New leaderboards ?

New leaderboards ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Suggestions

Message

shadow.bane -> New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 7:19:28)
it's so frustrating when u go hard on 1 vs 1 as a level 40 which u do 20 - 40 wins an hour depending your class/build and then check the leaderboards to see ur position and find the first have double to triple your wins just cause he's/she's a low level. so my idea is to make a level 1 ---> 35 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 leaderboards and level 20 ---> 35 for juggernaut in the other part to make level 36 ---> 40 leaderboards for 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 and juggernaut.

c1729 -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 9:15:11)
Brilliant Idea, I would suggest 10 level bands (maybe 15 since player base is so low?) for every leader board, with a special level 40 leader board, since even at level 35 battles tend to get much longer.

Mr. Black OP -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 15:44:42)
I wonder who gave you this idea bane. ;) I like c's idea to also to have more than 2 ranges, because a lv 35 going for daily 1v1 really can't keep up with a lv 20. So 3 tiers would be good, 1-25 for low levels, 26-35 for mid levels, 36+ for high levels and level cap players.

Lord Machaar -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 18:41:23)
This doesn't apply just to leaderboards (which has more or less an impact over the game, and which players has suggested to revamp more than once). It applies to PVP rewards, the amount of influence you get and bunch of other things. Battles at high levels/ranks become way more tactical and complex, some can take up to 5 minutes. When you get the same reward (37 credits and 12 exp) for winning such a battle, while a level 20 (alt or bot of X faction) gets the same reward, is just beyond logic. Same thing goes to the amount of influence, long or short battles, the low level alt ends up getting more influence. All this was fine in the phase pre-legendary system, since a player at level cap (35 for example) could finish battles way faster. I think ED is the only game where a level 1 gets same perks as a high level (sometimes even more), whether it's weapons, number of wins, rewards, influence and many other things. So far, there is no problem, in order for ED to attract new players, it needs to facilitate the game enough for them. And one day this new player, which was once a low level, will reach a higher level, story ends here. The problem kicks in when this gets abused by some players, creating endless amount of alts and bots, intoxicating the leaderboards and also the game. Faction titles mean nothing nowadays, nor the leaderboards. There are two ways to solve this, whether the mods start taking actions, checking IPs, flagging players, and eventually, sending bans. Or devs assign testers (Balance testers as WhiteTiger likes to call them, a correct naming in a game other than ED, which has 1 tester that is also an AK/bug teacker/guest artist/guest writer... etc.. different story) (assign) to reconstruct the game when it comes to this unfairness between high level players and low level players. (Fixing leaderboards as suggested, giving different rewards, differet % of bombs drop chance... and list goes on). The other way around is to make battles longer at low levels, as some suggestions like this imply; http://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=22120444&mpage=1&key=� http://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=22120435&mpage=1&key=� Captcha to stop botting (Turned down because it's an outdated/annoying tool) or target some classes, like BHs, which are most known as the utlimate tool of botting/alting. These approaches alter balance. They are more sophisticated but I doubt any time would be invested in them. I mean look at them being suggested few months ago and still aren't in the game. Both things most likely won't happen, and I wouldn't expect them to do. Devs have expressed will to put ED on a forced coma. So anyone playing ED is playing it with their own will, knowing hows, whys, whens and wheres the game going.

Exploding Penguin -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 18:53:55)
I'm more of an advocate of straight up not letting people show up on PvP leaderboards until they're like level 30 or 35 or something. They will still show up on fame, rarity, and other LBs though.

Lord Machaar -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 18:57:13)
^ That's one way to see things. But that would make most leaders not accept low level players (especially legit ones), since they won't be able to contribute to the faction that much (especially when going for champs). Unless you are talking about personal leaderboards only. Although, if we are going to fix personal leaderboards, we need to fix faction leaderboards as well.

Cyber Dream -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 19:06:32)
Others along with myself have suggested things like this many times in the past. My suggestion and others opinions. I also suggested another idea to cancel out being beaten on the leaderboards due to one class being op and better than others. The suggestion was to give each class its own leaderboard. Now considering the main suggestion, in the past, a few of my forums buddies and I came up with an idea similar which included not being able to get put in a faction until you reached a certain level and dividing the leaderboards into level ranges. I myself find it a good idea since players that are lower levels seem to have quicker matches and if they're using a tier 1 class then the matches will be even quicker. I also think that 40s shouldn't have to compete with level 1s. If you think about it, the 5 level range cap should be applied to the leaderboards since it's applied to pvp.

