Basic Issue

Ultimately I think the direction this game is going won’t work. It’s essentially gambling under the facade of strategy with higher and higher cost.

Each game is so randomly draw dependent, and then in order to have a chance to overcome that you can purchase more to get to higher levels. This may offset a bad draw some but then if the other side has high level cards it’s over.

As you look at regular matchmaking it’s fine. You are upset your rating goes up and down but ultimately in a direct sense that doesn’t cost you. Here is where they’re trying to bleed you. They’re pushing events and they’re pushing it hard. Sure they can say things about how it’s team building and activity and whatever but ultimately participation costs you money. Excelling in any manner, even more. We won’t even touch on what they’ve done with bots and boosted decks but what a cluster that is. So now you are spending for a CHANCE to play (against a booster player/bot) and praying you don’t get a bad draw because almost every attempt costs you.

They are soon going to base whole team standing on events so you’re going to have to really pay out to ultimately gamble how something is going to go…

As in…who spends more

Overall, how is this in ANY way a better way to compete or indication of a teams strength than the regular matches?

2 Likes

At mid to high level, bots don’t give anyone a run for their money in event play. In the rare case someone goes 5min without finding an opponent and is given a bot, they win the vast, vast majority of the time. They’re great for easy wins (though not so helpful for earning medals, unfortunately).

So far, this hasn’t been the case. Sure, some people buy lots of tickets (thanks for your support!) but the vast majority of medals on teams come from tickets which were earned for free. Even the top teams have players scoring below 2k medals in the events – that’s barely contributing at all since 1000 = logging in to the event and the first wins tend to pay out a lot of medals. Getting the lowest 5 contributors up to the free-to-play average is far more valuable than, say, the top 5 players doubling their ticket spend. That’s why we highlight the low contributors at the end of the match - to try to make it easier for officers and leaders to see how they can help the team improve.

1 Like

Possibly but a lot of the bots/boosted decks are giving people fairly maxed cards. Especially in events where the likelihood of a player having all 3 factions leveled, the effects of this are even further exaggerated.

This is also very new in the dynamic, what is the most frustrating is a lot of people see where it is headed, not just the issues now.

This will likely have to change as it is not how your team is ranked.

Well, its also probably because some of those players are also getting ready to leave the game, but if you want to reward activity. Event medals is hardly the way to do it.

Assuming this is a positive sentiment, then you have to start looking at removing people after that event, which wrecks team cohesion.

The game is fairly young and the problems seem to be increasing on multiple fronts is all.

I still dont understand how event medals are indicative of the quality of a team?

2 Likes

Not to mention let’s look at this event. You’re facing off against maxed bots with fully maxed brand new units that probably nobody in the game has maxed all 3

1 Like

I’m definitely not near the higher end players in this game and with my lack of checking and savings won’t be anytime soon. I have had plenty of badly matched event matches usually after winning 2-4 in a row, luckily I have placed decently in many of the events but I am definitely concerned with moving up to the higher tiers with concerns of the higher tier players. Literally just hope this game grows dramatically before I hit a wall

I hope so too… I’ve already hit a wall myself. I started at the very end of season 1 (maybe 3-4 weeks before it ended) and from what I can tell, comparatively, season one had less issues. The lack of coin, the boosted bots, the unattainable season 1 units, all of these make it nearly impossible for most players to level up new and effective units without spending a ton of real money on the game. And even then, I spent 50$ a few days ago and got a bunch of junk cards and barely enough money for a couple of unit upgrades in the last event. Definitely won’t be doing that again

Who is? You only played against one maxed bot in the Frenzy event, and you crushed it easily. Bots are very easy wins in the event; the vast, vast majority of event bot battles are won by the human players. Bot event matches are also quite rare (just the one out of all those event battles … not too bad!).

By badly matched, I assume you’re competing against players with higher card levels. This is definitely a challenge we’re working on. You can read more about it on my post here: Lopsided event matchups

Boosted players/bots then. I guess you can’t tell what is what. Tbh boosted players are way more dangerous since as you said. They’re better than the AI. I think it’s also a general paranoia at this stage. You want to know who you’re playing. When you get an opponent with every card level 16+ including the new ones and you’ve never even seen their name, you start to really question it.

I think it’s hard when they’re already pressured by the way wars are, the rewards and then you’re facing off against someone who likely has an even stronger deck than you and it is artificially enhanced. It’s just a culmination of a bunch of things.

