{suggestion} - to entice new players and keep recent

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Christofff, Jun 2, 2015.

  1. Christofff

    Christofff Guild Leader

    For league games,

    I've noticed esecially in leagues like QD,

    The standard is getting higher.

    I feel to get more new players, and entice them to stay laonger,

    perhaps use a similar algorothim that determines your opponents for a ranked mp battle.

    In other words, past performance or recent increases in skill will means you face tougher opponents.

    This will give seasoned players a more enjoyable challenge, and {less time-consuming},

    And new players the thrill of having a chance, winning more, instead of a steeeeeeep learning curve that is highly competitive QD.

    With love,
    Captain courageous.
     
    Flaxative likes this.
  2. Scarponi

    Scarponi Moderator

    Fwiw, the last QD I played I got trounced in back to back battles by players below 1000 (and I'm 1800 atm).
     
    CT5, Fifjunior7, Sir Veza and 2 others like this.
  3. Christofff

    Christofff Guild Leader

    Oh for sure,

    I'm not talking about ELO though,

    but an algorothim {is that the right word?}, which determines your opponents based on their past overall performance in QD
     
  4. karadoc

    karadoc Hydra

    From my point of view, the current pod system is not good. Final prizes are based on how well you performed relative to other people in your pod; but who you get in your pod is essentially random (unless you conspire to all join at the same time or something like that); and players often don't get to play against anyone in their pod. In some pods, 1 win is enough for first place, while in other pods, 3 wins still only gets forth place. There's a lot of luck in who you get in your pod, and in who you face in your actual matches. To me, it all seems a bit unfair and pointless.

    Here are my suggestions for a new system which I think would be more fair, and possibly more fun:
    • No pods. Instead, players are rewarded based on how many wins they get in their four matches.
      • 0 wins: 2 gold chests
      • 1 win : 3 gold chests
      • 2 wins: 1 purple chest
      • 3 wins: 1 purple and 1 gold
      • 4 wins: 1 purple and 2 gold
    • Matchmaking during the tournament should prioritise matching players who currently have the same number of wins. ie. players with zero wins would be matched with each other; players with 2 wins would be matched with each other, etc.

    If the prizes are based on number of wins, then that would remove the luck element of who's in your pod. And if the matchmaking prioritises people with the same number of wins then that would reduce the effect of luck in who you're matched against.

    One downside is that it's sometimes interesting and engaging to check how other people in the pod are doing. When your prizes depend on someone else's matches, that can be frustrating because it's just luck based - but it can also add a bit of excitement and tension. The system I'm suggesting might be more fair, but it is also a bit less interpersonal. There would be as much reason to care about anyone else's matches.
     
    Bandreus and DunDunDun like this.
  5. timeracers

    timeracers Guild Leader

    Reason why I would dislike it. But I actually think it is a good idea
     
  6. Scarponi

    Scarponi Moderator

    When leagues first came out a year ago this (and other renditions of it) was a very common suggestion. Here's the thing, if you run the math you expect 1 in every 16 players to get 4 wins and the top prize, whereas pods give 1 in every 5 players (or more for ties) the top prize. Simply put, from a player's perspective this is a bad suggestion because it greatly reduces the overall prize output for the players as a whole.
     
    Merdis, FrigusMacto, Sir Veza and 3 others like this.
  7. karadoc

    karadoc Hydra

    That's true for the top prize, but I don't think it tells the whole story.

    With the current set of prizes, the biggest prize is the purple chest. The value of the gold chests is relatively marginal compared to the two epics in the purple chest. So lets consider how many people will win a purple chest.

    In the current system, the top three players in each pod are awarded the purple chest. So that's roughly 3/5 of all players. In my proposed system, players with at least two wins would get the purple chest. A short calculation reveals that's roughly 11/16 of all players. 11/16 is a bit higher than 3/5. 11/16 is roughly 69%, and 3/5 is 60%. So the proposed system would actually be awarding more purple chests, not less. (Note, the current system would actually be a bit higher than 60% due to the possibility of ties in each pod. I haven't tried to calculate the probability with ties taken into account. Also another effect to consider is that there are people who join the league and do not play all of their games. People who don't play two games obviously cannot get two wins. And so the overall average probability of getting a purple chest would be reduced a bit with these people taken into account.)

