What do you want adjusted or changed in PvP?

jackstar0
jackstar0 Posts: 1,280 Chairperson of the Boards
in MPQ General Discussion
Whether you're someone who already plays PvP or someone who avoids it completely, what would you like to see adjusted or improved?

Would boosting 5*s make it worse? If sheild prices were adjusted would that help?

I'm consistently able to hit the 1200 prog, but finding that to not really pay off in placement like some might think. Also watching people hit 3k or even 4k or more in a single event is both perplexing and disheartening. Is it all coordination? I can't be bothered with Line or Discord, so does that just limit my ability to score in an event? Should it?

Is there an answer? Or am I just waiting for an overhaul of some kind?

I say I, but I don't think I'm the only one not feeling PvP these days.

What say you, members of the board?
«1345

Comments

  • Malcrof
    Malcrof Posts: 5,971 Chairperson of the Boards
    Since the meta hasn't changed in forever, PVP has become the most boring pve ever made, i've stopped doing anything past the seeds, it just isn't fun. 
  • captainheath
    captainheath Posts: 255 Mover and Shaker
    I'm in favor of just trying things to see if it is more fun.  How about one or more of these:

    Allow Supports
    Boost 2 Different 5 stars that are older
    Only allow one 5 star on a team
    If a 4 is featured, a 3 star must be used as part of the team

    Just spitballing, but just about anything would be more interesting.
  • Tony_Foot
    Tony_Foot Posts: 1,814 Chairperson of the Boards
    I’d like names removed or just one node and more free skips.
  • captainheath
    captainheath Posts: 255 Mover and Shaker
    PiMacleod said:
    I always thought a star cap method would be fun.  With allowance for teams smaller than 3.

    For example: if the next PvP had a star cap of 10, you could use two 3* characters and a 4*, or two 4*s and a 2*... Or even just two 5*s.

    This could change things up drastically...  And it could be easily changed for other PvPs by just changing the star cap.  Maybe the next one would allow only 9* total...

    Just another random thought.
    I like it.  I think things like this should happen regularly and each PVP should be little different.  Different flavors of PVPs would make it far more interesting.  The idea of just changing the character that is in the middle every 3 days is boring.
  • SupremeChefGio
    SupremeChefGio Posts: 19 Just Dropped In
    DIfferent characters banned for the week, a meta change, better incentives to actually playing the PVP side. PVP ranks and progression should award some Support tokens, because lord it is far and few between those things. Most importantly a meta change, im really tired of the Gritty & Bishop Trio.
  • Sm0keyJ0e
    Sm0keyJ0e Posts: 730 Critical Contributor
    I think trying to make PVP appeal to everyone, from beginners to vets who have been playing for many years is a complex problem to solve, and the iterations it would take to find a happy medium would likely upset many people along the way. So in general I'm not in favor of sweeping changes because they generally don't go well, even though there are things I would like to change for me personally.

    However, there are some things completely within their control: get rid of the ThorKoye meta. It's incredibly boring and repetitive now. Fun the first several months, stale the next several months, and a year later it's downright boring now.
  • Sm0keyJ0e
    Sm0keyJ0e Posts: 730 Critical Contributor
    captainheath said:
    Sm0keyJ0e said:
    I think trying to make PVP appeal to everyone, from beginners to vets who have been playing for many years is a complex problem to solve, and the iterations it would take to find a happy medium would likely upset many people along the way. So in general I'm not in favor of sweeping changes because they generally don't go well, even though there are things I would like to change for me personally.

    However, there are some things completely within their control: get rid of the ThorKoye meta. It's incredibly boring and repetitive now. Fun the first several months, stale the next several months, and a year later it's downright boring now.
    The meta could be changed without changing Kitty, Okoye, or Thor.  

    The rules of PVP each event could be different.  A few ideas were already listed in this thread.  Here are some more:

    Strikes are nerfed PVP
    Massively boosted 1 stars PVP, must include just one 1 star but all are boosted
    One Limited required PVP
    Inverse Order PVP:  1's are most powerful, 5's are weakest
    Stuns are halved PVP
    Only 1 5 star PVP
    A 5 star and 2 3 stars PVP
    Mano a mano PVP, just bring one character.  No boosted.
    Start with Shields PVP, each team starts with 8 shields on the board.
    Supports PVP, supports are allowed

    The PVP's that vary only by changing the middle toon and the boost list make things boring and force a meta.  If the rules of PVP's regularly changed, the meta wouldn't fit all the events.  Since PVP's are only a few days long, why not change things up and see.
    I'm not sure you actually read my post, and I certainly read everything before mine. All of your suggestions fundamentally change the way PVP is played, and will upset significant portions of the player base. For example, I don't like any of those ideas.
  • captainheath
    captainheath Posts: 255 Mover and Shaker
    I understand your point of view.  I just hate nerfs, which is the usual way of changing the meta.  It takes me a long time focussing on getting a character to where I want it (months and years.)  Then the nerf hammer comes out.  

