Ludia Forums

PvP frustrations

Based on the activity on this forum (and this is the first time I have ever played a game that made me so frustrated that I was compelled to participate in a forum), there is serious discontent with pvp. Here is a list of some of mine:

Matchups are consistently lopsided (in reality, even if levels and trophies are roughly equal). Most battles, I know if I can win as soon as I see the lineups. By the end of the first turn, I know if there’s any hope of making even a single kill for the eventual loser.
I lose the initiative roll 78% of the time.
Special abilities and attacks don’t seem to be working right:
Bard: my bard’s dominate is successful about 25% of the time; opponent bards get dominate to work over 90%. My dominate lasts 1 turn; opponent bard’s is consistently 2-3 turns.
Ranger: my dragon’s wrath attack (hit all enemies in a single zone) works maybe 15%; opponent ranger gets it 50% and scores a crit about 75% of regular attacks.
Wizard: my stun works about 20% of the time; opponent wizard’s stun works not only closer to 50% of the time, but it usually affects all of my characters in a single zone and it lasts 2-4 turns. Yesterday I had a pvp battle in which the opponent wizard (without moving) got to use it with no cooldown whatsoever.
The overall rate of victory is about 35%, which means that the matchups aren’t really even, somehow.

Does upgrading the bard’s epic lute yield more rounds on dominate? Do upgrades to the legendary mask give the wizard multiple targets? If so, that confirms my suspicion that pvp is designed to get players to spend RL $ to upgrade gear in order to have a fighting chance.

Otherwise, there’s something seriously wrong with the algorithms. The lack of response by devs on this means: they really have no clue what’s wrong, they don’t care that players are frustrated, or they designed it this way for some reason

I am not a statistician, but there is something up,here.


There has been concern with PvP from the outset. Unfortunately, the development has proven incapable of resolving the issues, rather. each attempt to fix PvP has compounded existing issues.

In the current forum topic I will attach below recent forum topic you will surely find cohesive sentiments.

I agree with the pvp problems but to answer a couple of your questions, yes dominate last longer based on how far you upgrade it. Mine is currently at two turns as is most everyone I play. It has been this way since I was about level 12ish. I have seen a couple of people last as long as 3 rounds. I believe you need to get it to level 7 for that. I have never seen more than one person get stunned in a single shot, but it might be an upgrade I am not sure. Just to be clear are you talking about stun where the heroes can literally do nothing, not even counter attack, or are you meaning they are just immobilized or disarmed, or a combination of the two? My legendary mask is only at level one, and I can see that level two makes it last longer but doesn’t say anything about multiple targets. Maybe someone else can answer that better

Sheku -

Do not feel bad…most of us feel your pain. I was just going to write in and say I have not been pvp’ing much and was going to request they remove the daily pvp quest. Deal 1500 using Naomien - I played anyway, she got dominated, and I easily got the quest complete. :slight_smile:

This was the same game where my opponents Barbarian healed back to full at the end of each round, and his priest revived twice, and my dominate was resisted, and my Locks damage on move did not proc 6 times in a row (75% chance) and my rouge did a miss…miss…miss…hit twice in a row.

So welcome to the club!

Thanks. That confirms my suspicion that gear is the key, but that the algorithm doesn’t take it into account when calculating a matchup.

That doesn’t explain the violations of probabilities in success rates, but it does help explain the lopsided matchups.

Unfortunately it is easily explained. The developers have spent a year generating and refining this pathetic algorithm. They are satisfied with it and could care less that it does not work.

It does when coming up with a match vs bots (but only to make the fight harder), but not against humans.

Humans or bots doesn’t matter. I am convinced that the algorithm DOES, in fact, take gear into account. The devs intentionally designed it to make PvP a frustrating mess. The only way to have a chance is to have my cleric and my ranger. I lose initiative 95% of the time, so that’s clearly rigged. My opponents have their special attacks work far more often than I do, so that’s also not working on a random basis. Then, my opponents almost always have far superior gear. So, the only explanation that makes sense since the “random” rolls clearly don’t operate according to normal probability math is that it’s intentional. The devs have to have heard the complaints that are dominating the forum. The only reason for doing it is to try to convince players to spend real life money to improve their gear.

