+1/-39

[Aurelius...]

Just a thought on why it's always +1/-39

Let's say players in empire or above fight an average of 20 battles per day, and they get attacked three times.

This alone would mean that 17 of 20 battles offered to empire or higher league attackers would have to be below empire league.

If we add in lower league players, who have the opportunity to attack empire league and above, this would absorb a much greater supply of these battles. Why? Because there are far more people in kingdom and lower leagues than in empire and dynasty.

We'd have to get numbers from the devs, but if we assume that there are twice as many attackers outside of these leagues that can attack these leagues, and that those people also average 20 battles per day (assumptions could be wrong, of course), then there would be 60 attacks per 3 defenses. This would mean, given the 20 attacks per day, that empire or higher attackers would expect to see only 1 battle vs. someone in those leagues.

(There are problems with this, such as skips and the fact that attacking 1 league down can still produce more than 1 medal, but also keep in mind that some attackers can get around 30 battles per hour and play 5 or more hours per day, so in some in some senses this is conservative. Also keep in mind that skipping opponents doesn't increase the number of empire and higher league battles that are available, though it would increase the likelihood that the skipper gets one of them.)

(By the way, it's okay to correct my math, but please try to keep the conversation moving toward understanding the current system and whether it should be changed.)

What does this mean? A few things. First, the fact that we're always seeing +1/-39 is really not that surprising, given the way the system is designed. (This should improve somewhat after everyone completes the recent update, because the average battles per player will go down.) Second, if we want to fix this, we have to augment medal awards for certain types of battles and/or results. My suggestion is rewarding players for multi-starring and attacking above their level.

 

[Aurelius...]

I should note that augmenting medal awards for attacking above one's level will never happen. Why? Not for the reasons John Hawkins listed in his sticky post. The reason is that it would disincentivize base development. (Base development = profit)

 

[acied]

They just need to count all def building xp points plus def. researches xp points and form a defense level from that, and if you attack, count all offense buildings xp points and def. researches xp points and form a level from that too.

I would even say, dont show these level, only use them to add medals to the medal reward system.

An attacker will still see only the level as now.

 

[JuDomines]

Very good point

 

[Hunter Killer]

Acied, I don't think that would work and I tried to explain that in the medals spotlight thread.

If we implement a matchmaking based on defense lvl vs attack lvl, I'm going to play the game this way:

1) Never build any defense or do any defense research. I get 0 xp points in defense.

2) Only build offense, let's assume I get 100 xp points for offense.

Now assuming I'm the only one doing that and everyone else builds defense and offense normally, we have the following situation:

1) I get to attack anyone with around 100 xp defense points.

2) No one can attack me because I have 0 xp defense points. Or someone with a xp offense points so low, they probably can't even destroy my buildings even if there is no defense.

Now assume everyone plays this way. Then we end up with no one being able to attack anyone. Everyone will be 0 defense, 100 offense and you'll never a get a match.

 

[acied]

No not for matchmaking, but to determine medal reward...

if you attack with heavy offense a weak defense, you get less medals

With low offense strong defense and you can earn more


You could make a huge pool of players, no medals involved. only 1 age down, till 1 age up

lower the medals earn/gain to 15, so equal level you can win 15 or loose 15 , minimum is 5

 

[Aurelius...]

Hey Acied,

I love this idea. I've pushed for it as well. Wide open matching (1 age up/down), and let people skip battles they don't want.

Medal awards system is designed to incentivize risk taking against tough opponents and going for multiple stars.

The problem, as I mentioned above, is that it disincentivizes base development. So it's a tough sell with the devs.

I still love it, and if it makes the game better, and grows the player base, maybe it offsets any negative impact of some players exploiting any inefficiencies in base development.

Plus, people quit as a result of frustration in the matching/medal systems. No one likes to lose 20+ medals for getting 3 starred by a lvl 163+ with a maxed army, zeps and biplanes, multiple blessings, 5 tactics, lvl 30 generals, Mercs, etc...

Here's the fix: https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...cussion-aa/473081-match-medal-system-proposal

 

[Hunter Killer]

Alright but even in a medal reward system, I can still abuse the situation and get ahead of the pack.

I have 0 defense, everyone who attacks me will gain 1 medal at most. So I only lose one medal every time I log off.

On the offense, I only research raiders and wall breakers to IA level and leave everything else at dawn age. I get a mid level offense experience and win against any IA max defense base. I'm earning 15 medals on each battle I play.

I'll be a the top of the leaderboard and no one can take me down. I'll earn 200 medals or more an hour and only lose one whenever I disconnect.

 

[Aurelius...]

You're there now, HK, just using different methods...

And that's not so bad. Beats some of the others up there.

Bigger problem than abusing a level exploit to earn medals is that spenders would likely spend less on their bases. It's very unlikely that bhg goes in this direction.

 

[EternalRookie]

A more equitable medal reward system could be based on multiple factors

LEVEL: Dis-incentivize medal dumping. Encourages a more balanced base design to fend off medal hunters. More medals offered for low level attacking high level. Less if opposite.

AGE: Incentivize growth on age. Medal bonus for higher age (does not take away from defender)

LEAGUE: Incentivize push to higher league. Medals bonus for higher league (does not take away from defender).

Example:

Win medal offered: min ( #stars x f(difference in level) , 1) + age bonus + league bonus
Loss medal: min( f(difference in level) x constant , 39)

Just a thought.

 

[acied]

Absolutely,

The thought I had is just a system to add up to the medal system, indeed more factors should determine the win/loose ratio.

It would be good, if BHG at least started to try out another system, and maybe tweak that along the way, or even test a couple of systems (combined or individual) which were given freely to them, from all of us.


Anyway in the end of the day, this game is obviously ready for some serious refurbishing.


I already suggest in a pm to ironangel, that some medals should be gained/lost from/to the defender and some just should add up as an extra award for the attacker, these extra medals should not come from the defender.


There was an idea also, for decreasing the amount of medals that you could loose by percentage of destruction. ( for instance every 10% demolished takes away 1/5 of the medals you can loose, till you get the TC or reach 50%)
If they would do that, they immediately can stop the battle crash/forced close issue as it is now and treat a battle not properly ended as not played at all.
No loss of army, no resources won/lost no traps fired, like nothing happened.

In any case of a non victory for the attacker, a 4 hr PT for the defender, so he can prepare for a next attack.

 

[Eddie F1]

It is quite easy to scupper your strategy if you think about it.