PVP; Scoring teams issue and other thougts on v2.0


#1

Now that we’ve had the new pvp for a couple of weeks I will offer some comments and ideas.

First there is some serious issues (i.e. problems) with the strength score of teams. I’ve seen teams with 4 troops with a strength score of less than 1000 while other times I’ve seen 2 weak troops with a score between 3-4,000. I’ve seen teams with 5,000ish scores as strong as those over 7,000. it seems to me hard to determine what standard there is applied to team strength scores.
Ideas here; I would start based on the rarity of the troop say 500 for a common troop and add 100-200 per level above that.
Add say 10 points per attack value of each troop,
add 3-5 points for each point of armor and health,
add 100-150 per active trait
This would include banner and team bonuses and any definitive bonus based on trait or position (it would not include random bonuses or reductions activation by traits)
The above would be objective and give a base score.

Then add to the score based on troop abilities. The unconditional devour (as in Great Maw) is the most powerful in the game and should add a high value like 1-2,000. Other abilities like silence, attacking all enemies, doing true damage, gaining a free turn would add lesser values. Multiple capabilities should also add value. Really basic abilities such as attacking the top, random or last enemy would not add. Getting gold or souls would not add either. This would take a bit to get a good balance of ability versus value.

Now with a good solid basis for team scoring, the next thing that I’ve found irritating is I’ve seen many times the strength of the easy match offered is nearly as high as the difficult match offering, with all 3 over 7,000. That is NONSENSE and should not be happening. The weak match offering should always have a strength below a given value say 5,000 (maybe 4,000 for those players below level 100 with a transition between levels 100 and 200).The difficult match offering should always be valued over 7,000 (again maybe a bit lower with a sound transition for lower level players). I’m using values I’m seeing. Naturally the values used would have to depend on the scoring system. You should not be able to invade the same people for at least a certain amount of time unless they attempt a revenge game and eve then there should be at least several hours before you can invade them again. There should also be an option to not invade an opponent for a modest cost so that match doesn’t get offered over and over again. I find the same offerings over and over again irritating particularly when I don’t want to fight that line-up.

The pvp values of each match should be based on the match level say 10, 20,30 for easy, middle and hard respectively, and should not depend on the player level, but only modified by the strength of the offered teams (and idea below). I’m tired of having my ‘hard’ matches offered rarely worth what other people are getting as an average per game.

Bring back the revenge games as separate from the pvp invasions. They can be offered as an invasion game, but I like the idea of having a separate button to a list of those who have successfully invaded you. You should have the opportunity to do a revenge game with anybody on the list. The benefit would be glory, gold and getting back the pvp points lost by their invasion. There should be a limit to the number of time you can be successfully invaded like 10 times. What I would add is there would a penalty to the pvp points for invasions if you have more than say 5 ‘unrevenged’ invasions against you. You could also add a ‘let it go’ button for a modest cost to clear the ‘unrevenged’ invasion or it would lapse after a couple of days.

Sorry for the long post, but has been on my mind for some time. I think this would improve the game


#2

Team scores works fine, and is not that relevant really. [quote=“StormChasee, post:1, topic:9125”]
Then add to the score based on troop abilities. The unconditional devour (as in Great Maw) is the most powerful in the game and should add a high value like 1-2,000.
[/quote]

This can’t happen because different players have different view of the troop strengths[quote=“StormChasee, post:1, topic:9125”]
The pvp values of each match should be based on the match level say 10, 20,30 for easy, middle and hard respectively, and should not depend on the player level, but only modified by the strength of the offered teams (and idea below). I’m tired of having my ‘hard’ matches offered rarely worth what other people are getting as an average per game.
[/quote]

With this I couldn’t agree more. The idea that someone gets 50 points while I get 30-35. Why the Duke would someone gain 50% more then me for doing the same thing. .


#3

If troop scores aren’t relevant why have it in the game? Of course it’s relevant. It’s a measure of relative strengths of various teams. Besides if the team scores were working properly I wouldn’t be seeing so many goofy to bad values that I shake my head at.

WRT to having different scores for different abilities, of course it can happen. Are you really going to try to argue that normal damage is as much worth as true damage? Attacking a single enemy is as worth as much as doing damage to all enemies? If devour isn’t the single most devastating ability in the game what is? Yes one can debate the relative strengths, but part of game design is making those decisions based on experience on the game. I’ve played the game for about a year and have a decent feel for the different strengths of abilities. Certainly developers can do it. The troops and hero weapons used by experienced players are also going to give a decent idea of what the community thinks are strong versus weak abilities.


#4

I think that the developers try not to have spells that are grotesquely out of balance with other troops’ at that base rarity. It makes total sense that a common troop’s spell would be less powerful than a legendary troop’s. But within common troops, in theory all of those spells should be balanced against each other.

If any change needed to be made to the team score system, it might be giving more points for base rarity than for current rarity. A fully-traited Quasit at level 20 is worth the same number of points as a level 20 Great Maw with all three traits, even though the actual power difference is staggering. In reality the spells, the skills, and the traits should be much more powerful on a base legendary than on a base common.

Edit: this ignores hero weapons, since I don’t know how those are scored by the system.