Curious about opinions

I see a lot of ideas out there when combing through the forums. There is a lot of “fluff” in each thread of back and forth fighting; or off-topic posts which, oftentimes, leaves solid ideas hidden.

But, I’m genuinely interested to know, SPECIFICALLY these propositions-- does anyone disagree? And, why?

Please bear in mind, I’m looking for actual CRITICAL opinions. Not just complaints.

EDIT: this is an prior proposition of SirBrewDaddy’s; I have amended it for sake of clarification to my opinion.

2 Likes

My only comment is any ranking system for main game should include some measure of activity - a team of 500+ mostly retired/semi-active players won’t do that great in main game events. That’s why I’d like to see the event performance itself be the sole determinant of main game rank.

This seems…. Well unreliable at best. There are so many silly ways to artificially boost this. And it doesn’t take into account the skill of players. How good people attack/defend. And without this I’m not sure how removing leagues works.

Sure. This is a good idea in theory. How do you do it? Boost rewards too much, how do new players ever hope to keep up. Too little, why go high rank? Other incentives? What do those looks like.

How do you then balance new players catching up when you keep significant main game rewards and boosts gated? Riders for example are readily available. Shards are more plentiful. That’s a tall order to beat without atlas

1 Like

If it’s done on APR (Atlas Power Rank) which would be how many Den levels are opened or whatever, how would could that be artificially affected?

Do current leagues take into consideration the skill of players? Or, how good people attack/defend?

Genuinely asking on these things. :blue_heart:

1 Like

If they’re retired/mostly-retired they won’t worry about doing badly in events.

Similarly to how Glory is scaled in atlas. TBF…the OP is an outdated proposal of mine. I’ve finetuned this a bit since. This suggestion was more IF leagues are kept…the assumption then being that if player is in, say, gold and above level X that event payouts would be reduced by a %. The only purpose to this would be deter high level players from camping out on Bronze-Gold teams…but again…this is an outdated proposal.

1 Like

Right, I was just trying to say that ranking by attack/defense power is not the right rank - you can have high power and be inactive.

I liked your outdated proposal! :triumph::rofl::blue_heart:
If you have an updated version, please share it. But, I genuinely liked these specific concepts. Sure, there’s work to be done on HOW. But, I’m curious about general consensus of concepts.

3 Likes

I think high powered inactive teams should be in the same PvP as equal strength active teams.

To them, if they’re truly retired, it makes no difference.

If, however, they choose to actively participate in a PvP, but are in a lower “league” they will smash it and ruin it for everyone else

1 Like

I’d like to propose a simplified version of this (I’ve shared on other threads)

-Remove rank from war and instead offer Shards and Atlas Resources so that non atlas teams can still craft gear and remain competitive
-Moving forward, make it harder to earn/keep atlas (maybe Platinum 2? 1?) so that fewer teams have it, leading to more evenly matched battles, more castles to go round, and less lag
-EITHER remove leagues and rank teams by some other metric OR scale event payouts to make it less appealing for high level players to camp out on lower ranked teams

That was pretty much the intent. @Scin thanks for restarting the discussion :smiley:

3 Likes

I like that you like it. It is all yours now. :wink:

ok, I think I see your point - higher powered inactive teams will rank higher, and finish 25th - but they won’t care.

There is currently a team in P4 that has ~23 players of above average power for the league, no sub 200 fillers. Just existing does pose a problem for other teams matching up with them in PvP as hittable targets are few and far between.

Not sure how a partially filled team of bigs like this would be ranked. If the average is over the number of players on the roster, and not /50, it should be fine.

2 Likes

They could just divide by however many members of the team there are so it’s a player average

There’s currently a team in G1 that has 15 players that’re 500+ lol

Fozzie’s referenced team would be placed in D1 then. While that isn’t entirely fair, that’s better than them being in P4.

1 Like

Not sure that sandbagging can OR SHOULD be completely eliminated. You do, on occasion, have that oddball player who is willing to drop down to help newer players learn.

By looking at some metric linked to team average den/attach/whatever, it would simply reduce the amount of sandbagging. This seems good.

Also, it’s really more of an interface mechanic rather than anything else…a team officer or leader clicks “war” and sees a list of suggested teams that are similarly matched (exactly like matchmaking). The rewards are greater or lower based on the challenge that the team poses. THIS is what I had in mind.

2 Likes

:joy::rofl: that would be a shock for them

I think besides the negative association of sand-bagging, it also would help with the opposite side in rewarding growth?

For example: I find it frustrating to do well in an event and look at the scoreboard and decide if it would be worth it to maybe push from 3rd place to 1st. But, when the prizes are so marginally different, what’s the point?

So, generally-speaking, re-structuring the event prizes would be nice as it would help to create a “point/goal.”

2 Likes

Just separate war from event rank, and the rest will work itself out. If a team wins, they move up. If they don’t win, who cares if they are high level?

(Also, at the risk of derailing the thread, get rid of special treatment for teams that allows them to change their leagues with dev assistance.)

7 Likes

For the sandbagging issue, I don’t understand why PG can’t just make it so league rank is entirely based on PvP event performance. Teams can choose not to start wars and increase rank, but they’re not likely to underperform in PvP and sacrifice sigils for it.

2 Likes

I 100% agree with this. A team should be allowed to war as much as they want and reap the rewards. THIS is such a minor change and it would do so much to reward activity. Teams can stay in whatever league they want, or move up gradually by placing top 10 in events, but otherwise WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR and win endless loot for building gear, etc.

1 Like