Regarding balance (surv-lvl vs. challenge stars) in 2.7

@Fearofabotplanet @Shteevie

Will the update contain any fix to the problem, that many many players hold of from upgrading survs?

Or will this update just be like we´ll HAVE to upgrade to have fun with the new play mode, but still have a pain in the back in challenges?
vshield50Putchucomik81flyingcowkingKillersZbigbeanoJadensbfzeeblackpradiCoonTroublemakerromeo
«1

Comments

  • InvaderInvader Member Posts: 2,066
    Surprise, surprise...even no answer is an answer :D
    bababooeybigbeanovshield50romeo
  • DLichDLich Member Posts: 5,526
    In the current challenge type there is 2 points in which are problematic regarding "star loss". One of which (and the main one) is the moment you have 3 survivors of the same level (or best 3 survivors sum divisible by 3) in which the triple round starts later and this losing x.2 and x.3. The other of which is what RSL you start at.

    These are two seperate issues and I do hope NG at addresses at least one. The one of most importance being when the triple round starts.

    I have Lvl 22 survivors and still start at RSL 15. It was like that when I had Lvl 21 survivors as well. As I level up my survivors and progress through the game I don't expect to start on RSL 15 forever. I don't think many players expect that either.

    Hopefully NG can (has) come up with some type of solution to not make having 3+ Lvl 22's an issue anymore. This new game mode will likely push players to want to have better leveled survivors.

    Right now I have 5 warm up rounds before being thrown into triple rounds. When I unlock a 3rd Lvl 22 I'll have 6 warm up rounds before being thrown into triple rounds. The extra warm up round isn't necessary if my survivors are stronger.

    Maybe there's a way to keep the warm up rounds the same or something regardless of the levels of my survivors.

    image
    | OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
    Other Leaders | Kick_ass | Pic | abailey362 | GunnerGaz | JMo2127 |
    MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
    Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
    | My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |

    Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
    vshield50zeeblackjimmorrison369Coon
  • zeeblackzeeblack Member Posts: 1,057
    There is a rather simple solution to this problem. The starting level and the repeat level should depend on the average of all players and not just three.
    I am Black, Zee Black, Level SeVeNtY tWo with hUnDrEd ThOuSaNd sTaRs, Elder, SG Woot, tWo MiLlIoN star guild
    Invaderromeo
  • capibaracapibara Member Posts: 5,808
    Why not simply quit the triple rounds? So when you upgrade you will start at an higher round but without losing the stars from the triple. We will have also more time to play at higher levels and ppls will probably use more gold to heal and jump faster in the challenge.
    When i arrive at 28 on sunday i don't have time to try more games..
    "Always be yourself unless you can be a capybara. Then always be a capybara".
    --> Do you need a guild? ...send me a Private Message. My Recruiting den and my "Art Objects" in the Next Games Collection.
    vshield50KaLiTroublemakertdiddy
  • WarlordWarlord Member Posts: 163
    Poppy said:

    Heres a v basic Solution which would solve the issue and be futureproof.

    Regardless of level you start at you get all the stars possiblly earnable up to that point.
    Multiple rounds start at the same level for everyone.

    Don't agree at all. That just does not work for a non-end gamer. They may never get to the multiple rounds.

    As I and others have expressed before, the issues (star penalty, rsl, etc) stems from a multitude of issues:
    1) The inconsistent starting point. Every jump in survivor level is not an equivalent jump in starting level and also, therefore, not consistent for triple round starts.
    2) The stars completing the round are based on RSL.
    3) The use of 3 survivors and heros at a level to determine starting level. This also affects challenge stars as the difference between survivor's damage and walker's health impacts the number of rounds you can complete and therefore the stars you get during a rather lengthy transition period.

    All three of those feed into the issues and they also, to some degree, affect each other.

    1 & 3 are probably the most critical and 2 less so, as all rewards should scale up as you get to higher levels, not just some of them so IMO, this one is fine as is.

    The real fix is base starting level and triple round start off of the average level of all the players heroes and survivors and make this consistent for all survivor levels, i.e. your average survivor is 21, you start at 16 and your triple starts at 19; your average survivor is 13, you start at 8 and your triple starts at 11. Then there is a consistent base for stars across ALL levels of players with only a slight variation as those who have put in the time and/or money to get the highest level survivors are rewarded with a few more stars because of the rounds they are completing. The only draw back is that it requires a minimum average level of survivors to play the challenge but I believe that already exists anyhow.

