[Feedback] Item rewards and queue times in MP incentivize resigning

Sometimes I resign simply because I don't think I have a chance to win. I hope I won't be penalized for that in the future.

 

But you don't do that on turn 1, though, right?

 

Right. But I'm just saying, I hope people don't constantly report over resigning. And I especially hope resigning won't automatically lead to warnings, and eventually bans. I agree with those who've said we should aim to de-incentivize resigning so that this doesn't turn into a mess.

 

I think that everyone's allowed to resign when it's obvious to them that there's no point dragging the battle out, but a message to say you're doing so would be a nice bit of etiquette to follow. Y'know, a kind of "Well played, the battle is yours" type of thing.

The problem seems to be a) the people who are trying to tank their scores downward to make their subsequent matches and therefore loot drops easier and b) players who are "helping" others by resigning immediately.

 

I'd hope that if you take a few moments to explain that you are resigning because you feel that you have been beaten in the chat box then your opponent won't report you.

 

My previous statements are all about the auto/instant resigning If that happens I would also be ok with no reward chest, for that type of win.
All I ask is that people at least play say 3 combat turns.
If you can tell your up against an opponent with better gear you can still learn from their combs and play style.
I try not to resign in games.

 

To be honest when someone gives me a free win just for connecting to the game for a few seconds i'd rather thank them than report them.

If resigning from games in particular circumstances (such as on the first turn) can lead to being reported, then it might be a good idea for that to be mentioned in a tutorial message or some other obvious place. Not a lot of point having rules if players aren't told about them.

 

I think all we are doing here I throwing out Ideas on how to combat some people that exploit the game mechanic.
It is by no means meant to be taken as chapter and verse, set in stone or how ever else some are taking it.
We are just the BETA TESTERS not Devs, but by putting things out there to be considered we are doing just as I think the Devs would like us to be doing.

 

I found this thread yesterday and enjoyed reading the debate. Last night I found myself in a spot where it was very late (past 1AM) and needed only a couple more wins for the epic chest. So I was being very selective about who to fight, if I got paired with a higher-ranked player, I would immediately resign to save the time on a hard fight. As has been mentioned, there are a number of reasons for someone choosing to pass on a fight, and IMO those should be allowed to occur. As someone mentioned earlier, I do think that it would be nice to choose whether or not to reset the win-streak for the purple chest. Bedtime gets delayed for loot too often, haha.

 

The current MP item reward system is exploitable by playing to lose. That's a problem. Doesn't make it a bad game, or mean there's a bad culture among the beta testers. Doesn't make the devs bad, it's early yet, and mistakes happen. Doesn't make players who resign bad. Doesn't make players who don't resign bad. Someday we'll figure out a better system and everything will be hunky dory.

The only way this becomes a problem is if we create a culture that fixes bugs with scorn instead of patches. If we look at the problem and say "wow that needs a fix!" And advocate for a fix, and suggest good ways to fix it, we're doing our job. When people use the exploit, we should say "oh man that thing again, I should post about it and get it fixed!" and not "what a jerk!"

Because, if all we do is say "what a jerk" and ostracize that player 1) the break will take longer to be repaired. 2) people innocent of wrong doing (who just needed to get to class, or who's kid just started crying, or who's microwave just caught fire) will inevitably get swept up in the report fest. 3) people who are actually exploiters won't care because they are already the sort who are acting outside the collective esprit de corp. If they didn't have the scorn resistance feat, they wouldn't be using the exploit. and 4) we divide the player base into cliques who are constantly policing each other. That is a poor player community. It is much worse than a player community where we all love each other and happily trade wins to build each other's collections. The police community takes forever to fix the problem because instead of stress test the game, they stress test the player base.

Unless we're talking about a bug that crashes the server, don't make this about dividing into "good" and "evil" players. That is selfish. It stems from a desire to look down on people, and replaces taking actual reparative action with being snooty.

 

I guess let's start revisit the reward system then. There should also be a distinction between loosing and resigning. A new tier of reward (lets say broken chest with 1 items and no club reward) can be given for a proper lose. People can then decide to resign and go to the next match quickly or finish the match and grab this small reward. (in a world of RNG loot, a shot at 1 item that can literally be anything is quite addictive in nature).

Resigning repeatedly can still still benefit if they managed to win low MMR match much quicker than winning and losing normally. Proper detection can be added for people resigning at round 1 turn 1 (sometimes battle can be considered over before round 2 can start) and lock them out of MMR queue for an amount of time equivalent to a match (5-10 min). This should cut down their efficiency

 

At the same time, doesn't this increase frustration? I submit to you what I would imagine to be the most common example of my point:

"Ugh, there's no way I'm winning this game, but I have to sit here and go through each round, discard, keep watching him/her steamroll me".

