Sitting like a Log - Manipulation of the PvP Point System

[Nicko]

It's no secret the current PvP point system makes no sense if you want to be competitive. When you're near the top, you lose 20 points every time your defense is broken - yet win back 12 when you attack others because if you're near the top most of the opponents on your list will be under you.

Two steps forward three steps back.

This is even more pertinent now with the new matchmaking system. It DOES look like matchmaking is now about 1:1; if you attack you'll be attacked. Once the ratio reaches equilibrium at 1:1 attacks slow down. But for top players this makes no sense - defensive holds are generally 15-30% so that means you'll be losing as much as you gain and it will be difficult to rise.

I've seen it this week. I've been watching ShaolinLondo and Jofer in particular. Up - down - up - down.

Knowing I wouldn't have much time to play this Saturday, this week (with the new matchmaking system) seemed like a good time to try a new approach...

I would only attack those above me. And I would do it slowly.

The rationale being the following: As I rise, there will be few people above me to attack. This keeps my number of attacks down - hence the attacks on me. And it ensures every attack will be more than the 12 points I would gain by attacking someone below me - so I still come out ahead as attacks on me start to catch up. And if they revenge me? Even better - I get another shot at more points.

This is nothing groundbreaking and it's EXACTLY what Jofer had postulated may be tried. I had already made that decision so started the week very slow as I tested the waters.

The results? Maximum return on investment. I would see players 200 points above me that would fall BELOW me even if I was perfectly still because of the attacks on them that led to losses greater than 12 points. I had a small drop each day, but nothing like the hundreds of points those at the top see.

As of yesterday I was #7 from 32 attacks. Yes - you read that right - 32 attacks

2856

As I write this I'm #10 from 50 attacks:

2857

Where will I finish? Who knows. And certainly there is more to this game than score - this is a game and PvP is fun - and that's the problem. There is a disincentive to play frequently because there is a disincentive to attack those below you - and hence a disincentive to spend Ironite. I've been goofing off this week - switching talismans, trying new things - and my attack percentage shows it (though two of those losses were from putting in toons where I had stripped the shell talismans and forgot). But still - my rank is very high for a mediocre attack percentage.

I'm not sure how long I'll continue this approach - it's more of creating my own personal challenge (and frankly I'd rather be clearing lists) - but it does show how broken this system is. From a psychological perspective - it's been amazing not seeing my score plummet each day and feel like I'm fighting a tide that wants to sweep me back.

I ask those in the top 20 - how many attacks have YOU made? How much Ironite spent? Why should someone like me with 50 attacks and a very average win percentage be number 10 midway through the week?

Answer? I shouldn't...

[Caretaker]

You know mine, cca 150 attacks made and as much received. Not playng is the beat and you sure made a great point. Matchmaking and attacklists based on ratios is another good idea that failed. Pure randomization is required. Well said with fighting the tides, very lively put. And though I like crowd on top it is kind of demoralizing

[Nicko]

You know mine, cca 150 attacks made and as much received. Not playng is the beat and you sure made a great point. Matchmaking and attacklists based on ratios is another good idea that failed. Pure randomization is required. Well said with fighting the tides, very lively put. And though I like crowd on top it is kind of demoralizing

Caretaker - as I type this, those 100 extra attacks gave you 26 more points than me ;)

[slauki]

You know mine, cca 150 attacks made and as much received. Not playng is the beat and you sure made a great point. Matchmaking and attacklists based on ratios is another good idea that failed. Pure randomization is required. Well said with fighting the tides, very lively put. And though I like crowd on top it is kind of demoralizing

great thread as always nicko, but i disagree dear caretaker. i think matchmaking is much better and more fair now, only this pointsystem and the crappy rewards for the most players lead to such ridiculous results. and your great defense of course.
atm i'm at 118 attacks and i'm rank 3. so really riduculous too. not a single refill nor extra sow from sacrifice. only my natural gained sow.

well it's clear tha we will see rapid changes now, because noone seem to have spend anything beside shaolin and a handfull others. and i bet they only spent a fraction of what they usually invest, so this will force the devs to make quick decisions, since they won't earn a penny with the current system. now that matchmaking is "fixed" rewards and pointsystem should be adressed as well and we might see some revival of the arena.

as said several times people need motivation to play. and the more you play the more you are bashed is not that a great motivation at all.
really basic psychological stuff. more rewards and more intentions to play = more ironite burned. ;)

[Sparton_LOTB]

Well, your score isn't going down, but your rank is, and rank is all that is relevant for the top 250.

Not to mention the lack of Iron Coins. Obviously if you're sitting on a warchest that doesn't matter now (as we know many top players are), but eventually it'll run out if you're only making 100 battles a week, especially with things like Talismans, Eternity Soul Fragments, and more that'll be going through that store.

Ultimately, a curious strategy for getting rewards while minimizing effort, but you're paying for it in your own way. It'll be interesting to see how your standing is at the end of the week, as we obviously don't want to encourage not participating.

[Nicko]

Well, your score isn't going down, but your rank is, and rank is all that is relevant for the top 250.

Not to mention the lack of Iron Coins. Obviously if you're sitting on a warchest that doesn't matter now (as we know many top players are), but eventually it'll run out if you're only making 100 battles a week, especially with things like Talismans, Eternity Soul Fragments, and more that'll be going through that store.

Ultimately, a curious strategy for getting rewards while minimizing effort, but you're paying for it in your own way. It'll be interesting to see how your standing is at the end of the week, as we obviously don't want to encourage not participating.

Sparton - you know I love this game. You also know I've historically been very competitive. But when Caretaker makes 100 more attacks than me has the same score midweek - something is wrong.

I said there is more to this game than score - it's fun and addicting with a Maiden mythology everyone here loves - but there truly is a disincentive to play.

I really hope Jofer comments. He had 2600 - dropped to 2100 - worked his way back up to 2700 - now sits at 2362 - rank #25.

He's a really smart player and has played much more than me this week - but if we're focusing on rank - why should he be that far below me?

It makes no sense...

[Sparton_LOTB]

I really hope Jofer comments. He had 2600 - dropped to 2100 - worked his way back up to 2700 - now sits at 2362 - rank #25.

He's a really smart player and has played much more than me this week - but if we're focusing on rank - why should he be that far below me?

Well, as I noted in the week 11 thread, that is part of the reason why we're looking at adding in logic that reduces point losses for defenders when they lose, as intentional or not, lack of participation can at least feel rewarding in some ways.

While you and Jofer have mentioned in the past that many of your statistics are pretty similar, even with your current (lower than usual?) attack win rate, you have an impressive defense win rate, and your rank reflects that, even if it is slipping.

[Jofer16]

Yeah it's super broke, and like I said earlier, punishes you for participating. My attacks are super high this week because I did a ton of expirimenting Saturday night and Sunday in live battles instead of testing defense around the new talismans and meta. And then last night wanted some more data for my analysis so went on a quick spree. I was down around rank 50 and shot up to rank 2 in a couple hours, but like you explain that just opens up the floodgates. If i wanted to remain efficient I'd play exactly as you are. Anyone with half a brain is going to drop their participation greatly because all you're doing with high participation is feeding other players at your own expense. If people want to grind up all you're doing is digging yourself a future hole to climb out of. The game should be about participation, not manipulating ratios, and hiding/cherry picking. It's either a cowards game, or a fools, depending if you manipulate ratios or grind for rank relentlessly. Should be about sound competition. Just cause I had fun and played around earlier in the week I have to pay for it with even more attacks all week, it's a losing battle.

Contemplating not really playing this weekend but haven't decided. I like games i can grind and play if I want, this discourages that now and you just create more work for yourself with little results. Only people actually going for rank burning ironite are probably just chasing a rank they've never achieved before, or are happy the highly competitive are losing interest. Look at Enti, damn near quit because he sees through this as well and already tasted eternal. While the cats are away the mice will play.

Thanks as usual Nicko for your sound analysis and input. You're a breath of fresh air around here. I can see why someone would suggest this from the dev side, it makes less motivated feed off those who are motivated, we're just burning each other's ironite feeding off each others competitiveness. Very demotivating to anyone that gets it.

[Caretaker]

But I've earned more coins 😅 And that will show in 6 months. Non beta players are missing coins and we are at least 10k in plus. And your rooster and def is better than mine N. (Rng to blame? No. Can't blame the rng, just my gamestyle and provoking the book.)
Yes, matchmaking and the lists are well improved, you know I favor this over what we had, and I'm not saying the opposite Slauki.. I am enjoying this for real. What I am saying is ratio basis is not the good thing, for it is allowing sitting. So the system of ratios is hiding us. And nothing else. And waiting to stirike us back.

[Ringe666-7406]

Hi all :D 132 attacks and 110 defenses atm, 2325pts. My falls seem to be slightly smaller that before... Of course, defenses are on 50% lower than last few weeks at this time, bu tso are attacks. I have no more nerves and still no good chars for a good def, so I decided to just play my 33 SoW daily (24 + 3 + 3 lists cleared x2), searching for lists with weaker opponents, and try to avoid to be put down like zamasu and LeoSilvestre today. God that was painful. Defense is now equally important as attack (more than it ever was). For the n-th time, def loses waaaaaaaaaay too many points. I understand that dumb AI loses to Jofer, Enti, Nicko, gmac and all the other top players, they are all skilled fighters. But when I see that I lost to some 70lvl dude with ridiculous def, whom I beat in one and a half turn, I lose all the will to compete. Attack me 500 times, no probs, but don't let me have 20 holds, and lose 480x18(average)~9000pts. I mean, I know I'll never be #1 or so, why spend then when I can play for free and be in plus with ironite in the end of the week.

