Get rid of PVP boosts, 3X tries, or retaliation

Unknown

Catalyst wrote:

im all in favor of decoupling reward progression from ladder ranking

Yes, agreed with this.

I've been trying to 'go hard' every day on the last few tournaments. I've been number 1 in my bracket consistantly. Then get bumped down pretty hard. And I can never finish close to 1st. Same story lots of people seem to have.

The tourny system here is really frustrating. Great to earn ISO but terrible if you want to 'compete'.

Unknown

Unless the system is radically changed, you have to keep the skip option. I don't think you can determine who is a weaker opponent than you. I see several players with higher scores than me who have "weaker" teams than my own. I see several players with lower scores than me who have much, much stronger teams than my own.

Imagine losing to a "stronger" team, only to get paired against a "weaker" 110 Rag. There just simply isn't a good system at the moment for determining who is weaker and stronger. Leave that to the human element, and skip as desired. And if they start charging ISO to skip like someone previously suggested, well then that would end the game for me.

I've read suggestions about a shield option and I think this would be a good idea. Maybe once you lose 10% of your points since you've last won a match, the shields get activated, and players can only win 1% of your point total from there or something along these lines until you've recovered a percentage of the points lost.

90 minutes ago I was at 930 points. Now I'm down to just under 800. Most mornings I wake up to between 250-350 point losses. I don't care about my rankings, but I do try to get certain prize thresholds. To me, these are just carrots on a stick and no matter how long your play, or how close you get, there is always the beatdown that is guaranteed to occur to keep you from reaching it.

Yeah, once you retaliate, the war should be over for at least 24 hours.

I don't like the 3 tries option as is. I think it could be refined several ones. 1) You get one try period. 2) You get 3 tries, but the opponents health resets with each attempt. 3) You win points when the opponent can't defeat you on the first try. For example, if he's up for 20 points and beats me on the first try, he gets all 20. If he beats me on the second try, maybe he gets 10, but then I should also get 10 (either a net 10 gain or maybe simply break even and not lose any points). I dunno, there should be some reward for me if you can't beat me on the first try, and the reward should not be losing 30 points instead of losing 40. Maybe YOU should lose points if you can't beat me on the first go around. Just some ideas, but I think it leans to a one-and-done for me.

I think the devs have heard these complaints by now. I guess we just have to wait to see if, and how, they address it.

Unknown

Regalis wrote:

Unless the system is radically changed, you have to keep the skip option. I don't think you can determine who is a weaker opponent than you. I see several players with higher scores than me who have "weaker" teams than my own. I see several players with lower scores than me who have much, much stronger teams than my own.

Imagine losing to a "stronger" team, only to get paired against a "weaker" 110 Rag. There just simply isn't a good system at the moment for determining who is weaker and stronger. Leave that to the human element, and skip as desired. And if they start charging ISO to skip like someone previously suggested, well then that would end the game for me.

I've read suggestions about a shield option and I think this would be a good idea. Maybe once you lose 10% of your points since you've last won a match, the shields get activated, and players can only win 1% of your point total from there or something along these lines until you've recovered a percentage of the points lost.

90 minutes ago I was at 930 points. Now I'm down to just under 800. Most mornings I wake up to between 250-350 point losses. I don't care about my rankings, but I do try to get certain prize thresholds. To me, these are just carrots on a stick and no matter how long your play, or how close you get, there is always the beatdown that is guaranteed to occur to keep you from reaching it.

Yeah, once you retaliate, the war should be over for at least 24 hours.

I don't like the 3 tries option as is. I think it could be refined several ones. 1) You get one try period. 2) You get 3 tries, but the opponents health resets with each attempt. 3) You win points when the opponent can't defeat you on the first try. For example, if he's up for 20 points and beats me on the first try, he gets all 20. If he beats me on the second try, maybe he gets 10, but then I should also get 10 (either a net 10 gain or maybe simply break even and not lose any points). I dunno, there should be some reward for me if you can't beat me on the first try, and the reward should not be losing 30 points instead of losing 40. Maybe YOU should lose points if you can't beat me on the first go around. Just some ideas, but I think it leans to a one-and-done for me.

