Funbalancing Queue Update?

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

jozier wrote:

Sure, if you want to pretend that every fight exists in a vacuum. The devs don't. A single fight is one fight in the broader context of a large PVE event or multiple PVP battles. And in that respect, the only thing that matters is that you have full heath and can traipse into the next fight as if the first didn't even happen. You get all the benefits and none of the consequences from winning a fight whereas someone who used another set of characters did.

Exactly, the whole point of the boost cost change and AP funbalancing wasn't just to make matches longer, it was also to increase attrition, both from incidental match damage because of the longer turns and chances for the opponent being able to actually get abilities off, but also to eat up medpacks with cascades.

People really don't seem to get that attrition is the basis of the competitive model of this game.

Let's say you have Spiderman removed from the game, and you're given every character in the game maxed with whatever covers you want. You're fighting 230X3s and you're so good that 99% of the time you win while taking between 500 to 5000 total damage. Despite the fact that a single Headbutt does more than 5000 damage, you're just that awesome. Note that bringing OBW doesn't lower this amount, because let's say an enemy takes 30 turns (which requires you doing 1000 damage per turn to go through 30K HP, the average health of 3 level 230s), they get 9000 damage by just match 3s. If you get 2 Anti-Gravs in a 30 turn game healing for the maximum (1200X3X2), you still lose 1800 damage just to match3s.

So you start with say 3X5800 HP guys for your awesome party, and you can say that since you take no more than 5000 damage 99% of the time you're certain to win 99% of the time with this party.

So let's say you play 3 games taking a total of 1000 damage in each game. One guy matches 3 colors and takes half of the total damage, and the rest is split evenly. Note that this is like beating 230X3 while they only took 3 turns, which would be pretty amazing even with Spiderman, but even after these inexplicably awesome victories, your health would look like 4300/5050/5050. Now, remember we assume you could take up to 5000 damage, so now your weakest guy is no longer certain to survive, and if he dies you're also no longer certain to win at all because you might depend on that guy for something important.

Let's say you win 3 more games taking an inexplicably low 1000 total damage each game, now your health is at 2800/4300/4300. Now you're really pushing your luck as the guy with 2800 HP can easily be dropped in a bad cascade or just about any damaging move by a level 230 opponent, and depending on who that guy is, things can then go very bad. So you probably have to use a health pack on the guy with 2800 HP.

Of course, this assumes you won 6 games with an inexplicably awesome victory. In reality you'd be doing very good if you beat a single 230X3 with a health of 2800/4300/4300, and that sets you back one health back. After the next game you'd end up with 2800/2800/2800, which should set you back 3 health packs, and you'd be down to 1 health pack after 3 games.

Even taking small amount of incidental damage adds up very quickly when fighting tough opponents. Sure, you might be able to win a tough fight with 2800/2800/2800, but you got to be awfully gutsy to attempt something like that, and if it's PvP you can easily end up losing the battle and that'd really suck. Spiderman eliminates the attrition and stretches out your playing time far more than it should be. Now people will say that's good because you get to play more, except PvP and PvE is always competitive against other players, so you're just competing against other players who also have a very stretched playing time, and on PvE this also translates to needlessly difficult enemies to account for the fact that attrition does not accumulate when Spiderman is around.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Even taking small amount of incidental damage adds up very quickly when fighting tough opponents. Sure, you might be able to win a tough fight with 2800/2800/2800, but you got to be awfully gutsy to attempt something like that, and if it's PvP you can easily end up losing the battle and that'd really suck. Spiderman eliminates the attrition and stretches out your playing time far more than it should be. Now people will say that's good because you get to play more, except PvP and PvE is always competitive against other players, so you're just competing against other players who also have a very stretched playing time, and on PvE this also translates to needlessly difficult enemies to account for the fact that attrition does not accumulate when Spiderman is around.

And you go to the prologue with OBW, heal up, stretch your playtime....