    Using average level and a consistent starting point would probably be a solution the vast majority could live with. While not everyone would like it, it is the best compromise of the numerous different ways you could do it and is definitely preferable over the grind of challenge 1.0 or a solution that works for end gamers better than new gamers or vice versa. It is also future proof and predictable. No more guessing how it works, no more getting frustrated when you unlock a hero by accident, no more need to consult a spreadsheet to make a decision, etc. For NG, that means your customers are not spending hours scrolling through the forums to make a decision on whether to promote survivors or unlock heroes but are playing your game and potentially buying in game purchases.

    After this, it also opens the possibility of special challenges where NG could adjust the starting levels and/or triple rounds levels for more of a challenge and it would be uniform for all levels of players. It would give a new variable to introduce into what is already becoming somewhat repetitive. Yes, that affects trying for your personal best for stars but opens the opportunity for personal best on beating levels that you may not be able to achieve otherwise due to personal constraints for playing time, etc.
  • nadecirnadecir Member Posts: 242
    Unless you can find a solution under the current system where the promotion of one more survivor does not increase your starting level or triple rounds, you are not finding a real solution to the problem. Solutions proposed are just delaying or lowering the effect of the promotions, not really solving the problem.

    There's really only a couple of paths here:
    1. Keep the current solution and give in to the fact that there is a point at which promoting one more survivor means you start at a higher level or have a higher triple round.
    2. Design a new solution that necessarily means that higher level players will grind more since starting levels will be more consistent across the player base.

    Chose your poison, but choose quickly and let the developers move onto other game enhancements as soon as possible, please.

    It's a shame that NG has already spent so much time with this problem when there are other bugs, issues, and enhancements in the NG that would make this game better. Development and design time is a finite resource, and the work discussing and implementing changes with this issue means that other worthy items get no attention.

    The new challenge system is a perfect example of a complicated software design that did not have the foresight to predict future problems. That's why simpler designs are preferred because unintended consequences of simpler design are less common.

  • crambert_neccrambert_nec Member Posts: 1,354
    After @Shteevie's comment I'm a little skeptical that there is going to be a solution to this obvious problem in 2.7. Many of the best star earners only have two level 22 survivors. Those top star earners that have a full team of 22s also probably spend a fortune on this game (not hating on that, I just can't buy thousands of gold every week. But I can remain competitive if this problem is fixed).

    Regarding the idea of using a team level average to determine starting RSL; that is opening up things to all kinds of exploits. People would just keep a bunch of low level crappy survivors to sandbag their average level and start lower than others with a maxed team.
    Leader of WATCH TOWER RoD
    DLichInvaderCaptainslayerWahooDawg
  • TroublemakerTroublemaker Member Posts: 1,224
    Shteevie said:

    This is what I said when asked about these issues some 3 weeks ago:

    "There are elements in the works that will address both of these issues. As usual, I cannot give more details or a date before the relevant upcoming release announcements, and I'll also say that if there are more changes to be made after those new elements are introduced, we'll continue to work on improving the situation."

    That statement holds true still, as 3 weeks is not enough time to imagine that we will have worked a whole new set of features into the update that is currently being developed.

    Players will likely always need to earn their stars, and the starting level needs to increase at some point or another as players progress, or else we'll be going back to the old system that was changed to correct other problems.

    It's my understanding that the players with the highest star totals each week, and since the changes in 2.4, are those that have a full suite of top-level survivors. As has always been, players that complete more rounds will get more stars.

    I do wish I could lay put all of the ideas we have concerning this issue, as there are many, but as none of them are set in stone yet, it would likely just confuse the issue further to go into too much detail to describe hypotheticals. In general, though, I think DLich's comment about the "lengthening of the ramp-up" is on the same path as my own thinking.

    We do have more updates this year, of course - 2.7 is by no means the end of what we hope to achieve in the short to medium term. I'm working with the planning and scheduling folks to try and set aside as much development time as is feasible to address this issue.

