How about making PVP actually PVP?

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

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.

Agreed. For people who want to fight the AI, go for it.

I personally would love playing against another REAL person. Watching how they move. How they execute their AoE. It would be match-3 meets chess, meets marvel, BAM I just hit you in the face with Ares' Axe. LOL.

Unknown

A real PvP would be a nightmare in this game. The games would be too long even without the opponent stalling deliberately. Can you imagine making a push near the end of an event and having to wait each time 20-30 seconds for an opponent to make a move? By the end of your match you finish 1 match you will have been attacked 2-3 times.

Unknown

Narkon wrote:

A real PvP would be a nightmare in this game. The games would be too long even without the opponent stalling deliberately. Can you imagine making a push near the end of an event and having to wait each time 20-30 seconds for an opponent to make a move? By the end of your match you finish 1 match you will have been attacked 2-3 times.

If they were to make a true PVP event, it would have to run longer (say week long events) and you wouldn't be able to play more than one game at a time. So you wouldn't be able to be hit in these events while you were playing another player because you would not be there to play against them. And it wouldn't allow you to enter a match if you were already playing. It would show you as "game in progress" and the other player would have to find a different opp. And it wouldn't have to be in node form. It could be in list form that was searchable so if you wanted to play against your IRL friends or another forumite, you could find them and challenge them to a match.

Unknown

PvP against players can't even work without some kind of blindmatching system. Otherwise you'd be sitting here with say 800 points and it'd belike 'soandso with a very strong team challenged you, he has 500 points' and you can just not respond to that, unless the game somehow makes you forfeit if you don't respond on time, but in that case you'd also be mysteriously losing every game proposed against you while you're unable to play the game. Of course even if you had some kind of blind matchmaking I'd imagine most people would simply drag it out as long as possible when they perceive to have a bad match (against someone who is much stronger, or someone who is worth a lot less than they are). And if you can't have multiple people attacking you, all you have to do is get into a game and then you'll avoid being hit by other players. Also, what happens to retaliations? Say we have equally rating and strong team, so I attacked you and I won because the person going first has an overwhelming damage. Should you be allowed to retaliate? I'm guessing yes, but then how do I accept this retaliaton? Is it a timed offer and then I auto-lose if I don't accept on time, even if that last game was supposed to be the last game I planned on playing? Or can I just let it sit there but in that case I'd just never respond to the retaliation offer since I'm expected to lose.

Unknown

Narkon wrote:

A real PvP would be a nightmare in this game. The games would be too long even without the opponent stalling deliberately. Can you imagine making a push near the end of an event and having to wait each time 20-30 seconds for an opponent to make a move? By the end of your match you finish 1 match you will have been attacked 2-3 times.

Heh? In the real PVP you fight battles interactively, others can't attack you in the background. The amorph structure we have could not be used obviously, instead maybe rounds like in MTGO.

Unknown

Does the game really warrant pvp. Is it strategically evolved enough?

I'd say if the could give a minimal update to the AI to make it use of abilities correctly, I don't see why pvp would be required, as AI would make almost the same decision.

Let's be frank here, the problem isn't that it's not real pvp. The problem is that this game should never have been released with the current state of its AI. I'd be **** ashamed of myself if I had released this game.

Unknown

Big yes for reak pvp

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

PvP against players can't even work without some kind of blindmatching system. Otherwise you'd be sitting here with say 800 points and it'd belike 'soandso with a very strong team challenged you, he has 500 points' and you can just not respond to that, unless the game somehow makes you forfeit if you don't respond on time, but in that case you'd also be mysteriously losing every game proposed against you while you're unable to play the game. Of course even if you had some kind of blind matchmaking I'd imagine most people would simply drag it out as long as possible when they perceive to have a bad match (against someone who is much stronger, or someone who is worth a lot less than they are). And if you can't have multiple people attacking you, all you have to do is get into a game and then you'll avoid being hit by other players. Also, what happens to retaliations? Say we have equally rating and strong team, so I attacked you and I won because the person going first has an overwhelming damage. Should you be allowed to retaliate? I'm guessing yes, but then how do I accept this retaliaton? Is it a timed offer and then I auto-lose if I don't accept on time, even if that last game was supposed to be the last game I planned on playing? Or can I just let it sit there but in that case I'd just never respond to the retaliation offer since I'm expected to lose.

