On Bracketing and SHIELD Training

Unknown

Shadow wrote:

This new change on how people are being grouped together is bad. There is no sense of accomplishment to be obtained when a new player is able to rank highly on the leader board simply because the developers decided to let them have an easy time. I started this game 3 months ago. At that time, even with the noob roster that I was using, I was able to climb to top 50 and sometimes be close to top 15. I liked it and I wasn't being spoon fed an easy chance at getting the 3* covers. If I saw a 2* cover that I liked, I might hold back a bit and get 3 covers for it.

Fast forward to the last PvP that just ended. I have a very decent score that normally gets me top 25 if not top 10. However, because of the way things are now being grouped, if I had not been around in the last 10 minutes of the event, I wouldn't even have made top 50. We already know that we have to be around to play during the final minutes of PvE in order to rank well. We do not want this same thing to happen for PvP.

Agree with everything you said, and new bracketing / mmr is horrible. You're expected to grind twice as hard or more, for less rewards, and shield swap constantly while babying your ranking throughout the day if you want to hit top 10. This was acceptable when I only had a 2-star roster, but now I've been playing this game for 4 months, and have a solid lineup of ***'s and a few ***'s nearing max (because you know, previously it was clear that it would net you top 10 and occasionally win an odd 4-star to do so, and be able to regularly place in top brackets in pve). This is no longer the case. If this is the game working as intended, then maybe chargebacks to credit cards companies also work they way they intended them to.

Still holding out a faint hope that Demiurge will do the right thing and fix this colossal debacle, but not too optimistic, given the way things've been going.

Unknown

KaioShinDE wrote:

I can't believe your post got 19 upvotes. By responding to being bent over backwards with spending EVEN MORE MONEY is exactly why the devs do the bad things they do. Congratulations, you and people like you are the reason the game goes to tinykitty. If people just stopped spending money when they get **** by the devs then they would stop tinykittying us.

The post is fine and shows good effort -- well deserves the upvotes. They need not mean agreement with the described behavior or some part of it.

Unknown

No point complain ... One words you are screw by the dev if you don spend money in this game or you are screw even you spend money in this game... Hope everyone dont spend money on this game. To dev if you want us to spend money and let us suffer which you did i would say that you revenue will confirm drop alot .. In the past i spend money on this game as it is quite fun to play ans i support them but now NO WAY

Vohnkar

IceIX wrote:

Rajjeq wrote:

Ice:

My son started playing exactly two days after me. My roster is somewhat better because I got into the awesome Djangos! Yet since this change, he has in every PVP been placed in a significantly easier bracket, where his scores allow him to easily place top 10 with 600-700, while in my brackets I'm falling outside top 50 with 800s, since my Top 10 is always over 1000.

Are you saying this is merely coincidence? Or is there some other parameter happening as well?

More likely coincidence than not. I'd have to look at precise data in each case to make 100% sure. But overall within statistical variances (because random is indeed random), it's working out how we want.

Sorry IceIX but this "coincidence" is happening too much. I've been top 3 on PvP on my Alliance since day 1 and got from top100 to top 5 depending on the brackets I had. But on the last 3 events I've been out of top 50 and even top 100 doing more points than ever... Having almost 900 points and pused to rank 70 while other friends joining at similar times get a free passage to 3* is really frustrating.

A friend of mine and me joined last PvP event with 1 hour of diference, I got a bracket already at their 900-1000k with top 10 shielded, while he got a fresh start. I pushed to 900 points and shielded at top50 and it wasn't enough, I was pushed to 67th at the end while he got top 5 with 650 points. Come on man! thats not even funny. The main problem is when that happens 3 times in a row... me my brother and a friend must be the unluckiest person on our alliance, while our lower lvls, and this other friend (with SIMILAR roster) just pops in a quite easy (for me) bracket.

I can brake the 700-800 points with some dedication, but I don't bother anymore, I've stopped playing the events. PvE sucks with the ridiculous scaling, a lvl 40 from my alliance was rushing through missions while I was having a hard time with my mix of 2-3 * roster. On PvP now I end up on brackets with 1k+ top 10 and maxed 3*, so if what you want with those changes is piss people like me that are trying to transition from 2 to 3 * your are doing a really good work. Thanks.

Unknown

I think Clints suggestion of using this metric to increase rewards in harder brackets has some merit. In any level of sport, higher difficulty leagues yield better prizes. For interest I'm playing in a disc golf tournament this sunday and if I win in the intermediate division, I don't expect to get the same prize as someone who wins the advanced or pro division. My entry fee is also significantly less.

