PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the CP algorithms/results



Raistlin-MN
10-21-2013, 03:52 PM
Since we have a thread to discuss matching algorithm, I thought it made sense to start talking about impressions, experiences and input on what we thought about battle results during the war. This is the first war with a war-specific bonus and the effects of the 100 attack point units.

Oh, and try and keep it on point and not point at each other.

My impressions - on the whole, I really couldn't tell much of a difference. We were lucky to match up with some guilds from time to time where I was able to hit targets significantly higher than I am, yet it seemed that any bonuses were negligent at best.

For the first 24 hours of war, my victory screen never showed the "conquest points" displaying what I only presume was the bonus from the percentage bonus. I rarely saw results over 300, even when winning battles against players 30+ levels above. I watched guild mates hitting the same targets with roughly the same gap gathering 100 or so more cp than I would. I broke 500 once. I could likely count on one hand the times I broke 400. The bonus units really didn't seem to have any impact if they were even being applied.

As for the attack points - I'm of the same opinion that it made little to any difference. My general guideline is to seek out targets that show 20-30% lower defense than my attack. If I dared exit that range and go less than 20%, I had no more luck than I did the previous war, despite allegedly having a better chance of winning against those closer than before.

The frustrating part of this is when I initiated a ticket to find out what was going on with the missing "conquest points" line on the victory screen. The first reply I received was a math lesson on calculating compounding percentages. Thanks, I understand that, especially with the compound health regen bonuses. I sent a follow up, this time including screen shots and this time received a diatribe on the random algorithms used to determine CP, the importance of the difference in level, and to coordinate with my guild.

So, on the whole, there was SOME, but very little if any difference in my results. It's disappointing after the time and energy put in to achieve the bonuses.

Rant, compliment, share insights at will!

itsaklayton
10-21-2013, 04:27 PM
I had the opposite result. As a slightly above middle ground 200-level player I saw my first every 400+ CPs. Not once but many many times. I was thrilled. I have always received mid-200s to 350. Every war. In a fact, I get better points from a player below my level than from another 200-level players. It was expensive to get that bonus, but it did pay off for me.

Rocco69
10-21-2013, 05:18 PM
My lvl 200 profile i definetly saw a little uptick with occasional over 400 after they got the bonus thing fixed. In my LLP i saw a downtick. Roughly 500 wins in each profile
Which i think means i probably got just as much or little as i always do. Just got to see some bigger scores occasionally in the sr profile

Krayt
10-21-2013, 07:09 PM
My level 49 had CP issues as well. In one fight I hit a level 90 and averaged 350CP and a level 130 averaged just under 300. Early on I was able to get a couple 500 hits but towards the end I was lucky if I got over 400. With a 25% bonus plus hitting people over 50 levels higher or more I should have racked in CP but I didn't.

-H-
10-21-2013, 10:01 PM
Saw some awesome cp gains glue to the bonuses.
Not always consistent but great all the same.
My PB was 572 and received 450-500 quite regularly.

Darth Randy
10-21-2013, 10:04 PM
My llc has no bonus and scored over 400 many many times, something I had never seen before. My hlc seemed to score the same, that is to say, poorly.

I wonder if they didn't boost everyone's CP to cover up for the item bonus not working.

Voxker
10-21-2013, 10:18 PM
gotta love rng

alonibb
10-22-2013, 12:01 AM
Im lvl 87 and got around 300CP when I killed lvl 130-170. I scored over 400 CP two or three times out of 400 attempts. I felt I got worse CP than last war even with this bonus. It surely didnt work for me.

DavidtheBoo
10-22-2013, 12:07 AM
I scored lots of 400+ points when hitting lvl 150+ people, I am level 83

Raistlin-MN
10-22-2013, 08:52 AM
So far, it's sounding to me like either the higher level players seemed to get a boost more when fighting same-level players, but the bonus for lower level players was still very inconsistent at best, if not the same or worse.

I also saw a number of times one of our higher-ish level, very strong player losing battles that they should almost never lose, which says to me the attack bonus wasn't working all that well either.

I'm hoping someone from Gree can at least look into this and give some input as to why this may have been. There have been a few times I was told that some issues stem from the server the player is housed on - this was more with the issue where quests wouldn't immediately be visible when logging in to the game once they're active.

