Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rants & Accomplishments' started by peetar, Jun 6, 2016.
I thought you just have to kill the app
so this pvp walling thing has been out for so long but I just realized the perfect analogy: "grabbing a man's balls in a fight is cheating", "yeah, it's a cheap shot but it's effective so use it when you can"
sounds quite similar to any cup where walling is a valid (though frowned upon) option. therefore, those people who choose to fight the ball grabbers (wallers) by grabbing their balls in return (invalidators) are justified until MW decides to truly set rules (no blows below the belt, etc)
P.S. My accounts finished #1555 and #1558 after barely touching A league and I'm proud to be a quitter in this cup
@supergaijin I do not PvP on TB, but I participate in some competitive events. I think a more apt comparison would be the use of elbows or hitting a man on the ground in an mma match. Sure it is very effective and if the opponent does not know how to use it, it seems really unfair and cheap. Reason why it could be percieved as such is because in most martial arts elbows are forbidden.
So imagine a fight where one of the guys takes one elbow hit or is on the ground and returns a punch into the balls . I doubt anybody would say that he was justified because he believed that the other fighter used techniques that were unfair. The rules are coming from the limitations imposed by the level design which in turn I believe gives an unfair advantage to P1. But that is why I don't enter tournaments no matter the prize in which I perceive an unfair advantage. One thing is to use a flaw in level design. Another entirely is to use a flaw in game design.
In sports there have been many issues such as shark skin swimsuits etc. It does not make the victors any less legitimate and their strategies used at the time any less valid.
I believe the game should be fun so the issue lies with MW and not with players. So why punish the players is beyond me...
Was it a valid tactic? Yes, but I definitely view it as something that should be frowned upon. P1 advantage already creates a large gap. Being able to buff yourself until turn 5 while your enemy is fragile is "unsportsman like". However this is a level design issue. MW could have given the neutrals extra disruption skills, or scripted them to break through the wall whenever certain formations occur(not sure if this is within limitations but it should be). They need to take their new characters into consideration when it comes to older events. Whether that be the descend which are much too easy now or PvP where there are exploitable turn 1 cheap tactics.
I think that works, but I'm not sure. I don't invalidate intentionally since I still get a loss and I might as well take it like a man/woman. I probably invalidated a few times accidentally since my fat fingers occasionally turn off my screen while playing by hitting the screen button on the side (and TB isn't smart enough to reconnect).
It seems like most people understand that this mechanic is really only as powerful as it is because of the player 1 advantage. If players were executing the wall on, let's say, turn 10 then players have only themselves to blame (mostly) for setting themselves up. It's like how Gego^ was the focal point of PVP complaints for a long time (please duck to avoid being hit by this massive fan I'm using on the flames). Having Gego^ was considered an unfair advantage (probably still is) because if player one had him they just ignored all physical obstacles on turn three and would execute a double or triple pincer on player two and often times KO them right there (some argued that the real advantage was the Z mages and their crazy amount of AoE damage, but that damage doesn't matter if they can't chain). Even if player two had Gego^ and player one did not not player one would still have to deal with maneuvering and 'missing out' on pincers while player two had free reign. The same arguments were levied against Rejin^ (duck!). If player one hit player two with any or Rejin's substantial arsenal of statuses it was essentially lights out for player two. Now Rejin^ isn't as bad these days since players have more options for damage dealing, status inflicting Z rank units or can add Fans/Chronicles to their units. Gego^ is still controversial in many cups where NPCs are plentiful (causing more barricades).
All three strategies (walling, Gego^, Rejin^) come down to 1 basic issue - player one advantage. Unfortunately this isn't really the type of game where that can be easily rectified. Unlike PvP FPS' or MOBAs where both sides act at the same time, TB is turn based and there must be a player one. Now there are games like Chess and Checkers where being player one isn't really an advantage since in those games each player has several turns before any attacks could possibly reach them giving player two an opportunity to mount a defense or offense.. even though someone goes first both players are effectively equal.
Aside from not really having that much interest in PvP for this game anyway (mostly because it comes down to the characters/SB% you have, and not much in the way of skill), this is, to me, the fundamental problem with PvP in TB. I don't know a solution myself, but I'm very surprised that MW hasn't come up with some sort of fix (maybe you have to play 2 games, with each player being P1 for one, and the player who defeats the most units the quickest wins? I dunno), since they're pushing PvP pretty hard for it to be this unbalanced.
Could be rectified by putting a lag on the dmg multiplier for P1. P1 gets .2 dmg for turns 1 and 2 while P2 gets .4 dmg on turn 2.
P1 will have a buff advantage but P2 gets the damage advantage. Then you even it out turn 3.
Actually chess comes out with more draws then wins in ranked play. White has a 10% win rate over black. However the difference is a good defensive player can mitigate their losses as black. There are powerful defensive counters that can be used to trade material and create and exploit holes in the enemies defense. In my experience at TB pvp you can do this against a p1 gego/rejin player(sometimes its unavoidable and you are dead no matter what). Walling doesnt allow the opportunity for the other player to defend his or herself.
This is what I was referring to when comparing TB and Chess as turn based PvP. Black has plenty of time to counter any strategy white starts off with, but that's not true with TB. The disappointing thing is there might not be any way to 'fix' TB PvP. Someone has to go first and that person is almost always going to have the advantage.
Make player b immune to status alignments in the first round and reduce the amount of damage that is reduced in the 2nd round. While player a can stack his/her buffs he/she is the first that can be hitten.
Player b is the first who can attack properly against a full buffed player a.
Would that work or are my thoughts all wrong?
Maybe PvP should be changed so players can only use a team made up of 6 Bomborgs equipped with Mustaches and an NPC Gugba that casts Tremor every turn. "Congratulations! You and 10,000 other players have all ranked 10,000 out of 10,000! Thank you for participating in Bomborg Cup XXVI. Please join us next week for Bomborg Cup XXVII"
I would have gone a totally different direction in PvP. I would make it competitive PvE. You could have many different types of batles, but the most basic game would go like this:
Player 1 starts with a team of 6 and 4 monsters on his board. The monsters each attack/move. Then player 1 gets to attack/move.
After his turn all of player 1s units and his monsters are removed and their state is saved. Then player 2 does the same thing. HOWEVER, the trick is that any monseters that player 1 defeats will be added to player 2's screen on his turn. Or have other effects. For example, Player 1 defeats the "bomb hoarder." Then on player 2s turn he has all of his remaining monsters plus a bunch of bombs he has to navigate around.
Based on this format you could have all different kinds of events/cups/challenges/win conditions:
Survival mode: more and deadlier monsters and traps spawn every turn in addition to those that your opponent sends your way: last team alive wins.
Horde mode: The more units you kill the more that spawn on your next turn: whoever kills the most wins.
Bot cup/children's cup etc: certain units are overpowered.
There are tuns of options. But I think that a PvP mode more like Tetris, puzzle fighter etc would have been much more suitable for a game like this.
There were huge debates before PVP first came out, with a lot of suggestions like yours.
At the end of the day though, most people wanted "actual" PVP battles, since CO-OP filled the multiplayer PVE void.
I think PVP is fine, but huge shame about bugs and balance.
Mistwalker needs a better Q&A PVP team.
I still hope they do this for the next download starter The time attack with rankings was a good start. They should add more of these sorts of these challenge modes. Im sure they could do much more with the current existing grid. I remember many forum members gave some pretty good suggestions.