Lol. Wonderment? This is the perspective of a level 1000 player. At level lower levels, you field what you can. Up here, at the “ceiling”, you field what is effective or you get farmed as @Lyya made a topic about this some time ago. @Jainus is expressing a view point that the “ceiling” is experiencing. It is quite clear that this viewpoint is VERY narrow as many of you have no idea what it is like up here, and that is fine. There is no elitism here. Only conveying a perspective.
My level 146 phone alt has lost three times in this event cycle, all to the exact same team: Soothsayer/Mab/Valkyrie/Mab, all fully traited. She also beat this team twice. We’re talking five matches out of 15 total, five different players, five different guilds. IMHO it’s not an OP team in the meta, but it isn’t fair to force players at that low a level to have to deal with top-tier meta teams.
I’m level 688.
Last week I ran a defense of Golem, Mab, Valkyrie, Mab and won about 33% of the time.
This week I’m running a defense of Borealis, Venoxia, Sheggra, and Celestasia and winning about 25% of the time.
Confused; isn’t that what the “medium” difficulty is for? Nobody is forcing you to take the hard opponent, and IIRC a lowbie gets additional rewards for clearing overly-hard opponents as well.
2 Likes
Medium difficulty? Das crazy talk, whoever heard of such a thing, the developers twist your arms behind the scenes to force you to take the hard route I mean we get a whole extra trophy… Those don’t do anything anymore say what?
Well you get a whole extra point of glory… You mean to tell me that one Whitehelm tribute covers between 20 and 40 medium glory losses?
Gee I guess I’m in a box here cause as @Lyya pointed out, there is no reason (other then maybe bragging rights) that we shouldn’t be able to choose the middle opponent, in fact there’s even a training wheel easy selection to choose from, easy you say? Now Das Crazy talk
1 Like
I do easy mode to fluff my battle score for when i reach 1900 points in tier rank.
This would be the best thing ever.
I really hope that @Sirrian and @Nimhain consider this for the next big update perhaps?
The banded tiers for lower players should be less rewarding probably…? But the leaderboards are really only for high levels or people that have hundreds of hours to grind. I played over 300 games last week and wound up being 85…I played for so many hours…I’m almost ashamed of myself. And then I get only 2 arcane traitstones out of that? (Not to mention that I didn’t find any arcanes while battling, which was sad). The banded tiers would ensure that more people would be happy and getting rewards - which is a win for everyone. And then you’d actually feel like you are competing with people more…fairly.
I don’t know if that makes sense…but if y’all could do that…that would make my day.
Sirrian already stated that they won’t be doing banded leaderboards.
1 Like
Sorry to be a killjoy, but @Sirrian has already stated this is not something under active consideration:
Edit: sniped!
3 Likes
Not enough players in each band above level 200. 5% of players are above level 200. That means that mets worse than maw/mercy would then show themselves.
1 Like
No you’ve misread what the suggestion was… The matchmaking wouldn’t change, you’d fight players of any level just as it is now, but your points total would be tabled only against players of similar levels…
@lyya yes noted that @sirrian did post that, and the point about players slowing levelling to manipulate their position…
…but I don’t get it - I don’t think slow-levelling is a worry because anyone who slows down wouldn’t be competing on the leaderboard! I posted my thoughts here Avoid the MPQ path - #65 by Jainus as I’m sure @sirrian has this thought through better than I do, but @sirrian hasn’t had the time to respond yet…
Actually the problem is it is already happening. Fighting a player that has fully leveled troops whose pvp troop difficulty being in the 1000s. These people are not slow leveling, they are being guild-pushed. They enter an active guild that gives them resources quickly so that they do not need to rely on maps or pvp to gain resources.
Here’s one concern with banded leaderboards:
That should, in theory, happen only a few times for each player. If that. Not sure it’s a great argument against banded leaderboards.
I much prefer the argument that breaking off a separate competition for level 200+ players forces many of the most active players into a competition for fewer resources (you’re not going to have 100 arcane-stone-rewarding positions for just 5% of the player base). So the competition within that group becomes even more fierce, and the meta gets even more restricted to what loses least frequently – whether that’s from winning matches or encouraging players to skip your team.
1 Like
That alone is an argument against banded leaderboards. Also there are about 20k players with an average of 700 playing at any time. So 5% of that 20k is 1000, plenty of room for everyone to get a trait stone in a banded leaderboard. Even more room if you account each part of that percent being divided into groups whose range is 100 or so.
Nope, not the same thing at all… @sirrian’s worry was that people would slow down levelling to stay and compete in a lower band… But by definition to compete you have to win matches and so you’ll be getting experience and levelling… There’s no real way to restrict what experience you gain, and to compete in any band you’ll have to win lots of matches!
Thanks, I read that back when you posted it… But its trivially dealt with really, just lock each player in the band they start the week in…
1 Like
Banding is not going to work until the 95% under level 200 get higher level. They would defeat your banding method that currently only benefit the 5%
Yes, that’s true. I don’t actually think banded leaderboards are a bad idea, but @Sirrian may have data on this he hasn’t shared.
Sorry for the many-replies-in-a-row but I’m on my phone and can’t quote… Yeah I get this worry, though personally I’m not sure it’d be any worse for a meta than we see now…