It’s even worse since I usually know who will get the victory as soon as I see the lineups. I know by the end of the first turn if the loser (me 66% of the time, which indicates that the system is rigged or that should be roughly 50%) even has a chance at making a single kill.

And they won’t even give us a surrender button. I am very seriously considering deleting this app over the irritating frustration with PvP.

If your fighting real people why would it be rigged against you?

I don’t think its simply using the advertised proc rates but I think everyone is in the same boat


A patent that was filed by Activision was for PvP matchmaking that preferentially matched players who purchased a premium gear against players who were vulnerable to the gear.

So it’s conceivable that the game may have differential dice for paying vs non-paying players.

However, I find this to be fairly unlikely because it would cost extra development hours and, given Ludia’s track record, would have been advertised it as a feature of a VIP subscription.

1 Like

Funny thing–a few days ago I PM’d retsamerol about ShekuKilabi’s observation–that the game being rigged against me. So it’s not only me then…

Wow. Just wow. I just got destroyed in 2 turns by a team that was all lower level. It wasn’t even close. Not a single kill. Couldn’t even do significant damage. Based on what people say, I guess PvP is a misnomer. It seems that players only face bots since the system is so mathematically unreasonable.

The game is completely and utterly rigged to not make sense. I have faced you 3 times in PVP. You won twice and I won the other but only cause I was lucky. And it made no sense because you were 5 LEVELS LOWER THAN ME. It was your level 10s and my level 15s. There is no possible way you could have won the matches but the game decided you were winning so that is what happened. Also it had you at level 3600 so I dont know how a level 10 player could have got this high

I don’t level my characters past level 10. I have been playing much longer than you so I have level 7 epics and level 2 legendaries.

Equipment matters more than level. Character level is not a reliable indicator of character strength.

That should answer why I beat you consistently and why I’m in underdark league.

I also have mostly max level epics and many legendaries. There is no way a level 10 should be beating a level 15

Nope equipment choice and level far more important.

I fought an all level 8 team with my 12-14 got absolutely wiped

Often One way to tell how developed the characters r in terms of gear vs yours is to look at the health bars

I also like to think that I usually make the optimal moves given the composition of my party, my opponent’s and the turn order.

Also, I don’t think leveling gives you a particularly large advantage in terms of stats. It would be a few percentage differences at most.

Only a complete redo can fix the PvP. The upgrades are far too drastic. In D&D, a level 2 character may have picked up a bit of kit that helps a little. He/she will have a few more hp. A level 1 character still might stand a chance if played right, against a weaker player.

In this game, which is nothing like D&D, upgrades work akin to this. Unarmed, pistol, guided missle, aircraft carrier, Death Star… There is no option to outplay a weaker player, who happens to have slightly better gear than you. Their Insta kill will always beat your wet noodle. End of story.

1 Like

Here’s a thought: let’s get some honesty from the devs. PvP is a rigged piece of garbage! He dice rolls are obviously violating the rules of probability. The whole thing is entirely about people who spend real life money to upgrade gear having complete domination. The matchups are patently uneven. It’s so bad that it’s really hard to believe that it’s the result of lazy, sloppy coding and not intentional.

Players keep asking for a surrender button for a reason. That’s the easiest fix the devs could do. Especially if they insist on making battle mode daily quests.

1 Like

I’m generally a fan of Hanlon’s Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

But “stupidity” could also include apathy or limited budgets.

My working hypothesis is that Ludia cheaped out on building their their pseudo-RNG when developing their mobile games, and relied on a readily available unreliable library or basic function. I’ve gotten triple/quadruple misses a few times for multi-attack/AOEs, which is suggestive that they’re using some kind of system clock based seeding pseudo-RNG.

A lot of so-called RNG aren’t really that great, or aren’t great when used in a particular combination of language and operating system. For example, see I wouldn’t say that’s intentional or malicious, just relying on a function that doesn’t do a great job of generating true random results.

In terms of abusable predictable RNG in games, see this fun little guide on Fire Emblem:

And of course, there’s been a large number of stunts pulled by coders who have figured out the pseudorandom seed and have gained limited control over all Nethack RNG rolls:

The bottom line is that I think the weight of evidence on this topic is that the repeated or strings of unlikely results are have a greater chance to be the result of relying on a RNG function or library that doesn’t do a great job modeling true randomness.

1 Like