Rating needs to be fixed, like, yesterday

Discussion in 'Bugs / Suggestions / Support' started by Cyberaddict, Jun 17, 2020.

?

Do you think the rating system needs to be fixed?

Yes, ASAP - it's a real problem 6 vote(s) 66.7%
Yes, but not top priority 2 vote(s) 22.2%
No, I sincerely think it's fine 1 vote(s) 11.1%
No, because I like abusing it 0 vote(s) 0.0%
  1. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Good debate and conversation. I should have my EA organize all of these comments. Don't know what I'd do without her lol but I'll try.
    The Ambush tactic is more so for those with sniper rifles (robe wearing warriors are highly susceptible). But in general make sure that after a solo captain attacks one of your warriors, that warrior can either attack back and kill or move away so others can shoot.

    The reason why I can't agree with this is I can kill solo captains with my non-solo warbands at similar rating level. I've done it many, many times in PVP. This is based on actual experience not theory.

    One thing we just need to ensure is that we don't punish the player who uses a efficient levelling pathway because the player who didn't has a hard time. For example, let's say Player A and B both have 4 warriors who just gained 2 levels. Player A puts both of those skill points in increasing attacks which then pumps up the rating significantly. Player B puts those 2 levels in WS. Now when they match up, player B will get the underdog bonus but still has a chance to win because he has a higher WS and better chance to hit. Should we punish player B because Player A made an unwise decision?

    This logic applies with starting out as a solo warband. I do this with all my new warbands because quickly levellling up one character is the most efficient way to create a pathway towards a full warband imo. Then I would slowly add members when a good one appears in the tavern. But even if one did appear early on, I'd probably have him hide in the background and let my captain get the kills to level up first. So if those players using a solo warband just add 2-7 more warriors and have them hide in the background, would that make it fair since technically they are no longer a solo warband right?
    CzaRus likes this.
  2. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I've thought a lot about this rating problem lately. To make it clear : I don't condemn anyone for taking the most out of the system we're dealing with. The solo strategies, including hiring but not leveling henchmen, are part of this system. As are the strategies involving Pistoliers and Skaven Ninjas.

    However, I'm 100% certain this system is broken and that it needs to be fixed. No pairing system should matchup a Warband against another that can't be defeated (extreme RNG variance set aside), yet this is what happens when any fair Warband gets matched up against the unfair strategies. This gets worse when said unfair strategies are notoriously played by good players that know the game (high Initiative, delay actions, etc.).

    In my mind, it is as important to fix the flyers, pistoliers, Skaven and giant axe, as it is to fix the Solo builds. It is unnatural to have a Level 30 Captain (rating 103) to be considered of the same power as others with same rating. I know, I've built such a Warband (Assassin for hire) and tested it undefeated in PvP (where I play 90% of my games).

    What triggered me, when I played my Solo Warband, is this : most victories come from disconnects, as opponents rage quit. I never got as much (2-3 times more) when playing my other Warbands, even unfair ones. What this tells me is that Solo builds are not only unfair, but perceived as being so unfair that players just don't want to play the game when they get paired against them.

    For the sake of this game's longevity, this problem needs to be fixed, or the players base will constantly be erroded by legitimate players who know how to exploit a broken system. To a lesser extent, the same could be said of the flyers, pistoliers and Skaven.

