ActiveEventPpl

amarrero

Re: PvE or PvP

I think the underlying question is whether we want top 100 in PvE or top 100 in PvP.

For top 100 in PvP, we will likely need a minimum of 600 pts for PvP per person and likely at least 10 people with 700-800 pts. This should get everybody in the top 50 individually plus top 100 for alliance, resulting in at least 2 covers. In my experience, this is more doable with a lv85 combo of OBW and Thor/Ares. With Wolvie it's more difficult due to lower health level. It also helps to have the feature character buffed as much as possible to scare people off.

The advantage of top 100 in PvP is covers for actual 3* characters. The disadvantage is that you will need a strong 2* team to be able to reach 600 pts plus spending $$$ for shields.

It's a bit easier to do top 100 in PvE given the scaling factor. The disadvantage is the constant grinding, though with the new timer, it might be easier to schedule playtime. The last event I found that grinding each node twice in a row was a good balance between maximizing pts while minimizing grinding (approx 5 hour between each play-through).

Salmon Paw

amarrero wrote:

Re: PvE or PvP

I think the underlying question is whether we want top 100 in PvE or top 100 in PvP.

For top 100 in PvP, we will likely need a minimum of 600 pts for PvP per person and likely at least 10 people with 700-800 pts. This should get everybody in the top 50 individually plus top 100 for alliance, resulting in at least 2 covers. In my experience, this is more doable with a lv85 combo of OBW and Thor/Ares. With Wolvie is more difficult due to lower health level. It also helps to have the feature character buffed as much as possible to scare people off.

The advantage of top 100 in PvP is covers for actual 3* characters. The disadvantage is that you will need a strong 2* team to be able to reach 600 pts plus spending $$$ for shields.

It's a bit easier to do top 100 in PvE given the scaling factor. The disadvantage is the constant grinding, though with the new timer, it might be easier to schedule playtime. The last event I found that grinding each node twice in a row was a good balance between maximizing pts while minimizing grinding (approx 5 hour between each play-through).

I have a maxed out hulk and getting to 300 in pvp is just painful. I used to get 700-800 fairly easy, with the new changes i'm lucky to get 300.

Unknown

Same here salmon. Pvp is really annoying for me now

amarrero

Salmon Paw wrote:

I have a maxed out hulk and getting to 300 in pvp is just painful. I used to get 700-800 fairly easy, with the new changes i'm lucky to get 300.

Maybe going with a maxed out 2* team might be easier unless you have maxed out 3* team. I currently have patch buffed to lv116 with lv85 obw/thor and got up to #2, only getting wiped out once or twice. The lv116 seems to scare off most people from attacking.

That said, I think top 100 in PvE might be easier to reach regularly than top 100 in PvP until most of us can reach top 50 or so individually.

Salmon Paw

amarrero wrote:

Salmon Paw wrote:

I have a maxed out hulk and getting to 300 in pvp is just painful. I used to get 700-800 fairly easy, with the new changes i'm lucky to get 300.

Maybe going with a maxed out 2* team might be easier unless you have maxed out 3* team. I currently have patch buffed to lv116 with lv85 obw/thor and got up to #2, only getting wiped out once or twice. The lv116 seems to scare off most people from attacking.

That said, I think top 100 in PvE might be easier to reach regularly than top 100 in PvP until most of us can reach top 50 or so individually.

This doesn't matter because it gives me full 141 or higher teams to fight right from the beginning, so using a team of 85s wouldn't help at all. Most of my matches are lvl 212 featured hero, and 2 lvl 141s (most commonly patch, hulk, magneto, and punisher). occasionally i'll find a team that has one lvl 85 in it, and that's usually the team I fight, I win about 50% of those fights.

amarrero

Salmon,

Seems like you aren't the only one: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9541&p=164429&hilit=Pvp#p164429

Looks like maxing out one 3* character is a bad idea...

HootieMac

Heads up- I'm out of town this weekend and will have limited (if any) net access or time to play. I'll be back on Sunday evening to jump into the new PVE event.

Unknown

BTW, I'm "Theralif" from the alliance. Wouldn't let me enter "Elfritobandito9" like I wanted to.