Unknown

1) Mag is overpowered but not broken. Just needs his AP tinkered with
2) Spiderman is not overpowered, he is broken. He wasn't designed with the intent of stunlocking the enemy permanently for minimum cost. There are a ton of characters who suffer from too low ap cost, but in his case it creates an exploit. This isn't a feature, it's an exploit, plain and simple, and it needs to be patched.

Edit: I love the Galactus argument. Proof by Galactus...

I_am_Zero

He's not broken, he just doesn't fit into D3's version of what the game should be anymore. Just like Ragnarok made winning matches too easy and quick, Spider-man now doesn't fit into D3's version of how the game is supposed to work. D3 thinks you need to use the health packs and eventually buy more because of all the damage you take during normal playtime. Spider-man makes it so that you don't have to spend money, or at least think about having to spend money. Of course, that's just my opinion. I can't know exactly what D3 wants to do, but I do know that if people don't buy health packs and HP and ISO, then they don't get paid and if they don't get paid, there's no one to maintain the game. So how do you keep the money coming in? By making sure your team will need health packs and by always giving you new characters on which to spend ISO and HP, even if they are the lazy versions.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

From what I gather the devs do punish you for going to prologue to heal. If they see your health went up by a lot without using a health pack they assume you used prologue to heal and treats it as the same as a Spiderman flawless victory.

And where you get that exactly? Was it confirmed in any way?

I saw IceIX drop a note like that but it sounds similar **** as wen he talked about tanking not being effective.

I seriously doubt any like check actually happens. And it better.

Because implementing that feature would require the server traccking client account properly. And we KNOW it does not do that. If server tracked client state to any sanity the first thing to implement would be basic anti-cheat measures. Including but not limited to check roster was bought, HP/ISO amount match, hero health makes sense, etc. That games played are those actually offered. That wins are genuine.

For all the listed we actually know are NOT checked, the server is happy to register most kind of foul states. Instead we're supposed to report cheaters and they get removed manually.

The only sensible explanation to lack of automatic checks is that they didn't do their homework and the server is just not capable of doing the checks -- for lack of most information. But it;s the same information that would require to track prologue healing.

So pick your poison.

Unknown

bonfire01 wrote:

Phantron wrote:

Even taking small amount of incidental damage adds up very quickly when fighting tough opponents. Sure, you might be able to win a tough fight with 2800/2800/2800, but you got to be awfully gutsy to attempt something like that, and if it's PvP you can easily end up losing the battle and that'd really suck. Spiderman eliminates the attrition and stretches out your playing time far more than it should be. Now people will say that's good because you get to play more, except PvP and PvE is always competitive against other players, so you're just competing against other players who also have a very stretched playing time, and on PvE this also translates to needlessly difficult enemies to account for the fact that attrition does not accumulate when Spiderman is around.

And you go to the prologue with OBW, heal up, stretch your playtime....

OBW is overpowered but good at healing is the one thing she is not being overpowered for. If you're fighting 3 goons you can only heal 600 at a time. If you're fighting stuff that can actually move the tiles, you are far from certain from getting enough blue before you accidentally killed them, and get at most one Anti-Grav off which is not really enough for the damage you'd be taking on a high end team.

Do people say 'but you can also do this with XYZ' actually tried to do the stuff they claim? Spiderman is far and above what anyone else can do in the healing department. There's no 'but others can do it'. No, they can't do it, that's why he's so special.

Unknown

I am Zero wrote:

He's not broken, he just doesn't fit into D3's version of what the game should be anymore. Just like Ragnarok made winning matches too easy and quick, Spider-man now doesn't fit into D3's version of how the game is supposed to work. D3 thinks you need to use the health packs and eventually buy more because of all the damage you take during normal playtime. Spider-man makes it so that you don't have to spend money, or at least think about having to spend money. Of course, that's just my opinion. I can't know exactly what D3 wants to do, but I do know that if people don't buy health packs and HP and ISO, then they don't get paid and if they don't get paid, there's no one to maintain the game. So how do you keep the money coming in? By making sure your team will need health packs and by always giving you new characters on which to spend ISO and HP, even if they are the lazy versions.