I think the devs have heard these complaints by now. I guess we just have to wait to see if, and how, they address it.

You don't lose as many points if it takes more than one try to defeat your team. You win a lot of points if you successfully defend every attempt. Some people know how to use their teams well, or have more time to play and rack up points. I've rarely had problems with high level ragnarok/spiderman teams.

Unknown

I know, I guess I'm just of the opinion you shouldn't get a second chance at it. And if you do try again, I should *win* some points (maybe not a lot, but some), and not lose any, even at a reduced amount, for your failed attempt. What makes it a piece of cake is that when you heal up and come back in for the second attempt, my characters are still dead, or mostly dead, and it's nothing to finish it off. My characters should be at full health just like yours.

If I *think* I will have a problem beating you on the first go around, I'm simply going to trot my B team out there and try to knock you down to a manageable level. I don't care if you kill me off. Then I'll bring out the A team for the second attempt and finish you off. I'll still have a healthy level of HP on my A team for the next battle, I still get a nice bounty out of it, and if you retaliate, you will see my A team. I will be at a lower level than you which means it probably won't be worth your while to retaliate, because I'll just repeat the cycle over and over again and you will end up with a net loss until we are on level terms point wise.

I can repeat this with B teams over and over again as I have enough pawns that at least 3 of them will be alive at any point in time. It's just a silly "exploit" which leads to the one-and-done stance I'm taking on how (and why) it should be played that way. At minimum, I should have my full health restored with each attempt.

Unknown

Regalis wrote:

I've read suggestions about a shield option and I think this would be a good idea. Maybe once you lose 10% of your points since you've last won a match, the shields get activated, and players can only win 1% of your point total from there or something along these lines until you've recovered a percentage of the points lost.

I still prefer the idea of "you cannot lose more points than your last reward" to this. I could also accept a separation of points system, but I think that has the potential for more point inflation than a "ratcheting" system.

Regalis wrote:

Yeah, once you retaliate, the war should be over for at least 24 hours.

I'd rather see a diminishing returns on retaliation -- first attack and retaliation are full points. Further retaliations are 1/2, then 1/4, etc per pair.

Because, frankly, retaliations are pretty much the only way to gain points right now, presuming that you're consistently attacking people higher level than you. Once I'm in the upper echelons it's either retaliate against someone who will give me at least 25 points or hit skip for several minutes trying to find someone who will give me 20 points... and anything under 25 points is simply a bad choice, but sometimes there are no good choices.

Regalis wrote:

2) You get 3 tries, but the opponents health resets with each attempt.

I think this is reasonable; or if not full health than at least somewhat healed. Note that you already pay a penalty in points though -- you lose 1/2 th epoints on the 2nd attempt and another 1/2 on the 3rd (1/4 of the original). Their retaliation is full points. Unless they were much, much higher points than you you're going to lose points in this exchange.

Regalis wrote:

I think the devs have heard these complaints by now. I guess we just have to wait to see if, and how, they address it.

Agree, and I hope they do, but I'm all for people floating new ideas as well. You had several.

Unknown

Zathrus wrote:

I still prefer the idea of "you cannot lose more points than your last reward" to this. I could also accept a separation of points system, but I think that has the potential for more point inflation than a "ratcheting" system.

This would be my preferred option as well. It's the "who wants to be a millionaire" concept. Once you reach certain thresholds, you can't fall below that line. Maybe you could still attack me and win points, but I could not lose points.

I appreciate that there may be some balance issues the devs are trying to achieve. I think the bottom line is that people play games because they want to "win." When you play a game where you constantly feel defeated, even when you're "winning," it just isn't a very fun game.

Unknown

Regalis wrote:

Zathrus wrote:

I still prefer the idea of "you cannot lose more points than your last reward" to this. I could also accept a separation of points system, but I think that has the potential for more point inflation than a "ratcheting" system.

This would be my preferred option as well.

I got many times oponent match with 0 or 1 point. So fight with oponent 0 and then not lose more points then 0. Cool

Unknown

Regalis wrote:

3) You win points when the opponent can't defeat you on the first try.

This is effectively what happens anyway. If they win on the 2nd or 3rd try then they get fewer points and you lose fewer points.

