PDA

View Full Version : Low CP for high level players



Totalwar
06-22-2013, 02:02 AM
Low CP for high level players.i played 17 hours a day during the last guild war and could not even get 50k cp.i at level 190 the higher I go the lower the cp I get.I see other players with a lot lower level getting over 400 cp per hit and I luckily if I make 200 cp per hit and sometime below 200 cp per hit.please Gree fix it so its fair cp for everyone not just the low level players.

echus14
06-22-2013, 02:04 AM
Totally agree. GREE - this needs to be fixed and before the next war, please.

Tiki
06-22-2013, 02:11 AM
I agree as well, there certainly seems to be a great disadvantage to progressing through the game.

Aha
06-22-2013, 02:34 AM
Agree. This is the only game I know of where progession is punished.

Getting to high level should bring rewards that spur players on, not the ridiculous situation we have now where it is better to sit at low level with minimum participation.

JPNy
06-22-2013, 02:48 AM
Out cheaters and serious inequities in the treatments of problems during events and quests (like the 2 current ones), this issue is my main concern with this game.

I agree with everything above !

Quick
06-22-2013, 02:54 AM
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS AS WELL. ( oh rules say I shouldn't post in all caps)

Myrra
06-22-2013, 03:11 AM
A simple solution would be to cap the amount if CP to the attacking players level x2.

Kjctnorris
06-22-2013, 03:25 AM
The CP penalty for higher level players and the difficulty in the boss events is ridiculous.

Mr.Grumpy
06-22-2013, 04:56 AM
i love playing this game and progressing through the levels, but why am i punished for that?

l3lade2
06-22-2013, 05:28 AM
Agreed, in principal, although its clear why the system was designed this way. Often some guild members have no one to attack, as they are too weak, which is the balancing act for lower level players. When we come up against FUN or RK, over 20% of our guild end up hitting the castle or nothing.

There isn't enough balance, as this doesn't counter what you're moaning about, but just adding the other side of the coin into the equation which of course is never seen by these who only see their own disadvantages.

Proprioc3ption
06-22-2013, 05:29 AM
Simply solution wld be to allow players who are at lvl 200 or within the vicinity to score points upwards to at least 450 like low lvl players score on higher lvl players.

Surely it is fair that when a lvl 200 player attacks a lvl 200 player her/she should get CPs similar to other players. Either that or it should only cost 20 gems instead of 25 for lvl 200 players.

Whatever, do something positive GREE as its crap the way it is.

deuce
06-22-2013, 05:29 AM
Who not make CP earned based on the gap between your attack score and your opponents defense score? The closer they are together, the more CP is earned (because it would be considered a harder battle). This avoids people with attack scores in the millions from targeting someone with a defense score of 100k (for example). The gap in levels between the two opponents can then be used as a modifier to adjust the score up or down.

Also, as an aside, shouldn't the winners of a battle earn a little more CP for that victory? I am not talking a large amount, but 10-25k would be nice.

Proprioc3ption
06-22-2013, 05:35 AM
Not a bad idea but basing it on stats is not as good a model for CPs as the model for level based CPs.
Plus, the balance wouldn't work out in matching guilds A/D stat wise. It wld also mean that the top guild get crap points all the time which is unrealistic and unfair to them. They are worked hard and spent up to be where they are, they shouldn't be punished for it.


Who not make CP earned based on the gap between your attack score and your opponents defense score? The closer they are together, the more CP is earned (because it would be considered a harder battle). This avoids people with attack scores in the millions from targeting someone with a defense score of 100k (for example). The gap in levels between the two opponents can then be used as a modifier to adjust the score up or down.

Also, as an aside, shouldn't the winners of a battle earn a little more CP for that victory? I am not talking a large amount, but 10-25k would be nice.

Berneburg
06-22-2013, 05:52 AM
If any change is implemented it has to somewhat maintain the current status. I have been recruiting low level/high stat players and at least 1/3 of my guild is just that. If a change is implemented to completely move away from the current status, I am then penalized for having low level players. Really, just some sort of modification to allow higher level players to earn comparative CP is needed.

JPNy
06-22-2013, 05:53 AM
I aggre with the reward for a battle win ! The idea is still to fight and in a wargame you shouldn't be able to "win" the war without winning any "battle". Of course I exagerate but not that much.

Concerning the CP I would propose a system based on levels but with different formulas depending the tier of the winner of the fight (attacker or defender). that would define tiers in which a level 200 is able to score 450 against another level 200. Why not keeping the current formula for the first tier and adapt it when levels get higher.

Jeshu
06-22-2013, 05:53 AM
Low CP for high level players.i played 17 hours a day during the last guild war and could not even get 50k cp.i at level 190 the higher I go the lower the cp I get.I see other players with a lot lower level getting over 400 cp per hit and I luckily if I make 200 cp per hit and sometime below 200 cp per hit.please Gree fix it so its fair cp for everyone not just the low level players.

+1

How about getting higher CPs if your level to attack ratio is higher. It would encourage people to finish LTQs, right now I know of people that rather not finish them because of leveling up.

deuce
06-22-2013, 05:59 AM
Plus, the balance wouldn't work out in matching guilds A/D stat wise. It wld also mean that the top guild get crap points all the time which is unrealistic and unfair to them.
Not sure why the guild matching wouldn't work A/D stat wise. If anything, my suggestion would result in better scoring matches. As far as hurting the top guilds, I doubt that. The top guilds are all strong and will find plenty of event matched foes. I would argue that it would work in your favor. Besides, it shouldn't be easy for you guys to maintain the top spot, so if it was slightly harder, that should be expected.

JPNy
06-22-2013, 06:00 AM
+1

How about getting higher CPs if your level to attack ratio is higher. It would encourage people to finish LTQs, right now I know of people that rather not finish them because of leveling up.

I have thought about a system like that, but I am finally not a fan. Indeed it will penalize the free players. I am a gem player finishing the LTQ but we should look for something more balanced for everyone and preserving somewhat the current status !

Person
06-22-2013, 06:05 AM
If you played the game well and you're high lvl, very few people can hit you, so anyone who tries ends up giving you free points. If you are a low level hitting a higher level and winning, you get a reward of extra CP because you ended up playing better or spending more than the high level. It's fair the way it is, though it seems illogical. And being 135 with decent stats myself, I only get 400+ cp very rarely from people level 180+, it seems the level difference to get 400+ CP is at least 50. Add that to losing 20% of the time if your attack isn't at least 200k higher than the opponents defense, and it's completely fair. Unless you're high level with crap stats, but then you deserve to get milked like the cashcow you are.

JPNy
06-22-2013, 06:17 AM
If you played the game well and you're high lvl, very few people can hit you, so anyone who tries ends up giving you free points. If you are a low level hitting a higher level and winning, you get a reward of extra CP because you ended up playing better or spending more than the high level. It's fair the way it is, though it seems illogical. And being 135 with decent stats myself, I only get 400+ cp very rarely from people level 180+, it seems the level difference to get 400+ CP is at least 50. Add that to losing 20% of the time if your attack isn't at least 200k higher than the opponents defense, and it's completely fair. Unless you're high level with crap stats, but then you deserve to get milked like the cashcow you are.

Passive CP are a joke. I got hitted perhaps 3-5 times per war. Not with these few points that I build my 500k CP result !
You don't play better only because you are low level, you have played less time and it's all about that in this thread. Of course we don't ask to earn many points attacking low level players, but just having a fair chance to do good points when attacking our pairs. And my proposition allow level players to do as many points as now.