    Suggestions :
    1. Flying should be restricted. This spell not only breaks Hunt scenarios, but also Solo-hit-n-runners. The game itself prevents a unit to move after an attack, even if the attacked unit was adjacent to begin with. Flying breaks this rule, and is the #1 reason why Solos are so unfair in combat (no need for armor, elven cloak or even lucky charm ; perfect defence is denying opponent's ability to attack at all). Some ways of restricting Fly spells : reduce the casting chance so that it caps, at best, at 90% ; or penalty to casting chances when casting after having attacked ; or only allow this spell to be cast before combat ; and (not or) limit to one of each kind the number of Hired Swords in a Warband.
    2. Fix the rating of Pistoliers and Star Throwers. Wether it's Humans Pistoliers (I've tested with Witch Hunters) or Skaven with dual Warplock Pistols or Throwing Stars, these are very OP for their rating. It's not the skills or the weapons the problem. It's how little impact they have on the rating, considering they give A+2. A Skaven can throw 3 shurikens per round at point blank (range 1, like melee) and ignore opponent's high WS. The Pistoliers get 2 attacks at short range or 3 attacks in melee (plus the flexibility of switching target if the first goes down). Best way to fix these problems is to increase the rating value of these weapons when they're equipped by a skilled unit (re : a Skaven who can't yet throw 3 shurikens per round shouldn't be rated very high).
    3. Some weapons and skills have a too big impact on rating, and these should be fixed.
      1. For example, my Marienburgers (League of Justice) are rated 1289 with sniper rifles (6 units out of 8), but 689 when I replace them with elven bow. I admit they're more powerful configured that way, but not by that much. Fixing this problem gets tricky, however, as I think the Warband is somewhat fairly rated at 1289, but underrated at 689. Thus, the sniper rifles should have a lesser impact of rating, but range skills should have a higher impact.
      2. As Shangeroo also said in another post, the Great Axe almost doubles the rating value of a unit, which is wrong.
      3. Getting A+1 shouldn't double a unit's value, as it is currently the case. Fair Warbands quickly get their rating to the roof because of this, and this hurts them more than it helps (because they'll get matched up against an opposition they can't handle yet). Not only should A+1 be rated a bit lower, but the impact of rating on each skills should be readily available. This, to avoid mistakes. Also, paying 1 Fate to reset the skill points would help players fix their Warbands (and be a source of income for LG). Finally, the solution to this problem may also be a combination of rating revision and skill restriction : instead of WS 40 as prerequisite for A+1, it could be raised to WS 50.
    4. To fix the problem of units hoarding skill points (emulating the Solo build in a non-solo Warband), they shouldn't be able to go on missions if they have 2+ unspent skill points than the unit with the least unspent points. For example : if Captain has zero unspent points, only units with 1 unspent point can go on missions ; but if the unit with the least unspent points has 5, then all units with 6 or less unspent points can go on missions (this to allow a Warband to deliberately and uniformally slow down its progress). NOTE : It's fair and legitimate to hoard some skill points, particularly when you want to train a Captain in Magic and waiting to find that Tome. The proposed solution allows some flexibility to that end.
    5. Finally, rating should be calculted in two steps :
      1. Check what the rating of each individual unit is.
      2. If a unit is worth more than 50% of the Warband's rating, then the total rating of the Warband should suffer a multiplier that is increasingly higher the closer you get to 100%. For example, a Solo is worth 100% of the rating, and should thus get a x3 multiplier on final rating ; a Vampire in a 2 or 3 units Warband is worth 75% and should get a x2 multiplier. The multiplier should exponentially increase, to avoid breaking a Warband that accidently took a skill to put one unit at 51 or 52%.
      3. I know this rule will affect solo and concentrated Warbands. But TT Mordheim is supposed to be a 3-men minimum Warbands, and we know for sure how unfun it is for the community to try and develop teams in an environment where Solos thrive and reap all the rewards (because they win as Underdog, which leaves the other Warband with NOTHING). But instead of banning Solos altogether, I think such a fix to rating would naturally match Solos against Warbands that can probably enjoy the challenge.
    CzaRus likes this.
  3. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Developers : Note that these suggestions in no way fix the problem of some maps in PvP. Too many maps in Treasure Hunt are disgustingly biased toward one player or the other. I already suggested elsewhere that the triangle of Team A, Team B and Treasure should be equilateral, to create opportunities for slow teams to rush to the exit instead of to the Treasure, to intercept carrier on the way back.

    No matter how hard you work on the rating system, if you don't also fix the maps, we'll never have a really enjoyable PvP experience.
    CzaRus likes this.
  4. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Sorry, I don't want to flood the forum, but I feel more needs to be added, and fear it will go unnoticed if I just edit the above post...
    1. I've edited the last phrase of #1 above to "limit to one of each kind the number of Hired Swords in a Warband" (instead of just Warlocks). Indeed, I feel the game will only be better if Hired Swords are limited so that Warbands don't become twisted and remote versions of what they're supposed to be (all-casters Undead or Mercs, Ogre Sisters, all Elven Witch Hunters that use magic, etc.).
    2. Some weapons, like dual pistols and throwing stars, are OP mid-game. Their rating needs to be fixed, of course. But these same weapons do not transition well into the late game because Defence value usually gets very high. Thus, their high rating will be disproportionate in the late game if Defence is not fixed. I think the solution lies in giving a higher rating value to Defence. This value could be exponential, so that the impact of having 80 Defence is not double that of 40, but triple. Indeed, 80 Defence will soak three times more damage than 40 Defence would do (at 80, one rolls only 20% of WS for damage, while at 40, one rolls 60% of WS for damage). Thus, the need for an exponential Defence value in the rating formula.
    3. Also, for the sake of game balance, either the rating formula needs to take into account the exceptional stats of certain lucky Henchmen (because all are not born equal ; but that is the most complex solution), or make stats standard for all units.
      • I much prefer standard stats on Henchmen and Hired Swords. That way, we won't have to wait anymore to hire our units.
      • This will encourage players away from the Solo builds right from the start, and make it easier to develop our Warbands (as is supposed to be the goal of Mordheim).
      • It will make it easier to design the rating formula is all things are equal.
    Making these changes to Hired Swords can hurt LG's income, and that's not the intended consequence. I can't say for certain that fixing this issue will expand the players base and thus the income, in the end. But it's possible this will happen. If LG fears for its income, I propose some new income sources be added at the same time (like paying Fate to reset skill points, etc.). Also, I must say that I would probably pay more Fate to customize the skins of my units if certain price are reduced (really, 10 Fate for just a skin?). Lowering these prices could increase the income, too.
  5. Enajien Major