[Shaolin85london]

Nicko thanks for this. I'm first rank atm but it's like despicable all attacks I made and submitted, I never make a step on. Here's my stats atm:

Attack 507
Defense 360

Like pointed out by Nicko, friend of mine is sitting within 50 ranks with 10 attacks made.

Is this logic or should we rename arena in sitting room?

[Jofer16]

Nicko thanks for this. I'm first rank atm but it's like despicable all attacks I made and submitted, I never make a step on. Here's my stats atm:

Attack 507
Defense 360

Like pointed out by Nicko, friend of mine is sitting within 50 ranks with 10 attacks made.

Is this logic or should we rename arena in sitting room?

For sure, like I said, if you're motivated you just feed everyone else. I really can't believe this was put in on purpose unless their sole plan was to kill the spirits of the most competitive subgroup of its player base and just let all the middle ranks go crazy attacking not knowing any better, while thinking they'll up overall participation even if it's at the expense of us elite players. Some deceptive stuff going on here it kinda feels like.

[Nicko]

Yeah it's super broke, and like I said earlier, punishes you for participating. My attacks are super high this week because I did a ton of expirimenting Saturday night and Sunday in live battles instead of testing defense around the new talismans and meta. And then last night wanted some more data for my analysis so went on a quick spree. I was down around rank 50 and shot up to rank 2 in a couple hours, but like you explain that just opens up the floodgates. If i wanted to remain efficient I'd play exactly as you are. Anyone with half a brain is going to drop their participation greatly because all you're doing with high participation is feeding other players at your own expense. If people want to grind up all you're doing is digging yourself a future hole to climb out of. The game should be about participation, not manipulating ratios, and hiding/cherry picking. It's either a cowards game, or a fools, depending if you manipulate ratios or grind for rank relentlessly. Should be about sound competition. Just cause I had fun and played around earlier in the week I have to pay for it with even more attacks all week, it's a losing battle.

Contemplating not really playing this weekend but haven't decided. I like games i can grind and play if I want, this discourages that now and you just create more work for yourself with little results. Only people actually going for rank burning ironite are probably just chasing a rank they've never achieved before, or are happy the highly competitive are losing interest. Look at Enti, damn near quit because he sees through this as well and already tasted eternal. While the cats are away the mice will play.

Thanks as usual Nicko for your sound analysis and input. You're a breath of fresh air around here. I can see why someone would suggest this from the dev side, it makes less motivated feed off those who are motivated, we're just burning each other's ironite feeding off each others competitiveness. Very demotivating to anyone that gets it.

Perfectly said Jofer. And interestingly - Enti now sits 34 points above me. He was hundreds of points earlier. All that work erased...

[Aristo4]

1:1 will never work with the current point system.

- the more you spend you're more likely to go backwards with so big defensive losses.
- the less you attack you're better off like nicko who has great defences historically (would work similar to me I guess, just not to that extent)

I'm at 110atk/100def atm usually going downwards...makes me regret attacking so much.
1:1 can work cutting down defensive losses, otherwise you'll see people playing less and less...its not worth it.

[Shaolin85london]

For sure, like I said, if you're motivated you just feed everyone else. I really can't believe this was put in on purpose unless their sole plan was to kill the spirits of the most competitive subgroup of its player base and just let all the middle ranks go crazy attacking not knowing any better, while thinking they'll up overall participation even if it's at the expense of us elite players. Some deceptive stuff going on here it kinda feels like.

I do agree with you. Only I can't understand the logic behind a system such that by who suppose to be the creator of arena and the mechanics working on. What's the worth for it?

Many things has been changed since beta but never the main essential one:

Mechanic related to the logic of pvp, who want to climb the ranks can't lose so many points because AI is terrible or due a fall in the point system. That has to be addressed once for all.

[Enti]

Well, your score isn't going down, but your rank is, and rank is all that is relevant for the top 250.

Not to mention the lack of Iron Coins. Obviously if you're sitting on a warchest that doesn't matter now (as we know many top players are), but eventually it'll run out if you're only making 100 battles a week, especially with things like Talismans, Eternity Soul Fragments, and more that'll be going through that store.

Ultimately, a curious strategy for getting rewards while minimizing effort, but you're paying for it in your own way. It'll be interesting to see how your standing is at the end of the week, as we obviously don't want to encourage not participating.

If only our rank is going down then erase VP requirement for the rewards so those between 25-250 can finally get their proper rewards.
Couple tuning upgrades earlier I read a post from you that globally the average of VP per player is increasing. Well, I never saw #1 having ~3k points mid-week.

I'm still #8 without spending a single ironite for pvp.



Perfectly said Jofer. And interestingly - Enti now sits 34 points above me. He was hundreds of points earlier. All that work erased...

All that work contains spending some automatically filled SoW when I'm bored xD I made 136 attacks, that's what I got from time + dailies + sacrifice + list clear bonus

[Nicko]

Nicko thanks for this. I'm first rank atm but it's like despicable all attacks I made and submitted, I never make a step on. Here's my stats atm:

Attack 507
Defense 360

Like pointed out by Nicko, friend of mine is sitting within 50 ranks with 10 attacks made.

Is this logic or should we rename arena in sitting room?

You've earned over 6000 points. You have less than 3000 of them left as I type this.

Now, we're all in the same boat. Kind of. Someone like Shaolin will muscle it out and climb on sheer determination and volume. But the top 25 crowd? They'd be better off sitting like me and putting the gas on at the end. Other than ShaolinLondo, no one else is more than 250 points ahead of me at this point. Still #10 - and I've attacked three times this afternoon. My goal this week is top 25 - we'll see as competition heats up if that's achievable.

I'm glad Sparton brought up Iron Coins - it's certainly an argument to grind and endure the ups and downs of rank. But I have enough Iron Coins at this point to last a long, long time. So for someone like me - and others who have accumulated a reserve of coins with little to spend them on - we play for the competition.

Sparton and the developers have always been great about being interactive with us - and that doesn't go unnoticed. So thanks guys - I like to say that every chance I get. It's huge. And Sparton said last week they were looking at ways to incorporate changes in the system. So it's coming.

But at the same time this is a pretty urgent issue - I shouldn't have stats saying the guy who has attacked 50 times is ranking higher than the most accomplished player on this board - when that player at one point this week had almost 400 points more than me - so hoping this thread illuminates just how pressing it is.

[Jofer16]

Glass half full, at least my 10k point record will stand with the current system :D

[Nicko]

All that work contains spending some automatically filled SoW when I'm bored xD I made 136 attacks, that's what I got from time + dailies + sacrifice + list clear bonus

Yeah, maybe a little dramatic ;) But I think you get the point...

[Nicko]

Glass half full, at least my 10k point record will stand with the current system :D

Shaolin only has 7,000 to go:D. He started with 1900 and earned 5200 from the 500 attacks (assuming 95% win rate and 20 pt losses on failed attacks, 12 pts on wins), which would put him at 7100. He's at 3000 currently, which means he's lost 4100 of those 5200 points.

Assuming he keeps that 21.2% rate of point retention, and he needs 7,000 points, he'd only have to earn 33,000 points to beat your 10,000. Or 2,750 more attacks:D

Come on Shaolin - you can do it!

[Jofer16]

Shaolin only has 7,000 to go:D. He started with 1900 and earned 6000 from the 500 attacks, which would put him near 8,000. He's at 3000 currently, which means he's lost almost 5000 of those 6000 points.

Assuming he keeps that 16.6% rate of point retention, and he needs 7,000 points, he'd only have to earn 42,000 points to beat your 10,000.:D

Come on Shaolin - you can do it!

Fun with numbers, 42,000, jesus! lol

[Nicko]

Fun with numbers, 42,000, jesus! lol

I edited it - forgot he likely didn't win every attack ;)

[Silentknight]

I ask those in the top 20 - how many attacks have YOU made? How much Ironite spent? Why should someone like me with 50 attacks and a very average win percentage be number 10 midway through the week?

Answer? I shouldn't...

134 attacks, 1 refill Sunday & 1 tonight, both due to boredom!

[Sparton_LOTB]

But at the same time this is a pretty urgent issue - I shouldn't have stats saying the guy who has attacked 50 times is ranking higher than the most accomplished player on this board - when that player at one point this week had almost 400 points more than me - so hoping this thread illuminates just how pressing it is.

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.

[CanyptianFit]

I'm not top 20, currently ranked 33, but I have 51 attacks so far.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[Jofer16]

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.

Yeah we're all garbage players. Sounds like you're in the crowd that's claims my skill is pay to win only. Disappointed by this response.

Edit: if you're not accounting for hold %s and points lost this argument is mute.

[Nicko]

134 attacks, 1 refill Sunday & 1 tonight, both due to boredom!

So sounds like most just doing the minimum of free SoW. And that's a good strategy - because you get the Iron Coins and the fun of playing. It's why most of the top 20 are huddled so closely. My rank can fluctuate up or down 2-3 places with one win or loss - or as others win/lose - it's that close.

