[Suggestion] Give something for non-resign PVP losses

But what if people collaborated, instantly resigning/intentionally losing and then always choosing to give each other the chest?

Perhaps you only have a certain number of these consolation chests to give - maybe you earn one to give away for every X matches you win? That way you can earn them up by winning, and then give them away on really close matches when you feel they deserve a reward (This also solves the social problem of people reacting poorly towards people who didn't give them a consolation chest - they'll just assume they had none to give away).

This would also be a nice reason to add a post-game "results" screen. One of the weird things about multiplayer atm is that when someone wins it just...ends. This doesn't really leave an opportunity for post-game ggs and chat, which then spills over into the lobby chat, and is often missed.

 

My first thought on that would, indeed, be the social issue. Allowing there to "be a consolation prize if the winner wants" leads to the question "is the default answer a 'yes' or a 'no'?"

And if the default is "yes" . . . actually, it doesn't matter what the default it. Somebody would assume the answer is "yes, give a chest literally every time, or else you're a jerk." And then there would be people REPORTING a normal player who happened NOT to give a chest.

To address the social issue, I'd say it's best to let the winner off the hook. I'd LIKE to be separated from the person I beat when making the decision. C'mon, I'm here to play a fun game, not sit in judgment while you watch me!

And I too approve of the limited number of chests. Perhaps X number per unit time, namely, per refresh of your multiplayer win sequence. Maybe a really small number, like a measly 3. That also helps address the social issue: if they're rare, then the person who lost can reasonably assume "oh, this winner didn't give me a chest, I guess he/she was just out for today. Good game, pal!"

 

A good idea indeed. The best way to handle the limit is to have 1 chest per win. That way, if I'm the winner, I always have 1 chest to give out. The decision then is to punish the other player for not playing nice, and deny them the chest.

Many potential problems with it though: when giving out chests is now considered normal behavior. Any one can easily choose to be a dick and deny chest for every time they win, which really adds nothing to the game. Everyone could add him to a list and deny him chests as well, but again just encourage more places for trolls to thrive. It will nothing more than an ignore list. If loot gain is decided by your opponent, more problems arise during combat. For example, negotiation: I'll give you a quick win if you give me chest, both player benefits. And neither player is punished for doing so until one of them get a match with a normal player and lose.

On second thoughts, that's a huge can of worm I don't want to open.

Edit: As Sir Knight said, a different kind of limit such as time based would be better.

 

I have like a 10% lose rate so I'm hardly out for my self here. But i still feel this would be a great addition to the game.

 

What puzzles me about all this is the fact that bots would inevitably tank their ranking massively. As such, wouldn't they eventually end up mostly facing each other? (And thus creating an hilarious feedback loop of wasting each other's time)

With the way the matchmaking is set up, the system doesn't seem very exploitable in the first place.

Though some form of reward for good sportsmanship wouldn't go amiss if some system could be figured out!

 

Well, people can be jerks and that includes the winners - I'm sure that not allowing the consolation chest although playing 'by the rules' would be very common and even more annoying to the loosing party.

If Blue Manchu is already looking at putting a minute or two of a timer per action it should be enough in terms of fighting against people who want to drag out the match.

It would be a great incentive to fight till the end if we had a random item per 3-4-5 (or 4-5) stars and wouldn't allow for win-trading. If the loser managed to kill one char or captured the victory square for 2-3 rounds and got obliterated that wouldn't be considered a close match.

 

I'm all for Keeping It Simple. A losing reward system would need be unnecessarily complicated to weed out abuse.

Why are we concerned about someone quitting early? The "winning" player, while shorted a fun challenging match, still gets to open a chest, move along the chest reward chart, and gets a rankings bump to perhaps a level where they will be more likely encounter someone invested in playing. The quitter gets nothing and wasted a bit of their time which seems a fine punishment. Sportsmanly GG quitting a la Starcraft has its place too, when it is obvious you been out played.

If you don't like the challenge of playing another human, there is the delightful single player campaign.

 

I'd prefer not to have a system like this. I've tried to describe why I didn't like that suggestion here, and elaborated on it a bit more here.

 

Fixed that for you. After SP is over there's really not the high-level chest-earning potential that there is with PvP. This restricts anyone wanting to play/enjoy the game apart from other players in a negative way once you're done really. If there were equal rewards continuing past the SP campaign/challenges then yeah you could say what you did originally with no less conviction, but as it stands it's not quite right.

 

My opinion that Single Player is fun isn't tied to how quickly you amass loot. It needs to be restrictive for the game to stay interesting but that is off the topic of this thread.

 

The treasure earning in single player isn't actually that bad when you take into account that the matches are much faster in single player and you almost never lose.

A couple of days ago I did a rough calculation and estimated that if the goal is to get high rarity items, then multiplayer is faster until you get the 2nd gold chest, and then after that single and multiplayer have a similar rate of rewards. Obviously it depends on how fast you can play, and how likely you are to win and stuff like that - but the crux is that PvP rewards aren't vastly better than single player rewards except for the first PvP win each day.

