Equal PvP base VPs for all players please ❗

Feature Requests and Game feedback
1

First of all, I really enjoy the new PvP mode. :grin: It’s a nice variety of different restrictions and I’m finally seeing the value in having all these weapons for different Kingdoms and Troop Types (instead of just for leveling Kingdom Power).

In the new PvP mode, I’m able to use Gold Marks to buy a random Book of Deeds and I can also buy new Pets for Gold and Silver Marks. These are my main items of interest.

Accordingly I require Gold and Silver Marks.
Silver Marks I can just keep farming by playing the Region Bonuses - thank you for making it unlimited at Emerald League and beyond!

Gold Marks I can attain 3 ways:

  • PvP Goals will provide 80 Gold Marks for finishing all 20 Goals (and 1000 VPs)
  • Pay $$
  • Ranking top 3 in my League

As I do not want to spend cash, I’m left with PvP Goals and Ranking top 3 in my League.

Here’s the problem that I and it seems like many others are having with the system.
The PvP base VP scores against opponents are very similar to the previous PvP mode. Fighting higher level opponents give more base VPs and fighting lower level (than myself) gives me less base VPs.

In the previous PvP mode, it didn’t really matter because it was just a matter of playing 20 battles on the right side (hardest team score) to achieve Tier 1 rewards. If I took a bit longer by playing easier battles and did an extra 6 battles, it was no big deal. After that there was very little incentive to climb the Leaderboard for the small rewards it provided.

At most we’re talking about 20-30 battles over the course of 7 days.

In the new PvP mode, I’ve been given a reason to reach the top 3 in my League. Gold Marks.
It is absolutely not fair that some players are given a base VP of 90 vs 30.

It means that some players have to play 3 times as many battles to achieve the same number of VP as another player.

Here’s an example from the Leaderboard.

image
image917×175 67.3 KB

How would I feel if I were player #7 - knowing that I have to do 525 more battles to achieve the same score? I can tell you now, that I wouldn’t feel good at all.

Inequality is not a nice feeling.

Please make the base VP the same across the board. :pray:

For those in support, please reply with a +1 or any other comment or evidence to support this. Thank you very much.

:heart: Anam Cara :heart:

53 Likes
2

Threads like these need to be repeated, liked and discussed to force the developers to take action after they get back from the holidays. From the example provided by @Anam_Cara and others, the inequality needs to be addressed.

5 Likes
3

Just to clarify, when you include the bonus VP at an average of ~30, the the total VP gain is ~55 minimum to ~120 maximum, so roughly double, not triple. The point still stands though. There are many situations you can see on the leaderboard where someone has 50% more battles with the same score as someone else.

4 Likes
4

I couldn’t agree more @Anam_Cara. Thank you, and thanks to everyone else who made threads and posts like this one. We need to keep bringing up this issue until the devs do something about the VP disparity between low-mid level players and high level players.

7 Likes
5

The game should be fair for everyone, but as it stands it is really disadvantaging higher level players.

I’m only 1600+ but I already feel it. And it’s made worse for those who are 2k+

It does not make any sense to punish the players who have supported your game throughout all those years.

15 Likes
6

I completely agree. A higher level player should be rewarded for completing more battles, not completing more battles to have the same amount of rewards as a person with a lower level.

I’m only at 1600+ as well and I can also feel the disadvantage. Knowing other players have it worse just highlights how unfair the VP scoring is.

I’d appreciate if the devs fixed this so all players are on more equal footing. I am willing to contribute my support to every thread I can about this topic, but I wonder how many voices will have to speak before something is done.

Players above 2000 are probably in the minority of the player-base, which the devs may think justifies this scoring. In my opinion, there is no justification for this scoring regardless of your level.

When a player has supported your game, they shouldn’t be punished for doing it.

9 Likes
7

It wouldn’t solve issues arising from the global leaderboard and the rewards attached to that…

… but could we solve some of the issues if the bracket/League genesis were done by level? Sort all the players within a given tier by level, have the first 30 be one League, the next 30 be another League, and so on and so forth? As to bias Leagues towards all players around the same level and therefore mitigate this issue at least within that micro?

Or is the judgment of players that the rewards for finishing high on the global leaderboard out-strip the rewards for finishing high in one’s League and therefore this wouldn’t address that one at all?

2 Likes
8

once you reach the higher leagues, it seems you will earn MORE from 1st, and maybe 2nd in the league than you would from first on the global (strictly talking about gold marks). First was 30 in emerald, 45 in sapphire and now 60 in amethyst. There are still 4 more leagues above amethyst i believe, so if it continues at this rate, the top league will give 120 gold marks for first.