Where this system breaks down is reward on refills - if you want to get more competitive - as we see with ShaolinLondo, Jofer, - and me - which led to this experiment and validation of what Jofer wrote last week.

Developers - and the community - now know from numbers how this system is working and the disincentive to compete - and can make appropriate adjustments.

Thanks all of sharing! Comments welcome but probably don't need more numbers unless there's something that's been missed in this discussion.

[Sparton_LOTB]

Yeah we're all garbage players. Sounds like you're in the crowd that's claims my skill is pay to win only. Disappointed by this response.

I would not say that you're not skilled. I mean that if we move to a system which devalues win rates and cares mostly/entirely on volume of attacks would permits players who aren't as skilled to win (not that all winners would be, just that a winner could be). A system which puts more emphasis on win rate reduces or eliminates the possibility of a "winner" being someone with something like a 75% attack win rate and a 2% defense win rate.

You've won under our current system which specifically has checks and balances to encourage both high participation and high attack and defense win rates, after all.

[Jofer16]

I would not say that you're not skilled. I mean that if we move to a system which devalues win rates and cares mostly/entirely on volume of attacks would permits players who aren't as skilled to win (not that all winners would be, just that a winner could be). A system which puts more emphasis on win rate reduces or eliminates the possibility of a "winner" being someone with something like a 75% attack win rate and a 2% defense win rate.

You've won under our current system which specifically has checks and balances to encourage both high participation and high attack and defense win rates, after all.

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?

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.

[Silentknight]

So sounds like most just doing the minimum of free SoW. And that's a good strategy - because you get the Iron Coins and the fun of playing. It's why most of the top 20 are huddled so closely. My rank can fluctuate up or down 2-3 places with one win or loss - or as others win/lose - it's that close.

Where this system breaks down is reward on refills - if you want to get more competitive - as we see with ShaolinLondo, Jofer, - and me - which led to this experiment and validation of what Jofer wrote last week.

Developers - and the community - now know from numbers how this system is working and the disincentive to compete - and can make appropriate adjustments.

Thanks all of sharing! Comments welcome but probably don't need more numbers unless there's something that's been missed in this discussion.
Yeah,but I'm trying to stay away from bugged AoF & op Vision so there's not much left,lmao!!!

[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.

[Sparton_LOTB]

Followup up from my last comment above... my preliminary math says no, having big gains for defense holds and very little losses for defense losses would not stop mediocre or decent players from just paying to take the top. As the amount of attacks approaches 2x what a "good" competitor would do, the amount of points they'd gain overall exceeds what players with better win rates could do.

If we make the assumption that they're at the top of the leaderboard (avg 12 point attack wins, -20 point attack losses, 25 point defense wins, -5 point defense losses):


"Hyper-Garbo" player with 1000 attacks (75% win rate) and 1000 defenses (5% win rate) gains 4000 points from attacks, loses 3500 from defenses. Total gain of 500 (yeah, these guys still aren't competing)
"Hyper-Mediocre" player with 1000 attacks (90% win rate) and 1000 defenses (5% win rate): +8800 from attacks, -3500 from defenses. Total gain of 5300 (a decent chunk)
"Hyper-Good-o" player with 1000 attacks (92% win rate) and 1000 defenses (15% win rate): +9440 from attacks, -500 from defenses. Total gain of 8940 (after accounting for starting at 1900, this would almost break our current top VP record)
"Good" player with 500 attacks (95% win rate) and 500 defenses (20% win rate): +5200 from attacks, +500 from defenses. Total gain of 5700 (narrowly better than "Hyper-Mediocre"; that means with slightly more participation, "Good" loses to "mediocre who plays a lot")
"Great" player with 500 attacks (98% win rate) and 500 defenses (30% win rate): +5680 from attacks, +2000 from defenses. Total gain of 7680 (Better than "Good", but worse than "Hyper-Good-o")
As a fun bonus, a "Lazy Great" player with 250 attacks (98% win rate) and 250 defenses (30% win rate): +2840 from attacks, +100 from defenses. Total gain of 3840 (worse than more engaged "Good" and "Great", but also miles below "Hyper-Garbo" and "Hyper Good-o"


(Don't mind my name archetypes, they're purely for discussion purposes. If you put in 150+ battles each week, you're awesome and engaging at a healthy level in my books.)

In short, the hyper-engaged players trump players with far better win rates if they have the time, patience, and Ironite to get a lot more matches. Of course, if the "Good" and "Great" players start spending as much Ironite and time to get to close to the amount of attacks the less-good hyper-engaged players, they will make better gains, but that's going to happen regardless, and happen more under something like the current system, where defense win rate has far more of an impact on your score (or more accurately, how often you lose will pull you down more).

As a fun experiment, I took a look at what would happen if defense losses didn't take away any points... naturally, this favours the hyper-engaged to a far greater degree than players with less battles but far superior win rates ("Hyper-Good-o" gains a staggering 13,190 points, and even "Hyper-Mediocre" gets 10,050 points and edges out the "Great" player's 9,430 points).

As for the strategy of being super patient and only taking matches that give +20 points... well, definitely let us know how that goes, Nicko, but that does look like it's competitive under the current system if we don't account for the Saturday rush (booooo). However, it stands no chance under the system where defense wins give far more points... or in a world where you just lose a bit less points for defensive losses, which I hope we can move to soon.

(Also, it's worth keeping in mind that all but #1 is not going to get 12 points for a win unless they're leaps and bounds ahead of all other competitors... you guys will have a better sense for this than me, but I suspect an average of 13 or 14 is probably more realistic, if you assume rarely getting someone above you in points and occasionally getting someone around/a bit below you in points.)

[slauki]

Point System

Why don't you create a contest for the community to build a better point system. If you tell us what you want to archieve, with the different arcetypes i bet someone could come up with something usefull.
Swarm intelligence for the win :D

[Patrice-1201]

@Sparton i think there aren't any solutions as long as everybody is mixed up. IMHO you should create a league system where top players with your current point and reward system per division and add a promote to higher division and demote to lesser division once a week.

Another way would be to segment players in conferences a la NFL kind of thing and ultimately compete for the SUperbowl arena once a quarter or something like that.

[Tritium]

This whole discussion is great! I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the community debate together in order to figure out the best way to change the current PVP system. Sparton's input is also a huge plus as well; I am glad that he is as communicative as he is. I hope that, as slauki mentioned, all of our inputs together can help refine the PVP system in such a way that it still properly rewards the best players, without egregiously punishing those who don't have the time to put in hundreds of PVP fights a week. This whole thread has been refreshing. Thank you, Nicko, for making it happen!

[Enti]

This might not be a well-thought suggestions, but the idea came to my mind during shower and I'm in a hurry to get to work:

Wouldn't a flat rate of 12 points on defense loss solve this whole thing?

PoV of low rank players: they lose 12 points anyway from people 300+ VP over them
PoV of high rank players: instead of going backwards with 70% of their attacks, they just don't advance in case of a loss, which can still be countered with participation.

Yes, this would open up again that more attacks grant you higher rank, but not to the extremes we witnessed in the first three months

[Sparton_LOTB]

Why don't you create a contest for the community to build a better point system. If you tell us what you want to archieve, with the different arcetypes i bet someone could come up with something usefull.
Swarm intelligence for the win :D

I'm 100% open to suggestions, like what Nicko has shared here; even if the proposal he mentioned isn't something I think would be viable after crunching some numbers, there's definitely merit to it, and maybe a better solution that is along the lines of better rewarding defenses could work.


@Sparton i think there aren't any solutions as long as everybody is mixed up. IMHO you should create a league system where top players with your current point and reward system per division and add a promote to higher division and demote to lesser division once a week.

Another way would be to segment players in conferences a la NFL kind of thing and ultimately compete for the SUperbowl arena once a quarter or something like that.

League systems are interesting, but they tend to create fiefdoms and people playing in weird ways to try to be the kings/queens of their own fishbowls (look up strategies for competing in King of Thieves, for example). For large scale, always-around, individual vs individual affairs like our Arena, it's not something I'm a big fan of, but we may do something like that for future competitive features.

While obviously some people will do funny business even within the current kind of point system (such as putting in a purposefully weak defense team to tank their score so they can get easier wins), those are usually pretty binary affairs of "trying to compete or trying to farm easier", and that doesn't have much of a negative impact from most people's perceptions.


This whole discussion is great! I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the community debate together in order to figure out the best way to change the current PVP system. Sparton's input is also a huge plus as well; I am glad that he is as communicative as he is. I hope that, as slauki mentioned, all of our inputs together can help refine the PVP system in such a way that it still properly rewards the best players, without egregiously punishing those who don't have the time to put in hundreds of PVP fights a week. This whole thread has been refreshing. Thank you, Nicko, for making it happen!

I agree. I have to say that I also greatly appreciate the receptiveness and patience you guys have had with us as we continue to refine the system and discuss ways of making it better (and chipping away at fixing the bugs...). My thanks to you too, Nicko!


This might not be a well-thought suggestions, but the idea came to my mind during shower and I'm in a hurry to get to work:

Wouldn't a flat rate of 12 points on defense loss solve this whole thing?

