I have no idea what you mean… I’m sure there’s plenty of players at higher levels to still have meaningful boards… They’d just have fewer names on them. And devs would set the bands to ensure this.
There’s at least 50-100 players (probably more by now) that are level 1000+ so that (for example) makes a competitive board on its own.
I’ve seen 22k ranked player on pvp, so there’s at least that many playing, and 5% of that is over 1k players. Plenty to set some meaningful higher bands
Biggest problem is 70% of the player base is under level 25. If you wanted banded leaderboards remember that figure and tell me who benefits from it.
Where are your numbers coming from?
We are given alot of info on the game. you only need to know what to look for.
Nice. Doesn’t cover mobile, but I can imagine the numbers are similar.
Most likely. I could look up info on mobile to confirm but it would be harder to locate accurate data on the subject. the app store is not vary accurate about numbers.
The 22000 players (probably more) active in pvp benefit from it.
That interesting steam stat just shows how many players started the game and stopped before level 25… They’re not active players are they, obviously…
The achievements don’t mean much since they don’t cover just current players, but anyone who ever played the game - even for a minute.
For example, you can see how almost 7% of players did not finish the tutorial, 33% did not unlock a second kingdom, and over 60% never won a PvP invade. I would not include all those people in the playerbase.
That is true and only 7% made it to level 100. That means that out of those 22k people playing only 7% over all made it that high from just the steam version which is obvious.
This is true however what we know is that the player base is made up of 4 parts and only our leaderboard reflects 1/4 of that player base. by our i mean steam. steam shares its player base with that of the mobile leaderboard. So only 7% of those that got to level 100 only as sirrian said 5% got to over 200. Assuming that only those playing on steam and mobile are never removed from the list we should wonder why so many people quit the game assuming that they did.
A fun digression on how to misunderstand statistics… But no reason emerging to not have banded leaderboards…
Actually it is the very reason to not have banded leaderboards. This is only based on the limited stats we currently have.
No, they don’t. Each one of the 20k+ who will end up on the lower leaderboard will still have to compete with 20K other people, so for them the benefit is negligible. The ones to benefit are mostly the higher bands who will now each compete with 100-300 other players. I can’t find a justification for this, it just makes no sense unless you think the devs should specifically serve for top players, no matter how few of them are there.
You did a better explanation of it than me and i do agree with your words.
How is competing with 20k players at the same level worse for a player than competing with 22k players of all levels?
Most of those players will not feel the effect and those that do will be massively effected and heavily rewarded.
This again? Ewww get those peasants off of my leaderboard. The rewards aren’t good enough but those people don’t deserve them, give them the scraps.
UGH.
Ha… Constructive as ever… Please do pop by when you’ve some arguments to share rather than just misrepresentative abuse…
Who said it was worse? It’s just not any better. Since only 0.5% of players can get into top 100, the rest 99.5% will not be any happier from the absence of top players. Whoever is stuck on rank 10K or 5K will still be stuck at about the same place, all while some ‘elites’ get a 200 people leaderboard, all to themselves.
In short, there are 2 reasons to not do this:
My whole starting point was that it allows a better playing field for everyone…
Those level 100 players all have a better shot at the top 10/20/100 as their points aren’t being compared to dhjl or sister or koolibird etc.
So I disagree that’s it’s unfair or solely to the benefit of higher level players…
A better interpretation is that it’s far more of benefit to competitive players… There’d be say five top 100s not one… But you’re right in that the majority who don’t play as much won’t notice much difference…
Whether the benefit is worth the effort for the devs is a different question and a valid one… We all have plenty of things we’d like to see fixed or changed or added and I’m not sure how high this would be on my own list… But I’d like it on the list…
It wouldn’t fix my main gripe at the moment, which is the utter lack of variety I see in pvp enemy teams (which was what this thread was about)…
Thanks @yonizaf for taking the time to think and put arguments around the idea