What's the deal with PVP scoring?

Unknown

Why are people lower in the rankings rewarded so much more for defeating people higher in the rankings? It's not like they are defeating a very skilled player, it is a fight against the same old AI regarless of the person's rank. All is does is encourage people to not play the game when they want and play from behind to get more points per match. A person with all level 85 characters that scrapes their way to the top of the leader board is getting 10 points per match and a person with all level 141 characters can just lag behind and kill the other person for an easy 40 points. Maybe the reward for winning a match should be based on each persons total levels for their 3 character team. It would give a handicap bonus to lower squads. It would encourage more people to use all levels of characters. It might also curb the problem where someone is winning matches at the end of a tournament only to be beaten by five other players at the same time because players only want to play the matches worth the most points. It would be a choice between picking a lower opponent for quick points or fighting a tougher player for more points instead of just punishing people for grinding their way to the top.

Unknown

I guess my question is why should a roster which uses 3xlvl 85s be at the top of the rankings?

Next question is do you think it's hard to beat 3x141s with, say, 2x141 and 1x lvl1? Cause it isn't and nicely abuses your idea... In fact you're probably just persuading ppl to use loaners instead of their own featured hero because you can still win handily and then put in your high level featured hero at the end to hope for a skip or 2 after you're just fighting 141s anyway.

Next question is why would you POSSIBLY want to remove the only part of the game where progression is genuinely rewarded. In PvE you get almost nothing for levelling up your roster but at least in PvP you get to do better, admittedly after longer tougher matches because of the MMR implementation.

If you wanted to do something about the way scores are awarded ask for retaliations to be worth at least, say, 66% of the points you lost or possibly more and i'd be on board. Simply aiming to further reduce the value of progressing in the game (at least level wise, covers are valuable progression regardless) is an absolute no-no for me.

Unknown

bonfire01 wrote:

I guess my question is why should a roster which uses 3xlvl 85s be at the top of the rankings?

Next question is do you think it's hard to beat 3x141s with, say, 2x141 and 1x lvl1? Cause it isn't and nicely abuses your idea... In fact you're probably just persuading ppl to use loaners instead of their own featured hero because you can still win handily and then put in your high level featured hero at the end to hope for a skip or 2 after you're just fighting 141s anyway.

Next question is why would you POSSIBLY want to remove the only part of the game where progression is genuinely rewarded. In PvE you get almost nothing for levelling up your roster but at least in PvP you get to do better, admittedly after longer tougher matches because of the MMR implementation.

If you wanted to do something about the way scores are awarded ask for retaliations to be worth at least, say, 66% of the points you lost or possibly more and i'd be on board. Simply aiming to further reduce the value of progressing in the game (at least level wise, covers are valuable progression regardless) is an absolute no-no for me.

My logic is that if a player is skilled enough to be atop the ranking with lower lever characters, they should still have a chance. The way it is now, that person is going to be obliterated. Why reward picking on the little guy? 99% of fights are wins against a brainless AI anyway, it doesn't matter what level the characters are. Just having covers shouldn't mean victory. I have various high level characters, so I am not biased on this.

In regards to your other questions, you are missing my point entirely. My main point isnt about the level of the character, I more want to know why the person that gets in the lead first is so severely punished. It's not like a chess ranking, a higher person on the leader boards rarely means a harder fight. If PVP was scored solely in win/losses (+1 win, -1 loss) instead of the huge 5:1 skew that can happen now, it seems like things would be a lot more fair.

MarvelMan

rooter wrote:

My logic is that if a player is skilled enough to be atop the ranking with lower lever characters, they should still have a chance.

So many things wrong here. Skill often has very little to do in this game, its more about timing and RNG luck. Factor in the way the MMR/bracketing built, those newer (low) players ARE at the top of rankings. And they dont want to be at the top, or shouldn't want to be, because the rewards they would be "earning" are above their place, which means they are less valuable to them than the 2* rewards they should be targeting.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

rooter wrote:

My logic is that if a player is skilled enough to be atop the ranking with lower lever characters, they should still have a chance.

