PVP changes?

MrDupaTMMrDupaTM Posts: 13 Just Dropped In
I hate the current PVP system, it is completely rigged towards higher ranked players once you reach certain level which is absolutely terrible for the newcomers (with me among them).

I simply don't understand why are there no caps from about level 65 upwards. PVP should only allow players of similar level to compete against each other. That's a normal solution in any PVP/multiplayer game. Why is D3 Go! thinking it's fair to allow players with 90% progression compete with people with 5% of the progression?

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 really sluggish... then there an absolute impossibility of achieving the best placement rewards with veterans getting 2k points and sweeping all the 4* covers on level 7 which is the lowest you can go once you above certain shield rank. 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. I haven't even rostered all 4 stars yet and the only reason I haven't quit yet is hope the changes are actually coming.

Comments

  • bbiglerbbigler Posts: 1,400 Chairperson of the Boards
    Ummmm....since no one else has responded, I'll give my 2 cents.  In the last 6 months I've gone through the new player experience, but I've been hardcore about it.  Going up through the SCLs wasn't bad for me, the PVP MMR seemed fair, but I do agree that once you enter SCL 7 or above, you need a 5* roster to get top 10 and win more 4* covers.  Shield Rank does not accurately reflect roster strength though.  The SCLs are intended to let you pick your level of competition and rewards, but it's not perfect.  Like many games, progression slows down the more you go up.  D3 wants you to play this game for a long time, not just a few months.  I wouldn't expect them to make any drastic changes to the game.  Things are pretty well established, with minor tweaking along the way now. 
  • bluewolfbluewolf Posts: 3,155 Chairperson of the Boards
    A bit of history might enlighten...or not.  Back about 14 months ago, the devs introduced the wins-based PVP system (only).  They also, if you recall, moved the final CP reward to placement only.  One result of that decision was high end players moving down to very low SCLs so they could get those 15 CPs.  Another result was the complete abandonment of the wins-based system very quickly as the high end players stopped spending and playing as much PVP.  

    A couple months or so after that fiasco, the current system - restricting players to an SCL range for PVP - began.  There was little explanation that I recall, but the presumed reason was to allow lower end rosters to place better and not be crowded out by high end ones.  I began to suspect they were setting the table to re-implement wins-based PVP and moving the CP to placement again, but thankfully, they went eventually went with the current hybrid system.

    @bbigler makes a solid point that the game makes it therefore easy to place until you are thrown into the big pool.  And really, that rationale - hooking you with easy progress and wins until you are in the really slow, long-term progress part of your roster development - sounds very solid to me.

    Now:  Could they make some changes?  Maybe make SCL6 give out some more 4s along with 7-9? Or change the way that the SCL brackets are defined? (I think maybe the cut offs come kind of early.)  I think so, given the massive dilution and roster slot requirements with 74 (non-limited) 4's, but I'm just a player.

    I think your proposed reward system is unfortunately probably unworkable (in terms of limiting characters allowed) and unlikely (in terms of reward generosity).  But PVP changes seem to be something that should definitely be on the developers' agenda as (apparently) participation declines.
  • MrDupaTMMrDupaTM Posts: 13 Just Dropped In
    bbigler said:

    D3 wants you to play this game for a long time, not just a few months.  I wouldn't expect them to make any drastic changes to the game.  Things are pretty well established, with minor tweaking along the way now.
    I think there's more likeability newer players would stop playing due to the frustration of seeing people way over their shield rank outscoring them vastly (1k points more) on level 7 PVP.
    In gaming you need to give a carrot to players, proposed by me solution give few types of them:
    1) for the vet players to stop smashing the newbies... why would they go play in 3 or 4* field if they can get a 5* cover in the higher level of play. There's already voices of frustration of impossibility to get the 5* covers and lack of feeding system (proposed solution would pretty much solve it)
    2) second carrot going to transitioning players that would select either 3* or 4* realm to get a cover they need.
    3) last one going to the newbies. Although early on the game actually filters higher ranked players there are some that play the system and only have few characters of 4* as well as 5* covers so their shield rank stays low and are able to absolutely destroy the newcomers. You'd limit the possibility of abusing the rank system if you limited it by heroes levels and not  by gamer' ranks.

    The thing is, there a big chance there's going to be 100 characters in the 4* world, it is getting so difficult to level the characters and it's only going to be worse, so the game needs to help the players grow quicker that they used to. You cannot mantain the same system for years while substantially decreasing the odds of getting the right covers.

    I don't think any change is impossible, I am sure the developers understand there is going to be a point where major changes must be made or new players will be too frustrated to keep playing. I have a feeling the supports were supposed to be one of those changes (even if ended up being a massive failure).
  • bbiglerbbigler Posts: 1,400 Chairperson of the Boards
    Supports aren't a massive failure, they just need better distribution.  I have supports that I regularly use, because they help. 4* dilution is an issue, yes, but I must also admit that I'm able to champ them anyway.  It's not impossible and I have to take what I can get.  I'm acquiring about 20 - 25 x 4* covers per week.  That's enough to keep things rolling, despite dilution. But I think your biggest complaint is 5* players taking rewards away from 3* and 4* players.  I agree, it doesn't seem fair.  But you can also look at it from their point of view, they want the freedom to play SCL 7 and do their clears in 30 min or less.  I think rewards in SCL 8 and 9 should be improved so that 4* and 5* players naturally stay out of SCL 7. 
  • AardvarkPepperAardvarkPepper Posts: 239 Tile Toppler
    edited December 2018
    As it is, the function of a more powerful roster is to 1) decrease real time spent in game yet still earn the rewards you want, 2) increase your range of performance so you can earn better prizes than you did before.  There's some linkage between the two, as faster teams in PvE cut node clear time so your 24 hour timers can be let to run longer so you can earn more points but . . . yeah.

