The Frustration that is PvP

like1tiger

Im sure everyone is over people complaining about The CCs gone and how PvP has changed but i thought i would share my experience in the last sticks and stones PvP

The first event i found very frustrating dealing with the new changes but i thought there has to be a way around it
My goal was to hit 900 for the 4 stare cover and finish at that.

I have 97 roster slots shield ranked 56 with 30 champed 3 stars most 4 stars but nothing over 180 and only one at 13 covers, 5 stars with the max being 6 covers (silver surfer) but all at lvl 255 with 2-3 covers.

I started after the slice flipped in s4 I have access to a shield room full of amazing helpful people so that normally makes the climb a bit easier
I climbed to 500 with 2 days left floated overnight woke up was down to 290 this is usual
I climbed to 600 and floated dropping down to about 300 with 1 24 hours left this is within max Shield range so i decided to try to climb to 800 and shield. I continued to climb easy until i hit 700 hitting only people worth 40 points or more and the points started to dry up.

From 750 now i was facing one champed 4 star at least in each fight and all the champed 3 star teams had disappeared and the points were all worth under 40 with 37 being the highest. I was also getting hit for 40 points and i was treading water. Everytime i thought i would hit 800 i was at 798 799 797 and before i could finish the next fight i would be hit back down I finally gave up and shielded at 795.

I was lucky when i came back with 8 hours left that i had one a retaliation and this put me above 800 at 805. I skipped for along time trying to find anything above 40 points but not only were there no Qs i belived i could beat there were no other guys around me that had a roster anywhere near mine it was champed 4 star teams everywhere all worth under 40 points. 35k hp She Thors are not something i feel i could ever fight through.
I found a fight i thought i might be able to do for 39 points and un shielded and beat it putting me at 843 i then found a fight worth 70 points made up of champed Luke cage, champed iceman and champed She Thor so i thought i would just whale it and then i would shield and finish at 900 i did so and the points updated at 899. I cursed sheilded threw my phone and walked out of the room.

This was my final score and i ended up at 58 in my slice i woke up this morning to get my rewards and you can imagine how happy it is to get 2 moonstones as a placement reward!! what better i got 2 tokens as well and got another moonstone and a 2 star Captain America talk about wining! 3 moonstones for 525Hp in shields and a great sense of satisfaction.

TLDR
PvP is a frustrating game mode that does not offer any decent rewards for anyone under a 4* roster

Things that are broken
The Cupcakes are not gone they are all using them above 1200 and hitting over 2200 each event thus making placement impossable for anyone without the beast roster
The MMR is so stupid it seems to only match you against people of your score regardless of your roster? You see 2 stars til 300 3 stars to 700 and 4 stars only above 800.
Why does the higher you go offer less and less points and the opponents get harder and harder to beat but at the same time you are getting hit for massive points from people below you?
Why have Clearance levels if everyone is in the same pool regardless? This is so stupid as why even have other clearance lvls so you do the same hard work against the same opponents for less score?

I enjoyed PvP so much in the last 3 seasons and have made great progress on my roster from the rewards now im treading water and just building frustration.

DC1972

In your things that are broken list you didn't even mention that the points won per match is often not what is listed. In your situation it looked like you attacked the 70 point target quickly and yet the points actually won dropped significantly. I've complained about this in other posts before. Also, likely just a conspiracy theory or plain coincidence but it more often than not seems to leve you just one or two points short of the progression goal you are trying to hit so either you reshield to make another hop or try to sneak in one more battle but end up coming out with massive losses since in the meantime everyone has already queued you up and are attacking you.

morph3us

DC1972 wrote:

In your things that are broken list you didn't even mention that the points won per match is often not what is listed. In your situation it looked like you attacked the 70 point target quickly and yet the points actually won dropped significantly. I've complained about this in other posts before. Also, likely just a conspiracy theory or plain coincidence but it more often than not seems to leve you just one or two points short of the progression goal you are trying to hit so either you reshield to make another hop or try to sneak in one more battle but end up coming out with massive losses since in the meantime everyone has already queued you up and are attacking you.

Less a conspiracy theory, and more to do with the fact that if you thought it was a beatable target, odds are, several other people thought the same thing and attacked them at the same time you did, hence, fewer points than advertised.

