What do you want adjusted or changed in PvP?

PiMacleod

Great points, @bluewolf

I think everything you said definitely points to the original thought in your post, as to why it would be a separate mode.

And why not?  No one's forcing anyone to play each and every mode.  If you wanna try your hand/roster at those leaderboards (or rewards or whatever), it's a separate type of commitment.  

Have the "caution" message upon entering a Live PvP mode state that any disconnect, or fail to send a move within a given amount of time (like, say 30 seconds for example), results in a loss on your part.

Put those 'CYA' messages out there first, letting players know that they are responsible for their own connection strength and whatnot.  

In the end, more modes is only good, as different people like different things.  Sure, it'd be slower... But I'm also sure it'd be a bit more thought provoking since you cannot predict the opponents move.

Phumade

PiMacleod said:

Great points, @bluewolf

I think everything you said definitely points to the original thought in your post, as to why it would be a separate mode.

And why not?  No one's forcing anyone to play each and every mode.  If you wanna try your hand/roster at those leaderboards (or rewards or whatever), it's a separate type of commitment.  

Have the "caution" message upon entering a Live PvP mode state that any disconnect, or fail to send a move within a given amount of time (like, say 30 seconds for example), results in a loss on your part.

Put those 'CYA' messages out there first, letting players know that they are responsible for their own connection strength and whatnot.  

In the end, more modes is only good, as different people like different things.  Sure, it'd be slower... But I'm also sure it'd be a bit more thought provoking since you cannot predict the opponents move.

Sounds like supports 2.0  
-vocal minority of players who don’t actually pay 
-lots of extra development work for design and engineering teams
-lots of relevant examples from other studios of how much time, money and infrastructure will be required

sounds like a great recipe for wasting a lot of dev time and money without actually increasing player counts or player spending.

PiMacleod

@Phumade

I get the point of what you're saying...  So before a rebuttal is made, just know that I get that from a developer and producers point of view, that the game is a vehicle for the company to make money.

Now I ask that unless you are part of said company or developer, what good does that post serve?

Hear me out.

When posting suggestions to any public forum, it is not the poster's responsibility to try to post things that are within the realm of possibility.  It's more like a wish list, really.

After all, that's what half of these "general discussions" topics come down to... Someone wants something changed, buffed, nerfed, removed, improved, etc.

Anyone can apply for a job, and regardless of their actual merits, knowledge, and experience, it's up to the hiring personnel to decide if that person should acquire the job.  People so sometimes acquire jobs and careers without the posted "requirements".

But it's the person that never tried to apply for a job that will never truly know what the outcome would've been.  Basically, by not trying, they said "no" themselves, not even allowing the hiring personnel the chance to look at the resume.

So - back to the original question
... Why post something like that, especially in a topic that is basically entirely about changes that people want to see in the game's PvP?
Who's to say they couldn't find a way to make cash in that mode?  After all, if there's money being made in current PvP based on shields, then something similar could be whipped up for whatever constraints or boosts a player could use in this theoretical mode.

If they wanna make money on a mode such as this, they would find a way.  If people don't like it, they won't play.  If they do like it, the dev team will find a way to profit off of it.

After all, aren't there a lot of PAYING people that are just getting bored, and are begging for something new anyways?  There's been posts about that very topic, and some people have left due to the staleness of the same-ol' same ol'.

...so, plenty of us dreamers are gonna keep posting things we wanna see in a game.  Because after all, paying or not, they are gonna want to keep things interesting for the people playing, in order to keep the player base from installing the next big game that just might meet a demand that players want.

Phumade

Because I want changes that can actually be implemented in a reasonable time frame and development budget.  I'm sure the devs would do many things differently if they could engineer and develop on a 6 year time frame.  But the simple fact is, like most business, they have to operate on a yearly plan and its absolutely worth reminding them of their significant failures and how various proposals are simply repeating the same mistakes or they are different in a new an meaningful way.

Just to clarify I would love to see live play in a convention or living room peer to peer mode.  I just don't want my VIP money being spent on features that essentially replicate other failures, like the support system.  Nor am I willing to give up the connivence of asynchronous play just so I can wait on my couch for an equivalent roster to find and accept my match.  I certainly remember how unfun that was in Peggle, and every other xbox live arcade game that I played and a big reason why I let my Xbox Live/PSN account expire due to the inconvenience of live matchmaking.

