I unfortunately have to agree with this point as well…
The player level has no influence on the factors you write. What you insert into the battle is only your team composition and evolving plus the kingdom bonus. And depending on the setup plenty of the stats may be irrelevant.
Therefore using the level in the point equation makes no sense.
Your argument is translating into like “weaker attack team deserves more points”.
For that you’re right in the claim that a weaker team brings more risk to not even win and victory may come using more time.
It can be used as reason for more points, but is it a good reason? IMNSHO definitely NOT. Before bashing it to bits, lets consider what to base the point benefit on.
- the actual team fighting as is
- the actual team as it would be using up your spare resources
- the actual team as it would be using resources spent on other troops
- not the actual team, but what best thing you could post from what you have
- as above but what you COULD have with the resource bulk
Your argument’s source was some people’s lesser access to resources, so so pick your poison from the above list explaining why not use the other alternatives.
In real life handicap runs do exist but are pretty rare and very good explanation is needed for a new one. The baseline approach is that the applicant is responsible to do his best and if it is not good enough, that is life. Or can I get an olympics gold medal claiming the other guys spent years practicing and I just dropped in, and it would be the only fair thing? O,O
This is the sort of comment that just… makes my brain hurt.
I’m going to reverse the order here because it seems like your primary argument is that players should be “measured by the same standards”. So that’s the goal.
One of those standards is player strength. That’s an a priori.
Level indicates a difference in strength–“level 1000 players have more resources”.
But then… somehow… “all players should be assumed to be equal”?
You literally cannot both measure players and also assume that they are equal. If you are sorting players into weaker and stronger for purposes of matchmaking, you’ve decided not to assume they’re equal.
So what you’re really saying is: if we applied this standard of measurement consistently, I would not like the results, so how about lets disregard the actual data and assume the strength is the same, but then insist we’re being fair?
Edited to add: would this be the same argument that @Darkness made? I almost rewrote my post assuming he HAD made it, but then I wasn’t sure:
We should not apply the same standards to matchmaking as to scoring. Differentiating players by strength is essential to creating fair matches but irrelevant to the results. For the purposes of scoring, all fair matches are the same.
1 Like
IT went that way little before Deadpool entered, but yeah, soon after it shifted gear. 
1 Like
And we well know that the ‘team score’ as it is now is good for nothing. And that with much more effort and sophistication it would still be quite off from measuring a relevant team strength. Even against goldfish. While the true strength of the team can manifest in properly patching and countering the actual opposition.
Just a few examples: now a level 20 pheasant is more points than a lvl 19 maw. My maw/mercy team has 600 less points than most other teams. 4 full-evolved pheasants hve the same score as 4 similarly evolved rock worms. They have much more score than a team of little less evolved worms that are in practice about almost as deadly.
Suppose there was a point table for every troop individually and that was used in the advanced evaluation, addressing the above issue, just applying levels. So all-trait Mercy would have some base score. And adjusted by bonus stats from its own elvels and kingdoms. But:
in a maw/mercy team the mercy stats are irrelevant completely. It’s shot one time afront then forgotten. A level 7 budget mercy is okay.
While Mercy in a War/valk team works hard, and its magic is significant factor in most games. So there a lvl 18-20 mercy should make the difference in the score to reflect the power.
1 Like
Something like this?
6 Likes
Almost looks more like a peacock!
I am one of these people to be honest.[quote=“Royalty, post:38, topic:7895”]
You could just give everybody the same amount of points per battle win if you wanted to achieve what you have achieved.
[/quote]
Challenge would not equal reward.[quote=“Freakynation76, post:40, topic:7895”]
But the fact remains a team is only 4 troops and maxing those troops isn’t difficult. Look at the number of goblin teams.
[/quote]
Goblins are the goto team for uncertainty among players of lower levels.[quote=“Personette, post:43, topic:7895”]
Level indicates a difference in strength-
[/quote]
And experience[quote=“Personette, post:43, topic:7895”]
We should not apply the same standards to matchmaking as to scoring.
