[Feedback Thread] Server Update - Important VP Changes

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

thank you so much for this kind of detailed information and code snippets - i just recalculated your table and cant wait to verify ingame :smiley:

one thing (edit: dont want to stress you as you have more important things to do):
i assume this is for 1-skull islands. when it comes to higher skulls, do you modify parameters (maybe the already introduced scale) you used for those calculations above or added an additional calculation line somewhere inbetween or just scale the final result of this table with a constant factor like VP=VP*(1+skull_factor*(skull_number - 1))?

edit: thx a lot again for your informations.
i just noted that there is now a big incentive to level up (when it comes to war) as even fighting against your own level results now in much lower VP (and less war chests) if someone is too low in level. i think we will have to reconsider our demanding limits for VPs >_<
image
[graph here is scaled by the max. value a lvl150 player can get from a lvl150 player as i think it is easier to compare]

whoaaa, what a terrible update!
I am level 124 (let s say 125 as it is in the chart) in god league, and i manage to 100% some levels 130-135 (140 sometimes) by carrefully selecting my targets (fame/trophy/path/GK observation) and attacking hero (some better on specific paths).
Today, my level 125 attacking a 135 will award me 1195 points but with the new system i will get only 1035 points… this is a 15% reduction of my VP score!!!

I used to be competitive with my top alliance teammates (lvl 145+) because i was one of the most optimizing player of my alliance.
When a lvl 150 player had to beat a 140 (-10 compared to his level) to get ~1200VP, i had to beat a 136 (+11 compared to my level). If i only take into account the raw damage, the level 150 player will have about 80% more damage ( 1.023^(150-124) ). That is quite easy for him, and super hard for me ^^

With the new system, i am just out of the competition… Now, in order to get the 1200VP i will need to beat level 150 (well, the VP will not even be 1200) while the level 150 will just have to beat a 143 instead of 140. It is harder much for me, and less rewarding !!!

You are basically forcing me to super fast upgrade my ascension level, screw my account and delete myself ^^
New mantra of FG is "be level 150 or be nothing :smiley: " ?

I recommend using the old system but without the -1 penalty for higher levels so a level 150 beating a level 145 will get same reward then a level 145 beating a level 145

3 Likes

This was how I was hoping the upgrade would work, too. Even in the very first version of alliance war, when the scoring was similar to this, I never understood why higher level players got a scoring bonus just for being high level. I like the risk/reward concept, where if you don’t fight at least same level enemies you get whacked, but it should be more skewed that way if anything.

2 Likes

First of all I want to congratulate to FG team that decided to change the vp war system .

Last war I played , with cccp against gow , I could be the top scorer , prolly because of the advantage of vp that the old system gave to me because Im low level… , just fyi , i made all 100, and without spending a single gem…

I can agree , that would be more fair that there was nt any war vp advantage due to be a lower level ( thought always is a weaker account…)

But with the new system , a 150 player , even if he s a bad player will have more options to score more points than myself thought I follow beating everyone at 100% ,

So now the better reward goes for the top level , and not to top players

It ain t the size that counts , It s what you do with it"

except for flaregames developers

Once I finish my season I will quit this game

Congrats to everybody @CaptainMorgan

3 Likes

I don’t mind that they changed it so lower levels don’t have an advantage over higher levels. There should never be overt disadvantages to leveling up.

I like that there is a stronger penalty for attacking players much lower level than you are. That’s interesting.

But I don’t really understand why players are awarded points simply for being higher level. target VP should be the same for all levels.

So basically, yes I agree

2 Likes

Yes , but flaregames has an historical/hysterical obsession in helping those bigger accounts…the famous 129 level trophy cap for example.

And now this ridiculous solution to a problem , that beiing honest I was nt aware of it , but must exist if they fixed like that…instead of fixing with equal vp for all levels , with no advantage if you are 122 like stava or 150

PD: I would like to see how some “top” levels will perform in a war vs the big three with a 122 account

1 Like

A lot of players in all leagues start from the bottom of the lists and work up. They might lose a lot of VP.

I do wish we heard why some changes are made sometimes.