LOGIN
Register
Reply
- Go To
- Page
Views:
5708
｜
Replies:
27
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 21
- Posts: 270
1＃ Go ToThe whole point of Cross Server was to give people in different level brackets a way to be successful in sage is it not?
Why are level 50/60 people fighting level 82 people in Cross Server sage? At that point it defeats the entire purpose of it being cross server in the first place.
There are huge power jumps at around level 80, people below 80 shouldn't be fighting that in Sage. Please fix this.
-
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 29
- Posts: 2271
-
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 58
- Posts: 1237
-
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 27
- Posts: 52
- Qolem On 2017-06-30 11:14:43
-
Hello,
I will let the team know about this situation, however as mentioned earlier, the less players take part in SWB, the bigger the gaps will be.
If more players would take part in the event, the gaps should be significantly lower.
dont think more people will do it since it is cross server. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 58
- Posts: 1237
-
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 49
- Posts: 1169
- Qolem On 2017-06-30 11:14:43
-
Hello,
I will let the team know about this situation, however as mentioned earlier, the less players take part in SWB, the bigger the gaps will be.
If more players would take part in the event, the gaps should be significantly lower.
Maybe if the rewards for swb were for top10 instead of top3 and if the size of the fields would be different the things would not go this way. I am on of those players that begin to be really annoyed by the fact in every 89-90 field he takes part is always 4th-6th because his winning streak get cut by one single unkillable guy 30k power stronger than everybody else in that field.
This post was last edited by ayr***@yahoo.com at 2017-6-30 17:24 -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 47
- Posts: 247
- Qolem On 2017-06-30 12:10:20
- I understand what you mean, I just added it to my answer, to clarify my point.
What about reducing the size of each field?
This way the powergap between highest and lowest player should be significantly lower.
Also, I'd suggest players are sorted by power and level at the same time, instead of level, then power as it is now.
Power+(Level*500).
E.g.
Level 90 with 65k power = 110k
Level 80 with 40k power = 80k
Level 70 with 80k power = 115k
Level 50 with 57k power = 82k
The level 90 and 70 player will be matched, and level 80 will end up against level 50.
EDIT: Reducing the size of SWB fields will also give more rewards per avarage player, that will fix the constant whining about "it's too difficult to get adv refines."
EDIT2: The Power must be the players highest recoreded power. If not, people will abuse this by deequipping all items except the main in a blitz team and melt through new players.
This post was last edited by Eplox at 2017-6-30 17:37 -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 10
- Posts: 95
- Eplox On 2017-06-30 17:25:24
-
What about reducing the size of each field?
This way the powergap between highest and lowest player should be significantly lower.
Also, I'd suggest players are sorted by power and level at the same time, instead of level, then power as it is now.
Power+(Level*500).
E.g.
Level 90 with 65k power = 110k
Level 80 with 40k power = 80k
Level 70 with 80k power = 115k
Level 50 with 57k power = 82k
The level 90 and 70 player will be matched, and level 80 will end up against level 50.
EDIT: Reducing the size of SWB fields will also give more rewards per avarage player, that will fix the constant whining about "it's too difficult to get adv refines."
EDIT2: The Power must be the players highest recoreded power. If not, people will abuse this by deequipping all items except the main in a blitz team and melt through new players.
This post was last edited by Eplox at 2017-6-30 17:37
I could live with something like this. For sure
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/138/246/tumblr_lltzgnHi5F1qzib3wo1_400.jpg -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 49
- Posts: 1169
- Eplox On 2017-06-30 17:25:24
-
What about reducing the size of each field?
This way the powergap between highest and lowest player should be significantly lower.
Also, I'd suggest players are sorted by power and level at the same time, instead of level, then power as it is now.
Power+(Level*500).
E.g.
Level 90 with 65k power = 110k
Level 80 with 40k power = 80k
Level 70 with 80k power = 115k
Level 50 with 57k power = 82k
The level 90 and 70 player will be matched, and level 80 will end up against level 50.
EDIT: Reducing the size of SWB fields will also give more rewards per avarage player, that will fix the constant whining about "it's too difficult to get adv refines."
EDIT2: The Power must be the players highest recoreded power. If not, people will abuse this by deequipping all items except the main in a blitz team and melt through new players.
This post was last edited by Eplox at 2017-6-30 17:37
The idea behind level first and power after is not wrong per se. What is wrong is that points earned by a victory in the field are the same both for a level 89 58k power that beat a level 90 57k power and for a level 90 110k power that beat a level 89 43k power. Imho what needs to be changed is this system more than the matching system itself because by matching via power only you have a different kind of problem that is the general length of a single fight and the importance of initiative. If you give points based on the actual difference in power and level between people then you would be encouraged after the first 45 people were dead in fighting only people close to your power.
You shouldn't get a ton of points by breaking an enemy streak if your enemy is way weaker, if possible you should lose points by not retreating (and so losing morale), that's the main issue.
