PvP points should be the same for everyone

Feature Requests and Game feedback
21

These points make no sense to me. There is a small difference in power scores but my main account has to do 2 battes to get the same points my second account gets in 1 battle.

This is main account level 1300+, all troops levelled, all troops traited, all kingdoms 5* with 9 being 10*, in a guild that completes all tasks and LT with all guild statues 100+

2e9083bc21bd9bcc03b29977d248db99bad6e73e_1_690x415
2e9083bc21bd9bcc03b29977d248db99bad6e73e_1_690x4151317×800 270 KB

This is my second account level 1100+, about half my troops levelled, about half my troops traited, all kingdoms 5* with 1 10*, in a guild that completes all tasks and LT with all guild statues 100+

2e9083bc21bd9bcc03b29977d248db99bad6e73e_1_690x415
2e9083bc21bd9bcc03b29977d248db99bad6e73e_1_690x4151317×800 283 KB

22

I’m not actually sure the devs know what is going in ranked PvP these days. It is just a small part of a big problem.

Seems like everything that has been introduced for a long time now has involved minimal playtesting.

Is an endless cycle of releasing new stuff which is bugged on release/breaks the game/creates exploits which they then have to spend time to fix.

1 Like
23

Basically…
You can have all your kingdoms max starred and be in a guild that doesn’t do LT and be fine.
You can have half your kingdoms max starred and be in a guild that does LT and be fine.
But, if you have your stars maxed and do LT… Then you are discriminated against.
This isn’t a civil rights movement, this isn’t a woman’s rights movement… This is players rights. The right to compete for things like leaderboards or Factions fairly.

Screenshot_20190408-232019_Chrome
Screenshot_20190408-232019_Chrome1439×545 141 KB

May be an ugly word for it… But it’s exactly what it is.

5 Likes
24

If that was the case. Then it’s “by choice”. Because I did a ticket on it a few months ago. Back when it was a minor insult instead of a major one. I was told they were going to look into it. Well they did, and they made it worse.

1 Like
25

We can always #boycottRankedPvP? :wink:

Unfortunately a lot of end game players will still do it regardless for lesser rewards because leaderboard ranking is all for them.

1 Like
26

Unfortunately, I already had been due to my super super minority issue of PvP notifications. I have a plan though. You wait and see about that. As soon as I’m ready to do the same amount of work for half the pay.
Yes sir Mr. Sirrian, I’ll be a good boy sir, you’ll see.

1 Like
27

Agree. PvP Ranking system is broken. Why are the hardest matches for high level players worth fewer points than lower level players???

Nowayjoe2go

1 Like
28

2e9083bc21bd9bcc03b29977d248db99bad6e73e_1_690x415
2e9083bc21bd9bcc03b29977d248db99bad6e73e_1_690x4151317×800 219 KB

Unfortunately I have to do it on my second account to be able to make my minimum requirements but even then I’m not doing much I just buy the gold with gems and play PvP to make the rest up.

29

Not usually. 3 or 4 completed.

1 Like
30

Honestly I’m wondering if this is one part the algorithm and another part the RNG.
When I played PvP last night, I saw scores ranging from 30 to about 68. They weren’t evenly distributed, or at least didn’t feel that way.

I feel like there’s a big random element to matchmaking and that exacerbates this issue. As you get higher level/stats/whatever, there are more lower-value matches to take. Since matchmaking picks randomly from some set of your opponents, the more lower-value matches there are the more likely you get one.

It seems to follow that if matchmaking knows there are 30 point opponents and 60 point opponents, it might offer you a challenge and favor things closer to 60? Maybe I don’t care if I see more repeats if I get more PvP points. Why is there such a huge difference in 1T, 2T, and 3T? On my account it tends to be a choice between 10-20 points, 15-25 points, or 30-60 points.

What if, for high-level players, 1T, 2T, and 3T redistributed to be more like 15-30/25-40/40-60? That’s a narrower range, which combats the bias towards lower scores endgamers would have. It will make 3T a little samey again, we’re going to complain there’s not enough variety.

But let’s face it. For a level 1400+ player, there aren’t so many people however many levels higher that it warrants 60 points. You’re going to have to fight samey matches eventually.

Or we could just scrap this point system entirely? For some player out there, there are no 60-point matches left. It’s a shame this player, who has reached the peak, is at the strongest disadvantage in terms of PvP leaderboard competition.

Also I’m slightly bugged by the use of the word discrimination here. I’m not going to go on a tangent, I get that via dictionary definition you’re fine, but maybe find a different way to beat the drum. It trivializes some real struggles other people are facing in real life.

Edit:

Also “discrimination” is a politically-charged word that’s going to hurt some peoples’ feelings. While the dictionary definition might fit, a rule of thumb is if you’re using the dictionary for your argument you’re out of ideas. We don’t need to liken this issue to racism and bigotry to complain it’s unfair.

1 Like
31

That’s the key difference between an enjoyable PvP experience and what feels like constantly getting less than deserved.

2 Likes
32

Why all the fuss and whining about the unfairness of the awarded points?
If you don’t like it just don’t play it (that’s how I resolved the problem for me), that’s the only way to show the dev’s there are some changes needed. Playing whilst complaining about the unfairness of the rewards doesn’t resolve nope, nothing, nada….

33

PvP is something like 95% of my gameplay these days. You’re basically telling me to go play another game. Sit on it.

