A Player vs Player Critique / Revision Proposal

Gameplay Chat (PC/Mobile)
1

@Nimhain, @Sirrian

Critique

The rewards for PvP seem lackluster when factoring the effort required. I know one argument is that playing through is the real reward (traitstones and gold earned along the way), but this feels like a cop out explanation. If that were the case, then make the weekly rewards the same for everyone, as ways of old. It is a counterpoint to the purpose of having a leaderboard…

For PvP top 1,000 placing to require the effort that it currently does, the payout is a bit of a slap in the face. 10s of hours expended trying to contend, only to be given rewards that are infinitesimal relative to what you could have earned elsewhere (I’m talking about the endgame of a week in PvP, not the gold/glory/keys you receive along the journey).

Now, from a business outlook, I could see why the weekly rewards aren’t grander. If you give away the cow, you can’t sell the milk anymore. However, I’m not a part of the company, so I can’t be as lenient as I want to be. If you put something in place that is designed to make people want to play more, the end should justify the means. You’ve got your hooks in me good, so I’ll be around for a while, but others aren’t as forgiving. Many people see the leaderboards as an irrational use of time and only do the initial minimum required to get to Tier 1 and stop. Even if they do manage to reach top 1,000, they are only given ONE(!) arcane stone aside some other consolation prizes (souls/gold).

Let’s advocate the devil for a second and we’ll deem one arcane fair for not making it that far into the field of competition. The person in first is in first place, the best of the best, the most superlative position you can hold… is only given 10 additional arcanes. Although that’s not all he gets, there’s also the 25,000 gold; 2,500 souls and 50 gems. Unfortunately, considering weekly averages, by the time you have reached first you will have amassed 2 million+ gold (very conservatively; not factoring bonuses) and 6,000+ souls (EXTREMELY conservatively; not accounting for summons, resurrects, armor bonuses or necromancy bonuses). The gems seem somewhat reasonable since they are the premium currency, but even those are a bit sub-par when bearing in mind the toil.

Proposal

I don’t really think fully attacking a problem without offering a solution does any good for either party. So, a simple but effective tactic might be to instate a special reward that can’t be earned outside of PvP. Admittedly, this doesn’t fully solve the issue if it is a one time reward only achieved at first place because most people won’t have the time or will to get all the way there. As such, I propose a new currency that you can only get in PvP, with chunks of the top 1,000 receiving more the closer you are to first (in addition to current rewards). Then, an additional section could be added to the store where players could redeem their loot for exclusive prizes. It doesn’t have to be anything game-breaking, perhaps just different armor or weapon skins with comparable stats, just something else to look forward to other than the current model.

Anyway, that’s just my 2¢, which isn’t worth much…

2

I felt (and posted else where) that adding a zero and adjusting the spread a bit would make more sense… with 25000 active players, it seems that 10,000 getting a bonus would be more… appropriate.

3 Likes
3

I must say that I am opposed to this idea. Those of us who play PvP aren’t that special that we deserve extra rewards just for putting time into the game. You don’t like the rewards? Stop chasing the leader board. Sometimes people play just for fun or for the love of the game. Why does everything have to have major rewards attached? You think it takes too much time, do something else for a bit and come back when you feel fresh again.

8 Likes
4

Bigger rewards - no thanks, don’t turn this game into grind to win
Bigger scope - by all means, finishing in top2k/5k/10k should mean something

5

I don’t mind the idea of a bigger scope, but you really shouldn’t care what those on the leaderboard earn.

Everyone already gets shared rewards, the tier rewards. Ranked rewards are for those with too much time on their hands, and shouldn’t be something to aim for. I’d honestly earn far more from Explore Mode than the number of battles required to rank on the leaderboards, and that’s more fulfilling anyways!

Want ranked rewards? Try the Explore feature, more rewarding, more fun, less aggravating, less time spent.

4 Likes
6

What do you think it is in its current state? A million souls to max everything, over 1,000 arcanes and countless other traitstones; not to mention an insane amount of duplicates to ascend troops.

I don’t see how it could be more of a grind, honestly.

It isn’t a game-breaking reward, though. My suggestion is essentially just a cosmetic.

If you are going to add a zero to field, you may as well a zero to each of the payouts (excluding arcanes, of course). This would also seem appropriate.

This is completely subjective. If a person only has a desire to play PvP and that is his idea of fun, the said person should be punished for his propensity? To say that someone has too much time on their hands for topping the leaderboard also seems a bit like misguided hatred. There is plenty of people that spend just as much time, if not more on other sections of the game; it just isn’t tracked and put on display for all to see. As far as wanting ranked rewards and the solution being to play Explore mode; that is a cop out. Your answer to getting better rewards in one aspect of the game is to play an entirely different part.

