Don't you want me to play, D3?

shteev

So I'd quite like to play some ladder games today. The thing is, I know from experience, if I join a ladder today, I'll need about 300-400 points just to come in 6th. But if I wait until tomorrow and jump in late, I can probably come first with about 200 points.

I'm quite addicted to this game, but you're breaking my addiction and making me go and do other things. Don't you want me to play?? If I don't play, how will I spend money on your game?! I might start playing something else, and not come back! I might give THEM some money! How would you feel then?

ChrisTot

Some people enjoy playing for all 3 days because it can guarantee that they will get more credit for being more dedicated over the course of those 3 days than other players are. It's also awesome that people that choose to play as often as they like are able to.

If you want to play for 3 days, play. If you don't..don't.

Unknown

shteev wrote:

So I'd quite like to play some ladder games today. The thing is, I know from experience, if I join a ladder today, I'll need about 300-400 points just to come in 6th. But if I wait until tomorrow and jump in late, I can probably come first with about 200 points.

Yeah that's a really terrible system. I understand that the devs don't want people all unmotivated because they join qb after it's already a day old and the first already has 200 points.
We all live in different time zones, so some people sleep when a new qb starts. But for all of us the event lasts 48/72 hours so we should all be in the same brackets.
It's just unfair that some people join qb 12 hours before it ends and have only to compete with others that also just started.

My idea is that when one quick battle ends all people who have at least won 1 battle in the last qb event automatically join the next one randomly get sorted in new ladders with some space for ppl that join the event additionally.

Keegan

On the other hand, it's very nice to be able to take a break without being penalized. This past weekend's bracket was a backbreaker to keep up with, and it's nice to know I can return to the game after a rest without missing out due to burnout from the last series.

Unknown

As a husband and father with a full-time job, I'm finding less and less incentive to continue playing; every reward I've received thus far from QB has been unrewarding. And when I see scores that are pushing 4 digits and I'm barely breaking 100 points (leveled Nissa to 50 to score those sweet 5-point rewards) a day because of RL, I've reached a plateau. I can't compete, even with a decent 94.7% (thanks game crashes) win ratio. Perhaps I'm not their target audience.

VacaNeon

kore wrote:

As a husband and father with a full-time job, I'm finding less and less incentive to continue playing; every reward I've received thus far from QB has been unrewarding. And when I see scores that are pushing 4 digits and I'm barely breaking 100 points (leveled Nissa to 50 to score those sweet 5-point rewards) a day because of RL, I've reached a plateau. I can't compete, even with a decent 94.7% (thanks game crashes) win ratio. Perhaps I'm not their target audience.

Maybe this can be solved by assigning players to brackets according to their accumulated QB scores. So players who play more often get to compete with other high intensity players.

But be honest, its never wise to toss high intensity and low intensity players in the same format. The disadvantage is clear - either unfair for high intensity players or frustrating for low intensity players. It is better to design two types of format that can benefit both types of players.

TKC

VacaNeon wrote:

Maybe this can be solved by assigning players to brackets according to their accumulated QB scores. So players who play more often get to compete with other high intensity players.

This is a good idea.

Morphis

I am already starting to play less.
Yesterday I got my first under 6th place(7th) placement since 1.3 patch.

The chance of getting a new card is too slim atm. While getting a good rank gives a guaranteed rare/mythic still the chances are low.
I was willing to play when I got runes to spend on packs... Even if the chances there of rare/mythic are really low during a 2 day leaderboard climb I could easily get enough runes for 35-40 packs. It was worth it for the "thrill" of opening it. Also since 1.3 I got 2 new mythics out of all 3 card packs, 0 new mythic(only dupes) as QB reward.

Unknown

Wait, why should low intensity players get the same rewards as high intensity ones?

I mean I am the laziest person on earth but I can still see why there is absolutely no reason to reward those that play less...right?

How unfair is it to those that work their butts off to get the same reward as the people that because of choice or obligations play less?

You guys need to step back about fairness and just think about it - the people that play more should obviously be rewarded more.

If you want to lump everyone that plays the most together it is going to be crud and a huge slap in the face for those that grind hours upon hours to be first.

Now I'm not saying the current system is ideal, but the only thing I would support is "choice of bracket" meaning each event runs for 3-4 days, and you can choose between those days the 2 day bracket that you would like, so you can play the most during that time.

