Thoughts on PVP

Daredevil217

tchipley said:

Phumade said:

.....

It would have been a lot easier to win 20 matches starting wth 8 seeds at event start.  Then 12 more wins against similar rosters, on day1.  Get hit down to 500 overnight, then win 10 matches the next day (30 total).  Get hit back down to 500,  Then inside 11hrs. Win 8 matches, shield 3hrs,  inside 8hrs,  win 2matchs, shield out on a 8hr.  

You would probably have a better score, 40 wins and less stress

event start:  win 8 seeds +12 matches ( total of 20) then float;
day 1, win 10 more matches and float or retreat below600
day 2, around 11hrs left,  win 8 matches, shield 3hrs
 inside 8hrs, win 2-3 more matches to get to 40 wins shield out on 8hrs
inside 3hrs, look for appropriate targets and play for points where possible shield out on a 3hr.

thats a very realistic plan that any roster should be able to execute and not require high level coordination or deep knowledge of how other people play.

I like the laid out plan you presented here.

What is still bothersome for many players is seeing the same teams over and over even with the skip.
Also you take a beating while you wait before trying the climb without a shield. Not many consider it fun to get a message telling you that you have lost some hard won points usually at a rate faster than you can acquire them. 
I'll all for the 40 wins option but when you get close to that you are again back at "Same Teams" threshold.

PVP is definitely broke. 

Try something next event

1. Join right at the beginning of a slice so you get the 8-10 seed teams (helps to have the app open right before it begins). 

2. Beat the seed teams with the loaner character and the lowest level characters you can reliably win with (for me I have all the 1* maxed so usually them, but 2* work fine too). 

3. Wait. 

4. Come back to the game after a few hours and see you have tons of red nodes (people who beat you) full of easy to kill teams (single cover 5*, low level 3*, etc.). Keep beating on them with low level teams and trade wins this way. You can get to 40 pretty easily AND see different teams. 

* The rule is you can only queue teams that are at your level, but the teams that can queue you are based on your defensive team. So once you stop using 2* teams and play 3*, 3* teams can now see you. In the Spidey event here is what I did.

Loaner Bag-Man, Juggernaut, 1* Widow to beat seeds

2* Storm, Magneto, Bag-Man to beat retals for awhile. 

Then Patch/3* Loki, Bag-Man to beat some tougher hits (once I used them, 3* teams could see me). 

Then I used Baggy/Patch/Sabretooth (super fun and great synergy btw!)

Now 4* teams could see me and I switched to Doom/Domino/Bag-Man and BagGritty (guess I skipped dual 4s and right into 4/5 combos. 

Finally switched to Thorkoye to hit 75 wins and shield out. 

PiMacleod

Daredevil217 said:

PiMacleod said:

IMO, it's all another part of the game that needs an overhaul.  It worked early on, when there weren't this many character options, this meta, and all of the headaches that brings.

Sure, you can make it work now.  You all seem to know the formula.  But isn't that a bit silly?  There's a formula... A strategy entirely separate from playing a match 3 game; a tactic entirely different from matching teams of heroes/villians against each other... In order to be successful.

I've heard that some people enjoy it.  I personally would think that if the game was DESIGNED to be played in this manner, that the people who designed it would have such a tutorial packed in, to divulge such important information.  Maybe not all the little factoids like which slice is more favorable to what players or whatever, but stuff about Shield Hopping, skipping to lower your points in order to get "easier" match-ups, etc.  All of this info is absent, yet the game presents itself as if it's just a friendly match 3 game against another player's pre-set team... And it's not.

It's like turning on Street Fighter to play against someone online, winning your few fights online, turning it off, then tomorrow, turning it back on and seeing that you've lost some sort of in game standings, or worldwide leaderboard positioning, due to things that happened when you weren't playing.  Sure, other players could have passed you in the standings, but to say you lost points when you weren't even playing is a little irritating.  It's a NPE, or Negative Player Experience. 

Unfortunately, my example loses a little credibility because online fighting games, FPS, and other competitive experiences are all known to have leaderboards and whatnot... You expect to be challenged, and the expectations in those genres is that the people who play more generally sit higher up.  Also, those game types will have menus of basic info to describe this on a basic level.  Which brings us back to...

Why is there no in game tutorial to describe these basics?  OR why do such things exist in a match 3 superhero game?  Especially when you put the carrot out there in the form of progression rewards... Can't help but wonder how the game would change if all progression rewards were just added (in a fair manner) to the placement rewards.
And vice versa for PvE.  Keep the two mindsets of playing in separate playgrounds, so to speak.

