If it were possible, would you be in favor of a PVP option that would lock out 5 star characters?

ThaRoadWarrior

Unsure

I think the intent is sound, but I'm not sure in practice it would have that effect. I personally would like to see more of those all-tier required character PVPs like with Wolverine where one node has Patch, the other XFW, and the third OML, and you get to decide per-match which tier required you are using.

crackninja

Yes

I like change of pace events, so maybe not implement this type of thing for every event, but incorporate different ways for 4*'s to be used over 5*'s.
Recently I started out a pvp by using 10 different teams for my first 10 wins (not vs seed teams),  and that was fun.  It was also jarring how quick the falloff was, reminding me why I stick with thorkoye for pvp 99% of the time.

randomhero1090

Yes

CL7 and below should lock out 5*.  A 5* team shouldn't be able to queue my 3/4* combo team.  People are forced into CL7 too early as it is.  When you actually do well then get smashed by 5* teams, sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.

You have these levels for a reason

Phumade

Other

This would be great only as an additional mode for pvp.  player should be able to enter and compete for both events and prizes.

broll

No

No.  I'm generally not a fan of any lockouts.  This one would be the worst.

AardvarkPepper

Yes

Though I voted "yes", in retrospect I would say "no".

On the "yes" side newer players get pushed into SCL 7 PvP too early so end up facing developed rosters they can't progress against.

But really now.  Even if you had a PvP that banned 5*s AND 4*s, you're looking at developed rosters fielding three 3*s at level 266 that are then boosted.  Newer players *STILL* can't compete.

So what would such a PvP event really do?  It would mean all the players that worked to earn powerful rosters couldn't use their rosters.  I could perhaps accept that as a side effect of having events that would help newer players (though I'd still say there should be serious consideration about the validity of any proposal that would lock developed veterans out of using their developed rosters) - but since it DOESN'T really help newer players, well, there you go.  Should be "No".

tiomono

Other

I think just make scl's put a cap on the possible level of any character. You could still use any character in any event or scl. The levels could be scaled down if they are above the cap for your selected scl.

So at the highest scl (10) there are no restrictions. At 9 you could level cap at 450 maybe. Scl 8 level cap 350. Or something like that the numbers could be tweaked. 

So for players that want to drop down for any reason would have  there characters not so high above any possible competition. It would not balance of power and make everyone equal, it would just knockdown the super high 5's in lower levels.

Wonko33

No

Nah, I don't want a bunch of 5* roster people coming into my pond with all their maxed out champed 4*

Zirtak_the_Second

Yes

Sound like a great plan for roster diversity. If there were two PVPs going on at the same time, one with all charachters and one without 5*s, let people join one and lock the other version, so you can play one PVP at a time. Although I only have GladiaThor champed, I can imagine that it would be a nice change for 5* players to not have to face Thorkoye every single time and go along with whoever is boosted in the 4* pool. If rewards are the same, choosing a PVP will just be based on whatever you feel like playing. Maybe give 4* Kingpin a spin again because he is boosted for the event and you have him max champed and you don't have to worry about getting #metoo'ed by 5* rosters and why the hell not? I'm definitely in and I would definitely switch between the two options.

broll

No

AardvarkPepper said:

Though I voted "yes", in retrospect I would say "no".

On the "yes" side newer players get pushed into SCL 7 PvP too early so end up facing developed rosters they can't progress against.

But really now.  Even if you had a PvP that banned 5*s AND 4*s, you're looking at developed rosters fielding three 3*s at level 266 that are then boosted.  Newer players *STILL* can't compete.

So what would such a PvP event really do?  It would mean all the players that worked to earn powerful rosters couldn't use their rosters.  I could perhaps accept that as a side effect of having events that would help newer players (though I'd still say there should be serious consideration about the validity of any proposal that would lock developed veterans out of using their developed rosters) - but since it DOESN'T really help newer players, well, there you go.  Should be "No".

There are better fixes for those problems also.

• Spread the SCLs out more, they are way too easy to enter leading to under powered players unsure why they can't compete.
• Add SCL 10 with good enough rewards that few 5* and/or high level 4* players would want to slum it any more.
• Restrict droping down multiple levels.

