And yet Firebombs make up a stupidly large portion of my PVP opponents anyway. *shrug*
It really isn’t fair that you have to do almost twice as many battles to get the same reward just because you are in a good guild.
I’m done complaining about this anyway. I’ve handed my guild over and stopped playing that account that requires PvP to get requirements done. I’m sticking with the one account that just needs to buy the glory troop, collect tributes and do the occasional faction event to get requirements done.
Took me 34 again this week. Not even trying to see how that measures up but I know its “unevenly”.
4.4 will largely get rid of this issue by de-incentivizing any benefit for using tank teams in PvP.
And, very likely in the not too distant future, it’s going to be your only choice. If you want to actually win anything in PvP when the rewards are revamped, that is. Because, everyone in the same bracket as you trying to win whatever that week’s PvP rewards are going to be will be running that same nastiest GW defense team as you.
My spider senses are telling me that someone inside 505 is doing everything they can to implement hostile measures against “endgame” players.
PVP is already a minefield of unrelenting frustration due to various grief teams. Encouraging this further is going to increase the burnout…especially if the rewards aren’t fixed so that upper-tier players no longer have to put in 30-50% more time for the same rewards as lower-tier players.
I’m honestly a little worried about what the future of PVP is going to be like with information like this.
I’ve seen you see this a lot, citing that we are losing snotstones, but there are multiple reasons people set up non-meta teams in PvP:
- Snotstones (obviously)
- They want more revenge battles
- They are fishing for honor (not usually effective, but eh, I’ve thrown honor at a team I liked before)
- They don’t really care what is on their defense because defense rewards are basically non-existent.
- They don’t want to be “part of the problem”
We were doing this long before snotstones were a thing, and we’ll continue to do it after they aren’t a thing. I personally have a team set to be the highest score as I can possibly get while also being not-meta as a small effort to combat the reward attrition at endgame discussed in this thread.
In the future, yeah, I can see that being changed to where they strongly incentivize having your defense being able to win battles, but yeah, they would have to also take away most PvP related rewards we are already getting and shift them over to something that requires a strong defense (because they very clearly aren’t willing to just give out more rewards to incentivize anything). I’m looking forward to how they are going to spin that one. Probably starting with this thread (“see, we are listening, you wanted a PvP revamp and here it is”) and moving onto that “about same amount of rewards are available”.
4 Likes
I’ve been getting very definitive rewards out of my defense, everyone else should try it.
Not mine, get your own. But a defense that doesn’t suck.
Brackets in normal PvP will give them all the spin needed.
For example in the post directly above you,
We have listened your feedback about the current unfairness in PvP scoring. In response, we have developed a bracketing system that will place players with similar power levels together, so that veteran players no longer have to complete with younger accounts to place well in PvP and earn prizes.
Similarly, they could say that by awarding each week’s prizes to each bracket independently, the amount of rewards being offered to the playerbase in general is vastly increasing. (Instead of 1 Power Orb being given out to the playerbase per event, now there will be 100 Power Orbs being awarded per event; 1 per bracket).
It’s more about trying to finding new ways to monetize endgame players. For the most part, endgamers are largely self-sufficient, which generally is frowned upon in gacha games. If general PvP does become monetized, that’s going to change the entire base dynamic of the game.
2 Likes
Are there that many end-game players? I was under the impression that people like you and me were a very small minority. If a huge fraction of players are sticking around to the point of self-sufficiency, that seems like an unusual “problem” for a F2P game to have.
Replace “monetize” with “encourage to quit”.
Endgame players don’t have reasons to spend money. So they’re a burden on the system and need to be ushered out to the back and put down. It costs more developer effort per dollar to make them happy.
1 Like
I’m all in favor of anyone who enjoys a “F2P” game throwing the devs/publisher a few bucks.
However, since I started playing GoW I’ve thrown them enough money to buy around 4 AAA titles. If the pressure to pay even more than I already have becomes too great, I’ll simply quit.
I suppose this depends on one’s definition of “end game”. I know long-term veterans are increasingly rare, but if just being level 700+ or 1000+ qualifies someone as “end game”, there still seems to be a healthy amount of those.
Honestly, it feels more like this. Kinda reminds me of an Extra Credits video from way back about monetizing F2P games, and how it should “feel GOOD for the player to pay” vs the player feeling strong-armed or like they have no choice.
Perhaps the real PvP here means “Players versus Publishers”.
It was said to me, but really it’s meant to all of you:
The devs think we’re just a bunch of trust fund babies crying because we aren’t being given free money. We don’t deserve those PvP points because they’ve already been so generous with us in the past.
I’m pretty cheesed off about that response. You should be too. I don’t think the devs have even read anything written on this.
