This is not a call out... just a screen shot from pvp

[Schaafy]

Oof, i think the lowest, highest option ive had was like mid 30s, and its pretty rare that im not offered at least mid-40’s VP

[Schaafy]

Honestly, all that needs to happen is that we should ALWAYS be offered a <50, 50, and >50 option, there would be very little to complain about if this was the case.

[TheIdleOne]

@Kafka

ROB17 is choosing all the battles with the lowest VP awards

@Kafka

I’ve passed on the feedback about the point scaling according to hero level, but right now the big gaps I’ve looked into seem to be caused by the “easy” battles being chosen most of the time by the lower scoring player.

Before I say anything argumentative or rude by accident, I want to acknowledge and thank you for reading the post. Thanks.

But… in the nicest way possible, your entire post is wrong.

Cross reference how VP actually works:

@DU54

just in case, someone dont know the VP calculation

the level difference between you and opponent

• 50 is base VP
• each 25 levels below you , -1VP
• lowest is -25 VP, that mean more than 625 levels below make no difference
• each 12.5 levels (maybe 12, 13 not sure) above you, +1VP
• highest is +40VP, that mean +500 level reach maximum

So someone like ROB17 gets a minimum of 25 VP from any player that is level 1980 or less, which is a vast majority of players.

Of course it’s going to look like he chooses all the battles with the lowest VP awards. That’s all he gets!

Constructively speaking in the least amount of words:

After a certain point, level does nothing to indicate a player’s strength, yet is the only factor in how many VP a player gets per battle.

Meanwhile, for Adrian to receive a similar penalty, he would have to go as low as Level 1064, which is quite avoidable in the current state of the game.

In the politest way possible, I need you to understand what’s going on before feedback gets passed on.

If you can dev account a level 2500 and play some pvp in a live setting, you’ll see the VP being heavily painful to go through. Level 2500 is being generous, anyone level 1800+ can start feeling the effects.

I can provide more screenshots from my current level at 2014, but after the first 2-3, it’d be major redundancy.

[Kafka]

Just an update:
It’s possible these discrepencies are unintended (bugged).
The team are looking over it all at the moment and will get back to me once they find out why this discrepency exists.

[Kafka]

@TheIdleOne

In the politest way possible, I need you to understand what’s going on before feedback gets passed on.

I try to pass on major issues/feedback like this as quickly as possible while seeking more information. So for example, the screenshot was helpful from Dwuemka because it means I don’t need anyone to run server tests to get the info we need, but I was able to pass on what the community was saying before having this information.

It also means that as a team - if someone on the team sees the report and knows exactly what is happening, it means cutting time to look into it because the information reached someone who knew what part of the code/design to look at.

I will never withold important information from the team, and we continue to gather as much information as necessary after informing them to assist until it’s resolved.

The feedback was:
Higher level players receive far less VP in their opponent selection than players lower level than them and it’s causing a large scoring discrepency.

Everything after that is us investigating details and non-judgementally working out where the discrepency is coming from, with evidence. ie. the Leaderboard screenshots showed what was bothering everyone, but it didn’t tell us what was happening. It was just showing that discrepencies existed - and we still need to find exactly where those are, with evidence.

And you are all super fast so I can ask you for a screenshot, before a designer or programmer can run tests, or check the implementation and design of the feature. So I will always ask for screenshots if it’s easy for you to grab and we always appreciate it!

Having said that the team still need to check the implementation of VP and the live game data now to find out the source of the issue, but the screenshot just helps, because I can show them hey these are the opponents and here is the discrepency on the leaderboard.

[Schaafy]

I would just like to reiterate that the fundamental flaw is that player level is a terrible measure for how tough/rewarding a fight is. Im level 1500 with a team score of just over 20,000 and there are MANY people in the mid 2000’s that will give me 90 VP, even though on paper they are weaker than me. Basing the VP on team score would be a much better measure than player level, though not perfect as it would still punish those who have invested the most. Also, it feels REALLY bad to get an offer of 40,43,45 followed by 80,90,90 for example. Whatever algorithm is picking the fights to be displayed, it needs to do a better job of always giving a low score, middle score, high score option.