Also, hence the posts about people with smaller rosters getting mauled at higher points.

like1tiger

Its my understanding that points are fluid so if your attacking someone at the same time as someone else if they win first the points are lowered and u get the points left over. It works the same when u start a fight with someone and they win a match before you beat them then you get more points for your victory. Its not the best but i dont think its broken like the whole way PvP is set up

OneLastGambit

One thing you don't mention is your roster being capped. Is that intentional? Really PvP is a champs playground need at least 2 decent 4* champs (and always have) in order to get to 900.

A 4* team will eat your 3* for breakfast especially if it's a boosted 4*

Another tip is if you're starting to get hit then one of two things (maybe both) is happening...

1. You unshileded at the wrong time
2. You've been unshielded for too long - hops are supposed to be short, hence the name.

Magic

If you just don't have 4* at max cover to champ you are just not there yet to hit the max progression. You were doing it thanks to shield club and CC before and now you see that you were just trying to jump the line. Back to earth now - set the proper goals for your roster (eg - scoring 900 to get the cover) and keep improving it. Eventually you will get there. With champed 4* you basically don't need the HP to hit 900. On a bad day you will spend 75 HP or 225 if it went wrong or your champed 4* is not top tier. So paying 525 is way too much. Patience should be your key word, not frustration.

I will give you a perspective of a non-cupcake-eater (occasionally but not in a coordinated fashion). I have 7 4* champed and no problem getting 900 points (also 1000 in the previous system) but I never got to 1,3k. So you have 6 covers in Silver Surfer and already more covered 5* than I have. And my CP pulls are on average so I have more or less the proper 5* covers number compared to my CP. So in the 5* game you have jumped ahead of me thanks to coordination with shield clubs. I guess this is the reason why the devs decided to tweak the system (well not me personally but you get the point).

fight4thedream

Anyone familiar with the history of the Versus game mode format should be aware that it has continually been "a work in progress". From those first days of king of the mountain (no shields and slices), to the introduction of alliances and seasons and the later restriction of shield use and the occasional character nerf, the development team has always kept an eye on the playerbase's use of the format.

Considering this history, the cupcake issue really was never a question of "if" but rather a question of "when".

Should the development team have acted sooner against this phenomenon? Yes because now they have a portion of the playerbase that is unable to reach as high and naturally feel frustrated.

Should they continue to adjust the defense settings to eliminate these 5* cakes? If their goal is to keep top scores within a reasonable target range than yes (although at least one or two alliances will still be able to put up pretty big points with or without baking).

But honestly, I think the devs have to reconsider the current Versus format. There are reasons why baking became hegemonic practice among top alliances:

1. The point generation system and shielding
2. Reward structure
3. Communal cooperation

I would like to consider each point briefly.

1. The point generation system and shielding
As I understand it, the amount of points available in a shard is largely dependent on player activity and the use of shields. While the Versus events are advertised as player vs player, the reality is that if an alliance wishes to do well cooperation utilizing shields to build up points is the best, most effective means of achieving top rank. I'm sure the devs are aware that most of the top alliances are utilizing this method but from a layman's point of view this goes against the spirit of what is advertised in game: First and foremost the "Versus" title and then many briefings that frame the experience in terms of conflict: "Defeat your opponents" (Fresh Cut), "Pounce to the top of leaderboards before your unsuspecting foes" (Predator and Prey) and the like.

And yet the most successful method for getting to the top of the leaderboards is not conflict but cooperation. Admittedly this is probably not the case in those mythic baby and intermediate brackets where new players unaware of the baking-meta and most effective use of shields probably just slug it out or learn quick. But my point still stands, under the current versus format you cannot expect top alliances to actively fight each other when the best method to top rank is to generate points through shield hopping.

2. Reward Structure
Versus events have two sets of rewards: Rank and Progression. As witnessed with the 15CP Iron Fist PvP fiasco, the 25CP final progression reward is considered by most informed 4*-5* players to be the most important reward. It is significant that the most important reward in the Versus format is a progression reward because it averts intense competition between alliances. If Versus events are intended to be competitive, wouldn't it make more sense for the most sought after reward to be placed in rank rewards instead? The reason top alliances are willing and able to cooperate with each other is because most if not all their members can content themselves with gaining the "top prize" regardless of rank.

