PDA

View Full Version : Developer Journal Issue #42



Vorbann
06-20-2013, 01:02 PM
Hello,

As promised, this dev diary will be giving details of how legacy scores are calculated in season 4.

PvE Worlds
For these worlds, the criteria are as follows:
- Alliance ranking
- Player ranking
- Union between players
- Number of fortresses controlled by the Dark Elves at the end of the server

Alliance ranking
These points are calculated based on the alliance’s ranking.
- 1st: 100 points
- 2nd - 10th: 80 points
- 11th - 20th: 60 points
- 21st - 50th: 40 points
- Below: 20 points

Player ranking
These points are calculated based on the player’s best ranking in the three paths.
- 1st: 80 points
- 2nd - 10th: 70 points
- 11th - 50th: 60 points
- 51st - 100th: 50 points
- 101st - 500th: 40 points
- 501st - 1,000th: 30 points
- Below: 20 points

Union
The calculation for the union element only takes into account the combination between factions.
- Haven / Haven: 60 points
- Haven / Academy: 60 points
- Haven / Inferno: 20 points
- Haven / Necropolis: 40 points
- Haven / Sylvan: 60 points
- Academy / Academy: 60 points
- Academy / Inferno: 40 points
- Academy / Necropolis: 20 points
- Academy / Sylvan: 40 points
- Inferno / Inferno: 60 points
- Inferno / Necropolis: 60 points
- Inferno / Sylvan: 40 points
- Necropolis / Necropolis: 60 points
- Necropolis / Sylvan: 20 points
- Sylvan / Sylvan: 60 points

Number of runic fortresses possessed by Dark Elves at the end of the server
This element gives points to all players on the server.
- None: 120 points
- 1 - 5: 80 points
- 6 - 10: 60 points
- 11 - 20: 40 points
- More: 20 points


These four elements are then added together to obtain a final legacy score for a season 4 PvE world.
The maximum legacy score for a PvE world is thus 360.


PvP worlds
For these worlds, the criteria are as follows:
- Alliance ranking
- Player ranking
- Asha Tournament ranking
- Union between players
- Victory

Alliance ranking
These points are calculated based on the alliance’s ranking.
- 1st: 80 points
- 2nd - 10th: 60 points
- 11th - 20th: 40 points
- Below: 20 points

Player ranking
These points are calculated based on the player’s best ranking in the three paths.
- 1st: 60 points
- 2nd - 10th: 50 points
- 11th - 50th: 40 points
- 51st - 100th: 30 points
- 101st - 500th: 20 points
- Below: 10 points

Tournament of Asha ranking
This element depends on the rank reached by the alliance at the end of the server.
- Rank 0: 5 points
- Rank 1: 10 points
- Rank 2: 20 points
- Rank 3: 30 points
- Rank 4: 40 points
- Rank 5: 50 points
- Rank 6: 60 points
- Rank 7: 70 points
- Rank 8: 80 points
- Rank 9: 90 points
- Rank 10: 100 points

Union
The calculation for the union element only takes into account the combination between factions.
- Haven / Haven: 60 points
- Haven / Academy: 60 points
- Haven / Inferno: 20 points
- Haven / Necropolis: 40 points
- Haven / Sylvan: 60 points
- Academy / Academy: 60 points
- Academy / Inferno: 40 points
- Academy / Necropolis: 20 points
- Academy / Sylvan: 40 points
- Inferno / Inferno: 60 points
- Inferno / Necropolis: 60 points
- Inferno / Sylvan: 40 points
- Necropolis / Necropolis: 60 points
- Necropolis / Sylvan: 20 points
- Sylvan / Sylvan: 60 points

Victory
The server’s victorious alliance wins a 60-point bonus.


These five elements are then added together to obtain a final legacy score for a season 4 PvP world.
The maximum legacy score for a PvP world is thus 360.


Strategic worlds
The legacy score is calculated in the same way as for PvP worlds, with a multiplier of 1.25 (to reflect the greater difficulty of this type of server) applied in to obtain the final value.

The maximum legacy score for a strategic world is thus 450.


And that concludes the description of how legacy points are calculated for season 4 worlds.