EDUSAN

I still havent started because... addiction and having nothing better to do at some hours of the day (like traveling, bathroom, work break)

but i want to step back when the ladder is of a color that i dont care (or that i have a good amount of cards of)

If the ladder event is white, green or blue i think ill just try to get to the 1st crystal reward position (or at least enter the ladder to get something)

but if the ladder is black, red or colorless ill try to get to the 16/27 bracket. I cant get higher than that because i dont have enough time to play so much.

My best ribbon scores (playing quite a bit) have been around 300 in a ladder, and i cant imagine the life of the people that end in the 1st positions that have 1xxx ribbons.

Unknown

pandabear wrote:

Wait, why should low intensity players get the same rewards as high intensity ones?

I mean I am the laziest person on earth but I can still see why there is absolutely no reason to reward those that play less...right?

How unfair is it to those that work their butts off to get the same reward as the people that because of choice or obligations play less?

You guys need to step back about fairness and just think about it - the people that play more should obviously be rewarded more.

If you want to lump everyone that plays the most together it is going to be crud and a huge slap in the face for those that grind hours upon hours to be first.

Now I'm not saying the current system is ideal, but the only thing I would support is "choice of bracket" meaning each event runs for 3-4 days, and you can choose between those days the 2 day bracket that you would like, so you can play the most during that time.

I think the point of other tourneys would be Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Diamond tiers. The best prizes are in the highest brackets. They would probably be based off recent placements (top people upgrade brackets over time). Bronze folks would get 30 Crystals and guaranteed rare for first place. Diamond folks would be competing for guaranteed mythic, 100 Crystals and a Fat Pack or whatever.

Everyone eventually ends up balanced into a bracket where they can consistently Top 25 with their selected level of play. I doubt anyone that chooses to earn 100 Ribbons believes they deserve the same prizes as those that earn 400, but it's demotivating to always finish 200th place.

This whole system is still new and they've iterated on it twice already. They'll either iterate on it again or are working towards the Events tab or programming new cards or improving the AI. We all know they released the game what appears to be 3-4 months ahead of schedule. We can keep making suggestions for improvement and play until they shutter their servers.

Rootbreaker

pandabear wrote:

Wait, why should low intensity players get the same rewards as high intensity ones?

I mean I am the laziest person on earth but I can still see why there is absolutely no reason to reward those that play less...right?

How unfair is it to those that work their butts off to get the same reward as the people that because of choice or obligations play less?

You guys need to step back about fairness and just think about it - the people that play more should obviously be rewarded more.

If you want to lump everyone that plays the most together it is going to be crud and a huge slap in the face for those that grind hours upon hours to be first.

Now I'm not saying the current system is ideal, but the only thing I would support is "choice of bracket" meaning each event runs for 3-4 days, and you can choose between those days the 2 day bracket that you would like, so you can play the most during that time.

More importantly, doing well shouldn't be punished. The reason I eventually quite MPQ was because it seemed like after winning/doing well enough, I ended up in a bracket I could no longer compete in.

Equivalent effort should result in equivalent rewards, regardless of how you've performed in the past.

The_Leftist

I like the idea of being able to choose a bronze/silver/gold/diamond event

High scoring players would generally go for Diamond if the rewards were significantly better than gold/silver.

More casual players could determine which event fit their tastes and find out how often they scored better prizes per different event.

Some players would probably essentially sandbag just to be able to be a top scorer, but if the events offered say, top 10 percent of scorers for diamond had prizes equivelant or better than 1st in gold, most players would shoot for the best bracket they thought they could compete in. Perhaps even make the prize tiers much more spread out and double the brackets. Perhaps Diamond could even be 5,000 players with top 50 getting a mythic and fatpack, and top 200 getting rares. The downside would be that Bronze prizes would be terrible. Probably a booster and a chance at a rare for 1st.

If they played with the idea tho, I think something like this could work.

Unknown

I was thinking that the best solution would just be for them to set a ribbon limit after which point you would be removed from the leaderboard and get the highest reward. This would take a lot of pressure off of everyone. People who have time to play would no longer be competing with those who don't, and if you can and want to play a lot then you know you are guaranteed a good reward provided you hit that quota. The leaderboard system is so inconsistent based on who you get paired against and what day of the week it is.

Needing 200 or 300 points to be in first place is more than I'm likely to play, but those who are describing 500-1000+ point leaders... it sounds obscene. I already find it stressful to maintain a lower place on the board so I can guarantee the rewards I feel I have worked for. Setting a quota at which point you are removed from the board and get the top reward I think would make it more fun for everyone and would equalize rewards based off of time put in.

shteev

pandabear wrote:

Wait, why should low intensity players get the same rewards as high intensity ones?