E-I
06-22-2013, 06:22 AM
The only way to get ahead in this game is to become a hacker or camper. Great incentives Gree!

Lord Moore
06-22-2013, 07:43 AM
Lower level players should have an advantage in CP scores when hitting higher level rivals as there are fewer high level low defense targets available for them to target and they are at greater risk in losing units as a result. Having said that, 180+ Levels should be rewarded much higher CP's than they get now when attacking other 180+ rivals.

Mickeytah
06-22-2013, 07:49 AM
I agree as well, there certainly seems to be a great disadvantage to progressing through the game.

Agreed. We're being penalized for actually playing the game.


Lower level players should have an advantage in CP scores when hitting higher level rivals as there are fewer high level low defense targets available for them to target and they are at greater risk in losing units as a result. Having said that, 180+ Levels should be rewarded much higher CP's than they get now when attacking other 180+ rivals.

False. The problem with CP scores based on level is that level has nothing to do with a player's strength. If there is going to be a fluctuating amount of CP, then there should be a base amount that everyone gets for winning, and a bonus of that is based on how strong your opponent is. The higher the opponent's defense, the higher the bonus you get.

Lord Moore
06-22-2013, 08:20 AM
Agreed. We're being penalized for actually playing the game.



False. The problem with CP scores based on level is that level has nothing to do with a player's strength.


False. On average, higher level players have higher A/D stats relative to lower level players.

l3lade2
06-22-2013, 08:39 AM
False. The problem with CP scores based on level is that level has nothing to do with a player's strength.

Not strictly true. Unless someone doesn't 'get' the game, and levels up through crazy mob attacks and mastering all maps for no reason, or unless they dump a boat load of gems on unit purchases, then XP is (and therefore level) is absolutely directly linked to strength.

The only way to advance your stats over another player is through Events, which will simultaneously incur XP gains. I personally have intently kept my levelling low, yet still advancing my stats, by being economical, avoiding the recent high XP LTQ's etc. I am not a big gem spender, yet my stats for my level are very good (even if I do say so myself). I could be over 100k stronger right now, had I have participated in a couple of LTQs that I avoided, but I would be nearer to level 135 instead of the 120 I am still clinging to.

If I see someone at level 120 in my pool with stats over 1milion, then I think wow well done them. Likewise if I see a level at 180 with stats of 200k I think wow how on earth did they get there so low...because Strength and Level are linked.

Berneburg
06-22-2013, 09:02 AM
If there is going to be a fluctuating amount of CP, then there should be a base amount that everyone gets for winning, and a bonus of that is based on how strong your opponent is. The higher the opponent's defense, the higher the bonus you get.

Best option I have seen yet, but it still needs more. Bonus could be based upon two factors, level difference and opponent strength with even a third randomness factor. That should be a catch-all that benefits both high/low level players alike.

Lord Moore
06-22-2013, 09:28 AM
Agreed. We're being penalized for actually playing the game.

For playing poorly perhaps. I've been playing for over a year. I'm a level 124 with 1.2M in A/D. It was clear to me in the beginning that if you leveled TOO fast you were at a disadvantage. Having said that, the CP's scoring should be adjusted for the higher level players as I suggested above which avoids penalizing the lower level players that have used a different strategy in PLAYING the game.

Person
06-22-2013, 10:29 AM
For playing poorly perhaps. I've been playing for over a year. I'm a level 124 with 1.2M in A/D. It was clear to me in the beginning that if you leveled TOO fast you were at a disadvantage. Having said that, the CP's scoring should be adjusted for the higher level players as I suggested above which avoids penalizing the lower level players that have used a different strategy in PLAYING the game.

This. I had no clue what I was doing, questing as much as possible, till guilds came out. I was 97 with 33k atk and 27k defense. I'm now just over 800k attack and 888k defense at level 135. And in total about a mountain and a half spent, if I had spent anything again after the blighted woods battle I would be well past 1m now too, but Gree has shown they don't deserve my money.

Almost There
06-22-2013, 11:34 AM
I totally agree with this model. It makes the most sense. CP should be based on stats, plus a slight factor based on level, plus slight bonuses based on other randomizing factors. This would makes things seem fair while making things interesting with a slight randomness. Those attackers who get greedy to get the most CP by attacking close to their stats have a chance of losing some fights because of the slight random factors.


Who not make CP earned based on the gap between your attack score and your opponents defense score? The closer they are together, the more CP is earned (because it would be considered a harder battle). This avoids people with attack scores in the millions from targeting someone with a defense score of 100k (for example). The gap in levels between the two opponents can then be used as a modifier to adjust the score up or down.

Also, as an aside, shouldn't the winners of a battle earn a little more CP for that victory? I am not talking a large amount, but 10-25k would be nice.

Quick
06-22-2013, 12:05 PM
This to me strikes as bs because I have started a second account and all of a sudden there has been so much more available ltq and also I've seen there's powerful for a start up account units givens just because they joined.

It's great that Gree is trying to provide more opportunity to get better a/d but honestly I think my second account has a much better shot of being higher power just because my first has leveled up so much it seems it can't be saved.

QUOTE=Lord Moore;830914]For playing poorly perhaps. I've been playing for over a year. I'm a level 124 with 1.2M in A/D. It was clear to me in the beginning that if you leveled TOO fast you were at a disadvantage. Having said that, the CP's scoring should be adjusted for the higher level players as I suggested above which avoids penalizing the lower level players that have used a different strategy in PLAYING the game.[/QUOTE]

JPNy
06-22-2013, 12:14 PM
I totally agree with this model. It makes the most sense. CP should be based on stats, plus a slight factor based on level, plus slight bonuses based on other randomizing factors. This would makes things seem fair while making things interesting with a slight randomness. Those attackers who get greedy to get the most CP by attacking close to their stats have a chance of losing some fights because of the slight random factors.

I don't agree for my part, because better players should be able to score more points than poor players. This is why the only good model is mainly based on levels.
The fact is that highest good players will never try to fight lower players in a model based on levels (or only when meeting a campers guild and just doing free hits if any). In a stat based model, a bad level 200 player with 400k atk would be able to score good points against a good level 80-10 player. That's not what I call a fair model.

That said what is important is to let players of all levels be able to achieve a descent average score on all their winning hits if they are skilled enough. that's to say with my LLP I can do an average over 350 CP per hit on a war event without too much effort and with my HLP, if I do an average of 280 now it's great (I used to do 325 with a worse ratio). Whatever your level is now, one day you will reach levels 160, 180 and 200 (If you keep playing) , then you will understand the frustration if nothing change by then. Again If you play better, you win more : it's all OK for me !! But now even playing well you win less and less , nay you get banned from guilds !!! You should understand the injustice.
That's why, like for Boss event, defining tiers and applying a specific appropriate formula (stay to be defined) for each tier taking into account the level of the attacker and of the defender remains for me the best solution. It changes nothing for LLP and all for HLP. More over you are the defender, you win : it's your tier which is applied.

The_Legend_Shall_Live_On
06-22-2013, 12:31 PM
+1 for this thread.

All in all, the people who have played the game longer (such as myself, been around since April of last year), doing well and did not just sit around but participated in events, are getting penalized. If I quit my current game, started fresh and did all LTQs and boss events I could, it would take a few months for my new game to be better than my current game due to current game mechanics.

