Poll: should 4* PVP exist -instead- of 3*?

SnowcaTT

Elektra, exciting!

It would be nice to see a variety of 4* PVP with 4* rewards at 800 for the 4* transition,
-Alongside- the 3* PVP with 3* rewards at 800 for the 3* transition.

I'm not so sure how folks would feel about older 4*'s being used often as the PVP essential if there aren't better/easier rewards and ISO so those 4*'s would be easier for all to get access to and use out of.

Let's see what folks think, eh?

itstime1234

Are you sure she will be the 800 prize?

4* pvps usually have the person as the 1K prize

SnowcaTT

itstime1234 wrote:

Are you sure she will be the 800 prize?

4* pvps usually have the person as the 1K prize

Oh, it's probably 3* at 800. I'm just being a bit sarcastic there -- if they want to do 4* PVP's often, and are only releasing 4*'s as new characters, and expect 4*'s to be used...they need to hand out -specific- 4*'s more often. I doubt they will.

Edited OP a bit - it did look like I was just declaring 4*'s at 800 as a given. As many have said, 4*'s alone wouldn't do it - these events would also need to drop lots more iso rewards along the way.

Just trying to see what folks want....and hoping D3 sees that as well!

Bulls

I would like to see something like a league style with separate tiers - 2*, 3*, 4*, 5* With rewards proper to each tier. Tough I would definitly avoid something like 4* on lower points or 5* covers at all, but increasing iso and some more cp would be already good. At the end of each season if you score enough you have option to advance into next tier or decide to stay in your curent one.

GrumpySmurf1002

Like it or not a humongous big portion of the player base is still in the 2 & 3 star worlds, so 4* only isn't really a solution.

I think I'd rather see 3* run side by side with 4*, but even then the root cause of a lot of the problems is the reward structure.

3* PvP w/ the current PvE reward structure (3 4* covers 1st, 1 for top 10) is probably the best solution, along with doubling the iso for each reward. Add in progression rewards at 1100-1200 and you're more on the path to breathing some life in the game.

Slarow

Each PVP should have a 3* required teamup OR a 4* required teamup. Example: instead of a Spidey event, it would be a Spidey/Hulkbuster event. On a Spidey/Hulkbuster event, your middle character is either a loaner spidey, your own spidey, or your own Hulkbuster. It would allow people in 4* land to play full 4* teams (or 4*/5* teams) instead of being forced to always take along a (mostly useless) 3*.

Add more rewards higher up in the progression, and more rewards lower down in the placement (as they did with PVE), and thats all that would need to change. Separating into two separate PVP events will cause too many issues with skewing meta-game (e.g. people having to decide when to swap to the "veteran" PVP and go from being gods to being trounced)

Polares

They need to run two separate events at the same time where you need to sign to one or the other. And of course the PvP for 4s should have a different reward structure. Basically one should be for 2-3s and the other one for 3-4s (I guess it is too early to start giving 5s as rewards for PvP...). This would also help MMR make less mistakes... (Of course if a team of 2s enters in the 4s PvP it would probably be obliterated).

One of the main differences is that in the 4s PvP they need to give better iso rewards!

TxMoose

Polares wrote:

(Of course if a team of 2s enters in the 4s PvP it would probably be obliterated).

just wanted to point out something I saw in the spidey pvp. a t10 alliance has a member with a roster capped at 109 (champed 2s and some 3s, but not all 3s fully covered). who scored 1352 (currently - slice is close to ending). I think someone's trying to make a point with that one. thought it was a cake, but didn't look right, so I looked at the roster and alliance and well, there you go.

edit: he finished with 1499 lol.

GrumpySmurf1002

TxMoose wrote:

Polares wrote:

(Of course if a team of 2s enters in the 4s PvP it would probably be obliterated).

just wanted to point out something I saw in the spidey pvp. a t10 alliance has a member with a roster capped at 109 (champed 2s and some 3s, but not all 3s fully covered). who scored 1352 (currently - slice is close to ending). I think someone's trying to make a point with that one. thought it was a cake, but didn't look right, so I looked at the roster and alliance and well, there you go.

I'm told he averages more than 1600.

TxMoose

that kinda shows coordination trumps roster strength, but it would be awful rough for him when the entire slice is running leveled 4s. and the only guys going with the 4* league over the 3* league will have at least few top guys maxed/champed. easiest teams in the slice will be unboosted jeanbusters. would make for something interesting, but not sure how 'enjoyable' it would be, depending on the rewards structure - which I have no faith in them getting right.

mpqr7

The challenge with two separate pvps is that you'd then need to have two separate alliance groups. One for 3* pvps only and another for 4* pvps. I can't do both pvps concurrently.. I barely have time to do one pvp every 3 days, let alone two.

So this may break up a lot of alliances. Presumably someone who does 3* pvps could score higher than someone who does 4* pvps. I guess we'll see.