So that's my specific vote that No I won't pay to participate nor engage the mode.

And lets be absolutely truthful, unless they want to implement this as physical link cable ala ethernet or direct connect via bluetooth etc.  I don't think your proposal is grounded in any real world example that didn't have several hundred thousands of players and or heavy investment in back end architecture.

Kolence

bluewolf said:

Kolence said:

Haven't read the whole thread, so if something like this has already been proposed, I apologize.

1) How about, we have a version of pvp where after you have used a character in a winning match, they get a 1 or more matches "cool down" (finished matches - win or lose, but retreats shouldn't count) and can't be used before it expires.
The number of matches could start at 0 and go up gradually as your score does. For instance:
score 0-300, cool down 0
score 301-600, cool down 1
score 601-900, cool down 2
score 901-1200, cool down 3
score 1201+, cool down 4

2) Disallow players to change the target on the AI team. Whoever made the initial match and finished in front stays there, unless powers (passive or active) can affect that. But no manual swapping. 

All right!  I have several thousand dollars I don't need...let me go buy a set of awesome 5's.......PVP will be my stomping ground!

What!!!!!  I can't use them because they need to cool down!  I DEMAND A REFUND!

Equally angry would be the people who hoard for a loooooong time to get some 5's going and end up with them locked out from play.

What about the player who only has a couple dozen characters since they are just starting the game?  Obviously they might not hit 300, but if they did....

Not to mention; this would be a nightmare to communicate in a casual mobile game setting.

Well, ok. Those were just bare bones ideas, I'm sure if serious, it could be made to work just ok.

Can people really spend only several thousand dollars and champ a set (two or more?) 5-stars? How many is several thousand anyway? Four figures? More? I'm too lazy to do buy clubs -> cp -> pulls -> covered 5's here, sorry!

The basic idea was  to prevent using just one (or two or three) of the same team(s) in pvp. And it's definitely meant to favor bigger rosters, but that's more or less how it is anyway.

To be honest, I didn't even think of current mmr and single champ 5-star rosters. But let's say devs made that change I mentioned and didn't change anything else, tomorrow. If mmr wouldn't fix itself from other people using variety of teams, an easy fix would be to allow everyone to pick one character on their roster that's immune to such cool downs.

As for whale-y players, they already have several copies of same characters maxed - that would let them bypass such a limitation with brute force... And everyone is happy again.

Point thresholds are entirely arbitrary too... could easily be 600 - 900 - 1050 - 1125 instead, or whatever. As always, points alone don't mean as much without looking at progression rewards at the same time, and if a roster of some level can reach rewards that can be meaningful for its progress.

And besides this wasn't meant to replace the existing pvp, just offer another mode or another type of pvp, like Balance of Power or Combined Arms.

bluewolf

@Kolence

I realize that my post was a bit hard-edged.....sorry.  I've been a bit stressed IRL lately and it wasn't well-considered.  I also didn't read things as carefully as I should have re: your idea.

On the one hand, mixing up the teams by imposing some limit would be interesting for an off season event, but on the other, people with the meta 5's are very used to how it plays and don't always enjoy it when, say, 3Thor PVP locks out 5 Thor for an event.

I'd be behind an off-season that had a different structure or some limitations....why not?  One off season event won't make or break anyone's roster, and it might be fun.  The same old, same old, has been the same for years.....

purplemur

I don't particularly want LivePvP but if they made it a feature of the PvP tab and it kept people in the game then cool.
I don't want restrictions within the event. If I could only use characters whom have not been played within the last 6 hours or after a character has been used 5 times they can't be played I would find a burden to the grind and wouldn't help my experience at all.
I don't want anonymity; I usually don't read the names but sometimes they are hilarious and occasionally I will spot a forumite and be like hey bub, I've read your stuff!