Let’s chat about the handicapping system here; it exists to enhance the player experience by finding competitive matches in a (more) reasonable amount of time than would otherwise be possible at this time. Not ideal, but better than the alternative imo. More here:

I think this is another case of good intent, not quite as good execution. I agree it’s a tough problem from both sides and perhaps it just needs to be adjusted. I highly disagree with enhancing decks because one player had a cost associated that the other didn’t but it is what it is.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to tweak it. Core units you adjust but seasonal ones you leave alone. Whatever level the player got them to is what they get to use?

That seems more reasonable for bridging the gap but not making it unreasonable I think. It also gives people incentive to focus on their seasonal units.

This is definitely a possibility. But there is a tradeoff – if we do this, there is less scope to handicap players with weaker decks --> fewer possible matches we can make --> longer queue times, especially for our strongest players. My personal viewpoint is that I want my queue time to be the shortest time possible – I just want to play a competitive match … personally, I’m indifferent to how the card levels of my opponent were set, as long as I get a good game as quickly as possible. Obviously others may feel different, but that’s a key problem we’re optimizing for. As we get more strong players in the game, boosting will become less and less necessary and hopefully, someday, disappear altogether as it becomes completely unnecessary. But in the meantime, I think this is the best compromise we’ve identified to date.

1 Like

I agree but maybe in events that advantage has to go a bit, not sure. But seeing brand new cards. Especially ones that outside of events nobody wants, then also being the featured unit (looking at you infantry carrier), and then some random person gets one boosted to 16 and we all know no player base done that. That’s going to frustrate people.

But you aren’t going to get that many players when you have an upset player base that feels used, abused, and exploited. This is the word of mouth problem discussed in another thread. Right now I couldn’t in good faith suggest to anyone to join this game and I would have quit if I weren’t so invested. That only lasts so long. I want to be able to sing this games praises and help attract new players but right now I can’t do that. Right now it’s a misbalanced game with a terrible economy and you can keep telling us it isn’t but we are the people playing the game and we feel it is no matter what your explanations or justifications are.

1 Like

Please read my next story with a tone of sarcasm. I’m not really super pissed off at you guys because that part is long gone and over with. I’m over with being pissed with you guys. I just accept that you guys are shady and crooks and I unfortunately really enjoy your game.

So basically, we’re paying an arm and a leg to play PVE content and occasionally PVP which the game is designed around PVP only. I too already feel way too invested in this game otherwise I would have walked away a long time ago. At first it was fun etc etc , but then you guys messed with the coins , and it’s been nuclear fallout ever since that day. Literally, that one choice you guys made in the lobby of Starbucks, ruined your player base and game. And here we are, the customer or consumer, screaming at you guys how to fix this game and repair your relationship with us, while you just ignore us and do whatever you want to make a little bit more money RIGHT NOW. But that RIGHT NOW, doesn’t last long and soon no one will play with poor businessmen’s as their developer, and then your RIGHT NOW turns into never get a cent again.

We have told you guys what we want, and you continue to ignore us and implement game modes and UI updates that we did not ask for. Your only goal is to make features that make you money. Hey, sometimes I gotta take out the trash for the old man next door. Does he pay me? No. But does he appreciate it? Absolutely. So I get a little something from that transaction called self-esteem. Now that I have some self-esteem, I don’t need money because I’m already content. And then the old man dies and guess what? You happen to be the only person that man interacts with, so he wrote your name down on his will and he left you his house, car and $50,000 cash.

So maybe try taking out our trash once in a while, even if we don’t pay you, because you might feel good about yourself, but at this point I don’t think we’re leaving you a house.

It’s the basic issue of, they’re doing it because it works. If it didn’t work they wouldn’t be doing it. If people want their actions to change. It has to have an actual backing. It tests thresholds to see what gives and what doesn’t. But I don’t think the words will ever make a difference in this unfortunately

Hi

I previously took a few hours writing a serious of posts where I attempted to be as detailed and transparent as possible.

More details

Currently the system boosts the player the minimum required to give them a chance of winning and actually their win rate of the boosted player in practice is way lower than normal — 30%.

If we were to boost them less, it would be like 10-15% chance for the boosted player to win.

This would loop back to the medals won. The medals produced by an event attack is based on how challenging the battle is for both sides. If the predicted win rate of the non boosted player was 15%, how many medals would you predict to come out of such a match? Would that feel like a waste of event tickets to win such a match?

More notes on winrates against these battles

This thread has become a duplicate of a long super active thread (quoted above) with 130+ long replies. Please continue the discussion in that thread.