For me, I’m max level. I never see 40+ pvp points.
But why can those who are less than level 500 can usually get 40+ pvp points or even 50+…
That means, I need to play 3 wins that the other only need to play 2 wins…
Oh man, high level players need 50% more time than low level players to reach the same pvp points?!
I CAN’T IMAGINE ABOUT THAT!!!
I don’t agree with that… If a low level player is skillful, he can invade in a very high win rate.
Well, please take a look at the leaderboard, those top 100 player less than level 500. They need to play far fewer wins than high level players.
I can understand that high level players must be frustrated. For low players fighting hard difficulty opponents for me at least is anywhere from 500 to 1000 rank. Andvi get anywhere from 38 to low 50s. I don’t have any mythic troop but a lot of my opponents do. So it’s a really good battle And the reward is high. For maxed rank players it would be hard to find a similar kind of battle because at that point most player’s strength is about the same. So the reward is lower.
I believe it would be more fair to perhaps to make each difficulty give a static amount of pvp points. That way it is even for all players.
I was finding level 8s on the first day when I was level 900+. I still see fairly low levels on occasion.
I don’t mind lower leveled players getting more PvP points. They have a huge disadvantage when having to face high leveled players around them. If they have to take a 2 trophy instead of facing the hard 3 trophy, the extra points become completely irrelevant. I like this gap since it gives lower leveled players a fairer chance to reach the global leaderboard. If it was removed, the entire leaderboard would be level 1,000+.
Maybe, if the aim is to reward just play-time and effort levels… it’d be sad for the lower level players and they’d have no reason to join in… and no chance of getting rewards which are more meaningful to them than to the high level dominant players… so this is in theory bad for the game…
But the OP makes a valid point (which I agree with) that the current system doesn’t reward the players that have invested longer to build their collections and resources…
Man, I would love to see an opponent of any level worth that much gold and PVP points. I have never had an offered opponent worth more than 799 gold, and the highest PVP point total I have ever seen is 43, twice – and one of those only rewarded me 18 points thanks to a glitch the devs hadn’t fixed yet.
Matchmaking is all kinds of inconsistent right now, even though it is maddeningly consistent for me. I envy you your high-difficulty selections.
(1) Higher level players loooooooooove to insist that casuals who play to relax should have the option of picking easier matches for smaller rewards. I see this a LOT in this forum. Sure, take the combo breaker off! Whatever! Just make sure the rewards are smaller because those easier fights deserve less.
Ok, cool. Easier fights deserve fewer rewards.
But pretty much by definition, a low level player with fewer kingdom bonuses, fewer ascensions, and fewer traitstones is going to have a HARDER time fighting a defense team that is fully leveled, fully ascended, with all the kingdom bonuses than would a high-level player who’s on equal footing with the defender. Equal resources = easier fight.
The same logic that insists that the casuals get fewer rewards for easier fights would also dictate that players taking on the harder fights in PVP get greater rewards.
The problem that the high level players face is that, being at the top of the heap, there is no such thing as a difficult match. All opponents are on equal or lesser footing.
Sometimes it’s tough to be at the top.
(2) Okay, so this is hilarious. Everyone is so sad that the leaderboards reflect time playing instead of skill, but here’s someone who’s mad because skill has an effect on the leaderboards:
Yes! Exactly. More skill + more difficult match = more points. I think that’s how it’s supposed to work? I think that’s the actual, literal goal of assigning points this way?
The only way lower levels have any kind of actual advantage over their similar leveled peers is through gaining resources using methods that don’t also accrue experience (maps, guild leeching, straight buying them). Lower level matches tend to take longer on average than higher level ones (less mana surges, generally less traits, chance to run into higher level opponents with much higher skill bonuses), and with Tiers and Ladder being linked, lower levels getting more points to assist them in reaching Tier 1 actually also makes sense.
It might make sense, especially toward the top, for points gained and lost for a given match to be based on the difference in current rank, but this would reeealy suck for Tiers, which I feel should remain as a consistent amount of time put in to get your static reward and not dependent on when in the week you decide to put in this time. This would also in effect take lower level players out of the running completely if they get matched with mostly low levels, who would then mostly be low rank. However, as a measure of just sheer effort/time spent on PvP this week, the current system seems to be a decent approximation.
Look on the bright side, anyone doing enough PvP matches to reach that high on the ladder can’t stay low level forever. Given their activity level, though, they would still be more likely contenders for top spots, the only real change would be their level and win count numbers.
We also have yet to see what the actual winner is. Remember, in this kind of format, there is going to be a rush toward the end to hold those top spots.
No real bias here, by the way. I’m nearly level 600 and don’t plan on participating in the ladder.
They still haven’t fixed the “disconnect to avoid a loss” issue, even though they say they have. The 500-0 records on the leaderboard are unreasonable – even the top tier meta teams are going to get an unlucky board every so often, especially when facing a lot of teams with Maw at the top. As long as this is going on, the leaderboard represents a measure of persistence and time investment, nothing else.
Personally, I’m not interested in the leaderboard rewards, I’m happy to get to Tier 1, and while that took longer this week than before, I enjoyed having more challenging battles along the way, and I banked significantly more gold/glory/trophies too. What is needed is an alternate form of reward for hard ranked PvP wins that doesn’t depend on how many battles you have time for…
If it was me, with all due respect to our dev team, I would re-think the rule that traitstone drop rates are identical regardless of the difficulty of the win. Hard ranked wins could and should have a higher % chance to get Runic/Arcane/Celestial drops, with the Major % being lowered to balance it out. We already have a glut of surplus Majors anyway. I would go so far as to double the Runic %, and perhaps 1.5x the % for either Arcane or Celestial. This wouldn’t give away the store, but still give players who need rarer traitstones the feeling we can reduce the grind time just a little bit if we can score some quality wins.
So far with the new system, I’ve only lost one invasion. That 1 loss showed up with a loss to PVP points and a loss on my stats. The reason for the low losses on invades is because I’ve gotten pretty good at knowing what hard teams my team can take down and which ones are really risky. So, their loss stats aren’t odd, especially not for the endgamers on the leaderboard.
That said, I believe Tacet started a thread that showed that quitting out did give a loss of PVP points but wasn’t registered in stats. If that is correct, the PVP points are still valid.