Why am I playing against 1700 ranked players in leagues?

Is there no better way to set up league play? I'm at around 650 (I don't play PVP aside from daily league or two) and keep playing against 1400+ players. My last 4 games were all busts with two 1400+, 1550+ and a 1690ish with monster gear.

That's not really competitive for them, or awesome for my play experience. Why doesn't it pit equally ranked players together? Or at least ensure 50% of them are close to your ranking? Heck even capping it at 500 above my ranking would be nice...

Really left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

The problem with this would be that someone could just not play regular ranked matches, have a low ELO and as a result play against other people with low ELO who on average (exceptions exist, of course) tend to be less experienced in the game and easier opponents, especially in leagues without preconstructed decks.

That would encourage people not to play ranked or to tank their ELO if they find leagues to be a better way of getting loot, and leagues are not meant to disincentivize people from playing regular ranked matches.

Aside from that, there is a certain charm to me how leagues let you play with people of all sorts, be they new or really experienced, which is something that sets it apart from Ranked. That's just the way I see it, though.

 

I would rather have a fair system than worry about all that. Just up the rewards in ranked play then, sheesh. I seriously don't see how playing against a near 1700 ranked player is fun for either of us.

 

The problem is that ELO is not an indicator of a person's skill in League matches, only in their skill in Ranked matches, so it's not as fair as it sounds.

The devs can't tie League matchups to Ranked ELO because that'd be open to abuse by lowering your ELO for more League wins.

Making a separate League ELO also doesn't make much sense because a person can be really good in some leagues but bad at others. I know I have some leagues which I do better at while others are just a pain for me.

And having an ELO for every specific league would just be a confusing mess.

It's also important to keep in mind that for Quick Draw and Preconstructed Leagues it doesn't matter how large your collection is, so ELO really has no point there, any player whether they have an ELO of 0 or 1700 is on an even playing field and those make up around 2/3 of the total number of leagues, 3/4 this month even.

 

Well, I get your point, but even without constructed (just did constructed and my competition obviously dumped a lot of money into their teams) a 1700 ranked person against 600 ranked person is not fair even assuming equal card choices. I want to play with players who are in my league, pun intended.

 

As someone who consistently hovers in the 1500-1700 range of ELO for Ranked matches...

I can tell you that I lose in non-constructed-deck league to players with ratings as low as the 900s with regularity. I don't think someeone's achievements in ranked MP with their constructed deck should really mean much toward their ability to compete in league. It takes a whole different skillset to do either one. Ranked MP constructed decks are all about being familiar with your deck and its matchups, and the fixed-decks Leagues and quick draw are more about card evaluation and in-game tactics.

 

I think Maniafig has responded well enough that I don't know that there's much to add, but I did have one "nit to pick."

This game is very much not pay to win. I always find it disconcerting when players decide that top ranked player bought their position there. There are many highly rated players and while some may have spent money on the game, many more have not, or have spent very little. It is absolutely unnecessary to spend money to compete at the highest level in this game, and to say otherwise discounts the time, effort and skill of players who have spent the hours to build up a strong item pool and learn the game well.

 

I feel like the game should just not show ratings in league matches so people stop complaining about this.

 

I don't think it would be unreasonable to split ratings into three: Constructed (standard MP and leagues that use your MP party), Fixed Deck (things like Graveyard Gambol) and Quick Draw.

 

Xayrn, that's great, hide the truth so people stop complaining? I've been playing games competitively for over 25 years (having little kids has changed all that, heh) and know enough to realize when the system is not fair.

Scarponi, seems like you took it personally. IMHO, when people show up with 240 pizza worth of character avatars AND have absolutely perfect cards, it's fairly obvious that they are decked out in full legendaries. Sure, it's possible to have farmed them all and not paid much, but the entire package points to a pay to win scenario. Everyone can win given enough time and dedication, sure, but people can also instantly gear up with cash.

I'm ranked 650 for a reason. I don't PVP a ton or have much time to put into it. When I show up to do it 1-2x a day, I expect to have a fair league pod with people ranked at least within 300-500 points. I can throw a ton of other competitive sports/hobbies fairness examples in, but there's no reason. Constructed leagues should be podded by rank.

 

The game is set up to make this extremely difficult, and I haven't seen any evidence of anyone successfully buying a good collection. The one (and I believe only) player who had a complete collection before the expansion only paid for two club memberships (1 month and 1 week).

 

That is pretty funny you are 650 and say you are competitive player considering that a free premade got one of my accounts past 1000 and I haven't played it enough so it still could increase.
There are lots of good commons and uncommons though wizards don't have as many of them.
Most if not all players that get a good collection get it from playing.

Edited

 

This statement implies that you can get a good collection through purchases alone, but that frankly isn't the case.

