Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

PvP Defense incentive/restriction - STAMINA / Stat diminish

Each troop has “Stamina”,
stamina can go from 250 to -50

  • each time a player defense is being attacked and wins, if all its units have stamina above 0 - player gains extra reward * (that on the bottom)

  • each time a player defense is is being attacked each unit used in that team looses 1 stamina, despite the battle outcome
    (2 same units will loose 1 stamina each, so 2 in total, etc)

  • after unit stamina depletes to 0, the unit will loose 1 of each stat for each negative stamina point - the stat loss applies only to the pvp defense

  • stamina will be recovered by +20 (for all units) once a week, when a player collects tribute the first time within that week

  • each time you score another 200 ranked invade wins you instantly recover 10 stamina to all units

  • ascending a unit will recover 50 stamina to it

  • it would be good to have a red “!” exclamation mark, or a broken shield image, hovering around pvp button if your defense units stamina is low

Possible extra rewards for def wins without depleted stamina:

  • that defense win is counted as 2 defense wins for the “defense/revenge win reward bar”
  • you get +1 “shiny” point (shiny points exchanged into keys or jewels or used in crafting)
  • you get +1 shard
  • you get +2 glory +1 trophy
  • you get +1 gem
  • anything devs can think of…

Note: all numbers put in here are just an example, ofc devs will choose their own if they ever decide to implement this suggestion in any way at all


Hey, I wrote about something similar like that moths ago :smiley:
For purpose of changing GW defense teams more often instead facing the same meta defenses 5 times in a row.
It was troops fatigue or something like that :slight_smile:

1 Like

yeah i think i do recall something like that for the gw
but i posed it “almost again” for pvp this time, since im starting to think something of such sort would be the only long time remedy for the pvp meta effect

1 Like

I’m not really sold on the idea, it sounds like micro management hell for all reasonably active players and begs to exploited on a grand scale.

To analyze this a bit more in detail, you are proposing a cap of 20 defense battles each troop can participate in each week (after a settling in phase) without becoming useless. If you receive more than 20 invades without changing your defense team to yet another set of unique troops not used throughout the whole week, it will eventually become weak enough to fall to a single empowered Dust Devil cast, for every defense fight to follow. And this weakness, once acquired, will stick around for up to several weeks.


1.) I usually don’t really like being forced to do arbitrary recurring tasks. Collecting tributes feels okay (surprise!), coming up with yet another defense team after each half hour of PvP feels like a chore.

2.) The devs didn’t like single troop defense teams, due to the increased overall gold payout. I’m quite sure they wouldn’t like permanently-out-of-stamina defense teams either, given that it is essentially a guaranteed single-click victory for the invader.

it suggests to have a set of defenses to choose from (especially it inspires event-based decks as they are different types each week, and the new troop is easy replenishable), to set one to withstand the *250 defenses - then to change to a different defense, and wait the old one replenishes
(in approximate 10 weeks?)
if you battle a lot then you will need to change your defense often, but not as often as every 20 defenses…

the stat penalty could be capped earlier too, maybe -20 not -50, whatever the numbers are

no matter how you look at it: there needs to be something to motivate players to actually change their defense team more or less regularely. even if you can remove stat penalty alltogether and just keep the bonuses for positive stamina, to change the defense it will feel like a chore, but not any different chore then the one doing daily/weekly gw/pvp/dungeons so far

changing attitude towards a “regular defense change” is the key to reduce meta problem

and the more of defense teams it will require/inspire you to make/have the better pvp variety it will be overall

Well, there sort of is, weekly events. They motivated players to change their defense teams to such an extent that it didn’t take long for nerfs to get shouted for.

I suspect the matter might actually be an entirely different one. Players don’t seem to mind fighting the same team over and over, provided they keep winning. It’s mostly after getting beaten by a team that they want to see a different (as in “easier to beat”) one.

Maybe it would help if the match maker were to take teams you have lost to into account, and match you against those teams much less often the next couple of fights? It’s probably not very enjoyable to get offered a choice of the very three Kraken teams you’ve just lost to twice.

good idea but it should also adjust rewards accordingly:

  • if you keep loosing to a certain team you will get more rewards for defeating it, and the other way around

That’s unlikely to work out well either.

If those rewards are anywhere significant, players will intentionally lose fights to exploit the benefits. Not doing so would essentially punish them for playing well, because that “other way around” makes them gain increasingly less rewards.

If those rewards are paltry, there’s no need to introduce them. Finally beating a tough team feels more rewarding to me than getting something like an extra 50 gold.

it will work better then artificially offering easier matchmaking and not adjusting rewards

you are calling out for a def score disaster here
which is likely to be abusable too

weaker players being haunted all the time due to their defense not being able to win

strong but very actve players not getting any invades on them due to their defense being too successful

weird defense numbers all over the place

dont you remmember that matchmaking system already has (or had) a problem of “not enough enemies to offer”

and overall that system would say:

you arent allowed to have a successful defense team

edit: adding extra reward compensation to that system would wix most of those problems as then:

  • that system wouldnt have to matchmake perfectly, it could still give a fair range of “too hard” and “too easy” enemies - compensating those “missmatches” with the appropiate reward
  • due to that compensation ppl wouldnt feel “cheated” by the matchmakign system, and they would more likely attack the wider range of enemies -> making the defense scores less weird, so it would neutralise the “weaker defense haunting” etc before it arise

generally we cant simply have a system that punishes successful defense team by just removing it from matchmaking pool, its nonsense, but thats what would indirectly happen there…

It should be very obvious that this wouldn’t happen here, I’m quite surprised you ended up with this conclusion.

