I would just assume that actual match data (wins/losses) does take a factor in the score. For that reason, making a team of less-used troops would result in a less accurate score. That could explain why trying to build a random common team can result in a score that doesn’t make sense to you.
I’m not trying to claim that the scores are good as they are. Actually, I mostly ignore the scores completely (much like I ignore opponents’ level), because I know it’s almost impossible to get right. The devs are welcome to try and make it better, but I definitely won’t bother reporting a specific ‘inaccuracy’, because I believe it’s rather pointless to do so.
Your team score slowly goes up as you level and increase your masteries or unlock additional kingdom mastery/troop skill bonuses.
Edit: also i don’t think the way the scores are determined is inherently bad as it is really just static, with all troops being worth the same value defined solely by unlocked traits and level on the troop. There just appears to be a bug somewhere leading to faulty calculations like it is for Sisters team currently.
Edit 2: Maybe it has to do with how the heroes value is calculated when being part of a team.
I agree. The first few days of this event I was quite motivated to try and get a spot in the top 100 of the leaderboard for this event (and I stayed mostly between spots 40 and 70 until wedneday evening or so), but right now I’ve lost most of my motivation to play PVP, 'cause of the boredom of seeing the same teams over and over again (Maw/Mercy meta at high levels) and the fact that the high level players are handicapped (essentially punished for having put a lot of time into the game to get where they are now) by giving them fewer PVP points for winning a match against an identical opponent team than a low level player.
I’m currently already outside of the top 1000 and that’s fine. I’ll probably still play some PVP (gotta do something on the subway to and from work ), but I’ll not be grinding to get a top spot. Tier 1 and the minimum amount of trophies required for the guild will probably be my targets for the next few weeks (whilst hoping for a change in the high level meta to relieve my boredom)…
For instance, I just spotted @Eika in the top 100 ranking, 700 points above me for doing one less battle than me and winning something like 10 less defenses than me. He is 30 level above me. I always pick the hardest battle, but I win no more than 26-27 points most of the time, then, suddenly, from time to time, I get a wilg +42 point (well, it’s the maximum I got).
I also got only one offensive loss when he has over 20. I have a bit more defense loss though, but the differense between our total loss is to my advantage.
Points distribution just seem to shabby, and I think this might come from the flawed “power evaluation” system, wich is why I came up with this thread in the first place…
I’m not sure if the defense wins and losses are logged correctly. On monday and tuesday my battle log (and the defense pop ups) only showed PVP defense wins, but on the leadeboard I had like 5 wins and 50 something losses. And then on wednesday I was apparently not losing any defends anymore but getting 15-20 wins. And for the past two days I am apparently not being attacked anymore…
Yeah, I know, from my observations, it seems like :
On defense win
The win is properly logged
You get the proper rewards
You get the appropriate number of points
On the reward screen, it is displayed as a victory
On defense loss
The loss isn’t logged at all anymore
You get the rewards for a win
You get the number of points you’d have had if you had won
On the reward screen, it is displayed as a victory
So, actually, having more defense loss than him should mean I’d have more points, but then again, I don’t know how many loss he really had and how many I had either, but 700 points seems like a huuuuuge margin for battles none of us played…
Doesn’t seem to have done much to stop Sister or dhjl from racking up 3-4 times as many PvP points as most of the people below them. They both have nearly 10,000 more points than everyone else. There’s currently only 23 level 1000+ players in the top 100, which may be a bit surprising, and 28 level 800+. That someone level 102 made it in the top 100 is unexpected.
The numbers could use some adjusting, and they should probably be based on something other than level. But I think the people complaining that they don’t feel their time and effort is being recognized are a little unjustified. The leaderboard reflects activity this week, rather than activity for all time, which already has some representation in the player’s level. I don’t think it would be interesting if level gave the advantage people seem to be expecting, and the leaderboard was predictably the same, week after week.
There’s some problems with the numbers, but I’m inclined to think it doesn’t affect the outcome that much. You have to play hundreds of games to make it on the board, no matter how the points are awarded. Is there anyone out there who really feels cheated, and can bring some numbers to demonstrate it? That, based on their games played and won this week should be ranking in the top 100, and isn’t, due to the point allocation?
I know the points on the leaderboard are like in the 10k+ range for dj and sister but seriouslly what are they doing?! That number of games is or at least i thought unfathomable. I want sister for my guild if she was not already level 1000. Hell they both are and yet they look live rivals trying to push the other into second place.
), but I’ll not be grinding to get a top spot. Tier 1 and the minimum amount of trophies required for the guild will probably be my targets for the next few weeks (whilst hoping for a change in the high level meta to relieve my boredom)…