Sitting like a Log - Manipulation of the PvP Point System

[Nicko]

So you're saying if someone spends to do 500 attacks, they should be head and shoulders above anyone who does 50 attacks, regardless of the quality of their attacks and their defenses?

Be careful what you wish for. The inevitable conclusion of participation trumps win rate is a mediocre player can pay to beat the best of the best, which is a model we're trying to not emulate from many of our competitors.

Hmmm...I think for the level of player competing for prizes - variances among offensive win rates and defensive hold rates wouldn't be more than 15-20% at best. Probably less.

So yes - in the scenario you presented - assuming win/loss variances that tight - the 500 attack player would be well over the 50. The discrepancy in attacks is too large.

Just my opinion based on what i've seen.

[Sparton_LOTB]

But you said you value participation, which this system doesn't encourage. I guess I'm confused by the participation aspect of it all. How does this new system encourage people to play more?

The Iron Coins is supposed to be part of that, which obviously isn't enough on it's own for many players right now. The assumption is also that there is inherent value to attacking, in that if you're attack and your attack + defense win rates are better than your competitors, you'll end up in a better place than others who started at the same points as you (regardless if they're standing still, participating less, or participating more). I definitely agree that the current matchmaking is probably not doing that, but considering the experimenting player is effectively standing still, and the rush to place on Saturday means he either needs to re-engage or continue to slip further, I don't know if that'll hold true throughout the week.

Edit: and trust me, nobodies winning with a 75% attack rate and 2% defense rate when people like myself, Nicko, Gmac, Shaolin, Enti, Fallen are in town. that's a terrible example.

Nobody is right now while point losses from failed attacks and defenses are in the system. If defense rate didn't matter, that could change.

[Sparton_LOTB]

Hmmm...I think for the level of player competing for prizes - variances among offensive win rates and defensive hold rates wouldn't be more than 15-20% at best. Probably less.

They are now. They wouldn't be if defensive rate didn't impact your ability to climb.

Maybe I'm just jaded from previous games I've worked on, but I've seen what it means when participation trumps all, and defensive losses mean little/nothing. That isn't to say that defensive win rate is perhaps too important in our current system, or the fact that the current system de-emphasizes participation too much, but that I think the inevitable conclusion of ensuring participation is rewarded above all is a dangerous direction to follow to it's logical conclusion.

[Jofer16]

Nobody is right now while point losses from failed attacks and defenses are in the system. If defense rate didn't matter, that could change.

Oh my bad, I was sticking to past convo, defense rates still matter but the point loss shouldn't be > than attack when AI is horrible. Guess don't jump in blasting if you're not up to speed.

[Jofer16]

They are now. They wouldn't be if defensive rate didn't impact your ability to climb.

Maybe I'm just jaded from previous games I've worked on, but I've seen what it means when participation trumps all, and defensive losses mean little/nothing. That isn't to say that defensive win rate is perhaps too important in our current system, or the fact that the current system de-emphasizes participation too much, but that I think the inevitable conclusion of ensuring participation is rewarded above all is a dangerous direction to follow to it's logical conclusion.

What other games have you worked on? Way to spark some curiousity

[Nicko]

The assumption is also that there is inherent value to attacking, in that if you're attack and your attack + defense win rates are better than your competitors, you'll end up in a better place than others who started at the same points as you (regardless if they're standing still, participating less, or participating more). I definitely agree that the current matchmaking is probably not doing that,

Is it the matchmaking or the point system? Likely a combination

but considering the experimenting player is effectively standing still, and the rush to place on Saturday means he either needs to re-engage or continue to slip further, I don't know if that'll hold true throughout the week.

I've been rising slowly in points - steady today with rank - (actually up one now as I type) - but others more active have fallen below me...

Agree 100% about Saturday. No way I'd stay competitive with this strategy.

But my point is - if I wanted to do more than the average player - and go above the free SoT until then - there is little payoff. Shaolin is not a hack of a player - and he's retaining just over 20% of every point earned from matches.

[Nicko]

They are now. They wouldn't be if defensive rate didn't impact your ability to climb.

Maybe I'm just jaded from previous games I've worked on, but I've seen what it means when participation trumps all, and defensive losses mean little/nothing. That isn't to say that defensive win rate is perhaps too important in our current system, or the fact that the current system de-emphasizes participation too much, but that I think the inevitable conclusion of ensuring participation is rewarded above all is a dangerous direction to follow to it's logical conclusion.

Suggestion - what about a nice point bump - ex 25 points - if your defense holds? And do away with losses - or make them minimal (5 points)

You'd be a fool to neglect your defense. And then the 1:1 attack ratio would incentivize a player to play MORE - not do what I've done this week

[RobG-9641]

Nicko, much respect. Following your posts since PvP Beta, gained lots of insight from you. All this back and forth between you and Sparton, you seriously seem to have better grasp on real world game play than the developers. I've learned a lot from your posts. You are accurate in your observations! Appreciate Sparton being hands on, but you sir, are truly a PvP master!

[Nicko]

Nicko, much respect. Following your posts since PvP Beta, gained lots of insight from you. All this back and forth between you and Sparton, you seriously seem to have better grasp on real world game play than the developers. I've learned a lot from your posts. You are accurate in your observations! Appreciate Sparton being hands on, but you sir, are truly a PvP master!

If only I was a real-world master

Thanks Rob for the props!

[Sparton_LOTB]

What other games have you worked on? Way to spark some curiousity

My previous comment is not universally true for all of the game modes in them, but the more recent titles that are still running are Knights & Dragons and The Walking Dead: Road to Survival.

That said, I've also worked on/been the lead designer for most of the titles released by IUGO, so go ahead and look up some of those if you're interested. I dunno if they hold up as well or if I just have fond memories of them, but I'll always have a soft spot for Zombie Attack! and Implode! (the company really liked putting "!" on titles at one point).

Is it the matchmaking or the point system? Likely a combination

Definitely both. No matter the game, you cannot judge one without the other.

I've been rising slowly in points - steady today with rank - (actually up one now as I type) - but others more active have fallen below me...

On average, though, are you rising any slower or quicker than previous weeks? Obviously not a completely fair comparison, but I expect someone with your win rates to be climbing at least slowly, regardless of how much you're participating. If I recall correctly, it sounds like your climb speed is probably not too far off from previous weeks; maybe a bit slower. Probably not a good sign in and of itself, but not necessarily encouraging doing nothing (just not overly punishing you for patient play).

Agree 100% about Saturday. No way I'd stay competitive with this strategy.

But my point is - if I wanted to do more than the average player - and go above the free SoT until then - there is little payoff. Shaolin is not a hack of a player - and he's retaining just over 20% of every point earned from matches.

Depending on how you look at it, there is little pay off... but realistically, I think there's little pay off doing that even under the previous matchmaking system. For the most part, being higher VP before the last 24 hours just makes it easier to jockey for position. You get rewards based on where you end up when the week ends, and you get nothing but brownie points for your rank at any other time of the week.

That said, there is of course value for pushing for a big lead before people start revving their engines, and we've seen people do that with our Arena, too.

Suggestion - what about a nice point bump - ex 25 points - if your defense holds? And do away with losses - or make them minimal (5 points)

You'd be a fool to neglect your defense. And then the 1:1 attack ratio would incentivize a player to play MORE - not do what I've done this week

Hm... if the ratios end up holding fairly strong for the top competitors, then perhaps. I'll have to run some number to see if that actually discourages speedy, sloppy competitors or not.