I do want more events like combined forces where there are restrictions on the whole event. Suggestions: 7* total /13+, combined level of 1000 or Only characters with blue powers, plenty mentioned above and previously
I do want more thoughtful boost lists; the recent spiderverse tie in has been sweet. Boost the Charged Tile users, Trap Week!, boost the nerds(mr.F, Cho, Riri,Shuri,), Boost the sinister six so that when one of the members is featured they all get the bump.These should be wholly supplemental to the weekly lists.

More rewards. if people are getting 3-4 thousand points per event they should get something for that. like some kind of every x points gain 1cp overdrive rewards table, or after progression the individual match rewards are replaced with much better tables that have to include CP for the top end players.

I do want better roster searching.- by star would be the minimum. In general I want saved teams or favorite lists. That OTHER Marvel game that rhymes with StrikeHorse has a base save feature - jus saying...

I want supports            for me. Until and unless we do get LivePvP, it doesn't matter. Are we going to shatter the sense of "fairness", can we cue talk of "purity of the sport"?  w/ the AI? with cascade-limiting? It doesn't matter. There is no player I am going against, and I am already designed to win. Let us have fun and make the matches go quicker.

PiMacleod

@Phumade

Thanks for the thoughtful response...

I do remember playing many Xbox live games, and I still do.  I played the first Puzzle Quest, PQ2, and even Galactrix...  

I don't remember having the problems you had, until PQ (and other games like it) got a little too old.  Maybe I just had good luck... But I've been an Xbox live member since it's inception... Unless the game was REALLY low-key/independent, I usually had good connection rates with other players, unless the game got old.

Anyways, like other have mentioned on here, if it was a separate mode from classic PvP, id play it.  No, I don't think it should replace it.  But I think there's something to having a human competitor on the other side, actively trying to make tricky moves,  make 'T' match 5s, and use moves in a way the CPU just doesn't.  And I think there's enough difference there to have it warrant it's own mode and leaderboard too.

Maybe it's just me... But I think puzzle games still have some popularity.  I know I'm not the only one playing Tetris 99, Dr Mario World, and (somewhat abashedly) even games like Frozen Free Fall.  If enough people are playing them to have any popularity, there may be a demand that hasnt been fulfilled by this superhero fueled match 3 game yet.

BeetleGeorge

jamesh said:

grenadier said:

A_Wise_Man said:

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.

If it already exists it needs a debug.  My highest character is a level 315 5* Doctor Strange, not champed.  Most are nowhere near that high.  Why should I be seeing 350-400 after the seed opponents?

Presumably the level 350-400 teams you are seeing are comprised of boosted 4* characters?  If you check those players' rosters, they probably have similar unboosted levels to your own roster.

I don't know why some people try to suggest that what others experience daily is not true. Or do you mean to say that the average level of the players roster is the main point?
I have a very evenly distributed roster; most 5* around level 315. At the moment I got Cable championed - all the others still around 315 - the majority of teams I had to fight had at least two championed 5*.
Do you mean to say this is exactly as it should be because the other players all have just these two championed 5* and the rest of their roster would be weak?
BTW, later on that changed. Now less than half of the teams have two 5* and the others have a championed Kitty plus 4* Rocket. So the teams with the two 5* are the easier ones.

XDarthVadarX

I am always trying to get the maximum rewards for 75 wins to farm the CP. I must admit it is painful to play PvP but I have gotten used to it.

Story is cool, but will like to see new stories available in the future. Right now, I can play quite decently for Lvl 7 PvP but anything higher is a nightmare to face other players.

Really challenging when all those good players who can play Lvl 8 and 9 with champion 4 and 5 star to join Lvl 7. Impossible to win them and impossible to get top 5 to finish and get the rewards. 

A_Wise_Man

BeetleGeorge said:

jamesh said:

grenadier said:

A_Wise_Man said:

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.

If it already exists it needs a debug.  My highest character is a level 315 5* Doctor Strange, not champed.  Most are nowhere near that high.  Why should I be seeing 350-400 after the seed opponents?

Presumably the level 350-400 teams you are seeing are comprised of boosted 4* characters?  If you check those players' rosters, they probably have similar unboosted levels to your own roster.

