Ribbon System is Completely Broken

Unknown

Still only1ribbon per win for me

Rootbreaker

Weird. Did you try restarting the game?

Unknown

We went a month+ without any updates. Now they update mid-event. I think I could get used to this.

There's still a huge advantage to running Level 2 mages to keep the HP low and games faster, but at least there's not a huge handicap.

Unknown

Why even give ribbons if there is no differentiation from wins?

i have 141 wins. A score of 290. If I had received 3 ribbons for each win I would have a score of 423.

Dont change stuff like this in the middle of an event. >.<

Morphis

I hope the 3 ribbon is a sign of an actual change "mid run" patched in.
Last hours rush does not make much sense even more when you can see that a standard 3 ribbon always would be much better than current system(even if not great).

I think the best should be ribbon given based on rank of your opponent and opponent strength chosen based on win streak.
Such a method woul be good cause:
- fixes the low lvl pwalkers abuse(to compete at higher lvls good pwalkers would be needed, no advantage in having low lvl ones)
- gives the chance to climb ladder faster based on deck strength:player skills allowing to get more ribbons with less matches if you keep an high win streak(good since losing clears the win streak). Time investment would still count but would be not the only factor.

Just my 2c

Unknown

Morphis wrote:

I hope the 3 ribbon is a sign of an actual change "mid run" patched in.
Last hours rush does not make much sense even more when you can see that a standard 3 ribbon always would be much better than current system(even if not great).

I think the best should be ribbon given based on rank of your opponent and opponent strength chosen based on win streak.
Such a method woul be good cause:
- fixes the low lvl pwalkers abuse(to compete at higher lvls good pwalkers would be needed, no advantage in having low lvl ones)
- gives the chance to climb ladder faster based on deck strength:player skills allowing to get more ribbons with less matches if you keep an high win streak(good since losing clears the win streak). Time investment would still count but would be not the only factor.

Just my 2c

I may or may not agree with win streak (perhaps for tie-breaks) but I think win:loss ratio should be a factor.

Unknown

i agree that win loss ratio should be a factor, there really is no penalty to losing right now.

however, given the game still occasionally freezes or crashes (about half of my losses were crashes) i think they will need to address that issue before they factor in win loss ratio.

Unknown

It's still 3 ribbons per win irrespective of enemy rank. Why 3? Everyone has a score divisible by three now.

Morphis

Craigantlet wrote:

It's still 3 ribbons per win irrespective of enemy rank. Why 3? Everyone has a score divisible by three now.

The only reason(beside just a plain "bug") i can think of for 3 instead of 1 would be that they intended to put some penalty for loss and did not implement it correctly.
Something like win +3, loss -1 like soccer

Rogan_Josh

InfiniteGXT wrote:

Secondly, the entire concept of ribbons is dumb for one simple reason: it has absolutely nothing to do with skill. Presumably the point of the leader board is to show the most skilled player, or the efficiency of everyone's deck. The level of opponent you get is basically random within your given level range. I literally have intentionally not leveled my Jace, and at level 1, I fight someone with a level higher than 1 maybe once every 10 games, at which point I get 2-5 ribbons for winning that match with no additional effort whatsoever. Say someone else gets luckier and faces higher level opponents than me in the same period of time. If we both win the exact same amount of matches at the exact same rate, they will have more ribbons than me. That makes NO sense.

Ribbons should be given out 1 per win, period. OR given out as bonuses based on preset criteria that actually challenges you to play strategically, like "dont lose any creatures" or "dont lose more than X HP" or "win in less than X rounds." Or even better, they could make it so that you get ribbons based on the rank of the person whose deck you beat, so winning against top ranked players actually means something, and serves to show your deck's progress. Something like that would make 10x more sense than the current system, which, accepting that I will sound like a total jerk for saying so, is unfathomably dumb, and I honestly cannot believe they actually went with this system.

I see where you're coming from, are we sure this bonus ribbon system is based on PW level and not the rankings? Have the devs said this or is this based on peoples experience so far?