[/quote]
.If we measure everyone on the same field then we would only be stuck playing ourselves.
The team score is quite accurate for someone such as my self, i avoid team power levels of over 5000 as i just cannot win unless i want a slobberknocker and then i might as well hop my rear tank does not die.
Uh, you actually get offers for less than 5000? Then beyond point allocation we also have scaling dragged from MPQ. My easy offer is over 6700.
I’ve been getting “hard” options in the 5000s, which is about 1000 less than any of the teams I use.
They have rotten payouts, too.
My offers are usually between 1000 and 5000. I usually play scores between 1000 to 2000.
It doesn’t matter the level. Before 2.0, I would see goblins as the defence team for 500-800 players. However, I would only see goblins teams as a whole maybe 5 out of the 21 matches needed for PvP Rank 1.
It seems we really picked up the SCALING feature of MPQ too. 
And possibly a couple of others. Current leaderboard gas a lvl 34 guy on top 7745 pts 140/22 wins. Showing goblin as most favored. Defence team is spirit staff + 3 random level 1 troop. The goblin is there, with stat 1/3/2. It does not look possible to win even on offense. Yet collects victiories at 50 pts average even well after tier 1.
For me, 5 games in the season at tier 13 offering 6600/6700 and 7500 teams. for 10/18/34 pts. Previous fight was maw/mercy obviously.
Just like it forgot about resetting and carried over the last week (I got ~2200 pts and 20k place barely over tier 1) or takes either my attack or defense team in the equation.
While I can defeat those teams it is very far from what I expect from this game.
1 Like
They’ve already said they plan to make it so folks get more consistent points regardless of level. However, it has to scale in terms of how people are matched. It’s absurd to argue that a level 40 person with a team that has 1,000 team score should face someone that’s level 1000 with 7,500 team score. You should have a fighting chance of beating the hard opponent, which means it must scale. There’s also so much variation that it would lead to the nonsensical problem of having all of the hard defensive battles fall to the few folks with 7,000+ team score.
1 Like
Err, why it is more absurd than the opposite? If playing on the leaderboard the natural thing is to just pick the opponents by current rank and make points dependent on rank too.
Really the problem is created by mixing the tiers and the ranks. Most of the fuss would not be there if those were separate, we could play the tiers in the old system and many would probably not give a flying damn about the rank system nuances. While the minority interested to go there would deserve whatever outcome.
So to your point do you care to provide an actual argument on why the lvl 40 guy is merged in the same single leaderboadrd and deserves to fight squirrels for the same gain? And what is the incentive to develop the roster? IOW why do you want to punish development?
It would be “pay to win”, and people would be furious, if it were strictly based on nearby rankings. You’d see only level 1000 all Mythic teams in the Top 100. That’s not a healthy system for players of the devs.
The appropriate solution is the one they settled on where it appears to pull from a mix of different attributes, including level, rank, and team score. I know I see a lot of variability in the teams I face based on this system, which is as it should be.
Essentially, end-gamers can beat any team they face whereas early-gamers will often have to skip the hard matches. The devs originally offset this by giving early-gamers more PvP points per match. They’ve since retracted that design and decided to, in effect, make it easier for end-gamers to climb to the top (since they can win hard matches and get just as many PvP points).
2 Likes
What would be at least natural. Except we very well know how far the guess is from truth, in the long history of the game the lvl1000 teams were pummeled by 150-ish players. You only bring 4 troops to the battle and KD bonuses, the def is played by gimped AI, so to win you don’t need too much. Extras may grant you say 95% win rate instead of 90% that is irelevant, especially in a system where you can fight unlimited number of games.
And P2W how comes here? Just putting words one after the other does not form a valid argument you know.
Yes, that’s why you get 3 offers that supposed to form a wide range. But do not in practice. If your team is weak, play the easy offer for the low points. Get better team and you can go for the better gain.
What is one bad idea hopefully on being phased out already.