So many things wrong here. Skill often has very little to do in this game, its more about timing and RNG luck. Factor in the way the MMR/bracketing built, those newer (low) players ARE at the top of rankings. And they dont want to be at the top, or shouldn't want to be, because the rewards they would be "earning" are above their place, which means they are less valuable to them than the 2* rewards they should be targeting.

Man, I wish I never would have posted the bit about character level. My main question is why does scoring work the way it does? I was merely mentioning scoring differently for different levels as an example to think of another way of scoring.

Also, you saying that a person with two star characters doesn't want three star characters just makes no sense at all. There is no need to target two star awards anyway, one of them drops every few fights automatically.

When you say that skill is not involved, it makes me think that you have none. You must not look at the board and see which moves will result in cascades, or know which characters work together, which order to fight your opponents characters, or know to watch which colors the opponent has taken and know how to counter those colors. If there was no skill involved, the AI would win 50% of the time, instead of 1% of the time.

Unknown

rooter wrote:

My logic is that if a player is skilled enough to be atop the ranking with lower lever characters, they should still have a chance. The way it is now, that person is going to be obliterated. Why reward picking on the little guy? 99% of fights are wins against a brainless AI anyway, it doesn't matter what level the characters are. Just having covers shouldn't mean victory. I have various high level characters, so I am not biased on this.

In regards to your other questions, you are missing my point entirely. My main point isnt about the level of the character, I more want to know why the person that gets in the lead first is so severely punished. It's not like a chess ranking, a higher person on the leader boards rarely means a harder fight. If PVP was scored solely in win/losses (+1 win, -1 loss) instead of the huge 5:1 skew that can happen now, it seems like things would be a lot more fair.

It's not skill, you're not atop the rankings by doing anything skillful. MMR means, until their MMR climbs too high for them, players are generally playing against relatively similar teams. It takes no more skill to take a 3x85 team and get points against another 3x85 team than it does to get points as a 3x141 team vs other 3x141 teams. In fact it's easier because you can use OBW without risking a 3* hero slapping her down too quickly and she is pretty overpowered vs other 2* heroes. Winning with, say, OBW, Ares + loaner featured vs other 2x2* + loaner teams is way way easier than 2x141 + high leveled featured vs the same.

My other points related to your suggestion that using avg level to determine points won and loss and showing it was a terrible idea.
Finally I was suggesting that ppl with 2* heroes should not receive any form of help in pvp to beat 3* teams, why should they? Why should progress NOT be rewarded (already not rewarded in PvE).

Then finally, because I generally agree with you about being chain attacked by low score people with no value at all in retaliating because of relative points, I suggested a fixed minimum retaliation value of 2/3 of what they took from you would help somewhat with the issue.

Also, +1/-1 is a bad system because it is far far quicker to win 2x85 + loaner vs the same than higher level heroes with a high level featured hero. It's just another way to punish progress....

The system is MEANT to be a way to get ppl to the score their lineup deserves. If you are well above that you get knocked back faster, if you're well below you catch up quicker. The problems of excessive attacker advantage, intentionally "playing the system" and wonky MMR matchmaking means it doesn't do that job well but your suggestions are no better IMO.

Unknown

bonfire01 wrote:

The system is MEANT to be a way to get ppl to the score their lineup deserves. If you are well above that you get knocked back faster, if you're well below you catch up quicker. The problems of excessive attacker advantage, intentionally "playing the system" and wonky MMR matchmaking means it doesn't do that job well but your suggestions are no better IMO.

The system is meant for people to get early easy points, waste shields, then gets a few wins leeching off the people that already played, then waste more shields, then try and get some quick wins at the end of the tournament. We need to think of a way for D3 to make money and keep it fun. In my opinion, it's only doing one of the two things right now.