See you next time!

Vorbann

TOPMO3ABP
06-20-2013, 02:13 PM
That's really nice to hear, finally there will be something interesting in this game again (as it was before) and it's not a new seal item. Good legacy for the real players and finally it's not for players that aren't really playing. More competition and it will be as hot as it was in the two first seasons...
+10000000 Points to these news...

MartyAmodeo
06-21-2013, 04:07 AM
Very good to hear that people playing well in the strat world can improve their legacy scores up near levels that S1/2 vets earned. It's not quite high enough, but at least it's in the same ballpark unlike S3.

AndreanDW
06-21-2013, 05:22 PM
PvP worlds

- 1st in Alliance ranking: 80 points
- e.g. 1st in honour: 60 points
- Rank 10 in tournament: 100 points
- Union: 60 points
- Victory: 60 points
-> 360 points, on strategy-server 450 points

AndreanDW
06-21-2013, 07:35 PM
yes, but only if you can win a strategy-server (but if you do not play in France I doubt there starts such a server except the European one) - therefore you will probably have 860 points or less ... ^^

aesuarez
06-21-2013, 10:17 PM
From the PVE points, can we remove the Player Ranking? Its supposed to be a cooperative server and by having player rankings being calculated, it defeats the purpose of playing cooperatively as players will start focusing on themselves to try to get the max points instead of working as a team.

mightycleric
06-22-2013, 02:50 AM
I do agree with this, but if that occurs, I think we should see something else replace those points. Perhaps substitute that with "average number of players in your alliance for the server". After all, this is supposed to be about working together as a team. This way, instead of focusing on personal stats, people would work together as a team. It would also make it so that nobody would decide to discard the team element of the server in order to try to win, giving themselves max legacy while torching the chances of anybody else (and makes it so they can't just invite players at the end to get max legacy). Since you can do average placement throughout the server to calculate which stat boosts legacy, I'm sure you could factor in average alliance size, too.

Thorsson64
06-22-2013, 07:04 AM
And I'll add that PvP should be about team play as well. But this way sells more seals...

mightycleric
06-22-2013, 11:14 PM
And I'll add that PvP should be about team play as well. But this way sells more seals...

Yes, it should be, but it is "Player Vs. Player" and the PvE are "Cooperative Servers", so there is more emphasis on cooperation, and less on personal glory/ego in PvE than there is in PvP. Both should be team efforts, but PvE emphasizes it more, and rewards people for giving up their Dom. rankings in a way that PvP doesn't (often rewarding you for having a higher Dom. ranking), so changing what you reward them for makes sense.

Vorbann
06-24-2013, 02:14 PM
Hi all,

I kept the personal rankings in the heredity score because it represents for me the investment of the player in the game, and therefore he must be rewarded in some way.
I don't think it will create much inegalities as it's a matter of 30 points between top100 and 1st one, less than 10% of what a top players should win (around 300 points).

Vorbann

MartyAmodeo
06-24-2013, 07:36 PM
It's not a matter of the point values so much as it is the motivation for the players. We've seen a lot of people who are willing to do whatever it takes to get the maximum for themselves, and in PVE, this is in direct opposition (at least the way the dark elf attacks are set up right now) to the well-being of the alliance. A player's investment is measured by how well their alliance does, and whether or not the alliance leader keeps them in the alliance. No winning alliance leader is going to keep an inactive player in the alliance.

mightycleric
06-24-2013, 10:00 PM
Hi all,

I kept the personal rankings in the heredity score because it represents for me the investment of the player in the game, and therefore he must be rewarded in some way.
I don't think it will create much inegalities as it's a matter of 30 points between top100 and 1st one, less than 10% of what a top players should win (around 300 points).

Vorbann

What this actually comes down to is that you would then be rewarding the players who put personal gain ahead of working for the good of the alliance. I understand in Wealth and Honor scores it doesn't matter, but with Dom. it matters a lot. Doing this means that a player has to choose between sacrificing their troops for the good of an entire alliance, or holding onto their own troops because of selfish ambition. Rewarding selfishness on a server that is supposed to be about cooperation is contradictory. If you changed it to giving top points for the person who sacrificed the most Dom. to RFs, that would be much better, and the other two could stay the same way.