Hm... that is also an interesting idea. Running more numbers against the player archetypes I posted above, that definitely does favour people with good attack and defense win rates more than those with lots of attacks but mediocre/bad win rates... but players with a good attack win rate but a mediocre defense win rate can still get a lot of points, even if those with either or both win rate being poor are just hooped. Since it takes some of the sting out of losing against weaker players, that could encourage mid-ranking players to pick on weaker players to get more consistent wins from a high win rate, which doesn't sound ideal, though.

I'll have to sleep on that. Good suggestion.

[Tritium]

Sparton, would it be possible for us to have the option of choosing our defense team to always go first when testing it? Winning the coin toss can be rather annoying when all we want to do is see how our defense performs when it goes first. :p

[BillLion]

Thank you Nicko for launching a needed, healthy conversation!



Well, as I noted in the week 11 thread, that is part of the reason why we're looking at adding in logic that reduces point losses for defenders when they lose, as intentional or not, lack of participation can at least feel rewarding in some ways.

I missed this in the other thread but this makes me very encouraged. While enjoying many aspects of it, from the beginning I've been like a 2-string guitar re: PVP critique: 1) Reduce defensive losses & 2) Improve rewards. From pieces I've read it seems both are on the way. These things are huge to me as you attempt to strike the right balance all around.

One additional suggestion is to not introduce any more new talismans until we can also get some of the bugs resolved. It is dizzying to have to constantly change defenses because an update bugs passive on artillery dog, new OP talismans essentially make you have to bench the troll & void talismans, etc. The variety of characters, talismans and combination possibilities is already quite rich. This is good. But repairs should precede new implementation IMO.

[Enti]

One additional suggestion is to not introduce any more new talismans until we can also get some of the bugs resolved. It is dizzying to have to constantly change defenses because an update bugs passive on artillery dog, new OP talismans essentially make you have to bench the troll & void talismans, etc. The variety of characters, talismans and combination possibilities is already quite rich. This is good. But repairs should precede new implementation IMO.

Yup, I depleted my skill shards for reactive changes on my defense and whatever might come up next I won't be able to keep up with. I can't even imagine the struggle of newly joined players who wish to participate in PvP. If they want to be competitive they have to shard characters essential for Arena and not what they like to play with. Not to mention the difference in the amount of shards obtained.

[Jofer16]

Well it seems my attacks have finally stabilized some after my early week experimenting binge. Didn't wake up to 40-50 attacks and I'm starting to stabilize in rank. I just wish I could play more. Perfect solution for me would be one that doesn't penalize participation yet doesn't allow mr garbage money bags player like Sparton points out to easily pay to win. Now to figure out how to get there :)

[blackbolt]

I have a different idea:

We still calculate the victory point reward the same way, and we use this number to calculate the defensive point loss based on a rank-related ratio.
I try to explain better:

The worst case scenario is that you're rank 1 (or top 5, or 10), in this case your conversion ratio is 1:1, so if you gain 12 points for beating a rank 50 you'll also lose 12*1=12 points for losing with the same guy.

On the other side, because the victory reward remains the same, the rank 70 still gains his 20 points for winning in both offensive or defensive way against someone that is far more high rank.

Doing so, top tier guys will not feel that "1 step forward 3 steps back" sensation so strong, and remaining top tier will still be difficult like it has to be.

The best case scenario can be, a rank 1500 that challenges our top tier rank 1 mr. 10k man. In this case rank 1500=1:0,5 ratio (random number, just an example), so if he loses in any offensive or defensive way, versus a rank 1 he'll lose 20(actual win reward)*0.5(ratio)=10 points loss. And so on.

I don't know if running the numbers that can work, but on a quick thought seems respecting what Sparton wants to achieve for keeping the game away from players frustration and pay-to-win dynamics, it also needs real skill to remain in top tier position because of the 1:1 ratio.

Let me know your thougts.

Cheers

[Caretaker]

Thank you Sparton for the interest in the matter checking the numbers and not giving in to some pressure. Perheps nicknames for types of players based on win % should have been 'super lucky with souls', 'not so lucky with souls' and 'shit out of luck with souls' (as it is all more or less about if the currently op toon is in your rooster ✌️ Me being mediocre with a lot of spare time :o, wrote this for the fun of it, nothing taken personally)

Keep crunching those numbers, good things will come!

[Strigoi-8297]

As a new member here in this forum, i decided to read this relevant post, and it's great to see that there are very good suggestions and analysis of the gameplay which have made my words specially from threads of nicko and jofer16. Now i see that sparton is probably from the development team, and it's good to see the team working and involved into the game as the other players suggestions.

[slauki]

i run the numbers on entis flat 12 point suggetion and changes the attack loss to -12 points too, the numbers looks very promising

2858

Hyper Grabo and Hypermediocre are punished hard because of the bad defense, a great with 500 has a huge advantage over all others, so skill matters a lot. And the good with 500 gains a little more than the excellent lazy.

I wrote an excel spreadsheet, where you can run your own calculations. I'm not a excel pro but i tested it with spartons numbers, and the spreadsheet calculates correctly.
i'm positive that we will find something that will work for all. it would be great sparton, if you could tell us exactly what you want to reach.

i put the calculator on my onedrive cloud you can download it from there if some of you guys want to test on your own:
https://1drv.ms/x/s!AmnD5WIsUqymh6xFO9VWBojaj8Ho2Q

i just played around a little and i like this approach: a flat one with -10 on lost attacks, and 15 points on a defense win, because the hyper good-o is better then the good with 500 attacks. so quantity matters here too. but that are only first testings so far. in this approach everyone profits aside the hyper-grabo noob :P

2859

have to take a nap first and i need concrete goals to aim for, then i could try to do better.

[Nicko]

Let’s do some ShaolinMath-O

Assume Shaolin has a 95% Win percentage and a 25% Hold percentage – very respectable numbers in todays environment.

He makes 100 attacks – wins 95

He nets 1,140 (95 x 12) and loses 100(5 x 20) for a 1,040 gain

He is attacked 100 times and holds 25 of them

He loses 1,500 (75 x 20) and gains 300 (25 x 12) for a 1,200 loss.

He has just played 100 matches – winning almost all of them - to lose 160 points.

That’s theoretical.

What happened in reality? He told me earlier he was up to 593 attacks – from 500 at last check – and yet again dropped below 3000. He’s working his way back up now – but the process will repeat. You can’t fight math assuming the 1:1 ratio holds up. His best bet is to sit tight and go all out Saturday before the attacks on him can catch up to the attacks he’s made.

If you want this “penalty for defensive breaks” process to work – it can’t increase as you rise up in rank.

Yes – defense matters – but we’re forgetting something – THE DEFENSE IS CONTROLLED BY AI. It simply can’t compete. So to ding someone 20 points everytime they’re hit just because they were motivated enough to climb the ranks – while giving them 12 on wins - makes no sense.

I’m sure Jofer is happier than ever he’s kicking back this week ;)

[Nicko]

Just saw Slauki's post - awesome! And yes - he validates - a flat win/loss is the only one that will make sense.

[R1ck]

Mmm considering flat system, if you tell me who you prefer to attack, a low rank or a high rank and both may give me 12 points, who do you think will be more affected.

[Nicko]

Mmm considering flat system, if you tell me who you prefer to attack, a low rank or a high rank and both may give me 12 points, who do you think will be more affected.

That's where matchmaking would have to come in

[BillLion]

Mmm considering flat system, if you tell me who you prefer to attack, a low rank or a high rank and both may give me 12 points, who do you think will be more affected.

A great point. I'm not quite sure about flat system.

I would think losses could be something like -7, -5 or -3 points depending how high above or below you the attacker is while attack points could remain close to what they are now. You'll still feel it but it won't be a freewill. And to Rick's pt keep offensive points on a scale prevents people from picking on lower ranked teams all the time.

Edit: Of course I don't have a spreadsheet to back this up :)

[Sparton_LOTB]

I wrote an excel spreadsheet, where you can run your own calculations. I'm not a excel pro but i tested it with spartons numbers, and the spreadsheet calculates correctly.

I took a quick look at your math; it looks like the same calculations I made, so that's a good basis to work off of.


i just played around a little and i like this approach: a flat one with -10 on lost attacks, and 15 points on a defense win, because the hyper good-o is better then the good with 500 attacks. so quantity matters here too. but that are only first testings so far. in this approach everyone profits aside the hyper-grabo noob :P

Hyper-Good-o also edges out a better good by a fair margin, and the lazy great... maybe that's OK, but I'd prefer that win rate mattered more.

Also, R1ck and BillLion basically touched upon this already, but I'm leery of any system that flatlines points earned from attacks, because it means that if you presume lower-ranked targets are easier, it encourages picking on lower-ranked (ie weaker) players, which just means it creates a divide between people who get to the top first and then everyone pushing everyone else out of the competition. Being at the top should have it's own advantage of being easier to place at the end of the week, and not create a feedback loop that makes it harder for others to compete.


i'm positive that we will find something that will work for all. it would be great sparton, if you could tell us exactly what you want to reach.