Finally, on a separate but relatable PvP centric note, I really hate how the higher you power up your roster, the more obsolete a % of your roster becomes.  I can't tell you how many imaginitive teams I've tried and failed in PvP with, only because these 4*s (mostly) can't hang with (most) 5*s.  Sure, the HP and damage make some sense, but there's such a blatant gap in usability when it comes to 4*s like Bishop, Medusa, Grocket, versus 4*s like ...most of the 4*s.     It's not even like most of them are bad!  They just aren't as good, especially as 5*s keep that power creep rolling.

/rant (sorry about all of that... I just like a balanced product, and I'll never understand why developers can just blatantly leave an imbalanced roster out there, in a time period of games where we have patches to fix such a thing.  I would like to think pride in ownership means something)

My thoughts on your rant...

1. Almost every single competitive (key word) game has a meta. Even though it’s a match 3 game, MPQ is no different. Meta teams and optimal strategies are rarely spelt out.  Having to search a little bit isn’t a bad thing. Even in a non-competitive single player game I’m finally playing now (Spider-Man), I’ve  researched the best suit powers, and what’s the optimal strategy to beat these stupid drone challenges. Games don’t spell this stuff out. MPQ is no different. I did research on the best characters to champ once I hit 3* land, and looked forward to reading character ranking lists. There are tons of metas in this game from how to spend your resources most efficiently to how to clear PVE optimally, to farming strategies. Luckily we have a great community that shares this stuff so like you said, it becomes common knowledge. 

2. Your solution is to make one part of the game competitive and another not competitive (remember competitive was the key word). Yes, that is a way to remove the meta element. But the way the game is designed, you can play both PVE and PVP competitively or play both progression only. I have done both so I know it works. In fact, when there are double iso events (as we just had), I will opt to play for wins instead of points. I like the bump in resource drops so want to play more matches. The crazy thing is I went to bed, woke up, and had the exact same number of wins, never having to shield. It worked just like you’re asking. 

3. 4* being unable to hang with 5s seems fine to me as well. Just like 1s can’t hang with 2s, 2s with 3s, etc. that should be how it is. In fact, I get mad when we get 5s that are easily handled by 4s (Wasp, Kingpin, etc.), and I look at it as more of a pleasant surprise when we get a 4 that has synergy with a 5 (Sabretooth, Chavez, etc). 

4. Just like there are inherent “givens” in FPS and fighting games, the same is true for this. I expect rosters bigger/better than mine to place better. Absolutely. 

5.  Choosing to use the same characters over and over is a choice. When I was in the 4* tier, I abandoned my 3s, but I used most of my 4s and tried to find teams for all of them. Now that I’m a 5* player, I no longer use my 4s aside from Grocket and Sabretooth (due to specific synergies with Kitty/Okoye) but try to use as many 5s as I can.

Most of your problems aren’t with PVP proper, but with the length of time it takes to progress (which is an argument I can get behind). 7 clears wrapped around PVE end times. 75 wins for full progression in PVP. These things are extremely time consuming and so people feel locked into using their fastest characters or relying on coordination to lessen the grind (yes, “grind” is a commonly used term we don’t bat an eyelash at sadly). I’ve seen many on Line say that if Thor ever gets nerfed, they will quit on the spot. Just because even with him speeding things up, the game is still a slog.

But much of what you’re asking for is there, and many complaints you have are just how competitive video games work. 

Nope.  Can't agree with you on "How Competitive Games work"

Been around the block and the tourney scene well enough.  Not a single point of my statements we're about the meta being unfair.  Sure, the 4*s not hanging with 5*s make sense to a point (which i stated), but when you have some that are very good, then some that are meh (not Main Event Hulk, but the attitude of meh), then my argument of balance comes into play.  Which leads to the meta argument you brought up.

Sure, all games have a meta.  Thats no surprise.  What all major competitive games DONT have is optimal play times, shield hopping, slices, etc.  In other words, functions that do not related to the core of the game.  If you're playing StarCraft, Overwatch, Fortnite, Smash Ultimate... None of it requires you to play at certain times, hop off and online to climb a ladder successfully, and know a lot of non-game related factoids. 

Wanna get good at Mortal Kombat?  Play more.  Watch a video or two.  Get involved.  How about PUBG?  Same.  How about MPQ?  Well, first, beyond getting lucky with RNG, which is a given based on it being a mobile game with features that allow to you pay for resources, once you get a roster built, you need to research a bunch of facts that have nothing to do with playing match 3 game or with comparing meta builds.