You seriously think hitting the enemy N times while they are completely frozen is not an exploit? The fact that you need tim to complete impossible missions makes him a game breaker. I love spidey but he is not right.... he needs to be tinkered. If you don't depend on him you would be ok with him going to the doctor... Ragnarok was broken too! I'm glad he got his **** fixed. There should be no I-win button in competitive games.

Unknown

I'm pretty sure that mthor, patches and cmag can beat any team, maybe stumble a little against the hood? If you're gunna say cmag is due for a nerf, you could sub him for black panther or even gsbw and still kill pretty much everything. I'm assuming you would prioritize using patches green and any aoe move or on the mag team, a bunch of little moves after using patches green. Thor is around to do massive damage with yellow and generate green. When paired with BP or GSBW, thor's red becomes a viable attack after green is used assuming patch is 5/3/5.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

Phantron wrote:

From what I gather the devs do punish you for going to prologue to heal. If they see your health went up by a lot without using a health pack they assume you used prologue to heal and treats it as the same as a Spiderman flawless victory.

And where you get that exactly? Was it confirmed in any way?

I saw IceIX drop a note like that but it sounds similar **** as wen he talked about tanking not being effective.

I seriously doubt any like check actually happens. And it better.

Because implementing that feature would require the server traccking client account properly. And we KNOW it does not do that. If server tracked client state to any sanity the first thing to implement would be basic anti-cheat measures. Including but not limited to check roster was bought, HP/ISO amount match, hero health makes sense, etc. That games played are those actually offered. That wins are genuine.

For all the listed we actually know are NOT checked, the server is happy to register most kind of foul states. Instead we're supposed to report cheaters and they get removed manually.

The only sensible explanation to lack of automatic checks is that they didn't do their homework and the server is just not capable of doing the checks -- for lack of most information. But it;s the same information that would require to track prologue healing.

So pick your poison.

The only thing it needs to check is your HP at the start of a match, and if you've consumed any health packs since the last one.

Spoit

Impulse wrote:

pasa_ wrote:

Phantron wrote:

From what I gather the devs do punish you for going to prologue to heal. If they see your health went up by a lot without using a health pack they assume you used prologue to heal and treats it as the same as a Spiderman flawless victory.

And where you get that exactly? Was it confirmed in any way?

I saw IceIX drop a note like that but it sounds similar **** as wen he talked about tanking not being effective.

I seriously doubt any like check actually happens. And it better.

Because implementing that feature would require the server traccking client account properly. And we KNOW it does not do that. If server tracked client state to any sanity the first thing to implement would be basic anti-cheat measures. Including but not limited to check roster was bought, HP/ISO amount match, hero health makes sense, etc. That games played are those actually offered. That wins are genuine.

For all the listed we actually know are NOT checked, the server is happy to register most kind of foul states. Instead we're supposed to report cheaters and they get removed manually.

The only sensible explanation to lack of automatic checks is that they didn't do their homework and the server is just not capable of doing the checks -- for lack of most information. But it;s the same information that would require to track prologue healing.

So pick your poison.

The only thing it needs to check is your HP at the start of a match, and if you've consumed any health packs since the last one.

And when the last match was and what your HP was at the end of it

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Yeah that's the thread I was talking about. Puritas had an interesting theory about bringing Ares along for some last minute self mutiliation to keep your scaling down, and it sounds like it could work too, assuming you don't need Ares later.

Assuming that would actually work to keep scaling down, that (to me) would be proof of a broken system. Just like you're being punished if you have a near flawless victory (either with Spidey or a miracle cascade giving you a load of AP), you're almost rewarded (with lower scaling) if you intentionally take damage.

I do agree that if you're winning every match easily that you need tougher opponents, but I'm certainly not convinced the current system is the way to do it.