Lord Machaar -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 19:34:31)
The problem with deviding leaderboards according to certain level ranges is because of the current low population of ED. If you scout the whole leaderboard, you will merely find 20 - 30 level 40s that actually did some battles, whether it's 1vs1 or 2vs2. When the game population is as low as 200 - 150, 50% of them begging for fame, 25% complaining about the game 20% botting/alting, and 5% actually playing the game. Dividing leaderboards will just kill competition, and battle mode champs will be given out for free, you won't even find 20 players on that leaderboard (same thing that happens in juggernaut leaderboards).

Cyber Dream -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 20:24:43)
How about this. Lets have the divided leader boards with the level ranges. Each time you move up to the next range, you get an achievement. Now with each range, there will be a class leader board detailing who's the best player withing the range using a certain class. If you happen to become the best player within a certain class/ level range then you get an achievement. Though it will be harder to get at lower levels, you can still earn it when you max out. Now when you max out your level, things will change. Everything I just said will still apply to you when you max out and you will gain the chance to earn daily cheevos. (most 1v1 wins, most 2v2 wins, etc) but instead of giving it to just one player, it will be given to 6 players. One for every class. Now to be determined the best player in a certain class, you have to have the highest w/l ratio with a minimum of at least 1000 matches fought. Now lets talk about factions, you won't be able to join a faction until you're max level or in the 35-40 level range. This will take away the ability for players to use lower levels for faster wins. All of this would increase competition despite the player base. There are more players playing ed than you think. They're just not all logged in at the same time.

Lord Machaar -> RE: New leaderboards ? (5/31/2016 20:41:51)
For the first part of your suggestion, it's all good theortically, but when we will implement the game, you will see that the game's population is so low, having a LB for each class is kinda absurd. The LBs hold 20 positions, you can merely find 20 players playing a certain class at a certain level range. Such suggestion will kill competition in LBs. quote: Now lets talk about factions, you won't be able to join a faction until you're max level or in the 35-40 level range. This will take away the ability for players to use lower levels for faster wins. All of this would increase competition despite the player base. There are more players playing ed than you think. They're just not all logged in at the same time. The idea looks fine, sort of what Exploding Penguin suggested, just on a bigger scale. This seems to be the best suggestion since it doesn't alter balance nor requires much effort from devs making it totally implementable. The thing is, no faction leader will accept low levels players. If there is a way around that, then this suggestion would be the perfect solution for both individual and collective leaderboards' problems.

Cyber Dream -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/1/2016 0:07:48)
quote: For the first part of your suggestion, it's all good theortically, but when we will implement the game, you will see that the game's population is so low, having a LB for each class is kinda absurd. The LBs hold 20 positions, you can merely find 20 players playing a certain class at a certain level range. Such suggestion will kill competition in LBs. What competition? The only competition there is on the lb is seeing who can alt the most. You rarley see high leveled players on the lb. Your reasoning for not wanting to implement divided leader boards is because of the low player base which I think won't be a problem at all. Like I said, more players play ed than you think, I really wish we could seea traffic report. Having this put into the game can take away a major part of alting. High Leveled players could actually have a chance of competing again without worrying about being passed in the last hours by a low level alt. Now with my suggestion, I kinda took away the daily achievements from low levels but I compensated them with other new achievements. But in addition, I made it so where you can't really start competing until you reach a high level. This makes things fair, reasonable (imo) and strengthens competition since you can only win dailys when you hit 35-40. This way, you only fight experienced players. I doubt players that are actually new go for the daily anyways. The idea looks fine, sort of what Exploding Penguin suggested, just on a bigger scale. This seems to be the best suggestion since it doesn't alter balance nor requires much effort from devs making it totally implementable. The thing is, no faction leader will accept low levels players. If there is a quote: way around that, then this suggestion would be the perfect solution for both individual and collective leaderboards' problems. In this suggestion, I suggested that players shouldn't be allowed to join factions until they reach levels 35-40 because of the leaderboard suggestion. If players want them compete but are to lazy to get to level 35-40 then they don't belong in a faction. Coming for a former faction leader, it's a cancer to have lazy players in the fac while other players are working hard. Now an alternative I think would be good is to add in two type of factions, casual and competitive. Casual factions would be able to accept anyone in addition to giving up the option to compete for dailys. Competitive factions would require players to be 35-40 with the ability to compete for dailys. I would also like to make an acceptation for fame, this daily should be available to everyone.

shadow.bane -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/1/2016 6:03:10)
making a certain level to be able to join faction is a good and bad idea at the same time cause of the following : As for goods : factions can't alt/bot pvp wins for champs or get low levels to do fast win in it , well they be able to bot but will be much slower than before, which will be fair for factions to compete. As for bad : faction wont be able to invite LEGIT low levels to the faction who works hard to earn. which put devs in controversy here to make the best decision which we all agree is a hard decision to make despite all the goods and bad of it.

