Ugh, more chests.
I guess everyone (but me) loves the chests since they are spreading.
Everyone in the game industry, as they generate such lovely rewards.
Time to find a new game I think. Just a year ago this was a game, not a casino.
Rewards were basically free though so that's all fine.
IDK. I don't place money value on time spent, but it's not as if the rewards came as "side effect" to normal gameplay (like mazes, islands etc.). And if you spend several hours on an event, discuss strategies with your team, then the reward should reflect that.
Is there any other game mode you would feel that could replace survival dungeons in events like Mishka or Stormbeared?
Something that is readily available, tested and working? That kinda narrows it down to a normal dungeon, maze, island or mini-72h challenge. But mazes and islands only grindy and not really challenging.
I kinda like the idea of survival dungeons, but bad luck shouldn't kick out your best monsters. We could use war mechanics in a dungeon: Instead of being permanently gone, a monster is lost for a number of hours after a defeat. If the runes/levels of monsters scale with the runes/levels of the available monsters, that could be quite challenging but still managable. But that's something that would have to be coded, even though this might be an easy addition.
Let me sleep on this. Maybe I'll come up with something better
I cannot tell you if the reconnect is a valid option as I am not a tech person, though I will definitely ask, but if its possible it would be a more long-term solution.
I'm a tech person, sorta. And I'm sorry that the following is rather technical.
My crystal ball says that ML works as follows: The game has some internal values stored (gold, food, monster stats, basically everything you can see). Whenever something needs to be changed (the player does an action, like collecting gold), the game checks if the client-side values are still consistent with the server-side values. (It's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.)
Whenever the client-side values do not match the server-side values the game gives the dreaded "something went wrong" message and has to reload, as it does not know why there is a discrepancy, and if in question the client side values are discarded (to prevent manipulation). It can be a bug, it can be a lost connection, it can be that the player logged in from another device, it all works in the same way. Bug seems to happen fairly often. (And it's ridiculous that a simple reconnect will lead to data invalidation.)
And again my crystal ball says that often inconsistencies are not related to the operation at hand. Say if we fight a battle, the game might barf because there is an inconsistency somewhere that can't be caused by that battle (like gold values), but by a bug somewhere else.
So, in a few cases a simple "don't barf in case of a disconnect, simply reconnect" could suffice to fix the issue. But a healthy portion of the issues, major programming changes would be necessary. (Assuming that my assumptions are correct, I'd say very sloppy programming brought is here, but now it's probably very hard to change that.)
For example, say a player wants to move a step in a maze with a fight. Right now, if he presses "move" the coins are deducted (player loses the coins on the SP server), but then if a bug/disconnect occurs during the fight, the reward (progress and roulette draw) are never credited, resulting in lost coins. In wars, once the player presses "fight", the monsters are marked as used, an attack is deducted (both server side, again), but if the game crashes then there is no reward in war coins and the resources are spent.
Roughly, this is as it should be. Once a player enters a "critical" section of the game (where resources are spent, including the resource "monster" in team wars etc.), the game must "lock down" the current state and create a software transaction, that is, all changes related to this action (from spending the resources to rewarding the player for a successful outcome) are either stored as once ("commit"), or not stored at all ("rollback").
So, the correct way to do this is as follows:
Start a (software) transaction that marks what the player wants to do (spend maze coins, start war battle, start dungeon battle).
If there is a result from the client, complete the transaction (obviously). To validate the state, only the affected monsters/valus are compared. For example, if a player fights a team war battle, the result should be saved even if there is a discrepancy in gold/food and similar states that have no relevance for the battle. If such a discrepancy exists, complete transaction and reload the game afterwards.
If there is no result at all (disconnect/flight mode/crash), roll back the transaction. Return the currency (maze coins/attack/used monsters).
To prevent players from using flight mode, use a karma value for war/survival dungeons where each player loses karma for a "connection lost" transaction. If the karma becomes too negative, penalize accordingly. But this should never apply for maze coins, for example.
And the key difference should be: If there is a data discrepancy ("Something went wrong"), this should never lead to negative karma/penalties. Only disconnects can change karma.
