PvP versus Sportsmanship

Stax the Foyer

Dapptastic said:

Stax the Foyer said:

The PvP ecosystem isn't complicated, necessarily, but it is opaque.  You may not realize it at first, but two of your points are at sort of at odds with one another:

1) I can only see 3-4 different people

2) I don't like that higher rosters can target me  (paraphrasing both of these, if I mischaracterize it, or miss some nuance, it's unintentional)

You get locked into an MMR loop of the same handful of targets when those are the only targets out there somewhat similar to your roster and worth decent points.  It's more likely to happen when you're at higher points relative to other targets, so you're one of the higher point among unshielded players having a sort-of similar roster type.

The fix to (1), assuming you're not just at super high points relative to the shard as a whole, is to widen the amount of teams that you're able to target.  In practice, that means widening it at the top and at the bottom, because a lot of players might not see value in being offered very difficult teams (I'd personally like it, but I'm also kind of stupid).  If you do that to alleviate (1), it means that even more people can target you, making (2) worse.

PvP has a flow to it.  It gets easier, as you understand what other people are doing, and you adapt that to your own playstyle.  Hopefully you'll be able to parse out some helpful information from these replies, and find some value there.

how do I "widen" the amount of teams I'm able to target?  I am new to that notion but would appreciate any practical advice you have to go about accomplishing that.

I'm not so much bothered by being targeted by "higher" rosters, but I only have 1 5* champ and gettin' wrecked by a lot of people with multiple 5* champs.  I know there are other players out there with rosters similar to mine--why they don't seem to hit me as much as people with more developed rosters eludes my understanding.

You can't, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, that's purely in the developers' hands.  I was saying that if the developers widened MMR to address your point (1), it would make your point (2) worse.

Doc L

I’ve read through all these posts, and I have some sympathy for the OP - MMR is not explained by D3 in any way, and it’s crucial to understanding how you find opponents and so on. As a keen PvP player of 1550 days now, I was lucky that, more by trial and error, I got through to 5* maxed without ‘too’ many issues. I don’t have Gambit, sadly for me, but I still rock upto 1200 without shield hopping, checking, any of that - I understand it, but I don’t do it myself, I have my own way, on my own, and I prefer that.

Sportsmanship is a different issue. To me, this is a game, and if I see someone I can beat, I will hit them in PvP. Some people hit me a lot, and I get frustrated, I spend more Hp than I like and all that, but I go in knowing this is what it is. PvP can be very unforgiving. Now, that may sound unsportsmanlike, but I count it with this - currently, at 900+, I see 95% teams with Gambit in. I struggle to beat a maximum level Gambit quickly, without taking a bunch of damage. Do I spite myself trying to hit him, and using my Hp (that costs money of course), possibly not making my 1200 target, or do I target people I can beat? As a fan of soccer, my team often ships multiple goals in the Premier League, as they’re terrible, but other teams doing go easy on them, they’ll score 5 if that can score 5. 

One solution that’d remove this issue is pretty simple - take the names away, and make it impossible to fight your own alliance, then you have a much more limited (not impossible of course) way of knowing who you hit, or even if you hit the same person often. 

Its a complex issue, we all know PvP needs an overhaul, but it requires D3 to work on more variations, more attempts etc, as the last attempt was good in some ways, but terrible in others. 

PenniesForEveryone

Doc L said:

I’ve read through all these posts, and I have some sympathy for the OP - MMR is not explained by D3 in any way, and it’s crucial to understanding how you find opponents and so on. As a keen PvP player of 1550 days now, I was lucky that, more by trial and error, I got through to 5* maxed without ‘too’ many issues. I don’t have Gambit, sadly for me, but I still rock upto 1200 without shield hopping, checking, any of that - I understand it, but I don’t do it myself, I have my own way, on my own, and I prefer that.

Sportsmanship is a different issue. To me, this is a game, and if I see someone I can beat, I will hit them in PvP. Some people hit me a lot, and I get frustrated, I spend more Hp than I like and all that, but I go in knowing this is what it is. PvP can be very unforgiving. Now, that may sound unsportsmanlike, but I count it with this - currently, at 900+, I see 95% teams with Gambit in. I struggle to beat a maximum level Gambit quickly, without taking a bunch of damage. Do I spite myself trying to hit him, and using my Hp (that costs money of course), possibly not making my 1200 target, or do I target people I can beat? As a fan of soccer, my team often ships multiple goals in the Premier League, as they’re terrible, but other teams doing go easy on them, they’ll score 5 if that can score 5. 