    Now here we have a proposal that I think is a little rough (comments later) but makes sense conceptually *but* it's important to remember that and other games are different products with different audiences and different monetization.  What works for one game with a million players in terms of monetization might not work for another game with ten thousand.  Splitting the playerbase into tiers might work for a game with a million players, but less well for a game with ten thousand (or whatever the number is).

    1)  Splitting players into different tiers might work out a little weirdly in terms of implementation because MPQ might not have a huge playerbase.  There's only 9627 or so alliances, maximum membership 20 players per alliance, and sure there are alliances made up of buyer clubs, or mostly empty alliances, on the other hand there are players that don't play in alliances at all.  But at any rate maybe 200,000 players with varying levels of activity, maybe 300,000, maybe 100,000 whatever, mostly in the United States of America, many veterans but some newer players.

    2)  The proposed rewards level is way generous.  Right now you can't get 5*s; 5*s would be a huge draw.

    I can tell you already, the "unlimited" versus "4*" - if this were actually implemented my guess is a lot of players would quit PvE, try to do PvP, and most of the long-term veterans would say screw the unlimited with the additional 4* if it were much harder, and just jump in the 4* pool, because it's the 5*s, again, that are the draw.  Just like how you have a load of 5* players at SCL 7 because that's where you get the 4*; it's fast, you get rewards, that's the draw.  Same thing here.

    3)  The described implementation actually wouldn't help newbies much.  Frankly if you're fighting a level 266 boosted 3* from a player that's dupli-champed their 3*s, and you're using your whatever level 167 . . . yeah that's not very nice.  Veterans will have a broader roster so will be able to choose from much higher level characters with team synergies.  Newer players will have a much less broad roster so won't be able to choose from as many characters, and of their limited selection, the ones they do have will be of far lower level and some won't even be fully covered.  Which means if the implementation did go off as described, newer players would still get smashed.

    All this is not to rain on the parade and say it's bad conceptually.  It's just to say that though the concept is good, there may be structural issues that need to be addressed (will it actually be workable with the playerbase?)  and there's also conceptual issues such as vast disparity in strength even when using characters of the same tier.

    Hopefully the developers at least think on the points made though.  I do think the game isn't particularly good for new players.

    Here's my advice to new players:  Forget your stupid 1* Iron Man.  Most of those 1*s you got in Prologue you don't want to even invest iso into.  You pick up 1* Juggernaut (in what, the third or fourth part?), you use him.  Then you roster the non-Bagman 2*s, and do events.  You use HP for roster slots only, don't look at the store sales.  Fast track Iron Man and Doctor Strange for 3*s, and check blah blah wikis for what 4*s you should collect.  Then blah blah like four paragraphs short version.

    What I'm getting at is . . . yeah okay new players maybe have fun, play non-optimally.  But the way the game works, you just get dumped into this big world of options and there are so many bad choices, and who wants to do a lot of study outside of game to perform better in a game?  I would, but I'm not your average player.  So if your average player feels lost, if they feel they're not earning rewards, if they don't feel they can really progress, where in the game does it really provide guidance?

    And yes there's alliance chat and you could ask alliance mates, but there's so much BAD advice out there.  Ugh.  Plus the in-game chat system is pretty limited . . .
  • MalcrofMalcrof GLOBAL_MODERATORS Posts: 5,970 Chairperson of the Boards
    Moving to Suggestions. Link left

  • shardwickshardwick Posts: 1,284 Chairperson of the Boards
    bbigler said:
    Supports aren't a massive failure, they just need better distribution.  I have supports that I regularly use, because they help. 4* dilution is an issue, yes, but I must also admit that I'm able to champ them anyway.  It's not impossible and I have to take what I can get.  I'm acquiring about 20 - 25 x 4* covers per week.  That's enough to keep things rolling, despite dilution. But I think your biggest complaint is 5* players taking rewards away from 3* and 4* players.  I agree, it doesn't seem fair.  But you can also look at it from their point of view, they want the freedom to play SCL 7 and do their clears in 30 min or less.  I think rewards in SCL 8 and 9 should be improved so that 4* and 5* players naturally stay out of SCL 7. 
    I think a possible solution would be to lock out higher end rosters from getting placement rewards in lower clearance levels while still allowing them to play for progression, or to put a level cap on 5s so if you have a champed 5* and want to play on cl7 or lower then you could either play progression only with your champed 5* or play with a capped 5* at maybe a max of 300 for placement. Cl8 and cl9 would be uncapped. 
  • tobismaultobismaul Posts: 11 Just Dropped In
    Redesign the rewards so that larger rosters don't need (or want) to move down clearance levels.
  • FelizFeliz Posts: 115 Tile Toppler
    tobismaul said:
    Redesign the rewards so that larger rosters don't need (or want) to move down clearance levels.
    Exactly. The rewards aren't much different as you go up so I always go to lowest; as do the big guys :(
Sign In or Register to comment.