Sorting leagues by level is a quick fix that could work, and a few other things have been suggested to at least mitigate the issue until a real solution can be implemented. Hopefully the devs act quickly once they get back in january.

2 Likes
9

I completely agree with you @Anam_Cara. Thank you very much for your post. :heart:

I want to mention that I really love the new PvP mode and all the variety it brings. But looking at the scoring can easily lead to frustration.

I am “only” at almost 1700 myself, but I can clearly feel the disadvantage. In my league the number one player has won 40 battles less than I have (number 3) and has more points, even though I always pick the battle with the highest base VP. This is just not right. (See picture below).

I understand that it is a difference for a level 200 player or a level 2000 player and that a level 200 player has it much harder to win the PvP than a high level player. But over a 1000 it is almost the same. I have experienced the PvP on a level 1200 account, too and I win the battles just as fast as I win them with my main account, yet the VP are much higher.

The VP should be the same for everyone, so everyone can have the same chances with the same effort :pray: Please.

image
image1112×323 76.2 KB

4 Likes
10

@Schaafy Thank you for the clarification and correction. :slight_smile: Yes, it’s roughly double, not triple.

@Shanaliy Thank you for your screenshot. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: I forgot to add my own league screenshot to my original post.
Here’s my league and even with a mere 100 level difference and the exact same number of battles, we can see that there’s a 1458 Victory Point difference.

I am choosing my battles based on the highest VP per battle.

league difference
league difference940×462 89.5 KB

3 Likes
11

have you claimed your PvP goals for the 1000 VP yet? that gap seems WAY too big for a 100 level gap, even just the 400 VP difference that would be, would be pretty big for only 100 levels.

1 Like
12

Oops! Okay after collecting my 1000 bonus VP, it is a 400 point difference. Still quite a bit. :slightly_frowning_face:

2 Likes
13

I’ll make the same point I made in another thread. Some people with higher level accounts seem to have zero idea about how easy and quick it is to level to 1000 in the game these days.

3 weeks you can be 1000 and that’s without pee bottles and poop socks, lol, just playing a good few hours a day and doing the right things.

In saying a level 1000 is almost the same as a level 2000 you’re making even worse assumptions than the devs themselves did when they implemented this unfair scoring system.

A level 3000 player should earn the same VP as a level 70 player for a win? Nah. If they’re beating teams way above their potential they deserve more than a pat on the head for that. It’s an incentive for lower level players to do well, and games like this need exactly that. And yes, loopers exist, big deal. Having to swat down a high level team on a low level account is not 100% sure fire win stuff or a few more casts as some have laughably suggested, the loop can fail and it only needs to happen once for the 5 minutes spent tickling the other team one-by-one to be lost for zero reward… One thing I detested about the old PvP was how players 1500+ could find my low level accounts and smash them for fun - easy, cheesy wins on their way up to their weekly rewards. Zero effort for them and utterly demoralising for the new player - and I’m sure this is something the devs have looked to address because it feels f*****g awful to be on the receiving end of. Maybe that’s why we can’t even see a log of what battles we’ve had now, its too depressing.

People here are very quick to judge viewing the game from their own very narrow view on it, are very quick to criticise the devs at any opportunity, and rarely look to see things from the perspective of other players outside their lane. The devs have to look at things from all angles and assess impacts on a wide range of players, and obviously that throws up pretty impossible scenarios where you can’t please everyone. They got it wrong here with the current system, but some of you would have a way worse one replace it that would annoy and deter newer and more eager, fresh players - the lifeblood of the game if it’s to have any future. Take off the blinkers and put on the thinkers.

1 Like
14

And why is that bad, exactly…? Does everything in this game have to be an endless, horrible grind? Just highest difficulty battles allowed for what, exactly…? What’s wrong with picking easy battles, if that’s exactly what someone wants on that day or week? How does other players’ choices affect your gameplay…?

What I personally detested in the old PvP was the same looping and annoying defences - nobody cared that by putting them up they are making my PvP experience a horrible experience.

1 Like
15

Do you use the journey troops in a full team of that troop type? Have you ever fought against a journey troop that gets to fill its mana? I have sat there for 2+ minutes having a super low level chalcedony loop on me in hellcrag explore… then i got one match, then it looped again for another minute. These troops literally allow anyone to defeat anyone and the only real counter is freeze.

In the old PvP, it was literally beneficial to lose defenses thats why you would see so many bomb/gnome/treasure teams. It got you more rewards to fight revenge battles. You did not lose anything for defense losses, and as of now, still do not lose anything.

If a lower level player wants to do better in PvP, they can look up what they should do, and start putting effort into raising kingdom levels and obtaining the few troops that will help them. They have goals they can push towards to make their PvP experience better/faster. A high level player, who has already completed those goals, is just stuck earning 25 VP every fight, with no hope of ever making it any easier, as the more they play, the fewer fights they will have above 25 VP. If you know what to aim for when starting the game, you can easily have viable teams before level 1000.

