What do you want adjusted or changed in PvP?

Phumade

ThaRoadWarrior said:

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.

I would definitely enjoy head to head in a live convention setting,  or even in split screen living room mode.  I just don't think its practical in a lb setting with placement prizes in play

TranscendGod

Boost every character by ~100 levels the first time you use them in an event. This would massively increase diversity and would allow vets to utilize more of their roster. The boost should only be active when attacking another player so we don't have to deal with massive defensive teams (like gritty/bishop). This could substantially increase revenue by providing a great incentive for players to have a deep roster.

captainheath

TranscendGod said:

Boost every character by ~100 levels the first time you use them in an event. This would massively increase diversity and would allow vets to utilize more of their roster. The boost should only be active when attacking another player so we don't have to deal with massive defensive teams (like gritty/bishop). This could substantially increase revenue by providing a great incentive for players to have a deep roster.

Nice.  You could even have it drop by 25 levels each time you use them until it gets to zero boost.  Maybe the defense remains unboosted.

TranscendGod

captainheath said:

TranscendGod said:

Boost every character by ~100 levels the first time you use them in an event. This would massively increase diversity and would allow vets to utilize more of their roster. The boost should only be active when attacking another player so we don't have to deal with massive defensive teams (like gritty/bishop). This could substantially increase revenue by providing a great incentive for players to have a deep roster.

Nice.  You could even have it drop by 25 levels each time you use them until it gets to zero boost.  Maybe the defense remains unboosted.

That would be amazing.

captainheath

I would almost have to keep a notebook to keep track of characters and teams.  Which would be awesome.  

acescracked

I like PvP. Play when you want, get a quick dose of MPQ and hit @jackstar0 a bunch of times.

Only thing to change is get rid of time slices in PvP. You'll never run out of Q's and will have the entire player base available. Harder to coordinate as well. Rotating end times and you make your own end time anyway with 3/8/24 hour shields. Yes, it would affect those that play for top placement but that's it.

grenadier

Better matchmaking in general.  My level 280's should not be matched up with level 350-400's on a regular basis.  The addition of a handful of 5* covers to a roster of 3 and 4* champions should not totally screw your matches for life.

Perhaps simply ignoring anything that isn't a champion when determining who you are matched with?  That way, someone moving into a new tier is not kneecapped just for trying to progress, and a newbie or mid-range player who lucks into a 5* doesn't have to throw it away to stay relevant.

wymtime

For an offseason event here would be an idea.  Each node in PVP would be a random 3* team a random 4* team and a random 5* team.  So when you selected 5* you would get 3 random 5* characters from your roster vs 3 random 5* from someone else’s roster.
the same would happen for 4* and 3* nodes. The difference would be how many points you could get.  3* node would be 25-35 points 4* would be 40-55 points and 5* would be 55-75 points. So by taking on the bigger tier you get more points.

658_2

Let power creep take care of the meta. It’s not that complicated. It’s been a looooong time since devs released a 5 that people are truly excited to chase. If 5 star Iceman had the 4 star’s blue, boosted to 450, it’d be hoard dumping time. A 4 turn stun, with a nuke behind, would be poison to Thorkoye. Doom, Hela, Storm are fine, but they don’t move the needle. New Iceman is at least annoying, but it’s to hard to envision him breaking into the meta either.

*edit* Didn’t realize the 450 nuke would be quite so heavy. A 20k nuke behind the stun would be plenty.

tiomono

Block players from being able to attack people in their personal 20 people alliance. And make it so you cannot see the names of opponents.

It has always bothered me that in a game where there is only 1 first place in each bracket, the big alliances will cooperate to get better placement for specific people. If we could not see names it would at least make it more difficult (though not impossible) for alliance "families" to coordinate.

Phumade

tiomono said:

Block players from being able to attack people in their personal 20 people alliance. And make it so you cannot see the names of opponents.

It has always bothered me that in a game where there is only 1 first place in each y
bracket, the big alliances will cooperate to get better placement for specific people. If we could not see names it would at least make it more difficult (though not impossible) for alliance "families" to coordinate.

Rosters are so big now and brackets are so congested that is really not an issue anymore.  Most brackets have well over 8+ placement tier players competing for 5 slots.  While that might have been true when each time shard could count its whales on 2 hands.  Players with 2+ meta level, 5* champs are a dime a dozen now.  The people who are taking placement positions are usually making 5+ shield hops per event.  

As as a practical matter, the avg dual 5* roster can achieve 1200 quite consistently on 1 or 2 shields.  But the players who reach the 2000+ range are consistently doing another 3-5 hops at a minimum.

i see quite a few players who hop around  various shards and don’t play in the chat room.  It’s not hard at all for them to find high value ques either as grills or A teams.  At this stage of the game life, it only takes a minor understanding of the game mechanics and player psychology to know when people have to make hops.  And rosters overall are strong enough and fast enough to easily hit 3 ateams per hop.

you could easily hide all player names and while it might prevent snipers from multi tapping the same target (in truth it wouldn’t cause they hit based on score more often than affiliation), it won’t change who wins placement in any meaningful way.  

tiomono

There is another thing I would like changed in pvp. For versus to be pvp, and story to be pve, not pvp. 