[Avathar]

@Kafka I went ahead and made screenshots of my opponent choice in all ten pvp locations. I’m level 1888 currently, as you see unless I run into the rare level 2400+ players the base VP is really low:

[TheIdleOne]

These are my last 11 fights.

In screenshot 3, screenshot 8, and screenshot 10, the highest level players offer the most VP, even if they’re not the strongest team score.

This has been a relatively productive 11 fights. On other times of the day, I’m stuck with Screenshot 4s for multiple fights with near base levels and I’m better off playing a different game. I’m stuck if higher level players aren’t on.

On the other hand, I make for an attractive target at level 2,014. I’m 46 wins and 1,730 losses on defense, not that I can control any of that anymore. Current 3rd place on the leaderboard has 270 defense losses, and 7th place on the leaderboard has 199 losses. They’re not attractive targets!

---

it’s a multilayered problem:

1. base scoring leaves higher level players in a bad spot
2. opponent choice is based on player pool. I don’t know if the player has to be logged in to show up or had to have play in x amount of prior hours to show up. They’re not always there.
   2.5. how the system chooses the 3 opponents. this is where I’m not going to comment, because saying pick better opponents! doesn’t actually control how this function works. that’s backend stuff.

and then its 1+2 together at the same time.
…

Now if only I had Dave all day to fight, I wouldn’t have to do double the fights that others do.

[Dwuemka]

Many people say that basing the VP score on team score will be more fair. Yes - and no. At a certain point in the game, when the collection of weapons and troops, and pets is nearly full & mostly upgraded, and classes are all maxed out - the differences in team score are practically non-existent. Players at level 1700+ (like my main account, 4.5 years old, troops collection full except underspire sentinels, classes maxed, weapons all upgraded except some doomed ones, most pets except cosmetics at lvl 20) and a player level 2500+ (say, they have all weapons maxed, and more pets maxed than I have) won’t have double the team score, but what, maybe a couple hundred? At some point it just flattens out.

Using ONLY team score as the baseline won’t be fair either, not to the players at, say, 1600-1700 hero level and higher. At some point the team score practically stops increasing. And beyond some point hero level has practically zero impact on team score.

[TheIdleOne]

Yeah I still stand by my opinion:

My opinion: At this point, VP handicaps need to end at level 1500 and everyone should get the same VP from level 1500 and onwards.

Zuul’Goth doesn’t care how much stats an opponent has.
Neither does Essence of Evil.
Neither does Leprechaun.
Centuragon does though. The more the better. nom nom.

[Dwuemka]

A few more screenshots - I just went around the regions. Here we go…

From a lvl 1723 account:

From a lvl 1408 account, all 10 regions:

PLEASE PLEASE tell me you can see the difference between what is offered for both accounts. And now think - if that’s the difference between offerings for a 1408 and 1723 player (so, a difference of 300 levels), imagine what players at 2000 or higher are getting…

[RootsSeed]

Summary

[RootsSeed]

Summary

[FuriousPete]

[Dust_Angel]

@Kafka

Nope, I checked his PVP data,

Could you, please, specify if this PvP data you’re referring to includes all battles presented to a player or only the ones that they actually fought?

Anyhow, as luck would have it I was tracking some PvP battles (for a different reason, though), but here you can have all 111 that it took me this time to reach 20 PvP goals (and, doubtless, I always chose the highest option that was offered).
I’m level 2229, by the way, and this was the highest number I had to do so far - another week was 99 battles and the third one has slipped my mind but it was fewer that 111.

