DAZ0273 said: How do you account for boosts in that system? For example if a player has a 450 baby champed character boosted that week to 550 but attacks a 450 non boosted character what points do they get? Bear in mind that MMR has matched them together and sees no discernable difference. If you get less points then you are being punished for boosts which you can't deactivate or disregard.
JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: How do you account for boosts in that system? For example if a player has a 450 baby champed character boosted that week to 550 but attacks a 450 non boosted character what points do they get? Bear in mind that MMR has matched them together and sees no discernable difference. If you get less points then you are being punished for boosts which you can't deactivate or disregard. But you are getting the benefit of boosted characters to use so punching up is more of an option? Maybe whatever way they would theoretically figure out the points value is strictly determined by the actual team being used/seen and not the avg top three of the player’s overall roster …
HoundofShadow said: What if I paired level 550 Okoye with level 70 Polaris and a level 70(?) 3* loaner? My average level would become 230. If I use them to beat two level 572 5* and one 412 3*, their average level woukd be 518. How much points do you think I deserve to get for beating them?
DAZ0273 said: I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation?
JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation? Why would you need to ban those team ups ?
DAZ0273 said: JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation? Why would you need to ban those team ups ? Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics?
JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation? Why would you need to ban those team ups ? Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics? But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits. Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast.
DAZ0273 said: JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation? Why would you need to ban those team ups ? Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics? But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits. Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast. How is that any different to the situation now when some 4* player uses Polaris stun to hit above their weight? The Retal is always very easy. Your system also doesn't really detail how many points are lost by the defeated team because in the current system there is a maths equation that works that out relative to point difference between players and based upon certain thresholds?
JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: JRYUART said: DAZ0273 said: I assume we would be banning all stun team-ups and Whales, Whales, Whales in this situation? Why would you need to ban those team ups ? Because any high level player (and low too) could use them to score high points wins with underpowered teams? At present you have to find those high point targets. Under this scheme they would be wildly available and open to these simple tactics? But those teams are not defensive powerhouses so they’d be leaving themselves open to multiple hits. Also, whale points are limited, and using sting TU’s every single match is not guaranteed, nor fast. How is that any different to the situation now when some 4* player uses Polaris stun to hit above their weight? The Retal is always very easy. Your system also doesn't really detail how many points are lost by the defeated team because in the current system there is a maths equation that works that out relative to point difference between players and based upon certain thresholds? My suggestion was a broad concept of how to revamp pvp scoring so obviously the way that MMR and points work now wouldn’t be applied to a system that was based on opponent difficulty relative to your own. The way that points are figured and the way the current MMR works are long overdue for an improvement . I didn’t work out the entire point system down to the T , just suggested that MMR be based on opponent roster strength, rather than what their score is currently in the event. You think that the current system where unintended elements such as cupcakes or qhell/clog are ok as-is? It’s time for a change.
Zalasta said: If your talking QoL improvements, there's a couple that I'd like to see.1. Ability for commanders to set minimum shield rank to join alliance. This would help me avoid having to kick all of the 30 character newb accounts that join our opening(s).2. I also would like to have commanders be able to set an alliance description. This would help people searching for alliances to know what the alliance requirements are before joining.3. In character info, add a line indicating any characters that are feeders for that character. This would be similar to the "affiliations" line in the character description.4. OP mentioned additional favorite team slots, and I agree. But I'll throw a bone to the devs and say that additional slots should cost HP like roster slots do, and they should get progressively more expensive. They're in this to make money after all, and we all like to support this game.5. Better filtering on team selection. There were some improvements made in this area, but more could be done. If you select an essential character (say Hawkeye), the selection should only show you all of the Hawkeyes, with the rest of the characters crossed out. Default to the highest cover or highest level Hawkeye.
Godzillafan67 said: To add to #4, I’d like the lineup to be a per power instead of just a per character listing. Why have a dupe Deadpool just to send Whales when you can select the purple power DP from the list? Want to send Riri’s 2nd or 3rd power but don’t have the requisite dupe? Not a problem any longer. This way, they can also remove specific powers from the list instead of leaving out characters entirely.
JRYUART said: I would like to suggest for PVP that points values for qs be determined by the relative difficulty of the opposing team and not based on an arcane formula that takes into account your current accumlated score. If you face a dual 550 team, you get more points. If you face a grill team, you get almost nothing . This way, you are actually appropriately rewarded for the challenge relative to the team you defeat. There would be less incentive for bigs to hit smalls, and incentive for smalls to actively build up their rosters to hit bigs. Hitting an opponent of equivalent roster strength would be set at a fixed amount of points, regardless of roster strength. For example: 550 x 550 = 50 pts. 270 x 270 = 50 pts. 270 x 550 and winning ? 75 pts. 550 x 270 and winning ? 25 pts. You get the gist.