PVP Points

245

Comments

  • Justice Jacks
    Justice Jacks Posts: 116 Tile Toppler
    Dormammu said:

    A simple in-game pop-up the first time someone enters the PvP tab that directs players here would be a start.
    Isn't that exactly what the Help:FAQ tab is?  
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    OJSP said:
    Well done for getting 797 with 3*s
    I'm with OJSP, I think it's amazing you got that high with just 3*s!!! I could barely touch 575 as a 3* roster. Take your prize sir and hope you can do it again!!! Even with my somewhat advanced 4* roster (more than 50% champed I get beat up as soon as I cross 900. So I think, if nothing else, a congratulations is in order!!

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    broll said:
    Justice Jacks said:
    broll said:

    The vets are essentially trying to make up for the lack of low level players that try it and get demoralized.  Imagine what PvP could be like if they didn't have to setup straw man teams to beat up and we could actually just play?  Crazy right.

    Might be time to sit a few plays out.  The number of "low level players" is irrelevant for us vets because I can't see you until you are worthless to me at just 1 pt.  But, if you really want what you claim, please urge D3 to remove MMR from PVP entirely.  When they do, I'll look forward to seeing you on the battlefield.  Also, when they do, please know that that 575 target score you are advocating will be unobtainable for "low level players."

    Rather than dispense advice to those low-level players about how it's hopeless, perhaps let them listen to vets like Bow that are trying to actually help them advance and improve.  Rather than try to guess at what vets want or why they do the things they do, perhaps just ask or take our word on it.  You've never played our game, but we've all, at some point, experienced yours.  
    I recently tried this. I joined a battle chat (I think that's what they were called). It wasn't my cup of tea. I don't want to have a my decoder ring handy to play a 3 match game. I don't think I'm alone. As Bow mentioned there have been a lot of low level grumbling about PvP, there's a reason for that, it's bad for us.

    And I disagree with this statement
    "You've never played our game, but we've all, at some point, experienced yours."
    Bow has mad it abundantly clear he hasn't.  Vets at that high of a level weren't doing 2* and 3* PvP while there were 16 5*s.  The low level meta has changed and unless you are playing an alternate account I don't believe you have experienced it.  5* changed a lot of the game for the negative and this is yet another aspect of that.  Some changes need to be made because things are starting to bend under the weight of them.
    This is probably the best point that I haven't seen brought up yet.  The irony being i was having this conversation with my kid the other day.  Im at day 1325, he's at 135.  He is getting to 575 every pvp event he has time to do, because he pulled a BP and bonus OML at like day 80 or so.  He keeps asking me for pvp advice, and i cant really give it to him, because it has changed so much over the years.  

    And that's also the greatest flaw in the system, as well. They have to have something designed for both rosters.  But i still agree with your theory, if more people played pvp, whether be making it win based or some other change, would be a positive thing overall
  • Justice Jacks
    Justice Jacks Posts: 116 Tile Toppler
    edited August 2017
    broll said:

    1)  I don't want to have a my decoder ring handy to play a 3 match game.

    2)  As Bow mentioned there have been a lot of low level grumbling about PvP, there's a reason for that, it's bad for us. 

    3)  And I disagree with this statement

     Vets at that high of a level weren't doing 2* and 3* PvP while there were 16 5*s.  The low level meta has changed and unless you are playing an alternate account I don't believe you have experienced it.  5* changed a lot of the game for the negative and this is yet another aspect of that.  Some changes need to be made because things are starting to bend under the weight of them.
    1)  Might I suggest Candy Crush if you're looking for a 3 match game with no coordination, thinking, or long-term strategy.

    2)  There's grumbling about everything.  And again, as you mentioned with respect to battle chats and shield-check rooms, you know how to score better and compete but you choose not to.  Seems like PVE is a perfect solution for you.  If you don't want to commit the time for PVP, so be it, there's still PVE and DDQ for you every single day.  To use that personal choice as evidence of a flawed system seems silly.

    3)  PVP has always been bad for low-level players.  You are not a unique snowflake.  Before it was 5 stars, it was 2-3 star players vs maxed Jean/HB.  It was alliances of 5 vs alliances of 20 for placement.  It was a more open MMR so those Jean/HB teams could find you at 300.  It was the 4 star cover at 1200.  And before the IM40 rework, there was almost no chance for a 3-star roster to take out a Jean/HB fully covered 4-star team.  So again, we've all been there.  Dilution hasn't helped things in this regard, but to pretend like it was never an issue before 5 stars shows where your bias lies.  Some of us just built our rosters utilizing PVE.  Then DDQ showed up and that put roster development into a *tizzy*.  Now with the flood of CP, 4 and 5 star development is easier than ever.

