Pants1000 said: PVP can be tough for anyone with a lopsided roster. Even in 5* land, today the people with multiple champed 5’s (but no Gambit) are struggling.My advice:Keep the DD, but don’t level him any more.Focus on PVE, and try for 575 in PVP. In PVP use DD and your best boosted 3. Spend your CP on classics for now. You’ll get more 4’s, and covers for the classic 5’s that you’ll want when you’re ready for CL7 PVE.I think if you do that, before long you’ll have some level 200+ 3’s, you’ll be starting to champ some 4’s, and then your 5’s won’t affect your PVP MMR anymore.
MacEifer said: Pants1000 said: PVP can be tough for anyone with a lopsided roster. Even in 5* land, today the people with multiple champed 5’s (but no Gambit) are struggling.My advice:Keep the DD, but don’t level him any more.Focus on PVE, and try for 575 in PVP. In PVP use DD and your best boosted 3. Spend your CP on classics for now. You’ll get more 4’s, and covers for the classic 5’s that you’ll want when you’re ready for CL7 PVE.I think if you do that, before long you’ll have some level 200+ 3’s, you’ll be starting to champ some 4’s, and then your 5’s won’t affect your PVP MMR anymore. The problem at this point is tat my best bet on covering DD now is to keep pulling LL until he leaves LL and hope to get him to 13 covers while I could still swap his yellow. After that I'm not sure if I should hoard or not, I'll make that dependant on the amount of Gambit I get before they cycle LL. I might just now be stuck in a loop of being forced to pull LL or be stuck with a wealth of useless 5* covers that will die on the vine. I don't have the roster slots to go wide in 5* and I don't think it's effective to use my HP that way at this stage.The only alternative would be to wait for DD's Heroes for hire to come up once he goes to classic, but obviously I need the CP more for 4*s right now. Either way, there is no clear path out of this hole that doesn't involve some sort of significant loss in resources.
Bowgentle said: MacEifer said: I'm not some statistical outlier Yes.Yes, you are.Usually people only get that amount of 5* covers from champ rewards.Your roster is one of the weirdest outliers I have ever seen, and I've been playing for over 4 years.
MacEifer said: I'm not some statistical outlier
MacEifer said: Bowgentle said: MacEifer said: I'm not some statistical outlier Yes.Yes, you are.Usually people only get that amount of 5* covers from champ rewards.Your roster is one of the weirdest outliers I have ever seen, and I've been playing for over 4 years. Sorry, the math clearly disagrees with you.I have a slightly higher amount of 5*s for the amount of LLs I have pulled.On average the covers I pulled would have gone a bit more to spiderman and less to DD. I pulled the majority before Thor went to rotation. DD now is overrepresented by about +3 or +4 covers, which out of a pool of 4 choices, one of which is underrepresented due to the roster shift, is 1, maybe 2 covers outside standard deviation. If my LL pulls between DD / Gambit / Spidey were 7/7/6 instead of 11/7/2, nobody would bat an eye.RNGs don't spread out according to median, they generate clusters. I'm not a statistical outlier based on the math. You can't say I'm not a statistical outlier based on the rosters you've seen because all things considered, you would have very little incentive to look at the roster of a guy who can't play competitive PvP in the current system.Please don't think I don't appreciate the input, but I spent the last 9 years of my life explaining random number generation and the morphology of expectation vs reality of random reward systems to people who have a practical but not a formal understanding of the underlying mechanics and the assumption you could view and assess enough rosters from memory to make a statistically meaningful assumption doesn't quite apply.My roster is entirely in order in every meaningful way you can look at randomised reward generation given the nature of the mechanics with which this game creates them. The problem isn't that I have this roster but what happens to people who do and how they got there and what D3 needs to do to fix that.
The rockett said: Well, you could buy a Stark and get more roster slots. This will set you up for a bit.
MacEifer said: The rockett said: Well, you could buy a Stark and get more roster slots. This will set you up for a bit. I'm already 4 starks and as many VIPs in, I'm sure I deserve some kind of break with the spending.
The rockett said: MacEifer said: The rockett said: Well, you could buy a Stark and get more roster slots. This will set you up for a bit. I'm already 4 starks and as many VIPs in, I'm sure I deserve some kind of break with the spending. What are your 3* like? Everybody that I have shared this with are all scratching their heads looking at the 5 Vs 4.
shartattack said: The whole thing is just about different perspectives:some people think doing a 3 hop to hit a reward is exciting vs some people find that stressfulsome people like the idea of progressing your roster over time vs some people want access to most of the rewards early in their gameplaysome people want a game that requires strategy and tactics vs some people want a game to play on the toilet at worksome people want to make pvp a linear progression system vs some people realize that game mode exists already in pvethat being said, top level pve is way way more hardcore than top level pvp. I am a professional adult with 3 kids. I can do a hop while drinking my morning coffee, while on lunch break, on the toilet ( the "plop hop"), and throughout the evening. 7 minutes at a time every few hours. I have t5 in pvp many times.Top level pve is 2-3 hours straight at the same time every day. For 3-7 days straight. Not even including tapping. I have t10 1 time, over the summer, for fantastic covers in a later bracket. Those people are way more hardcore, and no one is trying to drastically make pve more casual.
sirwookieechris said: I don’t understand people saying OP is just unlucky because he got too many DD covers. If the system penalizes you for playing, doesn’t that mean it is inherently broken? Isn’t that why so many 5* rosters complained about scaling pve? They didn’t want to be punished for having a deep, high leveled roster? What makes pvp any different? Anyone who thinks pvp is fine as is obviously is blinded by the fact it works for them and they don’t like change.
alaeth said: sirwookieechris said: I don’t understand people saying OP is just unlucky because he got too many DD covers. If the system penalizes you for playing, doesn’t that mean it is inherently broken? Isn’t that why so many 5* rosters complained about scaling pve? They didn’t want to be punished for having a deep, high leveled roster? What makes pvp any different? Anyone who thinks pvp is fine as is obviously is blinded by the fact it works for them and they don’t like change. I think it's a lot more along the lines of "we're past that" (hundreds of days past that)... and most of us - myself included - can't recall the challenges. I can remember my first max 4* character... Iron Man. Back in the days when "Jean Buster" was king of PvP. Sure it changed my PvP play, but I knew that going in (having received great feedback and advice on whether to spend *hero points* to finish him).The problem newer players face (like OP) is two-fold...1. New players aren't getting the same level of involvement and feedback from alliance-mates as we "vets" did... we all started out (roughly) the same time, so our rosters grew at roughly the same pace.2. The game hasn't changed *enough*. The changes are focusing on the end players - those folks willing to drop hundreds (if not thousands) in the Christmas sale that's ongoing. OP's roster is a perfect example... the rewards structure is geared towards us, and not those people starting out... and so MMR completely "breaks" the playing experience.I would argue a newer player shouldn't even have the possibility of pulling a 5* cover until they have a championed 4...ORThe method of match-making in PvP needs to lock out those 5s in the lower ranks... Say... below 7...? PvE has already been tweaked - by applying fixed levels and caps based on SCL. The same needs to be done for PvP (by restricting the player's available roster...?)
MacEifer said: Funny, that wouldn't happen in the proposed system. Just saying...