PVP survey questions

2

Comments

  • Tony_Foot
    Tony_Foot Posts: 1,814 Chairperson of the Boards
    shartattack said:

    is it hand-holding, or are they putting in "far more effort"?  It can't be both.  If the devs tweaked MMR so that grills didn't work anymore, I will still hit 1200 and place high in every event i put forth the effort.  The top players will still do well.  The gap would widen though.  A 4* team could take down a 5* grill.  They are not taking down 2 5* and a giant 4* essential.
    As in going to 3k to create trickle down is far more effort than if we all played as intended and the scores were reduced to keep the % of players earning the rewards. Winning the matches though in that method is far far easier than playing the game properly. I sit in the same room, I see  the queues being made and how easily you can queue 3x75 points, compared to how long I'm out in the open skipping matches.

    In all honestly I don't know how you can get any thrill or enjoyment out of that but I understand people are free to play as they want until that loophole is closed off. I used to think they didn't because of all the shield money but from those stats the other week it's clearly not as high as I thought it was and the amount cheesing the system is far lower than I thought too.
  • shartattack
    shartattack Posts: 370 Mover and Shaker
    Ducky said:
    The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

    If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

    If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
    Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters.  Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one.  So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams.  That makes many dislike pvp.
  • Tony_Foot
    Tony_Foot Posts: 1,814 Chairperson of the Boards
    shartattack said:

    Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters.  Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one.  So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams.  That makes many dislike pvp.
    The 1's and 2's come from DDQ not pvp. :)
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    Tony_Foot said:
    shartattack said:

    Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters.  Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one.  So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams.  That makes many dislike pvp.
    The 1's and 2's come from DDQ not pvp. :)

    Do you know that for fact or is that a guess? 

    I see dev's trying to change versus as a sign that something is wrong with it. We can all guess what we feel that issue is but unless the dev's come out and state why they are asking those questions we will not know.

    But our opinions and hopefully civil discussion let's them see things from a broader perspective and address needs that way if they see fit.
  • Daiches
    Daiches Posts: 1,252 Chairperson of the Boards
    Ducky said:
    The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

    If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

    If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
    They did change it. Wins are back as an alternative route for progression. We're already seeing 4stars getting actual 900 points and higher much more easily because they didn't all stop playing at 575..
  • Ducky
    Ducky Posts: 2,255 Community Moderator
    Daiches said:
    Ducky said:
    The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

    If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

    If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
    They did change it. Wins are back as an alternative route for progression. We're already seeing 4stars getting actual 900 points and higher much more easily because they didn't all stop playing at 575..
    They didn't change the mode at all, all they did was change the reward structure. And just because the people who were already playing and engaging are playing more doesn't necessarily mean that those who weren't engaging are. 

    The sting of retals are still there. The threat of being a punching bag is still there. The crazy high scores at the top which probably deter a lot of ppl from even attempting the mode are also still there in most of the slices .
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Daiches said:
    Ducky said:
    The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

    If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

    If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
    They did change it. Wins are back as an alternative route for progression. We're already seeing 4stars getting actual 900 points and higher much more easily because they didn't all stop playing at 575..
    So what you are saying is, that by increasing engagement, scores are going up, and obviously not by people in check rooms?  You also said:

    Daiches said:
    Tired of reading comments from people that don't know how PVP works. Hey you guys, points don't just magically appear out of thin air, you know. The only way points are added to the shard is by hitting shielded people and then shielding so you can get hit.
    Go to S2 or S5 if you really want to see what happens when there's little to no coordination to create scores. And see if you can leech your way to 1200 then. 
    Now get off my lawn.
    I agree with Ducky and your top comment. More engagement means a better, longer life for mpq. 

    shartattack said:
    Ducky said:
    The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

    If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

    If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
    Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters.  Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one.  So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams.  That makes many dislike pvp.
    Awesome, more "discord only" info.  We really need someone to start compiling ehat is said over there
  • dragonreader
    dragonreader Posts: 89 Match Maker
    edited June 2018


    I think eliminating skips would be particularly harsh on players transitioning from one tier to the next unless they do something about the matches you are given.  I routinely am faced with the choice of 3 teams I am unlikely to beat.  I don't think I should have 3 push-over teams but if I can't win at least some of my matches, I won't play (which wouldn't be the end of the world for me).  But if the goal is to make PVP more accessible, dropping skips won't work. 

    One problem with PVP is it penalizes you for growing your roster.  Sure that is a choice.  I could sell the 5 star covers I get, but then why am I playing?  

    I have often wondered why they don't have a system that has you choose a tier.  For example if you choose the 4 star tier the MMR ignores any 5* covers you might have, but you are only allowed to use 4 star characters and below.  Given that I have a handful of champed 4 stars (all around 272) I'd still get tough matches with maxed or high-level champed 4 stars but I wouldn't have to face powered up 5 stars as well.

    I'm just spit-balling ideas here as I haven't played much PVP because of time constraints (but it is something I want to play more of and have started trying to play regularly) so maybe these ideas don't make sense.
  • jackstar0
    jackstar0 Posts: 1,280 Chairperson of the Boards
    I think the old suggestion should remain in the discussion: make PvP anonymous.
  • shartattack
    shartattack Posts: 370 Mover and Shaker
    Ducky said:
    Daiches said:
    Ducky said:
    The reason they are thinking about changing PvP is because engagement is way lower than PvE. I heard somewhere that engagement is only at 40% of the playerbase, but I'm not sure how accurate that number is.