If not, if you want to keep the current system of distribution and points then there should be a forceful freezing of people that get too many points within a certain time. Lets say i get 4 victories in less than 10 minutes, then i shouldn't be able to move for 5 minutes. That way, maybe, my rivals are able to reach and pass me in the meanwhile and lets say that i get 2 more wins after it in less than 5 minutes then i should be forcefully kicked out by the field as if i actually lost all my morale. This way if I'm too op i should be way careful in picking up my opponents and sometimes i should be compelled in deliberately lose a match (giving so a ton of point to an enemy that 1 minute after could be nuked by one of my rivals in my same side of the field and, in the meanwhile, reducing my chances to grow my packet of points).
This post was last edited by ayr***@yahoo.com at 2017-6-30 18:30 This post was last edited by ayr***@yahoo.com at 2017-6-30 18:33 -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 10
- Posts: 95
- Zelgadis~ On 2017-06-30 18:23:15
-
The idea behind level first and power after is not wrong per se. What is wrong is that points earned by a victory in the field are the same both for a level 89 58k power that beat a level 90 57k power and for a level 90 110k power that beat a level 89 43k power. Imho what needs to be changed is this system more than the matching system itself because by matching via power only you have a different kind of problem that is the general length of a single fight and the importance of initiative. If you give points ba
sed on the actual difference in power and level between people then you would be encouraged after the first 45 people were dead in fighting only people close to your power.
You shouldn't get a ton of points by breaking an enemy streak if your enemy is way weaker, if possible you should lose points by not retreating (and so losing morale), that's the main issue.
If not, if you want to keep the current system of distribution and points then there should be a forceful freezing of people that get too many points within a certain time. Lets say i get 4 victories in less than 10 minutes, then i shouldn't be able to move for 5 minutes. That way, maybe, my rivals are able to reach and pass me in the meanwhile and lets say that i get 2 more wins after it in less than 5 minutes then i should be forcefully kicked out by the field as if i actually lost all my morale. This way if I'm too op i should be way careful in picking up my opponents and sometimes i should be compelled in deliberately lose a match (giving so a ton of point to an enemy that 1 minute after could be nuked by one of my rivals in my same side of the field and, in the meanwhile, reducing my chances to grow my packet of points).
This post was last edited by ayr***@yahoo.com at 2017-6-30 18:30 This post was last edited by ayr***@yahoo.com at 2017-6-30 18:33
nice idea, but it's just too complicated.
This could in theory work, but requires the game to be altered in so many different aspects it would never go through.
Changes to the core mechanics like this need to be kept * simple. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 21
- Posts: 338
Note: This post has been filtered by Daiske (Administrator) -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 47
- Posts: 247
Note: This post has been filtered by Daiske (Administrator)that would be kinda bad.
Dead servers with just a few active players would get best reward just by signing up and leaving, while highly active servers would be put at a disadvantage. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 21
- Posts: 338
- Eplox On 2017-06-30 19:14:30
-
that would be kinda bad.
Dead servers with just a few active players would get best reward just by signing up and leaving, while highly active servers would be put at a disadvantage.
Note: This post has been filtered by Daiske (Administrator) -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 16
- Posts: 917
Note: This post has been filtered by Daiske (Administrator)my server got 6/9 of the rewards last SWB, there have been some SWBs where we did in fact get all 9/9, the other servers in our group only have a few people that can compete with our top players(2 of them r stronger than any of us)
as Eplox said, the almost dead servers would be farming alot of easy refines for doing nothing.
so people would want to be on dead servers since those 15 advanced refines are worth 570 coupons, 3X a week means 1710 coupons of rewards a week just from SWB sure they only get 210 coupons from convoy since there is noone to plunder, but thats only a loss of 840 coupons a week for a net gain of 870 coupons, plus the extra rewards from 9tails for less people fighting it and the fact that u can get so many rewards from GNW with smaller groups. In the end it would give too many rewards to low pop servers while high pop servers r penalized. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 72
- Posts: 1207
- Shadoblaze On 2017-06-30 23:01:54
-
my server got 6/9 of the rewards last SWB, there have been some SWBs where we did in fact get all 9/9, the other servers in our group only have a few people that can compete with our top players(2 of them r stronger than any of us)
as Eplox said, the almost dead servers would be farming alot of easy refines for doing nothing.
so people would want to be on dead servers since those 15 advanced refines are worth 570 coupons, 3X a week means 1710 coupons of rewards a week just from SWB sure they only get 210 coupons from convoy since there is noone to plunder, but thats only a loss of 840 coupons a week for a net gain of 870 coupons, plus the extra rewards from 9tails for less people fighting it and the fact that u can get so many rewards from GNW with smaller groups. In the end it would give too many rewards to low pop servers while high pop servers r penalized.
