new idea for PVP

Marvel Puzzle Quest MPQ General Discussion
1

So, we know that everyone hates the PvP scoring mainly because of the “I get hit eleventy-billion times in the time it takes me to do one match” bug… er, I mean “feature” of PvP

We also know that win-based PvP went over like a lead balloon because they changed the progression rewards to make even the most basic ones unobtainable for most of the player base.

I have a modest new proposal:

  • Keep the current PvP scoring systems (i.e.: based on the difference in scores, not a “1 win = 1 point” system) and progression/placement awards
  • Wins when attacking usually gain the same amount of points as before (see below)
  • Losses when attacking still lose the same amount of points as before.
  • Wins when defending still gain the same as before
  • Losses when defending do NOT lose points…
  • However, a loss while defending places a 4 hour “debt clock” on your team (extending the debt clock by 4 more hours if you already have time on it)
  • Winning a PvP match while having a debt clock reduces the clock timer by 8 hours but does not gain points.

If your team has a debt clock, you cannot gain points for winning. You will need to win a matches to reduce the debt clock, apply a shield, or let it expire before you can start gaining points again. This softens the blow from multiple defending defeats while attacking (you don’t lose your points or progression towards the next reward), however it still discourages players from putting out low-level characters to feed Line/Alliance friends.

It basically keeps the same rewards/punishments for active play, has roughly the same drawbacks for passive play (it takes on average 1 good attack win to make up for point loss of 2 defensive losses), yet also allows for players to “rest off” the defensive losses if they happen early enough in the event. It doesn’t carry that same dread that comes from trying to get that one last win to get to 575, 650, 900, or 1200 points, only to come out of the battle and see “you have been defeated by 6 players for -200 points”.

Shields would still work to protect against getting debt marks instead of point loss, so shield hopping would still be there for the ultra-competitive players, yet the casual player can feel ok about getting hit or trying to build up points early, instead of just the last 3 hours of an event. A player who is at the end of an event (or just wants to keep grinding) can buy a shield to erase their debt clock, then immediately break it to keep attacking and gaining points.

This is something I’ve been toying around in my head for a few days. It’s not perfect and feedback and suggestions are welcome.

2

I’ve been thinking that a good solution might be if you treat each level of progression as the new bottom floor for point loss. So just point based as it works now, except you can’t get knocked back beyond the previous point threshold you achieved. Maybe not even every level, but basically solidify the “floating point” everybody seems to find by accident as more of a checkpoint system as you progress.

3

I would be on board with either of these options.

4

I don’t see how win-based made rewards unobtainable, more time sink, sure…but far from unobtainable.

I’ll simply PVP further, milestones. Every 200 points you hit a milestone where your score won’t drop below that point, but in between you can lose points.

5

So you just hit a few seals while out and are immune to sniping?

6

Bring on 4 star pvp

So 50-60 of them we have get off the bench once a year at least

7

Technically, they put the 15cp into placement, and according to some, that was the major gripe.

Personally, i wouldn’t mind them changing it up a little, regardless of how it would impact me in the short run. I said as much during wins based, i would rather they find a middle ground that gets more people playing, and thus help extend the life of the game.

8

I agree that the pvp issue was two-fold. It appeared that a lot of the complaints were about the lack of cp in progression. So while there was a large amount of dislike towards the new pvp, how much was towards win based and how much was towards reward changes?

I like the idea of not being able to fall beneath the previous reward. Something to make that last bit of climb from 700 to 900 or 1200 less painful. Even something as simple as counting progression points and placement points sperately. Loses subtract from placement only.

9

PVP for cl9 should reward top 25 with a 4* instead of top 10. When they revised pve scl9 they made it top 50 get a 4* for every 1000 person bracket. But choose for pvp with 500 people get only top 10. skimped on equal rewards for scl9 pvp players. just saying

10

PVE usually costs more time/ runs longer, so i get the difference in rewards

11

So you could grief people into perpetual debt clock, that would go over GREAT

12

Game should accept wins OR points.

So you can hit the 4* reward with 900 points OR 40 wins (whatever the number was, I don’t remember).

Eliminates the complaints about points based taking too many matches. Eliminates the complaints about getting smashed too much to be able to progress.

13

I think the main challenge about PvP is the MMR.
Currently, the opponents that you meet are likely to be based on the level of your top x characters in your roster, your PvP points and maybe the number of covers you have for your characters.

For players in 2* land, they are meeting opponents using 5* with a couple of covers. Typically, the 5* are level 255 or 270. Thus, players in 2* land without 5* will find themselves at a great disadvantage when defending against that group of players with 5*. The two main reasons are due to 5*'s match damage and the relatively high health compared to 2*.

I’m in 3* land now, with about 5 champed at around level 170. I think 3* land is quite balanced, based on my experience. I’m still seeing teams with 5* and whatever combination except that they have more covers (on average 2-4 covers).