    So yes, you can continue to bemoan the fact that the system is bad for your personal decisions and style of play.  But when you abstract that to the system as a whole is flawed, that's where the disconnect comes into play.

    ***Removed inappropriate reference - Ducky
  • Brigby
    Brigby ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 7,757 Site Admin
    Hi @konannfriends. A lot of players have been helpful enough to provide you some more insight and information, but if you find you still have more questions, feel free to take a look at our Tips & Guides section!
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Justice Jacks said:
    broll said:

    1)  I don't want to have a my decoder ring handy to play a 3 match game.

    2)  As Bow mentioned there have been a lot of low level grumbling about PvP, there's a reason for that, it's bad for us. 

    3)  And I disagree with this statement

     Vets at that high of a level weren't doing 2* and 3* PvP while there were 16 5*s.  The low level meta has changed and unless you are playing an alternate account I don't believe you have experienced it.  5* changed a lot of the game for the negative and this is yet another aspect of that.  Some changes need to be made because things are starting to bend under the weight of them.
    1)  Might I suggest Candy Crush if you're looking for a 3 match game with no coordination, thinking, or long-term strategy.

    2)  There's grumbling about everything.  And again, as you mentioned with respect to battle chats and shield-check rooms, you know how to score better and compete but you choose not to.  Seems like PVE is a perfect solution for you.  If you don't want to commit the time for PVP, so be it, there's still PVE and DDQ for you every single day.  To use that personal choice as evidence of a flawed system seems silly.

    3)  PVP has always been bad for low-level players.  You are not a unique snowflake.  Before it was 5 stars, it was 2-3 star players vs maxed Jean/HB.  It was alliances of 5 vs alliances of 20 for placement.  It was a more open MMR so those Jean/HB teams could find you at 300.  It was the 4 star cover at 1200.  And before the IM40 rework, there was almost no chance for a 3-star roster to take out a Jean/HB fully covered 4-star team.  So again, we've all been there.  Dilution hasn't helped things in this regard, but to pretend like it was never an issue before 5 stars shows where your bias lies.  Some of us just built our rosters utilizing PVE.  Then DDQ showed up and that put roster development into a coke bender.  Now with the flood of CP, 4 and 5 star development is easier than ever.

    So yes, you can continue to bemoan the fact that the system is bad for your personal decisions and style of play.  But when you abstract that to the system as a whole is flawed, that's where the disconnect comes into play.
    Thanks for your permission I guess?  If I have a suggestion that I think benifets me and others (I wouldn't suggest if it I was the only one 'bemoan'ing) I suggest if. 

    1) I love the long term stategey of it. I don't like the PvP colluding. I've made my points there enough. 

    2) Yup that's why I focus PvE and do my best at PvP. That doesn't mean I'm not going to suggest better solutions. I'd love to play more PvP but until it's better than it is now I'm not interested in commiting more time than that. 

    3) Not sure what your point is here?  You mentions past problems that have long been fixed.  So those got fixed but the current ones should not?  That makes sense...
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    Justice Jacks said:
    broll said:

    1)  I don't want to have a my decoder ring handy to play a 3 match game.

    2)  As Bow mentioned there have been a lot of low level grumbling about PvP, there's a reason for that, it's bad for us. 

    3)  And I disagree with this statement

     Vets at that high of a level weren't doing 2* and 3* PvP while there were 16 5*s.  The low level meta has changed and unless you are playing an alternate account I don't believe you have experienced it.  5* changed a lot of the game for the negative and this is yet another aspect of that.  Some changes need to be made because things are starting to bend under the weight of them.
    1)  Might I suggest Candy Crush if you're looking for a 3 match game with no coordination, thinking, or long-term strategy.
    This is such an old insult, it may as well start with "your momma so fat..."  Telling someone not to play this game, while trying to convince others how fun it is at your level, seems counterintuitive
    Well maybe you should just go play candy crush...... haha....

    Seriously though there is only one person on the forums I've told to go play that game and my thoughts on that still stand
  • granne
    granne Posts: 852 Critical Contributor
    I tried playing Candy Crush the other day. Good grief that's dull. How can people stand it?