    Message Count:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    21
    While I agree the rating system is broken... I just don't agree with most of your "fixes." No matter what you do the rating system will be broken the goal shouldn't be to hurt people who play optimally but to stop undesired content. Mordheim and Warhammer in general are not a forgiving system, nor should it be. I still do not understand why rating can't go back to 5/model +1 per xp on all models + 20 per large pet. Wouldn't it fix most issues?

    Saving skills: You just hurt yourself because they are weaker than rating says.
    Items or skills have weird rating increases: all items/skills are the same, pick the best for your model.
    Solo captains: since gear won't impact other models solo captains will remain strong but not unbeatable. A fully geared 4 model band with 1/4th the xp each should be a good fight or even destroy a solo captain at most levels.
    Flying: Well maybe it doesn't fix this, but it does make flying cost the same as 4 levels in something else like attacks or wounds. Right now flying is basically free from a rating perspective.
    Heck this even helps pets, who suck today, by making their rating very minimally impacting of the warband.
    CzaRus likes this.
  6. Enajien Major

    Message Count:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    21
    See this is the problem with trying to mess with the rating system. You just made defense 80 shit. Defense 80+ is only for ranged, which you can mostly ignore with good stealth and position. In melee any end game unit will set your defense at 20. You are literally hurting your warband by making you defense higher than like 35 or so for melee.
  7. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    The goal isn't to hurt people who play optimally, but to fix the holes in the system we've learned to exploit. My suggestions won't totally break Solo builds. But that 100 rating Captain that can't be defeated (other than by Skaven Pistoliers or another Solo with higher Initiative) will just get it's rating bumped to 200 or 300 (multiplier for having more than 50% of rating in one unit). Players will keep playing their Solos, but will be paired in PvP's ladder against more challenging opponents. That, or if the challenge is too much work now, the metagame will shift away from Solos to something else.
  8. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31

    No, the problem here is properly rating the weapons that are designed to attack 80 Defence. Those that reduce Defence or set it to a certain score should have an higher rating, as these become the late game weapons of choice.
  9. CzaRus Major

    Message Count:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    31
    From solos to something else? No. You will simply rotate the magic triangle I talked about earlier. Solos beat spam, spam beats elites and elites beat solos (again, depends). Since solo is easiest and most rewarding now, by pushing it to the end of the rope will only achieve OP ness of spam, pushing that away will play in favour of elites. Never ending rolling triangle, unless you nerf something to s#it. So no real change at all.

    About those 200-300 rating, the rating system must be different. My lvl 61 cap at rank 382 is nearly unbeatable by any counter strat up to ratings of 1000 and easily above. Shifting it slightly will change little.

    High Defence is only truly 100% legit only for half the factions (disregarding hired swords). But Skaven, Possessed, Marienburg, Undead (not vamp) and Witch Hunters (not WP) are not in these realms as such.
    By having limited access to armour OR extreme movement limitation by it....
    Speed skills on the other hand should be rated higher in my book. +1/1 movement is pretty damn good. -15 BS on enemy ranger is amazing. + reaction attacks rule.
  10. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Wouldn’t your 382 Captain be more appropriately rated at around 1000? That’s why I think x3 multiplier is fine when 100% rating on one unit. It will certainly change the underdog dynamic. That 500 Warband that currently gives you underdog will receive it instead. That’s a pretty big shift.
  11. CzaRus Major

