Design Spotlight: Medals

[Eddie F1]

You wouldn't use the noddy XP level up at top right, but some internal values, so with the correct weighting that problem would go away.

 

[MadFury]

We all know the medal system is seriously flawed at this point. I think if we finally move to a system where 1 medal is given for each star earned regardless of level or age, we can curb everyone's complaining to a near halt. Everyone's going to have thier opinion on what the best system is or how elaborate it should be. With all that in mind a 5 star 5 medal system would be easy,self explanatory and beneficial for everyone. It gives the castle snipers the one medal they deserve and the heavy hitters 5 medals for 5 starring a base. It would be simple to implement and even simpler to understand, case closed.

 

[Hunter Killer]

As Cannibals suggested in another post, let's at least move to a +5/-35 medal matchups if you guys don't want to change a thing in the short future. It's still better than not doing anything. That's one medal per victory star.

 

[Hunter Killer]

But even the internal values would match defense vs offense of similar level. If I have 0 defense, no one can ever attack me because everyone will have offense. Then we have a system where no one can attack anyone because no one has defense. Just trying to think about extremes for matchmaking based on experience levels, even with granular breakdown.

 

[Moonknight]

1) the current matchmaking is completely unfair. on defence i loose 12 to 14 medals but while searching to attack i only see +1/-39. please make this right.
2) make a village unavailable for attack at least for 5 minutes after the player closes the game ( this is for the players having some network connectivity issues).

 

[JustInCase]

Simply way to balancing the medal system.
1 star win = 1 medal gain
2 stars win = 2 medals gain
.....
.....
5 stars win = 5 medals gain
Also aplied vice versa for medal lost
So max medal gained and lost are just 5.
With this system medal lost and gained on all raid are always same. So no longer considering medal range since you never consider player level.

 

[polo1967]

I agree with madfury's idea but with a couple adjustments. I think they should do it that way starting with the beginning age and as u go up each age the value of a star should be increased by one. If u attack someone at a certain age, you get awarded for each star based on that age. i would also give bonus points for a 5 star win.

 

[Showdang]

This Design Spotlight is brought to you by John Hawkins, Lead Designer!


Currently we match players up with players who are within one age of them (up or down). In the past we have tried letting players attacking two ages down, but that led to bad experiences for the lower age players, and not enough loot to make it worth keeping for higher age players.

This philosophy is complete failure. The reason strong players pick on weak players and give them "bad experiences" is because YOU, Nexon, are too cheapskate with your league bonuses. The strong players who wish to farm have no incentive to climb in medals.

I am currently enlightenment age. I have 100% maxed out my gunpowder age before proceeding on. I am currently finding it extremely difficult to climb out of silver league, where the league bonus is pathetically less than 5k of each, and yet, I have seen players who are still medieval age who are in kingdom league. Does it make any sense to you that a midevil player can climb easier than a maxed gunpowder who is now enlightenment?

Limiting players from attacking only one age difference is just plain WRONG. What you should do instead is allow players to attack ANYONE, regardless of age, but, give players a real reason to climb in medals, so the stronger players don't feel it's in their best interest to stay low in medals.

You could also buff the farm/caravan production rate at higher levels so that stronger players would feel weaker players don't have much to offer.

 

[Moonknight]

i am in enlightenment age, people from industrial age attack me with tanks and aircraft. which is not unfair. but the problem is, they are taking 30 medals from me while i only get to take 1 medal no matter how many battles i skip.. is this a fair and competitive matchmaking? the suggested matchmaking should be irrespective of age,and level.it should be with equal medal count or with a tolerance of 200.

