Rework League rewards

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Duffy, Aug 17, 2015.

  1. Duffy

    Duffy Mushroom Warrior

    I think the league reward system really needs to be changed.
    First of all there's the "problem" with people just joining up and not playing, because 3 rare chests is certainly worth 50g. This kinda ruins the idea of league, when you can just win once and get first place because the other partipants don't play.
    Secondly i feel like third place is awful compared to 4th and not much different from 5th. Getting 1 epic chest is not really better than getting 4 rare chests and not really rewarding compared to 3 rare chests that you get from not playing at all.

    Fixing this by making the last place rewards a lot worse would be detrimental, because tbh some leagues can be really awful because they're either boring (Ooze Ball), extremely luck dependant (Graveyard Gambol) or just takes ages to play (Quick Draw). So having to spend 1-2 hours losing and then getting a neglible reward would make some players not play league at all.

    One solution would be to include tiebreakers from lost games. This would mean that you don't get last place with the people who don't play, despite having spent a lot of time trying to win. The downside to this could be that players would get 1 star and then concede, as to not get last place, but it would kinda balance out because 1 star could easily be overcome by people actually playing.

    And as for solution to third place feeling awful i would suggest changing the price structure like so:
    1st : 2 Epic Chests
    2nd: 1 Epic Chest 2 Rare Chests
    3rd: 1 Epic Chest 1 Rare Chest
    4th: 3 Rare Chests
    5th: 2 Rare Chests

    This would hopefully encourage more players to actually play, rather than just joining up.
     
    Xayrn likes this.
  2. Fry

    Fry Ogre

    "Losses give you tiebreaker points equal to the stars you collected" is a great suggestion. I've had some leagues (particularly Death March or Graveyard Gambol) where I go 0-3 or 0-4 and end up tied for fifth place with three people who didn't even try, which is very frustrating.

    Here's a suggestion for the "problem" of players not competing within a pod: make the pods larger. Five is an awkward number anyway (how was that chosen? I don't think I've ever seen a league or bracket intentionally create groups of five); make it 8 or 10 or 16. Larger pods would smooth out the extremes of pod distribution: fewer instances of one win being first place, and fewer instances of the hell-pod where 3 wins is still fifth place. The payout structure doesn't even really need to change - for ten player pods, just take the current structure and add a second copy of each place, so 9th and 10th are both 3 chests, 7th and 8th are both 4 chests, etc.
     
  3. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader

    All else aside I wanted to clear something up about the actual value of these rewards.
    Given that rare drops seem to upgrade about 25% of the time, with 3 magnificent chests you can expect an average of .75 epics. So one epic chest is way better than 3 magnificent chests unless you like hoarding commons and uncommons...
     
  4. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader

    A lot fewer people would get first place, and it would be a lot harder to fill pods.
     
    Christofff and Sir Veza like this.
  5. Fry

    Fry Ogre

    - See my updated comment (you're fast on the posting today!) - the rate of people getting "first place" rewards could essentially stay the same.
    - Admittedly, I'm only one person, but "hard to fill pods" doesn't seem like a real complaint. I don't have the reams of data that BM ought to have access to, but in my experience it has never taken more than about one minute to fill a pod unless I'm joining in the last five minutes before a league closes.
     
  6. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader

    Well we have a higher player volume right now but in the past if we had 30 people who wanted to play a league, with 16-person pods, 14 folks wouldn't get to play. The small pod sizes were to ensure that most of the people who want to play, can (a max of 4 people miss out on a league now).
     
    Sir Veza likes this.
  7. Fry

    Fry Ogre

    Here's a completely unrelated suggestion: ditch the whole concept of "pods" altogether, since they're mostly meaningless (you aren't any more likely to play against people in your pod than not, as far as I can tell), and go to a reward structure more like Hearthstone's Arena, where your payout is just based on how many wins you get.
     
  8. Vholes

    Vholes Thaumaturge

    As far as chest rewards go, the appearance of bad upgrades (3 magnificences —> 1 epic) is a legitimate complaint. It's also not strictly wrong; if you're a new player it can be more fun to open three chests and encounter a bunch of uncommons for the first time. That said, I'm being pedantic; the league rewards are such fantastic value that there's no reason to quibble.

    I am curious about the reason behind pods. I think I remember Flak talking about the justification but I don't remember it now. Personally I think this also falls under the "ain't broke" category. It has its frustrations, but so does every system.
     
    Sir Veza likes this.
  9. Xayrn

    Xayrn Hydra

    This, please. It doesn't happen as often with so many newbies around from the Steam release, but by far the most frustrating thing I've experienced in Card Hunter was wasting two hours losing 4 games of quick draw to tie for last place with people that didn't even play.

    http://forums.cardhunter.com/thread...e-tie-break-points-too.6095/page-2#post-88854
     
    Pawndawan likes this.

Share This Page