Whether you’re someone who already plays PvP or someone who avoids it completely, what would you like to see adjusted or improved?
Would boosting 5*s make it worse? If sheild prices were adjusted would that help?
I’m consistently able to hit the 1200 prog, but finding that to not really pay off in placement like some might think. Also watching people hit 3k or even 4k or more in a single event is both perplexing and disheartening. Is it all coordination? I can’t be bothered with Line or Discord, so does that just limit my ability to score in an event? Should it?
Is there an answer? Or am I just waiting for an overhaul of some kind?
I say I, but I don’t think I’m the only one not feeling PvP these days.
I always thought a star cap method would be fun. With allowance for teams smaller than 3.
For example: if the next PvP had a star cap of 10, you could use two 3* characters and a 4*, or two 4s and a 2… Or even just two 5*s.
This could change things up drastically… And it could be easily changed for other PvPs by just changing the star cap. Maybe the next one would allow only 9* total…
I like it. I think things like this should happen regularly and each PVP should be little different. Different flavors of PVPs would make it far more interesting. The idea of just changing the character that is in the middle every 3 days is boring.
I wish MMR took into account the chosen SCL. Even (/especially) if it locked out characters above a certain level, I’d love the choice to play with more of my roster from time to time.
DIfferent characters banned for the week, a meta change, better incentives to actually playing the PVP side. PVP ranks and progression should award some Support tokens, because lord it is far and few between those things. Most importantly a meta change, im really tired of the Gritty & Bishop Trio.
I think trying to make PVP appeal to everyone, from beginners to vets who have been playing for many years is a complex problem to solve, and the iterations it would take to find a happy medium would likely upset many people along the way. So in general I’m not in favor of sweeping changes because they generally don’t go well, even though there are things I would like to change for me personally.
However, there are some things completely within their control: get rid of the ThorKoye meta. It’s incredibly boring and repetitive now. Fun the first several months, stale the next several months, and a year later it’s downright boring now.
The meta could be changed without changing Kitty, Okoye, or Thor.
The rules of PVP each event could be different. A few ideas were already listed in this thread. Here are some more:
Strikes are nerfed PVP
Massively boosted 1 stars PVP, must include just one 1 star but all are boosted
One Limited required PVP
Inverse Order PVP: 1’s are most powerful, 5’s are weakest
Stuns are halved PVP
Only 1 5 star PVP
A 5 star and 2 3 stars PVP
Mano a mano PVP, just bring one character. No boosted.
Start with Shields PVP, each team starts with 8 shields on the board.
Supports PVP, supports are allowed
The PVP’s that vary only by changing the middle toon and the boost list make things boring and force a meta. If the rules of PVP’s regularly changed, the meta wouldn’t fit all the events. Since PVP’s are only a few days long, why not change things up and see.
I’m not sure you actually read my post, and I certainly read everything before mine. All of your suggestions fundamentally change the way PVP is played, and will upset significant portions of the player base. For example, I don’t like any of those ideas.
I understand your point of view. I just hate nerfs, which is the usual way of changing the meta. It takes me a long time focussing on getting a character to where I want it (months and years.) Then the nerf hammer comes out.
I was able to make Okoye my first champed 5, but have been unlucky on Kitty pulls. 15 more Valkyrie covers and I’ll finally be able to champ Thor. I’d be so upset if I finally get Thor championed and then Thorkoye is nerfed. Those that champed Kitty would also be upset if she is nerfed.
That’s why I think varied events such as the ones I suggested would be preferable to outright nerfs. The game is really about investing in your roster and using it, the current setup limits the use of the roster. How cool would it be to finally have an event where your favorite toon could finally shine because it fits the meta for the next event.
In the Thorkoye meta, I think Okoye is the real problem, not Thor. Difficult to know how to nerf her though. I guess you could change her healing to burst team healing maybe which would screw up half health Thor’s auto AP generation and also mean she isn’t health pack proof.
I’m not suggesting a nerf either. I don’t like them anymore than the next player. I do support them when they release a broken character, however.
You can change the meta by releasing new toons that effectively counter the current meta or improve upon it in some way. I think they have tried with toons like Hela (potentially dangerous to Thor) and Storm (who can remove TU’s from the board) but it’s not enough. Maybe they’l keep trying. Iceman looks like another attempt to threaten Thor who’s hiding behind the battlefield, and could be a good partner for Okoye, but “works well with Okoye” can be applied to nearly every toon in the game.
That just brings it back to the basic assumption about pvp: the number of people happy with the current way is greater than the number of people who are unhappy. No one really knows either of those numbers, so neither side can truly claim a “significant portion” of the playerbase will react a particular way.
Now, my opinion, based on years and years on the forum, is that a lot of people are not a fan of pvp. It isn’t as bad as it was before wins based, but i would still wager it outnumbers the fans. That said, I also think the more hard core high end pvp players are also more likely to be spenders (again, just an assumption).
This conversation, like most others on here, is just a thought experiment. This game rarely makes any changes, even rarer still is a change based on player suggestions.
That’s why I favor the suggestions I put out. Still keep the PVP as it is now for some events, but vary the rules every other event or so just for fun. It stinks that they put all of the characters in this game, you chase them, fully cover them, champ them, and then never use them.
The only thing I don’t like about PvP, in general, is that you can literally play and win 200 matches, go 200 wins and 0 losses, and not even finish top 100 if you time it improperly and don’t shield. I understand that they want you to use shields. I understand that there’s a purpose to the way this thing is built. But it will always be profoundly stupid to me that limitless domination has almost no reward when it comes to placement.
What do you mean by synchronous multiplayer? As someone who played lots of xbox arcade live games, and still plays lots of COD. You need a playerbase in the millions to support true live multiplayer.
Even with COD, regions like Australia, and SA suffer from low population counts and long wait times for matchmaking.
Even the biggest MPQ battle chats rarely have more than 50 live players monitoring at one time, and these are the dedicated consistent players. I have serious doubts that mpq ever has more than 1000 simultaneous matches at any one time
I too doubt the player base could support such a thing, i’m just curious what it would be like to play head to head. hearthstone is a mobile game with truly opposed pvp, there is a move-clock on each player’s turn where if you take too long to do something (or drop out), you forfeit the match.