Now my brain hurts more…
I think I agree with your points, but it’s too early in the day to cope well with that many long words…
EDIT: @spherix are you, in fact, Sir Humphrey? 
I guess in the school it is only fair to pass out easier exam to people who forgot the study and ignored the homework. And those who study deserve to get harder questions for the same grade.
Yeah, I’m aware that this is actually coming in our real life for the last 1-2 decades and at increasing speed, but infesting even our games with the idea is more than appalling.
Fascinating discussion. I’ll throw in another thought. If the ranked system actually intends to even the odds by factoring out player progression, couldn’t it just allow everybody to use every troop instead? Fully traited, at max kingdom bonuses, with 60% surge chance for everybody?
1 Like
That would destroy any incentive to actually level the troops. For me upgrading troops and kingdoms IS the game for me.
The Underdog says NO!
But where’s the incentive right now? You actually seem to fare better by not upgrading troops and kingdoms, it allows you to climb ranks much faster.
1 Like
I have played many F2P games over the years and it is a common problem. Only “solution” that I have seen was probably existence of different formats, for example:
- Teams with up to 3000 power
- Teams with up to 6000 power
- Teams with unlimited power
So in such case new players could be competitive in sub-3000 format, experienced players in sub-6000 and sub-3000 while old players (and big spenders) could obviously compete in all 3 formats. Tier system would be removed from rating in any of the formats and could give out rewards for simply winning X amount of battles in each week.
Yes, its a bit more complex solution than simply skewing points, making it unlimited or making separate leagues for different “hero level”, but from my experience this approach leads to less abuse than others. Asides of obviously some form of Arena, but such format also rises the question of why even bother upgrading your teams if you can’t use them.
This sentence got me thinking…
We can all agree that the AI is pretty predictable and “dumb” overall, and from what I can tell, it’s skill level never improves regardless whether you’re at level 1 or at level 1000. (correct me if I’m wrong with that) So as a player gets higher level, then in theory the matches get easier, since while both the player and the AI get stronger cards, only the player is improving in terms of skill and planning.
So in this respect @Jainus you DO have it easier in terms of the game in general. Higher level players in theory have a higher win percentage when they are controlling their teams because they have more experience with the game and it’s nuances (including the AIs thinking) than a lower level player.
HOWEVER, I’m not advocating for lower level players here necessarily. I feel that both sides of this debate have very valid points, and there is no easy or simple solution (and there is most likely no solution that will make both sides completely happy). And I’m aware that this discussion is about PVP specifically , which narrows things in relation to how much “easier” the game might be at the top, due to the fact you’re facing player made teams designed to win, not theme-based Quests or Challenges. And of course in facing the top level players higher level players do run into more tricky teams.
So just to finish up, I think we should be considering the fact that the AI doesn’t get any harder as you level up in terms of its “skill”, and as a result lower level players will have to possibly fight harder for their wins. Now does this mean they deserve more points for it? Maybe yes, maybe no. As Jainus mentions the higher level players have put in the time and effort and should have something to show for it. But should this mean that lower level players don’t have a chance at the leaderboards at all?
Anyways I’m just trying to promote discussion on some areas that haven’t been as touched upon in this debate, rather than advocate for either side. Also I’d be interested to hear @Tacet’s views on the difference between high and low level difficulty based on his experiences with his new account for his Let’s Play videos (I haven’t had a chance to watch them yet sorry), and how much his knowledge and experience from having spent time at the top end is affecting his gameplay at the lower end.
1 Like
Actually the AI is artificially extra-dumb for players up to hero level 30ish, I think, after which it moves to its normal level of dumbness… so from 31-1001 the AI behaves the same…
1 Like
This is the biggest false analogy that I’ve read in this endless cycle of a debate that I’ve read yet.
2 Likes
It is A LOT easier for a lower level to reach the tops of the rank. While I normally can’t take my 3 trophy due to the level difference, the 2 trophy normally gives as much or more rating than a 3 trophy on my other account. It took me less time on my lower account to reach rank 1. If my lower account could form a solid team by about level 50, I could easily take the top 5 where the same amount of effort would have been top 20 on my main. The main issue I see with it for lower players is that they get 40-50 rating for a 3 trophy regardless of if the opponent is level 30 or 300.
Do you still get around 30 points for a 3 trophy even with the changes made earlier this evening? @Shimrra’s post in Known Issues suggests you should be getting more now.
Also I was more curious as to how difficult the game in general was at lower levels compared to higher levels, not necessarily the difficulty of getting to higher Ranks in PVP. The current assumption is that it’s easier to win at higher levels, and that lower levels have more of a challenge to get their wins, and I was curious as to whether you’d noticed you matches being harder in general, not necessarily only in PVP.
EDIT:
Also this is one of the perks of being a high level player, you CAN form solid teams and have all the traits that make combinations work. A lower level player shouldn’t be expected to be able to do that in normal circumstances.
1 Like
Ture, but the problem is the 2 trophy gives more rating than a higher level’s 3 trophy. A lower level’s 2 trophy is usually pathetically weak due to people in early game either not knowing how to build, how to farm, and/or aren’t in a guild.
I’m not suggesting that the current system is perfect, or even right. I’m trying to understand the possible differences that occur between higher and lower level players.
And I’m still curious whether your 2 trophy on your lower account is giving more rating that a 3 trophy on your higher one after the changes that went through this evening. (in the last few hours)
The highest i have seen is 47 points, and def losses are greater as well.
1 Like
The problem is that you can’t really use Tacet’s current low level experience as a barometer of what happens with a real low level player. A legit low level player comes into the game with zero experience or knowledge. Tacet is already an experienced and good team builder. From the very beginning of this new lowbie account, he knew how to gain resources in the fastest and most efficient ways. He joined a guild with high production for a low level. He didn’t waste gold or level kingdoms wrong. He is investing resources in all the right troops. He has a perfect understanding of the meta and what troops work at what times. In other words, he is doing everything perfectly and with precision. That is not the case for the average low level player.
2 Likes
Yes, but if the question here is whether the leaderboard is fair with respect to hardcore low-level vs. hardcore high-level players, I think Tacet represents the former quite well. I don’t think anyone is taking issue with low-level players that are still learning how to tie their shoes.
(Personally I’m not invested in this debate, but it’s interesting to hear the opposing views.)
1 Like
Basically this. Yes Tacet isn’t a perfect representation, but he is the only active forum goer that I know of that has started a new account after being at a high level. So has the unique perspective of being able to see both sides (albeit the low side through different lenses than a new player would)
Yes, I understand that. I just don’t agree he is a good meter stick. We’d really need to have an actual low level player and an actual end gamer fight the same level 1000 player and compare which takes more effort.
An interesting experiment would be to get a player to start a new account in a top 10 guild, barely level it, get it tons of resources so it can build the best deck available (probably goblins) and do nothing but ranked PvP to see how high it can get and how easily.