And you can easily say "hey Pi, that's just part of the game.  It's how you play if you wanna be competitive."

Really?  To be competitive in a match 3 game with RPG super hero characters, I need to research time slices, and other things that have nothing to do with game play?  Nah, I don't buy it.

Frankly, it's why I don't play PvP outside getting a few casual rewards here and there.  I'd be a whole lot more interested if PvP was, say, more about my personal skill in MPQ and less about the time of day, what slice, my shield hopping, etc.

Then again, this leads back to my original thought... If this is as intended, then why isn't it communicated in a basic tutorial?  Once again, I don't expect them to give out the meta, or tell people when to play, but it should subtlety dropped in a basic tutorial like "For more information on how to compete successfully in PvP events, please visit (insert self serving link here)."

Man, if I ever hopped back into tournament gaming with fighting and FPS games again (kinda don't have the time of day anymore)... I couldn't imagine having to be forced into a "meta" of timeslots and other non-FPS/fighting game knowledge, just to be competitive.

AXP_isme

Which slice gets the best retals? I ran a similar strategy in the spiders event - loaner bagman and level 15 stormneto - to beat the seeds but only got one successful (by which I mean they beat me) retal during the whole event. I pre-joined a slice so I know I was there for the duration.  

ZootSax

AXP_isme said:

Which slice gets the best retals? I ran a similar strategy in the spiders event - loaner bagman and level 15 stormneto - to beat the seeds but only got one successful (by which I mean they beat me) retal during the whole event. I pre-joined a slice so I know I was there for the duration.  

Yeah, I've gotten it to work up to 16 wins in Slice 2 once, but otherwise I've almost never had more than 5-6 wins doing that in Slices 2, 4 & 5 (and that's with leaving out the same defensive team for 24-36 hours).  Maybe 1 or 3 are better or I've just been unlucky. 

Phumade

ZootSax said:

AXP_isme said:

Which slice gets the best retals? I ran a similar strategy in the spiders event - loaner bagman and level 15 stormneto - to beat the seeds but only got one successful (by which I mean they beat me) retal during the whole event. I pre-joined a slice so I know I was there for the duration.  

Yeah, I've gotten it to work up to 16 wins in Slice 2 once, but otherwise I've almost never had more than 5-6 wins doing that in Slices 2, 4 & 5 (and that's with leaving out the same defensive team for 24-36 hours).  Maybe 1 or 3 are better or I've just been unlucky. 

Trap team farming is predicated on understanding how other players will react and play.  I can ride a trap team concept to 600+,  but that’s just experience and knowing what teams to present, when to do it, and how to preserve flexibility to switch tactics.  

Remember it’s all based on the other player deciding to accept the match!!!  

TPF Alexis

Phumade said:

ZootSax said:

AXP_isme said:

Which slice gets the best retals? I ran a similar strategy in the spiders event - loaner bagman and level 15 stormneto - to beat the seeds but only got one successful (by which I mean they beat me) retal during the whole event. I pre-joined a slice so I know I was there for the duration.  

Yeah, I've gotten it to work up to 16 wins in Slice 2 once, but otherwise I've almost never had more than 5-6 wins doing that in Slices 2, 4 & 5 (and that's with leaving out the same defensive team for 24-36 hours).  Maybe 1 or 3 are better or I've just been unlucky. 

Trap team farming is predicated on understanding how other players will react and play.  I can ride a trap team concept to 600+,  but that’s just experience and knowing what teams to present, when to do it, and how to preserve flexibility to switch tactics.  

Remember it’s all based on the other player deciding to accept the match!!!  

Using teams that the AI plays badly really helps. When I'm doing this, I always use Storm while I'm in the 1* and 2* phases, because I can get good results by timing her powers carefully and keeping her at the back, but she's easy for another player to beat since they can rotate her to the front, and the AI won't save up to fire her powers optimally. Usually Loaner/1* Spidey/ 1* Storm, and then Loaner/2* Magneto, 2* Storm. Those tend to attract a lot of hits from teams that I can beat fairly easily in turn. I've hit 16 Wins with that 1* team on occasion, and can usually get up to 20-24 Wins or so before I have to switch to boosted 4*/Grockitty.

DyingLegend

In my opinion, the best PVP change they can make is adding the points you won then subtracting the points you lost during your match.

For example; start a match with 875 points, win a 50 point match but during match you lost 100 points, add points to 925 for 900 reward then subtract 100 to make it 825.

