As someone who ALWAYS hit the pity cap for PvP points (50/58/66 for left/middle/right battle), for EVERY battle, I strongly disagree. The old system wasn’t better in any way, it just didn’t hurt as much. Because there weren’t any 30 player brackets causing reward competition pains.
There is a TRIVIAL way to improve the current system while keeping it mostly fair:
Every left/middle/right battle is worth the same fixed slightly lower/normal/slightly higher amount of VP.
Every left/middle/right battle is against a somewhat lower/same/somewhat higher level player.
This is slightly skewed at the very top, where the game can’t find any/enough higher level players, but offering a level 3000 player a level 2500 opponent instead of a level 3100 opponent as somewhat higher level player won’t really make much of a difference.
Under no circumstances should low level players constantly get offered jackpot battles, unless high level players also constantly get offered similar jackpot battles (e.g. by upscaling opponents, adding a few entirely irrelevant extra stat points).
I hope you all noticed, that like always devs have not the slightest clue of their own game!
Please look into the update notes:
We have made improvements to matchmaking which take higher team score into account
We will be monitoring this and will make adjustments on the server after 7.3 releases.
And this new system has nothing to do with team score, it is all about player level!
Is it? I thought team score was also dependent on the magic, attack, life and armor stats and would be used to differentiate between, for example, two players having identical teams and identical levels, but one of those players had done no/fewer delves and not maxed out the magic pet (if that ever did contribute?!).
If my assumption is correct then wouldn’t this make ‘team score’ the correct measure to balance?
did you subtract the 1000 from PvP first? that makes it 105 per match (not a huge difference but should be mentioned). Im level 1487 and get 95+ VP in the vast majority of my fights, so 105 per fight average for someone 100 levels lower than me is reasonable. your ~86 VP per fight is reasonable for your level, but just to be sure, you should use teams that can reliably create an 8-gem match, as well as taking 8 extra turns for maximum bonus VP. Currently, i have an average of ~101 VP per fight at level 1487.
I just checked the global PVP leaderboard on Xbox. 7th place is level 1408, has 777 attack wins and is at 69,472 VP. 41st place is level 3336, has 825 attack wins and is at 41,650 VP. So the level 1408 player has almost 28k more VP than the level 3336 player despite having 48 fewer wins. How on earth is that fair? I seriously doubt they have enough of a troop or stat disparity to justify such a huge difference in VP.
I didnt subtract because he may not have collected his rewards… And still he would have to get 80+ for each choice … So im calling bullshit on some of the scoring on these accounts. They dont seem genuine and the speed there scoring doesnt seem genuine either…
So atm 1 the new PvP arent genuine players teams and secondly it seems like the leagues are populated with spurious accounts.
idk what to say man, the person you are talking about has a very similar average score to me, i get 90 VP fights pretty often, and rarely have to pick any worth less than 60 VP. Its a bad system, but that score is perfectly plausible. Like i said my average is about 101 VP per fight across more than 650 fights, i typically get 30-32 bonus VP, unless there is a troop that freezes me, or a severe lack of the correct color gems on the starting board.
Youve offered no evidence for me think differently, but yes it is plausible. But ill say this the longer you play any variables will flatten out and by 400+ matches i think we would should be seeing more consistent scoring. And were seeing massive variations so there is something wrong somewhere.
yes, the average score will be more accurate after many battles, and like i said, my 650+ battles with an average of 101 VP per fight is what i currently have. A slightly lower level player, like the one in your screenshot, would, on average, see slightly higher base VP fights than i would, meaning if they are doing the fights similarly to me, they would have a slightly higher average VP, which they do (105 VP).
At your level, i would still expect average VP to be somewhere in the 90’s, which is why i brought up that maybe you were just not maximizing the bonus VP per fight like i am. This person in your screenshot is obviously paying attention to always choose the highest VP fight and is earning most bonuses in every fight. The reason we see so much variation is because not everybody plays that way.
The only thing that is wrong with the situation is the current VP system, but this persons score is very much possible for a player of that level.
i didnt say that you werent maximizing VP, i said i would expect you to have a higher average VP if you were. The system makes it so that the higher your level, the lower your average VP is going to be. The ~100 level difference between me and the person in your screenshot translates to an average of 4 VP difference. The ~100 levels between me and you should also be an average of single digit VP difference.
I asked if you know all the bonus VP requirements, because going for them is a huge increase in VP per fight. What teams do you typically use? Are you getting 8 extra turns every fight? are you making an 8-match? I genuinely want to know, because as i said i would expect your average VP to be a bit higher.
Ill say it every time, the current VP system sucks and is unfair, but it does make sense. Im not trying to put you down or anything, i just want to make sure you know how to get as many VP per fight as you can. For level 2000+ players, bonus VP is literally more than the base VP for most of their fights.
I may be out on the exact change in numbers. Possibly get 90 at less than 2530. Going by memory but roughly in this area.
I believe there are some factors taken into account such as say you face a level 1740 one battle and a 1775 the next. The likelihood is the 1775 is higher in the range maybe 41 vs 35 for 1740.
I will do some logging ( at some point) and see if can be a bit more accurate with when numbers change.
this tracks with data that i saw someone else was collecting, where -400 levels give 25 VP and +400 level gives 90 VP (roughly) Narrowing down the exact level ranges would be quite tedious, but nice to know.
It’s always been like this where the higher rank player gets less points. It’s only an issue now because books which is the bottleneck for high rank players is involved. There is an easy solution. How about instead of playing all day because folks do not want to fork over any money to buy a book just work 1 hour per week extra and just buy it and just play for the unique pets. This will Free you up to do other things plus the game will love the support.
I add my vote for a fix. I have equal battles to 8th and 9th while I’m in 10th and they are ahead, and 7th who has less battles than all of us is thousands ahead… How am I supposed to get into 7th let alone 3rd…
