Back to old ranking system, this is way worse!

It’s not to early to conclude lol. Events are blatantly pay 2 win with this system. It doesn’t require any further analysis or critical thinking.

2 Likes

It’s definitely become much more pay to win. When the range of medals from 1-10 is a difference of 14000 and a win is 300-400 there is a problem with being too much pay to win.

1 Like

Yeah this new system is ridiculous. Completely pay to win with little skill involved. I’d much prefer the old system to this. There is currently a 7,000 point difference between first and second place in my group… that is only possible by dropping serious gems and not skill. Also the number of people in event pools increased without them telling us so we all end up with less prizes… not cool

2 Likes

No, it actually was spot on.

1 Like

All illusions are gone. Straight pay to win. This event change is the final blow.

1 Like

Hi

Please check out the following threads. You’ll see that me & two of my colleagues tried really really hard to convince the playerbase that the old system was good. I wrote many many long posts trying to explain why it was a good system, my colleague s7dragon tried to explain it too, my colleague s7swede did the same, and my colleague s7dave wrote a bunch of posts with graphs explaining why the old system was good. After all that, players still seemed confused and angered by the old system. Even after tons of explanation, it’s too confusing. We need to try something else which is more clear.

2 Likes

More attempts to explain why the old system was good:

2 Likes

Oh yeah you guys made a great effort trying to explain the points system, I don’t think anyone can realistically condemn you regarding that… I had some issues with the level of boosting and bots and I still think y’all could improve there but I always thought the scoring system while super convoluted was generally fair.

But unfortunately the new system is bad. At least it’s simple enough that hopefully everyone should be able to understand exactly why it’s bad :rofl:

2 Likes

Yeah we appreciate you guys trying to fix the system or deconvolute it. This did that but it became straight pay to win. It seems like the old system was better at preventing that but the bottoming out at 5 medals was what confused and frustrated people it seemed unpredictable and locked us into whatever position we were in and we never understood why some people seemed to not hit that or at least were 100s-1000s medals ahead at the same time we were locked into 5 medals and could never catch up.

Another big issue with the change is the difference in event war scores between teams went from hundreds to a couple of thousand to 10s to 100s of thousands. When the system was designed for the previous differences in the new system all the bonus tokens can easily go to one team who spends a lot more gems.

2 Likes

I preferred the old system for the most part to this one. However, I think a few minor tweaks versus an entirely new one would have worked. Like not boosting seasonal units to max, perhaps a more narrow band of medals gained.

2 Likes

While I do agree that there was a lot of effort that went into explaining the first event break down, I think that the first way of doing the events was much more fair and reasonable. In fact, at the end of the events in all this exclamation I started to actually grasp it and it made more sense than the new way of doing the event. This new way is just really really bad and basically it’s this:

Whoever lives in first and starts the event and spends roughly between 300 to 500 gems, and this person also wins most of his or her matches, this will be the deciding winner. Because once the ticket cost gets reset, that is where the new line starts for medals to be earned.

1 Like

I’ve stuck with this game through the coin nerfs, and continued to spend $$$. But this has to be the last straw. Before this event I’m constantly in top 10 in events. Usually around 6 or 7 after buying more tickets than I should towards the end. Now I’m at 15, and I see an insurmountable medal gap above me. A lot of criticism has been leveled at the devs for cash grabbing, and I’ve remained silent, all the while throwing more cash at this game. Even though nothing compared to what some of the whales have spent, I think I’ve spent more on this game than any other game on any platform. And I was a serious gamer for the better part of my life. It’s funny how every change the devs explain it’s to make things better, fairer, but it really just pushes you to spend more $$$. At this point I will stop buying anything beyond elite. It’s just pointless. I’m going to play less and probably quit this game entirely at some point.

2 Likes

To be fair the developers made this change at the request of the players, it just went way too far in the pay to win direction. In the initial explanation of it we were all hopeful but said we would give feedback. Now we have. Not sure if the new system is salvageable or we need to just go back to the old system, but this system is unsustainable.

