The system looks a lot like it will just be another form of rewarding just really playing a lot of battles, so i don’t get the hype, that kind of rewarding is already in the game
Also the trend of people getting rewarded for unimaginative time-stealer defenses seems to get doubled down on… really hoped on some kinds of regulations for defense teams so that just throwing the most annoying and time stealing troops together would be less appealing, not more…
Anyways always welcome new shiny stuff.
Does a fight between high level or team score teams give more PvP points than a low level fight if the matches are equally difficult, relatively speaking? I.e., do level 1000 players have an inherent advantage bc they get more PvP points per battle? Or can lower players grind “hard” battles (for them) and get just as many points?
Curious to know how much of it is about grinding a lot of battles vs having a strong team. Hoping more of the former.
I was so excited when I saw those arcane stones listed as rewards until I realized it will probably only be 800+ level players getting them. But, I suppose that is an incentive for high level people to still keep playing, and player retention is always good for economics
Hopefully, the new PVP will still be fun for low level players as well. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how the new match system works in practice.
On a side note, why are guild names displayed? Won’t that leave the door open for some targeted trolling?
This looks 100% fantastic.
Love the new leaderboards and the team scores.
Oh, and it’s also cool that we can see our opponents guild too.
Looks like another great update.
Should be very interesting.
Can’t wait!
I’m guessing that lower level players can grind like hell and still get to the top spots. My hope is that there isn’t much if any inherent disadvantage for being lower level. It would really suck if, e.g., level 0-200 players are getting max of 15 pts per battle while 200+ get 15-25 per battle.
My ideal is that PvP Score rewards are based on beating people of relative strength. Presumably this gets harder at very high levels where every team is very strong, but that could just mean that high level players have lots of good options for getting good PvP Score rewards (meaning the point rewards could be curvilinear depending upon how it’s designed).
I agree, but the problem comes in with “relative” strength. Relative to what? Level doesn’t mean anything relative to your card availability. You can play tons of treasure maps and end up with a ridiculous power level not represented in your actual level. Team level is not relevant when you can have multiple teams. This is why ranked PvP should not have allowed team changes (or changes once a day, or for gems or something). Then relative level could actually be determined based on the current invasion deck chosen. Most likely it is simply done off your level and what you “should” be able to beat. So those poor just starting out peeps who actually paid money for a starting pack containing xp boost armor are going to have an even harder time than they already were.
All in all it looks very good and I am excited for the update. However the main problems of an unchained leaderboard and too much variance in power level with no real way to determine it remain. Basically it just turns into who can spend the most time in front of their computer similar to every other game on the market.
Sirrian does discuss a “Team score” amount (shown in blue in the video next to a fist icon) which is based upon the quality of the cards (assumedly rarity and traits unlocked etc) as well as the player’s number of maxed kingdoms etc. So hopefully it will be a bit more balanced for taking those into account.
The/My hope is that you will placed ahead of a player who plays more than you (by some margin), but
has a lower winrate
choses the easier battles
I think there is a high chance that it is gonna be based on the ranking(points) of the opponent. Winning against a higher ranked player will give more ranking points than against a lower ranked one. Losing against a lower ranked player will lose more points than losing against a higher ranked one (some form of Elo rating system).
Now how this plays out will be interesting. It might be tough for lower level players to reach higher ranks if team points/levels are not factored in.
Also there is a strong bias towards actively playing compared to defending because of the much higher winrates and there will be a high inflation of points (losing defense loses less ranking than winner gets) so it propably will turn out to be mostly about playing a ton at the top of the ladder - just not as one sided as just comparing trophies, and (as i said above) within a margin you might be ahead of players that play more than you.
Yeah, if the top ranking data is publically available (i.e. I don’t need to get into the top ranks to see it), I’ll almost certainly collect it. From there, it’s pretty easy to put it in a Google spreadsheet if the devs don’t do something better themselves.
That will smell then, also Tacet I love your videos. I watched a few yesterday, and am now using the awesome Double Bat comp… What would be your advice on how to use Sooth properly? I’ve been prone to poor starts and unable to get the bats going.
Actually, lower players can easily rise in ranks due to how much less they lose for losing a defend. High leveled players will be attacked by more players and lose around 10-20 per attack whereas lower players will only lose around 2-10.
I would need to do a whole video to cover that. xD
The best advice I can give is to avoid areas where any cascading gems may cause an extra turn for the enemy. This commonly happens from the vertical gems that drop in since you cannot see them. A good method to counter this is to use it in a vertical area where there are a lot of same color gems adjacent to each other. Aside from that, the outer square of the board is also a good location to use it. Other uses would include extra turns, 3 pairs, and counting to make sure the move will fill a troop.
Hmm… that’s an interesting point. It wouldn’t help me though since I find PVP to be a chore right now because of the imbalance of levels that currently exists. So, grinding is not an option. Although, if match ups aren’t so imbalanced in the new system, I’d probably play it more.
That’s my hope as well. That way PVP success could actually be based on skill.
I play a lot (PC) and will ride with the 2.0 changes. Looks like fun.
But my buddy plays on android mainly and he is very concerned because he has to limit his playtime. He is worried that he will not be able to meet his guild’s trophy requirements now that he can’t quit out of a loss to avoid damaging his guild. He asked me if I thought he would have to play three or four times as many games just to get his daily quota of 10 trophies?
I have no clue. Any ideas?
Anyway, I told him to wait and see, but I am not sure how to answer his question in light of the new changes. In my case, I plan on just powering through any losses with absurd amounts of playtime
Honestly I would like to see the TS rewards reach a lot further down than top 20. If we give like say top 500 1 Arcane TS then top 100 2-5 and on up, I think you would see a lot more interested people battling a lot harder. If there truly are 10’s of thousands playing, this should not come even remotely close to breaking the bank.
All in all I am VERY excited for this even though I know my limited play time availability will never allow me to reach the top top tiers.
The first week’s leader board is going to be VERY interesting to see the results of!
But, I suppose that is an incentive for high level people to still keep playing, and player retention is always good for economics