Certainly, I think this was intentional on the development team's part and considering the negative forum reaction to suggestions of making Versus more competitive, most players prefer having a reasonable shot at "top prize" but I feel it's worth pointing out that if the intention was to have versus be a competitive affair, having top prizes restricted to rank rewards would certainly go a long way to encourage competition. But before I get carried away on that thought, the point is that the current reward structure does little to encourage real competition among top alliances.

3. Communal Cooperation
Perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle, the social aspect of baking is perhaps its most appealing point. The sense of contributing not only to your alliance but to the playerbase in your slice as a whole, that you are helping everyone get a little bit further in their goals feels very rewarding. Many of the top players in the game will tell you that they have only continued playing for so long because of this social aspect. And I think it would behoove the development team to take this into consideration.

"But fight I thought you were opposed to baking and such practices?" Of course! That is to say in terms of competition and what is supposed to be a versus format, I consider this cooperative playstyle to be a perversion. But I understand why top alliances and many players do it and I think it's important for the development team to understand this too.

Because who are we kidding? The best method for achieving top rank under the current Versus sytem is through coordination and cooperation, not conflict.

And so I encourage the development team to consider changing the title from "Versus" to "Co-Op Play", change briefings to reflect the need to work together with your team and have an in-game link explaining the practice of shield hopping with each event briefing. Heck, if we are going to go that far we might as well reveal the usefulness of LINE and let them bake proper cakes. However, I think the reward structure should also be changed. Do away with ranking entirely. Rather have a progression system akin to the Simulator but with rewards for both personal achievement and alliance achievements.

Yes, such a system would arguably have players that spend money congregate into spender alliances but this is already very much the case now. In fact, you might even be able to get more F2P buying HP to hop if you structure the rewards scheme in a manner that is enticing enough.

I know for many bakers being able to help others added tremendous value to their in-game purchases and I don't think that is something the development team should ignore. In fact for their health of the game and their profits, I think it's definitely something they should be focusing on.

As for a "proper" Versus game mode, I have been scratching my head over that one for quite a while and still haven't been able to come up with something I think that will work. A simple by the numbers W/L count would be too grindy for most people and how to take into account various roster levels and strengths calls into question the issue of fairness. The best I can come up with is a intramural versus event where you have to fight members of your own alliance for rank rewards. Point values for victory is determined by difference in roster strength: You face off against your teammates' strongest team but you are free to bring any team you want and are rewarded more points for using "weaker" teams. You can hit the same teammate up to three times so at max you can play up to 60 matches over a 60 hour period and you can't lose points. There would be both a personal progression reward system and rank rewards but no alliance rewards. I think such a Versus event type would encourage the use of different characters.

But I don't know how feasible or fun that would be. Does anyone else have any ideas regarding a redesign of Versus events?

TL; DR: "Versus" is a misnomer when the best method for attaining rank is not conflict but cooperation. Instead of clamping down on this aspect, it would behoove the devs to consider changing the nomenclature employed to describe such events, the reward structure to encourage cooperative play and provide information in-game on how to effectively shield hop. Furthermore, a new versus mode should be designed. But that's easier said than done lol

xidragonxi

fight4thedream wrote:

But I don't know how feasible or fun that would be. Does anyone else have any ideas regarding a redesign of Versus events?

TL; DR: "Versus" is a misnomer when the best method for attaining rank is not conflict but cooperation. Instead of clamping down on this aspect, it would behoove the devs to consider changing the nomenclature employed to describe such events, the reward structure to encourage cooperative play and provide information in-game on how to effectively shield hop. Furthermore, a new versus mode should be designed. But that's easier said than done lol

There's probably some slightly-complicated Round-Robin Tournament style play that might work.

You get your three nodes, you have say, 12 hours to play them, and your W-L record determines your next three opponents. No skipping, retreating is a loss, and at the end of the tournament, you have a leaderboard based purely on W-L record. There probably needs to be some kind of tie-breaker as many teams will be undefeated, and the MMR really has to be spot on, but something like this is probably the closest to real PVP as I can think of.

Edit: this might work best if you had to pick a star-tier before it started (so you can choose to fight only against 3* and lower, 4* and lower, or 5* and lower), and if you had to pick one team and use it for the entire tournament. Or maybe have four characters of your choice available, something like that. And no boosted toons!

broll

I'm in a similar boat as the OP and completely agree.

The main two suggestions I have that i think would help:
1. Use Clearance Level to pit similar rostered players together. Today CL only affect rewards and ranking but MMR is not effected. That needs to change. If you are in CL5 you should only be matched with other players in CL5.
2. Make losses not subtract from progression total. Why not change it so that when you lose it subtracts from your points for placement, but it doesn't take away from your progression? This would probably be a pretty substantial code change as they would basically be splitting 1 score into 2, but I think it would solve a lot of issues. Let people fight up to progression and stop if they don't care about placement. These people would then fill a role similar to what cupcakes did where higher rosters can farm them to keep the point totals going higher. This would also lead to more people playing PvP as today a lot of lower rosters just quit because it's impossible to get good placement OR progression rewards below champ 4*. Make it so those low rosters can actually have a chance and progression at least and you don't loose their points from the pool completely.

Magic

broll wrote:

2. Make losses not subtract from progression total. Why not change it so that when you lose it subtracts from your points for placement, but it doesn't take away from your progression? This would probably be a pretty substantial code change as they would basically be splitting 1 score into 2, but I think it would solve a lot of issues. Let people fight up to progression and stop if they don't care about placement. These people would then fill a role similar to what cupcakes did where higher rosters can farm them to keep the point totals going higher. This would also lead to more people playing PvP as today a lot of lower rosters just quit because it's impossible to get good placement OR progression rewards below champ 4*. Make it so those low rosters can actually have a chance and progression at least and you don't loose their points from the pool completely.

That way anybody with time to grind would get the progression - regardless of the level or roster development. They would have to make the top progression (still probably 25 cp) somewhere superhigh - like 10k. That way only the grindiest of the grinders would get there. So as appealing as this idea is in the first look it's never going to be implemented.

I think somebody mentioned that breaking the shield should happen at the end of the first fight. This would help some people, encourage spending on shields if somebody needs more points etc, but at the same time would help if you only miss a bit of points to get the award but only reasonable target will be a long fight.

Jam_Adams

broll wrote:

2. Make losses not subtract from progression total. Why not change it so that when you lose it subtracts from your points for placement, but it doesn't take away from your progression? This would probably be a pretty substantial code change as they would basically be splitting 1 score into 2, but I think it would solve a lot of issues. Let people fight up to progression and stop if they don't care about placement. These people would then fill a role similar to what cupcakes did where higher rosters can farm them to keep the point totals going higher. This would also lead to more people playing PvP as today a lot of lower rosters just quit because it's impossible to get good placement OR progression rewards below champ 4*. Make it so those low rosters can actually have a chance and progression at least and you don't loose their points from the pool completely.

wow - I really like this idea. I don't play pvp much due to how progression is such a pain. if progression could be attained in this fashion, I would definitely play it more often. it still requires effort and time to get max progression, but you don't have to deal with the 'one step forward, two steps back' style of play

Quebbster

broll wrote:

1. Use Clearance Level to pit similar rostered players together. Today CL only affect rewards and ranking but MMR is not effected. That needs to change. If you are in CL5 you should only be matched with other players in CL5.

I see two potential problems with this. The first is the lack of targets, meaning you would end up in skip hell much faster. The second is the risk that high-level players slum it out in lower CLs and just crush everyone with Little fear of retaliation. I definitely get why you'd want to limit who you get matched against, but it has huge drawbacks as well.

broll

Magic wrote:

broll wrote:

2. Make losses not subtract from progression total. Why not change it so that when you lose it subtracts from your points for placement, but it doesn't take away from your progression? This would probably be a pretty substantial code change as they would basically be splitting 1 score into 2, but I think it would solve a lot of issues. Let people fight up to progression and stop if they don't care about placement. These people would then fill a role similar to what cupcakes did where higher rosters can farm them to keep the point totals going higher. This would also lead to more people playing PvP as today a lot of lower rosters just quit because it's impossible to get good placement OR progression rewards below champ 4*. Make it so those low rosters can actually have a chance and progression at least and you don't loose their points from the pool completely.

That way anybody with time to grind would get the progression - regardless of the level or roster development. They would have to make the top progression (still probably 25 cp) somewhere superhigh - like 10k. That way only the grindiest of the grinders would get there. So as appealing as this idea is in the first look it's never going to be implemented.

I'm not sure 10k is the right number, but absolutely it would need to be raised significantly. I'd like to see them raise it and spread the rewards out a little more too.

As far as never implementing it, probably not, but all we can do is suggest improvements and hope they consider them.

chamber44

Jam_Adams wrote:

broll wrote:

2. Make losses not subtract from progression total. Why not change it so that when you lose it subtracts from your points for placement, but it doesn't take away from your progression? This would probably be a pretty substantial code change as they would basically be splitting 1 score into 2, but I think it would solve a lot of issues. Let people fight up to progression and stop if they don't care about placement. These people would then fill a role similar to what cupcakes did where higher rosters can farm them to keep the point totals going higher. This would also lead to more people playing PvP as today a lot of lower rosters just quit because it's impossible to get good placement OR progression rewards below champ 4*. Make it so those low rosters can actually have a chance and progression at least and you don't loose their points from the pool completely.

wow - I really like this idea. I don't play pvp much due to how progression is such a pain. if progression could be attained in this fashion, I would definitely play it more often. it still requires effort and time to get max progression, but you don't have to deal with the 'one step forward, two steps back' style of play

isn't this essentially just PvE without the "story"?

JFisch

This topic reminds me of how PVP used to be before they started adjusting the matchmaking algorithm. Once upon a time, PVP matchmaking was designed where you would face nothing but max level 2* teams until you hit a certain progression point. Then you would run into the "166 Wall" where 2* or 2-3* transitioners simply could not win any more matches.

To me, it feels like if you're going to tailor the prizes to an approximate roster strength through SCL and downgrade the lower-level prizes, you should also downgrade the pool they're in, even when they get at or above 900 points. I don't know what the proper mix would be. Maybe something like this (using SCL 6 as the example):

0-450 points: A mix of opponents in SCL5 and 6.
451-900 points: SCL6 opponents.
901+ points: A mix of opponents in SCL6 and 7.

You would both see and be seen by the same tier of opponents.

Ideally that would keep the pools large enough that you don't have the same 50 people beating on each other while simulating an easier experience through the first third of the overall progression, an even level through the meat of the "good" rewards, and a hard challenge to reach top progression.

(Of course I realize that opens up the possibility of someone choosing a lower SCL and dominating for lesser rewards.)

Jarvind

OneLastGambit wrote:

1. You unshielded at the wrong time
2. You've been unshielded for too long - hops are supposed to be short, hence the name.

To build off of this - don't unshield near the 11-hour and 8-hour marks. It's usually a feeding frenzy around those times since they line up with shield durations (8+3 and 8 respectively). If you unshield around 6 hours left you can usually do a few matches unmolested, and there will be plenty of points in the slice by then.

GurlBYE

chamber44 wrote:

Jam_Adams wrote:

broll wrote:

2. Make losses not subtract from progression total. Why not change it so that when you lose it subtracts from your points for placement, but it doesn't take away from your progression? This would probably be a pretty substantial code change as they would basically be splitting 1 score into 2, but I think it would solve a lot of issues. Let people fight up to progression and stop if they don't care about placement. These people would then fill a role similar to what cupcakes did where higher rosters can farm them to keep the point totals going higher. This would also lead to more people playing PvP as today a lot of lower rosters just quit because it's impossible to get good placement OR progression rewards below champ 4*. Make it so those low rosters can actually have a chance and progression at least and you don't loose their points from the pool completely.

wow - I really like this idea. I don't play pvp much due to how progression is such a pain. if progression could be attained in this fashion, I would definitely play it more often. it still requires effort and time to get max progression, but you don't have to deal with the 'one step forward, two steps back' style of play

isn't this essentially just PvE without the "story"?

PVP right now is PVE but instead of everyone earning progression as they play they put a robot version of their team out and fight over a limited mount of progression points.

PVP isn't actually competition atm.

The fact that everyone keeps mentioning 4 star champs like its a norm is a serious problem for pvp's health.


It takes over a year (possibly closer to 2) to get champed 4's.
Thats not sustainable.

