There are two things i want to talk about in this thread: I personally think that getting to the 20th chest and just getting 2 epics is pointless or at least not worth the time spent on it - i propose the idea that there should be a guaranteed legendary at the 20th chest! I wanted to know how many people have ever gotten the 20th chest! - and how many times (thats the poll above) ↑↑↑ !I LOVE IT! ↑↑↑
I think you should change your poll, firstly have a "0 I'm intimidated by MP" or/and "0 I'm prefer SP", secondly change the poll to how many times a week do you get the 20th chest with this of course add the option "I have gotten it before but not regularly".
I cannot change a poll choice or the poll its self after i made it - i can only add new poll options - to the bottom so sorry i cant do that
If you're playing MP simply to get items then you're doing it wrong already So it's not "pointless" to get 20 victories a day. Your poll options are, well, such that I don't know what should I choose. Possibly 7+ but maybe 5-6 times only, haven't really counted.
I used to go for it often during the spring PVP season last year, and also when I had club membership. But now that the basic MP rewards have been buffed, it's more time-efficient to just play a few games a day. So I haven't done it in while
I got 20th chest last night for the second time. Been playing CH fir @2 months. On both occasions it was not a conscious decision initially but decided to go for it because I had good quick starts in MP with wins so not too onerous. Having said that I have not picked up anythin amazing. Last night I got two epics (nanahut) being the best and I don't even use it. I find MP to be my favourite mode by far so I figure just go for it if I get close. 1st time I got the purple chest I got Red Jon's boots and I do use them sometimes.
Can't justify the 20 win purple when they're so quick/easy to get in league. Much of the time, one win in league is enough to get the purple - compared with roughly 30-35 games to get the 20 chest (especially when you're rated in the 1400s and most of your games are against purple-ranked ELO players). Yes, the 20 win purple should contain a guaranteed legendary.
that depends on the league you are playing - i never play(ed) more than 4 QD games but the fixed deck leagues are ok - i am pretty good at them and can sometimes (dont laugh) sense what cards the other player has and every time i have that feeling i am right! but my favourite are the non-fixed deck leagues i can normally cramp about 22,23 games and get to about 17-18 wins - but i dont know how you can get 30-35 wins, i have to play some RM games after the league to get to the 20th win.
Nah, I said it takes me about 35 games to get the 20 wins. Maybe more, I'm in the low 60% for win rate.
The current 20 win chest isn't great, but it's pretty fair. The first guaranteed epic is at 6 wins. The second is at 11 wins. And the third is a double epic at 20 wins. Roughly speaking, you get 1 epic every 5 wins. If you want to look a bit closer at it, consider the number of wins you need to get from one gold chest to the next. The pattern goes like this: 1 win. 2 rares, 2 commons 2 wins. 2 rares, two uncommons 3 wins. 1 epic, 3 commons 5 wins: 1 epic, 1 rare, 2 commons 9 wins: 2 epics, 2 commons Now, add in the rewards from the brown chests along the way. For convenience, I'll write it like this (epics, rares, uncommons, commons). For example, the 2nd gold chest is (0,2,2,0) and there is one brown chest along the way, (0,1,1,2) so in total that's (0,3,3,2). Add up the number of epics, rares, uncommons, and commons along the way. 1 win: (0,2,0,2) 2 wins: (0,2,2,0) + (0,1,1,2) = (0,3,3,2) 3 wins: (1,0,0,3) + (0,2,2,4) = (1,2,2,7) 5 wins: (1,1,0,2) + (0,4,4,8) = (1,5,4,10) 9 wins: (2,0,0,2) + (0,8,8,16) = (2,8,8,18) Finally, lets suppose that 4 commons is worth an uncommon, 4 uncommons is worth a rare, and 4 rares is worth an epic. With that, we can add up the total value of each streak; and hence calculate the average value per win along the path for each of the bonus chests. first gold chest: total value = 34. value per win = 34. second gold chest: total value = 62. value per win = 31. third gold chest: total value = 111. value per win = 37. fourth gold chest: total value = 170. value per win = 34. purple chest: total value = 306. value per win = 34. ___ (tl;dr) So as you can see, the value per win is pretty flat throughout the whole reward track. The second chest is a bit of a dud, but the third makes up for it. Other than that, it's perfectly balanced. In particular, the purple chest at the end gives just as much value per win as all the other chests.
I actually disagree with the above post. For me, you should be rewarded more if you play longer - not at just roughly the same rate. That means a 35-gamelong session to reach the 20th chest should be at least better than, say, a 35-gamelong session to reach the third chest four times (total = 24). At the same time, I also disagree with the idea of having a guaranteed legendary on the 20th chest. I think getting 3 guaranteed epics* and a guaranteed uncommon* or 2 guaranteed epics* and 2 guaranteed rares* (*or better) would work much better, since the chance of getting multiple legendaries would be higher.
Although I agree with Deepweed's logic that "you should be rewarded more if you play longer", it can also be achieved by reducing earlier rewards and since we don't want that to happen (I'm still very amused by the new great MP rewards), maybe let it all be as it is
I think it's a bit dangerous to increase rewards for long play sessions. There are two main reasons: 1) It's a bit unfair on people who's spare time only comes in small chunks. 2) (more importantly); It pushes people to play more when they might not actually want to play - changing the game from a fun activity to a chore. If the rate of rewards increased over time, some players may find that as they get tired of the playing a session, burned out, bored, or whatever - they still feel pushed to play because it's 'good value'. As the rewards increase, the rewards become the main motivation for playing rather than the fun of the game. This is ok if it only happens sometimes; but if it happens a lot then the player will end up not liking the game and they'll just quit. In my view, if the rewards are going to change over time, it's probably better to have the opposite system. i.e. slightly decreasing rewards over time; to decrease the risk of player burn-out. My guess is that that's why the main single-player rewards are only available once per day.
Actually, I am in favor of keeping the rewards as they are. Lol. I just wanted to point out what I think the system should be given karadoc's logic (4x tier n-1 = tier n, with n=1 for common, n=2 for uncommon, and so on). For me, 4x tier n-1 < tier n, or the different tiers are simply incomparable. I actually think that the game currently has struck a good balance between player retention (leaning toward less rewards over time) and player rewarding (the opposite). I'm sorry if my post caused any confusion.