Lord Machaar -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/1/2016 11:36:34)
quote: What competition? The only competition there is on the lb is seeing who can alt the most. Then, why are we havng this conversation if not for competition? There are 2 ways to kill competition in leaderboards, either set alts that can do 250 wins per hour. Or put a high level requirement to enter to the leaderboards. Both things will end up killing competition, in first case, high level players will not bother trying to enter the leaderboards since when it's only 6 hours after the reset and you find an alt with 300 1vs1 wins. And in the second case, you will find players with 50 wins 6 hours after the reset, players will assume the game's dead and won't even bother trying to enter the leaderboards. In order to maintain competition, there must be a solution that hits the right spot, just in the middle. If you tend to watch olympic games once in awhile (I wouldn't expect you doing that if you are from the US), then there is something called the Pacemaker or pace-setter (Not the one in the heart), which is a runner (not from the competitors) that participates at the beginning of various races, whether it's 1500 meter or 4000 meter or even a marathon. This runner ensures to pick up the pace of the race, to first of all motivate other racers and help set new records. If you compare 2 races, one with a pacemaker and one without it, you will notice the difference in the timings of the race. Same goes for leaderboards of any game out there. You are basing your suggestion on assumptions. First one is that the game still has a huge population. Well, I got some bad news for you, it doesn't. When you find 80 players online at reset, you can tell that the game is not doing so well. Second assumption is there will be competition between players at lvl 35 - 40 range. It clearly won't, juggernaut is the best example, the level requirement is as low as level 20, and if you check the leaderboards right now, you won't even find 20 players competing for the title. http://puu.sh/pcPWE/4724973c9d.jpg Both factions and leaderboards are features of the game. They do maintain competition, and in a PVP game, competition is indeed everything. If you search for a game where you set your own goals and define your limits, then there are games like AQ and DF (MMO RPGs). If you will abstain the majority of the player base, including legit players from well deserved features, then that's not how things get fixed. There are always solutions that hit the right spot, and devs really never hit that fixing anything in this game. Farming NPCs through botting is a great example, this feature has never been fixed because A) you can't detect botters and B) deleting this feature will be a punishment to legit players (few ofcourse). It's a sad thing that we don't have detection tools for botters/alters, or let me rephrase that in a correct manner, we have a lazy moderating team (Except few ofcoure that I respect). Treating the dilemma directly would save us a lot of collateral damage, if IP checks are run on a daily basis by numerous moderators, we would have cured this problem for a very long time now, since frankly, those individuals who use alts/bots are the same, they just escaped a well deserved punishment for some time now. But what we can do? We don't have a dedicated moderating team to deal directly with the problem. So indirect ways must be taken in consideration, although such ways always have collateral damage. And we can't by any means, punish legit players and abstain them from certain features due to the incapability of the team to fix the game. Therefore a solution that respects all parties is always wanted, in this case, a mixture of setting a level requirement and also making battles at low levels a little bit longer, this can solve the problem without affecting the game. Especially a sensitive part of the game, which is (part) new players, who frankly need just a small reason to leave a dead game. And the supposed "Huge playerbase" you were talking about will turn into dozens if not some individuals. http://puu.sh/pddpC/200ee14e6c.jpg If this picture is not really enough to change things up then I have no idea what would do.

Cyber Dream -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/2/2016 19:45:17)
quote: Then, why are we havng this conversation if not for competition? Because everything I just said will strengthen competition.

Lord Machaar -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/2/2016 19:55:57)
quote: Because everything I just said will strengthen competition. quote: Like I said, more players play ed than you think, I really wish we could seea traffic report. If anyone is blind enough to not see the number of players online or assume that the game still has a huge population because that person didn't log in since 2013. That's another story. I wouldn't keep waiting for a traffic report if I was in your place while I just played the game yesterday. But I doubt you played the game recently after suggesting this: quote: How about this. Lets have the divided leader boards with the level ranges. Each time you move up to the next range, you get an achievement. Now with each range, there will be a class leader board detailing who's the best player withing the range using a certain class. A leaderboard with different ranges of levels, and within each range, there are leaderboards of different classes. Doing some math, and considering there are only 4 ranges, within each range 6 leaderboards of 6 classes, that means 24 leaderboards, and since there are 20 spots per leaderboard, that means 480 spots* per battle mode (960 if we count 2vs2 battle mode). If you think we have 480 players online each day and your suggestion will strenghten competition, then that's something else. * 4 (ranges) x 6 (classes) x 20 (spots per LB) = 480 total spots.