It’s rather more variety in matchmaking than easier matchmaking. You still get matched by power score, just in a less punishing way. There’s several 10k players within your power range, no need to keep picking the ones with teams you just lost several times to, pick some of the others for a few fights.

White noise. I seriously doubt those weaker players would notice (or even care about) a tiny increase in their defense teams getting picked. You seem to be thinking in binary terms here, that’s not how statistics work.

Again, this isn’t a binary toggle. Uniform strong defenses would see somewhat less invades from players repeatedly not successful against them. There’s still plenty of other players around to invade you, those not losing every fight and those returning after getting offered a few different team compositions with same power score in between.

Quite amusingly, there were always enough enemies to offer, the match maker just didn’t look very far. Which is very similar to the issue at hand, not enough variety. It’s not very helpful that the match maker now digs up more players with the same defense team, it needs to look far enough to find distinct teams.

Not quite, it rather says that if you are fielding the meta grief team of the week, it will get picked slightly less often than an equally successful, less ubiquitous team would.

and how many % of them are active (needs to be invaded) and have a team i didnt “loose much” against?

if matchmaker doesnt look further it would look like this:
depending how the matchmaking tweak is implemented it either:
a) will pull only active enemies (the ones that needs to be invaded) - in this case the enemy range will shrink unhealthly
b) will have to also pull less active enemies -> making the weak player issue actually be more then just a tiny increase

ill just agree to disagree, depending for how long / how many invades you want to “toggle off” a certain team for a certain player, it may statistically turn out into nearly binary problem imo

lets just toss a number there for example wisps have something will be removed from 1/4 of the defense fights they are normally in, what % of high power rating player-defenses a wisp do you think is? lets assume 20% (imo much more) then you are transferring 25% of invades from 20% of community into the other 80% giving them what in return? oh those players who win all the time will cover it? so now you are punishing those players without even reward compensation xD

but when you look at meta in general, for the high power rating fights:

meta teams occur in like 90% of fights ? removing one or multiple meta teams from the pool for a player will only yeld another meta since netting the non-meta team is unlikely with such pool. So it will either solve nothing (just slightly increase amount of “different” meta teams met for an individual) or it will unhealthly move defense stats ratio from majority of players into minority of players (targetting non-meta) which would kind of break the game

used “meta” as a shortcut generalised definition of a defense team that wins, i hope you dont mind

also what makes you think that system that bans a team is less likely to be abused then a system that rewards fighting harder teams?
there is no reason why ppl wouldnt just loose to some meta teams to then have offered easier farmable teams, weather there is extra reward compensation or not.

anyway i dont think that extra reward compensation being abusable is a viable reason to not implementing it.

currently the opposite machanisms are already in there and they are also abusable.
4x mythic peasant is worth as much as 4x mythic wisp kraken whatnot which either leads to a belief player is abusing or is being abused in there.

since measurement of a team strength is a delicate matter i believe its win ratio, or in this case players loose ratio against it (which is worse then the raw defense win ratio - but imo will do) is one of most accurate evaluations we could actually get

Enough that you couldn’t ever fight them all, even if your were to play a dozen devices simultaneously around the clock.

You are very much underestimating how many active players there are around. The match maker is currently limiting your interaction to a very tiny amount of the active player population, and a lot of what you are seeing is sticky.

Actually, there is a very good reason. Most players are winning at least 90% of the time, even against meta teams. The time it takes them to intentionally lose games wouldn’t raise their farm speed enough to improve their overall income. They would need an incentive, like your proposed extra reward compensation.

Ouch. Thanks for sharing your ideas, unfortunately I don’t see a way how we could reach common grounds.

ouch indeed :sweat_smile:
if we can’t find a common ground, how about devs? no wonder nothing is done in this area

anyway i assume the “matchmaker matchmaking” problem is a real issue, since that is how it works now, if it was easy adjustable it would have been done by now
you assume, for your system to work - that matchmaker is being perfected first, right?

if that was the case, what would happen if match maker was perfected without any system changes? would that somehow solve the meta problem? :sweat_smile:

and, uhm, you say that “most ppl” win against meta more often then not - wouldnt that mean the system changes nothing for “most ppl” ?
i assumed that, - for the sake of actually changing something for ppl - the banning would happen quickly enough to actually make ppl feel the difference. (thats why it would also be abusable by a few quick looses) maybe it would not make a difference for a person who wins 90% of the time but it should react often and quick enough - to actually do shake the overall defense stat numbers. if your system doesnt even risk to shake them how will that make any practical difference?

what were your assumptions towards the system?
how exactly do you think it suppose to work?

Um… just no… horrendously complicated idea… impossible to track as a player, likely to kill the game’s servers too…

1 Like