Matchmaking changes, instead of nerfing, as a way to address Bishop/Worthy

froggerjohn

I wanted to separately explore the hypothesis, that the main objection to characters like Bishop/Worthy, is that players reach a point in PvP where those characters are the most common opponents they are presented with.

If their queue wasn't FULL of those teams, the problem, and all the cry for nerfing, wouldn't exist.

Therefore, I'm hoping that alternatives can be found to somehow clear the dominance of those teams out of the PvP queues, without removing extremely valuable tools that the 4* players have for other areas of MPQ like Boss events or SCL9 PvE.

Ideas:

1. If you play with three 5* characters, you're only matched against other teams of three 5*s. Instantly, zero Bishop/Worthy teams in your queue.

2. Extra priority given to matchmaking opponents that aren't already in your queue. When a player skips, dig a little deeper to find something that isn't a carbon-copy of what's being skipped.
 
3. More events with character restrictions, or other elements to stir up the most common teams.

4. Expand the number of buffed characters each week, to make it more likely that it will generate useful combos besides the really common ones (this makes sense anyway, since there are more characters overall).

5. Follow through with character buffing, which is currently preferred in 80/20 ratio in the feedback poll, and should also help with creating a greater variety of viable teams.

If ideas #1 and/or #2 have an adverse effect on the number of suitable teams that can be found, you could also consider expanding viability itself, in a general sense. Like slightly increasing the point value of teams below your level, or letting shielded teams stay visible for a bit longer. I don't really know what challenges might exist to provide these 5* players with enough non-Bishop/Worthy teams, but the bottom line is that it feels like a way to get them what they need, without hurting the other side of the equation.

Jacklag

Partly related to 4, I would like it if the "this week" boosted characters were also boosted on the Shield Simulator. I think that would give us more diversity.

ThaRoadWarrior

I think the whole point of an un-boosted simulator is supposed to be that people will use something other than the boosted characters, but the reality is that the meta will win out in both places I suppose. 

I don't know that I actually have the answer to what I'd like to see different, but I do know that I find MMR, as it currently is implemented, to be not that great for anyone who is in the midst of a tier transition. Particularly if you have sub-optimal characters as your highest leveled. Single 5* MMR pitting somebody with just Wa5p vs somebody with just Kitty is hardly even the same game, let alone playing field.

Taganov

More of number 3, please. It's an easy, clean way to reduce the Bishop/Worthy cap fatigue.

A_Wise_Man

1.  Will never be done.  The barbecue industrial complex that drives up pvp scores wouldnt be able to grill and they'd spend less on shields or quit.  

2. Only really happens when you're above opponents in your roster strength level points-wise.  So...have the game give me something easier to beat for 5 points vs something I might (but not definitely) lose to for 70 points?  

3.  Works for me.  Doesn't work for folks that are transitioning.  Doesnt work for 5 stars at all since nobody transitions to 5 stars, they just get like 3 of them and use those all the time, maybe some new ones as they're released. 

4.  Is a great idea for the 4 star tier.  They moved it up to 5 a week instead of 3 or whatever it was when the tier hit like 30 4 stars.  At around 90 of them it's still 5 a week.  This is just silly.  But then again so is the fact that we get the same resources to level 90 4 stars as we did for 30, but I digress...

5.  The poll results are misleading.  Lots of people voted for a buff but put "nerf bishop" somewhere in their comments.  I agree with leveling out the 5 star tier, especially in regards to HP and match damage.  But the only way that works is if they stop making every new 5 have more health and higher match damage.  It's a problem, but it's a problem intentionally created (who knows why).  Rebalances dont shake up the 4 star tier much, as they have 100 level boosts weekly.  Rebalances don't really shake up the 5 star tier because....nobody transitions to the 5 star tier anymore.  Youd have to be insane to try, it's too diluted.

froggerjohn

Thank you for the detailed response, especially to #1, which otherwise seemed like a near-trivial fix that could also help the other way around -- a 4* team getting stomped by triple 5s up to 550s.

I don't understand the dynamics of grilling, but hopefully the devs can still figure out a way to reduce the number of Bishop teams seen in one's queue via peripheral changes, and without adversely affecting that dynamic.

Maybe something like teams being worth more and more points to opponents the longer they're left out. I don't really have detailed enough knowledge to gauge overall viability, but maybe the ideas can spark additional thoughts along similar lines. It just feels like a solvable problem, when defined as "I see way too much Bishop in PvP".

> we get the same resources to level 90 4 stars as we did for 30, but I digress...

Actually, now we get LESS resources, but I also digress...

> Rebalances don't shake up the 4 star tier much, as they have 100 level boosts weekly. 

More often than not, boosting an average 4* 100 levels isn't enough to make them viable compared to the best, non-boosted 4*s. It seems like only 10-20% of the tier becomes a useful character in PvP during their boost week, and that's pretty sad.

If weaker characters are rebalanced, and the number of boosted characters per week is increased, the odds of new, powerful combinations emerging from that goes up considerably, and that could help interject more variety into PvP.