Though I don't think this system is the way to curb rewards. So here's an idea. Create two or 3 tournaments at the same time with 3 different prize pool structures and maybe different bracket sizes (larger brackets as the prizes get better). The prize difference doesn't have to be covers, it could easily be hp and iso. Label these tournaments begginer, intermediate and advanced. There should be no barrier to enter one of these tournaments, but you should only be allowed to enter one of the 3. This allows anyone to play with w/e group of people they want for w/e rewards they are willing to try for.

Is there some coding to do, yes. Does it help with your bracketing server problems? Maybe? I don't know I'm not a tech guy. But I think it would drive newer players to advance and offer veteran players something to try harder for.

Clintman

Shamusyeah wrote:

I think Clints suggestion of using this metric to increase rewards in harder brackets has some merit. In any level of sport, higher difficulty leagues yield better prizes. For interest I'm playing in a disc golf tournament this sunday and if I win in the intermediate division, I don't expect to get the same prize as someone who wins the advanced or pro division. My entry fee is also significantly less.

Though I don't think this system is the way to curb rewards. So here's an idea. Create two or 3 tournaments at the same time with 3 different prize pool structures and maybe different bracket sizes (larger brackets as the prizes get better). The prize difference doesn't have to be covers, it could easily be hp and iso. Label these tournaments begginer, intermediate and advanced. There should be no barrier to enter one of these tournaments, but you should only be allowed to enter one of the 3. This allows anyone to play with w/e group of people they want for w/e rewards they are willing to try for.

Is there some coding to do, yes. Does it help with your bracketing server problems? Maybe? I don't know I'm not a tech guy. But I think it would drive newer players to advance and offer veteran players something to try harder for.

Man that is a great idea. I think one of the themes we are seeing in the playerbase's perceptions of the Developers motivations is that the Devs do not seem to value the veteran population. Anyone that has played failed MMOs knows that if the Veteran Population is unhappy or starts leaving that new players will sense it and decide it is not worth the investment to play a game on the decline. The veteran players are the superstars of the game and the new players aspire to join their ranks. If the veterans are jumping ship, the new players never engage.

kensterr

Try asking pro basketball players to get paid the same amount as those in college - that's what the devs are asking the vets to do.

Wait... is it the other way around?

HairyDave

Shamusyeah wrote:

I think Clints suggestion of using this metric to increase rewards in harder brackets has some merit. In any level of sport, higher difficulty leagues yield better prizes. For interest I'm playing in a disc golf tournament this sunday and if I win in the intermediate division, I don't expect to get the same prize as someone who wins the advanced or pro division. My entry fee is also significantly less.

Though I don't think this system is the way to curb rewards. So here's an idea. Create two or 3 tournaments at the same time with 3 different prize pool structures and maybe different bracket sizes (larger brackets as the prizes get better). The prize difference doesn't have to be covers, it could easily be hp and iso. Label these tournaments begginer, intermediate and advanced. There should be no barrier to enter one of these tournaments, but you should only be allowed to enter one of the 3. This allows anyone to play with w/e group of people they want for w/e rewards they are willing to try for.

Is there some coding to do, yes. Does it help with your bracketing server problems? Maybe? I don't know I'm not a tech guy. But I think it would drive newer players to advance and offer veteran players something to try harder for.

I think that's basically what I hijacked one of Clints threads yesterday to suggest (or something similar concerning season points) so I'm all for it

Unknown

Shamusyeah wrote:

I think Clints suggestion of using this metric to increase rewards in harder brackets has some merit. In any level of sport, higher difficulty leagues yield better prizes. For interest I'm playing in a disc golf tournament this sunday and if I win in the intermediate division, I don't expect to get the same prize as someone who wins the advanced or pro division. My entry fee is also significantly less.

Though I don't think this system is the way to curb rewards. So here's an idea. Create two or 3 tournaments at the same time with 3 different prize pool structures and maybe different bracket sizes (larger brackets as the prizes get better). The prize difference doesn't have to be covers, it could easily be hp and iso. Label these tournaments begginer, intermediate and advanced. There should be no barrier to enter one of these tournaments, but you should only be allowed to enter one of the 3. This allows anyone to play with w/e group of people they want for w/e rewards they are willing to try for.

Is there some coding to do, yes. Does it help with your bracketing server problems? Maybe? I don't know I'm not a tech guy. But I think it would drive newer players to advance and offer veteran players something to try harder for.

