@DrClever said: @Blackstone said: I expected more focus on PVP. PvP is so effed that I have no idea where to start on improving it. Maybe some modifier that makes you deal 20% less damage for each character you used in your last battle and 20% more for each character that is the same as you faced last time out.
@DrClever said:
@Blackstone said: I expected more focus on PVP.
PvP is so effed that I have no idea where to start on improving it.
Maybe some modifier that makes you deal 20% less damage for each character you used in your last battle and 20% more for each character that is the same as you faced last time out.
My only idea for PVP was to allow a ban list... Where you could select to ban characters you would skip anyway, but you don't get to use those characters either. The idea being players could dictate what their experience looks like without hindering others from playing what they want.
Penalties could work too, to encourage diversity, but they might need to be based on more than damage. Kang, for example, could still send enemies away no matter how his damage is reduced.
@Blackstone said: @DrClever said: @Blackstone said: I expected more focus on PVP. PvP is so effed that I have no idea where to start on improving it. Maybe some modifier that makes you deal 20% less damage for each character you used in your last battle and 20% more for each character that is the same as you faced last time out. My only idea for PVP was to allow a ban list... Where you could select to ban characters you would skip anyway, but you don't get to use those characters either. The idea being players could dictate what their experience looks like without hindering others from playing what they want. Penalties could work too, to encourage diversity, but they might need to be based on more than damage. Kang, for example, could still send enemies away no matter how his damage is reduced.
@Blackstone said:
A banlist like that would be ripe for exploitation.
Take...me, for example. Under normal conditions the game only shows me very high level opponents. If I chose to ban Chasm or Hulk, that'd rule out basically anyone that has a high level roster. But the game has to give me somebody to fight! So, when I started (at 0 points), matchmaking would show me much weaker teams, for very high points.
When I climbed to, say, 800 or 1000 points, there would be no one at all to show me that had a similar score -- everyone with a score in that range is using Chasm.
So, I could strategically activate or deactivate the ban to make playing as easy as possible at any given time.
Another use of such a banlist would be to target individual players repeatedly, by banning every team except the one I know they're using.
I don't mean to be so down on innovative ideas. PvP is extremely weird right now, with tons of bizarre mechanics that don't make sense. But there is a reason that every single one of those bizarre mechanics exists, and the reason is almost always "high end players exploited something, so we had to do this."
This is why I'm terrified of this new group messing with matchmaking -- matchmaking is bizarre because it's been patched and fixed over time, and undoing those seemingly-nonsensical fixes will lead to those exploits coming back immediately.
Yes we are very good at breaking PVP. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's fun.
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @DrClever said: @Blackstone said: I expected more focus on PVP. PvP is so effed that I have no idea where to start on improving it. Maybe some modifier that makes you deal 20% less damage for each character you used in your last battle and 20% more for each character that is the same as you faced last time out. My only idea for PVP was to allow a ban list... Where you could select to ban characters you would skip anyway, but you don't get to use those characters either. The idea being players could dictate what their experience looks like without hindering others from playing what they want. Penalties could work too, to encourage diversity, but they might need to be based on more than damage. Kang, for example, could still send enemies away no matter how his damage is reduced. A banlist like that would be ripe for exploitation. Take...me, for example. Under normal conditions the game only shows me very high level opponents. If I chose to ban Chasm or Hulk, that'd rule out basically anyone that has a high level roster. But the game has to give me somebody to fight! So, when I started (at 0 points), matchmaking would show me much weaker teams, for very high points. When I climbed to, say, 800 or 1000 points, there would be no one at all to show me that had a similar score -- everyone with a score in that range is using Chasm. So, I could strategically activate or deactivate the ban to make playing as easy as possible at any given time. Another use of such a banlist would be to target individual players repeatedly, by banning every team except the one I know they're using. I don't mean to be so down on innovative ideas. PvP is extremely weird right now, with tons of bizarre mechanics that don't make sense. But there is a reason that every single one of those bizarre mechanics exists, and the reason is almost always "high end players exploited something, so we had to do this." This is why I'm terrified of this new group messing with matchmaking -- matchmaking is bizarre because it's been patched and fixed over time, and undoing those seemingly-nonsensical fixes will lead to those exploits coming back immediately.
@entrailbucket said:
You're good...I actually considered matchmaking could be thrown off wildly based on who you banned as I was writing it, I just don't have any other ideas that wouldn't cause other problems.
I hadn't considered changing ban list at all though...I was thinking once you set something for an event, that's what you're stuck with.
Still hoping someone has a better idea that works.
@Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @DrClever said: @Blackstone said: I expected more focus on PVP. PvP is so effed that I have no idea where to start on improving it. Maybe some modifier that makes you deal 20% less damage for each character you used in your last battle and 20% more for each character that is the same as you faced last time out. My only idea for PVP was to allow a ban list... Where you could select to ban characters you would skip anyway, but you don't get to use those characters either. The idea being players could dictate what their experience looks like without hindering others from playing what they want. Penalties could work too, to encourage diversity, but they might need to be based on more than damage. Kang, for example, could still send enemies away no matter how his damage is reduced. A banlist like that would be ripe for exploitation. Take...me, for example. Under normal conditions the game only shows me very high level opponents. If I chose to ban Chasm or Hulk, that'd rule out basically anyone that has a high level roster. But the game has to give me somebody to fight! So, when I started (at 0 points), matchmaking would show me much weaker teams, for very high points. When I climbed to, say, 800 or 1000 points, there would be no one at all to show me that had a similar score -- everyone with a score in that range is using Chasm. So, I could strategically activate or deactivate the ban to make playing as easy as possible at any given time. Another use of such a banlist would be to target individual players repeatedly, by banning every team except the one I know they're using. I don't mean to be so down on innovative ideas. PvP is extremely weird right now, with tons of bizarre mechanics that don't make sense. But there is a reason that every single one of those bizarre mechanics exists, and the reason is almost always "high end players exploited something, so we had to do this." This is why I'm terrified of this new group messing with matchmaking -- matchmaking is bizarre because it's been patched and fixed over time, and undoing those seemingly-nonsensical fixes will lead to those exploits coming back immediately. You're good...I actually considered matchmaking could be thrown off wildly based on who you banned as I was writing it, I just don't have any other ideas that wouldn't cause other problems. I hadn't considered changing ban list at all though...I was thinking once you set something for an event, that's what you're stuck with. Still hoping someone has a better idea that works.
I've been breaking PvP for 10 years now!
If you were locked into a particular banlist for an entire event, you'd easily be able to lock yourself out of playing the game at all.
It's the same problem when people ask "why do I have to skip the same players over and over again -- why can't skips be permanent?" The reason you see the same players over and over is that the game has nobody else to give you at that point (more likely, the problem is that the game has nobody worth points to give you, but it's the same thing).
So if you're in a loop where you get the same 3 or 4 players for 40 points over and over, and you "perma-skip" those players, the game will start giving you 5-point matches instead, because it has to give you something, and there's nothing worthwhile available right then.
I have another one that admittedly would only affect the top 50 alliances or so but I would personally enjoy it.
In both PvE and PvP events the alliance you play your first match/node with you are locked to for the remainder of the event. Start with the 20 you have and roll through the event with no exceptions. I believe it would shake things up at the top but likely would also not be popular.
@StanleyBurrell said: I have another one that admittedly would only affect the top 50 alliances or so but I would personally enjoy it. In both PvE and PvP events the alliance you play your first match/node with you are locked to for the remainder of the event. Start with the 20 you have and roll through the event with no exceptions. I believe it would shake things up at the top but likely would also not be popular.
@StanleyBurrell said: I have another one that admittedly would only affect the top 50 alliances or so but I would personally enjoy it.
I'd love this too, although they'd never do it because those top 50 alliances would throw a completely over the top, insane tantrum over it.
My pitch would be MPQ 2.0.
@entrailbucket said: @StanleyBurrell said: I have another one that admittedly would only affect the top 50 alliances or so but I would personally enjoy it. In both PvE and PvP events the alliance you play your first match/node with you are locked to for the remainder of the event. Start with the 20 you have and roll through the event with no exceptions. I believe it would shake things up at the top but likely would also not be popular. I'd love this too, although they'd never do it because those top 50 alliances would throw a completely over the top, insane tantrum over it.
I agree but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do. I say that as a member of a T10 alliance by the way, we do swap but I would have no issues with that ending.
I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing.
I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on.
But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals.
PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though.
Maybe PVE still has an answer though?
