Am I the only one who wants this?

xone01

I feel like there is an inherent problem in the way the pvp system is set up and it relates to scaling and the power differential between tiers of characters. It's pretty obvious to me that my roster of championed 3 characters is not going to beat out any teams of championed 4 and is in no danger from a 2 team. Even with boosting, lower tiered characters can't realistically compete. When I enter a pvp, I do so knowing that I cannot possibly reach the top of the leaderboard or even crack the top 50 much of the time simply because I don't have the roster for it.

"Ok, so what's your point, whiner?" I'm getting there...

Why not have "weight classes"?

For example, you could have a beginner bracket where only 2 or lower characters are allowed, an intermediate bracket for 3 and lower, and an expert bracket open to all characters. Of course you would want to adjust the rewards so that those playing in higher brackets would get the best stuff, but it would allow newer players the chance to catch up and be more competitive. Plus, doesn't everybody want to feel like they have a chance to win?

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I think it's an idea.

Quebbster

Where's the "Is what a good idea?" option? I got very confused when I looked at the poll, why not just state what it was about?

acescracked

What's the incentive to ever leave the beginner bracket?

In each bracket do the fully champed whatever star get to hit the barely leveled same star level? Or then is that also "unfair"; and need beginner, intermediate, advanced brackets within each star level?

The main gripe that surfaces from the current system is a perception issue actually. No patience... Most think they should be getting 1st, t10, t25, etc right away without growing their roster.

Chrono_Tata

The biggest problem with this structure is that it is not very fun for the transitioning player. Imagine a 2 to 3 star transitioning roster. With a mostly maxed 2-star roster, you are comfortably play in the 2-star bracket. If you start to level one or two of your 3-star characters, you still can't jump into the next tier because you will be facing maxed 3-stars rosters. So now you are stuck in the 2-star bracket trying to slowly level your 3-star characters that you won't be able to use in PvP for months.

The current system, for all its MMR flaws, at least give you immediate benefits from levelling your characters.

In either case, I think it's just about having realistic expectations about your ranking based on your current roster. If people are fighting with 4- and 5-star rosters, obviously someone with a 3-star roster wouldn't be able to rank very high. I think placing top 100 or occasionally top 50 is pretty good for getting the rewards you need to progress at that level. You can aim for better placing when your roster gets better.

Polares

Chrono_Tata wrote:

In either case, I think it's just about having realistic expectations about your ranking based on your current roster. If people are fighting with 4- and 5-star rosters, obviously someone with a 3-star roster wouldn't be able to rank very high. I think placing top 100 or occasionally top 50 is pretty good for getting the rewards you need to progress at that level. You can aim for better placing when your roster gets better.

This is the most important part. Good position after you leave the noob brackets is really hard to achieve, but progression usually are quite attainable for your level (with some extra work needed in the beginning of the transition).

Devs have passively demonstrated more than once that they are not going to change the system. They have used this system for more than two years and it doesn't look they are going to change it anytime soon.They want everybody to fight for the same prices.

I guess they want noobs to get 4s and 3s easily when they start so they get hooked fast into the game (I have seen a lot of noobs selling their 1s and 2s before maxing them just because they started winning some 3s and 4s, and they thought it was going to be easier get more of those 4 covers and max them), and if there were leagues they would progress much slower the first couple of months, so maybe some people would stop playing before they would get hooked. I think this is the main reason they don't want to implement a system with different leagues and different rewards, with rewards appropriate for the level of play.

CNash

The problem is that if you need 4*s to compete for 4* rewards, your progress in moving from the 3* to 4* tiers is going to be very slow indeed. You basically have to rely upon hitting top progression in PVE and claiming your 25 CP every 4-7 days, pulling legendary tokens against an ever-increasing pool of 4* and 5* heroes.

For example, my last legendary token got me a 4* Punisher, whom I didn't have any covers for before. On one hand, it's great that I can now use him in PVE when he rolls around as an essential. On the other, I now have to pony up 1000 HP for a roster slot, and it doesn't help me make any meaningful progress towards establishing a 4* team. A particularly unlucky player could end up stuck with 6-8 covers in every 4*, for months at a time with no clear progression path. Level 170 4*s aren't going to scare anyone in PVP.

wymtime

One issue d3 would have with making multiple PVE's is they have spent to much time on alliances. Because of the alliance rewards for seasons and events it does not fit well with multiple PVP. You could not have a choose one and it counts towards your alliance because the lower tiers wil oils score lower points. The 4* PVP would score significantly higher than the others.

A rework of PVP to be beginner, intermediate, hard is a good idea but would take a complete revamp of alliance rewards and season rewards. If alliance rewards went to PVE only how would they distribute the PVP season rewards? Not saying I am against it just pointing out the challenge the developers will have with it.

simonsez

I don't understand why anyone would push back against this idea. I'm not even seeing much push-back that makes sense.

"What's the incentive to ever leave the beginner bracket?"... better prizes

"In each bracket do the fully champed whatever star get to hit the barely leveled same star level?". Silly argument. Almost everyone has 3 fully leveled characters at the level they'd want to compete in

"The biggest problem with this structure is that it is not very fun for the transitioning player". Rumor has it the current system is way less than "not very fun for the transitioning player". If you really don't think they'd have more fun fighting each other than swimming in open waters, ask them.

"Devs have passively demonstrated more than once that they are not going to change the system". Anticipating inaction is not a reason to stop making suggestions that might make the game better.