Optimise -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/3/2016 11:46:12)
The idea of having ranges/bands for leaderboards based on level isn't all too bad, however considering the current situation of ED it certainly will not work out as some wish it to be once implemented. We should mainly focus on maintaining the current population, then steadily add features that would bolster the current population - possibly attracting new players. quote: Cyber Dream wrote: How about this. Lets have the divided leader boards with the level ranges. Each time you move up to the next range, you get an achievement. Now with each range, there will be a class leader board detailing who's the best player withing the range using a certain class. If you happen to become the best player within a certain class/ level range then you get an achievement. Though it will be harder to get at lower levels, you can still earn it when you max out. Now when you max out your level, things will change. Everything I just said will still apply to you when you max out and you will gain the chance to earn daily achievements. (most 1v1 wins, most 2v2 wins, etc) but instead of giving it to just one player, it will be given to 6 players. One for every class. Now to be determined the best player in a certain class, you have to have the highest w/l ratio with a minimum of at least 1000 matches fought. The present-day playerbase needs to be taken into account when we are talking about suggestions such as this one. This suggestion will only scatter the playerbase to an even lower population as some would even feel isolated playing alone in one leaderboard, potentially leading to inactivity from boredom. Botting or alting should be dealt with via direct means rather than isolating those who are competing and playing legitimately. Not to mention that there would be no competition in certain ranges due to the low-population. For your information, there are as I type this only 250 players online, and that's with a war rally occurring. I concur with the reasoning of low-level players should not be competing with higher levels. This suggestion doesn't really substantiate that point though as each range will be going for their own daily in their respective range, correct? If that is the case I would ask why a level 35 would be competing against a level 31 who is from another range? It is simply unfair and illogical as the level 35 will be picking up wins (quite easily) from someone who isn't even in their range, and vice versa. It will create unsporting competition. You could re-direct my question towards me for the current situation of ED, and to answer this; we're all going for the same leaderboard/objective so it doesn't matter if we are fighting someone at a lower-level since there aren't separate leaderboards for each level range, meaning we're all competing against each other. It will be somewhat ridiculous to see someone from a lower range where wins are faster is on the verge of transcending his current range (going to the next one) with 300 wins, and goes to the next range with those 300 wins to then possibly overtake the No. 1 in his new range. Fair? No. Competition? Not really. Class leaderboard (someone with the highest win/loss ratio from each class on each range LB will be awarded the respective achievement) can be exploited at any level range - especially the lower-side of the ranges. Here's a scenario, I am level 15. Majority in my level range are their starter classes (TM, BH, MERC) and cannot afford to switch to another class. Me? I am wealthy in terms of affordability, meaning I can switch to another class. I would have a look at the 1v1 (or any other battle mode) leaderboard to see that one or two (or even all three evolved classes) class not being worked. What does this mean? I switch class to the one that is not on the leaderboard, and do 1 (or even 10) win(s) (just before reset so no one can overtake me) so that I am rewarded the achievement. It is unfair for those who were playing with their original classes and could not afford to switch, is it not? quote: Cyber Dream wrote: Now lets talk about factions, you won't be able to join a faction until you're max level or in the 35-40 level range. This will take away the ability for players to use lower levels for faster wins. All of this would increase competition despite the player base. There are more players playing ed than you think. They're just not all logged in at the same time. Yes. Let's talk about factions. What would happen to the players that are competing below the level requirement for factions? It will isolate those who are playing legitimately at lower-levels, just for the sake of attempting to reduce botting/alting you are forcefully placing many many players below 35 in a boring and dull experience. Low level players will eventually reach a higher level, and how is that done? By winning battles. Those wins could contribute to factions, ultimately taking part in faction competition. It could be argued that this will motivate those who are below 35's in the form of an incentive to reach higher levels, but would it really? Levelling up can be tiring for some and reaching level 35 would be a monumental task. Factions are an integral and essential part of EpicDuel in terms maintaining retention of the playerbase, at the same time providing players to play for something. This level requirement to factions will rather act as a deterrent to the player count. Factions create groups which boost player retention in the end. With this suggestion, players will feel bored and would have not much to play for, making them feel like quitting. The war system (regardless of whether it's changed or not) is and always will be one of the main attractions of this game, and in order to fully take part in wars you are needed to join a faction. Everyone will always