Versus Matchmaking Test - Magnetic Mayhem (3/22/16)*Updated

123578

Comments

  • Barbarizenow
    Barbarizenow Posts: 15 Just Dropped In
    Will this fix having super easy fights for the first three matches and then getting stuck with impossible to beat matches for the rest? Every time I play the P vs. P I get to 100 points and can't get any more matches that are even remotely possible to win. Why match my championed two stars against an opponent with championed three stars?
  • waywreth
    waywreth Posts: 303 Mover and Shaker
    HaywireII wrote:
    Shouldn't Magnetic Mayhem be showing up in the versus tab if it's starting today?

    I was thinking the same thing since I don't have it listed either. I assume it'll get pushed by the Devs later today.
  • carrion_pigeons
    carrion_pigeons Posts: 942 Critical Contributor
    Ozark Boatswain wrote:
    Here's how to improve PvP: Take out all roster-based matchmaking. Put people against people with similar scores in the PvP instead. I don't play PvP for the ranking rewards because the current rubber-banding system does not reward player investment.

    That would be the worst thing ever. That would make it so everyone without a high tier 4* or 5* roster would just get run over starting from match #1. "Rewarding player investment" does not mean making everything harder for people who come after you than it was for you.

    They ought to do exactly the opposite and take out all score-based matchmaking, so that someone who puts in a 2* cupcake gets to let 2* teams eat it.
  • GrumpySmurf1002
    GrumpySmurf1002 Posts: 3,511 Chairperson of the Boards
    carrion pigeons wrote:
    so that someone who puts in a 2* cupcake gets to let 2* teams eat it.

    If you put in a 2* cake below 1k (maybe even lower), 2* teams will find you.
  • carrion_pigeons
    carrion_pigeons Posts: 942 Critical Contributor
    GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:
    carrion pigeons wrote:
    so that someone who puts in a 2* cupcake gets to let 2* teams eat it.

    If you put in a 2* cake below 1k (maybe even lower), 2* teams will find you.

    I guess I wasn't clear. They ought to take out all score-based matchmaking so that if you put in a 2* cupcake, *only* two star teams will find you.
  • HaywireII
    HaywireII Posts: 568 Critical Contributor
    Easy fixes for PvP -

    When searching for matches compare the player's roster to the teams that are available to fight, not to the rosters of those teams.

    Allow people to hit shielded players to increase the number of available matches, just don't have the shielded player lose points.
  • udonomefoo
    udonomefoo Posts: 1,630 Chairperson of the Boards
    Five pages of complaints for an event that hasn't started yet....never change MPQ forum. icon_lol.gif
  • carrion_pigeons
    carrion_pigeons Posts: 942 Critical Contributor
    HaywireII wrote:
    Easy fixes for PvP -

    When searching for matches compare the player's roster to the teams that are available to fight, not to the rosters of those teams.

    Allow people to hit shielded players to increase the number of available matches, just don't have the shielded player lose points.

    While I would love both of those changes, they are highly abusable. Combined, they would essentially make placing well require 24 hour play.

    That said, it would make progression rewards super easy to get, and give us an easy place to farm Iso forever, so I wouldn't be complaining. The broken thing about MPQ is how it pits you against the entire playerbase. Every implementation is going to suck as long as that stays true, but making shields as exploitable as possible would be a great way to minimize the suckage.
  • HaywireII
    HaywireII Posts: 568 Critical Contributor
    I don't understand how that would be abusable but I'm too new to the game to know all the ins and outs. I just understand now that the reason I get hit by 3 people at the same time every time I get over 600 points is that most of the other players are shielded and my 3* champions are a juicy target to all of the 4* players. If the list of available targets included all people playing the event then we'd be less likely to be attacked by 3 different players while we are playing one round.

    It feels silly that 4* players are stopping me from getting to the progression point for the 3* cover.
  • Tryke
    Tryke Posts: 320 Mover and Shaker
    udonomefoo wrote:
    Five pages of complaints for an event that hasn't started yet....never change MPQ forum. icon_lol.gif

    Everyone got caught up in the "same formula used for the PvE test" part.

    "OMG my PVP nodes are gona scale like crazy after I play them 7 times and then I get no rewards afterwards!"

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    HaywireII wrote:
    Allow people to hit shielded players to increase the number of available matches
    Step 1: Player with champed 5s does a leisurely climb to 2,000.
    Step 2: He beats a seed time with a 1* roster and shields.
    Step 3: Everyone else in his bracket now has an easy road to 2,000 points.

