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

JeffCascadian

OK. I'm late to this discussion and didn't read the rest of the comments.

I liked the scaling in this PVP a lot more then the experimental scaling of "Enemy of the State." I put off playing for a bit but discovered when I did that I was finding matches that were actually playable far easier than I normally do.

I'd done the easy matches soon after "Magnetic Mayhem" started but didn't do much beyond that before last night. I'd done all I could with the "Venom Bomb" PVE (out of health packs) so I ducked into PVP and discovered opponents that I actually stood a chance against. I did well enough after a few matches that I found myself at #77. That's when I remembered that I didn't want to be in the top 100 as I'd far rather have a than a . I stopped playing and actually hoped to have some defeats during the night. (I did but not enough; I was still t100.)

So, I'm not a huge fan of the scaling that happened in PVE but thought it worked very well in PVP.

Merrick

Up until 800 points, I thought the changes were great. Everything was going well. After 800 points, it was awful. Still only able to skip through half a dozen targets, but they were all huge 5*'s and 350+ 4 stars.

Much worse than before.

roberts_2

I just finished the PVP and and did not enjoy both before the first MMR rage days.
For the feedback my team was all champions and i fight against another 3 champions teams just like mine, not JeanBusters OP everywhere, not 5 +lv.300; only teams on my level, you could win and could lose but you could try for several bouts without healthpacks.

I really have enjoyed this pvp so much as i have hated the same system on wolverine's PVE.

Electrovirus

JVReal wrote:

I don't understand testing it mid season.

PVP and Sim are the only things that impact season score. Will they give a bonus Season score when the event ends added on to all participants to help soften the blow when people are suddenly scoring too low to hit the 10K season score for the 25CP?

hahaha yes all half percent of the player base of you.

Electrovirus

Quebbster wrote:

halirin wrote:

Looking forward to trying it out! Sorry everyone who posts is a huge whiner!

Where's the downvote button?
I'm glad you are excited for this, but considering how well the last test Went I Think a Little caution is understandable. Dismissing it as "whining" is just rude.
(for the record I hope the new system works out well too, but as mentioned I am also worried it may make my game experience worse)

I liked the new PPE system and was sad to see it taken away

Electrovirus

Quebbster wrote:

halirin wrote:

Looking forward to trying it out! Sorry everyone who posts is a huge whiner!

Where's the downvote button?
I'm glad you are excited for this, but considering how well the last test Went I Think a Little caution is understandable. Dismissing it as "whining" is just rude.
(for the record I hope the new system works out well too, but as mentioned I am also worried it may make my game experience worse)

I liked the new PPE system and was sad to see it taken away

Electrovirus

LeRoy wrote:

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?

I like that Idea. How about total iso spent on levelling your heroes?

Warbringa

Well I love the new system, at least through this first test. I just hit 1000 for the first time in a long time in PvP and I didn't even have to shield hop, just climbed and the way up over a couple of days. The best part was I never once saw a 4* team anywhere in my queue once. Now I know there were some in my bracket as all of the top 10 were 4* with some 5* usable characters spread in but I never saw them. I right now am 33 with 1002 points and just put my shield up to hopefully get top 50 placement. Now I usually had to play 25-35 pt matches almost all the way to 1000 (some low to high 40's spread in) and never once saw a 50+ point match. All of the teams I faced were around my level for difficulty which I thought was fair, a few early on were lower level but almost all were 3* teams. Now maybe it helped that I had I felt the optimal team Mags/Blade/Hood all champed as I skipped facing teams (maybe fought a few) with that same makeup and targeted all the Magneto/KK/Iron Man teams and other combinations out there. This change was great for me since in the past after 300 points all that I used to see was maxed champed Jeanbuster teams.

Of course five minutes after my shields went up I have actually been hit 6 times! Thankfully no loss to score

Warbringa

Electrovirus wrote:

LeRoy wrote:

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?

I like that Idea. How about total iso spent on levelling your heroes?

Well you can't really do that since a 1 cover or even say a team of 3 1 cover 5* will wipe the floor with a team of level 100 3* even max covered because 5* match damage is so darn high. In your scenario, the person with 5* covers would have an EASIER matching system that someone with 3 level 100 3* characters, even though the 5* team is better due to match damage and health (and maybe even abilities depending on the 1 cover).

HaywireII

Played the test last night and this afternoon. This is so much better than the regular matchmaker. No more maxxed out 4*'s being offered for my 3* champions and 1 cover 5*'s. Almost every match was worth 30 to 35 points and the majority of them were fair fights. Some were easy and there were still a few with level 250 characters that I had to skip.

Make the PvP change permanent now. I wish I felt the same about the PvE test but that was not ready for prime time.

djdv81

The scaling was much better for me after the seed teams all the way until around 750 points. I was actually able to hit 1000 points, which I have only done once. I agree that the new system works better in PVP when compared to how it worked in PVE.

CNash

I'm a solid 3* player. #1 in my bracket had 750 points, and I was able to almost reach him before my health packs expired. Scored #2 myself, which I was more than happy with considering that ever since pulling a couple of 5*s I've not been able to get more than 450 without hitting a wall of maxed 4* teams.

Redrobot30

So after completing CMags event the only real difference I noticed with my experience was that once I got around the 650+ mark it took longer for me to find targets that were worth any meaningful points ( by that I mean 30+). So my climb from there on took longer than usual. I stopped at the 800 mark only because I didn't really care to try for the Carnage card.

TaoSpoons

I'd previously quit PvP because the difficulty in making progression far outweighed any reward. My opponents were typically maxed 4 star teams from 300 points plus. In most circumstances, I could only field a 3-star team, creating the hefty imbalance in the effort/reward scenario. As a result, going into this I was cautiously pessimistic.

Throughout Magnetic Mayhem, I usually fielded teams of championed 3-stars (Magneto, Blade, Hood) and saw either opponents below that (non-boosted teams or boosted teams with lower levels than mine) up to about 600 points. From 600 to 800 they were about my level and rarity. After 800, the difficulty shifted to more challenging teams, although nothing so overwhelmingly terrible it couldn't be beat with reasonable effort.

I'd conclude that my experience in this PvP was somewhat positive because the difficulty curve felt flatter. However, it's hard to tell if this is representative since a fair number of players skipped the event due to the reputation of the EotS PvE event difficulty.

End result: I remain cautiously neutral.

AtlasAxe

I had the exact same experience as Tao Spoons. It was great for me with a 3* roster, and was what I would expect with proper matchmaking: teams at my level until higher points, then it gradually gets harder.

I can still find what I need in Sharp Dressed, it just takes a lot of skips.