A case for 4* PVPs

mpqr7

Because you get to a point where each PVP is 2 Strong Characters, plus a weak featured character.. either a 3* (all of which are pretty weak when compared to high powered 4*s or any non-SS 5*), or else a brand new 4*, which will have very few covers and a low level. Plus many of us have done so many of these 3* PVPs that it gets a bit repeptitive to do each one again.

It's nice to do a pvp with three strong characters. That's how I play the PVP Sim, and it feels great. It would be nice to do that with regular PVP as well.

I wouldn't start with two separate PVPs (3* and 4*), although that might be a nice thing to go to eventually.

I would just add in a few 4* PVPs to each season, maybe just two to start with, in addition to the new character 4* PVPs. And maybe give some better prizes those PVPs, just because they will be more challenging for all players!

Unknown

mpqr7 wrote:

Because you get to a point where each PVP is 2 Strong Characters, plus a weak featured character.. either a 3* (all of which are pretty weak when compared to high powered 4*s or any non-SS 5*), or else a brand new 4*, which will have very few covers and a low level. Plus many of us have done so many of these 3* PVPs that it gets a bit repeptitive to do each one again.

It's nice to do a pvp with three strong characters. That's how I play the PVP Sim, and it feels great. It would be nice to do that with regular PVP as well.

I wouldn't start with two separate PVPs (3* and 4*), although that might be a nice thing to go to eventually.

I would just add in a few 4* PVPs to each season, maybe just two to start with, in addition to the new character 4* PVPs. And maybe give some better prizes those PVPs, just because they will be more challenging for all players!

When everyone is playing a new 4* PVP, it's actually easier cuz the playing field is level, as most are using the loaner. There's then much less spread as to covers & level.

Slarow

Every PVP should have both a featured 3* and a featured 4*. The player should be able to pick from their own 4*, their own 3*, or the loaner 3* for the center character on their team. Keep everything else the same. This is the simplest way to allow players to play a full 4* team regularly in PVP without being crippled by a forced 3*.

Unknown

Slarow wrote:

Every PVP should have both a featured 3* and a featured 4*. The player should be able to pick from their own 4*, their own 3*, or the loaner 3* for the center character on their team. Keep everything else the same. This is the simplest way to allow players to play a full 4* team regularly in PVP without being crippled by a forced 3*.

The PVP where you were allowed to use DP in the top node & DP on the bottom 2 nodes was a good design idea, even though I only got to play XFDP once in the whole tournament.

Slarow

downsouthman1 wrote:

Slarow wrote:

Every PVP should have both a featured 3* and a featured 4*. The player should be able to pick from their own 4*, their own 3*, or the loaner 3* for the center character on their team. Keep everything else the same. This is the simplest way to allow players to play a full 4* team regularly in PVP without being crippled by a forced 3*.

The PVP where you were allowed to use DP in the top node & DP on the bottom 2 nodes was a good design idea, even though I only got to play XFDP once in the whole tournament.

Exactly. This and the "Best there is" wolvie pvp from a while back. The only difference is that they shouldn't make it node specific, as it means you can only queue one team against your 4* team. You should be able to pick the 3* or the 4* on each of the 3 nodes.

TxMoose

that would be an interesting dynamic to allow either 3s or 4s on those that have alternatives. they could just allow whoever the 3* champ feeds - they could do it every event. not sure I want to see the endless teams of level 300+ teams above 1K though. I don't always have a ice or 4thor or rulk boosted. its been nice to not have to avoid OML with 4thor boosted this week. her boost with im40 slice through anything (I guess I should say hammer everything flat)

SnowcaTT

I'm all for 4* PVP...running alongside 3* PVP.

If it's 4* PVP - what is the point of 3*'s existing in the game? Should they be only PVE essentials, like the 2*'s are? There are 40 of them - they deserve more than that.

Slarow

SnowcaTT wrote:

I'm all for 4* PVP...running alongside 3* PVP.

If it's 4* PVP - what is the point of 3*'s existing in the game? Should they be only PVE essentials, like the 2*'s are? There are 40 of them - they deserve more than that.

Splitting into two PVP's will fracture the playerbase, and add a meta-choice of when you swap from the 3* pvp to the 4* pvp (big fish in small pond or small fish in big pond), causing frustration when this choice is made incorrectly, which IMHO would be detrimental to the game. Keeping them one tourney eliminates that issue.

Keeping them the same tourney allows players with partially leveled 4*'s the chance to actually use them in cases where, when boosted, they are better than the 3* option. This gets people into 4* territory faster, reducing the 3*-4* transition time. If they were separate tourneys, that player would probably still stick with the 3* tourney as their low level 4* wouldn't be able to compete in the 4* tourney where everyone else has mature 4* teams.