    Anyway. OP, you did a great job getting to 797 with a 3* roster, well done. Unfortunately, because most people with 3* rosters stop at 575, the moment you broke shield your score made you a juicy target for anyone still climbing to there.

    I'm not going to tell you not to shield - it's your HP and you can do what you want with it - but a better return on investment for you at your stage is probably to buy a 3 hour shield. It gives you time to heal up, regen healthpacks and repel retaliations from your climb. Then, if you're within sight of the 800 or 900 prize, do as others have suggested and skip till you find beatable, higher point targets and hit them as quickly as possible.

    Placement prizes are probably out of reach for a 3* roster. I'm not saying they should be, just that they are. PvP is a lot less frustrating at your stage if you work on strategies to maximise your progression and leave placement until you're in 4* or 5* land.

    Until recently I didn't really play much PvP. I found it frustrating and stressful. Now that I have a decent number of 4*s champed it's much more fun. Except this week, when the boosted list sucks. I realise that's no comfort at all when you've been trampled, but if you can get to 797 with a 3* roster, imagine what you'll be able to do with a 4* one.
  • Justice Jacks
    Justice Jacks Posts: 116 Tile Toppler
      You mentions past problems that have long been fixed.  
    No, I mentioned that the "problem" you pointed out is not a new "problem."  It hasn't been "fixed" but the "problem" exists today as it always has but has been replaced by 5s instead of 4s.  Thus, those of us that have been playing since the start and have developed rosters have seen the "problem" you state (and hence, "have all been there," as I stated).  Where we disagree is not over fixes, or fixes to old problems causing new problems that require fixing, but that it was a "problem" to begin with.  There has never been a "fix" to the issue that in a competitive gaming environment, a new roster should not be competitive with a developed roster on average.  In any game.  Ever.  (To my knowledge.)

    Players should be incentivized to max their rosters.  PVP has always done that.  PVE was the exact opposite and it was better to intentionally sit with a soft capped roster.  That PVE disincentive has now been fixed.  One side effect of that is a lot of those softcappers will raise their rosters to be competitive in PVE.  Those roster improvements will get those folks, typically with high-champed 4s but underleveled 5s out of the 3-4 star MMR in PVP.  In turn, that will make climbing with a 3-4 star roster that much easier. 
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Justice Jacks said:
      You mentions past problems that have long been fixed.  
    No, I mentioned that the "problem" you pointed out is not a new "problem."  It hasn't been "fixed" but the "problem" exists today as it always has but has been replaced by 5s instead of 4s.  Thus, those of us that have been playing since the start and have developed rosters have seen the "problem" you state (and hence, "have all been there," as I stated).  Where we disagree is not over fixes, or fixes to old problems causing new problems that require fixing, but that it was a "problem" to begin with.  There has never been a "fix" to the issue that in a competitive gaming environment, a new roster should not be competitive with a developed roster on average.  In any game.  Ever.  (To my knowledge.)

    Players should be incentivized to max their rosters.  PVP has always done that.  PVE was the exact opposite and it was better to intentionally sit with a soft capped roster.  That PVE disincentive has now been fixed.  One side effect of that is a lot of those softcappers will raise their rosters to be competitive in PVE.  Those roster improvements will get those folks, typically with high-champed 4s but underleveled 5s out of the 3-4 star MMR in PVP.  In turn, that will make climbing with a 3-4 star roster that much easier. 
    Just a question, as this was before my time in the game. How "meta-breaking" was X-force Wolverine when he was introduced? I know he was nerfed not long after release
  • Justice Jacks
    Justice Jacks Posts: 116 Tile Toppler
    Spudgutter said:

    This is such an old insult, it may as well start with "your momma so fat..."  Telling someone not to play this game, while trying to convince others how fun it is at your level, seems counterintuitive
    It wasn't an insult, it was a helpful, declarative statement.  If you chose to play a game that has had long-term strategy, online collaboration, and competitive placement from month 1, and then find you really don't want the online collaboration or competitive placement aspects of that game, perhaps choose a game that does not have those aspects.

    I shouldn't be found credible if I join the basketball team and then complain there's not enough tackling or kicking--even if I prefer the way a basketball uniform fits and want to play my sports solely indoors.

    And I didn't tell someone not to play this game.  I told someone--that has chosen not to play this game in the way they know will get them the results they want, but requests those results anyway for a lesser play style--that maybe it would be best if they select a preexisting game with the particular play style they prefer. 