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

Impulse wrote:

The only thing it needs to check is your HP at the start of a match, and if you've consumed any health packs since the last one.

And when the last match was and what your HP was at the end of it

It would also have to take into account team setup. What if you switched out some of your beat up chars with the full health ones on the reserve bench? Should that count as flawless victory? I'm pretty sure there's a whole bunch of loopholes hidden in that simple question.

Unknown

Moghwyn wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Impulse wrote:

The only thing it needs to check is your HP at the start of a match, and if you've consumed any health packs since the last one.

And when the last match was and what your HP was at the end of it

It would also have to take into account team setup. What if you switched out some of your beat up chars with the full health ones on the reserve bench? Should that count as flawless victory? I'm pretty sure there's a whole bunch of loopholes hidden in that simple question.

Yep, as sson as one engages to implement the thing eventually discovers he has to have about all the event history.

What actually is a thing not hard to have and the servers should have it from the first moment of deployment too. But lack of other essential features indicate it hasn't at the moment unfortunately.

Some guy claimed that even opening a token is a client-side thing and the result is sent to the server rather than the other way around. Not confirmed to either direction but a statement from devs that 'we were not that dumb for a second' would have been more than natural. So I take it as confirmation. With light hope it got changed in the last patch with changed prize gfx -- though the order of clicks and screens is still suspect.

Unknown

DaveyPitch wrote:

I do agree that if you're winning every match easily that you need tougher opponents, but I'm certainly not convinced the current system is the way to do it.

I'd like to disagree with the "winning every match easily" part. It's a flawed approach, it just rewards people for playing in a way that makes the game think they are not winning easily. In order for scaling not to get exploited it has to be bound to something everybody wants, like progression. Let's do some designing. What characteristics should scaling possess?

- No memory. Each event should treat scaling as isolated occurrence, starting from scratch, otherwise players will just tank half the events.

- Based on performance. Easy at first, tough at the end. There's already a perfect measurement for performance that can't be gamed, your event score, as it goes up your opponents should also get tougher. There's another perfect indicator for the rate at which opponents should get tougher, the topmost progression reward, reaching that should max out all missions. Assuming an opponent range from 10 to 230, a topmost progression reward at 100000 and linear scaling, the level of your opponents would be 10 + (230 - 10) * min( OwnScore, 100000) / 100000. You start out with level 10 opponents, slowly going towards level 230 opponents as your score goes up. Also rewards you for getting a better roster, the first fights will be a breeze.

- No locking out weaker rosters. Difficulty has to go down again in case you've hit the wall that no longer allows you to participate. Surprise, there's also a perfect number for that, the distance of your score to the pack leader, as you fall behind your fights should get easier again. Taking the numbers from above, the modified formula would be 10 + (230 - 10) * min( max(OwnScore - (TopScore - Ownscore), 0), 100000) / 100000. If you want to maintain top position, you'll get the hard fights, like you should. If you can't or don't want to manage those, drop down some ranks by passing a refresh or two, they'll automatically become easier.

There we are, a perfect scaling mechanism that is simple to implement, impossible to exploit and fair to all parties involved. It doesn't care how you play, just that you have progressed further than other players towards the main event goal, getting the Fat Loot. Unless, of course, D3P has some additional hidden agenda not mentioned yet. IceIX, care to comment?

Unknown

Moghwyn wrote:

DaveyPitch wrote:

I do agree that if you're winning every match easily that you need tougher opponents, but I'm certainly not convinced the current system is the way to do it.

I'd like to disagree with the "winning every match easily" part. It's a flawed approach, it just rewards people for playing in a way that makes the game think they are not winning easily. In order for scaling not to get exploited it has to be bound to something everybody wants, like progression. Let's do some designing. What characteristics should scaling possess?

- No memory. Each event should treat scaling as isolated occurrence, starting from scratch, otherwise players will just tank half the events.