Great suggestion Shamusyeah but I think the devs tried this to a degree with normal and harm mode, say in Sim pve. The difference is that you can participate in both if you choose. I just don't see them limiting it as they want people to go gangbusters and play everything. Maybe the way to help this is to have an entry fee based on ISO only. Pay 500 iso to join regular bracket, 1000 iso for hard bracket and the rewards are scaled like you suggested.

Unknown

mohio wrote:

I did one Lightning round earlier basically from start to finish and picked up I think 3 2* covers. If you're having trouble finding those 2*s you should really be playing pvp as much as possible. And if you hit a wall, throw in those lvl 6 2* or lvl 15 3* that are doing nothing for you and retreat to get easier matches. Might seem silly to lose points on purpose but it'll be worth it in the end.

I did that a LOT during the last three events and I get the concept of tanking. It worked before the matchmaking changes, but now the teams I have been put up against in Heavy Metal and the SHIELD Sim don't change.

My teams aren't strong enough to survive defense on LRs so the tokens there aren't possible for me to get. From what I've seen they aren't possible for most people to get unless they have 141 teams. Seems counter intuitive doesn't it?

As for randoming 2* covers from pvp battles themselves, I've gotten 2 useful 2*s and the rest have been dupes of the 4 covers I already have maxed (Yellow/Blue Cap, Green Storm, Purple OBW)

Bainee

This just applies their MMR system to brackets, where you get punished for doing well. While they try to get more users to spend money by granting them easy to obtain 3*'s.

To bad you can't tank your bracket.

mohio

Shamusyeah wrote:

I think Clints suggestion of using this metric to increase rewards in harder brackets has some merit. In any level of sport, higher difficulty leagues yield better prizes. For interest I'm playing in a disc golf tournament this sunday and if I win in the intermediate division, I don't expect to get the same prize as someone who wins the advanced or pro division. My entry fee is also significantly less.

Though I don't think this system is the way to curb rewards. So here's an idea. Create two or 3 tournaments at the same time with 3 different prize pool structures and maybe different bracket sizes (larger brackets as the prizes get better). The prize difference doesn't have to be covers, it could easily be hp and iso. Label these tournaments begginer, intermediate and advanced. There should be no barrier to enter one of these tournaments, but you should only be allowed to enter one of the 3. This allows anyone to play with w/e group of people they want for w/e rewards they are willing to try for.

Is there some coding to do, yes. Does it help with your bracketing server problems? Maybe? I don't know I'm not a tech guy. But I think it would drive newer players to advance and offer veteran players something to try harder for.

This sounds like a great idea, and in theory it is. The problem (and why I think the devs wouldn't ever do it) is that you would get people who just want to win with less effort joining easier brackets. Sure you hyper-competitive people will want to prove yourselves against each other, but others just want to play a fun match 3 game and winning is extra bonus. You might also have issues where people don't level themselves up to the next difficulty and instead stay at the top of the lower levels. Anyway, great idea, I just think the balancing of rewards to make sure people are joining the hardest tier they can compete in is very difficult, but perhaps doable.

Jathro

What bothers me the most from reading through this is that brackets and players are being weighted (how? Only the devs know for sure) but the rewards are uniform from one bracket to the next. Player A in Bracket 1 can receive the same rewards as Player B in Bracket 2 for less effort because of some sort of player handicapping. This sort of player catering is a slippery and dangerous slope

BearVenger

The comments on scaling, sorting, and developer communication are excellent, and I don't have anything worthwhile to add, other than my applause.

To touch on a point that IceIX mentioned, as a new-to-more-experienced player, I had a different set of expectations than D3 thinks is necessary for "new" players:

I didn't think I needed to have any or all 3* characters. I was content with building a 2* roster and got great joy getting them into the 60s and 70s. In my early days, I even pitched a couple of 3* covers, because I thought "There's no way I'll ever have enough covers to make that character viable. Plus, I gotta save roster space for the 2*s I want."

And with that "2* is good enough" mentality, I was happy to place in the 2* tiers of events. There were enough characters to pursue and enough variety to stay content with that. Plus, I found that with the right combination of lvl 70s, I could stand a puncher's chance against low/mid-level 3* characters. (Also, having infinite skips and up to 3 tries to take down a team encouraged me to jump in against bigger dogs.) Really, the only reason I've started building a 3* roster is that I've finally fully covered every 2* character, save BagMan, and I've taken enough 2*s to the level 85 mountaintop.

Maybe it's the fact that no new 2* characters have come out since Ares (who is an awesome character), but I don't see the need to have a 3* roster from the get-go. If a player wants to jump in with Punisher, Hulk, and Panther, there are IAPs for that. In the meantime, there's a lot of gameplay fun that's getting marginalized by making the 2* characters seem like a temporary bridge to the Promised Land of 3* characters.

