The way PP should work.

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[anthony210]

honestly, how many people really lose on purpose?  There is (IMO) much more of a stacking/dodging problem than a losing on purpose problem...

Pretty much everyone who starts a new company.  Its easier to get your abilities if you lose since you get more PP.

[ImmanioEiR]

I know I never play to lose. Sure, if we're 2 lvl 1 companies against 2 lvl 8, I don't expect to win, but that doesn't stop me from trying. I don't think I've ever played a game where my opponents seemed to be losing deliberately either (except one guy one time, but I think he was doing it to sabotage for his teammates...).

[anthony210]

Maybe you dont but others do.  Its not wrong but it defeats the purpose of the war.

[Aggamemnon]

You are making to broad a statement when you say everyone does it, a small select few people will do it, and the majority of people won't.

Believe it or not, most people play the game for fun and the matches with the intention of winning.

[Mysthalin]

I personally don't throw games just to get a loss, but I definately search for the most stacked ones so that even if I give my best(thus having fun) I will most likely lose, gaining more PPs that way.

I started doing that after I realised it'll take me at least 60 games to get all my stuff on my brittish doctrine just because I won a lot .

[anthony210]

Thats what im talking about mainly.  The incentive to win is very low since its more beneficial to lose.

[Armfelt]

The incentive to win is very low since its more beneficial to lose.

thou, we don´t want beginners to get stomped 24/7 either.

[Aggamemnon]

Well the options are limited.

Mainly because if you balance rewards you penalize winners.
If you don't balance the rewards you get people playing the system.

Right now we have a bit of both because PP and XP are each on the other system to eachother.
Since XP dictates unlocks, people are still playing the system.

So we either balance both, and give a set curve to unlocks and PP. Rewarding people who can play more.
Or leave it as it is and change the numbers, leaving it open to exploit, but rewarding people who play better.

[Piotrskivich]

Well the options are limited.

Mainly because if you balance rewards you penalize winners.
If you don't balance the rewards you get people playing the system.

Right now we have a bit of both because PP and XP are each on the other system to eachother.
Since XP dictates unlocks, people are still playing the system.

So we either balance both, and give a set curve to unlocks and PP. Rewarding people who can play more.
Or leave it as it is and change the numbers, leaving it open to exploit, but rewarding people who play better.

Or we can reward everyone almost equally as I said in the first post, as it is EiRR turns off casual players who can't play 5 games a day because they will never catch up, but if everyone were given PP equally it wouldn't matter that play as much as the addicts, note however that players who played more could reap more vet and possibly small SP bonuses.

[lionel23]

I do exactly the same as Mys, when I'm on a new account I look for the most stacked game that I can play and have fun and get the best PP game, and I don't go 'looking for games to lose', but merely put the odds against me.

It's like say if you had a company with no vet and vet, the one with no vet you'll tend to use in a manner that may be more risky for the reward as opposed to a company with vet, which you would be very reluctant to do things you normally would do given no vet... I see the same here with beginners/new accounts.

[Ununoctium]

the problem is that people don't get rewarded for fighting even games. just give us an ELO (chess, vcoh) ranking system so you get more pp fioghting players who are BETTER. lower levels simply get a higher +PP for being low level and that base + increases trhough the war by 1pp per game (1pppg) per week (pppgpw) or (PPP, points per per)

[VERTIGGO]

I personally don't throw games just to get a loss, but I definately search for the most stacked ones so that even if I give my best(thus having fun) I will most likely lose, gaining more PPs that way.

I started doing that after I realised it'll take me at least 60 games to get all my stuff on my brittish doctrine just because I won a lot .

Exactly. It's not like anyone wants to lose, in fact I often find myself winning with a new account and thinking to myself, "why am I playing so hard, this is only hurting my future!" I would never ditch my team outright or play badly on purpose, but there's little to no incentive not to understack and ensure a streak of crushing defeats until you can actually afford all those unlocks.

I'm sure the vast majority of us know the pain of seeing 3 XP show up under the match wondering when on earth we'll ever raise that 100 pp for our last two resource advantages.