I don't know why some people try to suggest that what others experience daily is not true. Or do you mean to say that the average level of the players roster is the main point?
I have a very evenly distributed roster; most 5* around level 315. At the moment I got Cable championed - all the others still around 315 - the majority of teams I had to fight had at least two championed 5*.
Do you mean to say this is exactly as it should be because the other players all have just these two championed 5* and the rest of their roster would be weak?
BTW, later on that changed. Now less than half of the teams have two 5* and the others have a championed Kitty plus 4* Rocket. So the teams with the two 5* are the easier ones.

That's exactly how it works though.  MMR takes into account whatever characters you're able to use for any given event (so 2 plus the featured, or 3 for events like balance of power, divine champions, etc), but it doesnt factor boosts into the equation.  The level 315 dr strange isnt factoring into his mmr.  It takes levels into consideration, but weights it by number of covers.  It's highly likely grenadier has just a handful of champed 4 stars, and hence doesnt often have whoever is boosted.  The game doesnt care about that.  It determines MMR on base levels.  So if you've got at least 2 270s and no more, the highest you can field is 2 270s unless one or both is boosted.  But it matches you up with other 270s *before boosts*.  Add the boosts and you get the 350 or 360 teams.  It's not a good system due to the number of 4s there are, but it is how it works.  

As far as your issues with having just cable...again, it's only counting your 2 highest plus the feature.  If you have a 450 cable hes pushing your average way up, and if any single other 5 is above the 315 level, that's the only other one that's counted (unless they're locked out like 5 thor during 3 thor pvp).  On top of that, it's not an exact level, but a range.  It goes a bit higher and a bit lower typically.  I'm curious, what is your second highest 5 star?  Anyway, I'm not disregarding people's experiences at all.  I'm just saying people often blame one thing due to all the misconceptions out there regarding mmr, when often it's something else altogether. 

BeetleGeorge

What I wrote before was what happened
a) when Cable was new and then
b) when Kitty was new.

In the meantime things changed again. I now have a second championed 5*, Dr. Strange. Cable is 453 and Strange 451. Now there's mainly 3 kinds of teams I have to fight, the 2 5* teams with members up to 470, the teams with Kitty between 420 and 470, and only recently the teams you mentioned with the boosted 4*.
ATM e.g. I see a team of that kind with a Carol 479 and a Mordo 477.
I don't think I want to try such a fight.
At best it would only cost me 2 health packs as most pvp fights do.
Another point is, a team with Cable and Strange is not really one I would choose.

What in my opinion would be be really good against such transition problems which in case of 5* I think will last for a very long time would be the possibilities to choose 4* only or level cap as some others proposed.
Choosing the level works great in pve but seems to have no noticeable effect in pvp.

KGB

Live PvP (like the original PQ) would be fun but for all the reasons Phumade laid out it would be near impossible in the current game with such disparate rosters. It would only make sense in something like a lightning round (1 hr tourney) where players were in 20 man brackets that lasted 1 hr in time and so you knew the total time required up front and it would be easier to match roster levels.

For general PvP, I'd like to see the following:
1) Improve the AI (ala the developer discussion mentioned and linked to in this thread and in others) so it finds all the match 5s, doesn't match its own CD's/specials and tries to match yours and can target your characters etc.
2) All characters must enter at full health (I'm aware what this does to the half health Thor shenanigans). 
3) It's a fight to the death. If you lose or retreat, all 3 characters are downed.
4) If you win, you take ZERO damage (ie all 3 characters exit with full health even if some of them fell during battle) so you can immediately do another PvP battle.

This makes PvP play much different than PvE since the AI is stronger (regular PvE AI would be the one they have now) and the rules are different (fight to the death, no retreat).

It would likely mean more boosts are required to ensure you win if the AI really is that much better.