I built my 2* roster before D3 started giving away 2* covers as random prizes. I'm happy for the new players who have this opportunity and will take half the time I took to get where I'm at. But if all your moves are to make 3* the new normal, then it bites that some percentage of veteran players (the guys who end up in 50-100 place) are being sacrificed to make that happen.

Linkster79

kensterr wrote:

Try asking pro basketball players to get paid the same amount as those in college - that's what the devs are asking the vets to do.

Wait... is it the other way around?

Off topic I know but what is the deal with you americans paying people for after school clubs?

Unknown

Another solid point I'd like to bring up here, is that IceX has previously claimed that they've actually expanded the number of rewards given out, but all I've seen is a reduction and events that are increasingly grindy and less fun.

The reason for this is actually pretty simple. For rewards to remain fair, they have to be given out in proportional amount to the player base. It was pretty accurate before the alliance switch - 3x 3 stars for finishing in top tiers 3x 2 stars for finishing in the lower tier. But here's the thing, tweaking things slightly to give out a few more covers doesn't work. You have to actually keep the number of covers given out proportional to the total brackets and player base. Obviously, I don't know the numbers, but it's my strong impression that they haven't done that, and have generally just been giving the same number of covers (adding a small number here and there) out to cover a larger and larger player base. They need to maintain the percentage of rewards given out, not the number, if they want things to stay fair, and for the game to remain fun.

The effect of this has been to make brackets much more cut-throat and make the game near impossible to play casually. But the biggest issue is still the fact that sharding strongly concentrates veterans into brackets, and they've reduced rewards for lower tier players.

The extra covers as match rewards in PvP are good in theory, except that it's not truly random. Based on what I've observed tracking the rewards from PvP matches, your average ISO payout value tends to increase the higher you rank, which is good for us vets, but it does mean that */** roster players still get the short end of the straw, and clumping them into easy brackets while screwing everyone else doesn't fix this. Bring back the reward tiers that actually give them ** covers for winning in PvP.

For instance, just based on the current reward structure:
51-100 should yield 2x ** covers, 1500 ISO , 50 HP
101-150 should yield 2x ** covers, 1000 ISO, 25 HP
151-200 should yield 1x ** cover, 500 ISO

On the alliance side,
tiers 3-6 (at a minimum) should also yield a third ** cover.

And get rid of this weighted sharding, or only weight it to ensure that vets DON'T get clumped together, and that there's an even spread of players at different stages of progression in each bracket/shard/whatever. Assuming bracketing is done fairly, what we should be seeing is the vets being spread out over more brackets as more people start playing the game, rather than all of them being clumped together.

Having an extra pay-in elite pvp, like you used to run is probably a good solution for those who're truly hardcore and don't want to play casually like the rest of us. Maybe tweak the format on it a little to reduce the rewards (previously top spot was 1x of every cover), but also reduce the cost of entry to make 50-100 HP. Maybe have the elite pvp's play for 3x 4-stars (2 + 1 alliance), and limit the use of 4 stars leveled over 141 to elite tournaments.

Unknown

First off, "A Gentle push?"



Lol ok but seriously, this is getting ridiculous. We are sitting here with pages and pages of ideas and solutions about this when honestly, the easiest thing to do is to revert back to the straight time based entries. The problem with creating brackets on days played is HUGE for many reasons. One of those being, say I have to go on a week vacation where I can't play the game hardly at all, I have just enough time to load it up, play a prologue mission for the reward and then close the game. I am now behind 7 days of "progress." On the same note, the amount of playing / grinding per day is vastly different across the player base. You can have a casual player only paying a couple missions a day or have a guy like Nemek who plays literally every lightning round in a day. (Seriously, do you sleep? ) Really quick too, say I drop 1000$ on day 1. Then I will be miles above everyone else at that point getting easy wins left and right. This is an extreme but can be applied to any amount of money spent on any day. So days played should not be a factor.

Now what's next?, roster strength? MMR? These are so hard to calculate fairly that it would just be a nightmare. It already is hard enough with the removal of tanking to figure out a fair MMR. You see these guys with no max 3 stars that are facing 3 x 141's in PVP matches. You can't really fairly say, "ok, this guy has this many levels on all his heroes, therefore he is equal to this other guy" There are just too many factors to try and figure out. I see all this talk of easy / hard tournaments, higher rewards, etc etc when honestly, like I said before, the time based is the most fair way to do this.

