Sitting like a Log - Manipulation of the PvP Point System

[Jofer16]

Shaolin only has 7,000 to go. 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.

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!!!