I mean I am the laziest person on earth but I can still see why there is absolutely no reason to reward those that play less...right?

How unfair is it to those that work their butts off to get the same reward as the people that because of choice or obligations play less?

You guys need to step back about fairness and just think about it - the people that play more should obviously be rewarded more.

You're absolutely right that players who commit more to the game should get rewarded more. There's an argument that perhaps the players who are *better* at the game should be rewarded more than the ones who are more persistent, but that's not really the point I want to argue here.

My point is this: I am self identifying as a player who has spent money on the game (just the Starter Pack, true, but actual money, all the same), and might spend money on the game in future, but the systems in place here are driving me away from this game and towards other games which I will spend money on instead. It strikes me that D3 would like to know about this.

Meto5000

shteev wrote:

You're absolutely right that players who commit more to the game should get rewarded more. There's an argument that perhaps the players who are *better* at the game should be rewarded more than the ones who are more persistent, but that's not really the point I want to argue here.

My point is this: I am self identifying as a player who has spent money on the game (just the Starter Pack, true, but actual money, all the same), and might spend money on the game in future, but the systems in place here are driving me away from this game and towards other games which I will spend money on instead. It strikes me that D3 would like to know about this.

Guys, isn't this all moot if they actually make runes worthwhile? If runes are worth something then people will want to join PvPs early in order to grind runes. As it is, there's absolutely no reason to join a PvP early unless you're still leveling your PWs. I already have 165k runes banked AFTER leveling all my PWs so why would I bother to join a PvP before the last 1-3 hours?

Why are you all so fixated on punishing late joiners? Everyone competes in a bracket with other people who join at the same time. Everyone has the ability to join whenever they want before the end of a PvP. If you join early your bonus is that you get more runes (which are currently almost worthless). I would be fine with them ALSO adding progression bonuses based on number of wins, but other than that I think the system works as is.

Anyways, just give us something to spend runes on, something like a card crafting system (one can dream), and suddenly joining early in PvP will be the cool thing to do again.

The_Leftist

Another idea is Alliances

Alliance scores would be based off of total points, so going in at the end would damage your alliances score.

I know I wouldn't go in late

Meto5000

The_Leftist wrote:

Another idea is Alliances

Alliance scores would be based off of total points, so going in at the end would damage your alliances score.

I know I wouldn't go in late

It took MPQ over a year before Alliances weren't a **** mess. I think the devs for this game have other things they can do with their time before untangling that rat's nest.

The_Leftist

Meto5000 wrote:

The_Leftist wrote:

Another idea is Alliances

Alliance scores would be based off of total points, so going in at the end would damage your alliances score.

I know I wouldn't go in late

It took MPQ over a year before Alliances weren't a **** mess. I think the devs for this game have other things they can do with their time before untangling that rat's nest.

True, but now that D3 has some experience in the matter, perhaps it would be easier this time around

(Don't be so pessimistic, Meto)

Unknown

I've played several p2w incentivized, stamina-gated collectible card battle games and the ones I enjoyed the most and didn't immediately quit were the ones with multiple, tiered arenas that had generous, unique rewards with wide brackets. I have never played a card battle game where 1st place is its own bracket for rewards. Maybe top 15-25, and basically its the secondary reward that increases as your rank goes higher.

Basically when the game releases there will only be two arenas, say rookie and master, and what separates them is in rookie you can only use commons and uncommons, or you can use rares but only 1. Then as the game gets more players, or the card pool significantly increases, they release more arenas until one allows all cards. This way there's almost always a tier that fits your collection and the only thing keeping you from placing higher is effort/skill. The higher arenas give higher rewards at all levels, but the competition is obviously stronger. Sometimes you can only get certain unique rewards from higher tier arenas, with lower arenas getting a smaller version of the same reward.

It's basically impossible to create unique, one-off cards in this game, but perhaps more unique rewards for each QB event would incentivize players more. For instance, in blue theme events, your card reward will always be a blue card of whatever rarity you placed for.

In the end, in any multiplayer game, there will ALWAYS be someone with more time and resources than you.

Meto5000

The_Leftist wrote:

True, but now that D3 has some experience in the matter, perhaps it would be easier this time around

(Don't be so pessimistic, Meto)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound pessimistic; I just mean that Alliances would be a huge effort that might take a while to fine tune and get right. The dev's time might be better spent, at this point in the game's lifecycle, knocking off a bunch of other issues that are more of the "low hanging fruit" variety. I mean, perhaps they could like...maybe one day reveal what exactly the purpose of the Events tab is.