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @DrClever said: @Blackstone said: I expected more focus on PVP. PvP is so effed that I have no idea where to start on improving it. Maybe some modifier that makes you deal 20% less damage for each character you used in your last battle and 20% more for each character that is the same as you faced last time out. My only idea for PVP was to allow a ban list... Where you could select to ban characters you would skip anyway, but you don't get to use those characters either. The idea being players could dictate what their experience looks like without hindering others from playing what they want. Penalties could work too, to encourage diversity, but they might need to be based on more than damage. Kang, for example, could still send enemies away no matter how his damage is reduced. A banlist like that would be ripe for exploitation. Take...me, for example. Under normal conditions the game only shows me very high level opponents. If I chose to ban Chasm or Hulk, that'd rule out basically anyone that has a high level roster. But the game has to give me somebody to fight! So, when I started (at 0 points), matchmaking would show me much weaker teams, for very high points. When I climbed to, say, 800 or 1000 points, there would be no one at all to show me that had a similar score -- everyone with a score in that range is using Chasm. So, I could strategically activate or deactivate the ban to make playing as easy as possible at any given time. Another use of such a banlist would be to target individual players repeatedly, by banning every team except the one I know they're using. I don't mean to be so down on innovative ideas. PvP is extremely weird right now, with tons of bizarre mechanics that don't make sense. But there is a reason that every single one of those bizarre mechanics exists, and the reason is almost always "high end players exploited something, so we had to do this." This is why I'm terrified of this new group messing with matchmaking -- matchmaking is bizarre because it's been patched and fixed over time, and undoing those seemingly-nonsensical fixes will lead to those exploits coming back immediately. You're good...I actually considered matchmaking could be thrown off wildly based on who you banned as I was writing it, I just don't have any other ideas that wouldn't cause other problems. I hadn't considered changing ban list at all though...I was thinking once you set something for an event, that's what you're stuck with. Still hoping someone has a better idea that works. I've been breaking PvP for 10 years now! If you were locked into a particular banlist for an entire event, you'd easily be able to lock yourself out of playing the game at all. It's the same problem when people ask "why do I have to skip the same players over and over again -- why can't skips be permanent?" The reason you see the same players over and over is that the game has nobody else to give you at that point (more likely, the problem is that the game has nobody worth points to give you, but it's the same thing). So if you're in a loop where you get the same 3 or 4 players for 40 points over and over, and you "perma-skip" those players, the game will start giving you 5-point matches instead, because it has to give you something, and there's nothing worthwhile available right then.
Perhaps the best fix for PVP is character balance then.
For PvP I wonder how it would affect things if at the beginning of the event event you chose
Placement bracket No placement bracket
For the placement bracket the events could run as they are today with full progression rewards and placement rewards.
For non placement brackets eliminate points completely, reduce the wins needed for progression and eliminate that persons placement rewards.
@Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though?
@Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing.
After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too.
The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7.
Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot.
@Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0.
I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model.
@dxanders said: @Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0. I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model.
@dxanders said:
You would also lose the complete player base because you won't be able to bring over your current status.
@Bowgentle said: @dxanders said: @Borstock said: My pitch would be MPQ 2.0. I concur with that actually. It sounds like they're building on a rickety and barely comprehensible black box (which is not at all unexpected for a decade old code base!). Even if it meant cutting back on updates of the current version and additional hiring, I'd definitely recommend a pivot to a 2.0 rebuild or an outright sequel. Combining 10 years of character releases and new additions like affiliations in a new engine would definitely inject a lot of new life into things - and you could make sweeping changes that deemphasize the "clear nodes with the same meta team as quickly as possible" model. You would also lose the complete player base because you won't be able to bring over your current status.
@Bowgentle said:
Yeah, game sequels are never played by the same players who played the first game, and are always financial failures.
🙄
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot.
How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion?
@Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion?
Like the Prologue?
@entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue?
Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue.
Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes.
Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed.
A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization.
@Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: @entrailbucket said: @Blackstone said: I had no idea swapping alliances was even a thing. I did the line thing for a while but left that I'm favor of making an alliance where new players join and I try to help them with their rosters until they move on. But I think that's why these conversations are helpful. Getting insights from players at different levels with different goals. PVP looks to be a difficult thing to improve without upsetting one group or another though. Maybe PVE still has an answer though? After ruining everyone's dreams in PvP...sure, I'll go ahead and ruin PvE too. The problem with PvE is placement. Somebody has to win, so they have to figure out what matters for winning. They've chosen strategy + speed, so the winner is whoever can execute the optimal strategy fastest. There are other options, but most of them are worse for us. For a time (the Tapping Era), PvE winners were the ones who played the most, which became problematic as winners started playing almost literally 24/7. Now, they could fix this by removing placement rewards and going progression-only, but there's a problem there too. They aren't going to give out 1st place rewards to everyone. If they got rid of placement rewards, you'd likely see progression rewards increased, but not to the same level that PvE winners currently get. This means that people who currently place well in PvE lose out, and probably lose quite a lot. How would a campaign mode that rewards based on milestones within the mode, separate from the PVE placement events, work in your opinion? Like the Prologue? Kind of. Except you can't keep playing the prologue. Just something that's always there and available to play without affecting placement in other modes. Could have different levels of play, and people could try nonmetal teams without affecting their completion speed in events that need speed. A playground with milestones so you get something out of it without being tied to optimization.
Yeah...the problem there becomes the amount of developer effort required. They can't just spin up another Prologue-sized event once a month (or even once a year) because they don't have the capacity for it.
Allowing us to reset the prologue, with increased scaling and better rewards, would probably be relatively simple. But someone would have to lay out each pass, and we'd be unlikely to get infinite passes on it.