Sitting like a Log - Manipulation of the PvP Point System

[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 , 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



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



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.