[Feedback Thread] Server Update - Important VP Changes

Hey all,

If you have feedback to the VP changes (obviously once a War has taken place), or the fact that Heroes no longer return to Mount Olympus, please post that feedback here.


thx for this information in advance.

can you please tell how you combined the two point below? did you make a max. cap for VP (so i get more points for each lvl but not more as a 150lvl player would get per fight edit: for attacking a lvl150 oponent)? those two points are kind of confusing on first sight :confused:

IMPORTANT NOTICE : this includes a change to the way in which VP in Wars is calculated:

  • Attacking higher level players is now worth more VP than before.
  • Players can no longer get more VP by staying below the maximum Ascension Level.

Beat me NaN, I was wondering the same thing ^^
Even if I would have added third point as well …
1 - more points for hitting high level players
3 - less point for hitting low level players
2 - not convenient to remain at a lower level …

From 1 & 3 it would sounds like the best level is not the max, but actually the level at which you can beat the max …


How do you plan to handle wars in the leagues where there is a very big variance of levels ?
For example, an alliance where the most part is around, say, level 140ish faces an alliance where most players are level 130is. Will the VP difference after update make it so that the second one will be very advantaged, since the first doesn’t have suitable targets similar or above ?
What is the allowed levels difference before the bonus/malus starts hitting heavily ?

kiss kiss Artemus <3


I think that they are two different things:

  • You get more VP from, say, attacking a lv150 compare to a lv149. That difference will be larger now.
  • When a lv140 attacks a lv150, he had more point than a lv141 who attacks the same lv150. That “advantage” is no longer present.

but still as a lvl148 player i am below max level and still would be able to make more points compared to a lvl150 player by that logic and he wrote „Players can no longer get more VP by staying below the maximum Ascension Level.“
maybe he meant something different: someone said that atm ±10 levels difference are considered. i never checked that. or still something else.

we will see, latest when next war starts and asking players of different levels to report which points they can get from whom. again done easier if they are posting screenshots somewhere.


The way you worded the update is very confusing… please elaborate on point 2 and maybe explain how much of a difference there is for the VP changes.

A player would get one extra VP per level difference (on a 1 skull, up to 16 or 18 VP, something like that) vs a same level player attacking the same enemy. So if Player x is level 100 and was worth 1000 VP to Player A (also level 100), he would be worth 1015 to player B (level 85). It was a boost to lower level players who could beat higher level targets. (It was also my idea, natch).

But now it’s kinda reversed. Higher level players are worth the same to lower level players, but lower level players are worth even less to high level players. It’s a disincentive to slum it at the bottom of the alliance list, I guess.

I think it’s a neat change, it mixes things up a little.

1 Like

If it’s as you assume, it doesn’t cope with the “more vp for attacking higher players” and at same time “no longer getting more vp staying below max level” … because say you are 147 fighting 150ish, you would get more vp than them fighting you back … so as long as at 14x you are able to kill 150, you’d have no reason to raise to 150 as well. You would actually have an advantage …
I can see how it tries to avoid sharks feeding on trouts, I just don’t understand how the 3 points can fit in the same update.


Higher players are worth more vp, but not even more when attacked by low level players.

i still do not get it and the description still confuses me :sweat_smile:
if you have 3 heroes that can beat lvl150 player with 100% isnt it still better to have a lower level, e.g. lvl140-145 so you can get more points from playing higher levels but you are unattracktive for those higher lvl players as you give lower VP for them (in addition if you have a very good GK)?

i am looking forward how they solve it or what it really means or which changes they have implemented.

edit: or what is a low level player for them? what does it mean w.r.t. the max lvl150 atm? 120? 130? 140?

i have not witnessed that, but i am looking every time now if my heroes are still located on their desired island i want them to be :sweat_smile: before it was easier to check, but now it is (i assume) cheaper to restore their places if i want to.

My heroes are not returning to mount olympus now.
Thank you for this update.


so if a lvl150 player vs a 150lvl can make e.g. 1200VP, a lvl145 vs lvl150 can not get more than, lets assume also 1200*, that which means that a lvl145 vs 145 can only do less VP than 1200 or the VPs are capped at a certain value, 1200 here. in first case that value would be of interest and/or if there is now a cap towards the max VP a lvl150 player can get (in this case the 1200VP).
it has to be something like that s.t. the description can hold. or lvl150 get significantly more bonus VP from chests, but this should not be considered here.

*but still if it would be the equal value a 150 can make it would be better to have a lower lvl then max. bc this lvl150 player can only get less points from you in return. and therefore there is still an incentive to stay below max level, but maybe this isnt addressed now and they just wanted to fix that a lower lvl cant make more VP then max lvl. either by a cap or bc that even fighting the exactly same lvl will also give less VP with decending lvl :man_shrugging:

I read it this way, but we’ll find out. Lower levels have an advantage on defensive VP but it’s an advantage to be higher level overall.


i just wanted to say thx bc you inform us before the change is applied. so we can discuss before what it means and are aware of a change and do not get cought cold.
so even if i say please more clarification here or there, i am still thankful and apprechiate what you do for us. :+1:

1 Like

yes and he was only talking about offensive VP
edit: so maybe still no need to lvl up. or maybe yes? i cant wait so see the change :joy:

1 Like

agreed! Thanks for the new stuff and the communication, CM

1 Like

It still doesn’t cope with the fact that a 150 attacking a 145 will get less points.
So staying at 145 (if you can beat 150) would be an advantage … you keep forgetting that.

Unless they have made a certain range in which you get same VP attacking and defensing … say, for example, range of +/- 5 levels … so a 145 attacking a 140-150 gets the same amounts of VP. A 150 attacking a 150-145 will get same VP. But a 144 attacking a 150 would get the bonus.
If it was something like this, it would in effect making no sense to remain tactically below 150 - as long as the level range in which the VP remain the same is big enough (where big enough means … down to a level that makes it effectively hard to beat you. Like a 140 facing a 150).

Right. High level players who feed off the bottom of the lists in war are probably going to be disappointed in their scoring, but that’s how it should be, right? If you can attack same-level and higher you will not be penalized, if you can’t you’re going to be a drag on your alliance. We really don’t know any of the other specifics yet, though. Maybe it’s going completely back to Alliance Wars 1.0 scoring where players score more VP just for being higher ascension level. That never struck me as particularly logical or egalitarian, though.

Edit: I think when he says “higher level players will be worth more VP” he just means that a level 150, for example, will get a flat boost in the VP that they are worth, to all players. (But there will no longer be bonus vp awarded when a lower AL attacks a higher AL). And on top of that, if you’re attacking players below your level, they’re going to be worth a lot less than they are currently.