The main problem with the rank system is all forms of deduction have been nullified. It is currently impossible to lose an AI defend atm due to a glitch. On top of that, they rescaled the values for a 3 trophy. The 3 trophy battles give a huge amount of points with an extremely minimal reduction for a lose. They also cut back how many points a person loses from an AI defend lose to the point that 1 normal win can ignore 3-7 AI defend loses. This system works good for getting to rank 1, but it turns the leaderboard into whoever has the most time.
All forms of loses need to be penalized a lot harder as one’s rating gets higher. Over 10,000? Each AI defend lose will lose slightly more points and every PvP lose will be in the triple digits. And just scale it up somehow so that it keeps people’s rating below 30,000ish and other absurdly high numbers unless they can maintain a consistent team for winning. There would then be a problem with disconnects, but a rescale like this would only effect the top 10% or so.
This is an extremely bad idea. Do you know how vociferous the complaints would be about how someone lost 1000+ hard-earned points to a purposefully cheating AI? It would be enough to destroy the game. In the ELO rating system (used in chess and a number of games on Steam) your point loss is capped at a relatively small number no matter how much weaker your opponent is. ELO wouldn’t work here, unfortunately, because there is no direct PvP, it’s all simulated vs. the AI.
From what I see, the complaints all seem to be tethered to the idea that it’s unfair to expect players with time restrictions to compete for rewards against those who, regardless of personal circumstance, are able to play GoW every waking hour of the day. A better solution, IMHO, would be to make an award proportional to how many matches you have time to play after reaching Tier 1. We get an event key for every 60 successful defends (temporarily broken), what about an event key for every 60 wins after Tier 1? Or make it more targeted and drop a random arcane stone every 60 wins. That way everyone has something to play for.
I have often thought that offense and defense should be completely separate, with their own leaderboards and rewards.
In an ideal world defense would be considered more of an incubator to give the devs data on what sorts of teams the computer plays well, in order for them to build interesting challenges and improve the AI strategy.
The ONLY problem with the ranking system is that it is a ranking system. As in, no matter what you do, only 100 people can be in the top 100, only 1000 people can be in the top 1000, and so on.
As there are more than 10K people who want to be in the top 100 - or at least top 1000 - there will inevitably be lots of people complaining that the system is not good because it is too hard for them to get in the top 100 or 1K. Excuses will vary, from “it’s unfair that lower levels get more points”, through “top players are surely cheating” to “I deserve a chance even if I have time constraints”, and of course they will offer all kind of ideas to fix the ‘problem’.
But they are wrong in one thing. It’s not “too hard” for everyone to get into the top 100 or 1000, its downright impossible. If you ‘fix’ the system in a way that some people have it easier to get in, it would automatically mean that some other people will have to stay out, and after the ‘fix’, those other people will be the ones who put the more effort (compared to the ones who came in), and they will rightfully complain that it’s too hard for them to get in no matter how hard they try - and so you’re back to square one.
Want a solution that makes everyone happy? Your only choice is to do away with any ranking system, and just stick to reward for amount of points - that is of course the current tier system, which you can expand much further for additional rewards, until maybe not everyone can get everything, but at least it’s a static goal, and nobody feel like they are being unfairly robbed by someone else. But if you do want a ranking system, then know that this is how it works, and stop complaining and looking for solutions to problems that don’t exist.
This is an extremely bad idea. Do you know how vociferous the complaints would be about how someone lost 1000+ hard-earned points to a purposefully cheating AI? [/quote]
Why, then we could introduce X-hour shields that protect your points from loss for some gems. Then … HEY! stop beating me!
I worked my up to #50 on Monday with the holiday, but I didn’t expect to stay there. That took 12 hours. I work for a living and don’t have 12 hours a day I can commit to stay in the top 100 for a week. After I retire, maybe.
What I would like to see is better consistency in the value of the games. My tough game is rarely worth more than 30 yet I see people averaging 40 or so. To be competitive I would have to play like twice the number of games. I’ve also seen times when my weak game was against a higher rated team than the tough game was in the next offering.
I would like to see offering of 5 opponents.
Toughest is always rated over 7000 and worth say 40 points.
Second is always against a line-up 6-7,000 and worth say 30 points.
Third is always against a line-up 5-6,000 and worth say 20 points.
fourth is always against a line-up 3-5,000 and worth say 15 points.
The weakest is always a line-up <3,000 and worth say 10 points.
The specific ranges isn’t important here, but the concept that each level of opponent will have a team with a certain range is. The specific number of points each game is worth likewise isn’t as important as the point that each level will be worth a specific amount.
With the above you would have a limit of say 50 games a day or 250 a week that would count towards pvp ranking. That way quality is as important as quantity and everybody is on the same playing field. Again the specific numbers aren’t as important as the concept.
That sounds good. However the numbers DO matter and matter a lot really. Depending how the game count relies to a player’s plans. Also if it’s closed budget the disconnects and similar havaria would hurt a lot.
Not trying to sound rude, but your approach is just more rewards for all, and would change nothing about the actual problems the OP perceives in the ranking system.
@Gouki
I get where you’re coming from but the ranks are functioning as intended, playing earns you points, whoever plays nonstop will be at rank one and that’s the way it should be, my position is that the OP probably is more upset that he can have as of now 10k+ PVP points and not get anything beyond the tier rewards, which is the frustration with most, I have what it takes to grind to 10k+ PVP points but refuse to since I can’t gain more then 10-15k and that not even break 10,000th rank it looks, rewarding players for hitting milestones Beyond tier rewards give incentive to grind PVP
Oh i totally agree that the rankings work the way it is intended, i wasn’t complaining, i just pointed out that the OP was specifically talking about his volatile position in the ranks, and didn’t mention the rewards.
As for the reward debate itself, i don’t really see a problem that needs fixing in my opinion.
Even below rank 1000 we get more stuff than we got before 2.0 for playing pvp battles.
Just now that the top1000 get an extra goodie in addition, people feel the need to get a piece of that as well.
Your approach would give everyone just another piece of reward including the top1000 who would profit even more from that change. So it doesn’t really accomplish anything, the top1000 will still get extra goodies, and people will still envy them for it and want a part of it.
Hey guys, thanks very much for all your thoughts on this. I understand completely there is no easy way to make everybody happy with a ranking system. For me at least it feels unfair to make one step forward and two steps back overnight. I have no problem with losing a couple of places while I’m not able to play because of work or sleep. But losing more places than you gained the day before feels unfair to me.
Honestly, who is going to fight the ‘Rank Two’ player for less gold, less trophies and less PVP points, when you can attack someone 500 levels lower (…and 20,000 ranks lower…) for more gain…?
So the solution is simple, set up a really poor defence team like Sister has and no-one will attack you. Leaving your position safe from point loss through invaders.
Oh and possibly quit your job
Well, not exactly. It can make you not loose the points due to lost defence battles, but you can loose ranks as well from other players gaining points. And that can be solved only by playing, playing some more and then playing much, much more…