I don't know how to exactly set it up. But maybe something like:

• Each player, upon entering their first match would be given X amount of points (no seed teams needed).
• For players who get beaten to a zero score, they could either
  • Have a regenerative system that you receive X amounts of points for each day played that come along with your daily resupply. OR
  • Have a negative based system that allows you to keep playing. If each match is say 25pts and you are negative 75pts, you would need to win 4 matches to get back into the positive.
• No matchmaking required. Choose/search from list of available players and click "Challenge". (Players who are in a match can be hidden or marked as "in match".) You'd be able to see their roster, but you won't know who they are going to play against you until you enter the match and vice versa. .
• When you open the "sub-tab" into the PVP event screen, it could give you a list of players that have "Challenged" you to a match and you could accept or deny the challenge. No penalties for denying. No bonuses for taking them all.
• Every match would have to be a set value. Not based off of the opponents score.
• Their would be no brackets, no shielding, no ranking rewards (personal or alliance). Just progression rewards and ISO from winning the match. This keeps it casual and fun.
• Progression rewards would be ISO, HP, and recruit tokens (the higher the progression reward, the higher the value of RT)
• No need to put strict time limits on true PVE. It can be monthly or weekly.
• Put a timer on matches. Since we already are online to play MPQ, each move you are allotted 30 seconds to take your turn. If you don't make your move in 30 secs, you lose your turn. Put a fail-safe into the match that after an opp has lost 3 turns due to time outs, it gives you the option to "continue match", or "force resignation" and you win the match and the points.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

Nothing would forbid to have both kinds.

Except, as I said earlier, for the simple fact that every single game I can think of that has attempted to have both has completely abandoned the casual player in a desperate attempt to balance things solely for PvP.

Unknown

There's no special balance for PvP other than that all the cheap things you can do in this game is probably more apparent when it's being done to you. However I'm not sure how several logistic issue work out.

If I challenge you, do I go first? In that case I should never accept any challenge because going first is a huge advantage.

If I can see my opponent's roster/rating, why should I ever accept against someone that's lower rating than me unless he's much weaker?

Do we play more than one game at a time? Otherwise you'll have to offer the loser a chance to retaliate and going first if he didn't go first in the first game, because the vast majority of the games will be won by whoever went first. But if you play at least 2 games that makes each PvP match rather long.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

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.

I'd be ok with that if they didn't incentivize the real PvP like giving more rewards to people who play it rather than playing against AI. Yes, I'm selfish like that

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

There's no special balance for PvP other than that all the cheap things you can do in this game is probably more apparent when it's being done to you.

Really? You're telling me that literally every single power in this game was not specifically designed, balanced, and playtested with "player vs AI" in mind? I find that hard to believe.

Unknown

Expalphalog wrote:

Phantron wrote:

There's no special balance for PvP other than that all the cheap things you can do in this game is probably more apparent when it's being done to you.

Really? You're telling me that literally every single power in this game was not specifically designed, balanced, and playtested with "player vs AI" in mind? I find that hard to believe.

If there's a power that lets someone win on first round, it's 50/50 whether I go first or you go first so it's still balanced, even though 50% of the time you'd definitely feel very bad about the outcome of a particular match.

Just because D3 doesn't mail you videos of how your team gets abused on defense doesn't mean it didn't happen. While you're out there abusing cheap tricks on your opponents, the same thing is happening to your team without your knowledge, the two abuses roughly cancel each other out in terms of overall balance.