Jump to content

RPVE level 10 - Increase Time


Recommended Posts

Hello,

I occasionally play lvl 10 with players who have no experience at this level.

I notice that most of the cases where we lose the game, it's not a question of difficulty but rather of time.

21 min.. That doesn't leave us a lot of time. I wonder if we could increase the time allotted by 2-3 minutes.

Thx

Edited by Kybaka
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2022 at 8:39 PM, Kybaka said:

I occasionally play lvl 10 with players who have no experience at this level.

As Windhunter mentioned above, there will probably be some changes coming. I do want to point out that rpve lv10 is not meant for players who have no experience at it however. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As majora has written, I think that the absolutely most difficult game mode of RPVE should be challenging and only a small number of players can manage it. Where would be the motivation for long-term players if everyone can just play the hardest game mode of RPVE after 2-3 weeks? Sure a lot of this stage is skill based, and there will probably be people who even with the absolute best tuned deck incl replay of someone will have trouble to play a RVPE10. But does not matter if they still have fun playing.

please don't get me wrong. Agree with certain maps that you can only beat the map with the absolute metadecks and top teamwork (addressed to the MOTM) and that casual teams without communication in voice or chat with "fundecks" can not beat the map in time. To this I must say for my part: sorry for not sorry

Metagross31 likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who doesn't sweat on the game, I do like the idea of making rPVE10 easier. I do like me a challenge, but not one that requires constant trial and error for every single map, edition and position I spawn in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said inexperienced player at this level, it was not Watcher but rather Skylord (lvl 12) and higher.

 

In the case of a motm, it's easy to restart over and over again for find the right path and the good deck to beat the time. But when you play a random map, it's much more difficult because our decks are not necessarily designed for this type of map : LS, Twilight, Bandit, Fire. In this case, playing with experienced players does not guarantee success.

In an ideal world, the time allotted should vary depending on the difficulty of the map. We can agree that playing a Lost Soul map with Vigil + Tower at T2 camp (Second orb)  is much difficult and requires much time than a Bandit map with only grounds units at the same spot.

You realize this when you look at the rankings. Some months you can saw 5 tabs of teams that reached level 10.. and some months.. only 2 or 3 teams.

In comparison, the second most difficult level ( 9 - 4 players ) is so easy that it can be won, in most cases, in duo or solo (Treim). 

 

Edited by Kybaka
Volin likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wall of text inc -> tl;dr at the end

Time to speak up here as well. I truly did not think when Ky brought the issue to the table that it would be even slightly controversial. Even less so when you see who supports the issue and who brought it up.

16 hours ago, Majora said:

As Windhunter mentioned above, there will probably be some changes coming. I do want to point out that rpve lv10 is not meant for players who have no experience at it however. 

@Majora, I think you know how much I appreciate your person, your dedication to the team and also you as an innovative pvp player. But.
You write 10s are only for players with experience in 10s. Classic chicken and egg problem, right? Furthermore I would like to ask you, how are your personal experiences in 10s? Do you regularly make random groups in the mode? With well known players, because the others have to be sorted out by us anyway?
Please don't get me wrong here, but I wouldn't mind if we discuss this with 10s players who also know the mode and the problems with it. Hope for your understanding, this is not an offense, but I guess you get my point.

14 hours ago, wanky said:

[...]

From the comfort zone of belonging to one of the TWO premade groups that, after a lot of work, only with voice communication ever succeeded in such a Lost Souls map you mentioned - since SR exists, it's really a bit nasty to say: Let's keep it all that way, we need a challenge too. As a random map and unprepared such maps would neither be defeated by your premade, nor by ours, even with voice, if we didn't have several attempts, which is just not possible on a random map. That wouldn't even be a problem, I like challenges too, if these maps wouldn't be spit out by the random generator. By the way, the proposed 2-3 min would change exactly NOTHING in this situation. No random group has a chance to beat such maps, we would rather need 30-35min for such a 10, which is not in the pipe. So not only is your answer somewhat off-topic, it is unfortunately also so unappealing that any above average player can only be put off. Groups like yours and ours are already seen as closed, elitist circles that are almost impossible to join anyway. We should actually be doing more to help players move up into 10s than saying "If they're too hard, you're too weak."

It should also just be thrown into the discussion that ~10% more time would not make the maps 10% easier, the math is not that simple. Time is by far not the only factor that makes the difficulty of a 10. Most 10's don't forgive one mistake and when one is made, it sometimes takes minutes and the full effort of the whole team to make up for it. And here I am not talking about inexperienced players, but a tiny circle of our top BG players. Yes, we are also human and sometimes make the wrong decision in a split second.