    Message Count:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I pointed at the "slight" change in range (as ypu suggested) of ~100-200 pts.
  12. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I was referring to my own solo Captain, rated 103. Bumping this rating to 200 or 300 is not a small increase, particularly if the bump comes from a multiplier. ;)

    Edit: BTW, high Defence is not useless, as it creates a metagame environment that forces Warbands to shift from the Crit+, Str+ and Parry+ weapons, to the Def debuff weapons. You’re better with 80 Def against a weapon that « only » reduces it to 20 (or by -15, in case of guns), than with 20 Def against a Great Axe (much more damage to you) or an Ithilmar Sword (higher Initiative and Parry are bad for you).
  13. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I agree that some weight values for some skills need adjusting. The adjustment should probably be on the curve of the increase as at high levels I find these values to be fine. But the scaling does need some tweaking.

    However, completely disagree with needing to modify any of the current skills mentioned above and completely disagree with the issues of solos. Let me explain my reasoning on these two items.

    1) Current skills, although agree that some weights may need adjustment, the skills themselves are fine as is.

    The reason why Flight may seem overpowered is that people don't know how to properly counter it. But that is user error, it is not an issue with the game. The hit and run only works if the opponent allows you to charge first without using a spell. Also a smart opponent will deny you having two turns in a row. So if an opponent stays out of running charge range and passes his turn, you won't be able to hit and run. Also see my other post above, if you have multiple shooters who have a good way to defend against a solo flying captain as well.

    Throwing weapons, pistols, etc. These are balanced at high levels and the only adjustment is just the rating weights at lower levels.

    2) Solo warbands = really no issue. Regardless if you have one or eight warriors, if you decide to only focus on levelling up one warrior it has the same effect. Again as I mentioned in a previous post, this is the most efficient way to level imo and a player who finds a way to efficiently level shouldnt' be punished because someone else is inefficient in levelling up their warband. If some has fun levelling each warrior equally by all means do so. If someone wants to focus all their early skill points solely on Attacks, go ahead, but accept that there could be consequences for these decisions. But know that they balance out when you hit end game.

    I have no problems killing a solo with non solo warbands (even before they reached these rating levels, i.e. when it was fairly equal) Now it's overkill and If anyone wants to try, please feel free and let me know can we can do a private game. Anyone is welcome to try their solo warband against my 9,200 Middenheimers, my 2,300 Skaven, my 1,700 Possssed, my 3,500 Witchhunters, my 1,400 sisters,, 2,500 Undead. These are non-solo and I have full confidence can easily kill a solo warrior.

    Why adjusting ratings isn't a high priority, imo is because the issue you are facing is because you are trying to rate manage your warband. That's not what the game is designed for. Legendary wants you to develop your warbands, why else would they set the last map to unlock at 4300? The issue of finding a PVP opponent at higher levels is simply because people don't want to invest time to level up their warband (or at least not many people do). It's not because something is wrong with the game.

    Bottom line, if every develops their warband and gets to the end game 4,300, you will find that this all balances out. So let's not mess that up.
  14. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    There’s a group of less than a dozen people that terrorizes the PvP ladder, and that’s us. I like winning, but I like this game more than my own win rate. Shangular, you’re one of the best player I have played against here, if not the best. The strategy concepts that come naturally and easily for you are not instantly assimilated by the vast majority. Think of it as reversed Dunning-Kruger effect. Highly capable individuals are often affected by it. People are not lazy or bad strategists. You are just vastly superior (I really mean it). Please, don’t be more concerned about protecting your assets than doing the necessary sacrifices to balance this game for the enjoyment of all. You’ll find the best strategies in a new system, and will still dominate the game (even if domination means a 75% win rate in a more balanced system, instead of the actual 95% win rate you currently have).

    I’ll make a comparison, and it may not be perfect, but I hope the community can understand the meaning. Players of Magic the Gathering (trading card game, akin to Hearthstone) consider a deck (strategy) to be ok when it’s win rate is 55%. It becomes a competitive deck when the win rate hits 65% (so that you can expect to win the best of 2 matchups). A deck is broken if it has a win rate of 75%, and officials will start considering banning a card essential to that strategy at this point. Why? Because the game just loses its supporters the moment it becomes too unbalanced (unfair), and balance and diversity is essential to the fun of all (think Eldrazi Winter, if you’ve been there).