- Based on performance. Easy at first, tough at the end. There's already a perfect measurement for performance that can't be gamed, your event score, as it goes up your opponents should also get tougher. There's another perfect indicator for the rate at which opponents should get tougher, the topmost progression reward, reaching that should max out all missions. Assuming an opponent range from 10 to 230, a topmost progression reward at 100000 and linear scaling, the level of your opponents would be 10 + (230 - 10) * min( OwnScore, 100000) / 100000. You start out with level 10 opponents, slowly going towards level 230 opponents as your score goes up. Also rewards you for getting a better roster, the first fights will be a breeze.

- No locking out weaker rosters. Difficulty has to go down again in case you've hit the wall that no longer allows you to participate. Surprise, there's also a perfect number for that, the distance of your score to the pack leader, as you fall behind your fights should get easier again. Taking the numbers from above, the modified formula would be 10 + (230 - 10) * min( max(OwnScore - (TopScore - Ownscore), 0), 100000) / 100000. If you want to maintain top position, you'll get the hard fights, like you should. If you can't or don't want to manage those, drop down some ranks by passing a refresh or two, they'll automatically become easier.

There we are, a perfect scaling mechanism that is simple to implement, impossible to exploit and fair to all parties involved. It doesn't care how you play, just that you have progressed further than other players towards the main event goal, getting the Fat Loot. Unless, of course, D3P has some additional hidden agenda not mentioned yet. IceIX, care to comment?

Pretty sure scaling was implemented to make the game easier on newer/low lvl players so as not to have them quit playing when they realize they can never catch up to the best without an immense amount of work. Your setup, while it sounds fair to you and me, is a case of the rich get richer as at some point, lower level players have to drop out due to the scaling, regardless if it does drop down after a refresh or whatever it is you decide to be the mechanic. If they didn't want to try and give newer players a huge artificial leg up they wouldbt have ever even bothered with scaling in the first place. While more work equals more wins is great for gaming, its not great for getting new players. Ever play a game where the lvl 50 guy is running around with a machinegun, the lvl 25 has a handgun and the lvl 10 has a knife? That's basically what the "fair" approach to a game like this becomes, which is awful for hooking New customers.

Being bound to progression means it is bound to winning. Being bound to winning means it doesn't change based on your own roster.

If they want it to function both as a way to make lower lvls have a chance of winning without killing the mid lvl players or forcing everyone to use arguably broken characters then it needs to link with your roster somehow, as your roster is the true understanding of how good you can perform. Maybe progression should increase the difficulty as you say, but then the roster strength should put a lvl cap on the max difficulty of each lvl. So someone who runs 3 lvl 50 and scoring 500k maybe can fight a lvl 140 max and a guy with 3 lvl 100 can fight a 210 max on the 3rd to last lvl. The caps should of course be different node to node so that everyone, regardless, has to deal with a maxed enemy in the last node or two. Why? In order to let there be a reason to raise your character levels.

Unknown

soenottelling wrote:

If they want it to function both as a way to make lower lvls have a chance of winning without killing the mid lvl players or forcing everyone to use arguably broken characters then it needs to link with your roster somehow, as your roster is the true understanding of how good you can perform. Maybe progression should increase the difficulty as you say, but then the roster strength should put a lvl cap on the max difficulty of each lvl. So someone who runs 3 lvl 50 and scoring 500k maybe can fight a lvl 140 max and a guy with 3 lvl 100 can fight a 210 max on the 3rd to last lvl. The caps should of course be different node to node so that everyone, regardless, has to deal with a maxed enemy in the last node or two. Why? In order to let there be a reason to raise your character levels.

I see your point, I don't think it's going to work though. "Roster strength" is very much similar to "good player", you can't put your thumb on it. To give an example, would you rather run a level 85 Bagman or a level 85 Thor? They are both the same rarity, same level, their roster strength value should be the same, right? What about a level 141 Lazy Thor, should your scaling roughly double if you own a level 230 X-Force instead? And that doesn't even take into account interaction between characters, like being able to feed colors or running a full rainbow. I don't see any way the game could come up with an even remotely accurate number for roster strength, there's just too many factors involved here. It would just lead to yet another round of gaming the system, like selling all your legendary covers in order to keep scaling low.

