Going on Strike For Scaling


#101

Totally agree with that, catch up mechanics keep games alive, the reverse ensures the game will die, a look at history suggests this happens in pretty much all human activity.


#102

Here is the issue. If you take a 150 and say you and look at the experience difference between the two accounts. Then both spend 5k on packs. Your account would be even further ahead from an Exp point of view if gold chests are scaled. Do you not see the issue with that?


#103

You mean Player XP? tower XP? Im not going to get into how I think level is a terrible mechanic for almost everything they already use it for, but it’s what’s already in place.

I am pretty sure I read the whole thread but I could have missed something. Enlighten me. How are you going to measure this difference?

As I just pointed out the ramp up in difficulty is exponential and the increase in aid is linear. The net result of the two efforts is linear within the tier.

You mean because it generates a lot more money this way and people keep paying more?


#104

Not at all true. People are tending to look at the 300 wall problem as a single issue, when in reality it’s a facet of multiple issues that all touch the same point. Making it cheaper to level towers by 20% or 30%, when the requirement per level jumps at level 300 by a factor of 4, doesn’t address the issue.

The problem is that the XP required to level increased at 300, but the XP per tower upgrade didn’t. The XP required to level increased again at 500, but the XP per tower upgrade didn’t. Ostensibly, the rationale for this is that the cost for upgrading towers in terms of time does not change after level 56, and therefore the XP rewarded should not change either. The reality is, this is simply another manifestation of PG’s flawed, finance-driven logic (if you’re not paying more, why should you get more?).

The most logical way for the 300 wall to be resolved is to revisit the XP per level distribution and smooth the growth curve associated with that, while simultaneously modifying the XP value of tower upgrades (and disconnecting the latter from time-to-construction).

Having said all of that - the “value” of value packs is absolutely abhorrent, and should, in fact, be scaled. This does not address the 300 wall for anyone except spenders, but it does make some damned sense in terms of the overall game. Food and Lumber packs that are “legendary” but 1/5th the lumber needed to level a tower one time is stupid. Egg token drops of 3,000 considered “legendary” when dragons take between 175,000 and 275,000 to breed is stupid. 7.5 days of speed ups being considered “legendary” when a tower takes 30+ to level is stupid.

I’m not sure how anyone could argue against that.

Is it going to fix the 300 wall? No, absolutely not.


300 wall discussion
#105

Player XP? It exactly equates to level although it doesn’t follow a nice graph as well as it should. But it represents the same data.

You shouldn’t be comparing a vanguard user to a red tier user EVER.

Edit: I think you are trying to say that you wanted to use scaling points either 1) at linear places or 2) in smaller increments than a player level has. It really shouldn’t matter on either or both as long as the amount of timers reflects appropriate amounts.

I actually think player level is better in that it forces less nickel and dime’ing.

The issue we have is in my opinon that inflation has created so much space between competition groups. It’s like trying to throw a touchdown pass to someone who’s 3 football fields away. We still progress at the same speed but the end targets are still getting farther away.

What they need to do is to squish it all back together. Factor HP and damage of all dragons and towers down by like a factor of 10. Scale all xp down by a factor of like 10. Scale all timer requiresmens. Everything.

Things are mostly in the right relative position to each other, but it’s scaled up so far that competition has become either over kill or fail.

Yes we can instead increase timers, tokens, xp potions, xp on runs, food, lumber, etc etc. but aside from the fact that I think this will be done in a way that only scales to spenders, it also likely will only fix the issue for a few seasons. If you squished it together like it was 2-3 years ago it would be more enjoyable for everyone.


#106

It’s about business (money). PG needs revenue to move forward, pay employees, develop new games and even support this one. Every decision is about business. It is why they exist.

There are lots of ways to think about how they can accomplish this, but here are two extremes. 1) they make decisions that drive lots of new players in which each generate a small amount of money or 2) make decisions that encourage a small number of customers to spend a lot. How difficult or achievable each is would factor into thier choices. If they are smart (and they probably are), they know a great deal about where their revenue comes from and what kinds of choices tend to drive it. This is a game to us, but a business to them.

The new player who manages to find a reasonably active team, an endangered species for sure, will quickly find that they have a very long, expensive road before they get to a point where they feel relevant. Even the mid-level player who has been playing for 1.5-2 years still wonders if its worth it. They might feel like they are active contributors in war and on their team but, in Atlas, not so much. A team of lvl 250 players cannot defend a castle against a team with lvl 350-500 without being allied or dependent on an equally strong team. Its likely they will always feel this way since they are unlikely to catch up.

I have no idea what PG’s strategy is but one possibility is that it is probably easier to get players who feel like they are at the top and have paid to get there to spend a little more than it is to get the player who spends a little and sees no way to make significant gains to spend much more.


#107

In Odin’s video he also said that he wants better and more transparency from PG. If they are not considering scaling, have them explain why not. There are a lot of ways they could go about it and they would need to think about the repercussions of the moves, but ignoring one of , if not the most, influential voices in War Dragons is where they are going wrong. He just wants an answer.


#109

Maybe I’m wrong.
IMO, the main cause of 300 wall is vast difference between Emerald - Obsidian and Obsidian Harbinger. It causes unbalanced den level too.


#110

But, what causes this vast difference?

It’s the level requirements, which are gated behind the leveling mechanics, which are tied to XP needed per level and XP granted per tower upgrade.

Ergo, it is about player (or base) XP.

And this conversation is effectively happening in two places, so I’m quoting myself for that reason only:

See here: 300 wall discussion

On topic: Scaling chest contents is necessary and makes sense. Scaling chest contents does not directly address or fix the 300 wall.