Unknown

Polkio wrote:

Regalis wrote:

Zathrus wrote:

I still prefer the idea of "you cannot lose more points than your last reward" to this. I could also accept a separation of points system, but I think that has the potential for more point inflation than a "ratcheting" system.

This would be my preferred option as well.

I got many times oponent match with 0 or 1 point. So fight with oponent 0 and then not lose more points then 0. Cool

There are ranking awards so why would I want this?

You can skip opponents. But I understand if skipping isn't an option. Last night in the Black Widow Tournament I was almost to 1000 however I had trouble finding an opponent that allow me to earn more than 5 points. I was nearly there but being at 980 and losing to an opponent at 400 hits pretty hard. I lost 4 times and was down around 800-something.

Regalis, Bainee. I must have hit the two of you a dozen times each. I felt the retaliation this morning. I lost almost 400 points.

Unknown

Regalis wrote:

Zathrus wrote:

I still prefer the idea of "you cannot lose more points than your last reward" to this. I could also accept a separation of points system, but I think that has the potential for more point inflation than a "ratcheting" system.

This would be my preferred option as well. It's the "who wants to be a millionaire" concept. Once you reach certain thresholds, you can't fall below that line. Maybe you could still attack me and win points, but I could not lose points.

I appreciate that there may be some balance issues the devs are trying to achieve. I think the bottom line is that people play games because they want to "win." When you play a game where you constantly feel defeated, even when you're "winning," it just isn't a very fun game.

Agreed. When play every night to hold myself in the top 10, and then get attacked 10 times in a single minute just before the tournament ends, putting me down to top 50... it just doesn't seem worth it. It's to the point where it's not even worth playing except at the beginning for progression rewards, and the very end if you want to actually win.

My suggestion: At least nerf the stockpile all AP boost. It's too easy when you have a 5 rank Red skill on Thor to use an all AP stockpile plus the red and yellow stockpile and just knock one character out before they can blink. Maybe split it into two boost that each give +2 to (G/R/Y) or (U/B/P). I mean, even the all color power boost is only half as strong as the others.

Unknown

Too many long posts here so I didn't read them all, but I just wanted to drop in and give my quick two cents.

Matchmaking is stupid broken. Why do we even get matched with 5+ people that only offer 0-5 points? There is absolutely no reason to attack them. We should only be matched with people that have more points than us so that they can ACTUALLY OFFER US POINTS. Is that so hard to comprehend? It doesn't matter if they have a stronger team, you can beat anybody you want if you wanted to. There is no such thing as "pvp defense" in this game. The AI is bad and you could just pop some boosts and beat them, no problem. Why do I have to skip 20+ times looking for somebody with decent points, just to give up and fight a 5 pointer and end up getting retaliated and losing 40 points? Stupid system. Fix it plz thx.

Nemek

If they did somehow change matchmaking so it only showed people you would normally fight right now, what would be the ramifications?

I figure that if that were to happen, immediately when somebody pulls ahead, they'll get pulled right back down. Because now that person is considered 'in range' for EVERYBODY else who is playing. Now, there isn't a chance that you're not showing up on the other high-level player's radar because of the matchmaking system.

If you think you're getting pulled back down from the top quickly now...how fast do you think you'll get pulled back down if everybody who is also grinding at that moment sees you immediately?

Unknown

another thing that's hilarious is if ur matchmaking rating is high and some high level player decides not to play til the last day of the tournament, he'll constantly appear on ur list as a 0-5 point target. constantly had like 5 ppl on my matchmaking list appear over and over and clearly they didn't care about the tournament, or just plain out waiting to the end.

Nemek

forgrim wrote:

another thing that's hilarious is if ur matchmaking rating is high and some high level player decides not to play til the last day of the tournament, he'll constantly appear on ur list as a 0-5 point target. constantly had like 5 ppl on my matchmaking list appear over and over and clearly they didn't care about the tournament, or just plain out waiting to the end.

This is something that definitely annoys me. When I'm up there on matchmaking, it's always the same people. Only one or two are worth fighting, so this person is going to see 10 defeats when they wake up. In this past lightning round, I just went and tanked my rating (at 0 points, so didn't affect my ranking), just to find new opponents.