Summary

#	Player level				Base VP				Final score	Bonus points
	1	2	3		1	2	3
1	1355	1503	1622		25	25	38		65	27
2	1064	1266	1757		25	25	31		55	24
3	1105	1506	1465		25	25	25		50	25
4	1058	1245	1271		25	25	25		51	26
5	1354	1387	1765		25	25	31		62	31
6	1552	1670	2478		25	28	69		100	31
7	1297	1394	1569		25	25	25		60	35
8	1115	1737	1512		25	30	25		64	34
9	1310	1477	1743		25	25	31		61	30
10	1096	1310	1466		25	25	25		60	35
11	1271	1595	1661		25	25	27		59	32
12	1209	1372	1443		25	25	25		54	29
13	1226	1333	1464		25	25	25		49	24
14	1523	2070	2077		25	44	44		76	32
15	1426	1436	1632		25	25	26		58	32
16	1453	1477	1504		25	25	25		54	29
17	1491	1368	1941		25	25	38		66	28
18	1183	1434	1559		25	25	25		46	21
19	1265	1533	1811		25	25	33		59	26
20	1297	1280	1449		25	25	25		51	26
21	2077	1613	2077		44	25	44		73	29
22	1620	1422	1547		26	25	25		58	32
23	1474	1666	1458		25	27	25		59	32
24	1190	1422	1474		25	25	25		57	32
25	1458	1481	1888		25	25	36		65	29
26	1236	1250	1403		25	25	25		59	34
27	1069	1389	1649		25	25	27		47	20
28	1346	1443	1547		25	25	25		53	28
29	1119	1113	1512		25	25	25		51	26
30	1176	1301	1595		25	25	25		48	23
31	1499	1693	1443		25	29	25		58	29
32	1056	1164	1714		25	25	29		61	32
33	1087	1256	1407		25	25	25		57	32
34	1056	1444	1706		25	25	29		60	31
35	1087	1582	1476		25	25	25		50	25
36	1173	1479	1517		25	25	25		59	34
37	1557	1575	1579		25	25	25		59	34
38	1334	1365	1604		25	25	25		59	34
39	2070	1592	1832		44	25	34		79	35
40	1200	1525	1492		25	25	25		60	35
41	1394	1595	1823		25	25	34		53	19
42	1360	1356	1740		25	25	30		61	31
43	1287	1553	1466		25	25	25		51	26
44	1245	1348	1592		25	25	25		45	20
45	1342	1349	2423		25	25	65		94	29
46	1172	1527	1898		25	25	37		65	28
47	1675	1634	1705		28	26	29		58	29
48	1779	1962	2999		32	39	90		120	30
49	1311	1474	1514		25	25	25		56	31
50	1558	1827	1791		25	34	32		67	33
51	1146	1445	1473		25	25	25		47	22
52	1387	1247	1710		25	25	29		51	22
53	1033	1336	1574		25	25	25		47	22
54	1387	1627	1665		25	26	27		51	24
55	1005	1480	1385		25	25	25		50	25
56	1259	1360	2648		25	25	81		108	27
57	1346	1404	1543		25	25	25		51	26
58	1014	1365	1627		25	25	26		36	10
59	1159	1267	1517		25	25	25		52	27
60	1014	1424	1502		25	25	25		47	22
61	1392	1356	1579		25	25	25		50	25
62	1231	1387	1522		25	25	25		43	18
63	1287	1441	1795		25	25	33		53	20
64	1087	1437	1755		25	25	31		48	17
65	1231	1159	1271		25	25	25		54	29
66	1737	1709	2074		30	29	44		62	18
67	1102	1527	1501		25	25	25		55	30
68	1326	1408	1951		25	25	39		68	29
69	1485	1592	1633		25	25	26		53	27
70	1223	1373	1673		25	25	28		54	26
71	1164	1858	1543		25	35	25		63	28
72	1213	1493	1515		25	25	25		57	32
73	1097	1301	1568		25	25	25		50	25
74	1355	1760	1702		25	31	29		63	32
75	1055	1209	1290		25	25	25		57	32
76	1220	1311	1497		25	25	25		46	21
77	1524	1575	1508		25	25	25		44	19
78	1341	1337	1767		25	25	32		59	27
79	1503	1542	1677		25	25	28		46	18
80	1313	1413	1464		25	25	25		43	18
81	1014	1156	1574		25	25	25		48	23
82	1191	1503	1618		25	25	26		58	32
83	1504	1649	1884		25	27	36		65	29
84	1249	1329	1414		25	25	25		55	30
85	1013	1401	1488		25	25	25		44	19
86	1308	1526	1769		25	25	32		54	22
87	1111	1395	1505		25	25	25		53	28
88	1200	1331	1707		25	25	29		48	19
89	1163	1502	1871		25	25	36		62	26
90	1592	1707	1510		25	29	25		50	21
91	1086	1404	1313		25	25	25		53	28
92	1071	1468	2105		25	25	45		66	21
93	1061	1040	1734		25	25	30		52	22
94	1246	1571	1535		25	25	25		53	28
95	1254	1598	2105		25	25	45		73	28
96	1787	1953	1803		25	39	33		68	29
97	1305	1783	2251		25	32	52		78	26
98	1240	1202	1618		25	25	26		58	32
99	1448	1521	2251		25	25	52		73	21
100	1216	1588	1779		25	25	32		55	23
101	1057	1135	1827		25	25	34		63	29
102	1772	1564	1565		32	25	25		63	31
103	1689	1580	1542		28	25	25		60	32
104	1588	1537	1423		25	25	25		57	32
105	1261	1234	1556		25	25	25		54	29
106	1432	1574	2622		25	25	79		111	32
107	1232	1509	1833		25	25	34		69	35
108	1219	1370	2119		25	25	46		78	32
109	1196	1467	1535		25	25	25		56	31
110	1232	1396	1648		25	25	27		62	35
111	1249	1402	1437		25	25	25		48	23