In general, I want all of the following to be true:


Participation is valuable, without being a substitute to beat people with much better win rates
Participation should not be discouraged
You should want both a higher attack win rate and defense win rate
You should be able to choose between risk of fighting a tougher opponent for better rewards, or fighting people closer to your rank for less rewards
You should not be encouraged to fight people below you to optimize your climbing speed (assuming you're not already at the absolute top)


The only exception to the above is for people at the lower to lower-mid rankings; at that point, participation is assumed to be more of a factor than win rate (as the lower divisions are less competitive, and more about your own progress).

Also, the Saturday rush is pretty much meant to highly encourage participation while still having a good win rate; basically, participation becomes a tie-breaker at the end between players with similar win rates.


Let’s do some ShaolinMath-O

[...]

What happened in reality? He told me earlier he was up to 593 attacks – from 500 at last check – and yet again dropped below 3000. He’s working his way back up now – but the process will repeat. You can’t fight math assuming the 1:1 ratio holds up. His best bet is to sit tight and go all out Saturday before the attacks on him can catch up to the attacks he’s made.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the theoretical of 12 points for wins is not completely accurate unless he's so far above everyone else in rank that he never sees anyone within 480 points of him (in which case... if no one is ever within 500 points of him, that means he has 1st place in the bag, and all the theoreticals are moot).

I'll still agree that what we have now is making climbing... weird right now, at least for people jockeying for the top divisions. Curiously, most people competing in the middle have reported it much more sensible for them, so while changes need to happen, I hope we can maintain some semblance of what we have for mid- and lower-ranked players.


Yes – defense matters – but we’re forgetting something – THE DEFENSE IS CONTROLLED BY AI. It simply can’t compete. So to ding someone 20 points everytime they’re hit just because they were motivated enough to climb the ranks – while giving them 12 on wins - makes no sense.

The defense is controlled by the AI, but the influence of strong/anti-meta builds and strategies is heavily influenced by the player, which is why we can see a typical variance of 5% to 30% for players across the player base (assuming an appropriate sample size of defenses... but also after accounting for different quality of opponents based on ranking). Having a good defense relative to a poor defense means holding 6x more than some competitors (or 50-100% better if we assume many top competitors are around a 15-20% "good" hold rate).


I would think losses could be something like -7, -5 or -3 points depending how high above or below you the attacker is while attack points could remain close to what they are now. You'll still feel it but it won't be a freewill. And to Rick's pt keep offensive points on a scale prevents people from picking on lower ranked teams all the time.

This is pretty close (although more extreme) to the idea I'm thinking of of reducing defensive point losses by a fraction (such as 30% less losses regardless of division). This offsets the participation issue while still maintaining the risk/reward relative to how much higher or lower your opponent is ranked relative to you.

[gmac]

Hi everybody

Point system could use some adjustment, probably on defense points won or lost, like some already suggested.

I'm now worried about my defense, for some time now I have absolutely neglected it, just saw what was working against me and put something in there and hope it was good for some holds. I'm now eager to actually do some testing with different toons and talismans combinations. (could use removable skill shards here Sparton!)

And good that we can use time during the week for that, and farming for materials + ironite, and so, hopefully, we'll be ready for Saturday Madness... (you guys know I love it right?) :)

1000 points difference from top to probably 200 position, It's gonna be awesome! And new names! Ryan (excellent trooper) is 2nd, and there is a Johnny lv 74 at 10th! :eek:

What really concerns me are different loading times and speed differences within the game. Like matchmaking, should be the same for everybody. (hope it's possible!)

Oh, Sparton,
When can we expect the following:
1 - BNW?
2 - A new Sparton 300 like event?
3 - Update for major bug fixes

Also, until when we'll be able to buy sacrificial souls?

I guess that's it, I'ts been a busy week at work, not much time left for forum unfortunately:/

Cheers
gmac

[Bradata]

This might not be a well-thought suggestions, but the idea came to my mind during shower and I'm in a hurry to get to work:

Wouldn't a flat rate of 12 points on defense loss solve this whole thing?

PoV of low rank players: they lose 12 points anyway from people 300+ VP over them
PoV of high rank players: instead of going backwards with 70% of their attacks, they just don't advance in case of a loss, which can still be countered with participation.

Yes, this would open up again that more attacks grant you higher rank, but not to the extremes we witnessed in the first three months

Ha, I gave this as an example to Caretaker in one of my posts from 04/11/2017 update (http://forum.ironmaidenlegacy.com/showthread.php?5411-April-19th-2017-Update-Discussion&p=38002#post38002) only to say that the top 25 names are still gonna be the same if we get that point system because we PLAY the game and don't spend time crying in the forums.

[Nicko]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the theoretical of 12 points for wins is not completely accurate unless he's so far above everyone else in rank that he never sees anyone within 480 points of him (in which case... if no one is ever within 500 points of him, that means he has 1st place in the bag, and all the theoreticals are moot).

I'll still agree that what we have now is making climbing... weird right now, at least for people jockeying for the top divisions. Curiously, most people competing in the middle have reported it much more sensible for them, so while changes need to happen, I hope we can maintain some semblance of what we have for mid- and lower-ranked players.




If that's the intention then execution is a problem. In Shaolin's position, every attack gives 12 points - no matter how close they are to you. I just had him validate it.

At this point the math seems sound

[Tritium]

Also, until when we'll be able to buy sacrificial souls?

I guess that's it, I'ts been a busy week at work, not much time left for forum unfortunately:/


The sacrificial soul event ends April 29th at 5pm PST, according to this post by Sparton: http://forum.ironmaidenlegacy.com/showthread.php?5409-Sacrificial-Soul-Event-on-now!

I hope you get more free time in the future, man. Your input on the forums is always great!

[Sparton_LOTB]

What really concerns me are different loading times and speed differences within the game. Like matchmaking, should be the same for everybody. (hope it's possible!)

While we do have people who work on optimizations from time to time, a huge portion of loading differences will come down to device capabilities (out of our control), and response times from the server (largely out of our control).

Speed differences in game is something we'll have improvements for in an subsequent update. It should better stabilize the speed people see (outside of framerate hitches, which again are more device-specific), and widen the speed options players have.


When can we expect the following:
1 - BNW?
2 - A new Sparton 300 like event?
3 - Update for major bug fixes

1 - We don't have a timeline to announce for that yet.
2 - Our next event probably won't be that, but will center around one of our upcoming features.
3 - Contrary to what I just mentioned in the update discussion thread, we maaaay have a hotfix update come out sooner, but it won't include fixes to all of the critical issues that have recently cropped up. We don't have a timeline for a major update with the bulk of the fixes.


Also, until when we'll be able to buy sacrificial souls?

Tritium beat me to it, but Sacrifice Soul availability (from both the store and as Sacrifice rewards) ends April 29th at 5pm PST (ie at PVP reset time).

Don't forget you can check out details on that event and more with the News button. We just popped in a banner announcing an All Dungeons Weekend this weekend to help farm for more souls.


If that's the intention then execution is a problem. In Shaolin's position, every attack gives 12 points - no matter how close they are to you. I just had him validate it.

At this point the math seems sound

That's true as long as no one he fights is within 480 points of him; as of this writing, ranks 2-18 are, so some of those will yield 13 or 14 points.

That's still only a subset of the possible people he could matchmake against/will matchmake against him so he can revenge them, but unless he's specifically avoiding clearing lists or is actively trying to fight players with the lowest points in his lists (attack and revenge), he will occasionally get more than 12 points from a battle... unless it just so happens that he never matchmakes/revenges against those top 20 or so other players (which is a possibility, but shouldn't occur consistently throughout the week). I would expect that most of his battles would be 12 point battles though, so perhaps the average would at best be something like 12.2 or something.

[BillLion]

We just popped in a banner announcing an All Dungeons Weekend this weekend to help farm for more souls.

A super cool move, Sparton. Kudos to you and the rest of the team on this one!

[gmac]

Thanks Sparton and Tritium for the answers.

Sparton,
Why has BNW been delayed? It was suppose to go live 2 weeks after sacrifice, correct? To me fixing bugs is top priority, but new content is a close second! So, if you could give us more info on new content release, we'd all appreciate.

And loading times, no matter what phone, tablet, emulator or internet speed I try it never gets close to some other forum member. I'm thinking location might be an issue :/
If it takes me more than double time to load battles etc, no way I can compete in the same level, although it's challenging to try.

[Jofer16]

I’m sure Jofer is happier than ever he’s kicking back this week ;)

Yeah buts it's bittersweet. On one hand I'm happy I'm not trying to maintain a top rank and saving tons of ironite, but on the other I'm suffering withdrawals haha. Last night i kept grabbing my tablet/phone like "Yes! Let's play some arena!", but then remembered the whole game is built around efficiency and NOT playing, ugh. Everytime I listen to one of my arena wrecking ball songs now I just get sad :(. The beast is writhing in its cage and wants to be unchained!

[Jofer16]

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!

Thanks for the shoutout, it's nice to know we (lots of others in addition to Nicko and myself) inspire others.

Edit: oops I meant to quote the following post but you're cool too RobG haha, doing too many things at once :)


As a new member here in this forum, i decided to read this relevant post, and it's great to see that there are very good suggestions and analysis of the gameplay which have made my words specially from threads of nicko and jofer16. Now i see that sparton is probably from the development team, and it's good to see the team working and involved into the game as the other players suggestions.