But as the game shows no signs of using transactions at all, this might be a major programming task, since no database transactions can be used for such long-running actions. But then, it's work, but not technically difficult. Database programmers have used transactions for over half a century, in conditions much more difficult (different processes competing for the same resources). One that should have been done a long, long time ago, and (sorry if this sounds arrogant, but this is what my software developer heart says) the devs should suck it up and do it if they want to maintain the game for a few more years. Instead of developing more features.
There are some very good ideas in there. However, I would like to simplify this a bit, and make it more into an algorithm.
The key is IMO the "Per book, per element and per category, the 3 monsters with the highest monster power are taken and a sum is formed from them". If a player has rank 2 L monsters, it doesn't matter how many rank 5 R monsters are in there, while in the current formula the rank 5 monsters contribute much more to MP (IIRC).
But we do have measurables in there: Speed, power, life and energy. Now, runes have a wide range how they affect stats (level X stamina is 152% increase while level X speed is only 35%), but I think we can agree that 3 level X runes add between 100%-200% value to the monster.
So, the power formula for a monster could be:
Base score is Speed + Strength + Life/15
Add 5% per (non-gold) rune and level (so 3 level X runes add 150% value)
Add [whatever, 20%] for Nemesis monsters
Add [whatever, 40%] for Warmasters
That's it. Life is a weaker stat than speed and strength, so it has less weight in that formula. The factor on stamina is drawn out of the hat and can be changed at will. Stamina is represented via the runes so we don't need that. One could argue that we might want to add tweaks for strength of moves (say AoE deny moves are better than a single attack move), but hey, if a player uses 3 level X runes on a rank 5 Thorder then that's his problem, that monster will have a huge score.
So we have the ranking for one monster. Not sure what you mean with Category, but I'd just add top 3 monsters in each element and top 3 monsters in each book.
Relics - we want to be simple, don't we? Relics are highly situational. A charging banner is great against Thetys, but wasted against Kihaku. Some Bronze relics are better than a lot of Gold relics. And relics can be switched around freely. I guess I would leave relics out of the equation, for the sake of simplicity.
There. Easy to program. Easy to explain. Much fairer than the current system (IMO).
If we want to use war coin results for match making purpose, the proper way is to use the average war coin income earned by the team members, and not what the team supposedly earned.
You're on to something here.
Say we use the same matchmaking formula as before. But the war coins earned are a property of the player, and the team has just the sum of all players.
Thus, if we have 30 players, each contributing 400 points during the last 3 months, the team has 12k war coins earned. Now, if all players switch to a new team then the new team has - still 12k war coins over the last 3 months. That would fix the problem of players forming new teams.
@keki14 Your cost calculation is incorrect unless you plan to craft up the rune without skipping ranks. You do realize you can craft a X rune with 1 rank9 and 3 rank1 runes no? While gambling isn't my thing I do skip many rune ranks using 3 rank 1runes with 1 of any rune from rank2 thru 9.
Which saves about 15% in rune cost per level, per my most recent numbers. No savings at level 2, so we have 8 upgrades. 0.85 to the power of 8 is 0.27, so instead of 262144 lvl I runes you'll need only (ONLY?) 70.000 lvl I runes, but a LOT more time to craft.
@San I just copied the wiki, it's 262144 lvl 1 runes without gambling.
And don't forget to factor in the require time. Gambling reduces the amount of required runes significantly (I figure by a factor of 3-4), but increases the crafting time. So, no gambling: 24h for X, 4 * 20h for XI, 16 * 12h for VIII, 64 * 8h for VII, 256 * 4h for VI, 1024 * 2h for V, 4096 * 1h for IV. Yes, you can craft the III runes easily in events. But I'm at 332 days so far. Tell me again how you "craft" a level X rune @San?
Even a friggin level VIII rune (which does little in high leagues) takes 21 days, provided that you set your alarm clock every 1 or 2 hours during the night to craft...
Compared to a high level rune, what use is a relic that allows me to increase the level of one of my relics from whatever, 17 to 18?
@David-ML I get anger, I get frustation, I get a lot of things I dont get compensation.
A lot of games give out compensation for bugs. I remember a game that (while having a lot less bugs to start with) awarded the equivalent of $5 or $10 in premium currency whenever there was a major bug, downtime or even a regular update where the game wasn't available for a few hours. And if the bug affected only some players, they would compensate only those. And that's fair, IMO.
But seems SP is so greedy that they'd rather alienate and lose their paying players than give out a bit of free currency.