Waddles_Pines

DyingLegend said:

In my opinion, the best PVP change they can make is adding the points you won then subtracting the points you lost during your match.

For example; start a match with 875 points, win a 50 point match but during match you lost 100 points, add points to 925 for 900 reward then subtract 100 to make it 825.

Totally agree. Also, if I play a node right away, the points given should be the points that were stated at the selection screen.  Yeah, I understand that points go up and down over time based on your score and the other person's score, but if I play a node right away I should be rewarded the stated points.  It's annoying thinking that you've skipped enough times and found a node worth enough to get a progression reward and then the points you get aren't enough to get the reward.

jp1

Agree completely about the points. I’ve been having matches with stated 60+ points reward 20 or less which is not fair play.

msp2211

Reach out to me here, or on Line. Msp2211 is my IGN on all. Myself, and others can help you with your PVP experience if you are willing to learn.

Pero1979

msp2211 said:

Reach out to me here, or on Line. Msp2211 is my IGN on all. Myself, and others can help you with your PVP experience if you are willing to learn.

I am definitely willing to learn the best strategy. For me I definitely want the 4 star cover progression reward. I don’t necessarily care about placing in each pvp but that being said I don’t want to lose points so that I won’t reach the season progression rewards.

msp2211

@Pero1979 check your PMs.

Phumade

DyingLegend said:

In my opinion, the best PVP change they can make is adding the points you won then subtracting the points you lost during your match.

For example; start a match with 875 points, win a 50 point match but during match you lost 100 points, add points to 925 for 900 reward then subtract 100 to make it 825.

Totally agree. Also, if I play a node right away, the points given should be the points that were stated at the selection screen.  Yeah, I understand that points go up and down over time based on your score and the other person's score, but if I play a node right away I should be rewarded the stated points.  It's annoying thinking that you've skipped enough times and found a node worth enough to get a progression reward and then the points you get aren't enough to get the reward.

There are so many fundamental issues with this concept.  Before its even worth discussing, lets agree on some basic concepts.  

1.  We exist in points comparison leaderboard. I'm not going to bother discussing wins based, different metrics etc.  Those have been rehashed ad nausea and I want to play MPQ sometime tonight.

2.  Matches are not instantaneous.  Start and finish times can vary by as little at 5s to 5min to 2.5 days (event end).  If matches were instantaneous, this discussion would be simple for all to understand,  but it still won't help you improve your placements over a bigger roster or more experienced player.

Because of those two facts.  Points values have to be established in one of 3 locations, and we have to pick one of these 3 options)

1.  Points values are determined at match start.
2.  Point values for wins are determined at match start.  Point values for losses are determined at match end.  (We could conceivable reverse that, but its the same problem with different consequences)
3.  Point values are determined at match end.

Lets evaluate these scenarios in reverse order.

1.  We currently operate under (end of match scoring). (i.e. points for wins AND losses are calculated at the end of a match). it's done this way because matches are not instantaneous and the start and end of a match occurs in a timeframe that can be 30s to 30minutes or even longer.  Its easy to implement in the current client server architecture and relatively well understood.  The consequence of this scoring model is.  Points won can be lower than what was initially presented, but the flip side is points can also be higher than what was advertised.
    Ex:
     a:  you start a match for 75 points.  That target gets sniped to pieces and you only receive 20 points for that match.
     b:  The counter example is.  I que a target BEFORE they climb, and wait under my shield while they ascend in value.  The screen shows a value of 37points but when I finish the match they have climbed in value to 60 points.  (this actually happens very often in the game.  We all know which players can hold their value, and which players will either get sniped or purposefully donate points.  In addition players cannot manipulate the score by stalling or dragging out matches.

2.  Locking the points for wins and losses at the start of a match creates opportunities for a different form of leaderboard manipulation.  This is also easy to implement in the current client-server architecture, but it creates a much easier method for point manipulation than End of Match scoring.  Players can manipulate scores by stalling the match and repeatedly hitting each other while points are locked
     ex:
     a: P1 is at 1000 points,  P2 is at 600 points.  P1 starts a match against P2.  If P1 wins, gains 1 point, If P1 loses subtract 75 points.
          --- P1 stalls the match for 15m with his points frozen at 1000 points.  P2 is alerted to REPEATEDLY drain P1.  P2 wins 7 consecutive matches and gains 75 points per win.  (in reality the point values decrease, but the point is P2 can repeat matches ad nausea with P1 effectively under a match shield)
          --- P2 tells P1,  I've climbed past to 1200.  I'm gonna start the next match with the scores locked so P2 is at