Back on topic, I can understand @HunterMike's desire to play against others on a similar skill level; however, ranked matches are the place to do this. Leagues simply aren't designed to be ultra-competitive games, so if you go into them thinking that they are, you're bound to be disappointed.

 

Really? There's amazing stuff for sale every day. Give it a few weeks and a good collection wouldn't be too difficult for those paying for gold.

Reading comprehension is hard? Before insulting me it's best to read a little. I clearly stated I don't play competitively these days beyond 1-2 leagues due to family constraints. I have played less than 10 ranked games (edit: 6 as Farbs pointed out below, heh). Please restrain your e-peen.

 

But I have indeed found the pre-constructed ones to be extremely-ultra competitive if you get into the wrong pod! Like playing a near 1700 player with amazing gear. And before that 1400+ 1400+ 1500+. There has to be enough people playing at sub 1000 I can play.

Let's not fool ourselves that equipment isn't very important in constructed. And those in the 650 range likely have little to be competitive with the likes of gear an average 1500+ player would have from winning so much.

 

Thanks for your input Farbs! The problem is that PVP skill alone isn't enough when playing against 1500+ players with (assuming) great gear from so many wins and the accompanying chests. I'm guessing that, on average, 2 players of equal skill - the win is often decided by better equipment outside of RNG factors. This is why constructed leagues need balancing. Maybe at least 2 divisions: sub 1000 and 1000+

Again, I don't have much time for dedicated PVP since I often have to leave at the drop of a hat (or my kids duct taping each other to the ceiling, lol). Single Player let's me keep a slow pace. I just play a league or 2 each day when the kids go down for a nap since you tend to get better gear faster with leagues (or can at least be in a league while finishing SP stuff simultaneously). If needed, I can walk away (again, kids...let this be a cautionary tale, heh) and still get some chests.

I'm sure I could be highly ranked, but that's not really a goal these days. Guess I'll just avoid constructed leagues when they pop up. Didn't realize the ranking discrepancy until recently.

 

Yep.

I once, for the heck of it, started an account, played through the campaign once. Used that gold to buy certain items from shops (of which only 2 were Epic and none were Legendary). And then entered ranked play. In total it took me about one month and only 40 ranked matches and I was in the mid 1600s. I didn't even use the pizza Gary gives for free.

Conversely, it is true that you can instantly increase you collection size with cash, but you can't easily "gear up" as you're implying it. When the expansion hit last month I had over 1100 chests I had saved up from playing leagues since last Christmas, opening all those chests was one of the most brutally painful and un-fun experiences I have ever had with CH and I hope to never do it again. And after 1100 chests and 5500 more items added to my inventory than I had when I started, do you know what I didn't have? The one legendary from EttSC that I really wanted. If you think you can buy your way easily to the perfect build I'd suggest you jump over to the test server and try it. There you can give yourself as much pizza as you want for free. Think of the 10 legendaries you most want (which is only 3-4 per character) and start opening chests. Let me know if you think a pay-to-win player is going to keep at it, or if they would go find a game that it's easier for them to buy their way to the top.

 

Ok, first, I'm talking about buying legendaries from shops. You pick the items. Sure, you are at the whim of the store gods, but every day you can pick and choose what you want to buy. If I had the desire, I could have purchased some amazing items this week with cash. It's easier than you want to believe.

Second, you had back luck with chests. I'm asserting that the average 1500+ player will have MUCH better gear from all those wins than a 650 player who just does 1-2 leagues a day and 6 ranked matches. Sure, we all have some decent loot from campaign runs...but if a person has the gold, they can buy a great collection from the Daily Deal, RR and such.

Lastly, I'm focusing on constructed league play. When you play ranked, you generally play against people of your ranking. The same should be true of contsructed leagues where, regardless of a player's skills, the scales will most always be in favor of those with better gear via MP chests.

I admit this game gives decent loot to non-paying players vs other FTP games. I paid for Basic Edition (and xpacs) and quite often that last bonus item is the best drop. In a competitive environment, people that pay will always have an advantage. But less so by keeping people within their rankings.

As is often the case in life, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Okay let's look at shops. I've been on a quest to complete my collection for the last 8 months so I have actually run the numbers on shops. Is it okay if I go back to those 10 top legendaries that I said to look for on the test server? If you want 10 specific legendaries you would statistically expect to have seen around 1200 legendaries in the shops by the time all 10 had showed up. At 17 legendaries a week between Randi's and the DD that'd take you more than 70 weeks to get. Like I said, not exactly easy (and before you begin scoffing - 1) the math holds up, and 2) there are multiple long time players that are trying to complete there collections and have more gold than they can use and have not been able to complete because they're still waiting for their "10").

Thank you for discounting my experience out of hand.

I acknowledged when I entered this conversation that my comments weren't about your general topic, but that I did not appreciate your automatic attribution of "pay-to-win" to top players.