One solution that’d remove this issue is pretty simple - take the names away, and make it impossible to fight your own alliance, then you have a much more limited (not impossible of course) way of knowing who you hit, or even if you hit the same person often. 

Its a complex issue, we all know PvP needs an overhaul, but it requires D3 to work on more variations, more attempts etc, as the last attempt was good in some ways, but terrible in others. 

I like this option, but many people hit their own alliance all the time - whether it's grilling, or just hitting their A-teams after they shield, or dumping to them, or climbing off them to get out of queue hell......there are lots of reasons to want to attack others in your alliance.

[Deleted User]

purplemur said:

Occasionally I read these posts about PvP Bullying/Sportmanship and the like. It always highlights that there is a real chasm between players: Those that take every advantage the platform affords and those that are ignorant about how the machine works. Once players "get it": how to hold points and how to hop, etc, there is no sympathy for doe-eyed players who wander in and get frustrated by the impossibility of full prog.  It's almost like medical school hazing: I went through it so put up and deal mentality. which is why there are so many warnings about these type of threads getting shut down.
I feel for you:
When SCL's became a thing we all got huge influx of iso & silly newb me- I poured it into my two 5's with maybe a combined 8 covers between them and they were NOT synergistic. so my MMR was totes ruined and I just quit on PvP. 
I agree with most of your crits:
The point drop can be heartbreaking, the queuing can seem broken, and the competition is fierce, hampered by the failure of the devs to do product improvements. And the forum isn't straightforward in presenting  PvP help threads.
I appreciate your approach to earning rewards:
If I have to be dirty to get them, then I don't want them.
but I feel like your being fairly anachronistic:
Imagine playing youth hockey and then you play an Irish Hurling league team and they smash you in the mouth and knock you over even when you don't have the puck and generally say things you don't understand that seem pretty insulting and then when your like that was no fun they bristle at the concept of "fair play" because in their mind they were playing fair. In truth you were playing two different games. You were looking for a skills challenge and they were looking to tally goals for the playoffs. The league cup only goes to the players who play "that game". Don't quit playing how you like to play but expectations might need to be tempered to reflect how the play on the ice actually goes. 

The golden rule applies even if the other party doesn't treat you as you want to be. That is not license to snap and snarl back to every single reply that you may or may not agree with and then say well you started it! you can let some of it go. "let it go, let it go! the snark never bothered me anyway!"

BTW, I enjoyed the account of your shared experience and your allegories.  I could definitely relate to a lot of it.  End-of-day, I concur--expectations did need to be throttled.

I think I mostly take exception to that unforgiving learning curve but at the end of the day I take responsibility for my experience to the extent that I can take ownership.  I think a lot of people kind of took away the wrong idea--probably that I was complaining with no real objective but to be heard but rather I shared that to bring visibility to how broken the process is.

Sure, the shield-hopping works--but it is an exploit when that method depends on 3rd-party applications to support the means to do so, because now you're operating outside the boundaries of the game.  People are gonna do what they do, it's America and wherever else we have players that are arguably unions with liberties to do so.  I take no issue with that but why people take issue that I am bothered by getting hit 15 times while I play 3 matches?  Ask yourselves (or not, do what you wish) who is really taking the unreasonable position.

I could have definitely played my part differently and next time--I would, I just genuinely and quite futilely believed I could accomplish my last 50 points to 900 without being interrupted 4-times on-end.  << once-twice--cool!  4 consecutive cycles of futility--I call yellow flag on the play, and that's subjective.  Maybe I should have articulated my perspective in those words but I wanted to try to just stick to the true account without intent for a particular interpretation.  If people commiserate or not is beside the point.  As you can see--people like yourself and others have chimed in to bring into focus some of the things that could have been done better and also explain how I was amiss in some of my expectations and that's where we all benefit.

Nice drop on the anachronism detail--shrewd man!!!  That's neither here nor there tho.  But maybe I am a time traveler!

As for your parting wisdom:  I fully appreciate your logic, but a lot of times the unsolicited snappy remarks thrive under conditions where they are unchecked.  Lemme switch over to romantic idealist mode to explain--you know the Internet was created to support the free exchange of information and ideas.  Not to foster an environment with socially-frustrated and emotionally-stunted individuals to vent their frustrations on others behind the idea of anonymity and no prospect for reprisal.