Polares

Quebbster wrote:

broll wrote:

1. Use Clearance Level to pit similar rostered players together. Today CL only affect rewards and ranking but MMR is not effected. That needs to change. If you are in CL5 you should only be matched with other players in CL5.

I see two potential problems with this. The first is the lack of targets, meaning you would end up in skip hell much faster. The second is the risk that high-level players slum it out in lower CLs and just crush everyone with Little fear of retaliation. I definitely get why you'd want to limit who you get matched against, but it has huge drawbacks as well.

In the long run, when ALL SCLs are opened the second problem you mention will disappear. And right now we might have already 10 different MMRs (ranges are not super strict but we probably have 15, 50, 94, 120, 166, 220, 270, 250, 400, 450, 550), so 10 SCLs also look right, I don't know if some of them might be too empty.

Maybe what they can do is that when you look for targets you see your SCL and SCL-1 and SCL+1, that benefits a bit SCL10 people but, well, they already have the best of the best so who cares, they are gonna stomp on you no matter what.

But it is obvious we need all SCLs, too many people right now in SCL7.

I am a bit afraid that a lot of people might leave the game now out of frustration, and if a lot of people leaves PvP is going to be much harder...

Maybe we would need to go from 5 time slices to 3. PvE needs 5 time slices, because ending time is so important, but in PvP it is not that important so 3 slices would probably group more people together, we have too much segregation now.

shadowyoshi

Just want to note that maybe we shouldn't be using Sticks and Stones as a barometer here. Moreso than any other PVP event, the Luke Cage event (followed closely by the Iron Fist event we just had) seems to favor higher level rosters even more because of the damn protect tile. I'm still a 3*-4* transitioner but back when I had just made it to 3*, this is the event I always skipped because the match damage being nullified to 3* rosters slowed me down that much more. Now with 4* champs it is even moreso as boosted 4* champs and 5* walk though the Cage protect tile. Lower rosters still die a slow death of points against that barrier.

TxMoose

until you cross 1K or 1100 where mmr opens up, mmr keeps you hitting rosters of your level +/-. if the top of your mmr is short of the guys who can score some points, you'll never have points to hit. this is a roster issue and the more people that play with boosted 4s and usable 5s, harder 3*s rosters will find things. when I started my 4* transition I could take on what was, at the time, rosters that were just under the top of the game. I even hit 1300 with unboosted fist/cage once (way too much hp, but learned lots in the process) for a hb red. now, the same unboosted fist/cage can still only reliably take on 220s-250s. which was near the top back then, and many of those rosters were putting up points, not anywhere near the top now. and none of those rosters are putting up points. so if you have a great boosted pair, you can take on some 270s-300s. again, those guys aren't putting up a ton of points. the only guys reliably putting up big points to go get are 5* players and a handful of 4* players. right now the best place for you to better your roster is pve. and hope cl8 opens up soon to take all the big boys out of cl7.

GurlBYE

TxMoose wrote:

until you cross 1K or 1100 where mmr opens up, mmr keeps you hitting rosters of your level +/-. if the top of your mmr is short of the guys who can score some points, you'll never have points to hit. this is a roster issue and the more people that play with boosted 4s and usable 5s, harder 3*s rosters will find things. when I started my 4* transition I could take on what was, at the time, rosters that were just under the top of the game. I even hit 1300 with unboosted fist/cage once (way too much hp, but learned lots in the process) for a hb red. now, the same unboosted fist/cage can still only reliably take on 220s-250s. which was near the top back then, and many of those rosters were putting up points, not anywhere near the top now. and none of those rosters are putting up points. so if you have a great boosted pair, you can take on some 270s-300s. again, those guys aren't putting up a ton of points. the only guys reliably putting up big points to go get are 5* players and a handful of 4* players. right now the best place for you to better your roster is pve. and hope cl8 opens up soon to take all the big boys out of cl7.

Thats a problem, a power creep problem that destroys an entire mode.

It puts an expiration date on your roster based on new levels of play. The meta shifted but awards haven't changed.
a 3 star is now 100 points from the 4 star, and both are passed command points, the way to end game.

Cl8 people will still fight cl7 people. It will help with placement not progression, the awards that people actually want.