[Feedback Thread] Server Update - Important VP Changes

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.

2 Likes

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.

Another question … since you put this malus in attacking players of lower level … has the malus for attacking multiple times the same players been removed or is still in place ?
In the longer strikes it can happen that a player unleashes even 30 furies on the enemy alliance. If they don’t have enough suitable targets of level above or around of the player, will it be more worth to doing same/higher level targets multiple times or going down in levels ?

It’s panic trying to organize a war without knowing the rules in advance.

kiss kiss Artemus <3

1 Like

I honestly don’t think that they forgot that. It’s a tricky problem.

You want to give incentives to beat the highest level, so attacking lv150 should worth more than attacking a lv145 (for the same player).

Now if you want to equalize an alliance of lv150 only and an alliance of lv145 only, and all players can 100% all players of the other team … it’s doable! But will it be the perfect solution :wink:?

I’ll try with a simple example. The numbers are small but they can be easily scaled up.

Example of VP. The rules:
a. When you attack a player of same level as yours, you earn VP = 2 * your_level.
b. For every higher (or lower) ascension level you attack, you earn 1 more (or less) VP.
A lv150 player who 100% a lv150, he will earn 2x150 = 300 VP.
A lv150 player who 100% a lv145, he will earn 2x150-5 = 295 VP.
A lv145 player who 100% a lv145, he will earn 2x145 = 290 VP.
A lv145 player who 100% a lv150, he will earn 2x145+5 = 295 VP.

That gives incentives to attack higher lv, incentives to level up, and doesn’t penalize an all-lv150 alliance against an all-lv145 alliance. If everybody can 100% everybody then they will earn the same amount of VP. It looks great, doesn’t it?

Except that it creates a new problem: new or low lever players will be much less desirable, even if they are committed and have very good skills. People might rush for level even more than today. And rushing level without really knowing what you are doing is the perfect way to ruin an account.

I can’t think of a “perfect” system. Any idea is welcomed, of course, the dev keeps saying that.

3 Likes

To be honest I am not feeling particulary grateful for those informations …
I am not contesting the update but - here we are not talking of proposed changes. This is supposed to be the description of an update that has already been made and is active right now, that can impact deeply the war system.
As update description, it leaves a lot to be desired. It is confusing, it doesn’t give us numbers to think at, it seems contraditory in some points.
We are used to better update descriptions than this!

1 Like

I might disagree here. At the same time, he told us to try it first and then give feedback, so we’re really the ones being too anxious. It’s likely a minor change all things being equal.

it may be a satisfing update explanation to you…. for me, it is NOT …good night!

Ok good night.:zzz:

I recognize that this is a positive change for most players, but I do think it’s a little annoying to have a random hero moved to a random adjacent island when you have your heroes set up on specific resource islands.

Is there a way, maybe in the battle log, to indicate when a hero gets moved? It doesn’t have to show which island they were on, or anything, just be a marker of “hey, Jason isn’t on the island I left him on, go investigate”.

8 Likes

I understand that, of course.

So I can share with you that the plan in the long run is currently to switch from a model where you attack just any island on the map, to a model where you control territory, with a visualised border, attacking islands near the boarder to expand that territory. Once this change is fully implemented, the current Hero behaviour will make much more sense. I will obviously bring more details about that change when it comes, but it should help with several matchmaking and difficulty problems, as well as being more positive for newer players.

Part of the plan will involve the bonuses from having a Hero on an island being made less beneficial, by making normal islands without a Hero produce more resources as long as they are within your territory. So essentially Heroes will take more of a role of border defense and exploration/pathing, rather than just resource gatherers.

As said, more details down the line.

4 Likes

I will see if I can find some clearer info for you.

1 Like

That sounds completely awesome. Any broad thoughts on schedule? 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, long term?

1 Like

Currently planned for the release in around 2 months, but stay away from the “quote” button. :wink:

4 Likes

Here’s some surface level info for you :wink: To start with, the current VP calculations vs the old ones:

The Excel formula used for calculation is essentially “=CustomFunction(attackerLevel,defenderLevel,NOW())”.

The custom VBA function for the new calculation is:

VP(attackerLevel As Double, defenderLevel As Double, Optional VolatileParameter As Variant) As Double

'exponential growth
VP = attackerLevel ^ Range("AI3") * defenderLevel ^ Range("AI4")

'scale
VP = VP * Range("AI6")

'extra VP per PL
VP = VP + attackerLevel * Range("AI8")
VP = VP + defenderLevel * Range("AI9")

'extra min VP
VP = VP + Range("AI11")
5 Likes

good Boy <3 <3 <3

1 Like