I like the current way of dropping some 4* pvps for older characters in the middle of the season. It stirs things up a bit. I hope that the 4* pvps have better prizes.

TxMoose

mpqr7 wrote:

Presumably someone who does 3* pvps could score higher than someone who does 4* pvps.

it will lead to a lot of collateral shifts in the dynamic of the game and would need to be THOROUGHLY thought through. do seasons get split? can alliances have members split between the levels? the slices, if kept the same, would get thinned out considerably and placements might be much easier in the lower tier. problem is all the guys who know how to build points from the top will be in the upper league. I don't think scoring will be higher in the lower groups, but I do think placement will be much easier. overall slice scoring is tied much more to how much the big dogs in the group feed the lower guys than ease of winning matches. and ease of scoring is vastly different from slice to slice and exclusive leagues would exacerbate that disparity even more with all the big dogs leaving for the big dog level leagues. like I said, it would be very interesting, but I have no faith in them getting it right. at least initially, and things move at a glacial pace, so I'm not sure I have the patience for dealing with a crapload of screwed up stuff.

PeterGibbons316

The longer the game continues to be successful, the greater the need for tiered play. When there were just a handful of 4*s a new player could still kind of compete in the same events. But PvP has gotten pretty ridiculous for the newish players (~6 months in, working on 3*s), having to compete with guys that have more than 2 years under their belt, a whole slew of 4* champs and some playable 5*s on their roster.

The competing philosophies are whether or not a new player should be able to compete with someone that has been playing for 2+ years, or if everyone should be able to have at least some success in all events. In the past it didn't matter, but as more and more people progress into the world of playable 5* rosters a choice is going to have to be made.

firethorne

Tiers still feel like a bit of a bandage on a far deeper issue of a flawed PvP system where you lose points for what the ai does and queuing up your buddies cupcakes and buying shields is far more important than making any significant wins. As long as these problems exist, any tiers will just become microcosms of the same flawed system. We need to change the model more radically and do more to make asynchronous play an advantage, not something you have to put in cludges like shield hops to get around. I posted some of these in the cupcake thread a week or two back:

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.

One way to do this would be keep ladder rewards as is, but add in a second layer of achievement based rewards, that could be completed once per event. Defeat a championed feature character, get one 2000 ISO. Defeat a team with an combined level 100 above yours, 1 CP. Defeat a team with three champions, defeat a team that defeated you, etc. Make people want to take on challenges, and allow then to do them on their own schedule without penalty.

stowaway

Right now we have a system where everyone joins the only PvP that's available, and plays as much as they're willing or able. And we've been told that the average score in PvP is below 300 points. Top 100 is the only thing that matters to most forum goers, and it's easy to forget that for top 100 to exist, 400 people have to place below it.

A system where players are self-selecting for more competitive rewards (i.e., choosing between 3* and 4* PvP) would mean suddenly having brackets of 500 people who are all used to scoring at least 800 points. A competitive but not hyper competitive person used to about 75th place (I'm talking about myself here) would suddenly find himself placing 475th. I'd love to see a complete overhaul of PvP, but I don't think side-by-side events is the answer. EDIT: Unless they change the reward structure completely.

Having occasional 4* events would certainly be interesting, though. I look forward to seeing how it goes.

RWTDBurn

stowaway wrote:

A system where players are self-selecting for more competitive rewards (i.e., choosing between 3* and 4* PvP) would mean suddenly having brackets of 500 people who are all used to scoring at least 800 points. A competitive but not hyper competitive person used to about 75th place (I'm talking about myself here) would suddenly find himself placing 475th. I'd love to see a complete overhaul of PvP, but I don't think side-by-side events is the answer. EDIT: Unless they change the reward structure completely.

The current system kind of does this to us already to a lesser extent but without giving us better rewards. If you score 1300+ long enough you get grouped with the top players in all of your brackets for both the PvP events and the season event. You suddenly go from top 5 every event to 1500 not being good enough to even get you in the top 50. Averaging 1500 per event and scoring 2000+ in the Sim may not even land you in the top 100 for the season. With the bracketing system now, veteran players get less rewards per event than they did when they were getting lower scores. That leads to some of those players quitting because their success has punished them.

For the long term health of the game, there needs to be more 4* events, one way or another. With 5*s being the new kings of the mountain and all events requiring 3*s, new 4*s have lost almost all value. I have 2, almost 3 usable 5*s and I've found myself not really caring about getting covers for the new 4*s. I don't really have a need for them. My ISO is now going to 5*s, not 4*s. There is actually more value in maxing out some of my old 3*s than there is for me to spend anymore ISO on a 4* that I won't ever truly need. That also takes away a lot of the motivation to play the game. Vets like myself have all the 3*s, don't need any additional 4*s, and really only use our 5*s, Hulk Buster, or Jean Grey making the game extremely repetitive. That is a seriously flawed system.