1 Like

I think people wanted small incremental changes to a few key things. Not this. But I get it’s a struggle.

1 Like

Yeah, at first the explanation sounded great, but seeing it in action is not promising. This is an event in which I’m probably doing worse than any other, so I’d expect to be lower than normal. But it’s clear that this new system needs some work.

The old system was confusing because the basis for it is obfuscated; it became unpredictable and, given what we could see (win or loss), medals rewarded became unrelated. (For instance, several times I would go on a winning streak over players my level of higher toward the end of the event, and I could never move the needle off 5 medals rewarded.)

@S7campusLifer - there’s no need to be so damn salty toward us. Yeah, I get that it can seem like we’re thankless. But I think if you took a moment to look at it from our perspective, you might understand that the tone of your response makes the failure of this change appear to be a “eff you guys for not liking the old system you couldn’t understand; we’ll show you a system you will not like.”

Here’s an idea: why not decay medals based in part on the number of games played? Already there’s a built-in diminishing return, with the price or pass packs increasing with each purchase. Why not translate that into a diminishing return with the number of excess matches played, as well? The new system is less obfuscated, sure, but it just missed the mark. It can’t hurt to tweak it some.

I mean at a high level, the decision is “do you keep equally large big medal payouts as long as you keep refreshing your tickets or does it start slowing down the medal payouts over as you find a class of opponents you’re unable to defeat.”

I’ve definitely come to the conclusion it’s very difficult to explain why you get 200+ medal payout for beating an opponent and then later when you beat the same guy it pays out fewer medals.

We tried really hard to explain how/why it worked the way it did. But it’s intrinsically unintuitive and difficult to explain why the medal payouts slow down the more times you play.

1 Like

S7campusLifer, I think we all understood the reasoning behind it through the explanations. What we never got and were frustrated by was how low the numbers went and how it became impossible to catch up no matter what. I think we all just feel this swung too far the other direction.

Yeah I mean that’s the crux of the issue. No matter what, when you play another game either the medal payouts slow down, or they don’t. Either you have a system where the optimal strategy is to keep playing as many games as possible, or the system basically says “you’ve hit a wall, just stop.”

The old system actually didn’t jump directly to 5 medal payouts — it started in the 200+ medal payout range and stayed there until you started losing battles and it zeros in on your ranking, and then it smoothly paid out fewer and fewer medals until basically it reached 5 so it became clear it was time to stop grinding more battles.

Either the number of medals slows down as your ranking becomes determined so it’s clear you should stop, or it doesn’t. If the number of medal payouts continues to be a meaningful amount, then the optimal strategy is to play as many battles as possible.

We really really wanted a system which worked the other way (slows down medal payouts along an ELO curve so it’s based on playing “enough games skillfully”) but we’ve been unable to explain that system in a way players find understandable. We tried for 5+ months to make that system something players found understandable, fair and compelling. Even after having lots of 1 on 1 conversations with players, it really seemed like @Holeesmokes was the only one who grokked why the system was fair and compelling. We can’t go forward with a system which barely any of our top players can understand, even after a bunch of high touch explanations. We need something even our less engaged players can understand.

This new system is at least easy to explain:

  • Win battles to get medals.
  • The harder your opponent, the more medals you get per win.
  • That’s it — no more explanation needed.

It’s really hard to please players. Hahaha

Some points:

  1. Have you increased players by group from 50 to 75? If so, that is really bad. There is nothing to do with medals system.

  2. make something very simple like: win gets medals only depending on the strength of your opponent. Period.

  3. the new system is not like this. It counts my past games and no matter who i beat i get about the same medals considering my history on the event.

Like the above, I’ve had battles against people from 0 to 4 levels higher than me, and all them gave me medals within 100 to 130… For what I have to do to win a fight with everything stacked against me, the medals should not even be remotely similar to a fight where it was even.