But especially double lanes on the T3, close camps at the T4 or certain bosses at the T4 (or even a combination of the mentioned) cost so much time if you are not prepared for it (a.k.a. Motm), that for the T4 phase in 10s not rarely less than 5min remain. Even in T2, however, there can be time guzzlers that not only require highly optimized decks to cope with the situation (which I think is a good thing) - but it actually boils down to the fact that only a few meta approaches are viable at all. I think that's a shame.

And picking up on this theme (few valid meta-approaches + the general difficulty of the T2-T4 phase) I find Kybaka's suggestion quite wonderful.
Players who are very confident at 9s are often completely gobsmacked by the extended T2-T4 phase when they play their first 10. As someone who has played a bit more 10s randoms, I must even say that reaching T4 is less of a problem here than the time remaining afterwards. And when we play randoms it's not a rare picture that players who don't play a Batariel or a buffed Bloodhorn, spend the last 3-5min only looking at the 3 veterans who bring the map to a finish just before the end. Some of the "new" ones then understand why their actually solid T4 was somewhat ridiculed in the pre-game meeting, build themselves a Bata, or buffed Bloodhorn deck and play the game. But I also understand the players who say: If this is the only solution to get this mode clean, no thanks.

Which leads me perfectly to the 2nd topic: Lack of variety.
In the 10s we see 90% of the same T1 (Fire meta start), exactly two different T2 variants (Phoenix and Gladiatrix) and two T4 variants (Bata/BH). Isn't that a bit poor? Yes, I think it's good that decks would have to be super optimized in 10. But I also think we would need to empower more deck types to do these if they are very solidly built. And before anyone says it, of course we also have a handful (if at all) players trying to break out of the above scheme (Ky, Treim and myself come to my mind here, I'm sure there may be a few more but none that I can think of right now and I think that's saying something). Unfortunately, I've also seen groups like that fail because the fight to T4 took so long that Treim's Stonekin deck just wasn't fast enough and my Bandit deck was banging out so many Charges by T4 that we ran out of timer.

And about me you have to say here: Only my approach to do it without the permanent green-splash forces me to align my deck otherwise to the pure meta (fire start into Phoenix into double shadow spells with BH), otherwise I would have little chance.

To exaggerate, even if we gave an hour for 10s, it would still remain a mode for few players due to its base difficulty, as deeper understanding and background knowledge are needed, quick decisions and very accurate play are still required to get to the goal at all. Personally, I think that these difficulties are sufficient and the timer could play a subordinate role here. Because of me it may also be 5min more.
But the mentioned 2-3min Kybaka has brought forward here, are a more than good idea. The pressure of the difficulty in 10s is in my opinion more than sufficient, we don't need to put good players through additional difficulties.

TL;DR: 10% more time is not 10% easier, a longer timer would not only discourage "new" 10 candidates less, it would also possibly allow a little more variation. I'm very much in favor of that!

PS: 5 people that play random 10s regularly support and 2 people that don't do so (really no offense) are against. Says much on this topic imo.
 

in big parts translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

Edited by Volin
Kybaka likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

So personally me writting here, I do not believe will result in anything positiv, and it would be more useful to not write, and maybe even revoke the like from the kybakas post.

 

I do think it will take a long time, for this project skylords reborn to get a positve pathway, and mostly due to the pressure that people are not willing to play the game.

 

For this thread any change to make lvl 10 more playable for more players is useful. Cause its a nice way to play the game. Especially when you can play lvl 9 after about 10 games played. But I did write this before.

To give more time to the lvl 10 maps is a good way, so that newer players, have a positive outcome, and are more willing to play the map again. I used to play it for playing even if you dont make it. But it takes a lot of games before you see it this way, and even then a winning at the end is nicer.

Personally I would have given a little more energy at the start, so that people wont have to wait 1 min at the start, but that would have interfered with speedrunning a lot more.

For what wanky has said, its also a similar story heard. If more people can make a map it takes away from the look how good you are if you made it. And I believe it does take a little coordination to make the map, and a lot more time to think about the map to finally make it through tries. That said, it is mostly the look, and probably this is why its so important. I have not played with wanky. But generally what I can say that when you hit a rank 1 in a campaign or a motm that does not mean you can play lvl 10 well. But it does mean you have a general idea of the game and this good. I personally would someone like this as a newer player for lvl 10 randoms or what kybaka described as lvl 12+, its even better when you have a rank 1 somewhere or in a motm when playing random lvl 10s. It does not mean that you can play the game well, but it does look that way, and therefore it is so defended.