Salmon Paw

amarrero wrote:

Salmon,

Seems like you aren't the only one: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9541&p=164429&hilit=Pvp#p164429

Looks like maxing out one 3* character is a bad idea...

Yeah I was doing great before I started leveling up the hulk, once i got him to 100 they just dumped a pile of 141s on my head in pvp. there's no ramp up too, it's just like oh you're 100? You want to fight lvl 141 patch and magneto at the same time right?

amarrero

Salmon Paw wrote:

Yeah I was doing great before I started leveling up the hulk, once i got him to 100 they just dumped a pile of 141s on my head in pvp. there's no ramp up too, it's just like oh you're 100? You want to fight lvl 141 patch and magneto at the same time right?

Yeah, I have LT at 89 and Patch at 77. I'm thinking about leaving them at the lv90 mark and work on other 3* characters for now. Plus that should help in the PvP events with featured characters.

Skidoo

Hey guys, is this our go-to forum thread? I'll begin to check in regularly.

Re: New Members.... I agree w the approach that reliable production matters most, within reason. The story events have varied so much lately it's hard to settle on a threshold, but I say if a player is consistently middle of the pack in our alliance then that's good enough.

Regarding PVP, I still believe 300 is a reasonable guideline most of the time with reasonable leeway. Of course if a player is a top-5 contributor in the story event then that is probably enough to balance it out. Consistency, but moderation is a good approach. Everyone gets busy or burnt out a few days here or there, but the trend line should be reliable.

If someone has a strong roster, that could mean they have the potential to be a producer, or it could simply mean that they've invested a lot of money, or that they've been playing a long time, or that they were previously riding coattails in an alliance that routinely brought in big rewards. On the other hand, I often don't jump right into PVP immediately and wait for the last 24-36 hours, but have always finished above 300 except once. If you checked my score during that first day, it would usually be 0.

Skidoo

QUESTION... What are your thoughts on developing a 3* roster?

Once I maxed my 6 favorite uncommons, I don't get that daily jolt of reward for pulling a cover I don't already have or investing the ISO for another level. I am waiting on luck now, hoping a gold token actually results in a gold cover.

Up til this week, I've downplayed PVP and mostly focused on story events. I didn't think I had the roster to progress far beyond 300 without a lot of health packs. But I've come to see that top-50 is definitely attainable. And it appears that may be the most sure fire way to get 3* covers every 2-3 days.

How have you guys been making the 3* transition?

I really don't want this to become a boring slog.

Ski

Unknown

I hate to say it, but transitioning to 3* is a boring slog, but it gives you the most options to be competitive in events

Skidoo

Darth Agog wrote:

I hate to say it, but transitioning to 3* is a boring slog, but it gives you the most options to be competitive in events

Short Reply
I've loved the PQ formula since I played the first one on PSP years ago, and I've really enjoyed this new design, but I don't appreciate this abrupt bottleneck at 3*. It now finally feels like the typical free-to-play formula where the pleasure-pain balance compels players to spend RL money or give it up. I've already put $35 into the game and happily. But that's more than I spend on most full-blown AAA console games nowadays, so I don't want to invest further, but it feels like the industry greed has finally kicked in. The slog doesn't feel rewarding enough to justify the time investment, so I'm hoping they make a change.

Long Reply

Up to about last week (I am on day 116), I have really enjoyed how D3 has kept it fresh and constantly rewarding. Then last month they made it even easier to ramp up quickly through 1* to 2* by granting a chance to be rewarded a cover on every single PVP battle instead of the standard 70/140 ISO payout. Great move.

And I haven't felt pressed to spend RL money like most F2P games, aside from adding roster slots for all the new covers, which is spending money to accommodate rewards so it didn't feel painful. I spent $35 total before I joined the AEP alliance and spent it all on roster slots. That was money week-spent because I was getting plenty of enjoyment from the game. Now that I'm in AEP, we are together generating enough gold each week that I can buy at least one new roster slot for whatever new character they release. So now my gold will go toward shields to secure my PVP standing.

But the usable rewards have ground to a crawl the last few weeks. After finally getting my last black OBW, I have all the 2*s I want. They are just ISO-fodder for me now. It's strange how random chance works because I have literally pulled probably 12-15 of Daken's purple and Hawk's red,mbut still haven't maxed their other colors. It was the same with OBW - I pulled her purple over and over for weeks, but only just got her final 2 blacks last week. Sheesh.