Why am I forced to compete against other players in both versus and story mode?

A_Wise_Man

grenadier said:

Better matchmaking in general.  My level 280's should not be matched up with level 350-400's on a regular basis.  The addition of a handful of 5* covers to a roster of 3 and 4* champions should not totally screw your matches for life.

Perhaps simply ignoring anything that isn't a champion when determining who you are matched with?  That way, someone moving into a new tier is not kneecapped just for trying to progress, and a newbie or mid-range player who lucks into a 5* doesn't have to throw it away to stay relevant.

This already exists in game, and has for a long time.  MMR factors in levels for sure, but its weighted by the number of covers you have for a character.  Single cover or even 5-6 cover 5 stars aren't affecting you if you have level 280 4 stars.  I find it's often something else going on that players blame their low covered 5s for.  

 A very very very long time ago those single 5s used to affect you, and I think that obsolete bit is still passed on as true.  It just isnt anymore.

A_Wise_Man

Phumade said:

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

People would hate live matches, it would be too hard.  One of the devs wrote a post forever ago about testing with making the AI smarter and more player-like.  For example they'd fire powers that did more damage and not just randomly, they could match T and L 5s, etc.  It was much much more difficult, supposedly.  Though that would 100% destroy the current meta of Thorkoye, no more hiding Thor against a real player. 

Number of players may be an issue.  But your estimates are based on Line rooms.  Theres a lot more players out there than the ones in those rooms.  You Line folks seem to forget that for some reason.  Too used to the walls in those rooms to look outside, I'd guess.

bluewolf

re: Playercount....I have been looking at the flips for PVE SCL 7-9 lately.  Waiting a bit longer for the post with some findings, but the Venom Bomb PVE had about 37 full brackets, which is about average over the past month or so.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-45K players, accounting for partial brackets, at the top level of the game.

A fraction of players try hard in PVP, vs the number that play to progression in PVE.  Which is similarly a fraction of the people entering the PVE events; many barely do anything.

I don't know how many people are online to play PVP at the highest activity times, but 1000 matches sounds like a reasonable ballpark.

A_Wise_Man

bluewolf said:

re: Playercount....I have been looking at the flips for PVE SCL 7-9 lately.  Waiting a bit longer for the post with some findings, but the Venom Bomb PVE had about 37 full brackets, which is about average over the past month or so.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-45K players, accounting for partial brackets, at the top level of the game.

A fraction of players try hard in PVP, vs the number that play to progression in PVE.  Which is similarly a fraction of the people entering the PVE events; many barely do anything.

I don't know how many people are online to play PVP at the highest activity times, but 1000 matches sounds like a reasonable ballpark.

Probably!  Well maybe anyway.  Either way it would be impossible to do head to head.  It would take forever going back and forth.  Plus everyone would hate it once they got into a match. 

ThaRoadWarrior

Opposed pvp with bad MMR would also be a nightmare. If you had a person with a superior roster who was actually playing against you, it would be terrible.

Falconfreak

grenadier said:

Better matchmaking in general.  My level 280's should not be matched up with level 350-400's on a regular basis.  The addition of a handful of 5* covers to a roster of 3 and 4* champions should not totally screw your matches for life.

Perhaps simply ignoring anything that isn't a champion when determining who you are matched with?  That way, someone moving into a new tier is not kneecapped just for trying to progress, and a newbie or mid-range player who lucks into a 5* doesn't have to throw it away to stay relevant.

This right here. It never ceases to amaze me as a 2-3 month long player that just because I have a few 5* characters with almost no powers or levels I get forced to play against 350-max level teams. Shouldn't this determine your actual champed out roster instead? I don't even have a single champed out 4* for crying out loud and have to fight these kind of teams.

BriMan2222

One idea I've heard thrown out a few times that I think might work would be tiered pvp based on star lvl.  Basically at the start of an event you would choose what star level you want to compete with.  If you choose 5 star then you can use 5 stars and any thing lower and will be matched against people also using 5 stars.

If you choose 4 star then you can use 4 stars and below but then you can't use any 5 stars, but you also will be matched against people who can't use 5 stars. 

PuceMoose

I'm typically a 575-and-out sort of person still in 4-star land. Occasionally I will push to 650 or so to stay top 50, if it's a 3-star reward that's near a good champ reward that I want. One thing that I'd like to see is always getting at least three seed teams no matter when you join - I hate joining an event and finding that I'm up against the usual wall of max-champed 3-star + Gritty teams right out of the gates. Let me get a handful of matches against my ol' punching bag seed team buddies before the real deal starts. I also think that seed teams should be labeled as such for new players (maybe call them warm-up teams?) - I know I was confused when I first started PvP, getting an error when trying to check the rosters of seed teams. 

Better point refresh - it's a real tiny kitty when you finish a fight that you thought was worth 56 points, only to get rewarded 12 points at the end of the battle. Refresh the value and display it on the pre-fight (boost-select) screen? Maybe a "five minute guarantee" on earning the displayed points if you finish the fight within that time?
 
Let us see the teams that our defense defeated - this one is pure cosmetic fluff, but I've always wanted to see the exact team an opponent used that our defense took down.