QOL Suggestions

DAZ0273

How do you account for boosts in that system? For example if a player has a 450 baby champed character boosted that week to 550 but attacks a 450 non boosted character what points do they get? Bear in mind that MMR has matched them together and sees no discernable difference. If you get less points then you are being punished for boosts which you can't deactivate or disregard.

JRYUART

DAZ0273 said:

How do you account for boosts in that system? For example if a player has a 450 baby champed character boosted that week to 550 but attacks a 450 non boosted character what points do they get? Bear in mind that MMR has matched them together and sees no discernable difference. If you get less points then you are being punished for boosts which you can't deactivate or disregard.

But you are getting the benefit of boosted characters to use so punching up is more of an option?  Maybe whatever way they would theoretically figure out the points value is strictly determined by the actual team being used/seen and not the avg top three of the player’s overall roster …

DAZ0273

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

How do you account for boosts in that system? For example if a player has a 450 baby champed character boosted that week to 550 but attacks a 450 non boosted character what points do they get? Bear in mind that MMR has matched them together and sees no discernable difference. If you get less points then you are being punished for boosts which you can't deactivate or disregard.

But you are getting the benefit of boosted characters to use so punching up is more of an option?  Maybe whatever way they would theoretically figure out the points value is strictly determined by the actual team being used/seen and not the avg top three of the player’s overall roster …

I wouldn't be able to see a true 550 boosted team as they would be outside of my MMR until it broke so my targets would still be 450 boosted and 450 non boosted. Depending on the boost week there might not be many boosted 450 targets for me, especially earlier in the climb. I am not saying it couldn't work but for somebody such as myself who does not have every 5* champed it seems that boost weeks would possibly be a deterent to using a non-meta character and just attack 450 teams with my non boosted meta ones. Seems a shame.

HoundofShadow

What if I paired level 550 Okoye with level 70 Polaris and a level 70(?) 3* loaner? My average level would become 230. If I use them to beat two level 572 5* and one 412 3*, their average level woukd be 518. 

How much points do you think I deserve to get for beating them?

DAZ0273

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

JRYUART

HoundofShadow said:

What if I paired level 550 Okoye with level 70 Polaris and a level 70(?) 3* loaner? My average level would become 230. If I use them to beat two level 572 5* and one 412 3*, their average level woukd be 518. 

How much points do you think I deserve to get for beating them?

I think you should get a higher amount of points in that case of course? 

JRYUART

DAZ0273 said:

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

Why would you need to ban those team ups ?  

DAZ0273

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

Why would you need to ban those team ups ?  

Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics?

JRYUART

DAZ0273 said:

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

Why would you need to ban those team ups ?  

Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics?

But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits.  

Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast.  

HoundofShadow

Doing that is as good as gaming the system.

DAZ0273

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

Why would you need to ban those team ups ?  

Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics?

But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits.  

Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast.  

How is that any different to the situation now when some 4* player uses Polaris stun to hit above their weight? The Retal is always very easy. Your system also doesn't really detail how many points are lost by the defeated team because in the current system there is a maths equation that works that out relative to point difference between players and based upon certain thresholds?

JRYUART

DAZ0273 said:

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

Why would you need to ban those team ups ?  

Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics?

But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits.  

Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast.  

How is that any different to the situation now when some 4* player uses Polaris stun to hit above their weight? The Retal is always very easy. Your system also doesn't really detail how many points are lost by the defeated team because in the current system there is a maths equation that works that out relative to point difference between players and based upon certain thresholds?

My suggestion was a broad concept of how to revamp pvp scoring so obviously the way that MMR and points work now wouldn’t be applied to a system that was based on opponent difficulty relative to your own.  The way that points are figured and the way the current MMR works are long overdue for an improvement .  I didn’t work out the entire point system down to the T , just suggested that MMR be based on opponent roster strength, rather than what their score is currently in the event. You think that the current system where unintended elements such as cupcakes or qhell/clog are ok as-is?  It’s time for a change.  

DAZ0273

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

JRYUART said:

DAZ0273 said:

I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?

Why would you need to ban those team ups ?  

Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics?

But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits.  

Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast.  

How is that any different to the situation now when some 4* player uses Polaris stun to hit above their weight? The Retal is always very easy. Your system also doesn't really detail how many points are lost by the defeated team because in the current system there is a maths equation that works that out relative to point difference between players and based upon certain thresholds?

My suggestion was a broad concept of how to revamp pvp scoring so obviously the way that MMR and points work now wouldn’t be applied to a system that was based on opponent difficulty relative to your own.  The way that points are figured and the way the current MMR works are long overdue for an improvement .  I didn’t work out the entire point system down to the T , just suggested that MMR be based on opponent roster strength, rather than what their score is currently in the event. You think that the current system where unintended elements such as cupcakes or qhell/clog are ok as-is?  It’s time for a change.  

No I appreciate your are theory crafting, sorry if it comes across like an interrogation! I am trying to figure out how it would work too so nothing I said should be taken as pulling your idea apart.

The current points system is based upon a zero-sum game Elo rating which considers how well you are doing in the event as part of how it decides how many points you win or lose. This system has the advantage of helping you in your early climb but the disadvantage of meaning the better you do in the event, the potentially more vulnerable you are when playing points based and so therefore speed and defensive strength are everything.

Removing that element would mean that MMR has less to work with in finding matches but then I guess you could remove it completely and just open the whole thing up so any roster can see any other roster. Not sure if that wouldn't just lead to big rosters just chipping away at much weaker teams rather than fighting equals. It doesn't matter how many points you have, all that matters is how many points the team that you can use are worth. So it would be sort of more like switching to a progession based system - would you have to play your strongest teams? Leave a 5* team out and you are risking losing a lot of points to a 4* Polaris team cheesing it and the retal is worth peanuts.