    I was able to make Okoye my first champed 5, but have been unlucky on Kitty pulls.  15 more Valkyrie covers and I'll finally be able to champ Thor.  I'd be so upset if I finally get Thor championed and then Thorkoye is nerfed.  Those that champed Kitty would also be upset if she is nerfed.  

    That's why I think varied events such as the ones I suggested would be preferable to outright nerfs.  The game is really about investing in your roster and using it, the current setup limits the use of the roster.  How cool would it be to finally have an event where your favorite toon could finally shine because it fits the meta for the next event.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,280 Chairperson of the Boards
    In the Thorkoye meta, I think Okoye is the real problem, not Thor. Difficult to know how to nerf her though. I guess you could change her healing to burst team healing maybe which would screw up half health Thor's auto AP generation and also mean she isn't health pack proof.
  • Sm0keyJ0e
    Sm0keyJ0e Posts: 730 Critical Contributor
    I'm not suggesting a nerf either. I don't like them anymore than the next player. I do support them when they release a broken character, however.

    You can change the meta by releasing new toons that effectively counter the current meta or improve upon it in some way. I think they have tried with toons like Hela (potentially dangerous to Thor) and Storm (who can remove TU's from the board) but it's not enough. Maybe they'l keep trying. Iceman looks like another attempt to threaten Thor who's hiding behind the battlefield, and could be a good partner for Okoye, but "works well with Okoye" can be applied to nearly every toon in the game.
  • Spudgutter
    Spudgutter Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Sm0keyJ0e said:
    captainheath said:
    Sm0keyJ0e said:
    I think trying to make PVP appeal to everyone, from beginners to vets who have been playing for many years is a complex problem to solve, and the iterations it would take to find a happy medium would likely upset many people along the way. So in general I'm not in favor of sweeping changes because they generally don't go well, even though there are things I would like to change for me personally.

    However, there are some things completely within their control: get rid of the ThorKoye meta. It's incredibly boring and repetitive now. Fun the first several months, stale the next several months, and a year later it's downright boring now.
    The meta could be changed without changing Kitty, Okoye, or Thor.  

    The rules of PVP each event could be different.  A few ideas were already listed in this thread.  Here are some more:

    Strikes are nerfed PVP
    Massively boosted 1 stars PVP, must include just one 1 star but all are boosted
    One Limited required PVP
    Inverse Order PVP:  1's are most powerful, 5's are weakest
    Stuns are halved PVP
    Only 1 5 star PVP
    A 5 star and 2 3 stars PVP
    Mano a mano PVP, just bring one character.  No boosted.
    Start with Shields PVP, each team starts with 8 shields on the board.
    Supports PVP, supports are allowed

    The PVP's that vary only by changing the middle toon and the boost list make things boring and force a meta.  If the rules of PVP's regularly changed, the meta wouldn't fit all the events.  Since PVP's are only a few days long, why not change things up and see.
    I'm not sure you actually read my post, and I certainly read everything before mine. All of your suggestions fundamentally change the way PVP is played, and will upset significant portions of the player base. For example, I don't like any of those ideas.
    That just brings it back to the basic assumption about pvp:  the number of people happy with the current way is greater than the number of people who are unhappy.  No one really knows either of those numbers, so neither side can truly claim a "significant portion" of the playerbase will react a particular way.

    Now, my opinion, based on years and years on the forum, is that a lot of people are not a fan of pvp.  It isn't as bad as it was before wins based, but i would still wager it outnumbers the fans.  That said, I also think the more hard core high end pvp players are also more likely to be spenders (again, just an assumption).  

    This conversation, like most others on here, is just a thought experiment. This game rarely makes any changes, even rarer still is a change based on player suggestions. 
  • captainheath
    captainheath Posts: 255 Mover and Shaker
    That's why I favor the suggestions I put out.  Still keep the PVP as it is now for some events, but vary the rules every other event or so just for fun.  It stinks that they put all of the characters in this game, you chase them, fully cover them, champ them, and then never use them.
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,455 Chairperson of the Boards
    I am wildly curious what a synchronous multiplayer, directly opposed by an alive human player match would look like in this game.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,496 Chairperson of the Boards
    ThaRoadWarrior said:
    I am wildly curious what a synchronous multiplayer, directly opposed by an alive human player match would look like in this game.
    What do you mean by synchronous multiplayer?  As someone who played lots of xbox arcade live games,  and still plays lots of COD.  You need a playerbase in the millions to support true live multiplayer.

    Even with COD,  regions like Australia, and SA suffer from low population counts and long wait times for matchmaking.

    Even the biggest MPQ battle chats rarely have more than 50 live players monitoring at one time, and these are the dedicated consistent players.  I have serious doubts that mpq ever has more than 1000 simultaneous matches at any one time
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,455 Chairperson of the Boards
    I too doubt the player base could support such a thing, i'm just curious what it would be like to play head to head. hearthstone is a mobile game with truly opposed pvp, there is a move-clock on each player's turn where if you take too long to do something (or drop out), you forfeit the match.

Categories