This is a leaderboard for time spent. Nothing wrong with that in a game that is not in anyway PVP. For a skilled leaderboard you need player v player with no AI. Just accept you will not compete in a time board and enjoy the game for what it is not what you want it to be in the perfect world.
4 Likes
This is correct, they started this game with an energy system that got nerfed over time until they just said âWhy do we need this thing, we keep nerfing it so we might as well remove itâ
1 Like
Thatâs been my position. I played as much as I possibly could one week and got to #12 on the board. I felt myself burning out, and since then Iâve stopped caring about position. Itâs enough to know I could be competitive, and saving my enthusiasm so Iâm still having fun with the game a year from now is more important to me than pushing hard and risking burnout. Kudos to those who can bring themselves to compete week after week â that just isnât my thing.
11 Likes
I would like to see some sort of mechanics that discourages players from spamming fights.
But not energy mechanics, something that instead of hard-capping it, soft-caps it.
For example something like Endurance, it starts at 100% and decreases with every fight but regenerates over time. When below 50% it will provide penalty to points earned. At 0% endurance you can still fight but points will be reduced.
I dont get what all the fuss is about. Ok so those who play most get to the highest ranks. Who cares? The rewards for pvp ranks are ridiculous for the amount of time you have to invest. I play ranked pvp for the sole purpose of getting glory points.
Considering the opportunity costs, the pvp rewards are even less valuable. Instead of playing 20-30 hours (just guessing wildly) to achieve a rank in the top 10, you could just as well work⌠i dont know⌠2 (?) extra hours at your job and buy what you need, and at the same time support the devs.
Ok so you got a job and a family and cant play as much as a student? Use your real life moneyz to compensate for the lack of time spent.
So you dont have a job cause youâre a student and cant afford to put money into this game? Play more to achieve the same.
tl;dr: Itâs just a freakinâ game, so relax.
5 Likes
They could also just use a multiplier based on ranks. Player 1 invades player 2 and wins. Because the rank is so different between the two players we apply a multiplier for PvP points based on rank difference.
Rank brackets: 1001+ / 501-1K / 201-500 / 101-200 / 51-100 / 21-50 / 11-20 / 7-10 / 4-6 / 2-3 / 1
Player 1 (4500 power, rank 5K)
Player 2 (6000 power, rank 100)
Player 1 receives 50 PvP points (which is what you would get right now in the game) with a multiplier of X where X is the rank brackets difference, in this case between rank 5K and rank 100 there is 5.
Now just need to decide how much is the multiplier, do I get twice or triple the amount of the original PvP points⌠so 100 or 150 PvP pts instead of 50 due to big gap in rank.
You would also have to consider a better rank invading a lower rank and the multiplier would be in reverse⌠like getting 25% or 50% instead of getting 100% of the PvP pts due to your rank being better then the one your invading.
Player 1 this time is rank 50 while everything else remains the same from previous exemple. Again player 1 invades player 2 and wins.
PvP is the only competition in this game
This is what i do as well, did a 2ish hour stream just for this reason.[quote=âillusion, post:67, topic:8509â]
PvP is the only competition in this game
[/quote]
You clearly never played maps before. The compotition for high score is worse than pvp. 100 moves or more shoot i wish i could.
Now youâre suggesting ârubberbandingâ. Yet another mechanic no one likes. I play 4 hrs and build a lead (albiet an arbitrary lead) and some player lower than me can spend an hour and theoritically catch up. The lower you are the more points can be accrued. Under your suggestion, playing less is more efficient.
No, thanks.
They had this in place until 1% complained then they removed it.
Iâm not getting into that debate here. The points are much better now, Maw seems to be tamed, and there is much more variety. So, instead of moving backwards, letâs move forward.
1 Like
What they had was: the lower your level, the more points you got for a win, whereas higher level players got super few points. They never linked the possible points awarded to your current rank; which is what I guess he meant. Correct me if Iâm wrong =P
1 Like
Assuming points or level i was stating a simple fact about how points were awarded based on level.
What fact? Higher level players received less points than lower level players. That is not ârubberbandingâ.
The fact that they removed it is.[quote=âKoolbiird, post:74, topic:8509â]
Higher level players received less points than lower level players.
[/quote]
What are you trying to prove? We know they changed it. It is quite obvious now. That has nothing to do with this debate.
This is ârubberbandingâ. This is what I am referring too. This is akin to the blue shell in Mario Kart. You are talking about something that does not matter, whatsoever, when it comes to this debate.
1 Like
This was no debate.
@Illusion I know this community (the very few that have responded) has not embraced your suggestions concerning the leaderboard. I do not want this to negatively impact your contributions to the forum. Please continue to provide any suggestions and/or opinions that may enlighten us. We are a very open, and understanding community.
Furthermore, I value innovation instead of adding old mechanics that plague other games. Granted, any mechanic is viable on a case by case basis; but introducing an energy mechanic punishes a gamer for playing the game and adding ârubberbandingâ promotes a player to play less of the game.
Lastly, as far as a way to improve the leaderboard, I have no real answer for you. Historically, this is the way every leaderboard has ever worked that I have ever seen. I have not played every game under the sun, so my experience is relegated to the most popular games with a leaderboard that I have played. My apologies for not being more constructive, and do continue to contribute.
4 Likes