You are right--I could take the higher road.  Or I could throw a jab back--it's not like I'm digging into these folks as much as I'm exposing how pointless it is for them to peddle their biting commentary in a language they can understand.

I have a military background, where I learned to understand and appreciate the hows and whys of strategic warfare, so trying to suggest that combat in any context (battle of minds/morals/ethics at present) is avoidable at all times is just not compatible with the reality of the social dynamics at play here.  Sometimes force has to be met with force.  The big picture there is that if you had the chance to put a stop to evil in its nascent stages before it could mature into something far more sinister--being a man of reason, which you seem to be--I don't think you would protest the notion that sometimes we must capitalize on certain opportunities categorically.  I know that's turning a molehill into a mountain here but I think you can prolly get where I'm coming from with why I respond to people like that the way I do.  The logic is easily understood in hyperbole.

So that's my philosophy but I do understand and appreciate your position and perspective, and when people operate within the boundaries of respectful disagreement--I completely stay in the lane and practice what you preach.

My intent was to shoo them away since they weren't contributing anything meaningful anyway.

You had a great response tho and thanks for fleshing out your own account of that transition, where clearly I am in the throes right now!  Looking forward to more of your input, friend.


~Dapp

[Deleted User]

evade420 said:

Dapptastic said:

evade420 said:

so you are running 2 Under covered 5* that you have leveled up over lvl 400.
2 problems with this.
1 - your MMR has now gone up based on the levels of those 2 characters, and you will be more visible to bigger rosters are you are now very close to full 5* MMR
2 - Using un-champed 5* (or any character ) in PVP makes you stick out like a sore thumb, and with your gambit only at 4 black, I could take down your whole team with a single champed gambit faster that you could take me down with under covered gambit/bolt/whoever.

Until you get those 5*s covered and champed you are going to have climb quick and shield , once you are over 750-800 your shield hops are going to have to be quick and calculated, cuz everbody is going to see you and want to take you out

do you know the in-and-outs of MMR factors?

I honestly have a vague understanding that some levels influence it but I don't know the math.

MMR is still somewhat of a mystery however from my experience I can tell you that I saw a change at level 390 then level 420 then the big one at 450.
We know that it takes into account at least your top three character levels ,and boosted character levels are supposed to be taken into account as well, although that is debatable .
I remember when I first champed thanos he was my first 5* champion my second highest character was a 4* around level 285 boosted to let's say 375 or so , PvP was a breeze I was taking down big 4* teams and rarely saw a team with more than one 5* champ and never over level 455.
Then I leveled panther to 420 and boom dual 5* teams 80% of the time,  plus I was getting hit by level 460 5* teams and all of a sudden It got a lot harder to hit 1200 . Going from 900 to 1200 was tough I just wasn't finding targets I could beat quickly .
Now I have a full 5* roster with 7 champs and PvP is pretty smooth depending on which slice and what my goals are , but MMR is still pretty stingy and often have to skip dozens of times to find a target that I haven't already hit . In my opinion the MMR is and always has been the biggest problem with PVP

very helpful insight!!  I appreciate that you were able to correlate the different thresholds for the changes in your PvP experience.

OneLastGambit

The one thing you learn from PvP is that it's a shark tank. You're either a shark or you're chum. If you can't spot who the chum is then sadly my friend...it's you. 

It would be nice if people did follow your tactics and play fair (I'm referring to OP) but they don't because competition never promotes fair play. Incidentally if you ever see me in your slice, feel free to hit me as often as you like. I don't make bones about hits, would be hypocritical of me to do so since I do not spare anyone even multiple times. Though multiple hits doesn't happen too often. 

[Deleted User]

OneLastGambit said:

The one thing you learn from PvP is that it's a shark tank. You're either a shark or you're chum. If you can't spot who the chum is then sadly my friend...it's you. 

It would be nice if people did follow your tactics and play fair (I'm referring to OP) but they don't because competition never promotes fair play. Incidentally if you ever see me in your slice, feel free to hit me as often as you like. I don't make bones about hits, would be hypocritical of me to do so since I do not spare anyone even multiple times. Though multiple hits doesn't happen too often. 