7

How is it a “cop-out” to mention that playing other aspects of the overall game can net you the same if not more rewards? If someone solely enjoys PvP, that’s their choice, that doesn’t mean they can start complaining that Treasure Hunt earns more Glory or Arena earns more Souls simply because they aren’t that player’s cup of tea.

The game offers you alternative methods to achieve the same rewards, if you’re not willing to try these alternative methods because you only enjoy one or two parts of the game, that’s not a call for the devs to “correct” a user’s single-minded choice.

3 Likes
8

Fair enough. I’m not offended in the slightest, just argumentative by nature. Perhaps the root of my gripe was with the wording, not the sentiment.

I suppose we should agree to disagree as grown-ups from apposing clans, honoring the push and pull.

1 Like
9

Picking up on the OP… Have to say I’m against the idea…

I would like to see a much wider range of things to do in the end game with different rewards… More mini games, more ways of earning stuff, more varied things to do…

For those interested in leaderboards, the satisfaction of getting as high as they can should suffice. They’ll earn a ton of loot along the way every week.

8 Likes
10

I see why one might say that the loot earned along the way is part of the reward, but then why include Ranked rewards at all? If it were exclusively for bragging rights, then why wouldn’t everyone just get uniform rewards, regardless of placing? The fact is that the prizes are there to signify some sort of compensational merit for your efforts. The current structure is ho-hum by relativity.

That being said, I do agree that there should be more mini-games and alternatives for resources to boost retention rate. As of now, the end-game is a bit monotonous (but, to be fair, this is common in many games when shooting for near 100% completion). Explore mode has alleviated that, to some degree, although there is still a lot of room for improvement.

11

I think the traitstone rewards were more meaningful before Exploration mode was added. Now that it’s in the game, the last interesting reward for ranked play has become a footnote.

People don’t win races for the actual gold trophy, though. It’s a nice gesture, but the reward of fame and lucrative endorsements far outweighs the actual trophy. I think the rewards are fine as they are; they’re tuned to a degree where someone near a threshold might put in the extra effort for one more stone, but not so high that people feel compelled to grind every waking moment of the week if they’re not already that type of person.

3 Likes
12

Phaethon is ranked 14 in PvP so no wonder, that he comes with “I grind, I deserve more rewards” mentality.
But only a vast minority of the players enjoys back to back grinding every week. Since the rank rewards aren’t huge, majority of players don’t feel bad not competing.
If rank rewards would increase more people would feel need to grind, more people would be frustrated by not getting rewards, while only those few at top would be satisfied. So it would be unhealthy for the game.

Keep it mind that with the current game state PvP is most lucrative game mode to play, as it provides vast majority of resources (gold --guild donations–>glory keys,gems; glory, traitstones, soulstones ) and make other game modes like arena or treasure hunt obsolete.

3 Likes
13

This is a paradox. It can’t be vast and minor simultaneously. I’d also appreciate knowing where you obtained the information to claim that statement, as it seems like a biased generalization. (Argumentum ad hominem, I know, but you’ve employed some of your own fallacies.)

Leaderboards in general are unhealthy for the game, especially when they are time-based and not skill related (to an extent). Though do they do exist, so they may as well be improved. Since you’ve used auxiliary information, I’ll level the playing field. I find it ironic that you are troubled by grinds when you are in @Tacet’s newly formed guild that is supposed to be a “hardcore” guild with sights set on competing at the highest level. Why have you joined this guild then if you are so opposed to more rewards, @Treemo? And as I’ve stated before, a simplex analysis of the end-game’s structure reveals that the entire game is a grind.

What is the sample size of that statement? Oh! One week? I didn’t even place in the top 1,000 last week. Bite your tongue.

14

Since the amount of time and effort required to achieve a particular rank isn’t a fixed value, but instead depends on the behavior of other players, you have to consider both extremes, as well as the average behavior given collected data.

If most players only played enough to hit tier 1, and the top players only played a little bit more than that, say about 100 battles per week, would the rewards be appropriate? 11 Arcanes seems like an awful big reward for 100 battles. That would be way higher than the drop rates for challenges, or even the new Explore mode.

Now, the reality is that the top players play a lot more than that, and did even before ranked PvP and the associated leaderboard were introduced. They play 1000+ battles per week. 11 Arcanes for 1000 battles would be right around the expected drop rate of 1-2%. Before the introduction of Explore mode, even this was still a competitive return for the amount of effort.