If you guys REALLY want the new players to get easy wins to maybe hook them into the game more and avoid "sticker shock" (which is a whole nother point I don't feel like getting into now) then just use your days played thing to put players who are 25 days and under into their own brackets and then have the rest of us back to how it was, time joined until it fills up and then add a new bracket. This keeps it fair for the veterans and also adds a sort of "junior tournament" for the newbies to get a little caught up. This is the most simple way to have the devs get what they want and us get what we want. This "gentle push" is nothing but, and it is not working at all. Let's get time based entry back!

Unknown

A way to fix bracketing

change alliance reward stucture for 1-100,101-200 etc

This will reduce the number of people who don't need **** having to take it away from people who do because their alliance score.

Have more events that have no alliance reward or season scoring

Remove Alliance portion of season scoring or remove season scoring altogether


All of these introduce an unnecessary need to grind so you don't screw over alliance members and as we have already seen, this is driving people away from the game. MPQ SHOULD be a pick up and play game, not one where you must play every waking hour or you fall behind.

The current bracketing change is a big problem because it further penalizes people who progress.

I will quit before I resort to shield hopping or spending money every tournament and if that's what it takes, there are tons of equally entertaining games out there who could use some free cash.

The MPQ ideas board should NOT start with a line of, how can we get more money out of our fans because that's the fastest route to losing those fans.

Unknown

I'm soon 37 years old. I've played video games since I was 7 years old so I know a thing or two about what makes games work and what doesn't. I know a good game when I see one, and let me tell you this:

The original version of Marvel Puzzle Quest was extremely good and hooked me and other players like flies to a fly paper.

That was the original version, which I started playing just a few weeks before Christmas. I'm now nearing 150 days played and ever since I got hold of 13 Punisher covers and levelled him to 122 (during the Punisher PvP) I feel that I have seen tougher and tougher opponents. However, I'm not even using Punisher in the events. He doesn't fit my play style very well, he was just my first 3-star character and I really wanted to level him high to try and scare off a few of guys who always seem to group attack me so hard in the PvPs, losing 3-6 fights while I try to win one fight (which is a major problem with the PvP system, losing way more than you can win back). I played a lot in the beginning but probably not enough because I now find that a new guy who only played the game for three weeks has already got a way better roster than I had after three weeks, so obviously the game has already become much easier for new players. When I started playing I had to struggle and slowly build my roster and advance in levels, but I saw that I got results. I couldn't expect to win lots of prizes at that point, but I think that many young players (and also casual players of all ages) are very spoiled today and don't really want a tough and challenging game, they just want a few moments of fun and want to progress fast. Lots of game companies today have recognized this and started to make their games easier, because you don't earn any money if the players leave the game too soon.

So rather than handling a few complaints from casual players about the game being challenging, I think D3 has now just done what everyone else has already done: started to cater the new, casual players, to avoid losing a big part of the player base. Get the new players to stay longer and more money can be earned. Simple company logic and no one should or even can deny that.

So what we see now, where advanced players suddenly face a much tougher resistance and struggle to get 1000 points and still don't end in the top 10, while new is players finish top 2 with only 700 points, is nothing other than D3 catering the new players, making it easy for them and pouring so many new covers on them that they just HAVE to buy hero points to expand their rosters. I know I had a hard time balancing my new covers in my limited roster. Today, things are probably much worse. So when we older, more advanced players end up in killer brackets it's not "bad luck" or "coincidence". It's calculations falling into place. Because you can't satisfy everyone and someone has to pay the price. And the new players will be more eager to spend real money on the game, so us "veterans" can be sacrificed for the greater good.

Well, at least that's how I feel. Going back to the old system would be the best thing to do but I seriously doubt that will happen. Maybe I'm just very cynic now but all changes that have been made to the game these past few weeks have really killed a lot of the fun. The original MPQ was extremely good. This new MPQ seems to decay far too quickly. I WANTED to play the older version, because it was fun. This new version has sadly just become a grind, where you have to play more, against tougher opponents, and win less than before...while new players win more with less. I'm sad it had to come to this.

daveomite

Daige wrote:

Going back to the old system would be the best thing to do but I seriously doubt that will happen. Maybe I'm just very cynic now but all changes that have been made to the game these past few weeks have really killed a lot of the fun. The original MPQ was extremely good. This new MPQ seems to decay far too quickly. I WANTED to play the older version, because it was fun. This new version has sadly just become a grind, where you have to play more, against tougher opponents, and win less than before...while new players who more with less. I'm sad it had to come to this.

Amen. It is harder and harder to actually WANT to play. I really think that's a major part of the issue overall. What was fun, is now not even enjoyable most of the time. It's practically a full time job at times.