Keeping them the same tourney also allows higher end 4*/5* players to advance to a higher floating score faster, spending less time in the low scores, thereby reducing the amount of time and ISO that 3* and 4* transitioning players spend skipping teams that are out of their league.

Crowl

If we are all asking for pvps that suit us best, can I suggest we have one without 5*'s that can crush my champed 4*'s like a bug please?

The Bob The

downsouthman1 wrote:

Slarow wrote:

Every PVP should have both a featured 3* and a featured 4*. The player should be able to pick from their own 4*, their own 3*, or the loaner 3* for the center character on their team. Keep everything else the same. This is the simplest way to allow players to play a full 4* team regularly in PVP without being crippled by a forced 3*.

The PVP where you were allowed to use DP in the top node & DP on the bottom 2 nodes was a good design idea, even though I only got to play XFDP once in the whole tournament.

I liked it, but the drawback was when someone attacked you, the retaliation didn't always come up on the same node, so sometimes you had to run 3* Deadpool against a 4* opponent (or an undercovered/leveled 4* against a decked-out 3*).

carrion_pigeons

I think it's important that 4*s get someplace to shine. Right now there are only about 5 4*s that matter at all and you can just completely ignore all the others without impacting your game much at all.

PvP features might not be the place, though, since that spot is taken. If 4*s take over that role, there isn't any question that 3* will be the new tier-that-doesn't-matter.

I think a good idea would be to reopen the prologue as a kind of 4* playground after all the normal rewards have been earned. Like, after the prologue is complete, you can go back and farm the prologue for Iso, but only with 4* characters, and every week the 4*s you can use rotate, and the scaling is static and there's no event rewards.

So for example, one week the prologue unlocks for players with Ghost Rider, Hulkbuster, PX, Elektra, and Falcap, and each of them is a required character for all the nodes in one of the prologue subs, and you're limited to that character plus any selection of other 4*s, and each node gives say, 500 Iso, plus a 2K Iso reward for completing the whole sub. And if you complete the whole prologue, over the course of the week, then you get to choose a 4* cover from among those 5 characters.

Kind of a combination Gauntlet/DDQ/Heroic. It would motivate people to collect and level all the 4*s, and give them the Iso to make it practical, and then the PvP meta wouldn't suck so much for endgame players since people would have a broader range of characters to experiment with.

Vhailorx

We need real 4* placement rewards in PvP much more than regular 4* pvp events, but both of them are long overdue.

(seriously, we still get 1 4* placement cover per 500 people and no alliance rewards! In a game with almost 30 4*s? Pathetic! And pve isn't much better with what, 17 placement covers per 1000!)

mpqr7

Vhailorx wrote:

We need real 4* placement rewards in PvP much more than regular 4* pvp events, but both of them are long overdue.

(seriously, we still get 1 4* placement cover per 500 people and no alliance rewards! In a game with almost 30 4*s? Pathetic! And pve isn't much better with what, 17 placement covers per 1000!)

I think you're requesting 4* placement rewards for pve, correct? And I agree with you.

FaustianDeal

My favorite notion of how PVP could be restructured would be to have a 2*, 3*, & 4* event running concurrently. Each event would be roster restricted in that you could only go 1* level higher than the arena. The idea here would be to try to help progression. 2* arenas would award 3* characters, 3* arenas could award 4* characters, and 4* arenas could award legendary pulls (or big ISO awards, because that's REALLY what a lot of 4* players need an abundance of.

I think a contributor to the concern is that it gets hard to balance a system that offers both progression and placement rewards, especially when you try to sprinkle alliance placements into an already awkward landscape. I feel like you already see this in the current PVP landscape just by adding time slices. I would love to see variety in the events being offered, but the different prize pools get to be tricky to level.

Maybe you have progression in the 2* arena top out at 800 points (where a standard PVP drops a 3* cover), 3* PVP progression tops out at 1000, and 4* PVP tops out at 1300? Adjusting placement prizes so they are appropriate to help a player *at that level* transition to the next level of play.

Individual placements within each tier kind of take care of themselves - presumptively 4* players won't be seriously competing in the 2* event for anything other than ISO - even if they are the roster restriction could help keep the playing fields somewhat level?

Alliance placements might need to be 'tier specific'; with each tier awarding a separate alliance prize (that is, again, appropriate for that tier).

Just some thoughts...

Stony

Slarow wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

I'm all for 4* PVP...running alongside 3* PVP.

If it's 4* PVP - what is the point of 3*'s existing in the game? Should they be only PVE essentials, like the 2*'s are? There are 40 of them - they deserve more than that.

Splitting into two PVP's will fracture the playerbase, and add a meta-choice of when you swap from the 3* pvp to the 4* pvp (big fish in small pond or small fish in big pond), causing frustration when this choice is made incorrectly, which IMHO would be detrimental to the game. Keeping them one tourney eliminates that issue.