I appreciate the gesture but I wouldn't be me if I started hitting people multiple times.  I don't need to be a 1.2K player tho; I just thought I'd try it and recounted my experience and injected some commentary about what I thought.

Most of my original issue, regardless of how well I articulated it originally, is with the alarming frequency/time cycle by which I was getting hit--the math bothers me there.  I'm no statistician but I have a respectable understanding of probability and nothing felt right in the realm of probability.  If multiple "500-player" brackets are available per slice...the odds I was getting hit simultaneously, by players across the world at that very moment, in that short span of time, just don't "math"--if you humor my phrasing.  **EDIT** I forgot that it's been suggested MMR dictates target pool, so it's not even slice dependent, so arguably the pool of potential attackers is even greater than originally implied

This was a really convoluted dialogue, ordinary for open forum, so the point got really far from that.

somebody suggested, offline, that it might have been a group singling me out which, to me, seems very plausible.  I'll never know tho.

thanks for your willingness to be a sporting target tho!

cheers, man!

Rod5

Pretty sure this has been explained comprehensively already, but just to be absolutely clear:

When you choose a slice for an event, you can never see anyone from a different slice, only those with the same end time. 

From the people who who are in your slice, who you can see/who can see you is determined by your MMR and current points score. 

There are likely a few thousand people in your MMR in S4, so the “math” does work.

Sm0keyJ0e

Versus mode is completely optional and it's not for everyone. It also doesn't stunt your progression in the game. My wife has been playing in a t100 Story mode alliance for a year and a half now and enjoys the game immensely. She also doesn't like PvP so chooses not to play it. She recently champed the three latest 5* toons and is having more fun than ever.

I personally don't play Lightning Rounds. No interest in 90 minute grinds for 48 hours. I skip them.

Many games have multiple modes of play to try and gather the largest playerbase they can. All modes are not necessarily meant to be played by everyone.

Quebbster

Sm0keyJ0e said:
I personally don't play Lightning Rounds. No interest in 90 minute grinds for 48 hours. I skip them.

90 minute grinds? Pshaw. Load seeds at beginning, hit seeds at your leisure, then maybe one or two real opponents to get past 250 Points and hopefully top 50 placement. The seeds take like five minutes, the real opponents (if you choose to fight them) maybe a bit longer. Lightning rounds are easy to play once you get the hang of it.

Sm0keyJ0e

Quebbster said:

Sm0keyJ0e said:
I personally don't play Lightning Rounds. No interest in 90 minute grinds for 48 hours. I skip them.

90 minute grinds? Pshaw. Load seeds at beginning, hit seeds at your leisure, then maybe one or two real opponents to get past 250 Points and hopefully top 50 placement. The seeds take like five minutes, the real opponents (if you choose to fight them) maybe a bit longer. Lightning rounds are easy to play once you get the hang of it.

It's not that I can't or don't know how to play them, I just don't have the time to do everything this game offers. I pick and choose.

Quebbster

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Quebbster said:

Sm0keyJ0e said:
I personally don't play Lightning Rounds. No interest in 90 minute grinds for 48 hours. I skip them.

90 minute grinds? Pshaw. Load seeds at beginning, hit seeds at your leisure, then maybe one or two real opponents to get past 250 Points and hopefully top 50 placement. The seeds take like five minutes, the real opponents (if you choose to fight them) maybe a bit longer. Lightning rounds are easy to play once you get the hang of it.

It's not that I can't or don't know how to play them, I just don't have the time to do everything this game offers. I pick and choose.

Fair enough. I sometimes forget about them too.

DAZ0273

Quebbster said:

Sm0keyJ0e said:
I personally don't play Lightning Rounds. No interest in 90 minute grinds for 48 hours. I skip them.

90 minute grinds? Pshaw. Load seeds at beginning, hit seeds at your leisure, then maybe one or two real opponents to get past 250 Points and hopefully top 50 placement. The seeds take like five minutes, the real opponents (if you choose to fight them) maybe a bit longer. Lightning rounds are easy to play once you get the hang of it.

Lightning Rounds are another of those "You are going to get a shock until you figure things out" aspects of this game. The last 5-10 minutes are brutal. The only time I ever enjoyed them was the bugged Sakaar ones!

Quebbster

DAZ0273 said:

Quebbster said:

Sm0keyJ0e said:
I personally don't play Lightning Rounds. No interest in 90 minute grinds for 48 hours. I skip them.

