Quick battle start/finish times

The Bookman

There is an inherent problem with having one set of global start and finish times for each qb event and that is that people from different timezones are unfairly penalised.

For me in the UK events currently start and finish at 3am. So I normally join 3 hours after the event starts and normally go to bed 4 hours before the event finishes. That means I am losing 7 hours of the event duration just because of where I live. This may also be a problem for shift workers.

A fairer system would be multiple staggered start/finish times for each event. Then people can join at a time that suits them. Eight different start times, each equally spaced 3 hours apart would ensure a fairer qb for all.

Plastic

Quick battle in general is just bad right now honestly. Needs an overhaul.

Sinslayer5

Plastic wrote:

Quick battle in general is just bad right now honestly. Needs an overhaul.

Completely agree with this.

I understand the motivation behind rewarding players based on greatest number of wins - at first glance, it seems perfectly logical and fair, as the most dedicated of players are allotted the highest awards. However, this system does not reward smart play, but instead emphasizes frequent play; it places downward pressure against players coming up with new strategies and combos of their own, while compelling them to limit their play to a pre-defined deck that offers, not the smartest, but the quickest win. Also, playing an AI-run player deck feels like playing someone using a common brute-force approach across all decks; some combo decks aren't even played right, which results in some embarrassing moments for the opponent.

Perhaps this is simply the expected model for Quick Battle, and I recognize some potential issues with developing true PvP play (it may require a much larger player base, and perhaps additional coding in of a player ranking system). Nevertheless, I for one would welcome the chance to play among a limited pool of 500 player decks over a 24-hour period or perhaps over the course of a week, even if AI-controlled. Such a format could be composed of decks from players with varying win rates (20 players with 95%+ overall win rate, 40 players with 90%+ win rate, etc.), with awards for top players among the much smaller group size. It could remain as an open group, "play-as-you-want" structure, or could be fashioned into tournament-style play. This structure would simulate MtG pre-release or other Limited format events - there may even be simple ways to re-create a sealed deck environment. Is it possible new formats like these are in development for the "Events" section of the game?

Ultimately, the longer we play without a compelling, challenging, and stimulating game format around the core concept, the less likely we are as players to expect creative and engaging mechanics in future card sets. Why keep coming back for more, when you're encouraged to play the same game hundreds of times over again?

LakeStone

These are great suggestions and things we are looking at over here in making the battles more competitive for more players. We plan to release some news about our next update very soon and hopefully we are able to answer many of these questions at that time. Please follow-up with us once the news is out if you have any questions.

The start/finish times is definitely something Hi-Fi and I have been advocating for so hopefully it can happen in the near future. Thanks!

PaganMoon

Sinslayer5 wrote:

Plastic wrote:

Quick battle in general is just bad right now honestly. Needs an overhaul.

Completely agree with this.

I understand the motivation behind rewarding players based on greatest number of wins - at first glance, it seems perfectly logical and fair, as the most dedicated of players are allotted the highest awards. However, this system does not reward smart play, but instead emphasizes frequent play; it places downward pressure against players coming up with new strategies and combos of their own, while compelling them to limit their play to a pre-defined deck that offers, not the smartest, but the quickest win. Also, playing an AI-run player deck feels like playing someone using a common brute-force approach across all decks; some combo decks aren't even played right, which results in some embarrassing moments for the opponent.

Perhaps this is simply the expected model for Quick Battle, and I recognize some potential issues with developing true PvP play (it may require a much larger player base, and perhaps additional coding in of a player ranking system). Nevertheless, I for one would welcome the chance to play among a limited pool of 500 player decks over a 24-hour period or perhaps over the course of a week, even if AI-controlled. Such a format could be composed of decks from players with varying win rates (20 players with 95%+ overall win rate, 40 players with 90%+ win rate, etc.), with awards for top players among the much smaller group size. It could remain as an open group, "play-as-you-want" structure, or could be fashioned into tournament-style play. This structure would simulate MtG pre-release or other Limited format events - there may even be simple ways to re-create a sealed deck environment. Is it possible new formats like these are in development for the "Events" section of the game?

Ultimately, the longer we play without a compelling, challenging, and stimulating game format around the core concept, the less likely we are as players to expect creative and engaging mechanics in future card sets. Why keep coming back for more, when you're encouraged to play the same game hundreds of times over again?

Hope not based to win ratio;because game crush will mess players ratio for example,my raito 81 % atm 2790 W / 627 L but those 627 almost 500 maybe more because of client crash first need to fix that thing.