    If that number is close to accurate, they would make far more money engaging those other 60% over allowing the top 1% to continue their status quo, so the "shield hopping makes money" argument becomes invalid.

    If changes would engage more people, I'm all for it. The more people engaged, the longer the game lasts.
    They did change it. Wins are back as an alternative route for progression. We're already seeing 4stars getting actual 900 points and higher much more easily because they didn't all stop playing at 575..
    They didn't change the mode at all, all they did was change the reward structure. And just because the people who were already playing and engaging are playing more doesn't necessarily mean that those who weren't engaging are. 

    The sting of retals are still there. The threat of being a punching bag is still there. The crazy high scores at the top which probably deter a lot of ppl from even attempting the mode are also still there in most of the slices .
    So i won’t ever have 550s, so why should I play?  I know I don’t have a dedicated 1.5-2 hours free at the same time of the day to play competitive pve.  That doesn’t stop me from playing.  I just adjust my expectations.   If you can’t enjoy the game unless you are the top dog, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.  
  • Waddles_Pines
    Waddles_Pines Posts: 1,229 Chairperson of the Boards
    The problem with using % player engagement as a metric is that that PVE and PVP aren't equivalent.  PVE is a time sink, but at least those with lower rosters can compete and get good rewards.  PVP, unless you're a good roster, you're not going to get as far.  There's a finite amount of time that most players can play in a given day.  If you lowered the amount of clears needed in PVE for progression, upped the rewards in PVP, then you might get a more even distribution since a player's time would be redistributed more evenly, if the effort/reward paradigm was similar...
  • tobismaul
    tobismaul Posts: 11 Just Dropped In

    I think what is being missed here is that everyone is assuming the survey questions mean directly implementing those options into the existing pvp structure. what if they take those survey opinions and create a new pvp structure around those ideas? We honestly don't know the intent here.

    Also the perception is that pve has better rewards than pvp, maybe if they modified/increased the rewards structure they would see more engagement.

  • IceIX
    IceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 4,322 Site Admin
    Tony_Foot said:
    shartattack said:

    Ducky, did you see the post on discord recently about the most used characters? Tons of 1 and 2 star characters.  Less people play pvp because less people have the roster for it. That's an MMR issue, not a PVP one.  So many smaller rosters climb too fast and get smashed because MMR opens up and they get crushed by bigger teams.  That makes many dislike pvp.
    The 1's and 2's come from DDQ not pvp. :)
    DDQ contributes to a couple of those characters on that list, but by no means all. Mostly, it just inflates a few of them since newbies *and* vets are playing with those same characters. That being said, vets are playing those characters twice in a day each at max while the newbies are leveraging Thor or Ares till the cows come home.
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    Wish there had been an all of above option for the last question.
  • ohp5000
    ohp5000 Posts: 21 Just Dropped In
    does anyone remember the change in placement before cupcakes were killed to after? the gap between top rosters and others grew even wider. no change will hurt those strong players. every change that limits pts just limits the ease with which others get their rewards. 
  • charmbots
    charmbots Posts: 87 Match Maker
    Tony_Foot said:
    shartattack said:


    2 and 3 seem specifically designed to target and eliminate cooperative pvp play.  This would reduce slice scores across the game, cause players to leave alliances for strategic reasons, and eliminate the social aspect that keeps many players (especially whales) still playing the game, even after the 1,482nd time they've met rocket and groot. Why on earth they would think 2 or 3 would be good for gameplay, or for their bottom line, is beyond me.
    We have discussed this before so you know my stance on it, most people do. I hate this collaborative hand holding. It's pvp, I don't go online to play Gears of War and organise with the enemy where we will meet on the map so I can kill them and then the next game they can kill me to improve my wins. It's a terrible game mechanic that people want to dress up as a fun social side of the game. No it's cheesing the game to get the best rewards for the least effort.
    Actually back in the Gears of War 2 days (before TDM) occasionaly when two teams of high ranking annex players were matched up against one another they would sometimes form a truce in the lobby to grind points towards lvl 100 from capping/breaking the circle through the entire match. It was typically done in KOTH since most players spent a large amount of time earning their place on the leaderboard for annex and didn’t want many fake points towards their totals. I don’t think annex is a game mode anymore (haven’t played since GOW2), but it probably still happens in KOTH. 
  • Wumpushunter
    Wumpushunter Posts: 627 Critical Contributor
    If i could just hit people that didnt have didnt have 13 covers on black bolt and OML when I dont even have 3 covers on a single 5 star. Maybe they could just fix that issue first.
  • The rockett
    The rockett Posts: 2,016 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited July 2018
    I have changed my mind on this.  Remove all names from pvp. Make it that you cannot hit your own teammates even if they are shielded.  Completely change the set up.  In fact, I think it should go 1 step futher.  

    Remove all time slices.  Put everybody in one big pvp group like Lighting rounds.  Still run the 500 per bracket for each SL, but all play for the 2 day’s and 11 hours together. 

    If you are going to give out an Infinity Stone to ONLY the 1st place person in every SL 7/8/9 then let’s level the playing field and make everybody play together.  Now that would be a fair instead of this bias set up right now.  

Categories