<https://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/6082-current-proposal-pvp-rewards-aot-rpve/#comment-81583>
<http://schema.org/text>
"Hello MrXLink,\n \n\n\n\tFirst of all thanks for making this thread. I'm really convinced that a remarkable part of the PvP community would benefit from higher gold incomes and it can clearly enhance the overall game environment. Sorry for the upcoming wall of text, but I really need to talk about this topic!\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tCurrent PvP Values \n \n\n\n\tI would like to start with some basics about the current reward system and potential problems. So let's get into the current formulas to check current rewards (They should be accurate as I double checked my calculations with gold incomes in some of my own games).  \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\t1. Winning player\n \n\n\n\tDuring the interval [0;2] the gold reward is at flat 250. \n \n\n\n\tDuring the interval [2;20] the amount of gold f(t) get's calculated as a function of time (t=minutes) -&gt; f(t) = 250+((t-2)/18 * 1100) \n \n\n\n\tAfter 20 minutes the gold cap of 1350 got reached and it won't get higher regardless of gametime. I assume this is done to prevent abuse of 2 people agreeing on completely afk'ing in the game. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\t2. Losing Player\n \n\n\n\tDuring the interval [0;2] the gold reward is a flat 100.\n \n\n\n\tDuring the interval [2;20] the amount of gold f(t) get's calculated as a function of time (t=minutes) again -&gt; f(t) = 100+((t-2)/18*400)\n \n\n\n\tAfter 20 minutes the gold cap of flat 500 got reached. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tWhat does this exactly mean? I'll show some rounded GPM values at 5 relevant game spots throughout the game for some clarity. 2, 5, 10 and 20, 30 minutes marks will be used here.\n \n\n\n\ttime -&gt; Winning player (Losing player) [50% wr player]\n \n\n\n\t2min -&gt; 125 GPM (50 GPM) [88GPM]\n \n\n\n\t5min -&gt; 87 GPM (33 GPM) [60GPM]\n \n\n\n\t10min -&gt; 74 GPM (28 GPM) [51 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t20min -&gt; 68 GPM (25 GPM) [47 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t30min -&gt; 45 GPM (17 GPM) [31 GPM]\n \n\n\n\tComparison: I'll take your rPvE 9 value from one of your previous posts for that (145GPM). This implies that our average rPvE player aproximatly needs 29 minutes on average to win one map. Given that I think the average game time is faster, but there is no 100% winrate for all of these players that may be a quite accurate value. The average player in PvP has a 50% winrate in a normally distributed PvP environment. I'm pretty sure it isn't given (players with avg. skill should sit at sub 50% winrates), but I hope some gold changes may motivate more players to step into action again to fix that matchmaking problem. Anyways, these numbers lead to some problems I see with the current system and make me think that just raw stat increases won't be the solution to the issue. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tThe big problems I see right now\n \n\n\n\t-&gt; GPM constantly decreases with increased game time. \n \n\n\n\t-&gt; Winning PvP (highly skilled) is getting compared to average rPvE times (moderately skilled)\n \n\n\n\t-&gt; Losing income is really low, which is very counterintuitive for new players\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tThe constant decrease of GPM over time is a problem for balancing. If you straight up increase GPM values on by putting in a multiplicator onto the formula you end up promoting the easiest way of abusing the game which is straight AFK'ing &amp; wintrading. An AFK player will always be finished off after 2-4 minutes. If GPM are at their peak during this time this is a problem for potenial buffs to gold rewards. The question about rewarding 30min games over 20min games is another discussion (maybe you could check the percentage of 30min PvP games, if that is possible for you). From my perspective I would set a soft cap for these last 10 minutes rather than stopping at 20min. If equally skilled players face off against each other in certain matchups games tend to last much longer than average PvP games once the players reach higher tech stages. \n \n\n\n\tAnother problem I see with most arguments is that the PvP Winner gets compared to the average rPvE player. I would consider myself pretty experienced in rPvE, but not top tier. I still get to finish 4 rPvE 9's in an hour. This puts me at a GPM of 280, which is completely out of the range of what I would achieve with my current 92% PvP winrate even in the proposed improved system. This is something that really should be put into consideration when talking about these calculations. