• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

PVP Point System

DeletedUser

Proposal:
This idea is basically challenging the way players are ranked in PVP.

Reasons:
I noticed that the players who gets to the top of the weekly PVP competition have large amount of battle points YET also have a lot of battles taken. Meaning, they possibly picked up those who are weak, non-active or players who have default defense to battle with. Having such kind of battle may not damage their army thus they could go on and do this over again. Yes they strategically fought and won many battles but have they really fought the really ones?

I attached a snapshot for you to further visualize or understand what I'm talking about.
Point System.png

Details:
One possible solution would be to alter the pointing system. From the old raw battles points, it will be replaced by having the average battle of battles won and battle points. So with that computation, taking the image above as an example, you can tell that the player in #1 will definitely move down. Or you can add a functionality that puts all players in categories and have a validation that checks whether the raider is in the same bracket as the target before going to the battle.

Balance/Abuse Prevention:
This proposal is an solution for abusive player's exploit who only fought default troops.

Regards!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Welcome to the forums naselay88. :)

First off though, I really recommend you use this idea template: (Click me!) . It really helps to 'organize' and 'structure' your idea in a much more coherent way + it's mandatory for the idea to be passed on to the developers, should it be deemed worthy. ;)

As for the idea itself, a player has to compensate possible losses during all those battles + the time needed to complete them. If one only fights against default troops (the two spearmen), then one will only receive 240 points and to reach a score of 36544, well that takes a lot of time and commitment.

Having said that, I find that your idea makes sense, but I don't see the need for it to be implemented as of now.

Regards,
Bloodwyn

P.S.: Maybe after you've edited your post using the template I mentioned I might see the need. ;)
 

DeletedUser4089

Not a bad idea, may make it easier for large players though, they can get a better average point by defeating later age armies that new players have little chance against.

Also, please edit your post to follow the proper template as indicated by Bloodwyn. Thanks
 

DeletedUser

Hey Naselay88, welcome to the Forums. :)

Please take a look at this "Read first" thread on posting ideas, using the correct template: Click me
If this template isn't used, your idea might be closed without proper consideration of it's contents. :(

As for the idea itself;
I don't think changing points to an avarage is very fair.
Even though these people might be farming players with no defense. It's still their hassle and time invested. And it is not their fault that these players do not put up a defense (maybe even intentionally to discourage attackers from attacking only 1 or 2 spearmen).

It is a part of the game and you are being rewarded for the efforts you put in it. If those efforts are attacking 2 spearmen 163 times, then you'll be rewarded your rightful 240 victory points 163 times. I don't think the playing style of a player should not be penalized, even if we don't understand the playing style.

- L
 

DeletedUser

I tried to patterned it with the correct template. Hope I did it right!

Btw, thanks for all your replies. I appreciate it.

Well, for me this is a discussion of keeping one player's integrity though I also understand why they do it. It may be really exhausting but it's the safest and fastest way to get to the top. So, i'll just let the developers decide if this idea counts.

Regards!
 

DeletedUser

Thanks for editing your post. ;)

I'm not quite sure whether you're familiar with the fact that a player must use just Iron Age units and below to compete for the Iron Age PvP-Tournament Tower. This means that even if they're advanced players they have to keep barracks of the Iron Age within their city and use only those units in battles, in order to compete.

As mentioned through Lodroth as well, it's very time consuming to finish 163 battles, even if they're all 'just' against default troops, and you really don't receive that many points for it. Tbh, it's the absolute minimum you can receive at all, so it's actually quite an accomplishment to finish that many battles without dying from boredom halfway through. LoL

It's not a solution, but keep in mind that such an active player will most likely move on to the next tower shortly, upgrading to 'better' troops, but thus not competing in the IA tower any more. If the player continues to compete in the IA Tower, thus competing in more than one tower, do keep in mind that he can still only attack all of his neighbours once every 24 hours, so he'll have to divide his battles up into what seems most profitable for him. This means the chance to 'out-battle' him is greater. ;)

Just wanted to point those things out. :)

Cheers,
Bloodwyn

EDIT:Just noticed that we're talking about the Iron age PvP-Tournament Tower, and not the Bronze Age one... Sorry about that :o
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top