i just got hit for -166

Unknown

casuist wrote:

DumDumDugn wrote:

It's always the extremes with you huh. No, that's not what i want. But it's silly all the guys with the 115/141/141 teams are stuck fighting each other while the kitties rule the jungle

This is exactly the problem. Anyone in the high brackets are points limited because of the constant point loss meanwhile people in lower brackets can coast ahead of them.

Perhaps a modification could be made to how tourney brackets are determined to ensure that people in low match making brackets don't get put into the same tournament bracket as the higher ranked teams as this will result in them easily getting to the top due to the difference in level of competition.

It really is beyond silly that the top teams have to constantly attack each other, dragging one another down while someone in a lower bracket gets to the top unopposed. Especially if that someone tanked their rating to get there but given the way things work, it's hardly surprising that people tank to get anywhere.

It's a problem. Let me play devil's advocate and ask: if they aren't attacking each other, who are they attacking? If you don't have the same strength, doesn't it suck to be getting hit by those guys?

I really think there's a deeper flaw here relating to how points are won and lost and how value of opponents is determined. Maybe if points won were based on relative strength... And unless the zero sum thing is changed, this is going to continue to be a major problem.

This has always been an issue on the horizon, but you are seeing it now because there are people clustering at the top of the power curve with nowhere to go.

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

It's a problem. Let me play devil's advocate and ask: if they aren't attacking each other, who are they attacking? If you don't have the same strength, doesn't it suck to be getting hit by those guys?

I really think there's a deeper flaw here relating to how points are won and lost and how value of opponents is determined. Maybe if points won were based on relative strength... And unless the zero sum thing is changed, this is going to continue to be a major problem.

This has always been an issue on the horizon, but you are seeing it now because there are people clustering at the top of the power curve with nowhere to go.

Yup, someone else besides myself has also stated that the ELO system is unsuitable because there is no defense so point loss gets out of hand really quickly. It's a really difficult situation though. Without matching players against each other(which would be a real challenge both for players and devs), the system falls apart. In most applications of the system you actually face off against your opponent which means 2 things. Firstly, you might beat them and get the points. Secondly, no one else can attack you while you are busy in your match which means no crazy point loss when multiple people hit you at the same time.

Without implementing that, the only other way to improve things would be to improve defense. Many good suggestions have been made like the one about only one person can attack you every five minutes. I've made a few myself elsewhere. Hopefully, the devs are reading and considering what is being said.

Unknown

@Casuist

I disagree. Players should NOT be penalized for matches they have no control of.

IMHO, they should have a system, you attack a strong player and win, you are awarded more points. But the attacked player does not lose anything.

Obviously this will favor fast attacking players. So the increment should be reduced the higher they go. Until they gain about 1 point per match if they are at 1st place.

But I don't think player scores should ever drop, unless you lose. It's frustrating to have some random guy take away your scores in a match you have no control of. And guess what? That random guy is you too. And you're frustrating someone else too on your way to the top.

FTW system. Yay.

Unknown

mechgouki wrote:

@Casuist

I disagree. Players should NOT be penalized for matches they have no control of.

IMHO, they should have a system, you attack a strong player and win, you are awarded more points. But the attacked player does not lose anything.

Obviously this will favor fast attacking players. So the increment should be reduced the higher they go. Until they gain about 1 point per match if they are at 1st place.

But I don't think player scores should ever drop, unless you lose. It's frustrating to have some random guy take away your scores in a match you have no control of. And guess what? That random guy is you too. And you're frustrating someone else too on your way to the top.

FTW system. Yay.

I'll just post this link to a post I made early on where I suggested that you get more points for defeating higher level teams.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=259

Also, I agree that players should not be penalized for things outside of their control which is why I suggested that defense needs to be improved because we have no control over it.

Not quite sure what you are disagreeing with me about.

Unknown

casuist wrote:

Without implementing that, the only other way to improve things would be to improve defense. Many good suggestions have been made like the one about only one person can attack you every five minutes. I've made a few myself elsewhere. Hopefully, the devs are reading and considering what is being said.

That's a good idea (and even moreso I think there should be a limit on the same person attacking repeatedly--or fixing matchmaking so it can't happen). So is limiting point losses.

I'm not entirely sure the devs have sat down and asked how it is they want players to behave. If they haven't, I hope that they will. The scoring mechanics need to support that behavior, and right now, I suspect that they don't.

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

casuist wrote:

Without implementing that, the only other way to improve things would be to improve defense. Many good suggestions have been made like the one about only one person can attack you every five minutes. I've made a few myself elsewhere. Hopefully, the devs are reading and considering what is being said.

That's a good idea (and even moreso I think there should be a limit on the same person attacking repeatedly--or fixing matchmaking so it can't happen). So is limiting point losses.

I'm not entirely sure the devs have sat down and asked how it is they want players to behave. If they haven't, I hope that they will. The scoring mechanics need to support that behavior, and right now, I suspect that they don't.

Here's a crazy idea(which I'm sure won't work out but anyways), when you attack someone you get x points. Then the game runs a simulation of two AI teams, yours and the defenders. The defender only loses points if your AI team beats his AI team. You gain less points in that case but still get some points. End result is a more level determination of whether you gain or lose points. Reduced points when the defender's AI wins evens out the crazy advantage attackers have with starting first and boosts.

I'm sure many will come up with reasons this won't work out(implementation server side would be a real challenge) but hey, I did say it's a crazy idea.

