Exactly what I was thinking. Great idea. That’s certainly a fix, whether they can/will do it is a different story.
1 Like
Besides you never want to create a system where only 20 people can benefit from it. You want a system that at the very least 200-300 people can go for it. If you get the #1 spot but you really only beat 10-20 people as opposed to 200-300 people, are you really the best? Or more people just didn’t waste their time going for it? You have to be “tested” in some way other than who can get the most clicks.
First of all
CONGRATS @ZooKeeper! You should be proud! And you deserve the kudos.
BUT… since you asked for suggestions:
I think a point system can be created that better quantifies QUALITY of play rather than QUANTITY.
Consider earning PvP points for the following:
- % of Invade victories
- % of defense victories (I hate the idea but it exists so…)
- Average # of turns per match
- Number of different invade teams used (bonuses for creativity)
- Number of different troops used during PvP (similar to above, so maybe one or the other)
- Number of allied troops surviving
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head, but a forumla could be created that takes these numerics into consideration and defines a value to a player’s position of the leaderboard.
How would this encourage ppl to keep playing for longer periods of time? Simple.
I COULD play just one invade and have a 100% invade rate, but then I would have only 4 troops used and only 2 teams. (One invade, one defense). If somebody else plays two matches and wins with two different teams, they would have 100% win rate, plus 8 troops, and 3 teams used. Therefore, a higher PvP rank than me. So I have to risk more battles to keep up!
Obviously the weight of each category would have to be carefully determined by ppl with more experience than myself, read Devs, but I think this might provide a decent middle ground.
What do you think?
1 Like
Frankly, the leaderboard in this game could never judge “who is the best”. You play against an AI. I think people want something from the game it can’t provide in its current state.
If someone wants to claim they are the best, they will have to actually beat a real human not the AI.
2 Likes
If you want to create a system to measure something, it’s probably best if you first decide what exactly it is that you want to measure.
1 Like
Yeah but at the same time, player vs player won’t really be all that different. In its current state it can’t determine who is the best/better, but it needs to. All it takes is balancing.
Secondly player vs. player is coming. It’s on the way. They need to balance this version before they ever hope to balance that version. We’ll be saying the same argument otherwise.
We don’t really need a system to determine the “best” player. We just need the leader board changed so that the amount of time used to climb the leader board has some kind of drawback that eventually caps it. The current format is pure time = win instead of quality of time = win.
3 Likes
I don’t want to be that guy that quotes himself BUT… 
1 Like
Yeah that’s what I mean. Maybe I was using “best” in the wrong way. I just meant you can be the best/better for that week. Not overall, there are waaaay too many great players to assume that.
That’s all well and good. My comment was directed at HK’s “who is the best” comment. My point was simply that the leaderboard in this game will never answer that question without real PVP.
@Tacet Posted while I was typing my idea. He has enumerated much of what I was suggesting.
You know what they say about “Great Minds”…
1 Like
For actual versus play to be viable, they’ll need to get a much better (i.e, more expensive) server backend. The game currently communicates in small payloads whenever you enter and leave any menu, and before and after a battle, and yet it has annoyingly long spinners. To do versus play, the game state will need to be done server-side, which means every move will need to round-trip to two clients. If I saw a spinner or delay between every turn, I’d put my fist through a wall.
6 Likes
Even in player vs. player pvp, it won’t answer that question either. There will be questions like, Who did you fight? How many hours did you play? Also the devs have to make sure people can’t get on different devices and fight themselves. Or have a friend fight them. The goal is to balance who is going to be at the top at the end of the week. It has to be an actual accomplishment. We have casual, and ranked pvp now, maybe they should create a ‘Hardcore’ pvp as well. One that has the punishment for losses already baked in. That would be great. I think we’d see a total different outcome, and one that was a true accomplishment and respected. Hopefully the rewards match as well.
So, when are the devs switching server providers?
They still haven’t yet and their current provider expires at the end of this year.
2 Likes
Yeah I don’t know how they plan on pulling it off, but they have confirmed it’s coming. I made sure to ask them if AI pvp is staying in as well. It is.
1 Like
Using that argument, no leaderboard in any game could determine who is a better player. So, we will have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.
There are plenty of games that achieve making leaderboards actually feel like an accomplishment. Mostly because the players know IF you are at the top, you’ve had to have fought some really tough opponents. This game can achieve it too. The problem is we know there’s already very few people that are at the top. So, they need another pvp set-up for only hardcore players. So anyone that plays that pvp mode considers themselves a great player. Whoever made it to the top of that list, had to beat only great players. Ranked is no different right now than casual in the sense that even casual players play it. So again, getting to #1 there, really means not much.
No, they didn’t beat great players. They beat the AI.
1 Like
You throw ‘AI’ around like it’s a bad thing. AI can be more lethal than actual human players. All you have to do is turn it up. Instead of this dumbed down everyone wins bot-crap we have now. Yeah that’s a scientific term.
Bots can be programmed to win in a fair assessment let’s say 98-99% percent of the time, a players is way lower. So yeah not much of an argument there.
If a player only feels accomplished because they beat another human player, then that’s a different story. That’s a pride thing.