Change How PvP Tower & Ranking Points Are Awarded

[DeletedUser]

The current points awarded for PvP towers are awarded based (for a week) on:

• The composition of the opponent's army (i.e. their level of development);
• How little damage you receive in the battle (i.e. your skill vs. the AI's ineptitude);
• The number of players you attack (i.e. whether you have a significant amount of time to battle everyone or not); and
• The number of times you attack them (i.e. whether you can be online 7 days a week).

This means that the battle system rewards you for:

• Attacking everyone; and
• Attacking every day.

This makes the battle system biased against people who are working/"have families"/"wrong time zone"/"have a social life"/"have too many guild members in the same neighbourhood" and the PvP rankings become dominated not by who has the most skill but by who has the most time and opponents (and secondary to that comes skill).

It also means that players are encouraged to attack lower age players who have little ability to defend themselves in an attempt to get medals and rank.

Proposal:

Only a player's 50 highest scoring battles count towards each PvP tower each week and points (towards ranking) are changed to be awarded on a Sunday with the medals rewards and based only on these top 50 scoring battles.

[note: 50 is an (almost) arbitrary number intended to represent attacking the 10 top players 5 times a week - it would be up to the developers to look at the statistics and see what would be a reasonable level to set the threshold for the number of battles at if this is not appropriate.]

Reason:
This would encourage players to:

• Fight the top ranked players in a neighbourhood;
• Not to pick on the lower ranked players; and
• Fight across multiple ages of PvP towers (again using age-appropriate troops against the most appropriate opponents to maximise their points).
• Compare PvP ratings based on skill rather than activity level.

Details:

• When you win a battle then the points are saved (but not added to that player's score... ...yet).
• If that player has less than 50 battles for that PVP tower then it is added to their personal top 50 battles for that tower for that week; and
• If that player already has 50 or more battles that week then the score is added to the ranking and the lowest ranked score drops off it.
• On Sunday when the PvP tower closes then the player is awarded medals and points based ONLY on those battles that have made their personal top 50 ranking for that tower (any other battles beyond the limit do not count towards medals or give points).

Visual Aids: N/A

Balance:
This will encourage players to attack the most powerful and leave the weakest alone... it will also reward the most skilled fighters since they will get the highest points per battle.

Abuse Prevention:
Can't immediately think how to abuse it but I'm sure others will suggest ways.

Have you Checked the Ideas section for the same idea posted by someone else? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested? Yes

Edit: A couple of words added to try to clarify my meaning.

 

[DeletedUser8813]

-1

i think the system is fine.

 

[DeletedUser]

-1

i think the system is fine.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with how much you have to say on a topic or when you should feel like elaborating or anything along those lines.

In addition to that, i will first point out that all discussions following OP of an idea simply contribute to the forum community discussing and those discussions lead to improvement or adjustment of the idea sometimes. But other than that, i feel that the +1 or -1 that posters give most often don't contribute to the implementation of the idea.

Developers and people in charge of taking these ideas further up the chain will not implement it because of many +1 or refuse the idea because of the -1.
Sometimes, ideas with 0 replies are implemented and often ideas with dozen of pages of posts are not considered.

All that for expressing that if the -1/+1 is all a player has to say it's either of the following.

- has no opinion on the matter but feels like he/she is contributing by no matter what the reply is
- has no opinion but is "addicted" to posting and posts for the pleasure of it, not caring of content

- has an opinion but too lazy to elaborate or give arguments (which makes the post "useless" to the other readers who don't read minds)
- has an opinion but is disrespectful towards the previous or OP poster that he/she doesn't feel the need to "grace" them with a waste of his/her precious time

- thinks the ideas are a poll of counting the numbers of negatives and positives

P.S.1 Please don't take the above as personal. My comments are directed at a group of players in general and not at individuals.
P.S.2 I appreciate some of your posts and thoughts i have come upon and was expecting sort of a more explanatory comment

 

[DeletedUser7719]

P.S.1 Please don't take the above as personal. My comments are directed at a group of players in general and not at individuals.

