Nexon/BHG Are you going to fix the no-opponent situation?

[Magnifico]

Thanks for the reply. This certainly paints a rosier picture of play in the upper medal count than I had gleaned from other posts in the forum. Maybe I'm wrong, then, about how top players play. My understanding is that most of them run with an army consisting almost exclusively of Engineers and Motorcycle Raiders, so that attacking is mostly a matter of breaking walls leading to the TC and then swarming it with raiders. At this point, you end the battle, collect your league bonus, and then quickly get to rebuilding your army so you can do it as many times as possible (if you can find opponents) before your Training Blessing runs out. I may be underestimating the fun of getting to the town center, but five-starring bases with a mixed army seems more enjoyable to me. I realize that saying this marks me as scrub. But, hey, I'm not even in the neighborhood of being a top player, so I might as well revel in my woefully sub-optimal play, right?

With upgrades taking eight days or longer, so far I have had plenty of time to get the needed resources for the next project together by the time my workers are free. Admittedly, I have so far been focusing on upgrading barracks and researching troop upgrades, so I have been amassing food while dumping gold into my walls. Since players more advanced into the IA than I am have little use for food, I will probably be a more attractive target for attackers when I am sitting on millions of gold rather than millions of food. Still, somebody (I believe it was you)* said in another recent thread that in the top medals you are pretty much guaranteed to be hit for 350k of each resource the minute you log off. In the lower medal ranges I can reasonably hope an attacker will pop my TC and then falter on my defenses without taking all that much. It sounds like sitting on a lot of resources waiting for workers to finish is a lot more nerve-wracking at the higher medal range. If I have to do more fights to earn more the resources I need, well, I do have over a week to do it.

I realize that this approach isn't going to get me to maxed out walls, or probably even level 11 walls. But since I'm not a cheater or a whale, maxed out walls were never really a realistic goal in the first place.

EDIT:
* Yeah, it was one of your posts I had in mind. So do you collect resources from economic buildings in addition to popping the TC for the league bonus? I guess a lot of players with maxed out bases don't bother to defend their mills and markets.

 

[Cannibals]

My point is to get rid of the pools entirely ... only tell me there is No Opponent when there is not one single base of any kind whatseover that is offline with no peace treaty.

 

[Hunter Killer]

My understanding is that most of them run with an army consisting almost exclusively of Engineers and Motorcycle Raiders, so that attacking is mostly a matter of breaking walls leading to the TC and then swarming it with raiders. At this point, you end the battle, collect your league bonus, and then quickly get to rebuilding your army so you can do it as many times as possible (if you can find opponents) before your Training Blessing runs out.

Yes that's pretty much true. That's what I'm doing at the moment. But the execution of the plan can be more tricky than what it sounds Until now, this is the strategy that yields the highest medal/loot per hour. It may change with the upcoming patch and the no opponents situation where 5-starring a base may be more efficient. I'm not locked into raiders forever, I'll use whatever is most efficient in light of all the rebalances, adapting to the meta game rather than having a preconceived idea of what my army should look like.

With upgrades taking eight days or longer, so far I have had plenty of time to get the needed resources for the next project together by the time my workers are free. Admittedly, I have so far been focusing on upgrading barracks and researching troop upgrades, so I have been amassing food while dumping gold into my walls. Since players more advanced into the IA than I am have little use for food, I will probably be a more attractive target for attackers when I am sitting on millions of gold rather than millions of food. Still, somebody (I believe it was you) said in another recent thread that in the top medals you are pretty much guaranteed to be hit for 350k of each resource the minute you log off. In the lower medal ranges I can reasonably hope an attacker will pop my TC and then falter on my defenses without taking all that much. It sounds like sitting on a lot of resources waiting for workers to finish is a lot more nerve-wracking at the higher medal range. If I have to do more fights to earn more the resources I need, well, I do have over a week to do it.

I realize that this approach isn't going to get me to maxed out walls, or probably even level 11 walls. But since I'm not a cheater or a whale, maxed out walls were never really a realistic goal in the first place.

What am I trying to optimize is the amount of time I play the game. I can do max 2-3h a day, which is usually less than most players in dynasty league. Some spend like 16h playing. So I need to get enough loot in a short period of time so I can kick off an upgrade before logging off.

Even if you get hit and lose 350k resources of each, that reduces to about 200k with storage blessing on. That's the league bonus in dynasty. So I win one battle and I've recovered all my losses hence it's not really a problem to be attacked for resources. You'll notice on the top players bases, all resources buildings are sitting outside the walls, nobody cares enough about them to protect them. What you're trying to protect are your medals, which are driving your league bonus. For me, being high in medals is about league bonus rather than a shiny ranking on the leaderboard.

I actually get bored when I play for too long. So I'd rather play less battles if I can avoid them.