 

I did not say that loot = happiness. I said that some people who don't enjoy playing other people are being penalized because of that choice.

I would be interested in actually seeing those tables. Considering that you can only replay high level missions once a day for the standard chest (not gold or the epic, which I'm not factoring given that even 5 hours in PvP is more than people like to do), you have maybe 5 missions capable of the sort of gear I'd like to find compared to the (albeit slightly more random also higher chances at Rare+) multiple chests in PvP.

 

Hear. Hear! HEAR!!

The level of the stuff dropped in SP are always at or very close (+/- 1 typically) to the level of the adventure. Chests in pvp drop stuff from every levels. The likelihood of getting exactly something you want in pvp is thus much lower, even the gold/purple chests.

 

This is a very good point that I hadn't considered, but you do still contend with normal box drop rates (not awesome) and limited chest counts compared to the amounts possible from PvP in a faster setting as well in my experience. Granted, I fully admit that I never had someone trying to stall the game out on me, but games do feel much slower in PvE for a variety of reasons.

 

Matter of perception and deckbuilding mostly. My PvP matches last 10+ minutes regardless of win or lose. Enough time for ~2 PvE maps. And I just had 30 min match, which I luckily won.

All in all, PvE probably gives me 2 or 3 times as many chest on average. From loot standpoint PvP is practically waste of time after first 3 chests.

 

I'm afraid my experiences run almost the exact the opposite of that so far. Most of my matches in PvP have been decided well under 10 minutes so far, most approaching the 5 min mark. PvE I'm looking at around 7-8 mins for any given battle, sometimes 10+ if it gives me trouble, assuming average draws.

 

I need this feature to save me the embarrassment of preemptively typing "GG" when I think i'm going to play a match winning card only to have it fail me.

 

I'm torn on this. On the one hand rewarding someone who played hard but lost sounds nice. On the other hand I've seen sportsmanship awards in the past get abused. Games Workshops sportsmanship value in their tournaments was a huge problem. People would get mad if you didn't give them a maximum rating which could cost them a rank in the tournament. I could see the same thing happening by letting a winner award the chest. Honestly I think maybe a random chance each time you lose to get a chest(1 per day) would be better(maybe rating or win/loss linked). Sort of a random consolation prize. Making it somewhat random and one per day would limit not abuse I would think.

 

I know, I know. Super, super old thread. (I was searching for something else, and this topic came up.) However, the fact that in all this @Jon said the following...

...made me think this was, in the long run, still a viable suggestion. Also, reading through the thread made me think of a way to perhaps bypass the social problem of "that player didn't give me a chest, ugh." My numbers could be adjusted some, but off the top of my head, let's say I win a match. Yay! Then, I get a choice to make at some point (perhaps before I collect my own loot):

RATE {losing username}'S SPORTSMANSHIP AND EFFORT:
AWFUL || AVERAGE || AWESOME​

The first choice would probably reward 0 points. (I wrote "POOR" at first, but c'mon, alliteration's funny, heheheheh.)
The second might reward the loser 1 point.
The third, maybe 2 points.

Upon reaching some small, arbitrary figure -- let's say 4 points -- the player receives a consolation chest. This could be some downgraded chest of just an item or two, maybe club, maybe not -- or, frankly, this could be the next MP chest in the row. This way, the player doesn't necessarily know just what each opponent is really rating. Even if a player goes through five losses in a row without receiving a consolation chest, the player does not know which of those five winning opponents gave 0 points vs. 1 (or even 2). Contrariwise, even if some cheater or three are out there agreeing to grant the highest ratings to the instaquitters, the real gamers would severely slow down their attempts at cheat-farming the chests, I would figure.

This way, the "default" is a trickle toward the chest, but you can get kicked to the curb, or you could be truly rewarded for your super niftyness. Etc.

There could maybe even be mouseover tips/hints/guidelines for determining what kinds of playing (or lack thereof) could result in which ratings. (For example, I could suggest some of my own criteria, but mine might be totally different from yours. $:^ ] heheh)

Then, too, this rating could get broadcast via API, and sites like META could utilize it -- in META's case, to reflect Standing, which we know is an automated attempt at scoring sportsmanship, which is admitted to be a tad faulty just because we all sometimes, despite trying like crazy, will get blitzed 0-6.

Oo, more thinking here: If a player constantly gets no reward upon loss after loss, the player might eventually say in World Chat, "**** YOU OP P2W LOSERS NO **** CEHSTS" which will of course likely get the player nowhere, but hey, probably someone will try to help anyway, and who knows if anything might sink in after enough attempts. Contrariwise, if a player consistently losing with no reward is already actually concerned any about that consolation and/or better sportsmanship+effort, the player might eventually say in World Chat, "i dont get it i nevr get composition chest what am i doin wrong" and maybe would listen to the sage advice given from the fellow Cardhuntrians. $:^ }

Whatchyallthinkathat?