Any chance for future pvp wars?

DKilburn

My alliance just lost a war by less than 60 points.. i started to think, is the current war scoring system really how we want to decide who the best fighters are? I just want to know if anyone else wants pvp as much as i do.. like an old fashion street fighter/mortal kombat mono y mono pvp.. my top 3 champs (synergies included) vs. Your top 3.. best of 3.. whatever alliance wins more best of 3 series wins the war.. is that too much to ask? 1v1 arenas could turn into a practice arena for pvp fights as well.. im sure this has probably already been discussed so forgive me for being repetitive, but the enjoyment of war would be so much higher.. War is boring these days and needs to change

Lormif

DKilburn said:

My alliance just lost a war by less than 60 points.. i started to think, is the current war scoring system really how we want to decide who the best fighters are? I just want to know if anyone else wants pvp as much as i do.. like an old fashion street fighter/mortal kombat mono y mono pvp.. my top 3 champs (synergies included) vs. Your top 3.. best of 3.. whatever alliance wins more best of 3 series wins the war.. is that too much to ask? 1v1 arenas could turn into a practice arena for pvp fights as well.. im sure this has probably already been discussed so forgive me for being repetitive, but the enjoyment of war would be so much higher.. War is boring these days and needs to change

I hope not. PVP in this type of game does not work, doubly so for war. The system does not work well, people would turtle and champs with passive power gain would win the day. This does not even take into account the massive issues of latency and getting people on at the same time as their competitor.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DiablosUltimate

It wouldn't work, because both players would wait as long as it takes for other player to attack first, so they can get parry or intercept

DNA3000

DKilburn said:

My alliance just lost a war by less than 60 points.. i started to think, is the current war scoring system really how we want to decide who the best fighters are?

Who's using the current war scoring system to decide who the best fighters are? We're using it to decide which alliance wins wars. Basketball games are not decided by who's the best basketball player. Football games are not decided by who's the best football player. Soccer games are not decided by who's the best soccer player. They are decided by which team scores the most points. No one goes around asking "is the current system of basketball how we really want to decide who the best basketball players are?"

There's a saying in (American) football: Any Given Sunday any team can beat any other team. On any given Sunday any football team can score one more point than the other team and win. It isn't who's better, it is who delivers on that day, on that field, in that game. The whole point of playing the game is that the best team doesn't automatically win. It is the team that scores the most points that day that wins, and every team has a chance to win if they just do more than the other team on one single day. That's why we play the games, and that's why people watch the games. That's what makes the sport interesting.

DKilburn said:

I just want to know if anyone else wants pvp as much as i do.. like an old fashion street fighter/mortal kombat mono y mono pvp.. my top 3 champs (synergies included) vs. Your top 3.. best of 3.. whatever alliance wins more best of 3 series wins the war.. is that too much to ask?

Probably. The technology behind the current version of MCOC would not allow for actual PvP fighting. You're always going to be fighting against the AI.

You could just make a series of three-champ team duels that were AI-driven. But then you're asking for the game devs to implement your own personal game mode. That's probably also asking for too much, because everyone else probably has their own personal game mode they'd want implemented first.

Lvernon15

It wouldn’t work, it’d just be quake wins