              1200, P1 at 1000.
          --- P1 exits the match loses 75 points to drop to 925, but P2 has already ascended to 1200.
    repeat the process but now flip the position

3.  Locking the points for wins and losses at different time frames (i.e. win points locked at start, loss points locked at finish) creates arbitrage opportunities that allow for risk free point inflation.  This is also relatively easy to implement, but here is how players will manipulate scoring
    ex:
         a:  P1 is at 1000 points, P2 is at 600 points.
           - P1 starts a match against P2.  P1 score is locked to calculate win points (1pt for a win),  loss points not calculated.  P1 starts match stalls 15m his score cannot change during this match because it had to be locked at the start)
           - P2 is alerted to drain P1.  He repeatedly hits P1 for 75pts a win and climbs to 1200 (this only takes 6-7 matches).  He starts the next match with P2 at 1200, P1 still locked at 1000.
           -  P2 now tells P1. I've started a match against you with (P2 locked at 1200, P1 showing 1000).
           - P1 retreats to P2.  Loss points are calculated at 1 point because the system calculates P2 at 1200.
           -the other option is P1 actually beats P2 and gains 1pt.  But P2 has already climbed to 1200.

This is actually the easiest most blatant form of point manipulation.

In truth,  determine the points values in any of the 3 locations creates opportunities for leaderboard manipulation for the simple reason that matches differ in duration and players can complete multiple matches while P1 just stalls the match.  
With start of match scoring,  we manipulate by having P1 stall his match, while P2 plays repeatedly.  
With end of match scoring, we manipulate by using shields and know what players will ascend or decline in value.
   --  Most you guys weren't around before shield timers, but the ELDAR rosters know what happens when players can repeatedly fire shield after shield after shield after shields.
Setting the win and loss point values at different points, just creates risk free point inflation.

In any case, you can pick your scoring in any fashion, the bigger more experienced roster can still take advantage of it.

bluewolf

DyingLegend said:

In my opinion, the best PVP change they can make is adding the points you won then subtracting the points you lost during your match.

For example; start a match with 875 points, win a 50 point match but during match you lost 100 points, add points to 925 for 900 reward then subtract 100 to make it 825.

I just wanted to point out that it appears that the points adding and subtracting occurs in order of when your match ends, other people who are hitting you win their matches, and pings to the server occur, etc.  Your shield is one of those pings, but you should always click the leaderboard after shielding because that is known to definitely signal the server that you are shielded.

This is important for scoring because you can, when playing after breaking a shield (or even in a climb) get points from your match/win which push you over the progression threshold, then you can be hit by other players, dropping you down again (that is, their match resolves after yours, but you did push up to and receive the progression target before that happened) and you now can shield (or not).

The point is that being extremely fast is going to benefit you, especially when breaking shields.  It rewards the one thing that most distinguishes players in a match-3 game that is designed to largely allow you to win almost all of your matches - speed.  Being faster with your win than the people hitting you are with theirs can benefit you by getting the prize, and if/when you are fast enough you can shield and preserve your gains.

jamesh

bluewolf said:

Many, many players aren't in the mindset of spending HP and therefore don't try hard to maintain points/placement because they have no desire to use HP for this purpose.  So their scores will be limited by the fact that most people who aren't going to shield are going to stop trying around the 4* cover (at the most), making 900 the typical top score that people reach before they stop playing/trying to build score and allow people to hit them.

It is also down to the way points are calculated.  From a description the developers gave ages ago, the relationship between the points someone else earns when attacking you and the points you lose is in part based on your current point total.

If two players with 50 points each fight, the points lost by the defender will be negligible.  Repeat the match when both players are starting with 1000 points, then the points lost by the defender is equal to the points gained by the attacker.  So it's not just that people stop when they get that 4* cover: it's that the matches during the climb to ~ 900 are increasing the average points per player in the slice, while trying to go far above that doesn't.

DyingLegend said:

In my opinion, the best PVP change they can make is adding the points you won then subtracting the points you lost during your match.

For example; start a match with 875 points, win a 50 point match but during match you lost 100 points, add points to 925 for 900 reward then subtract 100 to make it 825.

Part of the problem with this is that the match you just completed is only worth 50 points because it is calculated as if you were starting with 775 points.  If you hadn't lost the 100, then the match might have been worth a lot less.

PiMacleod

I sit and read in awe in the amount of knowledge and man-hours that went into studying this.

Despite my complaints about PvP, I'll never begrudge someone over their knowledge and dedication in a field.