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tMatchmaking issues\n \n\n\n\tSo let's talk a little about this problem beforehand. Right now GPM are vastly decreased by high que times and a very high participation of Top 10/20 players in ranked games resulting in que times. I really hope that after the upcoming reset and potential improvements to the PvP environment it may be possible to overcome some of these issues. With more motivated PvP players there would be a higher gold outcome for everyone as it minimizes the loss through que times. When talking about values it should always be considered, that the gold loss during waiting times has a clear implication onto the true outcome. That said I don't want to include this inconsistent variable too much into my arguments.  \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tAbuse of strong gold incomes \n \n\n\n\tLet's talk about it as you emphasized potential abuse as an issue. I don't think it is possible to abuse the system in a way, where it ruins game experience for serious players. If a change manages to make PvP interesting enough to attract abusers it will attract more serious players aswell, which has a much greater positive impact onto the PvP scene. There are 2 ways of abusing a high gold outcome for PvP:\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\t1. Que up and stay AFK\n \n\n\n\t2. Try to delay the game as much as possible\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tFor the first case, this may be a delay of 2 minutes. Finishing off an AFK is an easy task, should be done in less than 2 minutes and grants some valuable gold. I don't think anyone will be too sad about a free win. Since there is a report system nowadays you could also just threaten to ban people that are doing such things. The second case I mentioned is doable aswell. People that try to delay by turteling or running away will run out of gas pretty quickly. Mass towers allow early free wells that result in a fast T3 finish while running away without ressource generation will also be a death sentence, since ressource generation just works through immobile buildings, that can get targeted directly.  \n \n\n\n\tSure there may be different ways to abuse the system to get gold with a friend, but that doesn't ruin the game experience for anyone as you won't participate in these matches. Even with an increased gold income for PvP it will never get close to certain abuse strategies. You could also team up with a friend in dwarfen riddle expert to let him solo the map. You can make some food during this time and get a 500 (?) GPM value for that. Soultree is also an option to boost gold incomes into different levels in case you are a solo player. Unless PvP rewards for losing players start being competive to \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tWhat are my goals?\n \n\n\n\tBefore I start talking about real numbers, I want to talk about long term goals. Overall I want to see an attractive game with enjoyable gameplay for the majority of players in all gamemodes. I think the PvP community right now is quite small, but this wasn't always the case. During early 2013 times we had a very strong community and a strong PvP environment. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\t1. Better new player experience (increased rewards for losing players that tried their best)\n \n\n\n\t2. The possibility for veterans to grind without spamming PvE \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tI'm convinced, that the amount of people that would try out PvP within a much more begginerfriendly environment gets a little underestimated in general. A more consistent income would increase the ability to get decks and cards, that you see in your first games, where you surely end up getting crushed. But with a quicker removal of competitive discrepance through ressources you can start learning the game much faster and enjoy its beauty when the real PvP gameplay starts. Under equal conditions it is much easier to identify mistakes and improve. At that point the wins start to come in which brings in more motivation to go on.  \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tSo the next thing I'm talking about is also about the veterans, that used to play PvP during 2013. I think the majority of people in the PvP community do want to achieve their first playable PvP deck within one month of active gameplay. To get the big picture that means 170.000-260.000 gold depending on the faction you want to play. Sure you somewhat can start playing seriously with some cards being on U2, but I made the estimation, this value may probably the difference, that my final modell doesn't catch due to the loss of gold through que times. With a GPM of 125 this would range from 22-35 hours. Looks bearable for the cheaper decks, but keep in mind only the best players do have winrates above 80% over many games and I used the winner values here. Average values of 125 for winning and 35 for losing imply a 80GPM for 50% winrate players. Back to 35-54 hours of raw gameplay for the first deck again. But without a competive deck the winrate will most likely be lower than 50% at the start even as a veteran. A state where grinding for a deck still isn't worth it.