Holy shit, the guy with 4 wins /min, mind making a video tutorial on that, with actual proofs.
Current systemâs flaw is not what we have to double or triple the game time comparing to low levels, but the fact we are MATCHED WITH THOSE. hey, is winning over another 3k level player is also below 15s?
Also, I canât say high level leads to better options. Tons of casuals in my bubble have whatever 1800 level with no kingdom stats whatsoever
No one mentioned thisâŚthink you are in the wrong thread.
Wild theory: Most players highly dislike rng.
Fact: gow officials deem ârngâ to be âfunâ, it gets stated by every opportunity.
Making things more fair with simple settings, as f.e. a cap after reaching 4 of the same dragon could easily be implemented. But officials seem to not want change on the matter.
â This never was a âcanâ problem. It was and still is just a âwantâ problem.
The question is âwhyâ there is such a consistent refusal about the conclusive arguments made against the whole rng setup. Not only regarding dragonite.
Again, calling me a cheater without proof, it seems you like spreading fake news. What I decide to do with my life is up to me.
My intention was not to offend you. Do what makes you happy, that is what matters. 
Iâve cleaned up the callouts, thank you for the majority of people having this discussion without breaking community guidelines.
Just wanted to also let you know Iâve got this thread on my reading list as Iâll be doing a full report for the team about the feedback regarding PVP scoring, matchmaking, bubble match ups and leagues etc soon.
The general sentiment and feedback has already been getting passed on.
If weâre looking at improvements? How about if the âbubblesâ or âbucketsâ or âbracketsâ or whatever nomenclature you want to use were reciprocal? That is, instead of each player having a âuniqueâ 30-player group that theyâre competing against, things are sorted in a manner not too different from Guild Wars.
That is, make brackets of 30 players apiece; maybe have an odd bracket or twelve with 29 or 31 because the number of qualified players almost certainly isnât divisible by 30. And go from there. This way a given player is simply competing against his bracket for those bonus rewards and promotion/relegation and can know where he stands at any given time. No more of this nonsense where I finish 17th in my bracket but get promoted, anyhow, because I landed 6th in somebody elseâs bracket that had significantly more in the way of inactive players.
And it also ought to be something the developers can approve of because then they can know how much in the way of âbonus rewardsâ for the top finishers are being given out. Right now, itâs possible that more than 1-out-of-30 players receive âwin the bracketâ rewards. Or that fewer do because the luck of the draw puts you in a bubble with a bunch of whales who can sit in front of their console all freaking day. And all this makes things somewhat unpredictable because it introduces greater (and unnecessary) variance into the scheme.
It wouldnât make a situation where âall brackets are created equalâ because random luck of the draw could still skew certain brackets more competitive than others. For example, Iâve got a guildmate whose bracket has several ultra-busy players in it; the screenshot he shared of his standings this afternoon has close to a half-dozen players well above and beyond the leader in my bubble. (Which isnât me, and Iâll probably have to do some work this weekend to ensure a Top 3 finish if thatâs even possible.)
But a level of standardization and predictability would be a step in the right direction. So, too, would be the auto-demotion of players who donât participate in PvP for the week; let them all settle to the lowest brackets and keep them out of the way of the active competitors.
Iâll pass that feedback on @Kezef but I believe itâs highly unlikely that the bubbles will be made symmetrical like the Guild Wars brackets.
Itâs more likely the rules around how players are assigned to buckets will be reviewed and refined.
I think thereâs a shaking out period here as well while the more active players get separated from the more casual ones by their performance as we go, like we had in Guild Wars originally. Iâll be asking about how long the shake out is predicted to last and if it will take awhile Iâll ask if thereâs any additional changes that could be made to speed up that process.
I would like to reinforce the fact that, with how the gold marks are distributed, it will always be incentivized to drop down to lower leagues, thereby negatively impacting the more casual players experience, in order to farm easier top 3âs. Gold marks need to be distributed simply for being in a league with only a small bonus to the top players. There needs to be an actual reason to WANT to stay in the higher leagues when you can drop down to an easier league to earn more.
What is currently happening is equally/less hardcore players actually being propelled up more easily than their higher-level counterparts, so the âshakingâ is slowly resulting in an unfair distribution or an unfair effort, based on the beholderâs eye.
The solution has been mentioned before by players in the forum, and is easily implementable due to the fact that we can face players who are not in our bracket: everyone gets a low/med/high opponent option for every battle, with the possibility to create high-level opponents for those end-gamers at the very top levels.
We saw such created accounts in our brackets when this new PvP mode was launched, so itâs not a new approach. ( [Known Issue] Everybody has the same enemies in Pvp ladder - #2 by panda-zebra )
Thank you for the feedback. The shaking out period might not work as players deliberately try to move down to lower brackets for easier wins in top 3 positions. I know several hardcore players taking it easy this week so they can go down a level. There is no incentive to keep climbing to higher brackets, unless there is a reward to everyone who stays in those brackets.
yeah, rightâŚ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
kingdom wasnât changed
attack team wasnât changed
#1, #5 and #10 are my favourites. - how is it âexplainedâ again?
somebody didnt read the post theyâre replying to. They were saying that a solution that has been suggested is to make it so that each group of 3 fights has a low/med/high option. Its one of the major complaints that it is not currently like that.
was it ever?
yea the old PvP gave you, generally, an easy/medium/hard fight based on team score. Sometimes they were really close together, but typically it was a pretty clear difference. It wasnât super great before, but it is definitely worse now.
Actually - mostly - yes⌠But the score differences between left-centre-right were so small that it didnât affect the leaderboards too much, as it was capped. Definitely NOT to the degree of having to do twice as many battles to achieve the same score result. Usually 40-ish-50-ish-(66-70 - depending how far into the game progression a player was; at 1700 I had 66 battles on the right; I donât remember the left and middle ones for 100%).
Screenshot from old pvp - not mine, found on the net, as an example; this has to be a much lower level account than mine and quite an old screenshot too, as I havenât seen 70-point PvP battle in at least a year 
:
My low league is the same as yours ive been promoted every time. Unless you havent idk. So calling my league low is a weird move. Im just giving general advice if its possible target 3rd not first. For some thats not realistic. But to act like every single 30 person league has 100k plus as third is main character syndrome