Something along the lines of guild pair up by average level. You don't want to be paired up against the top guilds, get a bunch of low level players in your guild.

Then, you get a base CP of 350 per hit per win that has a variable on it (random, roll-the-dice variable) that fluctuates the CP won from 250 - 450. So, the variable is plus or minus 100. This applies to people who are plus or minus 25 your level (you're 150, they are 175 or 125). The higher the level you win against, the higher the variable stays. EX: If you win against someone 25 levels above you, there is no way you get only 275 CP. You always get 300 or more.

Once you are in the bracket of 176 - 185, the base CP you get does not change; however, the low end goes from 250 to 275. Once you are in the 186 - 190 bracket, the low end goes from 275 to 290. Once you are in the 191 - 199 bracket, the low end goes from 290 CP won to 310 CP won.

I'm hungry and need my coffee, and did not reread the above yet, but will do so shortly and edit as needed to make it more clear. :)

jonny0284
06-22-2013, 12:39 PM
All in all, the people who have played the game longer (such as myself, been around since April of last year), doing well and did not just sit around but participated in events, are getting penalized. If I quit my current game, started fresh and did all LTQs and boss events I could, it would take a few months for my new game to be better than my current game due to current game mechanics.

This.


Is spot on and why there are many complaints.

E-I
06-22-2013, 02:01 PM
Two months ago, a player with 1 million A/D stats was very rare. Now it is common place. 4 months ago, 400k A/D stats were great. There is some serious stat inflation, and that gives low level players a huge advantage.

Mickeytah
06-22-2013, 09:29 PM
False. On average, higher level players have higher A/D stats relative to lower level players.

That is correlation, not causation.


Not strictly true. Unless someone doesn't 'get' the game, and levels up through crazy mob attacks and mastering all maps for no reason, or unless they dump a boat load of gems on unit purchases, then XP is (and therefore level) is absolutely directly linked to strength.

The only way to advance your stats over another player is through Events, which will simultaneously incur XP gains. I personally have intently kept my levelling low, yet still advancing my stats, by being economical, avoiding the recent high XP LTQ's etc. I am not a big gem spender, yet my stats for my level are very good (even if I do say so myself). I could be over 100k stronger right now, had I have participated in a couple of LTQs that I avoided, but I would be nearer to level 135 instead of the 120 I am still clinging to.

If I see someone at level 120 in my pool with stats over 1milion, then I think wow well done them. Likewise if I see a level at 180 with stats of 200k I think wow how on earth did they get there so low...because Strength and Level are linked.

If strength and level were linked, than you couldn't increase one without increasing the other, but you can.

To increase your level, you only need to gain XP. That is all. Nothing else is a requirement. Nothing.

To increase your strength, you only need to improve your military. That is all. Nothing else. Nothing.

Yes, if you gain strength via the LTQs, then you are increasing level while increasing in strength. However, LTQs are not the only way to increase your strength. Remember, there used to a be a point where there were no LTQs, and the only way to improve your strength was via gold (or gem) units. Neither of which involved any kind of xp gain or leveling. This is where camping originally came from. People would sit and wait for their buildings to upgrade to get better units and then continue sitting there while collecting gold to buy the units they unlocked. These people were increasing their strength without moving their level up one bit.

While strength and level do correlate, which you proved by point out there are people at level 120 who are powerful and players at level 180 who are weak, they are not joined at the hip. If they were, then you couldn't have level 120 powerhouse and a level 180 punching bag.

Keep in mind, that many of us have been playing the game long before LTQs and stat inflation came, so being at 1,000,000 attack or defense at level 120 just wasn't an option. When I was at level 120, being just 200,000 was unheard of.

Strength is far more relevant to to attacking Rivals than level is, so it should have more weight in the guild wars and should be the basis that CP is built upon.

RotoMan
06-23-2013, 07:04 AM
This is a good thread, but I would like to add another factor that seems to be out of place. I am a relatively low level player (lvl 135). Occasionally during the battles I can beat a lvl 200 player. one win I can score 420 pts and then the next win I score 230 pts. So there are two issues I see. 1) Higher level players not scoring well and 2) Inconstant scoring.

It makes it less attractive to spend gems knowing that you can score well one hit and the poorly the next hit. I would like to see some consistent scoring when attacking the same player.

BTW - I hear the highest score hast been 450 pts. Has anyone seen this?

Bluedood
06-23-2013, 07:41 AM
I would like to see more consistent scoring as a gem player, the spread of points on a hit is a bit too random. There should be a bonus when you are able to defeat players way above your level and adds to the scouting strategy for guilds to find good targets. Perhaps for the top levels there should be code added where they get a similar bonus for beating the same level players(180-200) with a stat spread rather than level spread.

Skyraiders
06-23-2013, 09:34 AM
This is a good thread, but I would like to add another factor that seems to be out of place. I am a relatively low level player (lvl 135). Occasionally during the battles I can beat a lvl 200 player. one win I can score 420 pts and then the next win I score 230 pts. So there are two issues I see. 1) Higher level players not scoring well and 2) Inconstant scoring.

It makes it less attractive to spend gems knowing that you can score well one hit and the poorly the next hit. I would like to see some consistent scoring when attacking the same player.

BTW - I hear the highest score hast been 450 pts. Has anyone seen this?

The highest score we have seen was 495 ...I will try to get the screen shot but it is true.......the first war we had a lvl 200 player by the name of Atomis with stats in the 200ks basically he was a punching bag for everyone ....

JPNy
06-23-2013, 10:48 AM
My LLP (level 30) did also 495 against a player level 120 (one time). I couldn't believe my eyes. For my HLP the best score is 450 against level 200 players.

I agree also with the need of more evenness for hits against the same target.

Person
06-23-2013, 10:54 AM
The largest spread I had was between 235 and 425. Made me think it was kinda random.

deuce
06-23-2013, 05:37 PM
The highest score we have seen was 495 ...I will try to get the screen shot but it is true.......the first war we had a lvl 200 player by the name of Atomis with stats in the 200ks basically he was a punching bag for everyone ....

Yeah we remember Atomis!

VileDoom
06-23-2013, 06:39 PM
Wait, the heavyweights want to be rewarded more for fighting in the lightweight division?

Alexius
06-23-2013, 07:23 PM
I've been playing for over a year and am at level 148. Please don't change the system again. Seriously.

1. The 200 level players are still scoring a ton of points and for the most part are members of the top guilds. It's not hurting you, give the field a chance or its not even a game anymore.

2. There needs to be some incentive for lower level players to be a part of the top guilds. If there is an "I was here first so I should be scoring more" mentality to the game why would anyone ever pick this game up?

3. The point discrepancy is marginal. We have all seen point differentials of over 200 points per hit. Being a lower level only increases the likelihood of a big hit, it doesn't guarantee it.

4. We all post here because we get some enjoyment out of the game. Let's play it and have some fun. The good will come with the bad but your enjoyment of the game will ultimately be determined by your attitude towards the challenges that it presents.

Quisp
06-23-2013, 08:27 PM
Hi new to forums posts here but I had to pipe in on this one. Why not just give out escalating xp for boss kills with a ratio higher for lower levels. If you can kill a boss 50 times at lower levels you deserve a massive xp reward right? And also if you can beat a level 200 player and your only level 100 you should get massive cp and massive xp to go with it. Give it a war or two and all things balance out I would think.

But I'm new to this so let me know why this doesn't balance things out in a short time.

procsyzarc
06-23-2013, 08:55 PM
As a L130 with 1.6M attack I get a huge advantage in COK events but even I think the way the scoring in these events is done is crap and needs to change.
The simple solution would be remove the bonus for attacking higher levels, that way low levels still have more options but high levels can still potentially get the same points if they pick their targets

This would mean attacking greater than or equal to your level gives max points (so in my case I would gain no extra points attacking a L200 compared to a L130)while attacking lower than your level gives less points. This would mean low levels would have more options for max points i.e. I could attack L130-200 however I would still get the same points as a L200 that attacks exclusively other L200’s.

To those saying level is directly related to strength this may be true if someone just started playing and only does LTQ’s however don’t forget there are a lot of people who were max level or at least high level well before LTQ’s or COK events were even thought of and then there are people who actually want to play the game do more than just collecting buildings between LTQ’s.

Lord Moore
06-23-2013, 09:01 PM
This to me strikes as bs because I have started a second account and all of a sudden there has been so much more available ltq and also I've seen there's powerful for a start up account units givens just because they joined.

It's great that Gree is trying to provide more opportunity to get better a/d but honestly I think my second account has a much better shot of being higher power just because my first has leveled up so much it seems it can't be saved.

QUOTE=Lord Moore;830914]For playing poorly perhaps. I've been playing for over a year. I'm a level 124 with 1.2M in A/D. It was clear to me in the beginning that if you leveled TOO fast you were at a disadvantage. Having said that, the CP's scoring should be adjusted for the higher level players as I suggested above which avoids penalizing the lower level players that have used a different strategy in PLAYING the game.[/QUOTE]

BS?? I semi-camped for months, bought a few gem units in the beginning to keep rivals off my back, raided selectively for larger payouts, avoided maps, started playing the LTQs when unit stats vastly improved a few months ago, but did not finish them to avoid leveling TOO fast, then have been in a top 10 guild since war1. So, come again?

procsyzarc
06-23-2013, 09:03 PM
I've been playing for over a year and am at level 148. Please don't change the system again. Seriously.

1. The 200 level players are still scoring a ton of points and for the most part are members of the top guilds. It's not hurting you, give the field a chance or its not even a game anymore.

2. There needs to be some incentive for lower level players to be a part of the top guilds. If there is an "I was here first so I should be scoring more" mentality to the game why would anyone ever pick this game up?

3. The point discrepancy is marginal. We have all seen point differentials of over 200 points per hit. Being a lower level only increases the likelihood of a big hit, it doesn't guarantee it.

4. We all post here because we get some enjoyment out of the game. Let's play it and have some fun. The good will come with the bad but your enjoyment of the game will ultimately be determined by your attitude towards the challenges that it presents.

1/ This is your assumption not based on fact.
2/ The point system currently has the reverse affect. How will someone ever get strong enough to get a spot in a top guild if they are trying to avoid xp and therefore skipping events
3/ Again this is your assumption not based on fact. At L130 I score approximately 35% more points than a L200 for the same number of attacks for top guilds this is about 3-5k gem saving, how is that fair?
4/ This is the whole point wouldn’t the game be so much more fun if we could actually play and didn’t have to avoid playing because we are trying to avoid xp

sls
06-23-2013, 09:20 PM
Agreed to totAl wars post, equate something to help hlp.qu

Alexius
06-23-2013, 09:43 PM
1/ This is your assumption not based on fact.
2/ The point system currently has the reverse affect. How will someone ever get strong enough to get a spot in a top guild if they are trying to avoid xp and therefore skipping events
3/ Again this is your assumption not based on fact. At L130 I score approximately 35% more points than a L200 for the same number of attacks for top guilds this is about 3-5k gem saving, how is that fair?
4/ This is the whole point wouldnt the game be so much more fun if we could actually play and didnt have to avoid playing because we are trying to avoid xp

1. I've personally attacked players and gotten 380, 160, 230, 283 for a series
2. They get stronger by the LTE/Q and battles. Eventually they will get strong enough to compete with the big players because they will be a smaller percentage of a/d points behind the,. When you weigh that vs their level they should be able to score more points on a higher level weaker opponent.
3. A lot of what you score is based on luck of the draw. There isn't a fixed amount that you are going to score, just a likelihood of scoring better.
4. It's fun competing. When it's not even competitive and becomes high level or strength players picking on low level strength players it isn't fun anymore. There has to be a more level playing field to keep people interested.

procsyzarc
06-23-2013, 10:04 PM
1. I've personally attacked players and gotten 380, 160, 230, 283 for a series
2. They get stronger by the LTE/Q and battles. Eventually they will get strong enough to compete with the big players because they will be a smaller percentage of a/d points behind the,. When you weigh that vs their level they should be able to score more points on a higher level weaker opponent.
3. A lot of what you score is based on luck of the draw. There isn't a fixed amount that you are going to score, just a likelihood of scoring better.
4. It's fun competing. When it's not even competitive and becomes high level or strength players picking on low level strength players it isn't fun anymore. There has to be a more level playing field to keep people interested.

About to leave for the day but quickly on 1 and 3.

I am testing accross thousands of attacks not just 4 hits like it sounds you are. Over 1000's of attacks a L130 gets aprox 35% more points than a L200. Over enough attaks the random factor is no longer a factor

echus14
06-23-2013, 11:18 PM
Lots of interesting discussions, and some rather unnecessary back-biting, but now, can we hear from GREE please?

leek
06-23-2013, 11:19 PM
I agree with you Alexius. I like the game and I play it strategically. Say for the latest LTQ, I would stop at level 47/50 and not go bashing through the last 3 levels, just to get a whole heap of XP for a jumbo dumbo. That's the strategy part of the game where players tinker whether the stat to XP gain is worthwhile not merely a competition of who has the deepest pockets to finish the LTQs.

I’ve also seen a rejuvenation process currently happening in a couple of the top 10 guilds. In these guilds, there’s a mixture of both youth and experience. By that, I mean a good mix of high level, high stats members and LLPs below L80. This strategy is consistent with the current rules of the game where CP points are level based. I like the way which the leaders of these top guilds are managing their team. Pretty soon, these LLPs will become full fledged powerhouses. The CP point return per gem invested by these LLPs will better that of other guilds which are full of veterans. Unless Gree decides to shift the goal posts.


I've been playing for over a year and am at level 148. Please don't change the system again. Seriously.

1. The 200 level players are still scoring a ton of points and for the most part are members of the top guilds. It's not hurting you, give the field a chance or its not even a game anymore.

2. There needs to be some incentive for lower level players to be a part of the top guilds. If there is an "I was here first so I should be scoring more" mentality to the game why would anyone ever pick this game up?

3. The point discrepancy is marginal. We have all seen point differentials of over 200 points per hit. Being a lower level only increases the likelihood of a big hit, it doesn't guarantee it.

4. We all post here because we get some enjoyment out of the game. Let's play it and have some fun. The good will come with the bad but your enjoyment of the game will ultimately be determined by your attitude towards the challenges that it presents.

tcapi
06-24-2013, 02:08 AM
Here to support Twar.

Namine33
06-24-2013, 02:20 AM
I have to agree with the closer the Attack is to the Defense (regardless of level), the more the CP acquired. Since it is a bit of a gamble when fighting someone 100k with as it is, you should get more points than if you fight someone 800k below you.
I also think you should get more CP if you defensively win against someone who had a higher attack score.

procsyzarc
06-24-2013, 03:04 PM
I agree with you Alexius. I like the game and I play it strategically. Say for the latest LTQ, I would stop at level 47/50 and not go bashing through the last 3 levels, just to get a whole heap of XP for a jumbo dumbo. That's the strategy part of the game where players tinker whether the stat to XP gain is worthwhile not merely a competition of who has the deepest pockets to finish the LTQs.


That is fine but not everyone had the opportunity to make the choice.
People are forgetting for a long period of time there was no penalty to leveling and the optimal strategy would be to level and collect items from maps (back when 100k stats was godlike and a 20/20 unit was a very good farm) so people who played strategically are now being punished for doing so while new players are being rewarded. It is true strategies need to change from time to time but people need to be given the chance to adjust to new strategies, and now the smart move may be to camp and avoid xp gain but that is no use to long term players who have no choice to play strategically now since they have already leveled too much.

For camping to be a real strategy and this system to be defended then everyone should have been given equal chance to take part. If Gree had of come out and said OK from now on we are going to make these changes bosses events which greatly favor low levels and COK events where high levels will get lower points and reset everyone level back to 1, then everyone would have had an equal chance to choose the strategy they wanted to take and people who chose to level would have no grounds to complain. However this did not happen these changes happened when the majority of long term players were already too high a level to benefit. So the long term loyal customers have every right to complain and for this system to be fair they should be given a onetime opportunity to reset their level and choose which strategy they want to take, same holds true but is slightly less vital with skill points.

deuce
06-24-2013, 03:11 PM
I will say again, if points are scored based on the difference* between the attackers Attack stat and the defenders Defense stat, the level issue would become a moot point.

*the closer the two are together, the more points earned in battle for the victor.

Mr Painite
06-24-2013, 03:24 PM
I will say again, if points are scored based on the difference* between the attackers Attack stat and the defenders Defense stat, the level issue would become a moot point.

*the closer the two are together, the more points earned in battle for the victor.

So I should be penalized for putting time/effort/money into quests (raising my stats) instead of being penalized for putting time/effort/money into quests (raising my level)? Makes sense.

jonny0284
06-24-2013, 03:58 PM
We shouldn't be penalized for either.

That's the real argument.

It's a game. There's a line when a player is too far leveled and realizes they have crap stats. But, when a player is playing the game and still building stats and a game's updates are being shot off the sleeve and that player gets the shaft, then that is wrong.

Ultimately, GREE should have kept the high XP and players would have a fork in the road to choose. Take the XP and the prizes, or grab another bag of 'mallows & cheapskatedness and cry with the camp counselor that's just not cool in society. That's it. That's how many people feel this should have turned out.

deuce
06-24-2013, 05:23 PM
So I should be penalized for putting time/effort/money into quests (raising my stats) instead of being penalized for putting time/effort/money into quests (raising my level)? Makes sense.
It was pretty obvious from the start that a game based on levels, that had a hard cap, was prone to have these sorts of problems ... that the early adopters, who have played longer would be "penalized" as new features were rolled out. Some people learned this early and started turtling and camping from the beginning.

At least the option I have offered seems to level the playing field ... what do you suggest?

Besides, why are you being penalized? There are people who run the gamut stat-wise. If you can't find people with stats that make earning points worthwhile, then I would argue you are not a very good gamer.

Shinazueli
06-24-2013, 05:51 PM
It was pretty obvious from the start that a game based on levels, that had a hard cap, was prone to have these sorts of problems ... that the early adopters, who have played longer would be "penalized" as new features were rolled out. Some people learned this early and started turtling and camping from the beginning.

At least the option I have offered seems to level the playing field ... what do you suggest?

Besides, why are you being penalized? There are people who run the gamut stat-wise. If you can't find people with stats that make earning points worthwhile, then I would argue you are not a very good gamer.

He's not saying that you cannot avoid it. He's saying the inherent design of the game play screwing over high level players is a very short sided design prone to failure once a large percentage of the player base hits those high levels.

And, I might add, you can find targets at any level. But when your maximum point hit is around half of a lower level, you are a burden on your guild, because your spot could be taken by a lower level player. And if your stats are anything but awesome, you're also target practice for other guilds, which further places your guild at a disadvantage, because its easier for other guilds to score points. These two CP related level "problems" exacerbate an already existing bias towards LLPs. The developers can insist all day that levelling is not bad. But it doesn't mean a damn thing when it actually is under their own design.

But, lets not forget, nothing will change. They've drawn their line in the sand. They say there are legitimate 60 player guilds. They say levelling up isn't bad. As long as they refuse to admit obvious facts, nothing will change. So lets just enjoy the game, and stop cluttering up the forum with these threads that have no prayer of changing things. The decisions are made in a boardroom at Gree Headquarters. Not here.

deuce
06-24-2013, 07:02 PM
He's saying the inherent design of the game play screwing over high level players is a very short sided design prone to failure once a large percentage of the player base hits those high levels.

I concur. This is something that plagues just about every gaming system with a hard cap, so in that regard KA isn't any different. Some games go with a tiered system so that you cannot directly engage in combat with enemies too far above, or too far below you. Of course that would directly affect the current guild system. I am not sure that there is, in a game like this, a perfect fix. Allowing players a one time reset on level isn't a fair option because I would contend that this issue could be spotted a million miles away from the get go, and there will always be younger players that, with the current stat inflation we see, will always have the advantage.

These two CP related level "problems" exacerbate an already existing bias towards LLPs. The developers can insist all day that levelling is not bad. But it doesn't mean a damn thing when it actually is under their own design.

It used to be that leveling did confer advantages ... It unlocked new buildings which in turn unlocked new monsters. The problem is, Gree hasn't adjusted those accordingly. What they probably should have done when unleashing the new army units, either introduced them through a new building that could only be unlocked at a high level, or added levels to the existing buildings with those levels (and units) only being openable at increasingly higher levels. As it stands, even though the level cap has been raised to 200, you essentially unlock everything at level 50.

Shinazueli
06-24-2013, 07:39 PM
I concur. This is something that plagues just about every gaming system with a hard cap, so in that regard KA isn't any different. Some games go with a tiered system so that you cannot directly engage in combat with enemies too far above, or too far below you. Of course that would directly affect the current guild system. I am not sure that there is, in a game like this, a perfect fix. Allowing players a one time reset on level isn't a fair option because I would contend that this issue could be spotted a million miles away from the get go, and there will always be younger players that, with the current stat inflation we see, will always have the advantage.


It used to be that leveling did confer advantages ... It unlocked new buildings which in turn unlocked new monsters. The problem is, Gree hasn't adjusted those accordingly. What they probably should have done when unleashing the new army units, either introduced them through a new building that could only be unlocked at a high level, or added levels to the existing buildings with those levels (and units) only being openable at increasingly higher levels. As it stands, even though the level cap has been raised to 200, you essentially unlock everything at level 50.

That wouldn't work because gold units don't matter at relevant levels of play. They make up about 5% of my stats and 70% of the actual units. The stat inflation broke the balance of the game. Short term gain, long term pain.

emcee
06-24-2013, 08:26 PM
Even relatively lower level players like myself (60s) can get a wide variance in CP scores of about 200 points attacking the same rival. In our guild we seem to be always trying to analyze whether participating in an event is worthwhile or not. I can finish boss events but I choose not to because I'm trying to stack the cards in my favor when it comes to war. We all work within the same parameters for war and its been like that since the 2nd war in Modern War across all games. This was many months ago. A simple solution is to open up levels to 250 and keep the framework the same other than less variance in scoring as the random factor is too high. However, I'm in the camp that higher level players should be penalized targeting lower because that's the route you took to level up and participated in more events in order to increase stats. Its the same with me attacking blindly a higher level player when scouting; there's a chance I score zero points and give points away to the other team. No where does it say you have to participate in every event. If I was against camping then the only other option is to be as strong a level 200 player as possible. Participate in all events, raid like there's no tomorrow etc. In our guild we sacrificed having some higher level players or suggesting players to slow their leveling. This comes at a cost of unlocking bonuses much more slowly than other top 10 teams. If the entire team had a mandate to raid relentlessly then we can have more bonuses unlocked and have more players come war not to mention additional health bonuses etc. At the end of the day top level 200 centric guilds do have an advantage as well; not so much scoring points but they can make it up with more players in their guild and being able to free hit more often.

Starbuck
06-24-2013, 08:40 PM
Completely agree Totalwar, running into "Camping Guilds" this past war was absolutely retarded. People just park themselves between 75-100 and build stats, which there isn't anything in particular wrong with that, but when my Low level (60) can easily outscore my Level 150 over the course of 4 hits...is just ridiculous.

Far worse, IMHO, is how ridiculously tough boss-fight LTQ are....I can barely get past 10 with Level 150, yes my wife's level 19 - scorched through all 50 with ridiculous ease. I liken this a drug-dealer...I cautioned my wife, you get ONE SHOT to complete the 50-level Boss. ONE. After that, you will not get it that far, without spending serious cash. It designed to get you hooked, and then compel a player to spend gems... You get your "free sample", but next time the dealer expects some cash...Gree is no different.

Zenobia
06-24-2013, 09:06 PM
As a L130 with 1.6M attack I get a huge advantage in COK events but even I think the way the scoring in these events is done is crap and needs to change.
The simple solution would be remove the bonus for attacking higher levels, that way low levels still have more options but high levels can still potentially get the same points if they pick their targets

This would mean attacking greater than or equal to your level gives max points (so in my case I would gain no extra points attacking a L200 compared to a L130)while attacking lower than your level gives less points. This would mean low levels would have more options for max points i.e. I could attack L130-200 however I would still get the same points as a L200 that attacks exclusively other L200s.

To those saying level is directly related to strength this may be true if someone just started playing and only does LTQs however dont forget there are a lot of people who were max level or at least high level well before LTQs or COK events were even thought of and then there are people who actually want to play the game do more than just collecting buildings between LTQs.

THIS! This makes so much sense. It still gives LLP a place in guilds, the ability to shine in them even. But doesn't penalize HLP for playing the game instead of sitting on the sidelines half the time for fear of gaining XP and therefore levels. The way it is now, HLPs are unable, under any circumstances, in any war, to score what LLPs can. Everybody should have the possibility of getting 400+ CP per hit, not ONLY LLP.

travelingsalesman
06-24-2013, 10:17 PM
agree with TW, fix this junk

Totalwar
06-25-2013, 02:47 AM
Sent in a support ticket about cp points for high level players hopefully they fix it.Could everyone who has this problem do this as well as forum support has ignored this thread thanks.

procsyzarc
06-25-2013, 03:42 PM
Sent in a support ticket about cp points for high level players hopefully they fix it.Could everyone who has this problem do this as well as forum support has ignored this thread thanks.

They will just tell you it is too make things fair but don't worry high level players still have a huge advantage overall. If you ask what exactly that advantage is they stop responding

Person
06-26-2013, 02:20 AM
They will just tell you it is too make things fair but don't worry high level players still have a huge advantage overall. If you ask what exactly that advantage is they stop responding
hitting you to get the first boss to spawn was my dumbest mistake ever, i apologize for that.

other than that you do raise a valid point, i totally agree. At the moment CP payout is too random to notice anything other than hitting people 50 levels higher gives a good payout and people below your level give out crap CP. anything else has been totally random so far, i had good payouts from people in the high 130s and bad payouts from people in the high 160s.

Zenobia
06-26-2013, 09:43 AM
At the moment CP payout is too random to notice anything other than hitting people 50 levels higher gives a good payout and people below your level give out crap CP. anything else has been totally random so far, i had good payouts from people in the high 130s and bad payouts from people in the high 160s.

Agree. The in CP and in PvE is way too large. Which is an issue, but a different one entirely from the now-established fact that in guild wars, players are penalized points for being high level. Both I believe should be addressed by Gree.

If they would even just pop in here and ADMIT that being a high level equates to being penalized in terms of being unable to get average CP similar to a LLP, no matter who the opponent, and say that they were looking at ways to remove that leveling penalty, I think a lot of us would feel better about the game, and more likely to feed Gree more money. (I always add that last part to make their ears perk up. ;) But it's true.)

Chingachgook
06-26-2013, 10:24 PM
I was of the same opinion until today. The guild quests should even things out a bit. High level players are more valuable in these quests since they have greater HS, have gone through more quests and had more opportunities to win good attack equipment, and have more energy to use when at full energy. If GREE increases CP for high level players after today, there will be very little incentive for guilds to roster low level players. Lower level players must now spend gems to score well in guild quests, while higher level players must spend gems to post good scores in CoK events. Seems fair to me.

Totalwar
06-26-2013, 11:59 PM
I was of the same opinion until today. The guild quests should even things out a bit. High level players are more valuable in these quests since they have greater HS, have gone through more quests and had more opportunities to win good attack equipment, and have more energy to use when at full energy. If GREE increases CP for high level players after today, there will be very little incentive for guilds to roster low level players. Lower level players must now spend gems to score well in guild quests, while higher level players must spend gems to post good scores in CoK events. Seems fair to me.

I sorry but I disagree with this everyone should get the same chance of getting the same amount of CP points available.

Shinazueli
06-27-2013, 12:19 AM
I sorry but I disagree with this everyone should get the same chance of getting the same amount of CP points available.

The key piece of (missing) information is the relative value of the rewards from the Guild LTQ. If they are at least as valuable as the ones from Guild Wars then I'd call it balanced overall. LLPs have the advantage during Battles and boss events and HLPs have the advantage during LTQs and guild Quests. It all depends on how the rewards look.

You do have to look at the entire game before making judgments. Battles are only one piece of it.

Totalwar
06-27-2013, 01:01 AM
The key piece of (missing) information is the relative value of the rewards from the Guild LTQ. If they are at least as valuable as the ones from Guild Wars then I'd call it balanced overall. LLPs have the advantage during Battles and boss events and HLPs have the advantage during LTQs and guild Quests. It all depends on how the rewards look.

You do have to look at the entire game before making judgments. Battles are only one piece of it.

But you don't have the chance of being kicked out of your guild because you cant make the minimum amount of CP your guild has set. We talking about guild wars anyway not other quests. Having played for over a year and being at a high level should not be a disadvantage should be rewarded.

Person
06-27-2013, 01:02 AM
But you don't have the chance of being kicked out of your guild because you cant make the minimum amount of CP your guild has set. We talking about guild wars anyway not other quests. Having played for over a year and being at a high level should not be a disadvantage should be rewarded.
right now it is. IF you camped until LTQ's came out and then went all out on them.

Shinazueli
06-27-2013, 05:59 PM
But you don't have the chance of being kicked out of your guild because you cant make the minimum amount of CP your guild has set. We talking about guild wars anyway not other quests. Having played for over a year and being at a high level should not be a disadvantage should be rewarded.

And I'm saying you cannot focus solely on one event out of four. I'm assuming that some guilds are going to have to adjust their membership requirements in order to account for game changes. If yours doesn't, that's not Gree's problem. A suggestion would be a minimum contribution summed between CPs and guild points.

Totalwar
07-01-2013, 04:51 AM
Reply from Gree regarding this issue.



, Jun 30 03:01 (PDT):
Hello ,

Thank you for contacting Gree Support. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused to you. We always appreciate hearing our players' comments or suggestions on our games, as that is how we improve for the future. I've passed your ideas along to our development team to review and see what best can be done regarding this issue.

Thank you very much for gaming with us!

Regards,


Team GREE

Skyraiders
07-01-2013, 05:39 AM
They will just tell you it is too make things fair but don't worry high level players still have a huge advantage overall. If you ask what exactly that advantage is they stop responding

actually there are advantages to being a high level player....so while i hate to admit it gree is correct in this respect.

For instance a higher level player has more skill points and depending on how you allocated them could be an advantage
Higher level players start each LTQ and LTE with higher amount of energy. which is now an advantage for all the LTQ and LTE events
Higher level players see a much bigger battle pool...giving you an advantage to pick and choose your targets. This can be done in any pool but all i am saying is it is bigger pool

These are some off the top of the head.......However

When it comes to CP .....there is no arguement to be made ....higher level players are getting screwed. you gain less cps the higher you climb. Why? i dont have the perfect answer but this fact has been proven time and again.......for many of us that have two accounts we can confirm these FACTS.

you dont even need two accounts just take notice to your guilds CPs before the end of the war. The last war we had a player that out scored me in CP with aprox....85 less wins. He out scored me by 20k CPs..i think maybe slightly more. He is also 30 levels below me. My point has been made by the other "hundreds" of people in this thread and others. Some of you will actually get the "hundreds" reference.

So GREE since ""hundreds" of people are complaining about this .....shouldnt we see some kind of change. I mean you changed the XP in mid event because of it ........WELL!!!! If the shoe fits!!!!

Sirius/CJ any new information on this would be great!!

klevito
07-01-2013, 09:46 PM
It puzzles me how often it happens for people to go so close to a 6ftx9ft painting that your nose is almost touching the canvas to see a painting and come out and tell you a very "strong" opinion of what the painting is about.

"No sir, i believe the two cows laying next to each other were a poor attempt at making a case on behlaf of the lesbians" - says the visitor

- Wtf? It was just a large painting of the Alps at sunset. Just tree, and snow and mountain and nature. The animals were there as part of the whole scene. The cows were an inch big on the painting......... (if you had stayed 8ft far from it)

Such is the case made here by those who claim that CP - Level relation is bad.
As Shinauzeli said, it's the result that affects one of the 4-5 major events. What happened to the use of brain, strategy and decision making?
The game already requires a very low IQ to be succesful. What you are asking is for the game to be able to be played by a lizard and having no way to screw up.

There are advantages to being higher level and there advantages to being lower level. Which way to go?

Because of the CP, some players are thinking twice before deciding if the XP gained for a quest is worth the difference of CP due to leveling higher. People are asking about the spreadsheet links, coming to the forums to collect more information before making the calculations how far to go on a quest.

Let's get rid of that thinking process and play a game where "click,click,click ....." as nothing else matters

leek
07-02-2013, 12:22 AM
Well said klevito. The introduction of the guild quests has, in my view, balanced the game for both HLPs and LLPs. I don't see why people are still arguing for equality. You've got it already. If your guild is assessing your membership renewal based on CP points alone then sorry, they are too myopic. You should tell them that!

Totalwar
07-02-2013, 10:16 AM
Can we get back on track please.i created this thread to talk about the CP count that high level players get compared to low level players.If you read though this thread your see my point is confirmed that high level players get much reduced CP points compared to any other level.All I asking for is a fair crack of the whip as other players are getting.As mostly a free player if this carrys on then a lot of high level players will no longer be able to take part in top 50 guild as there CP level will be too low no matter how many hours you put in.

Person
07-02-2013, 10:20 AM
Can we get back on track please.i created this thread to talk about the CP count that high level players get compared to low level players.If you read though this thread your see my point is confirmed that high level players get much reduced CP points compared to any other level.All I asking for is a fair crack of the whip as other players are getting.As mostly a free player if this carrys on then a lot of high level players will no longer be able to take part in top 50 guild as there CP level will be too low no matter how many hours you put in. this is probably the reason why many top guilds hold a few very low levels, to get guild rewards so the very high level medium stat players can start anew

leek
07-02-2013, 03:34 PM
Can we get back on track please.i created this thread to talk about the CP count that high level players get compared to low level players.If you read though this thread your see my point is confirmed that high level players get much reduced CP points compared to any other level.All I asking for is a fair crack of the whip as other players are getting.As mostly a free player if this carrys on then a lot of high level players will no longer be able to take part in top 50 guild as there CP level will be too low no matter how many hours you put in.

You can't look at this in isolation just like what kletivo had in his analogy . I don't think all top 50 guilds use CP count as the sole determining factor. Impress them with what else you can contribute.

klevito
07-02-2013, 05:19 PM
As mostly a free player if this carrys on then a lot of high level players will no longer be able to take part in top 50 guild as there CP level will be too low no matter how many hours you put in.

We have a couple of high level/low CP players in my top 25 guild.
One puts hours into leadership, recruitment etc. So significant his work is that the guild would not exchange hi for a 2-300k CP player

Another one has been with the guild since the start and brings a good vibe with his humour. High level, low CP and earned 120k CP in all 5 wars combined together. He is very much appreciated for his loyalty and the good mood he brings.

It's not all about CP

Shinazueli
07-02-2013, 07:31 PM
And, once again, you cannot focus on one event. You must look at the entire game. And now I'll shamelessly spam my guild in my signature, because we now need a few HLPs to grunt through these guild quests. See what I did there? HLPs now have a reason to be in a guild.

procsyzarc
07-02-2013, 09:07 PM
I was of the same opinion until today. The guild quests should even things out a bit. High level players are more valuable in these quests since they have greater HS, have gone through more quests and had more opportunities to win good attack equipment, and have more energy to use when at full energy. If GREE increases CP for high level players after today, there will be very little incentive for guilds to roster low level players. Lower level players must now spend gems to score well in guild quests, while higher level players must spend gems to post good scores in CoK events. Seems fair to me.

Higher level players should be rewarded for leveling and players should want to proggress. Having played 100's games where you level for progress over the 16 years Gree games are the first ones I can think of where players are not rewarded for leveling and level doesn't directly link to strength

procsyzarc
07-02-2013, 09:10 PM
You can't look at this in isolation just like what kletivo had in his analogy . I don't think all top 50 guilds use CP count as the sole determining factor. Impress them with what else you can contribute.

Can't speak for 11-40 but top 10 or at least top 5 cp is the main factor, guild quests are a given and so is everything else, in top guilds the only thing that matters is how much cp can a person put up to reduce the costs of other members

Shinazueli
07-02-2013, 09:38 PM
Can't speak for 11-40 but top 10 or at least top 5 cp is the main factor, guild quests are a given and so is everything else, in top guilds the only thing that matters is how much cp can a person put up to reduce the costs of other members

Sure. And then there's the other 99% of us. Where CP isn't the only game in town.

klevito
07-02-2013, 10:30 PM
Can't speak for 11-40 but top 10 or at least top 5 cp is the main factor, guild quests are a given and so is everything else, in top guilds the only thing that matters is how much cp can a person put up to reduce the costs of other members

top 10 or at least top 5 as you say (and know) have a common pool for buying gems to get the maximum bonus. They are placed in one, two or few accounts of high attack/low level who do the hits. Everyone chips in with cash, few seleceted collect the points on behalf of them.

A level 30 player with 80k attack who can attack nothing else but walls and chip in with 2k $ will have the doors wide open in any top 5, unlike the poor soul who created this thread. To the top 10 or 5 it is no longer the case of how many CP. It is about how many $$$.
Let's not confuse CP, level and money in a merry-go-round. very different thing.

Person
07-02-2013, 10:45 PM
top 10 or at least top 5 as you say (and know) have a common pool for buying gems to get the maximum bonus. They are placed in one, two or few accounts of high attack/low level who do the hits. Everyone chips in with cash, few seleceted collect the points on behalf of them.

A level 30 player with 80k attack who can attack nothing else but walls and chip in with 2k $ will have the doors wide open in any top 5, unlike the poor soul who created this thread. To the top 10 or 5 it is no longer the case of how many CP. It is about how many $$$.
Let's not confuse CP, level and money in a merry-go-round. very different thing.

This. And don't forget the wall hitters, as a top 50 guild going as free as possible wall hitters are super important to our success!

leek
07-02-2013, 11:24 PM
Sure. And then there's the other 99% of us. Where CP isn't the only game in town.

I vaguely remembered seeing an IGN of procsyzarc in FUN. Strange that CP points would be a concern to anyone in that guild who are outplaying any guild remotely close to them. Damn...wish my pockets were deep. I am one of the many in the 99% beneath the gods of this game.

Almost There
07-03-2013, 05:59 AM
I have to say this is the dumbest strategy ever. This is basically giving away the fun of playing the game to someone else. Why even play if you're just going to give someone else the money to have the fun for you? My mind is boggled by this top 5 pooling method.
The person giving their money away to the pool is basically saying "here, take my money and play the game for me. I'll just watch or come back when you're done to see the result of how you did". Wow...


top 10 or at least top 5 as you say (and know) have a common pool for buying gems to get the maximum bonus. They are placed in one, two or few accounts of high attack/low level who do the hits. Everyone chips in with cash, few seleceted collect the points on behalf of them.

A level 30 player with 80k attack who can attack nothing else but walls and chip in with 2k $ will have the doors wide open in any top 5, unlike the poor soul who created this thread. To the top 10 or 5 it is no longer the case of how many CP. It is about how many $$$.
Let's not confuse CP, level and money in a merry-go-round. very different thing.

Zenobia
07-03-2013, 08:25 AM
While I agree that the new guild quests do some to balance the game in making HLPs more valuable to a guild than there were previously, I still think that overall, the game still favors LLPs more.

As far as questing goes, yes a HLP is more likely to have more hero strength and therefore do more damage with each hit. And at the beginning of the day, yes, they wake up with more energy. But they refill energy at the same rate as a LLP with the same bonuses, so that advantage is very limited IMO - it only makes a difference when you wake up. The rest of the day, it's equal. Also, while HLP have more skill points, even assuming they put them all or most into HS, that is negated by the fact that their maps are much more likely to be a higher level, whose mobs who have more hit points. I believe that cancels out the potential extra hero strength.

And I'm going to add to the thread discussing the "value" of HS and hero equipment but suffice it to say my studies on it have shown that every increase in weapon/armor attack value is worth 3x as much as every +1 to HS. Or, put another way, a weapon that increases your attack by 10 is the equivalent of gaining 20 levels and putting every single one of those skill points into HS.

So IMO, at the end of the day, the "advantage" a HLP has over a LLP in regards to quests amounts to only that they start the day with more energy. I don't believe this comes anywhere close to balancing out the advantage a LLP has in terms of CPs during war. The previous suggestion that players all have the potential to score CPs in the 400s, by hitting near their own level or higher, but all players are penalized for hitting a lower level player than themselves is the only thing that makes sense to me. That it is impossible for a very HLP player to average even 100 CPs under what a LLP can, to me is unfair.

Shinazueli
07-03-2013, 08:36 AM
While I agree that the new guild quests do some to balance the game in making HLPs more valuable to a guild than there were previously, I still think that overall, the game still favors LLPs more.

As far as questing goes, yes a HLP is more likely to have more hero strength and therefore do more damage with each hit. And at the beginning of the day, yes, they wake up with more energy. But they refill energy at the same rate as a LLP with the same bonuses, so that advantage is very limited IMO - it only makes a difference when you wake up. The rest of the day, it's equal. Also, while HLP have more skill points, even assuming they put them all or most into HS, that is negated by the fact that their maps are much more likely to be a higher level, whose mobs who have more hit points. I believe that cancels out the potential extra hero strength.

And I'm going to add to the thread discussing the "value" of HS and hero equipment but suffice it to say my studies on it have shown that every increase in weapon/armor attack value is worth 3x as much as every +1 to HS. Or, put another way, a weapon that increases your attack by 10 is the equivalent of gaining 20 levels and putting every single one of those skill points into HS.

So IMO, at the end of the day, the "advantage" a HLP has over a LLP in regards to quests amounts to only that they start the day with more energy. I don't believe this comes anywhere close to balancing out the advantage a LLP has in terms of CPs during war. The previous suggestion that players all have the potential to score CPs in the 400s, by hitting near their own level or higher, but all players are penalized for hitting a lower level player than themselves is the only thing that makes sense to me. That it is impossible for a very HLP player to average even 100 CPs under what a LLP can, to me is unfair.

Zeno, a couple points.

Below level 90, the energy advantage is *distinct* because you aren't purchasing a full refill. Even up to level 100 it's likely that you are wasting some energy if you aren't low enough, which comes into play at the end of the LTQ when it takes 200+ energy to swing and you end up with 150 energy and not enough time to wait for efficiency when it will take 20 refills to kill the boss. Also, having a lower energy bar means that you will almost always over cap your energy overnight, or if you go more than a few hours without checking the game.

For the rest, in order for a LLP to make as much contribution as my mid 120s toon, it will take them on average two to three times what I spent, when you figure that they hit for half what I do and have half the energy. Comparing this with the fact that they will on average score 50 to 100% more CPs than me for the same target(not even accounting for the fact that they probably can't attack the same target), and it seems ok to me. I suspect the upcoming raid boss will skew it further in favor of HLPs, give that it's likely to be based on raw stats.

Finally, I didn't even touch experience gain. Given a LLP and a HLP, the LLP will be forced to gain both more experience and require less experience to level. And seeing as they are LLPs it's likely that they are low level by choice, and the experience is generally viewed as a cost.

So, I call it balanced. And I'm almost a HLP. YMMV.