I had a friend who was under level 1000 like 2 years ago, and as soon as i told him about the zuul’goth team, he started pushing for it. As soon as he got it, he was amazed at how much better/faster it was than the beetrix team he had been using. He was instantly able to do high level events, high level delves, always fight the 3rd fight in PvP, etc. At that point i told him to do some gold farming and focus on upgrading his kingdom levels. He has been using that team until this past month when he got diamantina, and even then, zuul’goth outperforms diamantina in a few things for him. It does not take long to get most stats from kingdoms if you know what to aim for.

Im level 1487 and my team score right now is 19,354 and i have seen many players around level 1100-1200 or so with team scores within ~1500 of me. These fights give me ~35 VP. I have also had 90 VP fights, so people near level 2000, with team scores around 13,000. Level is not the primary factor of how easy/tough these fights are, its how early did you focus on kingdom levels/delves and do you know what troops/teams are actually good.

We are saying level 1000 players because that is roughly the EARLIEST that you can possibly have a competitive team, we are not saying ALL level 1000 players will have this. We know level 1000 players do not have everything they need, but 1200, or even 1100, is typically where most players team score starts to skyrocket as they realize what to focus on. As i said im level 1487 and im sure there are level 2200+ players cursing me for how easy i have it, seeing as the difference between me and them is almost non-existent.

I dont remember when zuul’goth came out, but i know i had it when i was barely over level 1000 and i literally used it for everything possible, including PvP. I do remember what it was like to have lower stats, and sure, sometimes you get unlucky and a troop dies because of the lower health. Back then, journey troops didnt exist either, so low level players have it easier now than even a couple years ago.

16

Because it feels terrible being brand new to a game, having a new mode open up and for people who have played for years to swat you like a fly, obviously.

If you find the game an endless horrible grind that might be a you problem.

17

and it feels even worse for players who have played that game for years to have to play more than 1.5x as much than others simply because they have spent less time playing the game. In pretty much ANY game out there, the veterans will swat away new players like flies, thats how experience works.

Expecting to be able to compete with veterans as a newer player is a ridiculous assumption. Especially when any type of leaderboard is involved, giving players ANY advantage in placement simply because they have less time in the game is very anti-competitive.

3 Likes
18

^^ this, 100%.

Plus: there’s no direct and real-time PvP in this game. We are all playing against a more-or-less dumb AI, which plays for us on defense. This should have zero impact on player’s state of mind while actively playing.

19

Taking away my choice of playing easy battles will turn it into endless horrible grind - so no, it’s not a me problem, it’s a you problem. As it is you who’s trying to take away choices for other players, choices that do not affect your own gameplay directly. If the new player is still winning when they’re actively playing, why does it matter that they’re losing on defense? Defense wins or loses say nothing about player skill or ability, as it’s not the player who’s playing them. I’m not a new player, far from it; I’m losing on defenses in PvP, and I couldn’t care less. In the old PvP, I welcomed the losses - because they meant revenge battles with double gold… and couldn’t understand people who would resign from this opportunity by putting up defenses that rarely lost in the hands of AI.

I’m in the game to win, not to lose unwinnable battles over and over. If I want a challenge, I’ll go play 500 pure delves, not PvP. I’m not sorry for picking easy battles in PvP and avoiding the difficult ones.

3 Likes
20

Something sounds very strange here.
There was two ways those horrible high level players could’ve targeted you - either refresh casual PvP for gold fee or refresh ranked PvP for gems.

In the most likely case of casual PvP, the thing is that
A) you wouldn’t even know anybody attacked you because it was not tracked;
B) casual did not count towards PvP goals or weekly leaderboard or revenge battles;
B) your defense losing in casual had zero effect on you (read - your position on weekly leaderboard) because refer to point A.

I consider the other case of somebody deliberately hunting you down in ranked PvP (where defense losses did result in some, rather negligible, decrease of weekly PvP points) quite absurd as it would’ve cost a lot of gems, wasted time and provided no actual gain for the person supposedly doing it.

Besides, defense results in PvP were basically just a number on the screen (that didn’t truly matter even if you were going for the leaderboard), you took no active part in your defense games and if anybody got upset by those numbers…well, that’s a problem with your understanding and attitude. Might as well be upset that the Sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.

=========
As for the OP suggestion of equal base VPs for everybody - the bare minimum would probable be to go back to the old system of linking VPs to teamscore instead of player level. High level players would still be at a certain disadvantage but not to the ridiculous extent that we see now.

9 Likes