Twomp_thaDJ

Other

Don’t need a separate PvP. If you use a 5 star any time during that PvP event it should trigger or open up to opponents that are using 5 star teams as well.. this could have been applied to 4 stars as well if they didn’t start having 4 star PvP events.. but if they did somehow implement the system for 5 stars I could actually level up some of the ones I do have and use them in PvE events. I don’t level them for obvious reasons lol

AardvarkPepper

Yes

tiomono said:

I think just make scl's put a cap on the possible level of any character. You could still use any character in any event or scl. The levels could be scaled down if they are above the cap for your selected scl.

So at the highest scl (10) there are no restrictions. At 9 you could level cap at 450 maybe. Scl 8 level cap 350. Or something like that the numbers could be tweaked. 

So for players that want to drop down for any reason would have  there characters not so high above any possible competition. It would not balance of power and make everyone equal, it would just knockdown the super high 5's in lower levels.

With the added stricture that if a player wanted to use a character of a higher level than allowed for the SCL, they could instead use that character at max level for the SCL.

Except that would still give players with developed rosters an advantage.

ThaRoadWarrior

Unsure

Should players with developed rosters not get some kind of advantage though?

Daredevil217

AardvarkPepper said:

tiomono said:

I think just make scl's put a cap on the possible level of any character. You could still use any character in any event or scl. The levels could be scaled down if they are above the cap for your selected scl.

So at the highest scl (10) there are no restrictions. At 9 you could level cap at 450 maybe. Scl 8 level cap 350. Or something like that the numbers could be tweaked. 

So for players that want to drop down for any reason would have  there characters not so high above any possible competition. It would not balance of power and make everyone equal, it would just knockdown the super high 5's in lower levels.

With the added stricture that if a player wanted to use a character of a higher level than allowed for the SCL, they could instead use that character at max level for the SCL.

Except that would still give players with developed rosters an advantage.

This has nothing to do with MMR and everything to do with roster diversity.  Many 5* players are tired of playing the same two characters day in and day out.  By restricting 5* from PVP then those players can enjoy a more diverse meta that changes each week with the boost list (the reason I'm very slowly transitioning).  Just like now, if you are not running max-champed 4s yourself, you won't be regularly facing them.

Dormammu

No

If there were to exist an optional separate PvP event, I'd rather see one with 4-star or even 5-star required characters in tandem with the 3-star required.

I don't like events or nodes (in either PvP or PvE) that lock out characters. They annoy me.

WelcomeDeath

Other

I agree, but I dont think this goes far enough.  First off, pvp needs to make boosts affect MMR, which it does not currently.  This means that if you level just 2 4 stars, you're facing 95% boosted 4 stars every node, even though it's highly unlikely the two you have are boosted.  This is less of a thing at 3 star and even less at 2 star play because the transitions are much faster, but it's still an issue just starting out.

Second, let me pick which type of characters to use, sure.  But separate *all* tiers for mmr purposes and tie them to CL.  So if you want to play with, say, 3 stars, go ahead.  But you have to play cl5 or 6.  If you do this, you need to adjust rewards accordingly.  It's already annoying to get 1200 in a pvp and get a moonstone cause you played s1 and placed 51st.  Lump *all* the 5 star guys in one or two brackets and you could get 400th for getting 1200 points.  That just can't be the case.   So yeah, lock out 5s, but lock in a specific tier or range of levels.  This might even mean the death of the grilling industry for MPQ, which is a good thing.

AardvarkPepper

Yes

ThaRoadWarrior said:

Should players with developed rosters not get some kind of advantage though?

In context, I read that post as directed to what I wrote in response to @timono.  To clarify my post - in context, I think the topic of this post, having a PvP event that excludes 5*s, as well as a lot of replies, come out to reducing the advantage players with developed rosters have in some way.  This may not have been the intent of those writing, but for my part I can't imagine what else it could mean.  (No, really, I can't, even with the best of intentions, what else could it really mean?  I know @Daredevil217 wrote a point about roster diversity, and though I don't disagree with that conceptually, most of what I'm reading in this thread regards generic restrictions that wouldn't involve any need to rotate characters so I'll table restrictions to encourage roster diversity for another time.)

I did write in an earlier post in this thread post that I considered restricting players from using their full rosters to be a *disadvantage* because it makes those rosters that players spent time and effort and sometimes money to accumulate less useful.

So when I wrote to Timono to the effect that I considered his(?) proposal to leave players with developed rosters with an advantage *in context* what I was doing was questioning Timono regarding the efficacy of the particular proposed implementation of player restrictions with regards to what changes players will experience in a practical sense.  My point, in context, was though I considered Timono's proposal to be different in implementation, as I read it, it works out in the end to about the same as what we have now.  So my question to Timono was if the proposed change were implemented, in what way would it be superior to what we have now, who specifically would it benefit?  because those things were unclear to me.