You should try to move up the medal ladder a little bit and see for yourself. I've been raiding at 500 medal range for several months and then climbed the ladder because I got nothing else to do during IA upgrades. In all fairness, you'll get more resources per hour higher up and you'll attack some real interesting bases not random abandoned bases with poor newbs design. And you'll help fix the no opponent situation by becoming a potential target for the dynasty players

 

[Magnifico]

Getting rid of pools entirely would mean that topping the leaderboard would become mainly about who had the most time to play. Sure, top players would be matched mostly against players worth only 1 medal, but they would probably also be able to roll over most bases without much trouble. So the rankings would reward the people with the most free time rather than the most skill.

Furthermore, by collecting a huge league bonus from each fight, top players would be rolling in resources. I know that worker time is the bottleneck to upgrading, not resources, but players with a lot of time would be able to get very strong walls very quickly.

 

[Aurelius...]

In response to magnifico (and in support of moonies/cannibals):

1. The leader board is already based on who has the most time to play. It is all about getting wins (medals) as quickly as possible. Since leaders get 1 medal per battle, it's only about grinding through large numbers of battles every day.

2. If we match all players within one age of each other (not based on medals), and award medals based on level differences, then leader boards would reflect skill (in addition to time spent playing). I'd suggest offering 0 medals (yes 0) for attacking far below your level. And the number of medals would scale up as the level difference increased. This would produce a leader board based on skill. And if medals earned were also proportional to stars achieved in battle, then bhg would get the mixed army battles that they want.

3. Large league bonuses are the only way to incentivize pushing medals for people who aren't naturally competitive (crowns would be even better..). And yes, people who earn lots of resources can upgrade their walls. Not exactly a tragedy. Although I suppose those who purchase their walls with cash would prefer that no one else had strong walls. (Even better, weak walls, low levels and large medal awards....)

 

[maggiepie]

My point is to get rid of the pools entirely ... only tell me there is No Opponent when there is not one single base of any kind whatseover that is offline with no peace treaty.

Simply getting rid of the leagues altogether so that we can attack any available base within the entire game brings us back to a point where higher players steamroll lower players (i.e., in terms of age), and isn't particularly fair either. Combining this idea with your other proposal of giving a list of potential opponents that may provide you with the best challenge, could combat extreme player mismatches- but then the problem of how to define and set the parameters regarding the 'best challenge' is introduced (not to mention the logistics of how to efficiently return those results each and every time someone hits 'next'); thus you again begin limiting the pool of players you can attack as it will no longer be open season on all player bases. Perhaps this 'ideal scenario' needs some more brainstorming- but I certainly wouldn't agree that simply having access to any and all bases that are currently available in game is the optimal solution.

 

[maggiepie]

In response to magnifico (and in support of moonies/cannibals):

1. The leader board is already based on who has the most time to play. It is all about getting wins (medals) as quickly as possible. Since leaders get 1 medal per battle, it's only about grinding through large numbers of battles every day.

I agree with this; the leaderboard already favours players that have more time to invest in the game. I don't think that's inappropriate either. A leaderboard should be something that only certain players can access, as it's meant to represent a special achievement. It should be reserved for those players that want to put in a significant amount of raids- above the majority of all the other players- and who are able to raid the majority of bases they encounter (which has an element of skill).

That being said, I understand Magnifico's point that, should the entire player base be open to all players, what could happen is that those players with more time will now not only see matches against difficult bases (many of the more challenging bases being higher in age/level/upgrades), but they would also see less well developed bases which they could more easily steamroll. Thus, there is less of an emphasis on skill in that scenario (whereas the current leaderboard set up requires both time and skill).

2. If we match all players within one age of each other (not based on medals), and award medals based on level differences, then leader boards would reflect skill (in addition to time spent playing). I'd suggest offering 0 medals (yes 0) for attacking far below your level. And the number of medals would scale up as the level difference increased. This would produce a leader board based on skill. And if medals earned were also proportional to stars achieved in battle, then bhg would get the mixed army battles that they want.

Matching players based on level is really difficult I think, but especially at this point in the game where changing the medal system in this manner would require a complete reset of the entire leaderboard to create a fair opportunity for all to reach their appropriate medal levels (for example, cannibals is close in level to me, but has far greater medals- it would be difficult for me to catch up to that account under an entirely new medal system, should I wish to do so; but he could happily raid me to gain even more medals, further widening the gap). The problem with awarding 0 medals for opponents levels below you is: why should anyone be given that option in the first place? I shouldn't have to next past a 0 medal win base, potentially over and over and over; I should only be given the bases that I could gain medals against. So, that leaves us again creating more parameters around who we can attack (i.e., +/- one and = age; +/= level). Level also doesn't reflect skill, which is the inherent problem in using level as a matching criteria. Players are able to level up quite nicely, for example in the current system, being able to raid, let's call them, poorly designed bases (which aren't necessarily lower level, but are more frequently found in lower leagues) or even being able to pay to level up (with crowns), neither example being particularly high skill. Matching based on level then forces level to be tied directly to skill, which then makes levelling up extremely difficult for a lot of players, arguably the majority of players. At that point you're creating a highly niche game for only very highly skilled players and you wipe out the player pool entirely, keeping it only to a select few which likely cannot generate nearly enough profit to sustain the game. So, you produce a leaderboard based on skill, but only those on the leaderboard are playing the game, and the leaderboard just cycles those players because the higher level players then lose all their medals since there is no one above them to raid.