 

But generally it would not hurt to give the guys the 2-3 mins. So that more people can enjoy the lvl 10s, and the waiting time is reduced. For me I kind of stopped playing, but I maybe look in like every year or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that it is supposed to be even harder, but EA screw up, and did not provide enough different units and buildings, so there are a lot it is trying to generate, but have nothing in the pool, so it generates easier maps, than specified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all @Volin as I said I do not want anyone to misunderstand what I wrote: To my point of view: I find the 2-3 minutes more time absolutely legitimate for BG10, find the suggestion of @Buddelmuddel also on a certain way comprehensible, simply 100energie more at the start to give. I think most Player know that just at the start of BG10 is first a general "wait" for energy, at least if you do not play with a super well-rehearsed team. 

But despite the changes of e.g. More time + more start energy, the map is not easier to play for less experienced players. Exactly that I also find good and I welcome. It should be hard, and as @Volin said, it does not mean that more time = easier. 

But what needs a revision from my point of view, and I think we've heard this enough by now, is that lvl 7-9 should be adjusted so that the difficulty of BG9 to BG10 is not at this enormous lvl. In the map test for the new Presetzt we have already addressed this once and know about the difficulty to implement this. Suggestion for my part was there, that for the presets to revise experienced Rpve players are still brought to discuss the ausschlieslich in this area with can.Have there players like Treim, Pritstift, Arabika, RadicalX, Volin, Mocaak, etc. thought. But currently does not have the highest priority, certainly also because a "broad mass" would not really welcome this change.

Edited by wanky
Affinity and Volin like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2022 at 8:19 AM, arabikaa said:

There is in general very little reason on why you have ~40 in 1p, ~30 in 2p and ~2 in 4p or at least I didn't see it.

Lots of other good comments, but I just want to weigh in here:

For a player at my skill level, this is exactly the right amount of time for each map, so that I win ~75% of the time?

In 4p, its very easy for 1 good player to carry the rest, especially if you use tactics like letting one player go t4 and take all wells while other stay t1, or use decomposer etc.  If one player dies instantly because they're rushed, the other player can take their wells/orbs.

Or, if you make a mistake and lose some wells/orbs, it's not that big of a deal because there are other players to pick up the slack. If your t2 gets rushed in 1p, it might take 5-10 mins to build an army to retake t2, without a teammate to help you.

Thus, the only way to decrease the winrate (assuming winrate = difficulty) is to add a time limit. 4p is also strictly easier than 1p imo, because its always obvious how the map is laid out and you don't typically get reinforcements from a weird angle. (In other words, I think it would be easier to beat a 4p map with 1 player and no timelimit, rather than a 1p map with no time limit).

For players who know what they are doing, time constraints are pretty similar for 1p and 4p maps. More than 96% of wins occur with more than 1 minute ( <95% of total time) remaining in 4p rpve 10. Thats pretty similar to the number of players who win before 95% of total time in 1p rpve 10.

However, winrates are still very different between the two, with 1p maps having 50% winrate and 4p maps having 85% winrate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Eirias said:

However, winrates are still very different between the two, with 1p maps having 50% winrate and 4p maps having 85% winrate.

In solo matches there comes no one that says "Nah, not with this deck".

We should have that in mind when comparing this numbers.

Though still surprised about 85%. Taking early restarts into account, LS maps that most groups usually skip in 10s (even the better ones) I'm really surprised, though I don't doubt your numbers must be correct.

May I ask about how many matches in what timespan we speak here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 50% vs 85% wr comparisons seem to be rPvE 9 ratios tbh. My source might be different and is based on data from may 2021 (data tracking started at full release iirc), but for rPvE 10 they look like this: 

1 player 10: 13% winrate (˜14.000 game sample size)

2 player 10: 9% winrate (˜2.500 game sample size)

4 player 10: 22% winrate (˜4.000 game sample size) 

Take this with a grain of salt since it does not include a lot of variables (faction preset, restarts, MotM impact etc.).  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RadicalX said:

The 50% vs 85% wr comparisons seem to be rPvE 9 ratios tbh. My source might be different and is based on data from may 2021 (data tracking started at full release iirc), but for rPvE 10 they look like this: 

1 player 10: 13% winrate (˜14.000 game sample size)

2 player 10: 9% winrate (˜2.500 game sample size)

4 player 10: 22% winrate (˜4.000 game sample size) 

Take this with a grain of salt since it does not include a lot of variables (faction preset, restarts, MotM impact etc.).  

 

Hey Radi, thank you so much for correcting this. My first thought on the numbers was: plain numbers don't lie, Eirias is trustworthy, my gut must be wrong here. But the 85% robbed me of an hour or two of my sleep. 🙂 

This is much more plausible and your postscript here is very important, the 22% is distorted by speed runs alone - but this is true for all 3 modes (1p, 2p and 4p).

