4* PvP option

2

Comments

  • GurlBYE
    GurlBYE Posts: 1,218 Chairperson of the Boards
    acescracked said:
    mexus said:
    There came the sarcasm.
    Before I came to this forum I had problems with recognizing sarcasm but I've learned better since.

    Why not, instead of being sarcastic to me, teach me in what way I'm wrong in my assumptions?

    We've tried. Alot of us have tried. This forum was *alot* different long ago. Lemme see in game says I'm on day 1230.

    The forum two years ago there seemed (true we always are more fond of the past) to be more tolerance of how the game worked and we all had difficulties. However, there weren't constant "Open letter to the devs" & "I've got the solution to MPQ because I'm a part time game designer".

    I remember when my roster was growing getting horribly beat down in PvP.  My roster developed over time and PvP became easier.  We also had 2.5 hour pve refreshes that we had to set alarms for. 

    It's not lost on us vets that it's harder to develop a roster now because of the number of characters and more players.

    But...this constant whining that is just so prevalent brings out the sarcasm. Many here seem the game should just flow participation trophies. Many think a kick butt roster should be developed in 60 days with zero $$. It's​ not how this game works. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a mobile free to play game that doesn't have pay and or time issues to progress. 

    Anyway, ramble mode over.
    The "whining" is people bringing awareness to problems that didn't exist in the games ecosystem before.

    There have ALWAYS been posts about making the game better and a good chunk of changes can be traced back to some "whining" you've just become jaded and started treating the game like a job and don't think anything can get better.

    And that's fine.

    My advice if everyone's opinions that don't match yours become whining and you don't want any changes to game?
    Stop posting and reading the forums besides news updates.

    It's way easier to solve your problem then the problems in game. 
  • Beer40
    Beer40 Posts: 826 Critical Contributor
    therightwaye said:
    I think it's about time to add a second set of PvP. One with mandatory 3 star like we currently play. But add another tier with mandatory 4 star. Have them run at the same time but only allow one tier playable per player. A choice would be nice. 


    Yay? Nay?
    Its a "nay" for me because of your description. If I want to play in both I should be allowed to do so.
  • ammenell
    ammenell Posts: 817 Critical Contributor
    pretty sure it wouldnt change much.

    im competing with 5* players for 4* covers. i will not place any better if there are less players behind me.
    no idea about placement rewards, but it wouldnt move the needle in terms of progression rewards.

    i even prefer 3* pvp - that 3* is boosted, but still better than playing against a team of 3 5*s...
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    edited June 2017
    bbigler said:
    But veterans will have an advantage over newer players?  Well, good.  Veterans should have some kind of advantage for playing years longer than another player.  Note: vaulting has taken away some of the veteran's advantages in this game. 
    For how long? When would veterans feel secure enough to no longer demand a competetive advantage over anyone who didn't join on day one?

    Yes, that's phrased provocatively, but even veterans need a healthy player count, and insisting that new players carry around ball and chain for the first few years doesn't help.
  • DrDevilDinosaur
    DrDevilDinosaur Posts: 436 Mover and Shaker

    Yes, of course - regular 4* PVP events should have started more than a year ago.

    Limiting player access is probably not ideal, but running twice as many events does create a bit of a conflict with Seasonal points. Perhaps, at least to begin with, the 4* events simply don't contribute to Season score. That way everyone still plays the 3* events, and the 4* events exist as purely optional for the people that want to play them.

  • Punisher5784
    Punisher5784 Posts: 3,845 Chairperson of the Boards
    The devs recently tried Super Lightning Rounds with 4* Carol featured, with negative feedback. Most players complained about her high health (and poorer rewards). Granted it was because LR were no longer fast but the point is, having 3 boosted 4*s could be a major time drag.

    With that said, of course the rewards should be better for the time invested compared to 1-shotting most featured 3* with a boosted 4* champ. Not saying a 4* PvP wouldn't work but it definitely would not be implemented properly (like mostly everything else).
  • Pants1000
    Pants1000 Posts: 484 Mover and Shaker
    Why not mix in 5* PVP's too?  It would encourage people to level up undercovered 5's instead of leaving them at 255.
  • DrDevilDinosaur
    DrDevilDinosaur Posts: 436 Mover and Shaker
    Pants1000 said:
    Why not mix in 5* PVP's too?  It would encourage people to level up undercovered 5's instead of leaving them at 255.
    I feel like you're aiming to be facetious here, but sure. We've got 15 or 16 5*'s now - and that tier has a significantly more interesting metagame than the other 4 tiers combined.
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    As I understand it, the people with champed 5* already play pretty much exclusively 5* pvp
  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    Punisher5784 said:
    The devs recently tried Super Lightning Rounds with 4* Carol featured, with negative feedback. Most players complained about her high health (and poorer rewards). Granted it was because LR were no longer fast but the point is, having 3 boosted 4*s could be a major time drag.
    I think you're still the only one who complained about those, mostly because you were playing them wrong.
  • MarkersMake
    MarkersMake Posts: 392 Mover and Shaker
    Bowgentle said:
    Punisher5784 said:
    The devs recently tried Super Lightning Rounds with 4* Carol featured, with negative feedback. Most players complained about her high health (and poorer rewards). Granted it was because LR were no longer fast but the point is, having 3 boosted 4*s could be a major time drag.
    I think you're still the only one who complained about those, mostly because you were playing them wrong.