    For interest's sake, let's look at the probability of getting each of the five prize options. If we again ignore the possibility of ties in a pod, then the probability of each of the 5 prizes is 1/5. (1/5 for first, 1/5 for second, 1/5 for third, etc.) So that's 20% for each of them. The probabilities of the five prizes in the proposed system are as follows:
    1. ) 1/16 = 6%
    2. ) 4/16 = 25%
    3. ) 6/16 = 38%
    4. ) 4/16 = 25%
    5. ) 1/16 = 6%
    As you can see, the probabilities of the top prize and the bottom prize are much lower than in the current system; but the other prizes are higher. In particular, the third prize has a very high probability - and that's the prize that most people care about. In any case, to say that the proposed system would "greatly reduce the overall prize output" is incorrect. The overall prize output would be pretty similar to how it is now. The proposed system would have fewer people getting the top prize, but the number of purple chests given out would be similar. And if we wanted to, the prizes could be tweaked balance it further.

    Also, as for 0 wins getting a reward of 2 chests in the proposed system; that's also the same as it currently works, isn't it?
     
  8. timeracers

    timeracers Guild Leader

    Nope. 3 chests.
    I feel it is more than just marginal. Lets suppose that 4 commons is worth an uncommon, 4 uncommons is worth a rare, and 4 rares is worth an epic.(I did copy the wording) The value of the gold is worth 20/131(roughly 2/13) of the purple, and 4 golds is worth 80/131 of the purple.
     
  9. Scarponi

    Scarponi Moderator

    This is true with the current prizes, however there have been multiple special event leagues before that have given special figures for 1st place. These are obviously highly prized and the increased difficulty to get them shouldn't be discounted I think. However, since this isn't the norm I recognize that your point is worth engaging.

    I'm not sure where the assumption that 4 is the right number is being pulled from, but I can say regardless that the progression is not linear. Because of that I agree with karadoc that the Epic Chest is the "cutoff mark" worth looking at.

    So if we are looking at Epic Chests, karadoc's suggestion would give one to anyone who won 2 or more matches. However...
    I think you're vastly underestimating the result of players who don't play. I went and looked back at my last 10 leagues, of those 10:

    1 pod required 3 wins to get 3rd or better (the current Epic Chest cut off)
    2 pods required 2 wins
    7 pods required only 1 win

    Thus in those pods the average number of wins needed to get an epic chest was 1.4 versus 2 in the proposed system, and 70% of the time it would have been granted for half the number of wins than the proposed system. Therefore I maintain my claim that removing pods reduces prizes for players.
     
    Pawndawan, Jarmo and karadoc like this.
  10. Sir Veza

    Sir Veza Farming Deity

    Leagues have become a reduced price chest shop, and many of us like it that way. I can see how some would dislike the "Luck of the Pod" aspect, but I suspect more like it than don't. I don't enjoy playing leagues, but if I see I'm in a pod where I can get an epic chest with one win, I'll often give it a shot. If I'm in a pod of hard-chargers, I'm one less thing for them to worry about. I usually just give the players in my pod a free loot-boost, which is fine with me.
    I can understand the frustration of players with 3 wins taking fourth or fifth place, but I think in the long term the pod system and non-playing entrants will increase their overall rewards.
    I can also understand the principled approach of effort = reward. I take principled positions on things I care more about than computer games. The sad fact is, they will often leave one feeling a bit lonely. It's just seems to work that way.
     
    FrigusMacto likes this.
  11. timeracers

    timeracers Guild Leader

    I suggest that if you get 4 wins(max wins) you automatically get first prize just like you get fifth prize if you get 0 wins.
     
    Flaxative, Sir Veza and Scarponi like this.
  12. karadoc

    karadoc Hydra

    Yeah, you're right about that. It's not so much that I was underestimating the number of tournament members who don't play a single match, but rather I was thinking of it as a separate 'problem' that should probably be 'corrected'. (I'm putting those words in scare-quotes to acknowledge that not everyone sees it as a problem.) I certainly don't blame people for joining and not playing. It's certainly a very high value way to get chests. But I can tell you that the tournament feels a bit hollow to me when it turns out like this:
    non tournament (redacted).png

    That's the current state of the tournament I'm in right now, with 28 mins of playtime still remaining. Getting items is kind of nice, but the easier they come, the less rewarding it feels. I've placed first in heaps of tournaments recently, not because I'm a super-strong player, but just because so few other people are actually playing in my pod.