90 minute grinds? Pshaw. Load seeds at beginning, hit seeds at your leisure, then maybe one or two real opponents to get past 250 Points and hopefully top 50 placement. The seeds take like five minutes, the real opponents (if you choose to fight them) maybe a bit longer. Lightning rounds are easy to play once you get the hang of it.

Lightning Rounds are another of those "You are going to get a shock until you figure things out" aspects of this game. The last 5-10 minutes are brutal. The only time I ever enjoyed them was the bugged Sakaar ones!

Heck, I was shocked by the Lightning rounds when I moved to fivestar land and my MMR changed... Suddenly my old tactic didn't work as I was visible to a whole new range of players!

Killabee

Lightning rounds was the biggest change for me when I champed a 5*. From almost guaranteed top50 finish to sporadic single heroic token and rare top50 finishes. So basically it changed from playing with moderate players to hardcore players. 

Now there aren't any rules to pvp in general, but like any game, if you want to get better, you need to observe and adapt.

Quebbster

Killabee said:

Lightning rounds was the biggest change for me when I champed a 5*. From almost guaranteed top50 finish to sporadic single heroic token and rare top50 finishes. So basically it changed from playing with moderate players to hardcore players. 

Now there aren't any rules to pvp in general, but like any game, if you want to get better, you need to observe and adapt.

And the interesting thing is that there are no brackets in the Lightning rounds, so the only thing that changed was your matchmaking. For what it's Worth it makes a lot of difference what fivestars you have. Now that I have Gambit champed, I can pretty much hit them whenever and just float until the end. I sometimes get the occassional hit and sometimes need to do a fight or two in the end, but it's a lot easier than Before.

bluewolf

I apologize if this has already been stated but:  One problem with the approach of pick and choose equal targets is the number of players who are trying in Versus is pretty small.  There are no official numbers, but many players hate PVP or engage minimally because of the current model (points based and losing points, etc).   This is why the wins based model is a thing (it's not abandoned, but who knows what they will do with it).

The majority of players barely play the game (DDQ, do a few PVE nodes or just enter PVP etc).  A lot of people who do more (say, PVE to progression) will skip PVP or just go to 575, if that.  Once you are at 575 you are seeing the really engaged high end PVP players.  It is hard to know for sure, but I would guess that you are seeing that 5-10% of all players are pushing past 575; if you go to 900, for example, routinely, you will see the same names a lot in the same slice.  Players are limited by desire and roster (although they do go hand in hand; desire means play means better roster).

The other limiting factor for the OP is that once you have leveled some well covered 5's, you are in a smaller pool of players as well.

The point is that the population of people who are committed to trying in PVP is small.  So trying to maintain an equal opponent structure would, I think, be an impossibility for the developers simply because they wouldn't have a large enough pool of opponents to pick from to present to you.  Stack on the idea of shielding, and now you really have a problem finding opponents.

Note:  I agree that it would be a far better model to be able to match you to equal opponents in the game, although there is some excitement in the points based model to be able to find an easy match with decent points.  AKA, when you are trying to build score and shield out, the faster easier fights are welcome.  So there would be pushback if the current model (lots of matches needed) were kept in place while somehow making everyone you fight be an equal opponent.

This is all under the current design for the game; I also think it is pretty locked in at this point and I don't expect matchmaking to change from now until the game shuts down.  I honestly think they can't do much to change the PVP design.

Last point (was this already stated?):  If you just want to see equal opponents, champ 2 5's and thats all you'll see.

Sm0keyJ0e

aesthetocyst said:

Quebbster said:

And the interesting thing is that there are no brackets in the Lightning rounds, so the only thing that changed was your matchmaking...

No brackets...? You mean, no slices...? Pretty sure there are numerous brackets each LR!

Actually, no--I think it's just one giant bracket/slice, and everyone competes against everyone.

ThaRoadWarrior

just a lingo clarification: is a "slice" a smaller unit than the ending time you can choose? if so, how do you know which one you're in?

Bowgentle

Sm0keyJ0e said:

aesthetocyst said:

Quebbster said:

And the interesting thing is that there are no brackets in the Lightning rounds, so the only thing that changed was your matchmaking...

No brackets...? You mean, no slices...? Pretty sure there are numerous brackets each LR!

Actually, no--I think it's just one giant bracket/slice, and everyone competes against everyone.

Yep, no brackets in LRs.

Except for the special events.