    OK, I'm curious now. I dipped a toe into them and didn't find the ROI to be worthwhile as a (then) 3* player. 

    What was the right way to play them?
  • SpringSoldier
    SpringSoldier Posts: 265 Mover and Shaker
    I also proposed something similar, so I agree with this. My favorite option- but very hard to implement- would be 4 parallel rounds each only with characters on one level and the rewards dependent on the level of difficulty: 2* PVP earns 2* in top placement+ some cp; 3* earn 3* + more cp etc. All characters of other levels are banned. More easily to implement, you just choose a level at the beginning depending on your rooster. The big difference from the current SCL is that you have to use only characters of a specific level. The veterans have the advantage they can fight over 4* and 5* with other veterans only (so a smaller number of players); the newbies get to be safe from the veterans, but earn lesser rewards.

    Also, maybe something similar to Clash of the Titans should be implemented for the 5* to give those with lots of 5* covers incentive to level them up.
  • Pants1000
    Pants1000 Posts: 484 Mover and Shaker
    DrDevilDinosaur said:
    Pants1000 said:
    Why not mix in 5* PVP's too?  It would encourage people to level up undercovered 5's instead of leaving them at 255.
    I feel like you're aiming to be facetious here, but sure. We've got 15 or 16 5*'s now - and that tier has a significantly more interesting metagame than the other 4 tiers combined.
    I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I do think it would be a fun change of pace.  Today the average season has 9 3* PVP's and 1 new release 4*.  What if each season had 4 3*, 4 4*, and 2 5* events?  

    It could be a problem for 2* and maybe 3* rosters, where the 5* loaner would overpower everything else.  Maybe that would still be fun for them?  I don't know...
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    I wouldn't be opposed to a 4* pvp, but not as a complete replacement for 3* pvp.

    I'd actually welcome some incentive to actually use my 3* again as anything other than the occasional AP battery for my 4* champs.

    There's almost 50 characters sitting in most of our rosters just doing nothing except pop out champ rewards when fed.


    Of course, the biggest problem with making 3* pvp available to everyone would be that a 3* roster has about as much of a chance facing 3 boosted lvl 266 3* as they have now versus boosted 4* champs.
  • Punisher5784
    Punisher5784 Posts: 3,845 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bowgentle said:
    Punisher5784 said:
    The devs recently tried Super Lightning Rounds with 4* Carol featured, with negative feedback. Most players complained about her high health (and poorer rewards). Granted it was because LR were no longer fast but the point is, having 3 boosted 4*s could be a major time drag.
    I think you're still the only one who complained about those, mostly because you were playing them wrong.

    I actually didn't play much (or LR in general) because I work a regular M-F 8-6 job. I was simply referring to the player feedback on the forums. No need to be Bowmean about it ;)
  • SpringSoldier
    SpringSoldier Posts: 265 Mover and Shaker
    Starfury said:

    Of course, the biggest problem with making 3* pvp available to everyone would be that a 3* roster has about as much of a chance facing 3 boosted lvl 266 3* as they have now versus boosted 4* champs.
    True, but you can't eliminate competition altogether. Someone has to be the winner. Until your 3*s are strong enough, you fight in the 2* pool. Plus team-ups and boosts might help against slightly better characters.
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Punisher5784 said:
    Bowgentle said:
    Punisher5784 said:
    The devs recently tried Super Lightning Rounds with 4* Carol featured, with negative feedback. Most players complained about her high health (and poorer rewards). Granted it was because LR were no longer fast but the point is, having 3 boosted 4*s could be a major time drag.
    I think you're still the only one who complained about those, mostly because you were playing them wrong.

    I actually didn't play much (or LR in general) because I work a regular M-F 8-6 job. I was simply referring to the player feedback on the forums. No need to be Bowmean about it ;)
    So you are just making up some **** for why 4* PvP would be bad based on something you have no experience with yourself.  Just stop.

    The C4rol LRs being bad had nothing to do with the fact that C4rol was a 4*, and everything to do with the 20-man bracket LR format.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    Punisher5784 said:
    The devs recently tried Super Lightning Rounds with 4* Carol featured, with negative feedback. Most players complained about her high health (and poorer rewards). Granted it was because LR were no longer fast but the point is, having 3 boosted 4*s could be a major time drag.

    With that said, of course the rewards should be better for the time invested compared to 1-shotting most featured 3* with a boosted 4* champ. Not saying a 4* PvP wouldn't work but it definitely would not be implemented properly (like mostly everything else).
    High level boosted 3* have comparable health to a boosted 4*, so no I don't agree with your major time drag comment..... IE in teenage riot my MrF has 28439 @369, C4ge 31786 @369, and KK 24755@351. Really not that far off, less than 4k different from MrF and I've seen her at 380+ with around 30k+ health

Categories