new idea for PVP

Spudgutter

acescracked said:

smkspy said:

ZeroKarma said:

Daiches said:

So you just hit a few seals while out and are immune to sniping?

No. It means that you get some people up high at the beginning of an event, and then they can just be perpetual targets for the whole shard to raise their scores on. 

If there were a "milestone" every 200 points where you can't lose points, or even at the end of progression, I think you would see a couple of things. 

1) People who can climb to 1200 without using a shield would simply never use one

2) Scores would go insane. Imagine someone gets to 3000 points and their score can't drop below that. The whole shard can just climb off that guy to astronomical point totals. Milestones that hold every 200 points would fairly quickly result in 10,000 point event scores using <gulp> no shields. 

3) It would be hilarious.

Or stop milestones after after 1000. They'd still have to shield eventually. Other than the 15cp, the main gripe has always been the knock down of points from 800 to 900. Getting the 4 star easier is the main focus for all but the top tier players. 

Just have it so when you open MPQ you automatically get the 4* cover. Ultimate goal of these PvP ideas is to make sure the 4* cannot be missed in anyway.

That's not anywhere near what he said, you are being disingenuous at best.  These ideas are being thrown around to help people play a mode that not many people play.  

Even if your argument is that something should not be given away for nothing (which is false anyway, they still have to do the matches), you have to concede that the game is vastly different now from when you went through the 4* transition. 

There are more 4* than 3* now, right?  1000 days ago there was less than a half dozen.  Acting like the game is the same (when it isn't) doesn't help anyone.  Theoritically, we all want the game to grow and adapt, right?  

Druiz23

I wish they would do a live PVP where we fight real people and not a computer. 

ThaRoadWarrior

I'm very curious what it would be like to play against a real player

Spudgutter

Druiz23 said:

I wish they would do a live PVP where we fight real people and not a computer. 

Imagine you need one hop to get the next progression reward, and the person you match up against takes 30 seconds thinking about what their next move will be.  It would take forever.  Meanwhile, you come out to -300 points because everybody hit you while you were fighting mister magoo.

Spudgutter

ThaRoadWarrior said:

I'm very curious what it would be like to play against a real player

There is a reason mobile games rarely match you up against live opponents versus a.i. versions.  Aside from the nightmare scenario i mentioned above, it would make games even longer.  Right now, we all know how the ai will interact with the board.  We can predict with a good degree of accuracy what power they will fire, and when.

PenniesForEveryone

ThaRoadWarrior said:

I'm very curious what it would be like to play against a real player

slow

ThaRoadWarrior

It wouldn't just plug right in to the current system. But Hearthstone matches are synchronous multiplayer. You need a shot clock, and some mechanism for rage quitting etc. I'm just saying, I'd like to challenge a real player at this head to head one time to see what it's like.

Bowgentle

ThaRoadWarrior said:

It wouldn't just plug right in to the current system. But Hearthstone matches are synchronous multiplayer. You need a shot clock, and some mechanism for rage quitting etc. I'm just saying, I'd like to challenge a real player at this head to head one time to see what it's like.

Your win rate would go down to 50% from 99% and matches would take 15 minutes to complete.

Do not want.

fmftint

Spudgutter said:

Druiz23 said:

I wish they would do a live PVP where we fight real people and not a computer. 

Imagine you need one hop to get the next progression reward, and the person you match up against takes 30 seconds thinking about what their next move will be.  It would take forever.  Meanwhile, you come out to -300 points because everybody hit you while you were fighting mister magoo.

Except in live PvP no one would be able to fight you because you'd already be in a live battle

ThaRoadWarrior

I just want to have that challenge, like playing a real game of chess against a real person.

Spudgutter

fmftint said:

Spudgutter said:

Druiz23 said:

I wish they would do a live PVP where we fight real people and not a computer. 

Imagine you need one hop to get the next progression reward, and the person you match up against takes 30 seconds thinking about what their next move will be.  It would take forever.  Meanwhile, you come out to -300 points because everybody hit you while you were fighting mister magoo.

Except in live PvP no one would be able to fight you because you'd already be in a live battle

Duh, you are right, i totally overlooked that part!  

That said, i still dont see the appeal of a live version.   Personally, i play a lot intermittently, so i may take 10-15 for a match while i do things around the house.  

shardwick

Bowgentle said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

It wouldn't just plug right in to the current system. But Hearthstone matches are synchronous multiplayer. You need a shot clock, and some mechanism for rage quitting etc. I'm just saying, I'd like to challenge a real player at this head to head one time to see what it's like.

Your win rate would go down to 50% from 99% and matches would take 15 minutes to complete.

Do not want.

It would be a serious drain on resources too as most would go in with all ap boosted so you would need to do the same or you'd be at a huge disadvantage right from the start.

Milk Jugz

abmoraz said:

So, we know that everyone hates the PvP scoring mainly because of the "I get hit eleventy-billion times in the time it takes me to do one match" bug... er, I mean "feature" of PvP

Ok, I'll start off by saying I don't agree with anything you said. But I REALLY REALLY don't agree with the part I quoted. I, and many others, enjoy the current system very much. Don't try to speak for everyone.......