Still, it's not quite as simple as Eirias presented the difference between 1p and 4p. Yes, solo rpves are basically much harder due to the layout. And that good players on a 4 player map can pull less good ones along is of course correct, but:

On 2/20/2022 at 6:26 AM, Eirias said:

In 4p, its very easy for 1 good player to carry the rest, especially if you use tactics like letting one player go t4 and take all wells while other stay t1, or use decomposer etc.  If one player dies instantly because they're rushed, the other player can take their wells/orbs.

This does happen, at least in the random groups in which I play, not very often. In fact it is even seen almost never. One good player is not able to pull a full group here, if not every player has a minimum strength. Even 2 VERY good players (speaking here of our very best ones) would hardly be able to pull a whole group here on an average map, this would only be possible on the most easy maps. Else time is the limit here.

On 2/20/2022 at 6:26 AM, Eirias said:

Or, if you make a mistake and lose some wells/orbs, it's not that big of a deal because there are other players to pick up the slack

That is partly correct of course, but as I stated before: Even for some smaller mistakes it can take the effort of a whole group to keep the player in the game at all. He is still behind after that and this is something where the proposed 2-3min more would come in very handy in my opinion.

I remember the bail out in a match a few weeks ago, where Gameover, Treim and another good player saved my ass because I pulled accidently a close camp on position 4. I was drowing in waves and lost 3 or 4 wells and my T1 for two times. If I did not share the side with Treim this would have been a lost game. It took the guys 20-40 spells only to keep me in the game - and I lost so much energy that I was NO help in the late match at all. Just as an example. And damn, I am not that bad myself in BGs usually 😄

On 2/20/2022 at 6:26 AM, Eirias said:

f one player dies instantly because they're rushed, the other player can take their wells/orbs.

If one player dies, this is usually not covered that easy. If for example player1 drops out, player 2 is confronted with 2 additional waves at least - in the worst case (he hit the t3) it may be up to 5 additional waves for the remaining player. As there are enough wells and orbs on a 4player map to do your job in a full group this may be covered by the remaining player, but usually that comes with A LOT extra effort. This is only a no-brainer on the super easy 10s.

 

 

Just want to add the thoughts that all this is not so easy to judge. And please don't get me wrong Eirias, I want to emphasize that there is some truth in each of your statements. Only there is just also to consider what I have written to the individual facts.

If we now still have the 22% in mind, that here partly of the groups that play the 10 4 player mode the worst players are sorted out, who simply would have no chance to pass this mode, then this speaks in my opinion even more for the proposal of Ky here to put the time a teeny tiny bit up.

What I'm saying is: In 4p very often only groups compete that have any chance at all, while the threshold to start a 1p to have a look (which is a fantastic option ofc) is very low

I want to reiterate here, a good 10% more time would not just make the mode 10% easier. It would make it a little easier and a little fairer, yes, but it truly would not be a trivialization of 10s.

 

Edited by Volin
arabikaa likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Volin I think you misunderstand everything I was trying to say lol. My bad.
I am simply pointing out that, given unlimited time, 4p maps would essentially have 100% winrate (besides restarts or if all 4 players have no idea what they are doing), while 1p maps will never get there. 1 player can absolutely pull the whole group in lvl 10 if time wasn't an issue, and I suspect that beating 4p rpve 10 with 1 player and unlimited time is actually easier than beating 1p rpve 10 with unlimited time.

So, it is "fair" to give 1p essentially unlimited time, and give 4p a time limit such that it will result in a similar overall winrate as 1p. This my only argument. Whether or not it was achieved is a different story, but I'm just saying it makes perfect sense to give 4p a much shorter time limit than 1p.

Trust Radi's data more than mine for this, I have to get my data 2nd hand for winrates of the expert maps, and this was just labelled "Rpve 4/1 Player." Entirely possible that I was given rpve 9 instead of rpve 10, or an average of the two. Regardless of whether the data is 9 or 10, the point is that 4p maps have close to double the winrate of 1p maps, and this holds up in campaign as well.

Regarding

On 2/21/2022 at 3:25 AM, Volin said:

I want to reiterate here, a good 10% more time would not just make the mode 10% easier. It would make it a little easier and a little fairer, yes, but it truly would not be a trivialization of 10s.

I want to point out that this is not necessarily the case. As we have established, many (most?) 4p maps lose because of time, not because they are wiped out. So if you looked at the distribution of players, it's possible that *most* teams who lose, lose by <2 minutes. Thus, by increasing the time by 10%,  it is possible that the winrate changes from 22% to something >50%, which effectively "halves" the difficulty.

I'm not arguing for or against anything, just pointing out the nature of the game mode. Also possible my perception is skewed because I've never seen a casual group attempt 10s in NA timezone, so my experience is that I'm usually carried even when I fail, and if we lose it's just because we barely ran out of time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use