Marvel Puzzle Quest is probably the best example of a toxic play environment and frustration generator. Sure, it has its audience but it’s safe to assume whoever likes being pummeled every few hours and treat a game like day job is already playing there while other M3 lovers seek different pastures, ie. come here.
One of the fundamental design points in MPQ is to PUNISH more developed players and allow low levels so rise on leaderboards, and to do that with way less effort and at more convenience.
From the other forum posts it seem we have at least one element implemented from the same recipe: high level players get less points for playing the same games. So need to play more games for the same results.
That should not be the case.
Yeah, the ‘rich gets richer’ (along with P2W) is an easy target for bashing, but the alternative is much worse. A better roster, more developed state, fruits of one’s efforts should not be punishment in further development and source of frustration.
Yep - we’ll be adjusting that over the next week or two, because obviously it’s not fair.
We knew it would be out by a bit, but we need to gather 1-2 week’s play data before we make adjustments to the point values for wins.
It’s not “the same games” unless both sides are the same. Since low level players usually can’t field the same teams and lack other things such as kingdom bonuses, you should not consider these as being the same games reward-wise.
But each battle takes much less time for a high level player, so per time spent you’re still far superior.
Do you have statistics on match playing time as well?
If it happens that lower levels take twice longer to finish the same match on average, there is no reason to lower the amount of points they are getting (possibly even the opposite). Please consider that and don’t automatically cave in to pressure from top players who clearly didn’t think this through.
Really? Do you have to resort these type of “arguments” now? That’s a shame really, 'cause in the other topic we had a civil discussion about the same topic, where we were easily able to keep it civil…
Failing to agree with your point of view DOES NOT EQUAL not thinking things through…
That was not an insult, but an opinion. I’m sorry if you were offended, though.
The impression I got from all the complaints was clearly that people think that low level players “have it easier”. I explained why it’s not true, and you didn’t even argue with that, going for the “equal accomplishment” excuse instead, which is clearly not a reason enough for this high-level player panic.
If you still think low level players actually have it easier, you didn’t explain that in our discussion, so that discussion is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you don’t think that, then I was clearly not talking about you right now.
I’m definately not offended. Getting upset about someone posting something on an internet forum seems like a massive waste of time and energy to me.
You must have missed the point then, 'cause that is not why I was “complaining”. I’m “complaining” about the PVP point allocation to high level players because IMHO to have a fair leaderboard all players should be assumed to be equal. I realize that they are not, because level 1000 players obviously have more resources than level 100 players but if any system of ranking does not measure all players by the same standards then that measuring system has no value at all.
No, you repeatedly expressed your, IMO flawed, arguments why it is your opinion that it is not true.
There is no high level player panic. At least, not as far as I know. There is a rather dominant opinion among high level players (that I know of anyway) that it is unfair to punish high level players for accomplishments achieved by 18 months of playing this game by giving them fewer PVP points for beating the same opponents as low level players
I don’t think low level players have it easier. Never said that anywhere
I never thought you were talking specifically about me in the post I quoted in my previous post in this topic. There are plenty of people that have expressed a similar opinion to mine regarding this issue.
I could post here a bunch of quotes which show people do think low levels have it easier, but there’s not much point.
Instead I’ll quote the post that I replied to in the first place:
Now answer me: Really? Even though you agree that lower levels take twice the time to get the same points, you still think the leaderboards are “not worth the effort”, just because it is theoretically unfair that they see a higher point value on a single match? how does that affect you to the point that it’s all “not worth it”?
The fact of the matter is that lower-leveled players, for most definitions of ‘low’, can still manage to get their hands on good teams that can mow down people 2-4 times their level in something approaching the same amount of time as it takes the veterans to do it.
I’m not saying that they all do this. But anyone who drops a significant amount of money, or joins a decent guild, can get a strong collection to work with and most of the stats to back it up.
And of course, at every time previously, the capacity to do this via money has been argued to not be P2W, because it didn’t get them anything that everyone else couldn’t get themselves. WELL. If they can spend money and then be ahead of the highest-leveled players on the leaderboards due to what has been described by the devs as ‘obviously unfair’ conditions … huh, that would actually make it P2W finally.
So you’ll understand if I have to say we shouldn’t have it that way.
Then what way should we have it? Adjusting the numbers means that all the ‘normal’ low levels should suffer an even greater disadvantage, just because the top players feel threatened by the very few low levels that somehow can keep up with them. Does that seem more fair to you? Then let’s have it. I shouldn’t even care, since I’m clearly not one of these low levels anyway.
banded leaderboards are not realistic within the current patch (even if we agree they are needed), they will need to come in another version, who know when.
Not sure what you mean by static points:
If it’s the same points for all players for a given opponent, that will greatly disadvantage low level players, as discussed.
If it’s the same points for all matches (no matter the opponent), then that will break the 3 difficulty options system, while still not really fixing the fairness problem.
Perhaps the points awarded should be based on relative team strength (including kingdom bonuses and mana surge percentages, the latter of which would affect high-level players [albeit with diminishing returns]). That way, a low-level player who dropped cash to gain power is treated almost like a veteran. And this way, a high-level player could handicap themselves via team selection in order to receive greater rewards.
But how do you determine what is easy and hard? That’s the base of the unfairness problem, since top players don’t have much above them.
The only solution to that is to not let players fight anyone above their level (or advancement level, whatever). Though I think many people wouldn’t like that.
That’s not saying much. It depends on how the matchmaking works.
I mean, will level 200 players still be able to fight a level 1000? because it will be unfair again, since a level 1000 can’t get a match against something above him, so the low level’s ‘hard’ match will still much harder - but for the same point value.
(I speak with levels because it’s easier. exchange level to player strength in any way you want).
