If you win a PVP, you are awarded enough points to put you at the top of the bottom quartile of the next league.
Post motivated by one of the “how you got here” posts where someone said they nearly had their string of 8 straight PvP 1st place finishes broken. A team like that is clearly sandbagging and should be kicked upstairs.
Ok, like so many things, there are no simple fixes. See discussion below about complications due to war/pvp differences. In particular Henfon and Aeana have some great thoughts on the problems/difficulties involved.
Not clearly at all. For example in P1 a team of 50 active lvl 200 and 300 players can easily win a lot of PvP events. But in wars they will still lose to teams with one or two 500 players with unstoppable dragons and untouchable bases, which most teams seem to have, and they will be kicked right back if all the PvP wins do drift them into S3 despite being very much competitive in events there.
No sandbagging, the mechanics of wars and events are just massively different.
If you’re really upset by active teams winning and you feel they are “sandbagging” then you should probably direct your fury at the environment PG has created that necessitates having 500s on the team to have a chance of moving up/staying up.
Wars can be and for many teams are won by a handful of individuals carrying their team. Logging on and getting carried for a 5 flame doesn’t take much effort. Do you think this is ok? Should the 500 be punished for carrying a team?
Events are won by the collective working together. Total resources spent. Being online to spend them at the appropriate time. Individuals all being able to hit decent point value bases. etc. etc.
And this is a problem? If they can compete in the next level up, it would actually give them a path to get up, a way around the war mechanics obstacle you highlight. Of course, I’d like to see wars fixed, too.
Sigh, no it isn’t. It is a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less. You seem very, very angry about the suggestion, for some reason. Please try a more reasoned response, a la Morreion, Lutrus, Bonfires.
Why should that team move up and compete against stronger teams for the same reward? To make it harder for themselves just for the sake of making it harder?
You could also take a look at the teams roster to see what their composition is like. If it’s full of 400s then you may have a point. I suspect there’s only a handful of two of people who are over 300, though. Not much different from any other platinum team. Hell I saw a gold team with 2 550s the other day.
Is it good that war is a much bigger component of rating than the more demanding resource intense pvps? One war can give as many rating points as a whole weeks work! I think it’s probably not good, but it’s sort of a drop in the bucket of problems with the war and league systems. If teams that do poorly in pvp no longer lose rating points as in the recent fight pits, the balance has just tipped even more towards war.
If PG weighted pvp more heavily it would magnify concerns about pvps - the placement factor in KW, the timing in fight pits, and the favoring of spending in all of them, but, yes, it would promote more active teams and make things harder for teams of once-a-day players, however reliable and high level.
So there are two key points that really need to be addressed for something like this to work.
As others have said, with the current design of wars, any such mechanic would be a joke. My team usually pulls off first (sometimes second) in events, but a single day at 49/50 left us with 4 unwinnable wars, and a single level 500 on an enemy team can render any of my team’s efforts irrelevant even if we’re 50/50. We got knocked down further by a week of unwinnable wars than we moved up with six months of event wins.
That’s not sandbagging, that’s the fact that we can play better all we want - it just doesn’t matter as long as wars work the way they do.
Even if our team could compete at a Plat I or II level in events, why would we want to try? It’d be a much harder fight, cost many more resources, and, aside from the small increase in daily egg tokens, the payout would be the same. Hell, if we got kicked up to Plat I, we’d actually want to start sandbagging - it’d be the only reasonable option.
I can confirm that ranking points were subtracted last few pvps. Or at least the mail went out saying they were.
I’ve been trying to drive this point home for a long time. You basically have to choose, design a team that’s good at wars or design a team that’s good at events. The two are drastically different.
And many teams now days are built for atlas which is not the same but closer to wars than events.
Sandbagging is a big issue though as well. I can actually buy superior rewards for my entire team for cheaper than my accounts contribution would cost to actually win them. It’s super broken. And we don’t find them fun at all.
I actually don’t find this to be true in many cases, but this is what it should be. Of corse when you are working with other teams it skews everything as well. And not in what I consider a healthy way. But when in Rome I suppose.
Not true at all, but it does indicate a problem exists with the system. If the system was working, continued success should eventually raise your rating to where you cannot continue such a streak.
There are so many issues with the rating system. For one at some leagues you can get a single win take you into the next tier, and at others it requires like 30 wins.
And another is the imbalance between wars and events. You can suck at events, and destroy wars, or vice versa. Because of this you can have a event win streak that never breaks or a harder but still possible is a war win streak that never ends (if you don’t War enough between events to climb)
And that’s just to name a few issues.
Personally I think it’s better than the opposite. The only reason pvps impact rank was because they tried to force teams to participate by hitting them with the stick (-10 points). They would have had better luck with the carrot IMO.
I also don’t think events should impact the same rating as pvps. I’ve proposed before having 1 or more different event ratings which sorted you into a league when you are about to compete in that event so that your matchup is relevant to your abilities.
Of corse that leads to crying about egg tokens. Of which I suppose could either be awarded by a weighted combination or even just give you less tokens during weeks having events you were less good at.
There are probably a thousand ways to skin this cat, but what we need to recognize is that it’s broken.
Yes but then Wars, would be diminished and it’s a war game.
I mean I guess if nobody wars anymore and everyone fights in atlas maybe it’s okay, but in principal that seems wrong still. It’s all just a bandaid that avoids addressing the real issues.
I don’t actually find this to be a problem, that’s kind of in line with the elo system. Just as if you play in a chess tournament when you are feeling depressed you might lose a lot of ranking.
I do however think there are compromises that can and should be made which would increase the enjoyability and decrease burden of management in an area we don’t really want to compete anyways.
Honestly the whole rating and war and event system needs a through revamp. It would compete with a lot of other priorities.