KGB

ThaRoadWarrior

I wish that Sakaar had been a block of 1v1 lightning rounds, more thematically appropriate to the film fights. Having what amounts to a crash of the titans you can play on demand, with changing opponenents etc would be a lot of fun. It would really kick up the "who is the best at what star tier?" discussions if you could remove partners from the equation. Also it's been a million years since that got run, I wonder if it's hanging out with Wakanda in the retirement home?

jtsings

  I have a novel idea but it probably won't take because it's too complicated.   Try to wrap your head around this.. how bout we limit PVP to you playing against the people that are at the same roster level that you're at.  So basically if you have at least two 5* champs you will only que up teams with at least two 5* champs, close to your level.  If you have no 5* champs you can't be attacked by teams with any 5* champs.  If you have one 5* champ you're open to all teams that have one 5* champ.  Sounds utterly insane doesn't it?   In the recent survey asking what you liked least about MPQ one of the options was "getting attacked by rosters much greater than yours in PVP"; so that tells me that it was enough of a concern for them to list that as an option.  Hopefully enough people marked that as their choice and are working on ways to at least help make this be less of an issue. That way my level 452 Okoye, 355 Thor and 330 Kitty can't get attacked by a trio of 550 champs in Shield Simulator (actually happened).  

  Additionally I think having at least one separate PVP that allows to choose if you want to play without 5*s, which has been discussed many times before, would be extremely helpful for many people.  Especially those who would love to champion a 5* character but they enjoy 4* play too much to "ruin" their PVP experience with a 5* champ.

  An interesting, but yet complicated, suggestion would be to use our same metric for measuring roster strength and add an additional metric in determining the amount of points you can win from a match.  For instance my highest five are at level 452+355+330+314+308=1709.  So let's say that anyone I attack or get attacked by in the 1600-1800 level I get, or they get, full points for a win. 

Example:  

Roster Strength:

Level 1    0-1000 level 1 (SCL 1-6 are good enough measures of making this not too necessary for these players).
Level 2    1000-1200
Level 3    1200-1400
Level 4    1400-1600
Level 5    1600-1800
Level 6    1800-2000
Level 7    2000-2200
Level 8    2200-2400
Level 9    2400-2600
Level 10  2600-2750

  Each level equates to 10 less points you can earn from a match.  So if a level 8 attacks a level 5 roster they would get 30 less points for that win.  Another for instance: the team of three 550s that attacked me in Sheild sim would have gotten 50 less points from their win/slaughter.   Since this does not take into account boosted characters, this would encourage the championing of 3* and 4* characters. It would be to your optimum advantage to have all your 3*s and 4*s champed to give you a significant advantage against the other teams at your Roster level.  (However, you would not gain extra points if you take on a team stronger than yourself.)   I'm not really sure if or how complicated this would be to implement but the more I think about it seems like it would solve at least a few problems that are being faced in the myriad of PVP issues.  Just my 2 cents.

Phumade

jtsings said:

  I have a novel idea but it probably won't take because it's too complicated.   Try to wrap your head around this.. how bout we limit PVP to you playing against the people that are at the same roster level that you're at.  So basically if you have at least two 5* champs you will only que up teams with at least two 5* champs, close to your level.  If you have no 5* champs you can't be attacked by teams with any 5* champs.  If you have one 5* champ you're open to all teams that have one 5* champ.  Sounds utterly insane doesn't it?   In the recent survey asking what you liked least about MPQ one of the options was "getting attacked by rosters much greater than yours in PVP"; so that tells me that it was enough of a concern for them to list that as an option.  Hopefully enough people marked that as their choice and are working on ways to at least help make this be less of an issue. That way my level 452 Okoye, 355 Thor and 330 Kitty can't get attacked by a trio of 550 champs in Shield Simulator (actually happened).  

  Additionally I think having at least one separate PVP that allows to choose if you want to play without 5*s, which has been discussed many times before, would be extremely helpful for many people.  Especially those who would love to champion a 5* character but they enjoy 4* play too much to "ruin" their PVP experience with a 5* champ.

  An interesting, but yet complicated, suggestion would be to use our same metric for measuring roster strength and add an additional metric in determining the amount of points you can win from a match.  For instance my highest five are at level 452+355+330+314+308=1709.  So let's say that anyone I attack or get attacked by in the 1600-1800 level I get, or they get, full points for a win. 

Some points to note.  Its not that I agree or disagree, but these changes were actually put into practice before and the players base rejected them.