    Or to be more clear, if you like long-term strategy, online collaboration, and competitive placement this is the game for you and it will be fun at any level really.  If not, at least the PVP portion of the game will never be fun for you personally, and perhaps it's time to pick a game that better suits your preferred style of play.
  • TetsujinOni
    TetsujinOni Posts: 181 Tile Toppler
    granne said:
    I'm not going to tell you not to shield - it's your HP and you can do what you want with it - but a better return on investment for you at your stage is probably to buy a 3 hour shield. It gives you time to heal up, regen healthpacks and repel retaliations from your climb. Then, if you're within sight of the 800 or 900 prize, do as others have suggested and skip till you find beatable, higher point targets and hit them as quickly as possible.
    you've been trampled, but if you can get to 797 with a 3* roster, imagine what you'll be able to do with a 4* one.


    Trimmed to the relevant bits (this editor could use some help...)


    Important safety tip: Do your skipping to queue targets right before you unshield.

    Important etiquette tip: then hit the oldest target you've queued up first, because your targets have a chance to shield and not become the next forum poster who couldn't quite hit their 900 target. 
  • Justice Jacks
    Justice Jacks Posts: 116 Tile Toppler
    Milk Jugz said:

    Just a question, as this was before my time in the game. How "meta-breaking" was X-force Wolverine when he was introduced? I know he was nerfed not long after release
    Like any good D3 Wolverine, he was nerfed, but only after he was no longer the dominant force he started as.  He was the first gen of no-chance opponents if you didn't also have him on your roster.  Then as some of the 3s got a bit better, he became beatable (also, as you played against him more and more, you figured out better strategies).  But with the new 3s, came better 4s.  And those better 4s (HB/Jean) were the new meta when they nerfed XFW, just about the same time as those that were trailing the whales started to have him better covered.  See also, OML.  Rinse and repeat with the Wolverines, it seems.  

    My chronology may be slightly off, but this is the nutshell to the best of my recollection. 
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Justice Jacks said:
    Milk Jugz said:

    Just a question, as this was before my time in the game. How "meta-breaking" was X-force Wolverine when he was introduced? I know he was nerfed not long after release
    Like any good D3 Wolverine, he was nerfed, but only after he was no longer the dominant force he started as.  He was the first gen of no-chance opponents if you didn't also have him on your roster.  Then as some of the 3s got a bit better, he became beatable (also, as you played against him more and more, you figured out better strategies).  But with the new 3s, came better 4s.  And those better 4s (HB/Jean) were the new meta when they nerfed XFW, just about the same time as those that were trailing the whales started to have him better covered.  See also, OML.  Rinse and repeat with the Wolverines, it seems.  

    My chronology may be slightly off, but this is the nutshell to the best of my recollection. 
    Your point about when 5* players had young rosters battling with the 4*s made me think of this. There will always be a bigger better roster out there (unless you're *nope*, but who else has that kind of $$$). So the 5* players once fought through the slog when 4* were the best thing and now we fight the slog with 5* as the best thing, it's just bumped a tier...... I really hope there is NEVER a 6* tier introduced.....

    ***Removed reference to another player - Ducky
  • konannfriends
    konannfriends Posts: 246 Tile Toppler
  • konannfriends
    konannfriends Posts: 246 Tile Toppler
  • Dragon_Nexus
    Dragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bowgentle said:
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    Bowgentle said:
    The point system is fine. You need to learn how to play PVP.
    I would debate the idea that the point system is "fine" if you need to go outside of the game to research strategies in order to make the most of it.

    Nothing it taught to you in game. Instead you need to look upon those who went before as they slowly bend the system into something workable.

    Taking 20 pointers when the max is 75?
    Staying out for ages unshielded hitting randoms you queue while you unshielded?

    Yeah, nothing in game tells you that those are bad ideas, indeed.
    How is one to know the max is 75? How is one to know the balancing point between earning enough points and not appearing too tempting a target is 38 points? How is one to know hitting a 20 pointer makes your retalliation worth way more than that?

    Thing is, you're a long term player so this is intuitive to you. But to a newbie all of this is alien. It's not explained in game, you just get told to fight enemies, they're worth different amounts of points *somehow* (you might deduce they're higher up the ranks) and that you can lose more points than you gain because people kill you too quickly.

    All of the strategy stuff is pretty much forum knowledge. You need to look this stuff up.

Categories