12 Likes
I am not a pvp fan at all and most of the time I will be fighting tier 2 because I am boosting mediocre classes that just don’t cut it in tier 3. Other than that I am building teams. However, I agree that points should be uniform regardless of level. As others have said, generally your opponents will be of a comparable level to your own, which means that the difficulty of your opposition is similar, no matter what your level is. Ergo, pvp tier points should be the same for everyone…20, 40, 60 per tier for example. I rarely hit LBS because I can’t be arsed doing 50% more grind than other players. And pvp is just a bore fest.
1 Like
I had no problem with the way pvp gave points prior to last patch. Lower lv players were getting a slight advantage maybe like 15-25% or something like that. But now it’s more like 100% boost which is ridiculous. 35 points on average vs 70.
Why can’t they just change back whatever adjustment they made in last patch?
2 Likes
Devs have degraded the game all together when they (Devs) come out & tell the seasoned players their TIME is worth LESS than lower leveled players who haven’t learned the subtle nuances of why you shouldn’t spend any money here in the game.
2 Likes
Because that adjustment officially never happened. It wasn’t announced in any way, it wasn’t explained in any way, it wasn’t even deemed worthy any reply at all after a huge pile of community questions came up. For all practical purposes, you, and every other player, are just hallucinating that anything has changed.
In a few years from now there will be an announcement that a bug in PvP has been fixed. Weaker players were unintentionally receiving up to twice the rewards, now everybody receives the lowest amount possible.
7 Likes
Is it just me, or have PvP points trended upwards a little since yesterday? Might just be that the lvl event and battlecrashers have brought more veterans into the PvP opponent pool, but it would be quite a coincidence…
1 Like
Yes, a little bit this week (for me)… 
1 Like
Actually, the adjustment was stated, on a single line buried at the bottom of the post:
However, it was this change that highlighted and exacerbated two parts of the PvP system that have always been broken. Those being max possible payouts nosediving at the top end of score potential, and matchmaking not providing battles with a focus on consistent payouts even when they do exist. With a quick forum search you can see complaints about both these stretching back for almost as long as the current PvP system has existed.
Many of them are concentrated around periods of time just after a team score formula adjustment is made. Neither is them kinda fading into background noise in the past, because both these issues sort of self correct over time as more people reach the top of the score, thus matchmaking coincidentally provides matches with consistent payouts much closer to the middle of the pack. This time, it is further compounded by the fact that the middle and top are so far separated in terms of effort that it is unlikely to self correct, and further compounded by the middle and the top being closer than ever in terms of stats while laving such huge payout disparities, and even further compounded by the fact that we have powercreeped so far that multiple key combinations of troops can stretch the first turn advantage into being able to set up consistent win conditions versus much stronger opponents before you even have five star kingdom stats.
My four accounts have max score potentials ranging from sub 10k to 13300. ALL of them can be match with three trophy battles in the 11ks range and up to and over 13500, with the lower accounts getting a sporadic straggler in the 10k range on the three trophy which I haven’t seen happen on the higher accounts in a while. The difficulty of any given battle versus any given score opponent is practically identical.
So, once again:
The lowest account enters a battle versus a 11k score team in the three trophy slot, gets a payout of 2.2k gold and 69 PvP points, can win on between the first and third turns in a total of about 8 to 12 actions. If this is a meta team and they get their setup before then, I lose. The highest level enters a battle versus a 11k score team, gets a payout of 1.1k gold and 31 PvP points, which can win on between the first and third turn in a total of about, lets say, 7 to 12 actions. If this is a meta team and they get their setup before then, I either lose or am left in such a weak position I could win 3-5 battles in the time it takes me to eek out a “maybe” win, but usually not, so even “not losing” is resource negative. And again (again) this would be less of an issue if my highest level wasn’t matched with the 11k teams as potential three trophies in the first place. If I were matched consistently with 13k+ teams, I’d win on between the first and third turns in a total of about 8 to 12 actions and get a payout of 2k gold and up to 60 PvP points for it, and just lose when I don’t. While still not completely “fair”, that seems much closer to the original intent of the system and closer to the state of things were during the periods when people weren’t actively complaining about this.
Basically, the “difficulty gap” for which the score differential based payout formula was intended to compensate midgame players a bit more to make them able to stay “competitive” versus endgame players (on the already fundamentally broken PvP leaderboard system) is basically non-existent anymore, but they doubled down on the system creating a bigger score gap between midgame and endgame players in 4.3 anyways. And in such away, and it begs repeating, that it will not selfcorrect.
But yeah, they neither have neither acknowledged or addressed this directly. This is the most frustrating part of the issue - they don’t seem to know how baldy is broken, how it was always kind of broken, why it is broken, and why the last patch made it worse. This is the part that has me really really apprehensive over any potential fix, because if you don’t understand the issue in the first place, how can you hope to fix it a satisfactory manner?
7 Likes