AardvarkPepper said:

Though I voted "yes", in retrospect I would say "no".

On the "yes" side newer players get pushed into SCL 7 PvP too early so end up facing developed rosters they can't progress against.

But really now.  Even if you had a PvP that banned 5*s AND 4*s, you're looking at developed rosters fielding three 3*s at level 266 that are then boosted.  Newer players *STILL* can't compete.

So what would such a PvP event really do?  It would mean all the players that worked to earn powerful rosters couldn't use their rosters.  I could perhaps accept that as a side effect of having events that would help newer players (though I'd still say there should be serious consideration about the validity of any proposal that would lock developed veterans out of using their developed rosters) - but since it DOESN'T really help newer players, well, there you go.  Should be "No".

This is from an earlier post I wrote in the thread.  I don't expect everyone to remember what everyone else writes.  (Even I don't do that.)  I just provide it as context to show I *do* think players with developed rosters *should* be able to utilize their developed rosters.  I mean, it just makes sense to me that they should you know?  Why disincentivize players from developing their rosters?  It just seems bad from a gameplay point of view, from a having fun point of view, from a business point of view, and all around.

(Though I disagree with the current implementation of rewards and player groupings, that's another matter.)

wymtime

No

No 5* is basically Balance of Power or combined arms and runs in the offseason.  I personally hate both of these offseason events as they become massively grindy.  I would rather see more 4* essential PVP or a weekly 5* buffed like every other tier.

ThaRoadWarrior

Unsure

I've long been a proponent of having SCLs target the characters and not the player - currently you have a shield clearance level ranking as a player, regardless of what's currently on your roster. This grants you access to content that is using some kind of formula (in pve at least) that is scaled to what a platonic roster of that point value should be able to defeat. The problem is that this number only increases, it's not a rolling evaluation of your roster, so you could sell off your whole roster and still be SCL 122 or whatever. So tying MMR or difficulty directly to the player's Shield Rank won't give all players the same experience. If you shift it to applying to the character levels, you can more appropriately gate the competition to like vs like.

Ideally (in my mind) SCLs would align with the tier max-champ levels so you don't have loads of people feeling compelled to soft-cap duplicates (though I'm sure many would do so). This will still give a competitive advantage to people growing and hanging on to max-champ characters, but not so much so that it's an un-crossable gulf to new players. So for example if we arbitrarily choose SCL7 will allow any character below level 266 regardless of * tier, any character above that becomes allowed in SCL8 up to 370, then SCL9 is Open Class where you can just run what you brung. You could tune this more granularly of course, but it seems to me like this more closely aligns with what we were told SCLs were for in the first place (a measure of roster building activities - but since it only goes 1 way, up, it isn't actually that). With this system, you could always play up with an aspirational roster, but you couldn't play down with world-beating mega-roster.

MrDupaTM

Yes

Yes, I hate the current PVP system, it's completely rigged towards higher ranked players once you reach certain level which is absolutely terrible for the newcomers.

I simply don't understand why are there no caps from about level 65 upwards. Locking out 5* would be half-way solution anyway. PVP should only allow players of similar level to compete against each other.

My idea (I am sure it isn't original and plenty of you have thought of it already) would be to choose who you compete against with scaling progression rewards tree:
2* - with only 1 and 2* allowed with 2x2* and 1x3* covers as progression rewards (and similar in placement).
3* - only 1, 2 and 3* allowed with 2x3* and 1x4* covers.
4* - 1, 2, 3 and 4* allowed with 1x3, 1x4 and 1x5* covers.
unlimited - obviously, all characters are allowed with 2x4 and 1x5* covers to be obtained.

Newbies are already in a bad spot, the amount of the characters is massive at the moment and is still growing so the progression is slowed down in comparison to 1 or 2 years ago, 4* are rare, 5* even rarer... Then there impossibility of achieving the best placement rewards with veterans getting 2k points and sweeping all the 4* covers. I understand the game's a marathon and not a 100m dash, but at least let's keep the marathon on a plain and not in Himalayas. This is supposed to be a fun and not frustrating experience, I don't understand why the d3go don't fine tune their PVP and give a helping hand to the newcomers.

Generally in multiplayers there's a rank system that should actually mean that you'll be matched with similarly ranked opponents. Here it doesn't mean anything.