1) If you didn't want it personal, don't quote his statement.
2) Try to at least bring up your opinion on the topic (or move it) because your statement is not related to the OP right now (maybe put it in the feedback section or something)

Back to the topic, I think what was bugging me was the fact that the more active you are in the game, the more you should get back from it. I have the potential of beating my neighbor in the tower if I could get all my fights everyday, but stuff like college and work does stop me from getting anywhere. I guess giving this a "+1" would make me look selfish, so I commend you on the thought, but...
Remember, they may be winning virtually, but you got it in the real world

 

[DeletedUser8813]

P.S.1 Please don't take the above as personal. My comments are directed at a group of players in general and not at individuals.
P.S.2 I appreciate some of your posts and thoughts i have come upon and was expecting sort of a more explanatory comment

there was "simply put" no more to say .
i do not like the idea i think the way it is is fine.
there was no need to go into a long diatribe to get my thoughts on this idea across.

an idae was put up i am entitled to give a reply no matter how long or short

 

[DeletedUser]

@byeordie

hehehe,
If you think that quoting someone makes it personal, you must think that people get personal with Mark Twain, Shakespeare and G.W.Bush (and the likes) all the time

But yes, you are right about me not adding an opinion to the topic.

I am not a marketing genius, neither do i have a clue about online game customer targets and all that, but FoE caught my attention because unlike the majority of the similar games out there, the game here evolves and progreses much less when a player is not online.

In simpler words, i will not fall behind or the game will not evolve too fast while i am not spending online time.
Because of that it attracts a great number of customers who are exactly the ones with a college degree to take, with an active social life, with a family to support etc. All those, are players who can not afford to be sucked into the "trap" of "the bigger you grow, the more time you need to spend" or "if you don't grow fast, you will get burned"

Which is why i support an idea which promotes progression and competition based on something other than hours and hours of online time. (There are other games for that and there are other kind of players who enjoy and can afford that.)

 

[DeletedUser]

This makes the battle system biased against people who are working/"have families"/"wrong time zone"/"have a social life"/"have too many guild members in the same neighbourhood" and the PvP rankings become dominated not by who has the most skill but by who has the most time (and secondary to that comes skill).

I can see where you are coming from and why you might feel that way. I would not agree with a change like this, though, because it seems that this is designed to be a game that rewards people more for being more active. Such as, being able to collect multiple times from a 1 hour house gives more coins than someone collecting a couple times from a 4 hour house. Or hourly supply collections giving significantly more than a 24 hour cycle.

Also it seems that a system like this could be greatly affected by the people that put no defenses up so that they only give away 240 points per attack. A number of people doing this could skew tournaments greatly.

In addition, I think it would make province battles have a greater impact on PVP tournaments than they do now, since they generally give more points than attacking neighbors when dealing with a small sample size.

Also there is no real reason to make such a large change to the way people gain city ranking points, since that score doesn't really have an affect on the game other than showing how much 'work' someone has put into their city. It can be disconcerting to have someone with three times your score attacking you, but if you are both in the same Age, you are still on equal footing (Great Buildings aside, of course).

Anyway, my opinion is that it seems like a lot of changes for little gain, would almost encourage people to play less than they do now, and would be a complicated system to try to explain to people when they ask why they didn't gain battle points for THIS battle when they gained some for THAT battle.. and why their points changed less than the amount they gained from the fight.

 

[DeletedUser8813]

I can see where you are coming from and why you might feel that way. I would not agree with a change like this, though, because it seems that this is designed to be a game that rewards people more for being more active. Such as, being able to collect multiple times from a 1 hour house gives more coins than someone collecting a couple times from a 4 hour house. Or hourly supply collections giving significantly more than a 24 hour cycle.

Also it seems that a system like this could be greatly affected by the people that put no defenses up so that they only give away 240 points per attack. A number of people doing this could skew tournaments greatly.

In addition, I think it would make province battles have a greater impact on PVP tournaments than they do now, since they generally give more points than attacking neighbors when dealing with a small sample size.

Also there is no real reason to make such a large change to the way people gain city ranking points, since that score doesn't really have an affect on the game other than showing how much 'work' someone has put into their city. It can be disconcerting to have someone with three times your score attacking you, but if you are both in the same Age, you are still on equal footing (Great Buildings aside, of course).