[Jofer16]

I'm now worried about my defense, for some time now I have absolutely neglected it, just saw what was working against me and put something in there and hope it was good for some holds. I'm now eager to actually do some testing with different toons and talismans combinations. (could use removable skill shards here Sparton!)


This is one of my biggest qualms with the new system, you can't play, test and have fun since it's built off efficiency. I don't really give a shit about my %s and sometimes like to experiment knowing i can make the ground up later if i bash my head against the wall with new setups losing over and over tweaking. I can't do that now. All work and no play makes Jofer a dull boy (my Stephen King reference :))

[Jofer16]

While we do have people who work on optimizations from time to time, a huge portion of loading differences will come down to device capabilities (out of our control), and response times from the server (largely out of our control).

Gmac and I had a lengthy PM discussion on this and basically what I told him too regarding the former. Just by nature a beefier device will allow for smoother/faster gameplay.

[slauki]

Mmm considering flat system, if you tell me who you prefer to attack, a low rank or a high rank and both may give me 12 points, who do you think will be more affected.

since we are talking about flat attack losses and flat defense losses that wouldn't affect the attacking structure at all. i set 12 points on avarage that means that highranks can give give you 20 points and lowranks only 10. If we assume you will only be able to attacks higher opponents 20% of the time and lower 80% it's still 12 on avarage (just an example).

[Sparton_LOTB]

Why has BNW been delayed? It was suppose to go live 2 weeks after sacrifice, correct? To me fixing bugs is top priority, but new content is a close second! So, if you could give us more info on new content release, we'd all appreciate.

I don't think we have an official answer for that, sadly. It's largely boiled down to having a plan, then that plan changing as we release updates and the game evolves (in some ways as we expected it would, and in other ways not quite how we expected).


And loading times, no matter what phone, tablet, emulator or internet speed I try it never gets close to some other forum member. I'm thinking location might be an issue :/
If it takes me more than double time to load battles etc, no way I can compete in the same level, although it's challenging to try.

Yeah, I just don't know enough about the subject to advise more than I have to you in other channels. Internet connection stuff can be a surprisingly thing to improve.


since we are talking about flat attack losses and flat defense losses that wouldn't affect the attacking structure at all. i set 12 points on avarage that means that highranks can give give you 20 points and lowranks only 10. If we assume you will only be able to attacks higher opponents 20% of the time and lower 80% it's still 12 on avarage (just an example).

In that case, people at the top predominantly would get 10 points for wins, not 20 or 12 (since by the nature of being the top and the top being spread out as it normally is, they're almost always hitting people with much lower VP than them, and it's just a matter of how much lower those people are).

[Jofer16]

Finally! Been playing the turtle game all night trying to get Enti, Nicko and myself in a row so I could switch my champ to Samurai and create a trio lol. That's been my dude since day 1, nice to get some more representing :)

Edit: Sky trying to mess with my plan and attacks me, oops, another hold. Man I must have took 100+ from that dude today, fix your strategy it's broke.

[Jofer16]

With the close standings these last 3 days are gonna be fun, gonna be a mad dash to the end :)


https://youtu.be/ZdLX_JnR7io

[slauki]

okay, i tried a little harder this morning and this are my results so far:

2864

Explanation:

My main goal was that in the end of the week every archetyp has a positive result just by participating. So everyone would have more fun since he gaines at least something. This is hard to do with standard amount for every player.

So i manipulated the defense losses and the attacklosses in a way, that makes sense i belive.

If we have a crappy defense because we are new to the game or bad RNG this is not our fault. So we are not able to "build better defenses", because we don't have to tools. That's why we need some protection there. Once our defense reaches <10% holdrate i would suggest to cut the defense losses from -12 to -9. This is at least some kind of protection for these guys. If someone intentianally put in a bad defense to profit from it this won't work out for him, because the points won from holds are very sweet, he won't be able to compare with the bigguns.

Same could apply to attacks. If our attack ratio reaches <80% i would eliminate attack losses so that the guys are not punished just by trying.

The hardest part was to balance hyper good-o, the good and the lazy great.
i thought that all of them should be in a close range. In this particular example you see that thy hyper good-o has a tiny edge over the good and a slight edge against the great but lazy player. I fell this is okay since we compare 1000 vs 500 vs 250 attacks. So i think this is reasonable.

The great player with 500 attacks outmaneuver them all by a large amount. Not sure if his advantage is too big, but OTOH it should be really big when he wins 98% of time in 500 fights and holds 30% in 500 defenses... But we can argue here for sure, about some pros and cons.

I'm pretty happy with this, but well i might have a logical flaw somewhere.

Please be aware, that the attack win is an avarage result. To prevent bumhunting we should give people more points when attacking highranks and less ponits when attacking lowranks, to keep the competition fair for everyone.

This is just one example of a possible way to go, i'm sure this can be done better, but i think it would be a huge progress to what we have now...

[R1ck]

Hi Slauki, appreciate your time and effort to try to make this game better. One thought of mine, how many players really play 1000 flights, I think Gmac and Enti did it to get eternal. How many times play an average player, in my case I play the free SoW, that is around 200 fights and my win rate is 99%. Also now days average hold rate is 20%. Usually I am in top 50 so I think a maximum of 50 players play more than 250 fights. What to implement for the masses and encourage them to play, that is a real challenge, but the game itself is not helping with so many bugs.

[Ringe666-7406]

Hi Slauki, appreciate your time and effort to try to make this game better. One thought of mine, how many players really play 1000 flights, I think Gmac and Enti did it to get eternal. How many times play an average player, in my case I play the free SoW, that is around 200 fights and my win rate is 99%. Also now days average hold rate is 20%. Usually I am in top 50 so I think a maximum of 50 players play more than 250 fights. What to implement for the masses and encourage them to play, that is a real challenge, but the game itself is not helping with so many bugs.

+1 mate, this crossed my mind too. I didn't have full 500 battles when I was running for #5.

[Nicko]

In discussing this with Slauki, one of the keys here is emphasizing defense. There is still a ding for having yours broken - but Holds are highly rewarded - which can balance it out.

Still depends largely on fair matchmaking - however that is defined - and if Hold rates fall with the new Talismans - because defenses AND offenses will have the same weapons - human against AI - we may be in the same boat we are now.

Slauki - could you run these with less attacks? Maybe more similar to the amount of attacks you personally make each week? My impression is it's a spreadsheet...thanks!

[slauki]

Hi Slauki, appreciate your time and effort to try to make this game better. One thought of mine, how many players really play 1000 flights, I think Gmac and Enti did it to get eternal. How many times play an average player, in my case I play the free SoW, that is around 200 fights and my win rate is 99%. Also now days average hold rate is 20%. Usually I am in top 50 so I think a maximum of 50 players play more than 250 fights. What to implement for the masses and encourage them to play, that is a real challenge, but the game itself is not helping with so many bugs.


+1 mate, this crossed my mind too. I didn't have full 500 battles when I was running for #5.

yeah you both are totally right, i just used the archetypes created by sparton. the purpose of this is to cover a wide range of players and approaches and to see how they would work out in theory, but yeah i rarely have more than 200 attacks too per week. prolly kinda a lazy good/great guy. the important part is that everyone profits wuth this system to a different degree, and just look at it as first step in the right direction, not a last word :)


In discussing this with Slauki, one of the keys here is emphasizing defense. There is still a ding for having yours broken - but Holds are highly rewarded - which can balance it out.

Still depends largely on fair matchmaking - however that is defined - and if Hold rates fall with the new Talismans - because defenses AND offenses will have the same weapons - human against AI - we may be in the same boat we are now.

Slauki - could you run these with less attacks? Maybe more similar to the amount of attacks you personally make each week? My impression is it's a spreadsheet...thanks!

edit: yeah was my idea too, will add additional guy later

[R1ck]

In discussing this with Slauki, one of the keys here is emphasizing defense. There is still a ding for having yours broken - but Holds are highly rewarded - which can balance it out.

Still depends largely on fair matchmaking - however that is defined - and if Hold rates fall with the new Talismans - because defenses AND offenses will have the same weapons - human against AI - we may be in the same boat we are now.

Slauki - could you run these with less attacks? Maybe more similar to the amount of attacks you personally make each week? My impression is it's a spreadsheet...thanks!
Talking about holds, I would like to know how is the average for VE teams, pretty sure the minimum is 30% :) don't want to create any discussion here about this, haha. Enjoy it

[Liebhild]

I think that there is still some protection.

Started that week with about 1500 points and my attack/defence ratio was really 1:1.

Over 2k points the ratio changed, less defence attacks.

[Enti]

Finally! Been playing the turtle game all night trying to get Enti, Nicko and myself in a row so I could switch my champ to Samurai and create a trio lol. That's been my dude since day 1, nice to get some more representing :)

Edit: Sky trying to mess with my plan and attacks me, oops, another hold. Man I must have took 100+ from that dude today, fix your strategy it's broke.

Ahaha do you have a screenshot? I was still sleeping when you posted this

[Nicko]

2866

An update to the original topic. As it stands, I am number 3 with under 100 attacks made and i'm within 80 points of ShaolinLondo - who as of yesterday had made over 600 attacks - possibly over 700 by now.

This is a point in time, and we're all so close rank can change with one win or loss. I woke up number 5 and jumped to number 3 with one attack. But i've been top 10 all week.