This really boils down to the question, should new players be able to take top placement in events? My personal answer would be no, under no condition, even if that may sound selfish. The reason is progression, if you are able score first place right away with your starter deck, what is there left to progress to in a game built on competition? By all means, as a newbie you should get your underwear handed to you if you want to swim with the pros, along with the realization that it's a long and hard way to the top. Of course, there should be enough rewards on that way to keep things interesting. Use your starter deck to win uncommon characters, use those to win rare characters, use those go for top rewards. This isn't really a case of the rich getting richer, it's getting rewards on par with your level, enough to make you a bit stronger and in better position for the next event. If you want to take the shortcut, there's always the cash option.

Unknown

Moghwyn wrote:

This really boils down to the question, should new players be able to take top placement in events? My personal answer would be no, under no condition, even if that may sound selfish. The reason is progression, if you are able score first place right away with your starter deck, what is there left to progress to in a game built on competition? By all means, as a newbie you should get your underwear handed to you if you want to swim with the pros, along with the realization that it's a long and hard way to the top. Of course, there should be enough rewards on that way to keep things interesting. Use your starter deck to win uncommon characters, use those to win rare characters, use those go for top rewards. This isn't really a case of the rich getting richer, it's getting rewards on par with your level, enough to make you a bit stronger and in better position for the next event. If you want to take the shortcut, there's always the cash option.

As the game is now I disagree. If the game were releasing low level, mid level, and high level content all the time it would be great. Right now they are releasing content. It is tailored that anyone who can figure out the game and put in the time and effort can earn shiny new rewards. Will it take them longer to max out that Lazy Thor they managed to grab a few covers for, almost certainly. As it should. Does the game seem to require using every character especially the new ones to place well in future events absolutely. As long as all this is true scaling is required.

Cash may be a shortcut, but at best it can only help you down a path. It takes time and effort to get on the path in the first place, and unless you are spending huge amounts it is not even an enormous boost in the long run.

Would it be better if there were low level tournaments that had smaller iso rewards handed out lots of 1* and 2* covers with the top placement getting one 3*? No lvl 86+ characters allowed.

I understand the frustration but trying to tell the entire new playerbase that they don't deserve anything above 2* is rather harsh.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

I understand the frustration but trying to tell the entire new playerbase that they don't deserve anything above 2* is rather harsh.

It's not really frustration, more like bafflement at seeing a gem getting thrown into the trash. I really enjoyed the golden age of MPQ where you progressed from one star to two star to three star roster, there was a sense of achievement in it. Right now two stars are basically obsolete, as newcomer you jump directly to three stars, often without even leveling your one stars in any significant way. Feels like a lost opportunity, sort of like having a huge skill tree, except that you get to pick the powerful finisher skills right from the start, making the whole design effort obsolete. Maybe I'm just not a casual enough player, I like getting told to first go clean out some dungeons and rescue a princess or three before being shown the Leet Sword and the Armor of Uberness, never mind being allowed to touch them.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Would it be better if there were ... tournaments that had smaller iso rewards handed out lots of 1* and 2* covers with the top placement getting one 3*?

I've been mocked for saying it but yes, I think the game would be better if they ran occasional events where you could choose to enter either a "standard" bracket or a bracket that gave out rewards like this but not both

Unknown

They aren't getting thrown in the trash though. I can't speak for everyone but I know how much time work and effort it will take to get 3 stars up to fighting strength so each 3* is a small treasure. Two stars are still gathered more quickly so I really don't think anyone is jumping from 1* teams to 100+ 3* teams directly, they are just getting a head start on collecting covers that will be useful later on. Saying you don't need any 3* until after you have your 2* team up to strength is like telling someone they are too far behind in a race and they should give up instead of encouraging them to keep working on the long goal and it will eventually pay off.