    I spoke earlier about how one of the strengths of the pod system is that it makes me care about how other people are going in their matches. The flip side is that when no one else in my pod is playing, it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time; and that isn't a good feeling when I'm trying to play a game for fun.

    But as Sir Veza points out, if people just view the tournaments as a way to get cheaper chests, that isn't necessarily a problem. It's just another way of looking at it. From my point of view, if tournaments are regularly turning out like my screenshot above, then they are not serving their roll as competitive tournaments. Whether that's a problem or not depends on whether they are meant to be tournaments.

    Perhaps there is a better way to to tournaments, and a better way to get discounted chests for those who just want that...
     
  13. timeracers

    timeracers Guild Leader

    Firstly, these are called leagues not tournaments(sometimes a real tournament happens). Secondly, leagues are a different way to play the game then the ranked or SP in that you fight players with unusual boards/characters/rules making it fun. Thirdly, these gold leagues are not suppose to be very competitive(unlike the pizza leagues they ran in past). I suggest for people who want competitive game play outside of ranked should join real tournaments(they happen once in a few months) or schedule them, even you can start a tournament if you get people for it and manage it.
     
  14. karadoc

    karadoc Hydra

    All fair points. I agree that the leagues offer a different and interesting way to play; and I certainly don't join to the leagues expecting a highly competitive environment. The thing that bothers me a bit is that if these leagues really are there as a different way to play, then why are so many people joining but not playing?

    Incidentally, in that waterways league I faced 3 high rated players (> 1600) with serious strategies; and then my final opponent was a < 700 rated player who disconnected a couple of turns in, presumably because they didn't have cards to cross the water. I doubt that low rating player is going to play waterways again for awhile.

    One of the goals in the original post in this thread is "[to give] new players the thrill of having a chance, winning more, instead of a steeeeeeep learning curve that is highly competitive QD." I don't think that's directly related to how prizes are awarded, but I do think it would probably help if more people were playing their league matches.

    --

    At this point I just want to clarify that I don't actually have very hard views on this stuff. From what I'm saying it might sound like I really dislike the current system; but that's not really where my thoughts are. My thinking is just that I we should always be open to the idea that things could be changed for the better. Regardless of whether we like something or not, it doesn't hurt to consider what the goals are, whether those goals are being met, and what might be improved.

    One could argue that it's completely healthy to have so many people joining leagues and skipping their matches. It gets people to log in and join the league, even if they didn't intend to play - and that leads to more people being online at least considering playing; whereas if they just didn't join then league then there would just be fewer people playing in general.
     
    Sir Veza likes this.
  15. Jarmo

    Jarmo Snow Griffin

    The current league system satisfies other goals and/or needs.

    There are players who don't have time or are not interested in playing even four league matches (which often takes two hours) and their interest even varies league by league based on the start time and league type. Entering a league even with no intention of playing serves as a gold sink which are always necessary for a healthy game economy. It adds value to all other play (which generates gold) as one will always have a nice place to spend 50 gold even if one already owns all <= Rare items.

    Getting three Magnificent chests for 50 gold satisfies the collector instinct. There's always the chance of getting an Epic or even a Legendary from them. Keeping collecting Card Hunter items this way keeps one engaged with the game day in day out. Otherwise one might just stop visiting the game at all. Well, the Loot Fairy is another good incentive for this type of player.

    Setting minimum playing requirements for getting any chests would mean a lot of players would stop entering leagues at all. This would make it harder for those who actually want to play in them to fill a pod, at a minimum it would take considerably longer. (I realize I'm paraphrasing Karadoc's post here.)

    I don't think the current system bothers anyone else but players feeling it's somehow wrong or hollow to get easy pod wins with low pod participation. I'm guessing this is a low percentage of total current league players. I acknowledge their feelings, though, it's not the most sporting thing in the world but it is what it is and it's also complicated.
     
    SirSrsly, Pawndawan and Sir Veza like this.
  16. Pawndawan

    Pawndawan Champion of Cardhuntria

  17. Jarmo

    Jarmo Snow Griffin

    Hear, hear!

    (I mean the second sentence.)
     

Share This Page