    Here, we have win rates above 85% or 90%. Sometimes even more. That is a symptom of a sick and broken game. The system has been explored, the exploits have been discovered, how to abuse them successfully has been tested thoroughly, and the whole metagame has settled on these unfair strategies for so long, they’ve been taken for granted (and the vast majority of players are completely unaware this metagame exists ; they probably just assume the game is fair and balanced, and should be played like TT).

    The decision doesn’t belong to us. The game designers at Legendary Games will have these difficult decisions to make. I don’t want to be in their shoes, as it is certain they’ll upset someone the moment they’ll touch the system we’ve come to know how to abuse. But I won’t make these decisions harder on them. For the sake of growing this community and expanding the players base, they have my full support, even if it means my win rates of preferred strategies drop considerably (from 90% to 65%).

    Anyone noticed a tangible difference in PvP queue since Nintendo Switch got their update? At first, yes. But in less than a week, we’ve beaten the crap out of these newcomers with totally unfair builds, and they’re nowhere around these days. The queue is no better now than it was before. This should ring an alarm at LG, and I think you should get prepared eventually to see your preferred strategies get axed with a debuff.

    If LG follows my suggestions, it won’t mean you can’t play solo. It will only mean your Warband will be appropriately rated for it’s true power level. The true underdog will be properly identified, and receive bonus experience and less injuries if they play the match to the end. As it is, there’s no incentive to not disconnect when you instantly identify an unfair strategy (the most popular and obvious being the Skaven Pistoliers and Solo Captains). You know you’ll lose, you’ll get no experience at all for your participation, and you’ll suffer from death and injuries.

    Really, if you don’t see something is wrong there, nothing more I will say can help. We’ll have to agree to disagree, and let LG decides. They’ll do what they have to do.
  15. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Come to think of it, one of the first thing I think LG should do to restore some balance and fairness to this game is just get rid of turn skipping. It’s probably easier for developers to just disable this icon, or to make it so that if you decide to skip, this unit won’t act at all this turn (which is sometimes what you may want to do). I’ve abused the Alpha Strike myself, and even written articles about it on this forum or the wiki. I would be destabilized to see it go, but I wouldn’t be sad. TT doesn’t have this feature, and there’s a lot less room for abusive strategies there. We’re good players already. We’ll still be good without it against the mass (who will feel the game is more fair), and against each others, the matches will only play faster (as both players end up skipping turns).

    Maybe, if they start with this simple modification, then we’ll realize there’s not much else in rating to fix (I doubt it, but always ready to be surprised).
  16. Erkebrand Major

    Message Count:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Rating needs some fixing, and I'm agree on some of your suggestions, disagree on others, this work may be easier if all of us say what has to be modified, cause many thing needs some rating modifications. In general the actual system is not so bad, but there are some things needed to be updated.

    Pistols, and crossbow pistols, they should raise just because they can be used on melee.
    Speed skills need a increase in the rating.
    Spells, same
    Armour, like your idea
    Hammers. Their rating should suffer a great increase. In my opinion they should decrease enemy armor on -30 points IE, instead of setting the Max at some point, but this should go on other thread.

    There is a problem with early game and the late game, but if it's well done it won't be a problematic later.
    Cyberaddict likes this.
  17. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I agree that the weights of the ratings for some skills and equipment need adjusting. That's been the issue with this rating system vs the old one (based on XP like the TT game). I think that is problem more than the actual skills and weapons themselves. That's the problem I see. But the skills in and of themselves are fine.

    I love Mordheim too. The TT as well as the mobile version, hence I'm still playing this game. I realize that they can't be exactly the same for many reasons. But my disagreement with the key items brought up: Flight and Solo are because I don't think there is a problem with the game itself, other than adjusting the weight values of spells. The mechanics are fine and I prefer to have new players learn the tactics instead of "dumbing" down the game for them like adjusting certain skills or removing the pass option on a turn. These tactics aren't rocket science, it just takes some common sense to understand. I realize there really is no user manual for new players and I imagine a majority don't read these forums. Maybe adding a built in user manual to the game would help tremendously. But yes the people who understand the mechanics may terrorize the PVP pool now, but I'm hoping that those new players try to learn, emulate the tactics and form their own counter strategies. This is like PVP in any other game. A new play ques and gets killed by an experienced player. But that new player, if they really do like this game so try to learn what went wrong and what counter tactics make sense and they are welcome to ask in this forum or discord. I like the old cliché of "don't just give people fish, but teach them how to fish". That's what I'm hoping to do here.