Everything will change tomorrow. I have a little time to play, but as I have an event during the final hours I'm not counting on maintaining position. Smart players will turn on the heat in the final hours, making attacks before the system launches a wave of attacks on them. Tomorrow will be a game of speed as much as strategy.

I hope this experiment instills a sense of urgency for the developers - and would like to thank Sparton in particular for interacting with us.

One final thought as I type this - is there anyway to avoid a system where Saturday is the only day that matters? When real life kicks in - like this week for me - there is no incentive to play if I know I can't spend my Saturday competing. And the weather is getting nicer. It will ALWAYS matter to some degree - but now it's silly to work to the top early because the point system penalizes you so much. So yet again - another incentive NOT to play.

[slauki]

added the archetypes free sow player great/good/mediocre

2868

they won't gain that much once defense is below 20%. so maybe it would be better to lower the pointlosses to -9 for those who have a defense below 15%, then things could be in order.
Defense is a huge factor here, maybe a too big factor regarding, that defenses might fall very deep again...


edit:
without changes/protection things would be too discouraging for the avarage joe:

2869

[Nicko]

Looks like Skynyrdoo was trying to make a run . He was up to about 3000 yesterday and Number 1.

Now he's 2332 and number 58.

Sorry folks - you can't beat the math. Save your efforts for tomorrow.

Ryan has fared a little better. And that makes sense. I held Skynyrdoo twice and Jofer mentioned holding him several times so point being - strategy DOES matter.

[Enti]

Looks like Skynyrdoo was trying to make a run . He was up to about 3000 yesterday and Number 1.

Now he's 2332 and number 58.

Sorry folks - you can't beat the math.

Pfffft that's a huge drop. Crazy. Another proof for discouraged participation

[Nicko]

Someone messaged me and said Fallen Angel has been using my strategy and I see he's slowly rising. I've been watching GMAC and Jofer too.

That's smart - because my friends are saying their ratios have stalled - possibly because overall arena activity is down from the point system being exposed (this is all conjecture).

However - when activity picks up tomorrow - those ratios will start to equalize again. And attacks will rain on players like a monsoon if they have made a lot more attacks than they've received. So anyone who doesn't have a discrepancy where attacks made are much higher than attacks against them (in absolute numbers) will have a huge advantage.

[Nicko]

Pfffft that's a huge drop. Crazy. Another proof for discouraged participation

Skynyrdoo is no longer even in the Top 100 - so we don't know how low he'll fall because the list caps at 100 - but he's below 2189 (#100).

From #1 and over 3000 points.

In less than 12 hours...

While I am now less than 50 points away from #1 - while making one attack all morning:

2870

[Killhouse]

But that Go80sMetal guy.... up the irons!

[Nicko]

But that Go80sMetal guy.... up the irons!

Yup - and he's static - which is smart.

The arena is quiet. Making a lot of attacks now will give a false sense of security because attacks on you will be low and you'll rise.

But those players who let their attacks made get too far ahead of attacks made against them will pay tomorrow when the arena picks up and ratios start to equalize.

Or before (see Skynyrdoo above)...

[gmac]

Hey everybody,

Just for comparison reasons.

I have played this week like a used to. Only free SoW earned during the week, no refills (earned a bit more than usual because of sacrifice), clear my list at night and at the morning. Saving Ironite for Saturday.

Just cleared my list, so I'm likely to get more attacks next few hours.

But right now it is 172/141. 10th at 2629 points.

EDIT: Jofer, saw your post, will answer later, kind of in a rush here. Nicko, your PM too.

Cheers
gmac

[RCarter]

One final thought as I type this - is there anyway to avoid a system where Saturday is the only day that matters? When real life kicks in - like this week for me - there is no incentive to play if I know I can't spend my Saturday competing. And the weather is getting nicer. It will ALWAYS matter to some degree - but now it's silly to work to the top early because the point system penalizes you so much. So yet again - another incentive NOT to play.

This, this, this.

Before daylight savings kicked in, I missed the last 4 or so hours every week. Now that the reset is 8pm EST, I can maybe do the last 30-45 minutes if Im lucky. That may be enough time for some of you guys, but I still play manually on 1x because I am lame...

I was able to do almost the whole last hour of last weeks cycle, and even with sandbagging SOW prior and acing all attacks, it just wasnt enough to move up to a higher prize tier.

[CanyptianFit]

Nicko, mailbox is full.

[Nicko]

Nicko, mailbox is full.

Not any more 😉

[Monte47]

I've fallen to the 700's but I'm not going to bother with competing. Not because of the game, but I just can't get a defense to hold. I have all the good toons, I've rotated them in and out testing defenses, but I sharded poorly at the beginning and now I can't hang. My failure is my own, not the game.

I have to burn too much ironite to compete because my defense sucks. I'm going to try for that damn shaman instead.

Good luck!
Eskiggalu

[Jofer16]

I've fallen to the 700's but I'm not going to bother with competing. Not because of the game, but I just can't get a defense to hold. I have all the good toons, I've rotated them in and out testing defenses, but I sharded poorly at the beginning and now I can't hang. My failure is my own, not the game.

I have to burn too much ironite to compete because my defense sucks. I'm going to try for that damn shaman instead.

Good luck!
Eskiggalu

No defenses hold consistently haha. Doing another expiriment and seeing how crazy I can get incoming attacks to flood me on the last day :) Didn't really think I'd even stiff the top 3 doing so. You guys are all lazy today!

[Tritium]

No defenses hold consistently haha. Doing another expiriment and seeing how crazy I can get incoming attacks to flood me on the last day :) Didn't really think I'd even stiff the top 3 doing so. You guys are all lazy today!

This most recent update has made your first sentence even more true haha. My defense went from holding at about 35-ish%, to holding at utter shit. Fuck, lol. I both love and hate how the meta changes with each update. One really needs a stockpile of skill shards to stay competitive now.

I've also seen how everyone seems to be holding back right now. I figure they're all going to go on a feeding frenzy an hour before reset. Any other time, and the incoming attacks makes climbing a bit harder (unless you've got a solid defense, which is more luck-based now than ever).

May the RNG be ever in your favor! :p

[Nicko]

While Jofer owns the record for highest top score, this weeks winner gets the distinction of owning the record for LOWEST top score ;)

[Tritium]

While Jofer owns the record for highest top score, this weeks winner gets the distinction of owning the record for LOWEST top score ;)

Haha, that's great. Pretty much shows how the current system is broken. I've realized that this week, with how close the top ranks are, the final outcome may be more dependent on how lucky the top guys are in not appearing on attack lists vs. how quickly they actually finish fights. Speed will still matter quite a bit, but if one of them ends up getting attacked a bit more than the others, then that bad luck could lead to coming in 2nd place. Yikes, what a messed up system!

[Monte47]

No defenses hold consistently haha. Doing another expiriment and seeing how crazy I can get incoming attacks to flood me on the last day :) Didn't really think I'd even stiff the top 3 doing so. You guys are all lazy today!

Haha fair point. I'm just a little bored this week. I can't do anything right now without spending some cash, and I gave them plenty last week lol. I just want that damn Shaman before the souls end. I love when he rips his heart out lol.

[Nicko]

Haha, that's great. Pretty much shows how the current system is broken. I've realized that this week, with how close the top ranks are, the final outcome may be more dependent on how lucky the top guys are in not appearing on attack lists vs. how quickly they actually finish fights. Speed will still matter quite a bit, but if one of them ends up getting attacked a bit more than the others, then that bad luck could lead to coming in 2nd place. Yikes, what a messed up system!

Exactly - although how often you appear on attack lists is more strategy than luck this week. I'm not sure if Go80sMetal or Slauki plan on making a run for it, but they've been slow and steady - and that should work to their advantage. At the same time - there are some really quick players here - so in the end - speed may just win out once the rush starts

[Nicko]

No defenses hold consistently haha. Doing another expiriment and seeing how crazy I can get incoming attacks to flood me on the last day :) Didn't really think I'd even stiff the top 3 doing so. You guys are all lazy today!

May not be crazy. You're in first - and there is still not a lot of activity - so attacks on you may be light. This could allow you to get far enough ahead that the later increased attacks (once activity amps up near reset) can't compensate for the fact that your lead is too big.

I think the question everyone has today is when to amp it up...

[gmac]

I am getting attacked like crazy. Played like 4 hours could only manage like 400 pts... Fuck

Shaolin, you have a lv1 Vision on defense

[Silentknight]

Bugs,bugs & more bugs! Multiplying strike talismans now. Misza...2 toons with strike talismans. Weren't there at start of match,just 1. 2nd turn 2 toons with em!

[Shaolin85london]

I am getting attacked like crazy. Played like 4 hours could only manage like 400 pts... Fuck

Shaolin, you have a lv1 Vision on defense

Instead my team has been slaughtered 5 times in a row lol
I put the right one, cheers mate

[hold]

Bugs,bugs & more bugs! Multiplying strike talismans now. Misza...2 toons with strike talismans. Weren't there at start of match,just 1. 2nd turn 2 toons with em!

Funny you say that as I just did a fight and didn't pay a lot of attention but when the first toon was down I thought: "wait a minute ... didn't he just have the counter strike on - why is there a 2nd toon with one? I must have imagined it ..."