As it is right now, you say that PvE is supposed to be a "cooperative server", but the reward system gives advantages to those who play in an alliance by themselves, and those who refuse to sacrifice troops for the good of others. You need to make the rewards benefit those who play with a spirit of teamwork and cooperation, not those who strive to put themselves first.

MartyAmodeo
06-25-2013, 12:38 AM
One way to account for this might be to include sacrificed troops in a player's dominance score without including it in the alliance's "Size of all armies" statistic. Perhaps even with a bonus for sacrificing the troops. This inflated number shouldn't be used to determine Dark Elf attack sizes, but it should reward people who develop quickly and still help out their alliance through large sacrifices. It is IMPERATIVE that this is not used to determine attack sizes though.

MartyAmodeo
06-25-2013, 09:36 PM
I doubt it could be programmed for both types of worlds though.

They've already got different scoring criteria. The number of forts owned by the dark elves factors only into PVE, for example. Of course it "could" be done.

Co_Ban
06-25-2013, 10:05 PM
I say finally. I am sick of people getting max legacy for only spawning in alliance territory. I bust my *** off every server i play and some players take the same legacy for doing absolutely nothing. The way i see PvE, you just have to make sure you are first in wealth or honor and you could still sacrifice and contribute to the alliance.
This way players will be more motivated to spend time in the game.

mightycleric
06-26-2013, 03:37 AM
I say finally. I am sick of people getting max legacy for only spawning in alliance territory. I bust my *** off every server i play and some players take the same legacy for doing absolutely nothing. The way i see PvE, you just have to make sure you are first in wealth or honor and you could still sacrifice and contribute to the alliance.
This way players will be more motivated to spend time in the game.

So you're actually saying that you are mad that some of your teammates are getting good legacy? Wow, that's a great attitude. Also, I've seen many times when players with high individual rankings have done less in terms of helping the alliance than other players with lower rankings. Even though they are ranked higher, they were the oens who did "absolutely nothing" for the alliance. In PvP, I think this can be a fine thing, but in PvE where it is supposed to be about team play and cooperation, not selfishness, this doesn't seem to have a place (and they should at least replace being 1st place in Dom. with something else, like most troops sacrificed to RFs for the alliance, or something).

MartyAmodeo
06-26-2013, 08:18 PM
Sounds like a problem caused by the alliance leadership to me.

Thorsson64
06-27-2013, 07:28 PM
Absolutely. It's those damn leaders' fault players decide to look after numero uno. :rolleyes:

Co_Ban
06-28-2013, 07:03 PM
So you're actually saying that you are mad that some of your teammates are getting good legacy? Wow, that's a great attitude. Also, I've seen many times when players with high individual rankings have done less in terms of helping the alliance than other players with lower rankings. Even though they are ranked higher, they were the oens who did "absolutely nothing" for the alliance. In PvP, I think this can be a fine thing, but in PvE where it is supposed to be about team play and cooperation, not selfishness, this doesn't seem to have a place (and they should at least replace being 1st place in Dom. with something else, like most troops sacrificed to RFs for the alliance, or something).
I am saying it is stupid that some player gets max legacy for spawning in center of alliance territory in the beginning of the server and going inactive after moth of playing. Of course I am not mad at my team mates for getting max legacy if they stay and fight until the end. But also if all of us is going to have the same legacy than what is the point in having legacy. Legacy is like money, we all want to have more :)
And btw dom can also be bad in PvP, Cos players will be reluctant to fight not to lose their first place in domination. But again you only need to have high honor or wealth.

MartyAmodeo
06-28-2013, 09:51 PM
In the past, top-10 was 100 legacy points So dropping a bit at the end didn't hurt you. Also, the scores that were counted were a rolling average, NOT your instantaneous score at the end of the world. This encouraged high ranking players to duke it out savagely in the final days, making for very exciting games.

Now top 1 is an extra 10 points over the next bracket. Are you really saying that a player would be so selfish that they'd sacrifice the entire alliance's legacy score on a win so that they don't lose those lousy 10 legacy points??