Now, at this point in the player's mind he's lost and would have mashed the resign button. So functionally, there's no difference between a person just hitting pass over and over until they lose for their pieces of candy.

 

I see 2 different problems with multiplayer coming up in the discussion here:
1. Players get nothing for losing which encourages gaming the system to only spend time on matches you are guaranteed to win.
2. Win chest reward cue lacks player control which encourages gaming the system to ensure that you spend the minimum amount of time required to reach your epic chest.

I've played very close, very long games which I lost after nearly 40 minutes of play. At the end, I got nothing and it really discouraged MP participation. In my mind, those 40 minutes, while fun as they were happening, were ultimately a waste of time that would have been better spent on grinding a few more modules in SP because that would have guaranteed getting something for my time investment. Any multiplayer games I've played (which aren't many) offer some small reward for just playing, in the form of less XP or gold for a loss than for a win, so getting one item for losing sounds reasonable. Even a common treasure will still feel like I got SOMETHING for my time. Given the random nature of drops and the low resale value of items, it would be hard (but not impossible) to game the system by losing.

I've really been discouraged from trying to reach that epic chest (and ultimately, from participating in MP beyond a certain point) because the few times I have tried, the clock ran out before I could reach my 20th win. Since you only get rewards if you win and NOT getting those gold and purple chests FEELS LIKE a loss, I usually stop playing multiplayer after the first two or three gold chests. The investment has not been worth the achieved rewards. Changing the reset system to something like 12 hours since your last game would give me the choice to play a few MP games in a day and get those first few chests or, if I have time over a weekend, to grind for that epic chest.

Right now, I think the problem is that there is too much incentive to game the system. I don't think that adding more penalties for frequent or early disconnects will fix the problem because it does nothing to address the disincentives inherent with playing the game properly. Further, it will punish innocent people and drive them away from the game. For me, the investment I put into MP hasn't matched the rewards I've earned and tanking my rating to get a string of easy battles feels too much like cheating, so I'm discouraged from participating at all.

With all that said, I think if there were a way to allow disconnected players to get back into games they were playing, you would reduce the likelihood of punishing innocents. And I think there does need to be some lock-out (?) for first-round resignations, say double their MP cue wait time. This isn't to punish them from resigning as it is to encourage legitimate play. There will always be players who exploit the system. Let's not build the game for them. There are players, like me, who have been tempted to game the system because legitimate play is too discouraging (too much investment for too little profit). Let's build the game so that these players want to play the game properly and are rewarded appropriately for doing so.

 

The choice to resign is still there. If you don't like to watch being steamrolled, you can resign (just not in round 1 turn 1). You are directly trading the broken chest (1 item) for your own time (you can be the judge which one is worth more to you). For me if I i'm in that situation I can call gg wp and ask him to finish it. If he decided to troll and stall, I can simply resign at any point. The frustration is lessened because at least you get something out of it in the end.

 

The only way I can think of fixing this system is to tie rewards into your elo.

If you get a win and your elo is below 1000, then you get a common chest. If you get a win and your elo is over 1000, then you get a gold chest. If your elo is above 1350, then you get a purple chest.

It may create the problem of the best players hogging all the best loot and farming purples all day, but at least people will be incentivized to win. In order to prevent the farming of the best loot, the system could be changed so that after your first win of a purple chest, your next win will only be gold, and your next win after that common. Same thing for players who win a gold first - their next win will only provide a common.

 

There's always going to be the path of least resistance, no round 1 resignations? Pass Pass Pass Pass Discard Resign. More wasted time for both people. Ok you have to at least move with 1 character in the first two rounds? Move Pass Pass...etc

100% agreement. I'm in the same group of players.

I want to win that epic chest, and I used to be able to do that in a fair amount of time. The current system pits me against too many difficult Opponents (you guys are all pretty good in the 1200+ bracket) and even Mom wrecks my face off from time to time with a sting of nasty cards or a block or two.

I can't grind that epic chest anymore and I won't with the current system. 3rd Gold Chest Max for me, and then I'm done for the night.

 

You said it yourself. This only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer and would make MP the playground for only the top ranked players with the best loot. I think this would encourage even more system gaming, though it may change the system you're gamimg, because people like me with middle-rank skill will never have a chance to get those epic chests without gaming. Not a good move.

The only way you could convince me this is a good idea would be if you could show that a player using only common, uncommon, and rare items could CONSISTENTLY beat a player of equal skill who uses epic, legendary, common, uncommon, and rare items. (Yes, it is possible to get epic and legendary items in gold and even common chests, but probability is against you.)