"The problem is that if you need 4*s to compete for 4* rewards, your progress in moving from the 3* to 4* tiers is going to be very slow indeed". I can't tell if you're criticizing the OP or the status quo, since this pretty much sums up the latter.

If the problem is vets thinking, "there's nothing in it for me", look at it this way: if there were 4 PvPs running simultaneously, one with a 2* cap, one with a 3* cap, one with a 4* cap, and one open to all, you could farm ISO 4x faster. Even if you didn't get a **** about helping low level players transition from one level to the next, I'd sign on to this plan just for the ISO.

simonsez

wymtime wrote:

Because of the alliance rewards for seasons and events it does not fit well with multiple PVP. You could not have a choose one and it counts towards your alliance because the lower tiers wil oils score lower points. The 4* PVP would score significantly higher than the others.

You wouldn't have a "choose one"... it'd be choose as many as you want, and your best score counts towards the season/alliance score.

Calnexin

I would love to see something like this in play. From a game perspective it allows people to compete within their means for reasonable prizes, but still allow them to reach for the stars if they feel up to punching above their weight class.

From a design standpoint, it's kind of a nightmare. You start multiplying the available slots - 4 weight classes x 5 timeslots = 20 available brackets to check into. That creates a lot more wealth within the game, which is clearly not desired by D3 - they want to restrict prizes to maintain player drive.

It also hits a big wall when you consider alliances.

Is each weight class considered separately? If that's the case, the alliance has to go all-in, which is still really bad for developing players. A top-tier alliance that decides to invade a lower class could have many or all 2* max-champed.

Do you weigh the weight classes? Allow each player to play in the bracket they're comfortable with? Then when it comes to alliance rewards, who gets what? A T100 2* given access to rewards gained by T10 4* seems inappropriate.

Or, let everyone play in every bracket with every reward? Once again - how do you scale the alliance rewards? Does every point count? Are there different tiers?

Sorry. I don't want to be such a downer, but it's a logistical nightmare. Most people on the boards already complain about lack of rewards for time investment. Scaling reward in a scenario as diverse as this is very daunting. I really want to see it, but I wouldn't want to do it.

carrion_pigeons

I'm all for tiering content this way, as long as rewards are also tiered (which is the real issue). Players who want to compete for 3* rewards don't need to be playing against players who are competing for 4* rewards. It's demoralizing and unnecessary.

Crowl

acescracked wrote:

The main gripe that surfaces from the current system is a perception issue actually. No patience... Most think they should be getting 1st, t10, t25, etc right away without growing their roster.

It is not so much that people are wanting high placements so much as the placement rewards being out of date, the people who could really benefit from 3* covers are not going to easily get them unless they happen into a dead group, which then probably rules them out of the 3* in the progression rewards.

amusingfoo1

simonsez wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would push back against this idea. I'm not even seeing much push-back that makes sense.

"The problem is that if you need 4*s to compete for 4* rewards, your progress in moving from the 3* to 4* tiers is going to be very slow indeed". I can't tell if you're criticizing the OP or the status quo, since this pretty much sums up the latter.

If the problem is vets thinking, "there's nothing in it for me", look at it this way: if there were 4 PvPs running simultaneously, one with a 2* cap, one with a 3* cap, one with a 4* cap, and one open to all, you could farm ISO 4x faster.

If all you're looking to do is farm, you can already do that all day through several different means.

simonsez wrote:

Even if you didn't get a **** about helping low level players transition from one level to the next, I'd sign on to this plan just for the ISO.

Ironically, this tiering would make it difficult, if not impossible, for those with the big rosters to help the lower level players.

It would, in fact, make it very difficult, especially at the top tier, to bake at all. Not impossible; there are a few ways to do it, but they're much harder than queuing someone a couple star-levels lower (which you can do if there are few opponents unshielded at your star-level at your score or higher).

That does beg an interesting question. What happens if you are at the top? Right now, you can queue everyone who's unshielded. I guess maybe that would still be the case, but there wouldn't be as much gap between bottom and top as there is now (roster-wise).

I wonder, also, if it might end up with less rewards for the people at the top. There would be so few of them, that you might end up with everyone in only one or two brackets for any given shard. That would be crazy, in terms of how cut-throat it would be. To say nothing of the fact that only a tiny percentage of the people in that top would get worthwhile rewards. Who would want to play there? I think only the people who might be tempted to say, "Look at that cute, little champion OML. Only 450; how cute".

theorangemisfit

The problem is that whales don't really want to fight each other, ever heard the phrase go pick on someone your own size? They wouldn't like that one bit.

simonsez

amusingfoo1 wrote:

It would, in fact, make it very difficult, especially at the top tier, to bake at all.

What happens if you are at the top? Right now, you can queue everyone who's unshielded.

Sorry, but "it'd make it harder to cc" and "the bracket leader won't get easy queues" are two awful, irrelevant reasons not to have tiered competition.

amusingfoo1 wrote:

There would be so few of them, that you might end up with everyone in only one or two brackets for any given shard. That would be crazy, in terms of how cut-throat it would be. To say nothing of the fact that only a tiny percentage of the people in that top would get worthwhile rewards. Who would want to play there? I think only the people who might be tempted to say, "Look at that cute, little champion OML. Only 450; how cute".

For any given time shard, it's not like there are THAT many brackets formed for each PvP. But yes, instead of being spread among 3 brackets, they'd probably all be in one. And if someone finds that it's too hard to compete, then they should focus on the next tier down. That's the whole point.