Anyway, sorry for the length. It's a bummer the player gets to this point and is faced with the choice between cashing it in and quitting g or cashing it in and spending significant money because $5-10 here and there just isn't enough to lift you over the 3* hump.

Skidoo

elfritobandito9 wrote:

Same here salmon. Pvp is really annoying for me now

Something changed in matchmaking and it changed abruptly. A couple weeks ago I was regularly encountering teams with a lvl50 mStorm or IM30 with some 2* or another mixed in, then all of a sudden it was all 85/85 2*s.

I don't know if that was a change in their matchmaking algorithm or that I had crossed some threshold. But it was sudden and very frustrating. For one or two PVP events I encountered a fair number of insurmountable 3* teams, but it's stabilized and every matchup now is almost always 85/85 teams of 2*s with the occasional 3* mixed in. At least it's manageable - my 85/85 team against theirs, my skill against the AIs.

Skidoo

Re: PVP vs PvE

adm made a good summary of the question:

amarrero wrote:

I think the underlying question is whether we want top 100 in PvE or top 100 in PvP.

For top 100 in PvP, we will likely need a minimum of 600 pts for PvP per person and likely at least 10 people with 700-800 pts. This should get everybody in the top 50 individually plus top 100 for alliance, resulting in at least 2 covers.

I believe it would be a lot easier to consistently make Top-100 in PVP than this, adm. In our current Lord Of Thunder PVP. If every member who is currently under 300 just made it to 300 then we'd have an additional 1300 points. We are currently in the 130s, so that additional 1300 points is likely enough to bump us up to top-100 all on its own.

With 5-6 players scoring 600-1100 without any outside encouragement and the rest of the members scoring as they currently are, I think we could make top-100 every event if the rest of the alliance just hit 300.

The advantage of top 100 in PvP is covers for actual 3* characters.

This is why I would vote in favor of PVP if we had to emphasize one or the other. Also, we can generate 1-3 covers for every member every couple days rather than every 7-10 days in story events.

The disadvantage is that you will need a strong 2* team to be able to reach 600 pts plus spending $$$ for shields.

To the first point, pretty much everyone in AEP now has 4-6+ maxed out 2*s on their roster.
To the second point, the shields almost 100% pay for themselves in the rewards we reap. The shields cost 50-200G, but we reap 50G for placing top-100 individually and 50G for placing top-100 in the alliance.

It's a bit easier to do top 100 in PvE given the scaling factor. The disadvantage is the constant grinding, though with the new timer, it might be easier to schedule playtime.

The big advantage of story events are the new characters. If we place well, we are all guaranteed 1-3 new covers which will immediately be useful in the next story event and PVP. That feeds on itself, of course, granting access to the restricted nodes which are usually enough on their own to ensure placement in the top 50 individually.

Unknown

Skidoo wrote:

It's a bummer the player gets to this point and is faced with the choice between cashing it in and quitting g or cashing it in and spending significant money because $5-10 here and there just isn't enough to lift you over the 3* hump.

I'm at this point now. It's so frustrating grinding for rewards that then don't get you anything useful. Unfortunately I've decided to quit rather than spending the extra time/money. I also play Marvel: Avengers Alliance so my loyalty has always been divided but that game is so much more fun that I'd rather play that instead.

It's been fun playing with you guys, however briefly!

Skidoo

dreyat wrote:

I'm at this point now. It's so frustrating grinding for rewards that then don't get you anything useful. Unfortunately I've decided to quit rather than spending the extra time/money. I also play Marvel: Avengers Alliance so my loyalty has always been divided but that game is so much more fun that I'd rather play that instead.

It's been fun playing with you guys, however briefly!

You probably won't see this, but take care Dreyat. My hope is D3 will loosen up the drop rates a bit so this bottleneck at stage 3 doesn't push too many of us out of the game. - ski

Unknown

Hey we are looking for new members. 3 spots open. I'm having Salmon update the first post and then we will create a new one sometime soon sine he is no longer commander.

Unknown

Bump. 2 spots still open!