I think that preventing players in 2* land (and maybe 3* land) from using 5* in only PvP/S.H.I.E.LD training could be fairer to those in 2* land and maybe those transitioning to 3*. Players in these particular group can start using 5* in PvP when they have three champed 3* at level 200?

The real challenge starts once you, regardless of whether you are in 2* or transitioning to 3*, hit a certain number of points in PvP. Based on my experience, it’s around 750. You will be exposed to other players with similar points with much more stronger characters than you. I find myself getting hit by 4* champed boosted when i hit this range.

There could be some kind of mechanics to dissuade players from picking on players who has rosters 2 or 3 times weaker than theirs. It could be reducing the number of points that they gained to between 10 to 20 points regardless of their points difference.

For example, if players with 2 champed 4* boosted and high leveled champed essential characters with 750 points won a match against characters with champed 2* or 2* transitioning to 3* with 750 points will get between 10 to 20 points. So when that defending players lose, they will lose 10 to 20 points instead of 40 or 50 points. Vice versa, if they (2* or 3*) challenged players with those 4* champed instead, then they can get 1.5 to 2* the points. This can be seen as an incentive for players who want to challenge themselves. Using mega whales to win the match against those 4* players would mot entitle them to 1.5-2* the points.

I think coding-wise, it could be quite intensive to calculate the number of covers, level difference and roster strength of x number of characters in real time. I think two issues are the usage of 5* in 2* and those transitioning to 3* and players with much weaker rosters getting picked on by much stronger rosters.

14

The problems with MMR for lower rosters are normally caused by over levelling low covered 5* or by weekly boosts. The fact that you can level a 5* cover as soon as received to lvl 270 is a bit of a too good to be resisted lure for low level players and probably should be addressed. If you have 2 champed boosted 3* and a lvl 270 1 cover 5* then you are in 4* Champion range any given week whether you use that 5* or not. And even 2* can boost to within non levelled 5* range. I will very rarely see a team that is propped up with a max champed boosted 2* on it but it does happen. And of course, even 5* boost now so that could raise your MMR even higher beyond what you can cope with.

During one of the many PvP discussion threads (or possibly it was a pre-SCL PvE thread), somebody had the idea of having the option of locking out 5* characters so that they did not count towards MMR/Scaling and this would even out more which sounded like a reasonable compromise for players with their rosters screwing up the game for them unintentionally.

15

This game really does a very poor job of introducing players to PVP. Players should absolutely be warned in-game that matchmaking is based on your highest level characters anywhere in your roster rather than who you bring to a specific match. I would love to know how many players go into PVP and come out saying “whoah, that is NOT for me!” and never play it again because its such a mystery box with no tips or instructions anywhere besides “Hey, get better rewards by doing the thing!”

16

No. It means that you get some people up high at the beginning of an event, and then they can just be perpetual targets for the whole shard to raise their scores on.

If there were a “milestone” every 200 points where you can’t lose points, or even at the end of progression, I think you would see a couple of things.

  1. People who can climb to 1200 without using a shield would simply never use one

  2. Scores would go insane. Imagine someone gets to 3000 points and their score can’t drop below that. The whole shard can just climb off that guy to astronomical point totals. Milestones that hold every 200 points would fairly quickly result in 10,000 point event scores using no shields.

  3. It would be hilarious.

17

I would post… but I’ll get banned.

The only flaw I see in PvP is MMR is still broken. I can be queued and hit all day by a 550 roster, but I cannot queue them until I’ve completely broken through MMR (and see 2* teams).

This allows point suppression by huge roster teams, with no reasonable ability to counter.

I would assume (guess?) that the same exists for 4*, 3*, and 2* rosters. You can see “below”, but MMR hides “above” until there’s virtually nothing useful to hit.

I think this is the issue that needs to be tweaked still… progress with SHIELD Rank, and SHEILD Clearance Level have helped, but once you pass ~800 points, you’re still visible to “everyone”, but without the ability to see rosters substantially above your (perceived) strength.

What we need is a better MMR scoring… a better matching algorithm…

If I can take-down dual 550s, shouldn’t I be allowed to see them?!

It’s on ME for attacking them!

And conversely, if I consistently wipe to them, my MMR should slowly reduce the chance to see them to near zero.

As it stands right now (this minute)… I am within 20 points of someone I want to target, but cannot because the game thinks that opponent is too hard for me. So I hop, get the red from them, and then bracket snipe them weh they’re above me… I have queued then ONCE this entire event… and only after I was seeing 2* “seals”

18

Or stop milestones after after 1000. They’d still have to shield eventually. Other than the 15cp, the main gripe has always been the knock down of points from 800 to 900. Getting the 4 star easier is the main focus for all but the top tier players.

19

Just have it so when you open MPQ you automatically get the 4* cover. Ultimate goal of these PvP ideas is to make sure the 4* cannot be missed in anyway.

20

I was reading this and the whole “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” progression comes to mind. Like, there are certain tiers that cannot be drawn below the threshhold once achieved.
Or perhaps more like “Weakest Link” where one “banks” their points each time they shield?

I dunno, spitballing here…