I, to, agree that leaderboards should be judged on skill and deck building. Unfortunately that won't be the case because time and effort count for way more with this game (and MPQ). If someone is willing to sit for 12 hours straight playing this game then they're going to win, despite having a mediocre deck and bad play style. Then again if they're PW is level one and they're too bad at the game then the the number of losses will significantly increase? how will that effect their overall rank? i don't know yet. It's worth thinking about.

Giving out 1 ribbon per win results in people that fall behind stay behind, for example if they need to sleep, or have commitments. Honestly there is no way i can see to actually make a fair and just leaderboard currently. I'm just going to give it some time and see what exploits/manipulations the more competitive players find in this system. perhaps they're not as bad as we fear. And if they are lets hope the dev team address them.

Morphis wrote:

Craigantlet wrote:

It's still 3 ribbons per win irrespective of enemy rank. Why 3? Everyone has a score divisible by three now.

Morphis

Ok I think I will go a little more in details here....
First of it all I agree that a pure skill ranking would be better but there are two things "against" it:

1- it is not as simple as you may think... For example:W/L ratio? Ok I play one game and I won my W/L is 100% I am at 1st place and No one can do better.

2- from a developer perspective there are many reasons that a system that make you play more is better. So a system that gives very little weight to the time investment is worse.

That being said what I suggested would increase the quality component of the matches toward ranking while decreasing the quantity component.
The quantity though would still be important, but at not as much as it is now.

Unknown

Morphis wrote:

Craigantlet wrote:

It's still 3 ribbons per win irrespective of enemy rank. Why 3? Everyone has a score divisible by three now.

The only reason(beside just a plain "bug") i can think of for 3 instead of 1 would be that they intended to put some penalty for loss and did not implement it correctly.
Something like win +3, loss -1 like soccer

It was the arbitrary value they gave ribbons when they hotfixed the scoring. Some of the more vocal of use notice our brackets being dominated by a select few players in our leaderboards. This was done via exploiting the ribbon scoring scale which was based upon player/AI level disparity. The exploit involved maintaining low level PWs in order to ensure greater disparity leading to more ribbons per win whereas higher-level PWs saw lower disparity which yielded fewer ribbons per win.

Thus, they decided to make the ribbon scoring static and at the average (rounded up) of the range of ribbons available per match (1 to 5).

Unknown

Morphis wrote:

1- it is not as simple as you may think... For example:W/L ratio? Ok I play one game and I won my W/L is 100% I am at 1st place and No one can do better.

Correct, thus scoring must still be based upon wins, but it should be weighed against win ratio.

Example:
Given...
- Player 1 plays 120 games and wins 72; they have 72 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 2 plays 60 games and wins 48; they have 48 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 1 has a 24 point lead.
But, with weighting...
- Player 1 plays 120 games with 72 wins; they have a 60% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 43.2
- Player 2 plays 60 games with 48 wins; they have an 80% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 38.4
- Player 1 still has a lead but it's 4.8 points

This would be a step toward rewarding skill instead of pure volume. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have presently.

Rogan_Josh

kore wrote:

Morphis wrote:

1- it is not as simple as you may think... For example:W/L ratio? Ok I play one game and I won my W/L is 100% I am at 1st place and No one can do better.

Correct, thus scoring must still be based upon wins, but it should be weighed against win ratio.

Example:
Given...
- Player 1 plays 120 games and wins 72; they have 72 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 2 plays 60 games and wins 48; they have 48 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 1 has a 24 point lead.
But, with weighting...
- Player 1 plays 120 games with 72 wins; they have a 60% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 43.2
- Player 2 plays 60 games with 48 wins; they have an 80% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 38.4
- Player 1 still has a lead but it's 4.8 points

This would be a step toward rewarding skill instead of pure volume. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have presently.

That's clearly a better scenario. On a side note it might promote more varied deck builds, removing the (possible) bias towards sustaining PW life totals.

RubiconX

kore wrote:

Correct, thus scoring must still be based upon wins, but it should be weighed against win ratio.