For a summary, average offered enemy level for me was 1482 (compared to my 2229) and average base VP was 27.6 shiny points.
With a little bit more of easy counting you can see that 255 out of 333 battles (or - almost 77% of the total) were with 25 base VP. Surely, the situation would be even worse looking for higher level players.

And, while you’re at it, who was the wiseguy to arrange battles according to teamscore which is an artefact of the old system and completely irrelevant in the new environment?
Battles should always be presented in Low VP - Mid VP - High VP order (and then you can decide for a tie-breaker in case of equal VP) as any other order just serves to cause accidentally entering a lower paying fight you’d never start voluntarily.

[ANGI]

There is no issue with it:
It is working as intended!
Sorry, had to post as I waited so long to change sides with you.

[Mithran]

@Dust_Angel

And, while you’re at it, who was the wiseguy to arrange battles according to teamscore which is an artefact of the old system and completely irrelevant in the new environment?

Honestly this is part of the problem, but I think in the other direction. Player level is a useless metric that never needed to be brought into the equation (they are already represented within score calc, but with extreme diminishing returns such that a lot of the worst discrepancies get normalized if just the score metric is used). Score differential is still used to calculate gold payouts, so the rightmost team still has the highest gold payout, and also the new matchmaking for frequently spits out teams that have higher score compared to what the previous one was, at least in my experience. Since you 2000+ level crowd are also likely to be at the higher end of the score spectrum, high level does correlate to high score but the only thing high level is measuring is number of battles, and doing a lot of battles is not in an of itself an indicator of either a highly developed account or a someone with enough “skill” that needs to get handicapped.

Pure speculation, but I think that maybe someone pitched that higher account level correlated with having stronger tools in your collection, something that can’t be effectively directly measured, when the reality is that having stronger tools correlates more closely to having a more developed account, ie more stat bonuses, which is just Team Score again. And also not all tools are created equal - my Zuul at level < 1500 and team score of ~16000 work just as well as anybody elses. And also that not all playtime is equal, because me grabbing weekly low hanging fruit rewards for almost every week since release matters a lot more than someone who has been grinding their butt off for 10+ hours a day for 2 years straight. Plus, player level penalizing scoring actively punishes a different recently added incentive to get xp boosters and grind xp, which was already super weak.

