How about making PVP actually PVP?

Unknown

Player versus player, ten seconds per move. This PVE nonsense that is called PVP just isn't any fun.

I was just in 25th place in my pvp bracket. I played for 15 minutes and had a net gain of -250 points. -250 points in 15 minutes! While I was winning matches! My Psylocke is level 128 before the boost, I have a level 141 Cap, and a level 115 Thor. That doesn't seem like a line up that deserves to be beaten for 40-50pts a pop six times in 15 minutes. Why are characters ranked so much lower than me even allow to steal so many points anyway? I have to win 4 ten point matches just to keep even. Low ranked players should have to work their way up the ladder throughout an event, instead of just waiting until the end and finishing in the same place with 1/10th the effort of someone else that played over the entire event. I realize that shields are the only way to go and they are the games cash grab, but please, please come up with something else. There is absolutely no way for me to have fun in "PVP" without spending money. I know how to win events, I've come in first place twice before. It's just not any fun. I'm not losing to the game or other players, I'm losing to a poor system. The winning strategy is to pay money to not play the game.

The "AI" is pathetic, I never lose a match and it never wins a match for me. What is the point? Just let us actually play against each other, real PVP.

Other solutions:
Only match up players within 10-20 rankings of each other in either direction.
Make an AI that actually has some intelligence. This would also make players buy more health packs.
Place a limit on the number of times the AI can lose a match for a player in an hour. How about only letting one person attack you at a time? I can only attack one player at a time.
Drop negative points entirely. It's not fair to lose points because the AI is worthless.

If the shields are just too much income to lose, get rid of them, nerf the healers, and raise the prices of health packs.

Unknown

This has been suggested in the past. And I think it's a great idea. Although I don't think 10 sec per move would work when you are playing true PVP. Maybe 25-30 sec. Because when you are playing another player, it'll be more like chess.

But we can dream all we want. The servers they have now can't handle the load as it is. If they were to give us true PVP, they would have to severely upgrade their servers. Which is already needed.

HailMary

If there was real PVP, there'd need to be some major character ability tweaks.

Otherwise, this can happen: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8558&p=155237#p155143

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

If there was real PVP, there'd need to be some major character ability tweaks.

Otherwise, this can happen: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8558&p=155237#p155143

I'm not sure I follow. . .

Please explain. Thx. LOL.

Unknown

You cant have true PvP with mobile devices for a global game. It would have to be asynchronous to some degree for it to work.

HailMary

aaronschmiz wrote:

HailMary wrote:

If there was real PVP, there'd need to be some major character ability tweaks.

Otherwise, this can happen: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8558&p=155237#p155143

I'm not sure I follow. . .

Please explain. Thx. LOL.

Note the finishing AP values for the enemy team (zero in all colors), and note the complete lack of health loss on locked's team. Starting with a blue match-5, locked won the entire fight within turn 1. If this were real PVP, could you imagine the raging?

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

You cant have true PvP with mobile devices for a global game. It would have to be asynchronous to some degree for it to work.

I play chess and poker with people from all over the world on my android phone. Played the same chess and poker games when I had my iPhone too. So why wouldn't it work with MPQ? (Other than the hamsters would go on strike and the game would be in permanent crash mode )

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

aaronschmiz wrote:

HailMary wrote:

If there was real PVP, there'd need to be some major character ability tweaks.

Otherwise, this can happen: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8558&p=155237#p155143

I'm not sure I follow. . .

Please explain. Thx. LOL.

Note the finishing AP values for the enemy team (zero in all colors), and note the complete lack of health loss on locked's team. Starting with a blue match-5, locked won the entire fight within turn 1. If this were real PVP, could you imagine the raging?

People already rage. Let them. If they could upgrade their servers and we could play against each other in real time, that would be AWESOME. I'd pick you as my first match. HA HA HA.

Unknown

REAL pvp would be the greatest thing ever!!!!
Too bed it's 1/million chance.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

REAL pvp would be the greatest thing ever!!!!
Too bed it's 1/million chance.

How much do new servers cost? Let's hold a fundraiser. LOL.

