I do agree (and yes there are some bugs in the numbers). I did forget the need to be able to field multiple teams rather than just one strong one.
I think we generally agree on how it should be to be honest, I just wanted to be clear on the fact that low levels shouldn’t be discounted on their level alone (not having the resources to counter multiple teams is a different matter).
I feel that one’s place in the leader board should affect their match ups to a degree. If a low level player does get into the top end of the board then they should be facing players that are there as well (on an equal level, so equivalent points for wins and losses). Meaning you should be getting the same poitns for facing dhjl as you do for facing ChroniKing and the points that are lost should be the same as well.
I believe this is the argument. The first pic is from a low level player, and the second pic is from my own pool of players. I mentioned on another thread (that I was crucified on and will not mention) that a leaderboard is all about the “last push”. Now, IMO I will have a harder time competing than someone much lower than myself for my top spot. I will have to play the Mercy and Company teams at the top because “meta” and then that is all that is provided for me; while a lower level, arguably, will have more variety and a better point spread than I.
It’s really a pay to win system at low levels. Get an amazing Def team sub 200… ie legendary fully traited, and you will win way more defenses at lower leverls. Where as the difference in power level at higher levels is quite a bit closer and you will win less defenses. This is the reason why lower lvl players can more easily be in the top 100. Pay to win.
I personally use neither Maw or mercy in my Def deck. But I do bring my Maw deck out to kill other Maw decks with a 90% win ratio.
…so playing someone near me in the rankings gets me 10 points… but to earn a competitive amount and keep pace with your low level friend above, I’d have to tackle @zqxinran’s Mercy-based team…
Freaking seriously? This underscores the point I’ve been wondering about. I now get more than 10-16 points for my “hard” victories, but almost never more than 30. No way can I compete against players who can earn 40-50 points for their victories, even if I wanted to (I really don’t care about the ranking system, since I surely don’t have the time to spend getting to the top).
I do not have that information, and maybe @Josef will provide that for us.
That is @Jainus ’ sentiment and the reason for the OP. I will like to add that @en9nhcet is my highest value opponent. No one else in my queue is worth that much. The poor guy is getting punished severely.
I don’t think the point discrepancy itself is an issue. But it SHOULD be based on your PVP RANK not your level. So the higher you get in the table the less points you earn for a win.
######I think I’m repeating myself a little bit, apologies if I am. Been a long day and I’m quite tired ><
Agreed. I find I get more points from higher lvled but lesser ranked players. I defeated rank 3 and 7 and yet got the same or similar points as defeating rank 2-3000th place players.
Points IMO should be a mix of both level and rank.
I’d have to totally disagree that the level 800 player should get the same points for a win as the level 150 player for fighting the same opponent. Let’s say the opponent is level 1000. That player more than likely has all kingdoms to 10 with 5 stars on all of them. That level 800 player may have the same. But, the level 150 player surely doesn’t. That fight will be considerable more difficult for the level 150 player than the level 800 player.
I disagree fundamentally with the premise that higher level players should have an advantage when it comes to being at the top of the PvP leaderboards. I do however agree that it shouldn’t be regressive such that the higher you are the fewer points/battle you get. Level playing field for all would be ideal.
Obviously the difficulty they encountered with their design is that low level players can find much more challenging matches and thus get more points for a win. I’m not sure how to resolve this though. I guess the algorithm needs to have some multiplier tacked on for non-low level players?
Ther is no point in comparing just these two. For any specific case there can be multiple explanations: People choosing different ‘difficulty’ matches, points lost in defend matches, or just the randomness of the numbers.
(I know i sometimes get matches as high as 45 points, but sometimes the best of three is just 18 points. The random factor is very strong here.)
If you insist, here’s a counter example. you can see 3 level 1001s, a level 400, and a level 71, all having very similar numbers of wins and losses, and very close on points:
One other thing to point out with the dhjl screen: He’s got twice as many defensive losses. Those 50 extra losses probably mean ~250+ points. Fixing the defensive end of the equation would help a ton.
I think the best approach would be to completely seperate defense and invade statistics with leaderboards and rewards.
With their own rewards defense(lower rewards than invade rankings but still meaningful, maybe other types of rewards) would still matter, and there would be much more transparency as to how rankings are calculated.
To tack on to @yonizaf 's point:
On the first day of 2.0, the defense loss numbers were horrendous. So, those bad numbers are still part of these calculations. To be honest, you can’t fairly judge what is going on with the leaderboard until they have worked out all the bugs and finalized all the loss/win number rebalancing. It would really need a few weeks to be analyzed properly.
I do understand where you’re coming from, and don’t disagree with the principle. But the issue with that system in isolation (which ofcourse it isn’t) is that you are essentially punished for leveling up, since it will be harder and harder for you to find challenging matches (as @Studs mentioned). So ideally we need to find some middle ground that gives a total level playing field, since higher level players shouldn’t be punished for being higher level, but lower level players should still be rewarded if they can manage something outside of their standard “range”. Unfortunately I’m too tired at the moment to try and think of any new ideas. But, you are right, the challenge does have to be taken into account in some way shape or form. Maybe the multiplier Studs mentioned might be the easiest solution.
Well, I suppose the only fair solution would be to have different ladders for different levels. Something like the “banded leaderboard” that Jainus suggested in one post. And actually, I like this idea better. That way, the top 20 people in each level bracket could get a nice reward.
My intention for this though wasn’t to have separate leagues for the bands… I don’t want a situation where level 100s only play level 100s and 900s only play 900s… keep broadly as is now, but have different leaderboards for the bands, as that is a fair comparison of people with similar game positions…
We could do 0-100, 101-200, 201-350, 351-500, 501-750, 751-1001, for example, which is six bands and coincides nicely with the six card rarities, so there’d be some nice colour schemes ready to differentiate these leagues…
Then if a level 200 beat a level 900, it’d be fine for them to get massive bonus points, as they’d have outperformed other level 200s… but it wouldn’t be unfair giving them extra points that the level 900 couldn’t easily obtain to compete on a single board…
There was some talk in Global Chat over the past hour in which Sirrian mentioned the possibility of different leader boards. However I believe his examples might have been something along the lines of “Score after 250 matches or something”. Now I think he was just making up a random example. But it sounds like multiple leader boards could be a possibility.
The Mercy/Maw thing is crazy. Several times now I’ve had my “choice” of three different Maw teams. And once all three teams were identical (Maw, Infernal King, Mercy, Sheggra) from three different players. Clearly Maw is a big part of the early 2.0 meta.