Gree, any input other than telling us that the CP has variation, hitting higher level should yield higher CP (which it really didn't seem to be doing in many cases) and to coordinate with my guild (all of which I was told in my support ticket after I got the math lesson).

Tubs
10-22-2013, 11:10 AM
I agree that greater transparency from Gree with regards to the algorithms would be welcome by all. I felt that generally I scored higher in this war than previous wars, however, it felt more like pot luck as to whether or not you score big. I never achieved a 500pt score even when hitting a Lvl 200 player and I'm Lvl 177.
The Crusaders did have a Great War though and teamwork regardless of Gree's algorithms brought us to a top 25 spot..T

Berneburg
10-22-2013, 11:19 AM
The bonus is based upon the same old algorithm; just stacked on top. So if you were getting bad CP before, all this did was augment bad CP by x1.25. It did nothing to the calculation of the base CP...

I seem to get the best CP when I attack someone of a similar level and strength to myself. Going out of range (+/-) tends to bring more disparity to the numbers.

Raistlin-MN
10-22-2013, 12:09 PM
I agree that greater transparency from Gree with regards to the algorithms would be welcome by all

I'm not looking for transparency on the algorithm - as long as I know there is one and what can impact it, I'm fine with that.


The bonus is based upon the same old algorithm; just stacked on top. So if you were getting bad CP before, all this did was augment bad CP by x1.25. It did nothing to the calculation of the base CP...

I seem to get the best CP when I attack someone of a similar level and strength to myself. Going out of range (+/-) tends to bring more disparity to the numbers.

1.25 of 200 is 250, which would be a notable difference. What I'm getting at is that:
1) For 24 hours of the war, there was no "conquest points" indicator, which leads me to wonder if the bonus was being applied.
2) Gree support said explicitly "For the most maximum points, attack stronger members. For more consistent points you can attack the weakest." Of course there will still be variations, but even within that variation, I should see a general increase in that variation. Let's say previous variation for a win 30 levels over was 300-350. With the bonuses, assuming 1.25 increase, the variation should more logically be 375-425. My point is that most of my wins over 30+ and and higher rarely broke the 350 mark. I saw maybe 10-15 results over 400, even when winning against even higher level players.

The question remains for me is if the the bonus itself was variable - with three 5% increases, that's a roughly 12% bonus, but it was pretty clear to me that the bonus was not a consistent 12%.

Valsuvious
10-22-2013, 03:37 PM
As a level 200, I myself finally saw hits that went as high as 463. I hadn't seen an attack that gave me more than 380 since probably the second war. I liked the changes, and they seemed to be consistently higher than the normal 225 - 250 range that I was used to seeing for the last few wars.

Capitalsfanatic
10-22-2013, 05:19 PM
Level 200 player with mid-range stats. I've never had a single CP hit higher than 370. That held true in Deadwood; no change from previous events. That elusive 400 CP hit is still out there somewhere.

Berneburg
10-22-2013, 05:29 PM
I'm not looking for transparency on the algorithm - as long as I know there is one and what can impact it, I'm fine with that.




1) For 24 hours of the war, there was no "conquest points" indicator, which leads me to wonder if the bonus was being applied.

The question remains for me is if the the bonus itself was variable - with three 5% increases, that's a roughly 12% bonus, but it was pretty clear to me that the bonus was not a consistent 12%.

Not sure of the time duration, but Gree confirmed (via a response to my ticket about such) that the bonus was not applied during the first portion of the war. They eventually pushed out a fix. When the bonus was actually working, the CP from such was clearly indicated in the results window. Every random check I did was spot on if I did a reverse calculation from my resulting CP.

Metajetta
10-23-2013, 05:38 AM
All our players are sub 100 except one, all of us tend to hit very strong, very high level targets. We had terrible results. I had several hits where I literally could have hit the castle for more CP (79-89 vs 91 CP). I finally did quit PvP and simply gemmed the entire wall down whenever I was available. :-/

Our results are ALWAYS so inconsistent that I've never actually understood the scoring. But the fluctuation this war was so wild I'm surprised we didn't lose points for winning sometimes! :D

Not a complaint. Just more info. I don't think any from scratch "startup" guilds have spoken up on this topic.