    So basically no fix for the handicap in 2.7?
    ::
    Mavericks Guild Family
  • CoonCoon Member Posts: 282
    The best idea I saw so far was to average all survivors on roster instead of just sum of top 3.... Even if just average of top 6 survivors...
  • MonsutaMonsuta Member Posts: 1,168
    @OneLessTitan Remove the level cap on equipment still doesn't solve deliberately only level up 2 survivors give an advantage problem.
    There is NO higher rarity when we use all legendary to craft the badge, we are being punished for having a chance to get LOWER rarity.
    This is NOT WORKING AS INTENDED & it's UNFAIR.
    Troublemaker
  • CoonCoon Member Posts: 282
    @OneLessTitan don't worry because @DLich can make you a spreadsheet with that information.
    vshield50
  • TroublemakerTroublemaker Member Posts: 1,224
    Coon said:

    The best idea I saw so far was to average all survivors on roster instead of just sum of top 3.... Even if just average of top 6 survivors...

    Average of one survivor of each class (6) seems nice. It would also force players to work on all classes, at least on XP upgrades.

    ::
    Mavericks Guild Family
    KaLi
  • TroublemakerTroublemaker Member Posts: 1,224
    @Invader we are actually grinding more than ever. Grinding increased after the update.

    The handicap is absolutely disgusting. We have already seen too many good players go because of it. I don't wanna see more and don't wanna join the pack (not that I'm good).
    ::
    Mavericks Guild Family
    SCBMAInvadervshield50bigbeano
  • Bryan18Bryan18 Member Posts: 155
    How about the fact that getting more stars is a Fool's errand anyway cuz the prizes are no good and doesn't get better.
    Invadervshield50paintbeast
  • InvaderInvader Member Posts: 2,066
    Bryan18 said:

    How about the fact that getting more stars is a Fool's errand anyway cuz the prizes are no good and doesn't get better.


    That´s called RNG...the other issue is about fairness.
  • Bryan18Bryan18 Member Posts: 155
    It's not RNG the farther you get that the awards don't improve
    vshield50Captainslayerromeop_herian
  • DodkongDodkong Member Posts: 1,048
    Coon said:

    The best idea I saw so far was to average all survivors on roster instead of just sum of top 3.... Even if just average of top 6 survivors...

    This is a horrible idea in my opinion. If implemented, it would only encourage people to keep 6 or so good survivors and then as many lower level survivors to bring down the average to allow them to start lower and rack up more stars.

    At least that's what I'd do if I were overly concerned about star requirements.
    Bryan18 said:

    It's not RNG the farther you get that the awards don't improve

    Do you not get more phones and more trade goods than the previous reward benchmarks? Or bigger XP and supply payouts? How about higher level gear, till you reach the maximum gear level available? The only one that doesn't automatically improve are token rewards.
    "I always say, if you must mount the gallows, give a jest to the crowd, a coin to the hangman, and make the drop with a smile on your lips." -Birgitte Silverbow, The Fires of Heaven, The Wheel of Time

    "Death is lighter than a feather. Duty, heavier than a mountain." - al'Lan Mandragoran, The Great Hunt, The Wheel of Time
    Pigromeojimmorrison369
  • Bryan18Bryan18 Member Posts: 155
    No it doesn't if you open a box at 500 Stars it's the same as the box that you open at 800 Stars
  • Bryan18Bryan18 Member Posts: 155
    I'm not talking about Guild rewards cuz that's another story I'm talking about the individual Rewards crates that you open
  • DLichDLich Member Posts: 5,526
    @Bryan18
    Bryan18 said:

    It's not RNG the farther you get that the awards don't improve

    Players will on average get less rewards if they implement a structured token reward system. Please see this thread here


    http://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/comment/246134#Comment_246134

    image
    | OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
    Other Leaders | Kick_ass | Pic | abailey362 | GunnerGaz | JMo2127 |
    MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
    Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
    | My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |

    Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
    Jadenromeo
  • Bryan18Bryan18 Member Posts: 155
    Damn you and your math but under your contention the rewards are still too low but tell me is it worth the resources to say go past 800 Stars that is individually if you're not in a really great Guild or just like to get Stars
  • Bryan18Bryan18 Member Posts: 155
    Also that's clearly just focusing on tokens I'm talking about the extended rewards crates I think if you get past 800 or as you go along you should get more XP in those
    jimmorrison369
Sign In or Register to comment.