Keeping them the same tourney allows players with partially leveled 4*'s the chance to actually use them in cases where, when boosted, they are better than the 3* option. This gets people into 4* territory faster, reducing the 3*-4* transition time. If they were separate tourneys, that player would probably still stick with the 3* tourney as their low level 4* wouldn't be able to compete in the 4* tourney where everyone else has mature 4* teams.

Keeping them the same tourney also allows higher end 4*/5* players to advance to a higher floating score faster, spending less time in the low scores, thereby reducing the amount of time and ISO that 3* and 4* transitioning players spend skipping teams that are out of their league.

Why have to choose though? Run one PVP that's 3* and under, run another that is whatever character you want (but let's face it, all 4 & 5* will dominate.) I miss using lots of 3*s that have no place in high end PVP. I'm getting tired of PVE (especially with the "NEW" PVP), if there were two simultaneous PVPs I would quit trying to place high in PVE.

JamieMadrox

I don't care what they do, but PVP with a 4* featured character and/or 4* rewards in PVP like in PVE are both fine by me. As it stands there's less and less incentive for top end players to progress their rosters below the 5* level.

SnowcaTT

Stony wrote:

Slarow wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

I'm all for 4* PVP...running alongside 3* PVP.

If it's 4* PVP - what is the point of 3*'s existing in the game? Should they be only PVE essentials, like the 2*'s are? There are 40 of them - they deserve more than that.

Splitting into two PVP's will fracture the playerbase, and add a meta-choice of when you swap from the 3* pvp to the 4* pvp (big fish in small pond or small fish in big pond), causing frustration when this choice is made incorrectly, which IMHO would be detrimental to the game. Keeping them one tourney eliminates that issue.

Keeping them the same tourney allows players with partially leveled 4*'s the chance to actually use them in cases where, when boosted, they are better than the 3* option. This gets people into 4* territory faster, reducing the 3*-4* transition time. If they were separate tourneys, that player would probably still stick with the 3* tourney as their low level 4* wouldn't be able to compete in the 4* tourney where everyone else has mature 4* teams.

Keeping them the same tourney also allows higher end 4*/5* players to advance to a higher floating score faster, spending less time in the low scores, thereby reducing the amount of time and ISO that 3* and 4* transitioning players spend skipping teams that are out of their league.

Why have to choose though? Run one PVP that's 3* and under, run another that is whatever character you want (but let's face it, all 4 & 5* will dominate.) I miss using lots of 3*s that have no place in high end PVP. I'm getting tired of PVE (especially with the "NEW" PVP), if there were two simultaneous PVPs I would quit trying to place high in PVE.

Sorry, I didn't specify this time - this is exactly what I mean. Let everybody choose BOTH PVP's if they want, that's fine.

3* PVP: 3*'s boosted, 4*'s aren't, 5*'s banned.
4* PVP: Just like current boosted (but better rewards).

You want to run 4* PVP with your 3* roster and try to get the 300 point reward and not much further? Feel free. Then run your 3* PVP and try for ranking - side-by-side, at the same time. I expect the userbase wouldn't be fractured at all, and it might benefit D3 by having the whales use health packs and shields all over the place to try to place high in both events simultaneously.

Jarvind

Since there are still more 3* than 4* characters (at least for now) it seems like the best solution would be to alternate featuring 3* and 4* characters, or maybe do a 4* every third event. If you eliminate 3* pvp events entirely, 3* characters become even more obsolete at the mid-to-endgame than the championing nerf has already made them.

mpqr7

I would be happy to alternate 3* and 4* pvps. It would actually be good for the devs, because then players would spend iso leveling up their various 4*s that happened to be featured in the pvp, instead of just leveling up the top few 4*s and saving all their remaining iso for the next big thing.

FaustianDeal

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I don't care what they do, but PVP with a 4* featured character and/or 4* rewards in PVP like in PVE are both fine by me. As it stands there's less and less incentive for top end players to progress their rosters below the 5* level.

^^^ THIS.

Add some validity to the 4* tier. The introduction of 5* characters has almost completely invalidated a whole class of characters. And its the class you are releasing a new character into every 2 weeks!

mpqr7

FaustianDeal wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I don't care what they do, but PVP with a 4* featured character and/or 4* rewards in PVP like in PVE are both fine by me. As it stands there's less and less incentive for top end players to progress their rosters below the 5* level.

^^^ THIS.

Add some validity to the 4* tier. The introduction of 5* characters has almost completely invalidated a whole class of characters. And its the class you are releasing a new character into every 2 weeks!

Agreed. Once I had a decent 5* and a few championed 4*s, it was hard to get too excited about championing more 4*s. I do it, but I don't really use them at all, because I don't need more than the few I already have. I just hate covers going to waste