Not being involved in the outside Cupcake game I am probably not qualified to comment too much. I would much prefer the Versus was not a game of collusion but as soon as we got the concept of Alliance's then the concept of working together comes hand in hand with it.

CreepCanRoll

Zalasta said:

If your talking QoL improvements, there's a couple that I'd like to see.

1. Ability for commanders to set minimum shield rank to join alliance. This would help me avoid having to kick all of the 30 character newb accounts that join our opening(s).

2. I also would like to have commanders be able to set an alliance description. This would help people searching for alliances to know what the alliance requirements are before joining.

3. In character info, add a line indicating any characters that are feeders for that character. This would be similar to the "affiliations" line in the character description.

4. OP mentioned additional favorite team slots, and I agree. But I'll throw a bone to the devs and say that additional slots should cost HP like roster slots do, and they should get progressively more expensive. They're in this to make money after all, and we all like to support this game.

5. Better filtering on team selection. There were some improvements made in this area, but more could be done. If you select an essential character (say Hawkeye), the selection should only show you all of the Hawkeyes, with the rest of the characters crossed out. Default to the highest cover or highest level Hawkeye.

These are fantastic! Thanks for sharing and I hope they are implemented as well! 1&2 might take some work to set up but those would be amazing to have for other commanders out there. 

CreepCanRoll

Godzillafan67 said:

To add to #4, I’d like the lineup to be a per power instead of just a per character listing. Why have a dupe Deadpool just to send Whales when you can select the purple power DP from the list? Want to send Riri’s 2nd or 3rd power but don’t have the requisite dupe? Not a problem any longer. This way, they can also remove specific powers from the list instead of leaving out characters entirely.

Love this. Some powers are too expensive and no one would use them. And wasting the recharge time on your TUs to send something that is getting discarded is a waste of everyone’s time and energy!

CreepCanRoll

JRYUART said:

I would like to suggest for PVP that points values for qs be determined by the relative difficulty of the opposing team and not based on an arcane formula that takes into account your current accumlated score.  If you face a dual 550 team, you get more points.  If you face a grill team, you get almost nothing .  This way, you are actually appropriately rewarded for the challenge relative to the team you defeat.  There would be less incentive for bigs to hit smalls, and incentive for smalls to actively build up their rosters to hit bigs.  

Hitting an opponent of equivalent roster strength would be set at a fixed amount of points, regardless of roster strength.  For example:  550 x 550 = 50 pts.  270 x 270 = 50 pts.  270 x 550 and winning ?  75 pts.  550 x 270 and winning ? 25 pts.  You get the gist.  

That’s an interesting concept. And to an extent I love it. But I can also see that it might not work in the sense of this: a 270 probably doesn’t want to piss off a 550 by hitting them. That 550 can easily retal 5 times and more than recoup the points. 

But I think adding a difficulty bonus to points based on cumulative character levels would be amazing. But maybe as bonus points. You’d still have the relative value based on current score? 

It’s definitely a good idea and I’d love to see that hashed out some by the devs and see what they could do. 

dramatist

I always thought that it would be fun for a max champ to get to be 5,5,5 instead of having to be some combination of 13 covers only. 

It wouldn’t be always helpful but would be nice and not overpowering. 

Srheer0

QoL things I would like to see in the game, some things I have asked for a long long time and not received a developer comment from them

• Let Steam users see the total value of special tiles on the board at a glance. Android version has this feature. Tap on the grid and it shows the combined atk, protect and strike tile values for both teams. Steam users have to mouse over every tile and then add up themselves. No idea why this is impossible to implement in steam version.
• Rework pvp target values. I agree it should be based on roster or current level of team used. Battle chats and shields are the only reason we don't see more complaints about how the system works. D3 keep it working this way so people spend HP on shields. 
• Increase the number of saved teams. 20 minimum would be a nice number to have. Also let us save teams with gaps missing, instead of having to save the team and sell a character to get a team where the middle person is vacant (loaned events).
• I agree with #6 from first post. Having to tap names of people you don't know to prevent friendly fire takes time and it adds up.
• I agree with red iso spending concerns. All my supports are maxed out and I have well over 500k rISO to spend.
• Let us stockpile more boosts. Even having up to 50 would be an improvement. 

supergarv

Love most of the suggestions, good ideas and thread. Maybe something good can come out of it, personally I'd most love to see alliance affiliations displayed in PVP directly.

itsuka7

I would love the following:

1. Please devs, consider making two seperate pvp games (technically copies, so not a huge amount of extra work). One that resembles the current one where player, alliance and shield status can be checked for room play. I know some players like that sort of play a lot, let these rooms compete. But also, one pvp game where pvp battles are completely anonymous and where casual pvp players can have fun just playing against whatever team regardless of player or alliance, and without being accused of friendly fire, when all they want to do is get a couple of wins and a few shards in ranking. Having these two player communities in one pvp game is torture for both groups - the room players cannot comprehend why casual players would attack someone without doing a full check on opponent and shield status, and casual players don’t comprehend why they should bother to look at names at all, as they are simply looking at fun or easy teams to beat. Players can enter only one of these versions and it counts for the whole season.

2. We need two cmd layers, so that the top cmd can remove cmd status from assistant cmd (to kick them if necessary). If the top cmd has stopped playing, a sub cmd should be able to take over the top position after 30 days of inactivity. It will not stop all cmd problems, but it will at least solve half of them.