Once deployed it will still just remove one unfair thing, the extra points. With scaling the evolved player still have to fight teams with 3-4x the hp, more traits to watch animating and potentially ruin you, more chance to lose to a coin flip.
You still just side-talk, will you finally disclose why on earth someone without a team deserves to be on the one common board higher? And with less effort put in the play too, not just skipping the pain of development?
Yey, socialist BS is spreading faster than black plague in the middle ages but it will not make it any more right. It’s easy to sell whatever horror as “justice” as long as people refuse to think and provide real explanations how it is so.
Referring back to the OP, we saw this whole path paved out in MPQ and where it leads, why infest this game too?
1 Like
Historically @pasa you and I have rarely agreed but I’m firmly with you on this one… Well said… And with your normal level of charm and conciliatory tone 
1 Like
Ah, is that it? You’re offended that what you think should naturally occur isn’t – that the players with the most playtime don’t just automatically fall into their appropriate spots on the leaderboard.
If that’s what the leaderboard was supposed to measure, it would have been a whole lot easier to build it to measure that directly. They could have just pulled whatever stats they wanted, crunched the numbers, and come up with a rank that doesn’t fluctuate from week to week. They could count your troops, check their quantity, rarity, and traits, and just give you a score, slap that on the leaderboard, and be done with it. They could just go off win/lose ratio, number of games played, time spent, whatever they wanted. Apparently their goals for the leaderboard just aren’t the same as yours. They’re looking to measure something else. And you either won’t admit what you want it to measure, or can’t articulate it, because you might not even know yourself. You just feel that your time and effort aren’t being rewarded, that people less deserving than you for some reason are ranking higher.
You and @Jainus seem to think that the leaderboard should be biased towards players with more time, more stuff, that it should take you less time and effort to climb ranks on the basis of your past accomplishments. The simple fact is that it wasn’t designed that way, and it’s not an obvious fact that it should have been. The leaderboard is a measure of your performance this week. It doesn’t matter what you did the week before, how much time you’ve put into the game. The points rewarded were obviously designed to take the relative difficulty of the battle into account. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, and there may be some problems with the formula, but none of that makes it a fundamentally wrong goal for the system.
A system that caters exclusively to the most established players may make them feel validated for investing their time in the game, but if newer players feel like they have no chance of competing or ever catching up, it discourages them from sticking around. As the established players eventually get bored and drift away, with nobody to replace them the game slowly dies.
Just because you’re not being rewarded for your progression doesn’t mean that you’re being penalized. Neither does someone else getting something you’re not.
The leaderboards should reflect something other than time invested, or they’re pointless.
2 Likes
Nice post and very patiently and lucidly put…
No. I don’t think it should be, though it’s an undeniable current fact that right now it is - if you mean past time spent. It’s clear the leaderboards measure how few hours people spend eating, sleeping or doing anything that is not GoW…
Yes, I agree with this. I should have more to show for my longer time and investment in the game. I worked hard to get this strong, it should make life easier, not harder.
Evidently, or we wouldn’t be here arguing.
Not obvious to you. It is obvious to me. That must be because we have different starting positions and different opinions, eh…
This is a fair view, but I think a fix to the ratings / points could be achieved without giving high tier players fewer points for winning the exact same battle. That’s the nuance that feels really unfair right now… and I do not agree with any suggestion that the battle is not the same if I am stronger… difficulty is objectively based on the enemy team, troops and stats… what I bring to the table may give me an advantage but that shouldn’t move the goal-posts…
The current system is like giving the clever kids lower marks for passing the same exam, and giving the stupid lazy kids higher marks so they can compete in the same exam… like moving exam grade boundaries based on how hard the kids have worked before… you worked hard? great, the pass mark is 80%… you just turned up today and don’t know the subject? sure, the pass mark is 50%… and I know this isn’t a perfect analogy (and I am not calling lower tier players stupid or lazy!) but this is now it feels from my stance…
Comes down to different perceptions of fairness I guess…