The thing is, the developers don’t actually want to drive people to play that much:

As it is, most people will look at the rewards, look at how much they’d have to play to compete, and feel satisfied that it’s not worth their time. If those rewards increase too much, or contain something exclusive, that would really put pressure on people to compete. That would drive a lot of people either to play more than they’re comfortable with, leading them to burnout and quitting, or people determining that they’re no longer part of the target audience, and quitting. Not good for the game or the developers long-term.

7 Likes
15

To be honest, they would be fair at that point. It takes 1,656 arcanes to fully trait all the troops currently in the game (ref:List of Troops per Arcane). Considering a person places first every week, and naturally excluding all gain along the way, it would take 151 consecutive weeks in first place to complete. Does this number seem appropriate?

Well, that’s not exactly something you would want to blatantly say. The very quote you cited (though the quotes are a bit out of context, but I still see the relation, to some degree) sort of confirms that:

They are not going to say that they want you to spend bushels of time on the game. Look, I’m not saying they are horrible people. They are great with damage control and quick with responding to issues (through tickets, at least), but it is a business. Maybe it’s the cynic in me, but at the end of the day, they are there to make money. While I’m not oblivious to that, I think a boost to rewards wouldn’t be that far out of the question when you consider the requirements everything takes in this game. It is a free to play game and it is really good with not making you feel like you have to spend to enjoy, but the completionist will struggle with this very early on.

16

I’ve been playing for well over a year. I still don’t have everything possible. Not everything is mythic, not everything is fully traited, not all kingdoms are are 5 stars. I would guess that I’m just as much a completionist as you, but it takes time and playing. The idea that rewards should be bigger so you can get everything finished faster is antithetical to the purpose of the game.

5 Likes
17

I’m not saying that it should be an over night process. I have grinded through many games that I started well after other players had started and even surpassed their progress (Warframe, I’m looking at you). I don’t know, I guess I have some perversion of what “fun” means. In the same breath, it shouldn’t take 3 years either. I would think that at that point, you are still playing the game because you thoroughly enjoy it or you aren’t playing it at all; 100% completion or not. (There are still people that play Runescape, which was released… circa 200 BC.) Anyway, the game is technically updated (new troops) on a weekly basis, with major updates every 1-2 months, so the it never really ends.

Perhaps I should have made this clear earlier. I only made a suggestion. I’m not planning a boycott should my demands not be met. Whether it changes or stays the same, I plan on continuing to play the game. Besides, I don’t have enough time to reach first in any given week, but that’s not to say those that do shouldn’t be thrown a bone every once in a while.

18

The amount of time or effort appropriate to reach completion is a separate question from the appropriate avenue to do so. Should players be required to rank on the leaderboard to complete their collection in a reasonable time, thus limiting such progress to the top few, or should everyone be able to do so, given a certain amount of effort?

1 Like
19

I don’t think that endgame is exclusive for people that PvP only and that isn’t the case at all. In fact, if you only PvP, that slows your progress. As I stated earlier, competing at the highest level would take nearly 3 years if you only accumulate rank rewards. There is no “right” way to do it. I’m saying that some roads are currently harder to do it. That’s not to say I don’t understand why this may be so. The developers want you to explore (no pun intended) other options aside from PvP, but PvP’s rewards are negligible compared to other gametypes even if you are an elite; thus, they should be adjusted.

(Opinion ^^^)

20

It isn’t the case right now. What you’re suggesting would be a step towards making it so.

PvP is the fastest way of collecting gold, which in turn is the most efficient way to generate glory keys and gems through guild donations, which in turn provide all the other resources. Explore mode now provides a way for targeted traitstone farming, but isn’t suitable for much else. Treasure hunt, while providing a variety of traitstones and other resources, was sub-par before Explore mode was added, due to the speed at which powerful teams can clear any of the battle modes. It’s probably even less worthwhile now.

There’s not a problem with the PvP rewards. You’re just ignoring the battle rewards while focusing on the rank rewards, which cannot be much higher without skewing the relationship between effort and reward. Because rank rewards are awarded based on relative effort, rather than absolute effort, there’s a bump in the effort/reward ratio at the cutoff points. One PvP point can mean the difference between earning one set of rewards and another. Two people can put in almost exactly the same amount of effort, and yet one would be rewarded more than the other. The larger those rewards are, the larger the disparity in reward for nigh-identical effort. That doesn’t help the general playerbase catch up or complete their collections, but instead provides an opportunity for a few people to pull ahead by collecting rewards that are only available to a limited number of people each week. Ranked rewards are simply not an appropriate place to address general resource acquisition.

1 Like