 

[Genyl]

I think the medal system is ok but it would urgently need some tweeks to fix the problems mentioned: My suggestions:

- No opponents. I understand this is a problem that affects players in the top leagues. To fix it I would change the matchmaking system in the affected leagues (dynasty) so more opponents are available. To make more opponents available I would reduce the effect of peace treaties (not forgetting to compensate the japanese players in the same patch). Possible solutions:
-Slash the peace treaty time: e.g to 25% of the current time
-Prioritize players out of peace treaty but still make possible to attack players on peace treaty but let them claim back all the resources looted
-anything along those lines
Yes, it is hardcore but that is why the top leagues are for

- +1/39 matches: make +5 the minimum possible

- League rewards. Currently I am keeping at artificially medal count to be able to flat out every base and defend from any attack. To do this I have to often lose battles on purposes. This doesn't make sense plus it artificially destroy blessings purchased by the defender. I would suggest greatly increasing the rewards on all food/gold buildings, dramatically increase the rewards on the boat (as you can only get it once a day) and massively increasing the reward for defender age base (as flatting out a higher level base should be greatly rewarded). The desired result is to make medals a valuable currency.

- Disconnecters don't lose medals. This one is tricky but I would say that if the loser is clearly losing it should lose the medals upon disconnection

regards

 

[EternalRookie]

I believe John's analysis is flawed. Using medal count alone is BAD!

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)

 

[Xhavius]

I think it boils down to just 3 issues.

1. +1/-39 -- like what most have already said a minimum of 1 medal per star would remedy this situation
2. No opponents found -- if no opponent can be found within the current bracket, search for the closest available opponent in terms of medals but still within 1 age gap.
3. Force close -- make it so the attack and defense never took place at all, and only record the battle if it ended. I know force quit can still be used to avoid loosing medals but at least no more ghost attacks stealing free resources, triggering costly traps, and no more re-training army again due to disconnect. Plus if step 1 is implemented climbing/maintaining medals would be alleviated somewhat.

Fighting against much higher/lower level opponents was never an issue. Higher level bases should and deserve to have an easier time squashing lower level bases. Lower level bases can choose to attack higher level bases for the challenge if not just press the "Skip" button and look for an easy prey.

 

[MadFury]

My sentiments exactly. Although I think all age limits on attacks should be removed. Most other successful game of this type have no age attacking restriction. It usually serves as an incentive to move up in age.

 

[acied]

On certain part I'd agree...
But... when I was in classical and medieval , I had army compositions that could wipe a lower age base completely 100% without any unit lost.
So... an Enlightment against a classical isn't really a match... would wipe it of the face of the earth without any loss within a minute.
Beside it will be no fun after a match or 5 (like playing the single player matches) it will be really hard for the lower ages to keep resources in this way.

It might be an idea, but the resource reward as well as medals and bonusses should be dramaticly lower in those cases.

But I think it is too much, and expanding the matching pool by not looking at leagues or medals, will improve finding opponents anyway.

changes are needed, but 1 step at a time.

 

[dbukalski]

make minimim 5 medals (so 5 star attacks make sense instead of sniping which dominates the game)

fix force close (this breaks the game on so many levels. most of all makes defense part of the game useless)

bring alliance wars(this will divert some players from farming bases for medals...to fighting in the war which will increase the amount of available players to attack)

do these 3 things and ull have urself a fully functioning game

 

[polo1967]

How is it that someone 60 levels (industrial) above mine ( I just moved up to enlightenment a week ago level 102), with high level walls, access to troops and defenses that I have yet to unlock, with upgrades that are not available to me only gives me a chance at 1 medal if I win and -39 if I lose? But someone at level 65 (gunpowder) gives me 8 medals for a win?

 

[Cannibals]

You get 1 medal for picking on the IA noob, but you get 8 medals for defeating the battle hardened GP veteran?

 

[polo1967]

I hardly consider a level 162 Industrial Age player a noob unless they payed their way thru upgrades. None the less it makes no sense to think that I had more of a chance to defeat him than vice versa. Not to say I could have used a couple of wall breakers, a few tactics, and scores of raiders but the risk far exceeds the reward. No thx.

 

[JuDomines]

Adding my 2 cents: the current system sucks or is completely broken. All my wins brings 1 medal while opponents get dozen of medals from me in a single attack, and this whatever their relative medal count to me. The system simply doesn't work. Some dev guys need to pass Algorithm 101.

 

[Hunter Killer]

While there are plenty of other systems that we could use, we do believe that the current one allows players to best sort themselves based on their skill at DomiNations.

Loonies is proving to you the current system is not fit for purpose. Please read through all our comments and change it. Sometimes it takes real life experimentation to prove a point when writing feedback is not enough.