The only real reasonable option mentioned here is an either/or system. But, I'd rather see them working on adding more reward thresholds from 900-1200, than changing the scoring system.

Spudgutter

Milk Jugz said:

abmoraz said:

So, we know that everyone hates the PvP scoring mainly because of the "I get hit eleventy-billion times in the time it takes me to do one match" bug... er, I mean "feature" of PvP

Ok, I'll start off by saying I don't agree with anything you said. But I REALLY REALLY don't agree with the part I quoted. I, and many others, enjoy the current system very much. Don't try to speak for everyone.......

The only real reasonable option mentioned here is an either/or system. But, I'd rather see them working on adding more reward thresholds from 900-1200, than changing the scoring system.

I agree that adding rewards in the dead zone would be nice.  That said, i thought it was understood that the majority dont like pvp. Comparing the numbers of players of pve to pvp, especially for top 10-20%, pve outweighs pvp.  Plus, the way i read it, the quote was about scoring, not pvp as a whole.  You can like how pvp currently is and still dislike the scoring

Milk Jugz

@Spudgutter
While I don't necessarily disagree with you that the majority dislike the Versus scoring system, I don't agree with you either. There really isn't anyway to quantify that. I could agree that a majority of the forums, or at least half the forums, dislike the scoring system. However, the point I was making is that not EVERYONE as the OP said in his opening statement hates the current scoring system. I, and others, enjoy the current system the way it stands.

NotBAMF

Net points for placement rewards.

Gross points for progression rewards.

It's the easiest fix in the world, and it's utterly baffling to me that they don't do it. 

Daiches

NotBAMF said:

Net points for placement rewards.

Gross points for progression rewards.

It's the easiest fix in the world, and it's utterly baffling to me that they don't do it. 

Because that would make dumping and sniping the most effective strategy by far and no one would use a shield anymore until the last hour or so.

Phumade

ThaRoadWarrior said:

It wouldn't just plug right in to the current system. But Hearthstone matches are synchronous multiplayer. You need a shot clock, and some mechanism for rage quitting etc. I'm just saying, I'd like to challenge a real player at this head to head one time to see what it's like.

you may want to play head to head,  and it would be fine to do so on a one off basis.  But live head to head matches for prizes would be awful.

1.  live matches are inherently slower.  AI never stops always making its move on time.
2.  Anyone who's played yahoo games or any online games know that matches can go from boring to basically unplayable when a live player turns griefer.
3.  Actual matchmaking would be slow and undependable.  As someone who played alot on Xbox live,  I can tell you that even the biggest games on Xbox Live arcade had issues consistently finding live opponents.  I'm pretty sure they would have major issues finding enough live opponents with equivalent rosters to actually battle in a live format.

As an aside, these types of new pvp suggestions are really pointless.  All thats really being done is tweaking how points are allocated and prizes divied up.  I.e. just changing the scoring.

try to develop new modes or objectives instead.  Those will be much more interesting and thought provoking that just another scoring thread disguised as pvp improvements.

NotBAMF

Daiches said:

NotBAMF said:

Net points for placement rewards.

Gross points for progression rewards.

It's the easiest fix in the world, and it's utterly baffling to me that they don't do it. 

Because that would make dumping and sniping the most effective strategy by far and no one would use a shield anymore until the last hour or so.

Yeah, I have no idea what "dumping and sniping" is, but it can't be any worse than the current system.

You think people would use dramatically fewer shields? I don't know. To fight for T10, you'd still have to shield early and often. There would be fewer people shielding JUST to reach progress and then get knocked back down, but I don't imagine shielding would fall off dramatically. By-and-large, most of the people who bother shielding up to reach 900 are the same kind of people who also want good placement. 

NotBAMF

Phumade said:

ThaRoadWarrior said:

It wouldn't just plug right in to the current system. But Hearthstone matches are synchronous multiplayer. You need a shot clock, and some mechanism for rage quitting etc. I'm just saying, I'd like to challenge a real player at this head to head one time to see what it's like.

you may want to play head to head,  and it would be fine to do so on a one off basis.  But live head to head matches for prizes would be awful.

1.  live matches are inherently slower.  AI never stops always making its move on time.
2.  Anyone who's played yahoo games or any online games know that matches can go from boring to basically unplayable when a live player turns griefer.
3.  Actual matchmaking would be slow and undependable.  As someone who played alot on Xbox live,  I can tell you that even the biggest games on Xbox Live arcade had issues consistently finding live opponents.  I'm pretty sure they would have major issues finding enough live opponents with equivalent rosters to actually battle in a live format.

As an aside, these types of new pvp suggestions are really pointless.  All thats really being done is tweaking how points are allocated and prizes divied up.  I.e. just changing the scoring.

try to develop new modes or objectives instead.  Those will be much more interesting and thought provoking that just another scoring thread disguised as pvp improvements.

God, yes, the idea of playing against other players in real time would be a nightmare. ESPECIALLY if they don't change points loss in progression. Literally every player out there that started facing an unwinnable battle would just stall out as long as possible in the hopes that the opponent would bail out to shield rather than stay exposed in a dragged-out encounter.