This is true, but I think for most players who want to play legitimately, if you get them to play one round, they will try to play the other rounds until they feel they've really lost the match. I've found playing a few rounds against an opponent that completely outclassed me in skill to be both fun and instructive. If I know that by trying to win for a few rounds against a stronger opponent until it is clear that I am outclassed I can win one random item, while giving up on the first turn will get me a double delay on my next game, I'm likely stick it out and try, which will give both me and my opponent some fun.

Note that I say that any discouragement of early resigning does not fix the problems causing people to resign early. It really only works if you better incentivize legitimate play at the same time. And the path of least resistance will always be there and there will always be players who want to play that game instead of the one you intended them to play. So don't build the game for them. Build it for the people who want to play the game you build.

 

I got to thinking about another game I play, the "ranking" system fluctuates much more rapidly than in Card Hunters, there are only 9 ranks. If you lose a couple games in a row you could easily drop from like rank 4 down to rank 6 or 7, so if you have a string of bad losses, now you are much more likely to face someone you can actually beat for a couple games, before it quickly raises back up to facing harder opponents. This way one can win a few games and lose a few games and never really get stuck on a big losing streak.

Now I am NOT proposing this system in Card Hunters, but like I said, it got me thinking. A big issue for me in MP is apparently everyone queuing up at the same time as me is either about a hundred or more points above me, or so far below me that the matchmaker doesn't even consider them. This leads to streaks of games against superior opponents with little chance to win. When I inevitably lose several games, my ranking doesn't drop much because I was out of my league, and on the rare occasion I do win my ranking jumps back up, so I am stuck in this hostile bracket.

So what if, when losing multiple games in a row, you are more likely to face lower opponents, and when winning multiple in a row, you are more likely to face higher opponents? This could be accomplished by adding an additional temporary modifier when on a streak. For example say you lose a game, you get -10 or so. The second game you lose another -10 and there is a hidden temp modifier of an additional -10. The third loss in a row you lose 8, and the modifier gets -16, double that, fourth could be triple, this could actually get out of hand, but you get the idea. Someone intentionally losing these matches in a row will be facing increasingly lower and lower opponents, getting less of a drop for their efforts and encouraging them to actually try to win a game to break the streak. The opposite could be true for winning too many games in a row if necessary, punishing players for intentionally tanking their rating and then trying to capitalize by beating a bunch of noobs. Once someone wins or loses a match and breaks their streak, the temporary hidden modifier would be cleared and they would go back to facing opponents at their current rating level.

Ideally this would not punish people who play normally, because I think everyone expects to win a little and lose a little when playing at their level of skill. The matchmaking might need to be adjusted so that players that are already high and winning will not have to wait inordinately long to be placed in a match if there is nobody above them to fight.

This is just an idea of course, I am sure there are problems with it, such as that it may encourage people to concede several games in a row and then fight against people lower than them, but perhaps knowing that if you just play normally you will naturally be matched up against people you will be able to win would encourage people to just play the game as intended.

 

Uhh, the rich getting richer is already problem in this build. Once someone manages to get access to the top cards, they can continue to steam roll out twenty wins provided they have enough time.

The bigger issue with MP isn't that there are better cards, it's that those better cards so far outclass the lower cards that no one stands a chance just due to gear.

Specifically, the OP cards right now that need to be taken out of MP are the cards that step-attack for more than two squares, or the team push abilities that move more than 2 squares, the attack cards that hit for more than 11, and the Frosty Staff (which needs to cost two yellows instead of one yellow one blue). If one person has any of these mentioned cards and the other person has none, then they will lose no matter what the skill levels are. A warrior who can hit you for 17 while yours only hits for 7 cannot win. Even the best armors in the game only block for 4. The current cards warriors have access to at the yellow orb tier clearly outclass priest or wizard cards at the yellow orb level.

My proposed system is much smoother, because it cannot be gamed by losing on purpose. Just reset elo's every two weeks. Bam. Everyone gets a fair chance at making it into the top elo's every two weeks.

EDIT: And leadership too. That's another OP ability as far as MP goes, in fact, that one is straight up broken because you can build a human team with two leadership's each resulting in unlimited turns and deck cycling forever.

 

Current system isn't the rich get richer scenario. That's is the entire point of an ELO system. If a player have these OP cards (by your standard) they should be matched with people having similarly OP cards. If my attack card only deal 7 damage, I should be matched with people with the same card, (or better card but low skill, or worse card but high skill). Regardless, that player with OP card and me both won game roughly 50% of the time, and win the same type of chest everytime, thus getting the same chance of acquiring more OP card. Giving people with high ELO better chance of OP cards is directly a "rich get richer" scenario.