\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tSparring grounds\n \n\n\n\tNot much I can add here. The potential for abuse is very high, but no rewards at all aren't satisfying especially for people who are afraid of ranked and the ones who want to get practice beforehand. Setting up a low percentage based on ranked income seems like a good solution for me. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tWhat changes I would like to see\n \n\n\n\tThe gold value I would like to see for a reasonable grind would be the possibility for people to get an upgraded PvP deck in about one month of gameplay. If we say Mr. XYZ plays 1 hour on average each day, this means we \"ideally\" do have 30 hours of gameplay. A full deck roughly costs 200.000 gold on average. In order to achieve that, we would need 111 GPM. An average player shouldn't earn less than that if PvP should end up in a reasonable state in terms of gold gains. \n \n\n\n\tThe second value that I use to adjust my final proposal is the rPvE average value of 145 GPM. If an average PvP player ends up earning more than that, PvP might get vulnerable to that. So I would like to see an average GPM between 111 and 145. This would push PvP into a position where it still gets outshined by rPvE and especially cPvE, but may be able to bring some satisfaction to the people, that simply don't enjoy playing PvE. \n \n\n\n\tSo let's try to get to the final formula. AFK players shouldn't be rewarded here, so flat loss income for the first 2 minutes should stay the same, while the flat bonus for the winning party could get increased by a little bit. It's less vulnerable to abuse and brings more excitement to very dominant games and decreases potential frustration upon facing an afk player. \n \n\n\n\tI decided to keep the income between 20 and 30 minutes for now in my modell. It could see a slight change in the future, but for now it should affect the lowest percentage of games.\n \n\n\n\tMy model also brings rewards for the losing player, that ended up putting a long fight. Unless the enemy manipulates the game aswell no abuser will last long in these games and I really think PvP needs to be much more beginnerfriendly than it is right now. \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tFinal formula and comparison to initial values and other game modes \n \n\n\n\tWinning player:\n \n\n\n\t[0;2] -&gt; f(t) = 300\n \n\n\n\t[2;20] -&gt; f(t) = 300+((t-2)/18*3200)\n \n\n\n\t[20;30] -&gt; f(t) = 3500\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tLosing player: \n \n\n\n\t[0;2] -&gt; f(t) = 100\n \n\n\n\t[2;20] -&gt; f(t) = 100 + ((t-2)/18*1700)\n \n\n\n\t[20;30] -&gt; f(t) = 1800\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tGold income comparison by using the marks of 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes\n \n\n\n\ttime -&gt; Winning player (losing player) [50% wr player]\n \n\n\n\t2min -&gt; 150 GPM (50GPM) [100 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t5min -&gt; 167 GPM (77GPM) [122 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t10min -&gt; 172 GPM (86 GPM) [129 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t20min -&gt; 175 GPM (90 GPM) [133 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t30min -&gt; 117 GPM (60 GPM) [88,5 GPM]\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tThese GPM values are what I would look for. It would be possible to farm upgrades for an entire deck within a month and a decent PvP player still gains below avg rPvE values while high lvl PvP player are still out of contention with PvE speedrunners.  \n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tTL DR;\n \n\n\n\t-&gt; Increased scaling for losing players by 240% \n \n\n\n\t-&gt; Increased flat winner bonus for winning games during the first 2 minutes (150% -&gt; 200%)\n \n\n\n\t-&gt; Decreased gold over time multiplicator for winners (175% -&gt; 88%)\n \n\n\n\t-&gt; GPM for an average PvP player will roughly stay 15% lower than the average rPvE player\n \n\n\n\t-&gt; GPM for a high ranked PvP player will roughly stay 70% lower than a top rPvE player\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tThanks alot for reading and I really hope, that the PvP community can come back strong again! If there is anything you want to talk about, I'll be around for discussion \n \n\n\n\tBest regards,\n \n\n\n\tRadicalX\n \n"
<https://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/6082-current-proposal-pvp-rewards-aot-rpve/&tab=comments#comment-82475>