That still beats the current system where rich get richer and they just go to whales and everyone else is getting weaker because they are no longer getting adv refines . At least it would make dead servers more populated This post was last edited by Belerephon at 2017-6-30 23:55 -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 16
- Posts: 917
- Belerephon On 2017-06-30 23:54:14
- That still beats the current system where rich get richer and they just go to whales and everyone else is getting weaker because they are no longer getting adv refines . At least it would make dead servers more populated This post was last edited by Belerephon at 2017-6-30 23:55
i agree that the screwed over the weaker servers with xserver SWB, but I should not be punished to make up for it, i shouldn't have to work harder to get the same rewards as people on low pop servers.
i'm fine with the ideas like giving top 10 rewards instead of just top 3 rewards, or doing something that is still fair to us strong players who have put way more money into this game and deserve these rewards we are working harder for.
but any system that will give away rewards to people just for joining because they r on a low pop server while i actualy have to fight the whole 30min to get rewards isnt fair. i didnt want xserver swb because i knew this was going to happen, i voted against it when poll happened, dont ask to punish me now when i tried to help people b4. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 29
- Posts: 2271
I dunno, top 10 might be a bit much.... I can get top 10 even if I auto afk, and I'm a ftp who is stuck on the first group of the sage where all the big ptws are. granted, this might be due to the fact that a lot of ppl gave up sage and just fight once and leave and stuff. But even during the very first Xserver sage, when most people tried, I was, I believe, ranked 4th (it actually got harder to get higher rank because most of the easier targets quit, so I'm basically surrounded by ptw) and then I believe around 5th-7th in the next few (until i started auto afk) As far as i like free stuff, it shouldn't be THAT easy.
I dunno what the average sage size was before Xserver, but I'd guess from personal experience(and the minimal requirement which reduces low * that affect the average) that it's mid 20s to low 30s (there are big ones in S1/S2 to increase it a bit maybe)
Given that, I'd say around 6-8 rewards would be reasonable, as that is how much the participant count scaled. I feel that the same % of population should be getting the reward. Given that some people didn't have sage before, this might actually increase the amount of reward per person over the entire player population.
6 would be ez, 2 of each 1st-3rd price. 7/8 might be a bit more complicated, but a bit extra "3rds" should do just fine. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 6
- Posts: 2832
- PraiseLuka On 2017-07-01 02:46:12
-
I dunno, top 10 might be a bit much.... I can get top 10 even if I auto afk, and I'm a ftp who is stuck on the first group of the sage where all the big ptws are. granted, this might be due to the fact that a lot of ppl gave up sage and just fight once and leave and stuff. But even during the very first Xserver sage, when most people tried, I was, I believe, ranked 4th (it actually got harder to get higher rank because most of the easier targets quit, so I'm basically surrounded by ptw) and then I believe around 5th-7th in the next few (until i started auto afk) As far as i like free stuff, it shouldn't be THAT easy.
I dunno what the average sage size was before Xserver, but I'd guess from personal experience(and the minimal requirement which reduces low * that affect the average) that it's mid 20s to low 30s (there are big ones in S1/S2 to increase it a bit maybe)
Given that, I'd say around 6-8 rewards would be reasonable, as that is how much the participant count scaled. I feel that the same % of population should be getting the reward. Given that some people didn't have sage before, this might actually increase the amount of reward per person over the entire player population.
6 would be ez, 2 of each 1st-3rd price. 7/8 might be a bit more complicated, but a bit extra "3rds" should do just fine.
Totally agree with you about the increasing the rewards based on the percentage change. Before xsage, the minimal number of any server to get sage was about 18-21. Some servers were able to get that number easily and some servers couldn't (my server was like this for 1 month).
It's a shame that players now have to work harder because the prize pool (1st,2nd,3rd places) for each sage zone got more competitive based on population numbers alone. Increasing the prize pool to even 5th or 6th place would help. Some games even reward players if they rank at a random number like 7 (lucky number i guess).
I would be even ok with sage if rewards are disputed where 1st gets the most rewards and the rewards diminishes as the ranks decrease as long as they increase the prize pool. -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 21
- Posts: 338
- Shadoblaze On 2017-07-01 02:23:32
-
i agree that the screwed over the weaker servers with xserver SWB, but I should not be punished to make up for it, i shouldn't have to work harder to get the same rewards as people on low pop servers.
i'm fine with the ideas like giving top 10 rewards instead of just top 3 rewards, or doing something that is still fair to us strong players who have put way more money into this game and deserve these rewards we are working harder for.
but any system that will give away rewards to people just for joining because they r on a low pop server while i actualy have to fight the whole 30min to get rewards isnt fair. i didnt want xserver swb because i knew this was going to happen, i voted against it when poll happened, dont ask to punish me now when i tried to help people b4.
Note: This post has been filtered by Daiske (Administrator) -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 7
- Posts: 1066
Note: This post has been filtered by Daiske (Administrator)Actually the reward system works ok, it's meant to favour the strongest people in bracket, problem is they don't match up players well if you get brackets like 35k-100k lol.
If we had exact same reward system but players only fought people with similar powers pretty sure most would be ok with it. -
Reply
- Go To
- Page
Quicky Post
Reply
Log in in order to Post. LOGIN | Register
You have selected 1 Topic.
Reason:
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
You have selected 1 Topic.
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
Report
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
You have selected 1 Topic.
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
You have selected 1 Topic.
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
You have selected 1 Topic.
Confirm Delete Selected Topics？
Reason:
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
You have selected 1 Topic.
Confirm Delete The post you selected？
Reason:
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
Ban (for this Section)
Confirm
You did not select a Topic.!