I just don’t understand what going to “level” as the metric to determine baseline Victory Points versus Team Score did for the old PvP points “solves”, as it just takes the same problem and makes it at least twice as bad as the worse for the uncapped PvP point issue before even that was patched. I also don’t get why a system would even be designed to, on paper, have two accounts with the ability to leverage similar amounts of “power” have an average scoring gap of almost 2x. By treating being every single level being equal in terms of power disparity and applying that to a linear score formula, of course you are going to get undesirable results. By having one metric determine gold payouts and another determine Victory Points then organizing them in a specific way and having that order determine trophies and glory payout, of course there is going to be weirdness. It should be consistent, and given the metrics of either team score or player level to go by, team score is the far better one, so just use that.

Using team score as the baseline metric for both point scoring and gold payouts scoring gets us part of the way there, and would probably be an acceptable solution. If Victory Points were just bottom capped based on slot offering similarly to how PvP payout points were as it worked at the end of the old system, there would be much fewer complaints. An minimum offering of 70 in the rightmost slot past a certain point when 90 is possible but your stats are also such that you can squeeze a bit of efficiency out of each battle is much more “fair” than the offering being for in the low 30s points. There is only so much you can do to accelerate battles and nothing you can do to accelerate the time between battles, which becomes more and more significant the further you push the boundaries. Thus, it stands to reason there must be a minimum payout for your strongest opponent offered, at all levels.

Now, could this system be gamed where the lower level/lower score person technically has a time advantage above the person with higher stats? Well, yes, in areas where you can field troops that take stats largely out of the equations. In some areas, the people with massive stat bonuses have more of an advantage to leverage those stats into being able to ignore the opponent doing stuff while setting up your win (the biggest disparity is in defensive stats). However, some of these areas are miserably slow no matter how high your stats are. And thats still a 30% difference between the minimum you can get and the maximum someone else can get for that slot in the rightmost battle, but they also won’t get that every time, and the bonuses are still a factor. This is probably a good target to shoot for. The next step would be to smooth the curve completely past a certain point, but that would result in a lot of players in the 1500 +/- 100 level range losing some bonuses while still having to deal with opponents that can be twice their stats. Or, more relevantly, twice the defense stats of an opponent they could have got that would have given the same payout. Personally I think this swings to far in the other direction.

Honestly, and this is veering slightly off topic but still relevant, what I would have liked to have seen is far higher victory point bonuses in the regions that had restrictions, with the highest bonuses being for being restricted to a single kingdom (mostly because of the weapon restriction), then troop type, and finally color, reflecting the relative difficulty of making a fast and effective team in the region. I can only imagine what will happen to some these regions once Elemenalist is unleashed on them and makes certain fast strategies completely unviable and just everything slower in general. Relevant to the discussion at hand because the ability to effectively play in these different regions is a much better indicator of both the players ability to navigate the challenges of the game and how developed their account is.

Basically:

• Ditch player level differential to determine base PvP point payout and go back to team score differential (OR completely redo the player level curve so that disparities in level start mattering a lot less by level 1500 or so)
• Minimum cap the VP payout to which slot offering it is similar to what the old PvP system did.
• If necessary flatten the curve a bit so score discrepancies matter less (19k vs 20k does not have the same power discrepancy as 1k vs 2k)
• Bonus victory points for playing in a restricted region (starting next season when heros get unleashed) to further incentive playing these regions where occasionally having higher stats is a bit more meaningful.

[TheTruth]

I’m going to go in a completely different direction here over points scoring.

Hey Kafka

How about the win points based on the opponents troops.

Base Rarity

Boss troops 30 points
Mythics. 25 points
Legendary. 20 points
Epic. 15 points
Ultra rare. 10 points
Rare/common. 5 points

Hero. 25 points.

Then everyone knows the points, and what they’ll get.

Just a different view, that might work.

[ANGI]

I think player level is for sure the wrong idea, team score might be better.
Only other thing I can think of is Player’s kingdom stars, cause it includes classes, enough troops/pets/weapons, underworld renown (stats) and PL and KL of kingdoms (stats).
But that is basically how team score is calculated, just a little more detailed and would maybe benefit lower level players more than just team score…just my two cents.

[Lucien]

when is war and peace vol.2 out