want to partake in wars regardless of whether they usually play competitive or not. This suggestion to restrict players from joining factions until a level higher will limit them from enjoying the game to it's fullest. Even the alternative of this is not entirely beneficial for the entire playerbase, making it so people do not show up on LB's until 30's will consequently prevent the leaders from recruiting lower levels as they cannot contribute towards the actual goal. It will make the low-levels unwanted. The desire to quit will eventually over-weigh the motivation to level up or play the game, meaning the playerbase count will drop even further. quote: Cyber Dream wrote: What competition? The only competition there is on the lb is seeing who can alt the most. You rarley see high leveled players on the lb. Your reasoning for not wanting to implement divided leader boards is because of the low player base which I think won't be a problem at all. Like I said, more players play ed than you think, I really wish we could seea traffic report. Having this put into the game can take away a major part of alting. High Leveled players could actually have a chance of competing again without worrying about being passed in the last hours by a low level alt. Now with my suggestion, I kinda took away the daily achievements from low levels but I compensated them with other new achievements. But in addition, I made it so where you can't really start competing until you reach a high level. This makes things fair, reasonable (imo) and strengthens competition since you can only win dailys when you hit 35-40. This way, you only fight experienced players. I doubt players that are actually new go for the daily anyways. What competition? If not for competition we would not be discussing leaderboards here. Not sure where you got this misleading information from, but the ED playerbase is pretty low. It barely goes over 300 during peak times (war rally and whatnot). We are not running a website here where we would have to look at daily/weekly/monthly "traffic" reports to see how many visitors we had. The player count is there on the servers, and those who still actively play this game can agree with me on the fact that we have a low playerbase. I do not understand why you are asking for "traffic" reports where we already have the player-count outlined in the servers screen during the log-in process. The evidence is there on the LB's as of the moment (the same every other day), and the leaderboards clearly imply we do not have a huge playerbase as you think - not many are competing as you can see from the pictures provided by the user above. Achievement collectors will want to grab those low-level range achievements too, and unless they can reset their levels they will not be allowed to attain the new low-level achievements. quote: Cyber Dream wrote: In this suggestion, I suggested that players shouldn't be allowed to join factions until they reach levels 35-40 because of the leaderboard suggestion. If players want them compete but are to lazy to get to level 35-40 then they don't belong in a faction. Coming for a former faction leader, it's a cancer to have lazy players in the fac while other players are working hard. Now an alternative I think would be good is to add in two type of factions, casual and competitive. Casual factions would be able to accept anyone in addition to giving up the option to compete for dailys. Competitive factions would require players to be 35-40 with the ability to compete for dailys. I would also like to make an acceptation for fame, this daily should be available to everyone. In no way will this boost competition. This suggestion is one-sided and only thought-out to supposedly benefit higher levels. Lower levels will be rejected from competition due to this, and the consequences won't be beneficial to the game. It is also risky to simply assume there will be competition at higher levels with the implementation, without having a look at how the current competition is behaving. Faction leaders who are below level 35 (or the set requirement), what will happen to them? Will those old factions be disbanded without consideration of the tasks they've carried out and their history. The idea of having casual factions sounds good but then again what was the faction created for if not for competing. With all that being said I am not implying this suggestion is a waste of time or simply not good. It's a bright idea however considering the playerbase as it currently is, this simply will not perform well once implemented and will only prove to be an unnecessary obstacle for players. More direct methods should be suggested against cheaters rather than indirectly enforcing them (with this suggestion) whilst taking out the legit players. I could certainly see this suggestion being implemented during earlier phases of ED especially when we had a much larger playerbase. It would be better if the time that is to be spent (by the devs) on this was rather spent on something more worthwhile and effective.

The berserker killer -> RE: New leaderboards ? (6/5/2016 16:01:23)
Hey bane! I know what you mean but it sounds like the problem isn't that theyre winning so fast, the real problem is the whole "hidden losses" thing. Correct me if i'm wrong but if losses weren't hidden you probably wouldn't care as much, right? After-all, whether they are alts or true players, they still suffer the same consequence for their fast wins:losses. I say I support this though, given the fact that it's not really hurting anyone. But, to finish my reply, maybe we can have 3 leaderboards with 3 rewards: Lower Level LB (1-30) Upper Level LB (31-40) Server LB (All) This would be a great Segway into rewards for winning dailys and it will also add depth to the game.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

0.125