Well... My idea was still forming while I was typing and perhaps it was my own thoughts that got a bit rushed. In my mind, I wasn't thinking of adventure competitions as a "puzzle" format. I consider it more as a high-level content release for players who have reached the endgame plateau. I would be looking forward to new adventures that would challenge multiple strategies, not maps flawed in known ways. Something like "Greenfang's Challenge" if the story as implied by the introduction were to be played out in more than two battles (so loading up on anti-acid cards might not be the best way to get through all the levels). I think that awarding prizes in multiple categories (rather than "exploit the broken bit") adds to the competitve value because, for example, a defensive deck good for preserving health is not likely to also be the speediest dispatch of foes.* I want the opportunity to pull out a winning score no matter how my item collection is specialized. *(“That’s wound number nine. Let’s see how long I can keep you alive.” -- Skarn Elkinford)
If there was a tournament that was put on by the game creators, I would hope they unlock replays for that event. The thing is, this game is free to play and needs an income. Having to buy the replay feature is a way to do this, and there are a variety of ways to do it. Without seeing how any other purchase options I can't say which way would work well. If the game wasn't f2p yes, replays would almost be a must but I don't think in normal play they are something that should be freely taxing the servers that we play on for free.
One thing I'd like to see in PvP is to not penalize players for resigning. It sucks (for both players) to be stuck in a game where one player has clearly lost, but they won't resign because they'll get some extra penalty for it. It looks like it works this way from what I've seen of multiplayer so far. But I've been winning almost all my games, and I've only resigned one, so I don't have enough data points to go on. Is there a writeup of the scoring system somewhere? And you don't give any item rewards to the loser, so you don't have to worry about players resign farming to pick up quick loot.
huh ? I lose, my rating drops...I resign, my rating SHOULDN'T drop or shouldn't drop as much ? Also, what do you mean by extra penalty? I believe the current system mirrors that of early chess elo rating system (other than a score decay) which is fair, imo. I've resigned tons, heck I've resigned to take a dump...u gtg u gtg
Oh, sorry for the poor wording. I mean the system should treat a resignation as a loss. There should be no difference between the two in rating change or loot given. Elo is a good system. Sounds like they have everything under control.
I would personally like to see loot given to the loser as well no mater how minor. This would on the other hand force it so you don't get loot if you resign but that is not a penalty its the participation trophy taken away.
I do like the idea of giving a participation award to everyone. But, that leads to people resign spamming to speed farm loot. And if you say resigning won't give you the loot, then people will go AFK and let their timer run out which is significantly worse. I have some ideas for how to make it work, but they're a little complicated. It seems so much simpler to just say you don't get anything for losing.
And this is exactly the thing I was saying should be avoided in my initial post. I don't think there should be a disincentive for resigning, and this is a pretty big one. I also don't like the idea of denying loot to someone who played hard for 30+ minutes just because their opponent couldn't kill them fast enough or their connection dropped out or they just had to go. One idea is to say there's a minimum time before resigning will still give you loot. (or turns or actions taken) But until the devs actually say they're considering adding participation rewards, it seems a moot point.
Resigning allows one to clock more games and therefore higher chance to get better scores. In fact, game theory already states minimizing predictable losses equals maximizing possible returns. There is no disincentive for resigning and there does not need to be an incentive for one.
I find that its usually less about the prizes and more about the fairness of the rules and the fam associated with winning. Similar to leaderboards, when I get randomed against wozarg I say "o crap, I'm in for a rough fight, its him!".
Elfs burn its the way of nature a almost poetic death some might say.... also please don't make it worse I'm already the boogie man for new pvpers apparently.
Wait till the bugs are all fixed, game's released and people are playing for keeps, immolation deck pfft !
If I was a new player I would consider it a great feat to challenge and defeat you. I already do as is and once I'm done plotting I will come at you again with renewed vigor.
"Elfs burn with white fire, Dwarves freeze in the deepest ice, Humans drip in acid." Look at that it really is poetic! and there is nothing wrong with being the boogieman!
I think one great style of tournament would be a "fair loadout" style in which all players would be given the same choices in equipment. So say there are 50 pieces of equipment in the tournament and no piece can be used twice by the same player. Every player has the same choice of 50 pieces of equipment. This puts everyone on the same level going in, so that it becomes even more strategy centered. Now I am in no way saying that should be the only style of tournament out there, I am all for tournaments where you use all your own characters and equipment, but it would definitely be a fun option especially if the equipment rotated every week or so to prevent the "perfect loadout" from ever coming into being.
The problem with that idea as great as it is would be is what items to use. There couldn't be all items because that would be too random and if the pool was locked or too small people would just look up a guide and you would have 8 identical parties and have luck be the main factor of who wins. Draft systems tend to do something similar to this where everyone has a chance at the same items but they need to prioritize and pick while considering what might still be left next time they see the items.