Unknown

Casuist,

What if instead, the counter attack could help mitigate your losses, without taking points away from the attacker. So, you attack me for 25 points. Those are yours. I could choose to counter, saving me from losing those points if my counter is successful, or if I prefer, move on to another opponent. Kind of like your idea, but taking one thing that is out of the player's control and putting it in their hands, rather than adding yet another element the player has no control over.

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

Casuist,

What if instead, the counter attack could help mitigate your losses, without taking points away from the attacker. So, you attack me for 25 points. Those are yours. I could choose to counter, saving me from losing those points if my counter is successful, or if I prefer, move on to another opponent. Kind of like your idea, but taking one thing that is out of the player's control and putting it in their hands, rather than adding yet another element the player has no control over.

That's a good start to a more feasible idea than mine.

I like the idea of countering to not lose any points. It seems like a good modification to the current retaliation system since if someone with significantly less points than me attacked, my retaliation would not be worthwhile and it would just make it easier for them to find me again for more points.

In theory, the reduced loss of points would be offset by the reduced gain since people might spend more time countering than attacking but it would be less frustrating than the current system.

I do think that any system would still require some sort of time based shield or perhaps a matchmaking system that would not show you the same opponent again within x minutes. The issue of multiple people attacking one person within a 5 minute period is a serious issue. Even with my crazy idea or your more feasible one, the multiple attacks would still wreck things.

So many interlocking problems at the moment but still, it's a good start.

I think the problem that needs to be solved is how to stop the game from turning into a last hour grindfest where the winners are the ones who can turn over the most points per minute to offset point loss.Everything from matchmaking to brackets and point loss all contribute to this.

Bainee

DumDumDugn wrote:

Bainee not cool man. Btw why do i lose 30 pts per loss when a 300 point person attacks me, i have less than 300pts now..

You were one of three people worth any points out of the 12 or so people the match making system was giving me.

Unknown

casuist wrote:

In theory, the reduced loss of points would be offset by the reduced gain since people might spend more time countering than attacking but it would be less frustrating than the current system.

I'm also thinking retaliating should be worth more iso than attacking (and not necessarily that attacking should be worth less than it does now). That way, if someone is getting attacked a lot, they have a built-in mechanism for getting stronger. Moreover, retaliating should have less/no impact on your matchmaking rating compared to going on the offensive.

The way I look at the game, I play in different "modes". Am I: farming iso? Working on a progression award? Shooting for a tournament placement? I choose different opponents at different paces and use boosts in different ways to accomplish the goal. Since you can't attack and retaliate at the same time, I think maybe they could serve different purposes too. If you are focussing on retaliating, you are getting iso at a better rate, but not focussing on placement. You also aren't increasing your match rating at the same clip (which you probably shouldn't, if you are getting attacked frequently).

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

The way I look at the game, I play in different "modes". Am I: farming iso? Working on a progression award? Shooting for a tournament placement? I choose different opponents at different paces and use boosts in different ways to accomplish the goal. Since you can't attack and retaliate at the same time, I think maybe they could serve different purposes too. If you are focussing on retaliating, you are getting iso at a better rate, but not focussing on placement. You also aren't increasing your match rating at the same clip (which you probably shouldn't, if you are getting attacked frequently).

Interesting idea to vary gameplay but might be looking too far beyond the current issues.

Seems they've made adjustments to this weeks tourneys so we'll see how things shake out.

The more I think about it though, I think the core of the problem boils down to the fact that you can be attacked multiple times within the same small time period and that you cannot defend yourself. Small matchmaking groups where you see the same 10 to 30 people make things worse. They can all see each other so anyone who gets ahead will get piled on by most of the others and lose tons of points.

Adjusting point loss is a band aid in my opinion. Even if you only lose 5 points per defeat, as teams get stronger and matches go quicker, being attacked by 10 people at once is still going to be a problem. Especially once people get used to the reduced point loss and forget that they used to lose much more. Much better to just fix the core problems and go from there I think.

1. Control how many times a given player can be attacked in a 3-5 minute period. Probably the most important issue but cannot be implemented if you only see the same few people as that would just result in having to wait 10-20 minutes until timers cool off since most matches take 1-3 minutes. Though enforced waiting might not be a bad thing. Just need a proper matchmaking system so you have worthwhile opponents before you have to wait.

2. Improve defense or make it harder for offense. Some examples would be by randomizing who goes first or giving players the ability to buy boosts for their defensive team. Would have to be expensive since it will be in effect for time periods ranging from 24hrs to entire tourney. I'm thinking 5k iso minimum. Other option would be to limit stockpile boosts. Maybe disallow usage of the 2 color ones if you are already using the all AP boost.

3. Fix matchmaking so you are not limited to seeing just the same 10-30 people. This really needs to be fixed yesterday.

4. Side issue that's less pressing but the current game goes too fast and difficulty is trivial against the AI just makes things worse since at higher levels, your opponent doesn't matter since they only get 1-2 turns. This results in people being able to target high point players with impunity resulting in large point loss and justified aggravation on the part of the higher point players since if the system were working properly there would be a fear of defeat when attacking top players and far less attacks on those who have higher points.

I get the feeling that the devs know that they have to slow the game down. This is purely speculation based on their recent character design. And this week the tourney is a slower format which should mitigate things a little.

Anyway, I'm spending way too much time thinking about this and really, there's little that can be done except wait and see. I have basically been saying the same thing since around the time the game started(that the scoring system with AI controlled defense is badly flawed) and I haven't been the only one. Gotta take a break and enjoy the holidays!