Toni_G
06-29-2013, 02:50 PM
What this actually comes down to is that you would then be rewarding the players who put personal gain ahead of working for the good of the alliance. I understand in Wealth and Honor scores it doesn't matter, but with Dom. it matters a lot. Doing this means that a player has to choose between sacrificing their troops for the good of an entire alliance, or holding onto their own troops because of selfish ambition. Rewarding selfishness on a server that is supposed to be about cooperation is contradictory. If you changed it to giving top points for the person who sacrificed the most Dom. to RFs, that would be much better, and the other two could stay the same way.

As it is right now, you say that PvE is supposed to be a "cooperative server", but the reward system gives advantages to those who play in an alliance by themselves, and those who refuse to sacrifice troops for the good of others. You need to make the rewards benefit those who play with a spirit of teamwork and cooperation, not those who strive to put themselves first.
I fully agree on this one. Instead of giving points for a personal ranking, you should've think on sharing those points (equally or close) with the alliance ranking and the final no. of RF owned by the DE, so that the maximum legacy obtained should be 360, like the normal PVP servers has.

filipd81
06-29-2013, 08:23 PM
I find it really difficult to assure that all the fortresses will be under human control at the end of the round. The 24 hours protection period after a fortress has been seized by the dark elves combined with the instant 1M points progress for the completion of a grail building makes it near to unpredictable. There are 40 LP of difference, I'm surprised that it has not been commented yet.

I guess that it will require a very good coordination between the alliances which explains the number of points assigned for this achievement. When there are a dozen active alliances things go out of control very easily no matter how cooperative the players of the alliances are. IMO there could be a better way to measure the human dominance over the forts. For instance it could be the number of fortresses held for more than one or two weeks and it could be scaled not so drastically but more gradually with smaller steps - 120 for 0 forts, 110 for 1-2 forts, 100 for 3-4 and so on. In alternative it could be related to the server life. As we all know the more fortresses are controlled by humans the less time a server lasts.

Paul_Rotterdam
06-30-2013, 11:24 PM
In UK server The dragon legacy 4 PvE is a stable situation. 15 forts are in DE hands and 18 forts are in human hands. On a dayly base the numbers are still the same for months now.

One could say its the stubborn 30 mans alliances that create the situation that the DE can maintain 15 forts and therfore also slow down server ending due to the fact that 45% is not taken and played well.

If a few 30 players alliances break up into more appropiate numbers (say 5 alliances containing all 6 members) then all forts would be in human hands and server was ending faster and all players got the maximum legacy points as no DE has any fort.

But if the end of the server is mentioned we will get as many from these 15 forts just in time. Its not so hard work, most of them are eaten away up to the last remaining level.

My idea would be any 30 mans alliance gets zero points regardless the forts for being not flexible enough for this game.

gunnier
07-01-2013, 11:13 AM
The first Russian PVE-server (Dragon Legacy) is still runnung, despite having 200kk progress... It is impossible now to do something because of terrible srever speed... By the reaching of 200kk progress DE had no fortresses... Now situation has changed... We want our honestly deserved legacy points, every alliance did their best, and we got nothing as a result. Tech Support, as always says nothing... Well done, UBI... Well done...

MartyAmodeo
07-01-2013, 06:47 PM
We're a couple of days away from the end on the US PVE too. Hope they get it figured out. :(

gunnier
07-01-2013, 08:49 PM
Well... We've finally received legacy points (not quite correct amount), but the world was closed manually... I hope, that would be fixed (I mean - there is no good to close worlds manually)...

Paul_Rotterdam
07-02-2013, 04:37 PM
LOL kemo, a one man Alliance and a (friend) should only be allowed one fort. For every 4 members each alliance should be able to have one fort, that would work fine. Stops these singles from being loners then.

You probably are right on this one LW, but current game is not working that way.
I just adapt more flexible towards current rulles, that should do 30 mans alliances also i think.

According Gunniers experience with manual closing of the server we can not time good to get all Forts on time.

Paul_Rotterdam
08-13-2013, 09:12 PM
We will try to help you LW if needed the last day.