PeterGibbons316

RWTDBurn wrote:

Vets like myself have all the 3*s, don't need any additional 4*s, and really only use our 5*s, Hulk Buster, or Jean Grey making the game extremely repetitive. That is a seriously flawed system.

I don't agree with only using JeanBuster, as a diverse 4* roster can field far better teams depending on the matchup and what characters are boosted. This past event I took very few losses with my boosted Carnage for example.

I do agree that a developed 5* roster ruins the PvP experience. If you have one or two 5*s at 405+ you should pretty much always be using them. And always fighting similar teams with the same 2 characters is really not a very enjoyable experience.

Linkster79

For the long term health of the game I feel there needs to be tiered play. Players can choose between which tier they wish to join thus locking themselves out of the other one. If done correctly alliances should be able to stay together if they so wish as event scores still count towards season totals.

RWTDBurn

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

RWTDBurn wrote:

Vets like myself have all the 3*s, don't need any additional 4*s, and really only use our 5*s, Hulk Buster, or Jean Grey making the game extremely repetitive. That is a seriously flawed system.

I don't agree with only using JeanBuster, as a diverse 4* roster can field far better teams depending on the matchup and what characters are boosted. This past event I took very few losses with my boosted Carnage for example.

I do agree that a developed 5* roster ruins the PvP experience. If you have one or two 5*s at 405+ you should pretty much always be using them. And always fighting similar teams with the same 2 characters is really not a very enjoyable experience.

I agree that a diverse 4* roster can field better teams, but my point is it's not needed once you have high enough 5*s. You can just throw in the same 2 5*s with the featured 3* and never use a 4* again. 4*s are now like 2*s in PvP. They are a transitional step and once you are past them you don't really need them anymore and there is really no need to chase after the new ones at that point. The only real difference is that most people aren't at that point yet.

jffdougan

mpqr7 wrote:

The challenge with two separate pvps is that you'd then need to have two separate alliance groups. One for 3* pvps only and another for 4* pvps. I can't do both pvps concurrently.. I barely have time to do one pvp every 3 days, let alone two.

So this may break up a lot of alliances. Presumably someone who does 3* pvps could score higher than someone who does 4* pvps. I guess we'll see.

I like the current way of dropping some 4* pvps for older characters in the middle of the season. It stirs things up a bit. I hope that the 4* pvps have better prizes.

I think what was suggested above was to have two concurrent PVP events, but that entering one of them locks you out of the other. That's actually pretty similar to the design I started to sketch out for a Civil War PVE event a little over a year ago, when Demiurge was advertising for an intern. I went so far as to PM one of the reds about whether existing tech allowed for such a thing.

(Around the same time, I was noodling ideas for Kate Bishop (Hawkeye), roughly 2/3 of which looks an awful lot like 3BE - however, as I remember it, this was before he was unveiled.)

SnowcaTT

jffdougan wrote:

mpqr7 wrote:

The challenge with two separate pvps is that you'd then need to have two separate alliance groups. One for 3* pvps only and another for 4* pvps. I can't do both pvps concurrently.. I barely have time to do one pvp every 3 days, let alone two.

So this may break up a lot of alliances. Presumably someone who does 3* pvps could score higher than someone who does 4* pvps. I guess we'll see.

I like the current way of dropping some 4* pvps for older characters in the middle of the season. It stirs things up a bit. I hope that the 4* pvps have better prizes.

I think what was suggested above was to have two concurrent PVP events, but that entering one of them locks you out of the other. That's actually pretty similar to the design I started to sketch out for a Civil War PVE event a little over a year ago, when Demiurge was advertising for an intern. I went so far as to PM one of the reds about whether existing tech allowed for such a thing.

(Around the same time, I was noodling ideas for Kate Bishop (Hawkeye), roughly 2/3 of which looks an awful lot like 3BE - however, as I remember it, this was before he was unveiled.)

Might as well let folks run both, right? If you eliminate all 5*'s and boosted 4*'s (or even all the 4*'s!) in the lower tier PVP, you'll still have folks that perhaps have no maxed 4* competing with anyone who has all the 4*'s, since they can use the 3*'s to T100 in these with a bit of effort (shielding). 3* could still be the lower reward (800) to help finishing that transition, 4* could still be the upper rewards to get to the next level.

In fact, it would be great for D3 - not only do you have folks transitioning, but perhaps more spending on health packs since anyone running both events would probably be health-pack strained. It also would give a continuing reason for folks to continue to level 3*'s - they would all be useful (and some of the best characters) in this format!

Then you can run the 4* PVP essentials with boosted 4*'s in rotation (and 5*'s unboosted), with 4* at 800 to help finishing that transition, and only CP beyond that to get to the next level (or even 5*'s once there are enough of them!).

Sure, some alliances would run 3* only, some would run 4* only, and some would run both - and some members of some alliances might have to shift around to find an alliance that fits what they want to (can) do. But that's no different than alliance requirements currently, from season to season individual players may decide they can do more or less pushing.