Unknown

aaronschmiz wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

REAL pvp would be the greatest thing ever!!!!
Too bed it's 1/million chance.

How much do new servers cost? Let's hold a fundraiser. LOL.

If they would promise to put in real pvp I would drop minimum $50 right away.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

aaronschmiz wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

REAL pvp would be the greatest thing ever!!!!
Too bed it's 1/million chance.

How much do new servers cost? Let's hold a fundraiser. LOL.

If they would promise to put in real pvp I would drop minimum $50 right away.

Well, we would do it by buying HP, all at the same time, in an organized purchase. But they would have to send us pics of them at Micro Center getting ready to buy everything they need. LOL.

And I don't have $50, but I would chip in an extra $20-25 for real PVP.

Beast1970

I'd be happier if they would just limit the number of times I can be attacked while I'm finishing a match. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if one person had to finish beating up on me before the next could start instead of getting hit by five simultaneously.

Unknown

Beast1970 wrote:

I'd be happier if they would just limit the number of times I can be attacked while I'm finishing a match. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if one person had to finish beating up on me before the next could start instead of getting hit by five simultaneously.

Yeah. I played 1 match earlier for 21 pts, came out to 6 hits for almost 80-90 pts total loss. I immediately re-shielded and said effe it.

atomzed

While having a real pvp (human against human) is a great idea, I won't want it to replace the current pvp.

Why? For those who play async games, you would know that it's difficult to control the length of the game. Right mow, I know it will probably take around 5 mins per game. I like that. But when you play against humans, the other side can take a long time playing his move. It will take far too long for each game.

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

While having a real pvp (human against human) is a great idea, I won't want it to replace the current pvp.

Why? For those who play async games, you would know that it's difficult to control the length of the game. Right mow, I know it will probably take around 5 mins per game. I like that. But when you play against humans, the other side can take a long time playing his move. It will take far too long for each game.

Agreed. That's why they would have to put some kind of time limit per move. 20 to 30 seconds or something like that.

And since both players would be playing optimally for themselves, as opposed to the dumbed down AI, I don't think it would add too much extra time to the match if they set a timer on each play.

We already are required to be online with a stable connection to play. So adding this feature would just be a matter of if they could get their servers running correctly to avoid lag times.

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

While having a real pvp (human against human) is a great idea, I won't want it to replace the current pvp.

Why? For those who play async games, you would know that it's difficult to control the length of the game. Right mow, I know it will probably take around 5 mins per game. I like that. But when you play against humans, the other side can take a long time playing his move. It will take far too long for each game.

There is still story mode. I don't know why you need two versions of PVE, one that feels totally broken and one that is async and still fun. PVP means player versus player, not player versus pathetic computer.

Unknown

First off we're the ones that call it PVP. It's actually called Versus, so your last comment is irrelevant.

Secondly, you can't say 'well just play PVE if you don't like it' when you can usually drain all of the PVE nodes in like an hour leaving you with nothing else to do. We don't want this to become like nearly every other game out there that supposedly has both PVE and PVP, where the devs spend all of their time improving and balancing things for PVP while PVE becomes more and more broken.

If you want a hardcore challenge, buy a Vita. Some of us like our games casual.

Unknown

atomzed wrote:

While having a real pvp (human against human) is a great idea, I won't want it to replace the current pvp.

Why? For those who play async games, you would know that it's difficult to control the length of the game. Right mow, I know it will probably take around 5 mins per game. I like that. But when you play against humans, the other side can take a long time playing his move. It will take far too long for each game.

That's simple to handle, add chess-clock with X minutes for each players, then add Y additional minutes after each Z turns. Out of time -> loss.

MTGO has such system, a decade ago it had problems for me measuring client-side lag and my internet conn was not so good, these years it should not be a problem and the said lag can be actually measured and compensated too.

The real problem is it would require actual developers not just animators and excel-sheet-guys.

Unknown

I'm fine with current PvP. I don't want to rage. I'd rather beat the stupid AI than tearing my hair out each match.

Unknown

KevinMark wrote:

I'm fine with current PvP. I don't want to rage. I'd rather beat the stupid AI than tearing my hair out each match.

Nothing would forbid to have both kinds.