#111

I have a few points to be made. I totally agree with what @DocHoIIiday said earlier about resources needing to be increased wether it’s by scaling or what ever. Second of all, what benefit does having more exp than let’s say a level 150 have? What harm does a larger exp gap have between levels 150 and 300? (I may be missing the point here). Last of all, if PG wanted money, why not give the player what they want or improve the game so more player will keep playing. For example making packs more reasonable. Why the hell would anybody use 100 dollars just to get let’s say 10k egg tokens, a few lumber and food packs, 30 12h timers, and a few xp potions? You could literally get 10k tokens from just playing the game and you could also get lumber and food packs from seasonal braches, gold chest, and broze chests (though they may be worse). You can also get 12h timers in gold chests and xp potions too. All I’m trying to say is, you could spend $100 dollars on gems and get more resources from useing it on gold chests than using 10 dollars on a pack. So basically make the packs worth $100 or any amount of money.
Edit: I am only a level 66 so I don’t know much this is just my opinion.


#112

Sorry. It’s kinda hard managing discussion between 2 related topic.
goes to 300 discussion


#113

I agree this is the most logical, but I really just don’t see them doing it. This is a lot harder than @FlamingFool 's suggestion, and it opens up a can of worms regarding if/how to compensate, if/how to redistribute levels for those already past whatever level threshold(s) they begin the smoothing, etc.

While I agree that the system as a whole is poorly constructed, and that @FlamingFool 's suggestion is really a bandaid, - it’s pretty much in line with the breeding scaling that was done recently, and it can be repeated over time as needed. It’s simple, it’ll be repeatable, and it’ll yield the desired outcome. It’s not perfect, but it’s the most reasonable, easy to implement thing I’ve seen suggested thus far, and with less potential for backlash. I don’t see a major downside, aside from the fact that it doesn’t correct the underlying issue. But I don’t think PG can fix the underlying issue. At this point, it’s tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but we need something to be done, so we’ll likely either have to compromise or get nothing :man_shrugging:


#114

My issue with this sentiment is that it is entirely likely (read: absolute certainty) that the “compromise” would be effectively nothing anyway.

The breeding scaling that happened was a good first step. But in reality, how much did it really impact the Sapphire wall, or Garnet or Emerald or Obsidian for that matter? The answer is, 30%, 20%, and 10% - but it just doesn’t feel like much. So instead of taking 6 months to get through a tier, it takes 4 months, and after a year I will have gained a whole tier over what I could have gained previously.

Yet, they released 2 new tiers, with no scaling, during that time.

Pass this along to the tower leveling situation and the 300 wall: A 20% reduction to a 400% increase is still a 320% increase. And I think you know as well as I do that they’re not going to consider anything more significant than 20% (if even that).

And it all comes down to - why compromise? My compromise is to find another game. Enough (of the right) people compromise the way I do, and they’ll make some meaningful changes damned quick.

Or, conversely, they can become the next Harvard Case Study in colossal business failures.


#115

I came in on the end of the breeding scaling (had bred one obsidian by the time the scaling came out) - but it still helped me a fair amount. I had some teammates who were a fair amount behind in their breeding, and it helped them to catch back up and enjoy the game more.

Do I think they scaled breeding enough by tier - I’m on the fence.
Do I think it should scale with every additional tier - absolutely.
Is PG failing us again by not doing so - absolutely.
Do I expect the same outcome if/when they scale the 300 wall issue - absolutely.

But it comes down to this: I would rather have SOMETHING be done than wait around for (and eventually give up and quit) the RIGHT thing that will never be done. They’ve proven they won’t do the right thing. Countless times.

A bandaid now is better than the correct solution that never never gets implemented.


#116

In their announcement PG did indicate that they were not looking for a bandaid solution and was the reason for the time required to address things… Once can only hope they weren’t blowing smoke.


#117

Their idea of a quality of life improvement was turning the bounty harbor into the daily check in. We therefore went from getting paltry sums of items 3-4 times per day to only once :rofl:

I think their idea of a fix would be our idea of a bandaid AT BEST.

I hope I’m wrong.


#118

The daily check in was most likely a result of the complaints that different players were getting different things… now they just have to fix the rewards values.

As frustrating as it is I actually get the step by step approach… but fixing the rewards is one of those simple steps that they can do that doesn’t take much time, unlike other things they are working on (being positive here). I would hopefully expect something done early in the new year in addition to the loyalty program that they are working on.


#119

Just want to reiterate what I’m asking for isn’t an immediate change @PGJared @PGCrisis but a simple explanation on why this isn’t in the game and if there are any plans to change this in the future. I want transparency which isn’t something we get very often. I feel like so many times, at least these days, you hide behind the veil of “we are discussing it with the GPF” and use it as a sort of red herring (might be using that word wrong lol) and expect us to be understanding. Yet time and time again, y’all deliver the same updates that cause problem after problem while not fixing the already present issues. This is getting old really fast.

(And I know y’all have read this :wink::upside_down_face: a response of some sort would be nice. I’ll even take a **** off at this point so at least I know what your stance is lol.)


#120

It’s the Friday before Christmas. The office is an honest-to-goodness ghost town right now. Any official statement on anything of that seriousness would come in the new year, if at all.


#121

That’s what the GPF does. We do a lot as a group behind the scenes. We see a variety of things and push insanely hard for things as well. Forcing PG to just say something, especially the weekend before Christmas, won’t end up with anything. The staffers on the forums can’t issue statements nor should they without meetings. They have said things are on their roadmap. That’s about all we’re gonna get, videos down or up, until Q1