Example:
Given...
- Player 1 plays 120 games and wins 72; they have 72 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 2 plays 60 games and wins 48; they have 48 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 1 has a 24 point lead.
But, with weighting...
- Player 1 plays 120 games with 72 wins; they have a 60% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 43.2
- Player 2 plays 60 games with 48 wins; they have an 80% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 38.4
- Player 1 still has a lead but it's 4.8 points

This would be a step toward rewarding skill instead of pure volume. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have presently.

I like this provided the current app crashing is addressed first. I'm 'losing' about 25% of my battles due purely to the bloody app bumming out half way through a battle!.

Morphis

kore wrote:

Morphis wrote:

1- it is not as simple as you may think... For example:W/L ratio? Ok I play one game and I won my W/L is 100% I am at 1st place and No one can do better.

Correct, thus scoring must still be based upon wins, but it should be weighed against win ratio.

Example:
Given...
- Player 1 plays 120 games and wins 72; they have 72 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 2 plays 60 games and wins 48; they have 48 wins by the current scoring system.
- Player 1 has a 24 point lead.
But, with weighting...
- Player 1 plays 120 games with 72 wins; they have a 60% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 43.2
- Player 2 plays 60 games with 48 wins; they have an 80% win ratio giving them a weighted score of 38.4
- Player 1 still has a lead but it's 4.8 points

This would be a step toward rewarding skill instead of pure volume. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have presently.

Not sure how much this would change the balance quality/quantity since unless you are comparing with total noobs(that would be unable even now to reach fairly high position) the difference is not that great.
In your case 30% difference in w:l ration can be easily overcome with time spent.
Keep in mind that some ppl can and will spend MANY hours in the games(I did to some extent too yesterday).
Also there is no word in the difficulty of your opponent in your example(no matchmaking, random opponent?).

Morphis

I will give some numbers for my idea:
- Every player starts at 0
- you will face always the last color deck your opponent used IN QUICK BATTLE(avoids secondary weak decks you could have)
- when you achieve certain streak win thresholds you get a streak adjustement
- you will face opponent decks in a range around your "position minus streak adjustment"(range could simply be [-1,1] or larger)
- ribbon reward increases with streak(up to a limit)

Here is an example:
I play some match and I am in position 348with a streak of five. Let's say it gives me 5 streak adjustement

I can face ppl in ranks between 344 and 342
As soon as I lose my streak goes back to 0 so I will start facing similar opponents.

The main advantage with this method is the chance to climb the ladder somehow fast if you end up being too much behind assuming that is not reflection of your deck/skill level

Also I know there is a problem with disconnections atm but it will be fixed

Unknown

Seeing how unrewarding this game is to higher level planeswalkers, I can do nothing but quit the game until the reward system and leaderboard gets fixed.

It takes me anywhere from 9-15 minutes to win 1 match with my level 50 planeswalkers. While I complete 1 match the leaders with low level planeswalkers are winning so much quicker due to health being lower.

It is so absurd, because I have never played a game where it is frowned upon to level up.

At this point I would rather just restart my whole account and just play with unleveled planeswalkers.

Thanks for the fun times D3. I have been playing since early soft launch in October. Until the reward system/ribbon system gets fixed, I will be spending my free time and money elsewhere.

Unknown

JonnyRo wrote:

Seeing how unrewarding this game is to higher level planeswalkers, I can do nothing but quit the game until the reward system and leaderboard gets fixed.

It takes me anywhere from 9-15 minutes to win 1 match with my level 50 planeswalkers. While I complete 1 match the leaders with low level planeswalkers are winning so much quicker due to health being lower.

It is so absurd, because I have never played a game where it is frowned upon to level up.

At this point I would rather just restart my whole account and just play with unleveled planeswalkers.

Thanks for the fun times D3. I have been playing since early soft launch in October. Until the reward system/ribbon system gets fixed, I will be spending my free time and money elsewhere.

Much respect. I feel the same way...but I'm addicted. I know I'm not helping for staying; I guess despite the imbalance I still find some value in the game. Hopefully they make changes to mitigate these shortcomings soon.