Anyway, my opinion is that it seems like a lot of changes for little gain, would almost encourage people to play less than they do now, and would be a complicated system to try to explain to people when they ask why they didn't gain battle points for THIS battle when they gained some for THAT battle.. and why their points changed less than the amount they gained from the fight.

well i came back to put up a more detailed explanation
but this post covers most of my thoughts..so i will just say that i agree with this post

 

[DeletedUser]

well i came back to put up a more detailed explanation
but this post covers most of my thoughts..so i will just say that i agree with this post

Reading minds, one player at a time. Just another service we like to provide here.

 

[DeletedUser12372]

Can anybody tell me how much time does a pvp tower takes to reopen? after the tournament has ended on sunday

 

[DeletedUser8813]

Can anybody tell me how much time does a pvp tower takes to reopen? after the tournament has ended on sunday

it stays closed till the Monday neighborhood merges and stuff are finished then they reopen,it could be later today or tomorrow as i have never really taken much notice of the start times

 

[DeletedUser]

Can anybody tell me how much time does a pvp tower takes to reopen? after the tournament has ended on sunday

Hey awan,

For more information on PvP battles, you can read Pendragon's elaborate guide. Chapter 6 is dedicated to all aspects regarding battles. You can find it by clicking here.

 

[DeletedUser]

+1
I LOVE it. Unfortunately the tide of opinion seems to be going the other way but every point in the idea is agreeable to me. I want to write more because klevito seemed to be in a snit about saying more than just I love it or I hate it but truth is I would just be repeating every point in the opening post so once again,

+1 I LOVE it

 

[DeletedUser8813]

Reading minds, one player at a time. Just another service we like to provide here.

and a great service it is at that.lol

the main part for me is i am 3/4 of the way through the late middle age... i have finished the map... so from this point on with that system i would not be able to be competitive as a lot of my hood only have the default defense so no map fights and only 50 fights to score 50 x 240 =12000 points for me'''''''thats only 3 or 4 map fights for another player.....so how does that make the pvp won by a player based on skill..i have shown my skill by fighting my way through the map

 

[DeletedUser]

Part reason why the ideas are posted here and open to discussion is to contribute to the idea by suggesting improvements or finding possible flaws.
You have a point about the map fights but i don't see it as an obstacle. The OP can very well include in his/her idea the fact that maybe map fights should not add up to PvP towers.

 

[DeletedUser]

and a great service it is at that.lol

the main part for me is i am 3/4 of the way through the late middle age... i have finished the map... so from this point on with that system i would not be able to be competitive as a lot of my hood only have the default defense so no map fights and only 50 fights to score 50 x 240 =12000 points for me'''''''thats only 3 or 4 map fights for another player.....so how does that make the pvp won by a player based on skill..i have shown my skill by fighting my way through the map

"A lot of your neighbourhood" is not "all of your neighbourhood" so there would still be targets to attack.

However, I would like to point out that you would probably be better off under this proposal.

Imagine that both you and another player from a different neighbourhood are in the same age and that player has a neighbourhood of 80 people and few of them have the default defence. Under the current system you would be able to attack all your neighbourhood and get points for it but that other player can attack all his neighbourhood and (if he wins) will get a much greater score than you because of the luck of being in that neighbourhood. In fact, that player may be less skilled than you and take more damage during the fights but because he can attack more targets he'll get a greater score.

Under this proposal, you may be able to find 9 players who don't have a default defence and attack them every day for 6 days. It will not matter if there are another 20 people in your neighbourhood with the default defence as you can ignore them (or you can build slinger ranges and attack them 50 times for points in the bronze age tower). The result is that your PvP score and medals is less based on the vagaries of the composition of your neighbourhood and more based on skill.

With 6 different ages (7 if you count the upcoming Industrial Age) and 50 attacks per age you can still do 300 attacks per week if you want but you would need to maintain an appropriate military force for each age and compete against the best players of the appropriate age rather than the competing with the best AND picking on the worst.