    Also the mechanics are actually great at fully developed warbands. I wish Legendary would create more incentives for people to move in that direction so we don't have to do this "rating management" game just to get a larger pool of opponents.

    I agree that I think a Mordheim 2.0 needs to happen and the level cap recommendation I proposed a while back can solve some of these issues of balance. Let me try to dig up that post.
    CzaRus likes this.
  18. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I think, but not sure, that we agree on the same thing : skills and weapons need not be fixed, just their rating. From your last post, I get the feeling that you think I want skills fixed. But that is not the case. It's just the rating of some that is the main problem.

    The only mechanic that is truly broken, and that can't be fixed by just rating, is not a skill but a spell : Flying (Humans and Possessed). If if was in my power to make the decision on Flying, I would just put these two restrictions : no more than one Hired Sword of each type per Warband ; and can't fly away after an attack. IMHO, Flying should be a way to extend your Movement and cheat away obstacles. But it shouldn't allow a unit to move after attacking. You probably don't want to lose that advantage, but if we all lose it at the same time, it's not you that is being targeted.

    I don't undestand why you think Pistoliers need a rating fix, but not Solo Captains. These are not just good rating management (at which you're more an expert than I am). They're legitimate ways to exploit a broken system that was probably never intended to be abused in that way. How can 4 x 25 rating dudes ever beat up a level 30 Captain rated 100? You've explained your strategy, but I don't beleive this problem can be fixed by educating the community with tactics and strategies tutorials. By all means, continue to play your Solos. I just want them to get their rating at the right level, so that the true Underdog get the bonuses.

    I know that turn skipping (Alpha Strike) is not rocket science. But because the game doesn't have a guide and tutorial, I remember 18 months ago when I first played Mordheim Warband Skirmish, I was certain that some PvP opponents were using hacks and cheats to attack twice in a row. I never used the skip button because I was CERTAIN that doing so meant forfeiting all my actions for this turn (which I didn't want). Someone on this forum had to explain it to me, and then I kindly added it to the wiki.

    Considering we really don't need turn skipping to beat lesser players (our strategies are better, anyway), and turn skipping is just annoying against opponents who do the same, I don't see why we shouldn't remove it. It's counterintuitive to begin with (thus why noobs don't do it), and it only serves the predators. You're a tiger. Don't you want to fight worthy opponents? Or just little rabbits? Removing turn skipping may help everyone to become wolves.
  19. Erkebrand Major

    Message Count:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ignoring alpha strike, skipping turn is very useful many times, I'm in disagree on removing it. There should be somewhere a user manual with the info needed for those players who don't want to visit this forum, or just don't speak English. If both teams delay, the only problem is the time spent on each match, I suggested a button to skip turn with the entire band time ago, it will help a lot.

    The rating system is broken with no discussion as Cyberaddict says. It's very exploitable and for the incoming players this should be solved. The rating increase of any skill should be shown on the skill tree, this will bring us more players, and more income to LG if they keep playing. It's not about teaching fishing techniques, but about giving to each skill or star the reasonable value for a fair matchmaking, where vets will rule due to their experience playing instead of their exploits knowledge.
    Cyberaddict likes this.
  20. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31

    I missed that, and it needs a reply.

    Actually, I think you do prove my point with that challenge. Warbands rated 1400+ can take on a Solo Captain. Obviously, each individual unit in these Warbands is already well developped (my Sisters, a party of 5, have WS maxed out and only rated 300).

    At 1400+ rating, individual units cannot fight the Solo alone, but together as a group they can take the challenge. The problem is actually at lower ratings, when units are underdeveloped and just can't win against the Solo Captain. I think, between the range of 100 and 1500 under the current system, the Solo Captain is near unbeatable. Not totally unbeatable, but close to be (if played by any experienced player). Under 1500, it's clearly one of the best strategy to win 90%+ as the Underdog in PvP. It's clearly one of these unfair strategies. It gets better (more fair) at higher levels, but that is not where you want to consolidate the loyalty of the players base (noobs hit PvP between 50 and 200 rating).

    How, however, can the rating system be properly fixed to get the real rating of Solo Captains? I really don't know. A 100 rating Solo Captain is clearly at ease among the 250+ rating Warbands (and these may even be easy). But does the same ratio applies at 1000 vs 2500? Most probably not. Instead of arguing on whether Solo Captain is fair or not (we're both right because it is fair at higher rating, but it is not at lower rating), we should focus our energy into crafting a solution that LG can implement.

Share This Page