    I LOVE THIS IDEA!!!
  • David [Hi-Fi] Moore
    David [Hi-Fi] Moore Posts: 2,872 Site Admin
    The original post has been updated with additional info on Power Levels.
  • thanos8587
    thanos8587 Posts: 653
    "David wrote:
    Moore"]The original post has been updated with additional info on Power Levels.

    well im sure that satisfies everyone. right? icon_e_biggrin.gif
  • CaptainFrugal
    CaptainFrugal Posts: 67
    After some time in the PVE, I must say I am not confident in this change.
    Some ideas were good but the scaling was crazy.
    How hard is it to create a system that removes character outliers? Getting a 5 star cripples a person with a mostly 2 star team.
    Consider making a system with more balance when determining the scale, that seems to be one of the biggest issues.
  • LegendReborn
    LegendReborn Posts: 301
    Thanks for confirming that the devs are planning on basing progression on covers rather than the massive drought of iso that has plagued the game for over a year. It's great to know that my roster's strength is measured by a metric that doesn't gauge the maximum potential of my roster as iso prevents me from just maxing everyone out that the devs apparently think I should be doing (looking at the terrible PVE overscaling).
  • HaywireII
    HaywireII Posts: 568 Critical Contributor
    simonsez wrote:
    HaywireII wrote:
    Allow people to hit shielded players to increase the number of available matches
    Step 1: Player with champed 5s does a leisurely climb to 2,000.
    Step 2: He beats a seed time with a 1* roster and shields.
    Step 3: Everyone else in his bracket now has an easy road to 2,000 points.

    I LOVE THIS IDEA!!!


    Ok..I see the abuse there. Don't know what to do about it. Only having a choice of 5 players I can't beat as my available options just means I'm done playing. Knowing that if I break a shield I'm going to get hit by 3 players while I play one match means I shield once that lasts to the end of PvP. Neither one of these things is making any money for the developers.
  • SnowcaTT
    SnowcaTT Posts: 3,486 Chairperson of the Boards
    Would it really be so hard to have it take into account not total number of covers, but average number of your levels? Then scaling would look at your entire roster, not just the top ones - and it wouldn't be looking at all of those characters you have no ISO to level.

    I am very concerned that if it is looking at number of covers, it may be looking at number of champion levels as well. So now if I was a 3* player that has a level 175 Magneto scale up to level 300, am I seeing nothing but 5*'s?!?
  • CaptainFrugal
    CaptainFrugal Posts: 67
    edited March 2016
    See the scaling problem here?

    2 five star characters with one cover.
    Next highest characters- 3, 2 star characters levels 144,142,136.

    This pushes one to get rid of the 5 star characters.

    Previously I was able to progress to earn the 25 command points 2 times in a row, now I cannot even get close.

    Now this scaling will be applied to PVP...I sure hope they listen to the results of the test.
  • Bulls
    Bulls Posts: 141 Tile Toppler
    SnowcaTT wrote:
    Would it really be so hard to have it take into account not total number of covers, but average number of your levels? Then scaling would look at your entire roster, not just the top ones - and it wouldn't be looking at all of those characters you have no ISO to level.

    I guess because it would be so easy to abuse (just go through some of the top roosters with that maxed 5*... then scroll to the end of their rooster and check how many halfly covered 1* mbw at lvl1 they have, then count averange lvl and think if normal players with that avarange lvl would like to meet them icon_e_wink.gif )
  • LeRoy
    LeRoy Posts: 10
    I'm probably missing something obvious here, so I acknowledge that upfront, but would love for someone to point it out to me. Instead of counting total levels, why not count levels above the initial starting point? So a 4 star comes onto your roster at level 70, don't count that, but instead count each actual level worth of ISO that a player puts into that character. So a maxed 4 star would count for 200 instead of 270. Characters (like the dreaded 1 or 2 cover 5 stars) that aren't ever leveled beyond their initial 255) wouldn't kill you. This way players aren't penalized for rostering a character, and they only experience scaling/match-making implications once they actually level up a character on their own. Using the number of covers seems like an absolutely bizarre mechanism for assessing roster strength. Again, I will count on the more mathematically/statistically inclined to point out any flaws in the suggestion, but, on the surface, it seems to make more sense to me than anything the devs have come up with so far. Thoughts?

Categories