I’m wondering if any of @Sirrian’s Fair Play Paladins can tell me how many times I’ve cracked top 1000 in PVP fighting 1T Defenses? Pro-tip - less than once.
Meanwhile… on Wednesday we have a dude sitting at #1 with over 25K PVP points… but yeah. One Troop Defenses is what ruined the game.
the thing with low team score defense is:
it lowers the score you are offered with, but it doesnt necesarity means it makes the teams you are offered with to be the same team score as your defense team score,
depending what was your original team score it will not reach that low so:
thats just generalising it to “white” and “black” cathegories, obviously there is a lot of grey in the middle
while the “quick fix” fixed some abuse, it also made the “low pvp variety” much bigger problem for the higher level players
[details=Here some explanation why pvp variety is an issue] it may not seem that at low level but “pvp variety” is tied to the difficulty (as in team score)
while many wouldnt mind fighting the same hard team all the time in the end, many would prefer to have different choices,
i hope this will help you see the issue[/details]
Maybe a fix would to modify the value score depending on “Base” troop rarity (before ascending or trait".
So, a full trait mythic peasant is worth more then a legendary one, but is still worth less then Famine.
Wouldn’t a prerequisite for that “fix” be that all base Mythics are strictly better than all base Legendaries? And all base Legendaries strictly better than all base Epics, repeat down to base Commons? Otherwise, this feels a lot like replacing one arbitrary calculation rule with another arbitrary calculation rule, players would just start complaining that Ketras being worth more points than, say, Kerberos or Khorvash is just wrong. Most would even value Wraith higher than Ketras.
i know and you are right, but i think it would still be a step in a good a direction
in the end it would be nice if troop was scored depending on its traits effects and spell effects (in addition to the level, traits unlocked, rarity and base rarity)
actually there is even some chance that devs could include spell scoring to the equation since they are already working on spell scoring regarding console ai
I still like the idea suggested above that includes bonus team points based on troop popularity. We already know the dev’s keep metrics on how much each troop is used. Cards on the high end, Famine/Kerb/Death/etc, will then be worth substantially more and will make fighting them over and over a “worthwhile” endeavor! 
That approach also won’t work, because the real strength of a team is not the sum of its parts. It’s how those parts interact with each other, and that’s a constantly shifting number as the game evolves. To give an example, Valkyrie is a very powerful troop in any blue team, a team of four Valkyrie or a non-blue team make her pretty much worthless though. You won’t be able to calculate an accurate number to express the team strength, no matter how long you try.
This kind is issue is usually tackled the other way around. You don’t know ahead how well a team will perform, you can react to it performing well though. This means you start out with some arbitrary strength score, then adjust this score a little whenever the team wins or loses. If the AI plays it in a strong way, it will eventually rise to the top, if the AI can’t cope, it will eventually drop to the bottom. That’s also not perfect solution, because players would eventually game the system by deleting/recreating their teams to reset the initial arbitrary strength score. It might be a first of many steps towards a better solution though.
That sounds like an excessive waste of time to me. There’s really somebody out there who has a list of roughly 400 spells and tries to order them in sequence of “strength”? I mean, I couldn’t even decide whether Forest Guardian “Nature’s Ally” is better or worse than Gorgotha “Doomstones” without knowing the whole team composition, and I bet even the whole board could argue weeks over that. While this would definitely explain why the console version still hasn’t caught up to the PC version, I’m inclined to believe this is at best a pet project.
it seems, for the console ai, they had to score spells in some kind of way in order to decide their priority over gem matching
i dont see it as a waste of time
I think the biggest problem with the scoring and how it is totaled for a team (and this has been pointed out by others in other threads) is how much your mana bonus applies to your team score. People on here have shown that being in a higher level guild = less PVP rewards, and then when they joined a lower level guild, they can almost double their gold reward and get more PVP points, just because their statues are much lower. Even though the difference in surge chances can be as low as 5% or less. With dimishing returns from mana bonus, you’d think your score would also get the same diminishing returns. There really should be a system like how the kingdoms have it for their points. Where eventually a level up doesn’t return as many points for a kingdom, an increase in your mana bonus should add less to your team total.
When someone with the same set of cards at the same player level faces the same team…rewards should be at least similar.
That’s something entirely different. It’s not about team strength values for PvP matching, it’s about prioritizing AI moves within a fight, possibly allowing the AI to prefer a spell over a skull match.
It’s a bit on the late side, but this really needs to be here. Credit to the incomparable @yonizaf for the image!
Edit: spoiler for expletive
DEV-ine. That’s a touch of Class 
I’ve never been a fan of ‘spirit of the game’ type statements.
People play this game for enjoyment, that could come in the form of collecting troops, building teams, getting on the LB, doing treasure maps (really?), grinding trophies to advance your guild, grinding gold for statues or LTs and so on and so forth.
People then ought to be free to do this within the rules of the game, rather than the spirit of the game. It’s too subjective. If the Devs don’t want the game to be played a certain way, either outright ban it, or change the code to make it impossible to do.
Which is exactly what they have done with the one troop defence exploit.
Exploit? Really? FFS i gotta go… I dont need this bs in my life… Ppl piss me off
Yep. An exploit (properly used here as players were taking advantage of a flaw in the system) which Sirrian said in the opening post, was not what they wanted and thought it would begin to be harmful to the game.
Are you attempting to deny these facts?
I am disagreeing with the term exploit… You make it sound like it is cheating
What about all the other exploits? Plenty of things out there much more harmful to the game but they don’t even acknowledge it’s happening let alone try to fix it.
I’d call it a loophole rather than an exploit.