Revamping the medal algorithm is probably a much better solution. Even I find the medal wins/loses kinda strange at my league. People 2 staring me getting 3-11 medals, but my victories gain over 20 in most instances- it just seems too excessive.

3. Large league bonuses are the only way to incentivize pushing medals for people who aren't naturally competitive (crowns would be even better..). And yes, people who earn lots of resources can upgrade their walls. Not exactly a tragedy. Although I suppose those who purchase their walls with cash would prefer that no one else had strong walls. (Even better, weak walls, low levels and large medal awards....)

I also think a very significant increase in league bonuses from gold level onward could incentivize players better. And yes, if crowns were involved, that could potentially even make me consider it.

I think people that purchase their walls don't actually care what other players do. They have the money to spend so they spend it on whatever interests them; and in this case if it's maxed walls they want right now, then they just get them. Why should they care if someone else just grinds it out?

 

[maggiepie]

WHy are we having to come up with suggestions, where the f**k are the BHG reps!???

I'd also just like to say, in response to this (considering it was me that initially asked what could be suggested by was of a solution), that the question posed in the OP cannot possibly have a straightforward answer with an acceptable timeline attached to it, and thus will likely not get an acceptable response from game reps.

But, that doesn't mean it's not an interesting question. My asking about potential solutions is just a way to generate some stimulating conversation around this game that we all can't seem to get enough of And who knows, maybe someone will have an interesting idea that the game reps take note of. So why not!? We don't have to come up with anything; we don't have to talk about anything. But isn't it a bit more fun and engaging if we do? At any rate, I find the conversation interesting and I'm glad people are keeping this topic alive and in the spotlight.

People can also take note of Hunter Killer's points regarding raiding less for still higher rewards at higher leagues- and thus some positive encouragement for people to climb! Because that will certainly help get some more opponents up in those leagues (which is exactly what the OP intends to address).

 

[Cannibals]

No, my proposal is the only one that works. We can't have to worry about pools, leagues, ages, levels - that has to be BHG/Nexon's problem. We need that when we push the Battle button, they queue up available opponents in the best order possible and we get a battle. Maybe we get to choose from the top picks. Maybe the best opponent will be someone lower level - oh well, boo hoo. The only time we should get No Opponents is when truly every base is online or under treaty. If I'm top player medal player in IA then show me that BA base - I'll decide if it is worth my time. Why have special protections for low activity defenders while high activity (i.e. paying) attackers go hungry for battles? Maybe BHG/Nexon should get their game together first and then they can play class engineer.

 

[Aurelius...]

MaggiePie,

Are you Magda in the Nations League Alliance?

Please note that I didn't suggest matching by level.

As to skipping, some people prefer easy battles for loot, some prefer medals. People should be able to choose their fights. Cannibals' idea of creating a list and letting the attacker select sounds appealing (though possibly not feasible).

I'm beating a dead horse here, but medals should be awarded more aggressively for fighting hard fights, not for slaughtering sheep. Level is the indicator of how many upgrades someone has completed, whether they paid cash or time and effort. Each player has chosen their upgrades. What they have chosen is an indicator of their skill. Beating someone of the same or higher level is an indication that a player has skill. Beating someone 50 levels lower is not an indicator of skill, and shouldn't be rewarded with 35 medals.

 

[Aurelius...]

Maggie, why would someone who is not competing care if someone on the leader boards attacked them? They'd likely take less loot, since they'd be rushing to the next battle.

 

[Aurelius...]

I'm happy to suggest, and also happy to discuss. Having mods or devs join in the discussion would be appreciated.

 

[Gambrinus]

well said, i want battles when i push the battle button, that's the whole point of the game. if their matchmaking/medal system breaks at high levels, then that's on Nexon/BHG to fix, and not something dedicated players should have to endure.

 

[Cannibals]

Yes Gambrinus exactly right. If the matchmaking system breaks, let it be broken in the way that low level players get steamrolled. Why should it be broken in the way that high level players get no battles?

 

[GroteKoning]

IronAngel, no response whatsoever?

PS: If the answer was 2.5 it did not really work.

 

[maggiepie]

Sorry, not much time for chatting. Yes, re: alliance Q; why do you ask?

 

[GroteKoning]

Bump, bump and one more for 10 sake

 

[Eddie F1]

I guess the answer is 'NO' - I'm seeing a lot more since the update and I haven't budged a single medal upwards since.

 

[GroteKoning]

Ironangel? You still with us?

 

[Parmenion]

Well done on climbing so high, by the way.

Doesn't seem long ago you were in the silver league. I started climbing too but am further down and approaching Kingdom League 1.