Ebichu said: Ok here is why pvp is broken..my event is about to end, my roster is mostly 3* champs Anyway that would be ok if the first wasn't a freaking full 5* champion roster (484 gambit anyone?), second isn't that far behind, 4* champs and so onSo basically playing pvp in this game, no matter how hard you try is like playing world of tanks with your tier 5 tank in a tier X battle, pointless at best..
Time for a lesson in basic MPQ math I Think.
The maximum Points a fight can be Worth is 75, if the opponent has a much higher score than you. A player that has approximately the same Points as you will be Worth 38 Points.
What this means in practice is that if you cannot find any decent fights worth more than 40 Points, it is very likely that you are one of the highest Point targets around and lots of people below you will want to hit you. Trying to make progress on 25 Points fights is an exercise in futility because you will lose Points faster than you can gain them. When the good targets run out it is time to shield up and look for better targets while shielded. The other option is to accept you got as far as you could and let those below you drain you.
OK, I will try again to explain why set Points are a bad idea: It means that whoever plays the most, wins. Doesn't matter against who, if I get 50 Points beating up a low level player you better Believe I will do that as often as I can. (Incidentally, that is what happened during wins based PvP...)
You may not like Shields, but they add Points to the slice and make it easier for people to reach progression rewards. There is a risk/reward ratio to consider though since you cannot stay out for too long - if you get hit you may lose more than you gained. Setting a fixed Point value for wins and losses means you can keep playing - as long as you can do two wins faster than others can hit you five times you you will keep earning Points. If you can get high enough to break MMR and get matched with one- and twostar teams that is not difficult at all. The top end would just run away with a change like that, with people logging thousands of Points in a single event with little difficulty. Points would rise dramatically, and presumably the progression rewards would be adjusted accordingly since the devs do not want everyone getting all the progression rewards - it is supposed to be difficult.
In some cases the rating system can discourage game activity for players who wish to protect their rating.In order to discourage players from sitting on a high rating, a 2012 proposal by British Grandmaster John Nunn for choosing qualifiers to the chess world championship included an activity bonus, to be combined with the rating.
Beyond the chess world, concerns over players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings caused Wizards of the Coast to abandon the Elo system for Magic: the Gathering tournaments in favour of a system of their own devising called "Planeswalker Points"
Therefore, Elo ratings online still provide a useful mechanism for providing a rating based on the opponent's rating. Its overall credibility, however, needs to be seen in the context of at least the above two major issues described — engine abuse, and selective pairing of opponents.A more subtle issue is related to pairing. When players can choose their own opponents, they can choose opponents with minimal risk of losing, and maximum reward for winning. Particular examples of 2800+ rated players choosing opponents with minimal risk and maximum possibility of rating gain include: choosing computers that they know they can beat with a certain strategy; choosing opponents that they think are overrated; or avoiding playing strong players who are rated several hundred points below them, but may hold chess titles such as IM or GM. In the category of choosing overrated opponents, new-entrants to the rating system who have played fewer than 50 games are in theory a convenient target as they may be overrated in their provisional rating. The ICC compensates for this issue by assigning a lower K-factor to the established player if they do win against a new rating entrant. The K-factor is actually a function of the number of rated games played by the new entrant.
The ICC has also recently introduced "auto-pairing" ratings which are based on random pairings, but with each win in a row ensuring a statistically much harder opponent who has also won x games in a row. With potentially hundreds of players involved, this creates some of the challenges of a major large Swiss event which is being fiercely contested, with round winners meeting round winners. This approach to pairing certainly maximizes the rating risk of the higher-rated participants, who may face very stiff opposition from players below 3000, for example. This is a separate rating in itself, and is under "1-minute" and "5-minute" rating categories. Maximum ratings achieved over 2500 are exceptionally rare.
Flydecoder said: Smart 80... congratulations... you like.shield hopping. Here...Have a cookieHow is the suggestion of getting 50 for a.win and 20 for a.loss a bad suggestionYou would end up staying out and playing longer... and you would still shield hop.. It would just allow for more.game.playShield hoppimg currently doesnt support playing and is only frustrating to those activelt working their way up.
Flydecoder said: OK, but right now we are in a world of overpowered bullies... players who have 2 5star champs who can cut through you INCREDIBLY fast, and are too tough to retaliate against...If they would limit attacks to one at a time that would be okay but they have said that is not possible.If they kept things the same BUT reduced how much you could lose per hit by half or more, then that would help...Or perhaps they could change MMR so that you only fight players using the same number of stars as you... so 2x5 star play 2x 5star, 2 x 4 star play 2x 4star... i just think you should be able to play... attacks should slow your ascent, but you should not be going backwards while battling forwards
That's the thing though: Your suggestion would make this problem infinitely worse.
The game's MMR does a fairly good job of only matching you with players with a similar roster strength, but at certain Points it breaks down and lets you queue much stronger or much weaker teams. This happens when you climb a bit too high and higher level players below or around your level can queue you. Since you are an easy fight Worth a decent amount of Points, of course they are going to attack you. (You wouldn't skip an easy opponent Worth a decent amount of Points, would you?). That's when you need to shield hop if you want to progress further, or at least wait until the slice builds up more Points (shielding while waiting is recommended).
The other Point where MMR breaks down is when you get high above the rest of the slice, when you are matched against much weaker teams. They are only Worth a handful of Points though, so it's not really Worth starting a fight for the high level player - why risk losing 75 Points in order to gain 5 Points? If any win was Worth 50 Points though... Well, why wouldn't you start a fight against the easiest team you can find? Just keep squashing the low level players for 50 Points a pop!
I suppose the hits wouldn't sting as much, but there would definitely be a lot more of them.
In a way, you could say a system like this would introduce tapping to PvP... whoever can play the most trivial matches ends up winning.
Flydecoder said: OK, but right now we are in a world of overpowered bullies...
//Removed MTGPQ Reply -Brigby
Flydecoder said: When the game is called PvP as in Player vs Player but the best strategy is to play seldomly and shield much, the game is seriously brokenalso the top reward is out of reach... when you factor in that top PvE award is available if you complete 5of6 per node... why cannot more hit 1200?to fix this give 50 points per win and lose 20 per loss... thats it... people will still play for top rank and D3 will make more money from Health pack purchases.that would solve the ridiculous over strategizing that prevents people from actually playing a game that they love... people will still shield but climbs will be more fun than stressful and people might recommend the game more openly too.