This is in theory how Team Power is calculated already (taking in to account traits and levels on top of everything else). I’m not sure how much Team Power affects the points currently though.
As far as I can tell, the rewards are based on absolute power level (of the opponent), then scaled down via player level. I’m suggesting it be based on relative power level (opponent - player).
1 Like
This exchange doesn’t work because of the thing @Shimrra said earlier, what about people who spent money on troop packs add have higher power? That’s why team strength based off troops, traits, levels, and kingdoms should be the operator.
Ahh I see what you’re saying.
Hmm I’m going to wait and see what changes the devs have up their sleeves. They always knew they would have to tweak once they got some live play data, so I’m sure they have some plans ready to deal with various issues.
Mhm! As usual, I’m proposing stuff in a vacuum. Devs got this, yo.
1 Like
That’s what I meant by “player strength”, possibly factoring not just the team played but everything the player have, to determine that player’s ‘strength’.
As I said a couple moons ago (beginning of 1.0.8, possibly 1.0.7, I don’t remember)
Power evaluation should be based on
Individual Stats of the troop scaled down as the troop is further in the backlines
Individual customized spell strength scaled up as the troop is further in the backlines
Mana coverage x banner colors
Traits unlocked
Each trait unlocked should have its own value math based on
- position in the deck (arcane has generally more value on the backline, GENERALLY (I know Abhorath and Venoxia are exceptions)
- number of units using X color (for nature brand for example)
- number of troops with X type (X bond for example)
- a base value (merchant has 0 battle value, unlike bull’s eye)
IKR
Anyway, I rarely agree with @Pasa, but this time I beleive he is onto something :v
Then it sounds like we are mostly on the same page.
I’m curious what YOUR solution to the poster disenfranchisement is.
My proposed solution is to take a deep breath and have a little patience. The new system is indeed new, less than two weeks old, and the devs have already stated they are collecting data and intend to do some tuning. Everyone should give them a fair chance to bring their vision to fruition. They have already demonstrated they are heads and tails above that other game which shall not be named in terms of their class and their respect for the player base.
2 Likes
You didn’t answer the question though. Since top players can’t get real “hard” matches, will the less-advanced players ever get to fight a top one?
If yes, it will keep being unfair.
If not, some people who like the challenge will be sad. That would for make the most ‘fair’ solution otherwise.
So, what will it be?
I’m quite convinced that would just cause players to find creative ways to poke at the power level calculation formula. Like realizing that the difference between a level 500 and a level 1000 player is fairly insignificant in regards to masteries, despite having a huge impact on power rating.
I’d really keep it simple, award points based on the PvP scores of the two parties involved. It’s the “fair” approach that offers the least loop holes. Yes, it makes it unlikely for players with a less developed roster to place well. That doesn’t exactly strike me as wrong, I also wouldn’t expect me to place well in a chess championship without investing a lot of effort first. If this really is a concern, introduce separate brackets that attempt to lump players together in a “fair” way, whatever that might be.
1 Like
This is why I bought it on console; it’s just one RNG thing rather than several and all the characters can reach level 300.That and Iso-8 isn’t a thing on console so you can just do missions again and again if you need XP or covers for more ability power.
I answered question, and my answer hasn’t changed from what I previously wrote. That’s what I think the best solution would be. I’m just curious what you think the solution would be, because I don’t think I’ve seen you post up on yet. I can see that you understand there is some kind of disparity so I am just curious what you think it possible solution would be.
I didn’t see anything you posted that answered my question.
If I had a magic solution, I’d post it without you asking. I didn’t mean to participate in these disscussions initially, and only joined because some people’s ‘solutions’ - which would make the matter worse - were too widely accepted. I’d prefer for the system to stay as it is than for it to get worse, and that’s why I’m here.
Just to jump in… the problem was that every simple solution had potential exploits.
The current implementation took about 10-12 hours work in excel to model, and it seems to be exploit free (we’ve been watching plenty of players TRYING and FAILING to exploit it on the server!!!), BUT just sub-optimal for a very small number of you up the top of the levelling curve. I’m not saying that you guys and gals at level 1000 aren’t important to us - you obviously are - just that the best course of action was to solve 99% of the problem, and review/solve the remaining 1% when we had some better data to work with.
For the record, after level 20-ish, games actually get just a little shorter as players level, but not by a significant amount
The plan next week is to simply take the accumulated data from the last 10 days of PvP, and make adjustments to our formulae so that players of level 500+ need roughly the same number of games for their points as players of level 50.
Oh - and banded leaderboards aren’t on the agenda at the moment, since they promote all sorts of bad play patterns with players attempting to slow-level in order to maximize their gain at lower levels.
11 Likes
This is something I’ve experienced.
It sounds like you guys have this well in hand and are actively working to make it better, I’m going to bow out of this conversation.
I was actually waiting for someone to mention that…
Fixing the numbers doesn’t solve anything, when it is still going to be a matter of playing the most to win. You could just give everybody the same amount of points per battle win if you wanted to achieve what you have achieved.
1 Like
@sirrian will there be any matchmaking switch and/or points change for battling someone above you in the rankings?
I agree with this. I was a newbie at one point and all it takes is a good team not having everything maxed or every troop. I never found it “difficult” to beat my opponents. If they were a higher level. Are some teams not as efficient, definitely. But the fact remains a team is only 4 troops and maxing those troops isn’t difficult. Look at the number of goblin teams.