So far I’ve been a loud jerk in 3 major threads that completely reversed the devs’ opinion of a thing they said was totally how they wanted it and couldn’t ever change. I’ve got my heels dug in on at least 2 more, and there are probably a lot of other minor issues I’ve commented on that changed.

Reality does not support your “that’s the only way to show the dev’s (sic) there are some changes needed”. Reality shows that very large, cohesive threads that attract the participation of the game’s community leaders get things done.

They also attract you, telling those people to get a life and stop playing, presumably somehow that makes you enjoy the game better? I don’t get it. Nobody made you come to this thread or reply to it. Neither one of us has a life. “Quit playing” is definitely a way to get one. I say you move first, since you don’t like the people here.

12 Likes
34

damn, slyp, i usually ignore your megaposts, but this one is so spot on :standing O:

voicing opinions in the place given for voicing opinions is exactly how to effect change when change needs to happen.

7 Likes
35

Giving a comment on only one line of my answer doesn’t cut it. I clearly stated that that was the way I resolved the issue for me. And by the quit playing part I meant the PvP part of the game.
And if one is not allowed to speak his mind, what is all this (the forums) about then?

36

Dawnbringer in arena, Dragon’s Eye in PvP and GW. People complained non stop about these while still playing these modes and they were both changed. Just simply not playing won’t do a thing because the devs won’t know why endgamers aren’t playing as much PvP plus lower levels and endgamers in lower level guilds will still continue to play. There is so many things to o in this game now that it is possible to play as much but not do PvP so the devs may assume endgamers are busy doing raids, invasions, faction events, class events, grinding arena for trophies or grinding explore to level classes.

The only way to get these changed is to have discussions about them.

3 Likes
37

@Kafka @Cyrup what do the devs have to say about endgamers in top guilds getting an average of 33 points per battle while lower levels and endgamers in lower level guilds are averaging 66 - 70 points per battle? Why should we have to do twice as many battles to get the same amount of gold and PvP points that the lower levels do?

@Sirrian I saw you were around. Care to comment about this?

4 Likes
38

Maybe you should ask this guy for advice next time you want to tell a player to stop complaining about a mode, then? Have a little look or two at Matthew 7.

39

The whole algorithm for determining PVP points and associated rewards needs to be revised.

High-level players should not be penalized for their success and have to put in up to twice the effort for the same reward. I don’t even care about the leaderboard myself and even I can see that this whole concept is still horribly unfair.

Getting to Tier 1 in pvp used to take 27 3-trophy wins. This week, it took me 34. That’s a HUGE increase in time investment. I probably came out a little ahead on gold, but that’s not the point here - if I were trying to climb the leaderboard I’d be PISSED at the idea of having to invest 25% (or more) more time than someone else for the same position.

Time is a fixed asset. If (hypothetically) I could play for 24 hours straight, the fact that my standing would still be lower than that of a lower-tier player who played for the same amount of hours, simply because I’m higher level/have ascended more troops/have leveled more kingdoms/etc, can only be described as utterly wrong, not to mention unhealthy for the game as a whole.

Make each of the three pvp options worth a static amount of points. 1-Trophy worth X, 2-Trophy worth Y, 3-Trophy worth Z. You could even take it a step further and set static gold values for each as well, though I’d argue that those values should scale somewhat based on player level, so that a level 1500 player has a higher base than a level 200 player. Because, you know…putting in the time to be level 1500 should actually bring rewards with it?

6 Likes
40

I like the notion of making more or fewer points based on challenge, but I think there’s another problem that’s been overlooked.

Maybe I want a real challenge. Maybe I want to find those 60 point teams. But when I tell GoW to give me the hardest fight it can, sometimes it says, “Nah, I just want to give you a pushover.” So it makes no sense I face a penalty. I tried to fight a hard battle, but GoW didn’t let me. Why doesn’t GoW face the penalty?

What if the rewards were based off your record with that player or team? Here’s some examples of how that could go:

  • Player picks a match vs. 4x Fire Bomb. GoW notes this player is 100-2 vs. that team and allocates the “30 point” rewards.
  • Player picks a match vs. some meta team they’re 56-43 against and, in recent history, 10-1. The player gets “40 point” rewards, as this team isn’t a pushover but the player’s doing well.
  • Player picks a match vs. a team they’re 53-68 against and have lost the last 3 matches. The player gets “40-50 point” rewards because this is a team that challenges them.
  • Player picks a match vs. a team they’re 11-85 against. Here’s the 60+ point reward match.

This system has a neat side effect: it discourages players from facing “easy” teams like Fire Bomb unless they just want fast, easy matches. It also encourages them to seek new teams, as the numbers will tilt the game to consider those “harder”.

New players still get a boost, they will on average have more “I don’t know” matches in the middle bands. But over the course of a leaderboard run (~1,000 matches) they’re going to fill in enough information for the game to settle them into the same comfy average every other player gets.

It seems maybe gameable but I don’t believe it. Losing a match costs you PvP points. So if you try “lose 2 to gain 10 points” congratulations, to try and get 60 points in one match you lost 2 50 point matches and even ignoring time if you make +10 you paid at least -12 to get there. I invite as many cheaters as possible to make losing bets.

Barring a system like that, I want a way to refresh my 3T match until it’s “actually a challenge” that doesn’t cost a whole gem.

3 Likes