MMR was actually changed many many years ago because people complained that their first set of matches after seeds were already super strong peer level opponents (about 4 years ago).  basically once people were past seeds, there were facing opponents that were already bigger than their current team (climbing to 800/900 was a massive chore back then and people complained about how tedious the start was).  MMR was actually dialed back so that people could  actually que a wider window of opponents and not get paired against rosters dramatically bigger than theirs (please note, that obviously doesn't help the seals and walrus who are getting bashed, but the point was.  "IT WAS UNFUN!! when players got instantly matched up against even bigger rosters at 300points" 

The best analogy I can give you is that your 452 okoye/ 355 thor/ 330 kitty can only que 450 JJ + a 13 cover thorkoye that was softcapped to 350 or better opponents.. 

People would love to temporarily remove their 5*.  It would mean the mega whales would just play with 20+ 370 4*.  Personally, I'd love that knowing that every player would essentially have the same 370 4* and it would just come down to who had the most dupes and which shard had the best battlechat.

Finally if you measured roster strength to just the 5 biggest chars (add levels)  you would create a strong reason for players to softcap pvp.  Something the devs have explicitly said they don't want to encourage.  Why would anyone ever want to add levels to their roster knowing they would get less value for each win?

shardwick

1. When you join a season you choose your clearance level and then you would choose between 4* and 5* pvp. So if you're tired of the 5* tier, or are a 4* player and sick of seeing Kitty in every match, then come down and play in 4* pvp. And as jtsings mentioned it would mean that people could level up their 5s so they could play with them in pve and not have to worry about screwing up their pvp experience.

2. Bots in pvp. Similar to seed teams but these would be bots on your level that would offer rewards instead of points. Each season could have its own special vault that can only be accessed with special tokens won from those matches. There would be a separate node for these matches and the first ten wins would give rewards, any win after would give nothing similar to fighting a boss after you get all of those rewards. 

Phumade

shardwick said:

1. When you join a season you choose your clearance level and then you would choose between 4* and 5* pvp. So if you're tired of the 5* tier, or are a 4* player and sick of seeing Kitty in every match, then come down and play in 4* pvp. And as jtsings mentioned it would mean that people could level up their 5s so they could play with them in pve and not have to worry about screwing up their pvp experience.

2. Bots in pvp. Similar to seed teams but these would be bots on your level that would offer rewards instead of points. Each season could have its own special vault that can only be accessed with special tokens won from those matches. There would be a separate node for these matches and the first ten wins would give rewards, any win after would give nothing similar to fighting a boss after you get all of those rewards. 

But do you really want to be innudated with 370 4*? pvp  There are lot of people with maxchamped 4* now.  It get pretty tedious for people who can't match up with those whales.  and you can be assured they WILL drop down knowing they have the 4* events on lockdown.

ThaRoadWarrior

Also all 5*s aren’t created equal. The current meta is essentially “1 5* champ and a 4*,” and it’s already awful if your single 5* champ isn’t Kitty or BSSM. 

shardwick

Phumade said:

shardwick said:

1. When you join a season you choose your clearance level and then you would choose between 4* and 5* pvp. So if you're tired of the 5* tier, or are a 4* player and sick of seeing Kitty in every match, then come down and play in 4* pvp. And as jtsings mentioned it would mean that people could level up their 5s so they could play with them in pve and not have to worry about screwing up their pvp experience.

2. Bots in pvp. Similar to seed teams but these would be bots on your level that would offer rewards instead of points. Each season could have its own special vault that can only be accessed with special tokens won from those matches. There would be a separate node for these matches and the first ten wins would give rewards, any win after would give nothing similar to fighting a boss after you get all of those rewards. 

But do you really want to be innudated with 370 4*? pvp  There are lot of people with maxchamped 4* now.  It get pretty tedious for people who can't match up with those whales.  and you can be assured they WILL drop down knowing they have the 4* events on lockdown.

Dude those same people are already taking the top spots now so exactly what do you think would be different? I saw a roster the other day with a champed 5* Loki and NO champed 4s. With 4* pvp that same guy could go back to fighting against 3* and low level champed 4* players and then he could save his champed 5* Loki for pve. And to answer your question hell yes I would rather play 4* pvp with no 5s mixed in than the current pvp that's total junk. I dunno maybe you really enjoy fighting Kitty pretty much every match but it's damn annoying for me trying to find a match without her in it.