an outsider and didn't realize or understand what was going on behind the scenes. I was actually labeled a sniper! Though I really had no idea about the concept.

Since joining a new alliance, getting involved on LINE, my engagement and enjoyment has dramatically increased. There is a whole community that takes this game very seriously, talk about it constantly and work together to maximize their efforts for group gain. Isn't this, at the end, good for the game as a whole and keeping it alive?

Cupcakes are a way for alliances to help their teammates to higher scores, just like boosting. It just so happens that this includes "alliances" in the form of shield check rooms. It is not as easy as some would make it sound to get this process started, and baking a cc is hands down the biggest rush in this game. Knowing you have 1 minute before snipers and anyone not coordinating will hit and blast you out of the sky for -150 points wakes you up in the morning! It is a different challenge and adds an element of fun trying to come up with random teams. (Look for my Moonstone/2Marvel specials) Beating a 4* team with a max OML and Phoenix is peanuts compared to winning with a TU and a prayer.

As people have mentioned, the guys/gals who place the highest still have the strongest rosters for the most part. They are also the ones feeding points into the slice and many tend to be bakers. Additionally, those 4* and lower teams that score 2k? They are spending literally hours with this game and making up for their roster with engagement and coordination. They are not just sitting around not contributing.

Finally, get rid of the cupcakes. Hell, find ways to eliminate out of game coordination. What could possibly happen if you eliminate something that people are having fun with (unlike scaling, RNG, etc) and alienate a large slice of your most engaged player base?

firethorne

Pylgrim wrote:

I was kind of baffled to learn that some people could be against ccs, but after reading through the thread a clear pattern has emerged: The people against are all ones that do NOT need ccs to reach the highest progression rewards and despise the fact that those who wouldn't be able to hit them can. The entitlement of certain 4* and above players is disconcerting and disgusting.

I'm against them. I've never hit 1300. I occasionally make 1000, but not on a regular interval. I'm think I'm more casual than a lot of the people that are for I don't have any max 4*s. I simply don't want to participate in getting into line chats so I can be pressured into throwing matches so I can. What I find disconcerting and disgusting is how widespread use of exploits are. Heck, I learned about a kind of exploit for bracket entry I didn't even know existed, and it was casually dropped as if it was standard practice on the devs forum.

No, my reason is simple. A game where you feel pressured to exploit the system isn't a good thing. I think more of the casual side are even more unaware of this sort of behavior. I sort of knew it existed, but am now gaining a realization that it is a lot more widespread than I had originally thought, and that kind of skeeves me out.