Hmmm didn't as it seems like. My fight was a revenge against Ryan

[Silentknight]

Funny you say that as I just did a fight and didn't pay a lot of attention but when the first toon was down I thought: "wait a minute ... didn't he just have the counter strike on - why is there a 2nd toon with one? I must have imagined it ..."

Hmmm didn't as it seems like. My fight was a revenge against Ryan
Noticed once yesterday but thot the same. Today both toons countered!

[Sleestak]

Funny you say that as I just did a fight and didn't pay a lot of attention but when the first toon was down I thought: "wait a minute ... didn't he just have the counter strike on - why is there a 2nd toon with one? I must have imagined it ..."

Hmmm didn't as it seems like. My fight was a revenge against Ryan

I've seen it a few times too. It seems to happen quite a bit when the other team has a character who can steal buffs, but my defense doesn't have one of those, so definitely a bug. A nasty one too.

Makes me wonder if the strike talismans are a one week only type deal. It's gonna get ugly with 2 or 3 characters per team with strike talismans...

[Sparton_LOTB]

Bugs,bugs & more bugs! Multiplying strike talismans now. Misza...2 toons with strike talismans. Weren't there at start of match,just 1. 2nd turn 2 toons with em!


Funny you say that as I just did a fight and didn't pay a lot of attention but when the first toon was down I thought: "wait a minute ... didn't he just have the counter strike on - why is there a 2nd toon with one? I must have imagined it ..."

Hmmm didn't as it seems like. My fight was a revenge against Ryan

(Emphasis mine.)

Are you sure they didn't just steal one of your Counterstrike buffs?

[hold]

I've seen it a few times too. It seems to happen quite a bit when the other team has a character who can steal buffs, but my defense doesn't have one of those, so definitely a bug. A nasty one too.

Makes me wonder if the strike talismans are a one week only type deal. It's gonna get ugly with 2 or 3 characters per team with strike talismans...

I definitely wasn't a steal. Oh yeah ... a second set of those strikes ... I was thinking a lot this week and do have a Warrior Rocket dog and 15 Skill Shards in the war chest ... hmmm ... but also the Wicker Man might be a pain in the arse with them ...

I am not really looking forward to meet teams with 2 sets to be honest. But that might actually change the landscape from AoE to a lot more single attackers especially on offense. A kind of "take them down 1 by 1 - but make sure it is 1 every round" ... I don't know ...

[hold]

(Emphasis mine.)

Are you sure they didn't just steal one of your Counterstrike buffs?

100% no steal ... the opposite team did not have the abilty to steal. I did with a Magus CR. But Ryan had (as far as I can remember):

AoF, Visions, Nomad and Gunner CR (right?). The counters were on Nomad (definitely) and I think AoF ... I was concentrating on the nomad first so did not pay to much attention what the others had. And as I said I first thought I must have seen that wrong.

[gmac]

Guys

Have to go unfortunately :/ Have a good one everybody!

Ryan, great defense. Nicko too.

Cheers
gmac

[Nicko]

100% no steal ... the opposite team did not have the abilty to steal. I did with a Magus CR. But Ryan had (as far as I can remember):

AoF, Visions, Nomad and Gunner CR (right?). The counters were on Nomad (definitely) and I think AoF ... I was concentrating on the nomad first so did not pay to much attention what the others had. And as I said I first thought I must have seen that wrong.

I saw the same thing when I attacked Ryan

[Silentknight]

(Emphasis mine.)

Are you sure they didn't just steal one of your Counterstrike buffs?

My prisoner still had his counterstrike talisman

[Jofer16]

I saw the same thing when I attacked Ryan

This dude is bugged I feel like. I lost a few times to him and switched up my strategy, now the fights either end in me winning or I turtle it out to a draw. I get down to a certain situation and it's impossible to win. Bugs I've never seen before, it's really odd. Never had draws against someone lol

[Killhouse]

I had a friend mention the same versus Ryan. Myself I haven't seen anything like double counters yet... that's playing with madness!

Anyways, good luck all. Unfortunately life calls and gotta sit out the final hours at the mercy of the ratio hammer.

[Sleestak]

I guess I should be honored to get chosen for the rare "reverse bug". However, with my 11% defensive wins, I somehow don't feel as lucky as I ought to

It might be best for everyone if they just avoid attacking me in arena....

Well, it was worth a shot... ;)

[Killhouse]

I guess I should be honored to get chosen for the rare "reverse bug". However, with my 11% defensive wins, I somehow don't feel as lucky as I ought to

It might be best for everyone if they just avoid attacking me in arena....

Well, it was worth a shot... ;)

Nice defense regardless, bugs are running rampant and everyone has to deal with them.

You might be the only one in reach of Jofer!

[Tritium]

I'd be curious to know what the hold rates are for those at the top. Seems like the most recent update made it harder than ever to create a good defense. Jofer's is still top-notch though ─ it's actually the hardest it's ever been for me to go up against him haha. If his VE manages to fury, I'm fucked. That AOE stun is powerful as all hell lol.

[Jofer16]

While Jofer owns the record for highest top score, this weeks winner gets the distinction of owning the record for LOWEST top score ;)

I needed that record too! haha

[Monte47]

AM I stupid? What talisman cause stun? I've been here since the beginning, and I just got stunned by a troll, and a green allied bomber, both of which I have and don't stun? Am I daft and missing a talisman, or?

And yeah, I decided to get back at least in the 200's lol.
Eskiggalu

[Tritium]

AM I stupid? What talisman cause stun? I've been here since the beginning, and I just got stunned by a troll, and a green allied bomber, both of which I have and don't stun? Am I daft and missing a talisman, or?

And yeah, I decided to get back at least in the 200's lol.
Eskiggalu

Both Paralysis and Explosive talismans can stun.

[Monte47]

My prisoner still had his counterstrike talisman

Counter on your gimp was not fun on a lost coin toss lol. Made it three rounds is all. Nice!
Eskiggalu

[Monte47]

Both Paralysis and Explosive talismans can stun.

Ah, that's right. I forgot about the paralysis. Mine never trigger. I stopped using them.

[Thedarkness]

They changed the rules, they broke the system, they slowed him down, they nerfed his gimp and the man still won.

Jofer, you sir, are a machine.

[Jofer16]

They changed the rules, they broke the system, they slowed him down, they nerfed his gimp and the man still won.

Jofer, you sir, are a machine.

Thank you Sir. And grats on my all time favorite post lol

[Sleestak]

Yeah Jofer, grats again man. There's just no catching you. I had never really put in a serious week of PvP before and for some reason I decided to go for it. I don't think I fully appreciated the effort it takes until this week.

Here's another suggestion for PvP, maybe it's already been mentioned... What about a daily PvP arena. Keep the weekly one as well, but maybe a daily PvP would open up some competition for more people that can't make the weekly commitment. After seeing what it takes per week, I'd sure like to condense that effort into a day's worth of PvP grind.

[Silentknight]

I needed that record too! haha

Congrats bud!!!

[Jofer16]

Congrats bud!!!

Thanks! After I secured my spot I was cheering for your top 10 grind, nice finish!

[Silentknight]

Thanks! After I secured my spot I was cheering for your top 10 grind, nice finish!

Actually was ur hold that gave me some incentive! That put me around 15th,then a bunch of holds came in & I was 11th. So I figured wtf!!!

[Silentknight]

Counter on your gimp was not fun on a lost coin toss lol. Made it three rounds is all. Nice!
Eskiggalu

Lol,sry. Wish I could buy another set!

[Tritium]

Congrats Jofer!


Everyone, prepare for the 2 counterstrike set teams now! :p

[Jofer16]

They changed the rules, they broke the system, they slowed him down, they nerfed his gimp and the man still won.

Jofer, you sir, are a machine.

Cracking a brew, dedicating this to the dev team mwahaha

"ya'll ain't gonna fly as high as me"


https://youtu.be/BuPWF-AQvvA

[Jofer16]

While Jofer owns the record for highest top score, this weeks winner gets the distinction of owning the record for LOWEST top score ;)

Just noticed Ryan's from chi town too, your hired hitman to take me down? lol Periless are those who challenge Maximus!

[Coletrain]

Congrats Jofer!


Everyone, prepare for the 2 counterstrike set teams now! :p

I'm sure some people will do that, but I did not buy all of them 1st week. The skilled talismans are still not worth the investment imo.

[Ringe666-7406]

I'm sure some people will do that, but I did not buy all of them 1st week. The skilled talismans are still not worth the investment imo.

+1. I hope they will be available next week too, so I can buy two more and have two sets.

[Nicko]

Just noticed Ryan's from chi town too, your hired hitman to take me down? lol Periless are those who challenge Maximus!

Just noticed that! Cool!

Ryan - are you seeing Maiden in Tinley June 15?

Saw them at United Center last year and sounding as good as ever

[Jofer16]

Yeah Jofer, grats again man. There's just no catching you. I had never really put in a serious week of PvP before and for some reason I decided to go for it. I don't think I fully appreciated the effort it takes until this week.

Here's another suggestion for PvP, maybe it's already been mentioned... What about a daily PvP arena. Keep the weekly one as well, but maybe a daily PvP would open up some competition for more people that can't make the weekly commitment. After seeing what it takes per week, I'd sure like to condense that effort into a day's worth of PvP grind.

Thanks man, and same to you, you had a great week!