Back to old ranking system, this is way worse!

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.

I mean all of the issues are sorta irrelevant with the current system. If you want to win pay to win. If you don’t want to pay to win settle for lower. Sucks that people had trouble grasping the last system wouldn’t reward trying to pay to win once you hit your skill cap for those in the new system that aren’t compelled by a pay to win strategy :slightly_frowning_face:

That’s what both systems did

Last week’s system pays out medals depending on the strength of your opponent. If the opponent was rated stronger than you, you got lots of medals. Over time, you yourself became stronger and it paid out less.

This week’s system pays out medals based on how strong your opponent is. Regardless of your own rating. Period.

I think the complaints about the old system really boiled down to the fact that players and the ELO algorithm disagreed on their appropriate skill. And I think everyone had a decent point.

Perhaps the ELO algorithm is too “confident” in its determination. That is to say, it can hone fairly quickly on an appropriate skill rating in a game like chess because all players are starting out with a known set of pieces in known positions. They’re equally matched at the start of the game so the outcome is exactly a reflection of skill. Given the variables outside a player’s control here: relative levels of deck-available cards, random draw chances, etc, an ELO that focuses exclusively on win/loss as its input will necessarily introduce the noise of those variables in its determination. And if it’s leveling off quickly, not accounting enough for subsequent wins, it can feel to players they’re locked in.

I was excited about this new system but now I’m not; there’s a ~50,000 medal spread between the top 20 players in my bracket right now. I think maybe something to try might include tweaking the old system not so much with the number of medals rewarded, but with the ELO formula. I think, given the entropy introduced with the game design, it should maybe be more sensitive to reversals of fortune…

1 Like

I mean…at this point no matter what the devs do there’s always someone that’s pissed off. Can you guys try to imagine for a second how incredibly frustrating that is for them?

Look. They listened to us. We were complaining about the way the medals were awarded before, so they changed it. This is MUCH better, because now you at least have a chance to catch up. I didn’t refresh often, and ended up with over 34,000 event medals and 3rd place. Why? Because I won 90%, if not more, of my battles. If they hadn’t changed it, I would have hit a wall even though I was doing well, only receiving 5 medals per win and would have no chance catching up.

My point is, the team has been making an incredible effort to listen to us and implement our suggestions, which is a huge improvement from last month. Did any of you even notice that they finally gave us the value of event pack back? That was a huge source of frustration, and they fixed it.

No one is forcing you to pay anything. If you feel you have to spend a ton to get first in the event and don’t feel comfortable with that, then don’t spend anything! The events are fun again, they’re highly competitive, and they’re worth your time now.

To the team: the only thing I would suggest is maybe putting a cap on how many times a player can refresh in a certain amount of time. This will reflect even more b🔖

1 Like

I didn’t notice this, I don’t look at the packs anymore, I would think they would have announced that.

1 Like

You have risen in the ranks of coolness S7campusLifer, anyone who uses the word Grok is awesome I’m my eyes.

never thirst…


This is the news last week or the last event was maybe not intrinsically intuitive, but it was a much better system and it worked much better. Maybe we can find a really simple way on how to explain it and go back to that one.

But, I would like to start focusing on this so much and maybe focusing on other areas of the game that really need attention like quality of the game. What can we do with alliance tokens? What can we do to improve the gauntlet? What can we do with our extra cards? How can we get some skins available for our units? These quality aspects are what I’m more interested at this point including ways on how to improve the guild chat experience and interacting with other players. It kind of feels like this is 911 and we are all distracted by the events (911) While the government pulls some crazy shit behind our back’s.

They are literally not competitive. There are only two variables that matter in events now. How many refreshes you want to purchase and how much time you want to spend playing event games. If that’s what you’re calling competition than sure, but that’s far from anything I’d personally call competitive.

1 Like

Should use a different thread for different topics :grimacing:. Events were they only mildly interesting thing remaining. Now they’re pointless.

I mostly wish events ended earlier in a day. Waaaay past bedtime for us east coast


I’m quite sure it’s not like this.

First games i got 150 medals no matter who I defeated.

In the end i was getting 300 medals no matter who i defeated.

The formula is exponential and depends on my win rate DURING THE EVENT. It doesn’t depend on my opponent absolute strength.

Am i wrong? Why?

Closing this; let’s continue the discussion here: