Another solution: make the match bonus what sounds like: # of matches. The more matches the higher the match score. Combos would not apply here limiting the need to farm for a combo board. This would also require some strategy to balance time score and # of matches. This would limit the need for a 1 move lucky board because it would be a plus to make more moves
Vote for what? Different levels of reward tiers or how to set up tiers for rewards? Original post was about lack of rewards worth playing for. I’m fine with current rewards because I dont have squat lol. Would like vote on making it more attractive to have players think that have a chance to compete.
I wouldn’t say so. You can save World Energy flasks in a time between events. However, I don’t know how many flasks @Kerridoc used during this event, but I’m sure that if you don’t have a goal to win each and every event, you can accumulate free flasks for some of say every next event.
In my understanding a problem is a bit different. There is a clear incentive to complete an Epic or Legendary event (some unfarmable items and tokens), but then there is a huge gap between the goal to just complete all levels and complete them well.
In the Epic quest you need to be in the first 1500 in order to get a valuable price. Taking in account that there is about 500K participants it means that less than 1% of players can expect something. Will the rest of them put an effort in jumping high enough? I doubt they will.
There are multiple ways to base a balancing act on if we agree that these events need a change in order to become more attractive for a bigger part of the player base.
To me it depends on the goals SG has with these events. I am not sure what they are right now, but I will assume they currently are:
1) A very competitive (between players) feature in order to reward a small group of players with very valuable rewards. These rewards quickly become less valuable as a player ends up in a lower ranking category. This ensures that certain players will invest in World Energy Refills, once their collected WE Flasks stock runs empty. This is a source of income for SG. These “winners” become popular and act as an example for many other players. Having an idol or someone to look up at often causes people to have the desire to follow them into their footsteps. In order to do so, spending money will make this a little easier. Another source of income for SG.
2) In general the Event-, Monthly-, and some Atlantis-heroes are better than the normal heroes. The players who try hard for these events have been playing for quite some time now. It is likely that they have a number of these types of heroes and that they will use them. The feature that shows the heroes used by the top players ensures that other players compare themselves and their chances with it. This can ensure that players are persuaded to invest money in order to summon these heroes and to convince them to fight with the top when they have these heroes.
3. A feature that gives the daily grind a purpose and brings variety to the game. This ensures that players commit themselves more quickly to the game.
4. A feature that guarantees us necessary Ascension Materials (and more of them if we get a good score) in order to improve our heroes.
Introducing multiple categories (Rare, Epic, Legendary) does however indicate that the target group consists of players who have been playing for a while and that SG wants almost everyone to participate in the category that they can complete. SG rewards everyone for their participation, even if it was only one failed attempt in each category.
This tells me that participation of each player in the event is desirable, but that this is not the main goal. Regardless of what their main goals are, if they cause a large group of players to feel disappointed it will never lead to more participation and more success.
So, I think much more can be achieved from these events by adjusting their design. This can be done in multiple ways, correct me if I forgot one:
- Improve the rewards (quanitity - quality)
- Broaden the ranking categories (1-10, 11-100 etc. - examples)
- Improve the scores mechanics (@Uclapack mentioned them in this post Balancing the Challenge Event rewards and provided us with a few solutions, which may or may not be sufficient enough)
- Change the competitive aspect between players to a competitive aspect with themselves.
Or a combination of the above.
I would favor a combination of number 3 and 4, as I think that competing with yourself gives you much healthier measure of success. How exactly is something I have no detailed thoughts about, yet. Perhaps I’ll think of them and write them down later.
But by doing so the players get a better sense of what they are capable of. They are able to create a way that works for them in order to achieve what they have defined as their own success. Many more players will be satisfied and that only has good consequences for SG.
It also has the benefit that people such at @Wharflord won’t have the feeling to stop their motion once they have beat the other players in one of the categories. It is a lovely gesture, but to me it would be nicer if this doesn’t have to cross their mind as I would always grant them all the success.
Any change that would be made has to take in account that the ''gap between F2P/C2P and P2W players" does not (significantly) become bigger. A difficult issue, but one to think about.
I think you hit the nail on the head when stating that it took 12 moves to win epic. I had many stages where all I did was 1 move as well. Those are some insane boards. Is making 1 move really talent though? We’ve made these events a joke just skipping to find the better board. Does this really showcase the best of the best or the lucky and the luckiest? I do it to, you have to if you want to place high but there has got to be a better solution. Scoring the number of moves I think is my best solution so that one is penalized for only making one move. The health factor would play more of a factor if one is making multiple moves as well.
I’m trying to come up with ideas, seeing the same people in the top ten get the most rewards for mastering the flee button (myself included) is boring. Increasing the reward tiers or making them score based still does not change the fact that it takes no skill to move one tile and unload items. I’d like to see these challenges become more skill based.
I didn’t keep an exact count, but I used about 150 WE flasks / refills.
Wow, there goes my chance to place at all in top 10. Anyway, congrats on your panther!
Ok… what about about gems or something and world flask rewards for the number of plays?
5 plays… 2 gems
10 plays… 2 gems
50 plays… 2gems + world flask
75 plays… epic troop token
100 plays… epic hero token
Would be an incentive for people play, maybe even pay to get more world energy to reach 100 or higher.
Also, if people flee, they just waste world energy. Dont think that would be an issue.
What everyone think about random PVP encounters vs your closes ranked player during events? This could be interesting to intergrate…
And that’s the issue—why should that level,of investment be needed? Can we make this more skill-based?
It’s really hard to think of a system that can’t be min/maxed, but here’s one thought:
Have a finite number of replays, but everyone gets the same boards and the same series of tile drops. Make the number low, say 3. Your master score for the level is the average score across those three boards.
Do not make the boards available in beta. Preset them to be interesting.
This approach is similar to contract bridge tournaments. It works great on bridge because everyone is playing the same hand at the same time, so you can’t learn. In E&P each board would become known through Line groups, etc. so it’s not perfect. Better? Maybe.
Perhaps instead there could be a limited series of boards - maybe 200, that fall in a small range of potential scores/difficulty. Enough to make it very hard to identify the patterns in real time but not too many to test. The library of boards could be added to over time as new ones are tested. Perhaps ones that have been recognized and exploited (max scores by a suspiciously high number) could be retired.
This is how I initially assumed the match bonus was calculated. I attempted to bring a beefy healer heavy line-up in an attempt to stay alive indefinitely, forgo the time bonus and get an enormous match bonus. Needless to say it was a waste of WE.
I play events almost exclusively for the 4* mats awarded for top 1-10. Certain heroes are worth fighting for, but winning a tier is many times harder than placing top 10.
I totally agree that challenge events rewards need to be improved; or the whole scoring system needs an overhaul. As I see it, there are two separate but related issues.
The rewards beyond completion just aren’t worthwhile unless you can place top 10, or maybe top 100 if you need the 3* mats offered there. The other reward tiers barely offer enough crafting materials and tokens to cover the cost of items and energy needed to place, let alone the heroes required to compete. There needs to be a valuable incentive for everyone to try and improve their scores, either by giving non-farmable ascension materials to many more placers, or by creating a point-based reward system instead of the placement based system we have currently.
Winning events has come back to rng as @Uclapack and @Kerridoc were talking about previously. Fewer than a dozen players have monopolized the top spot, shutting everyone else out. Simultaneously, we are all of similar enough skill and the game is so heavily based on rng that we’re not actually competing head to head, but rather throwing money at SG hoping for a perfect board. This isn’t very fun for us, and it’s definitely not healthy for the game. This could be fixed by giving out all rewards based on raw points, not placement. Another solution would be to Hall-of-Fame winning players. We could still compete in upcoming events, but our scores would not displace other players. I.E. if @Xero786, @Dator, @Uclapack, @Kerridoc, @JimMe, Pandemic Disease, Antiseptic, any other past winners, or I won a tier then the 2nd place person would also collect the 1st place rewards and be added to the hall of fame, while the 3rd-11th places would recieve the 2-10th place rewards, etc. This would constantly let new players vie for the top spots without punishing people for winning.
It’s not about the lack of rewards, it’s about how the top players get all of the GOOD rewards while everyone else who can’t compete at the same level gets nonsense. The rewards should be more evenly dispersed.
Been keeping up with all of these various threads and that’s brilliant (each stage has a unique starting board that is the same board for everyone) but it still creates issues because there ultimately becomes an infinite amount of variables with each tile choice that cant be programmed. So subsequent tiles will still have to be random. You also have the issue of different hero rosters that cause different amounts of damage.
Still, this sounds like a great starting point to get rid of pure luck/infinitely re-trying a level until you get the perfect board. Limiting the amount of times you can retry may be the solution to the inevitable randomness of subsequent tiles as well.
That’s why I said “and the same random seed”. Here’s how I’m guessing things work: at the start of a fight you are handed a board and a random seed for the internal RNG that generates replacement tiles. Effectively that seed determines an ordered stack of tiles, and each time a tile is needed on the board, the top tile on the stack is drawn to fill it. Thus if the boards are the same and the seed is the same, if you and I do exactly the same move then our boards will still be identical after that move.
Thank you. The situation is even worst then I could imagine. I thought that amount of used flasks is 10 times less. I was naive.
150? Definitely time to change the system. Even when everybody is spending like a whale, it’s not possible for most of us to win ever.
Do you know what time it is? It’s hammer time, I mean changing time
just so we are clear, people often overestimate the effect high level troops have. while i’ve spent money, i’ve never spent on troop feeders. on both my accounts my primary set of troops is in the level 18-20 range and the difference beteeen that and level 30 is 2-5% in each of the stat adds. That’s non trivial but not super big. Most of the value of a 4 star troop just comes from having a 4 star troop.