Keeping new players.

Lagartha

I tried to get my brother to play this game, but after a few weeks he quit. He said he was frustrated about only being able to play the story mode. The decks he went up against in quick battle and in events, even in bronze tier, were so much better than his cards that he would lose more often than not.

I know a lot of players with a very big collection will intentionally avoid playing all their cards and going up a tier because the battles are much more difficult. That results in decks that belong in the platinum tier flooding the gold tier.

I can see that scaring off a lot of new players before they even have a chance to get involved in the game.

I don't know if it's been suggested, but what if the tiers were based on the cards that players actually have access to rather than the ones they've mastered?

jetnoctis

I think that would be a great idea for the health of the game overall, even though I'd personally have something to lose.

I'm currently in silver by the skin of my teeth and mastering almost any new cards would push me to gold. This results in me playing with a far reduced "****" cardpool than what I really have which is painful though, admittedly, completely self-inflicted. If I wasn't given the choice of determining my own tier, I would probably enjoy the game even more (though probably win fewer mythics!) because I would be able to use the full suite of my cards without the fear that I'll tip over constantly breathing my deck. Again, I know that I have created this not-entirely-enjoyable situation for myself and I know that my experience may not be representative of everyone. However, constantly hearing what sort of monstrous decks exist even in gold tier because players in gold also do what I do, I'd probably be creamed if I tiered up. So, although I may be part of the problem, I am essentially doing no less than what many others are doing by exploiting one of the few exploitable things in this game.

Abbot_Nalaar

This post is spit on. Please take a real look at this situation.

Lagartha

Abbot_Nalaar wrote:

This post is spit on. Please take a real look at this situation.

Just throwing out the idea. I'm asking in the public forum because I'd like feedback. So if I'm being stupid and completely missing the issue, please enlighten me rather than just drop an insult and disappear.

Nitymp

Lagartha wrote:

Abbot_Nalaar wrote:

This post is spit on. Please take a real look at this situation.

Just throwing out the idea. I'm asking in the public forum because I'd like feedback. So if I'm being stupid and completely missing the issue, please enlighten me rather than just drop an insult and disappear.

Actually, I thought that was a typo and read the 2nd part of the sentence in a different light to the way you probably did..

"This post is spot on. (Devs) please take a real look at this situation. (Instead of not, or just half looking)"

Lagartha

Nitymp wrote:

Lagartha wrote:

Abbot_Nalaar wrote:

This post is spit on. Please take a real look at this situation.

Just throwing out the idea. I'm asking in the public forum because I'd like feedback. So if I'm being stupid and completely missing the issue, please enlighten me rather than just drop an insult and disappear.

Actually, I thought that was a typo and read the 2nd part of the sentence in a different light to the way you probably did..

"This post is spot on. (Devs) please take a real look at this situation. (Instead of not, or just half looking)"

Yeah.. Someone pointed out that might be what they meant and I ultimately felt stupid anyway.. Hah. With how aggressive these boards can get I suppose I was prepared for an all out war the second I posted the idea. =P

Steeme

I'm sitting in Gold tier right now, but I'm not intentionally holding back. When I get new cards I play them in QB and Events, if I can make them work. It takes a long time to master cards if you're not going out of your way to grind them out in story mode (I have better things to do, like work extra OT for $$).

I've seen some big decks in Gold tier, but are you sure they are "intentionally" holding back? Some might, I suppose, but it only benefits those that are actually at the top of the leaderboards. What I did notice is that there are a lot of decks that are using old cards, ie. decks that would have been built using the first two sets but with a couple new cards thrown in... so perhaps they are not moving up the chain because they don't have access to all of the new cards?

And with respect to your brother having a "weak" deck.. well I will agree that it is difficult. When I started out, I immediately bought some big boxes to get my library started (I usually do that once I've decided to give the game a real shot). I don't know what the solution to that problem is.

Ampmp11

Realistically they should probably do something based on your bracket and where you are within that bracket. Such as play the people around your ranking +/- 20 spots for events.

Also mastery should be taken out. It really doesn't matter how many times you've played a card, but the amount of cards you have access to. If someone has access to 40 mythics but is in the silver bracket, they'll currently dominate that bracket because most of those players may have 1-10 mythics. With more card access the more varied deck you can create so I think something based on card access vs card mastery would be a good start.

XxDarklit3xX

My own anecdote- I am one of those players who are purposely not advancing on to platinum. Although I could win matches, I don't believe I would be competitive. The current event structure requires you to win a majority of your nodes. Already, the few times I come across players with exert and/or crush in gold it's almost an instant loss. I imagine there is more of that in platinum. Bottom line for me is that at this point, even though I could tier up, I do not want my event performance to suffer for the mediocre reward gains of moving up.

PastrySpider

Its not a bad solution but comes with some of its own problems. For example, it doesn't take into account cards which can't currently use or can't use effectively. Suppose you get good black cards but don't play a black planeswalker or you get Crumble to Dust and Minds Dilation which are mythic but kind of useless by themselves. There are a lot of rares and mythics which just aren't that useful but one lucky pull of Olivia or Devastator and you are a terror on low levels.

Also, I'm not sure it actually fixes the problem your brother has. The current returns on ranking in Bronze tier are pretty awful so I don't think it makes sense for many players to squat there. If it is a problem, I would suggest making bronze end after a fixed number of non-story games (say 30). Gives totally new player a chance to get their toes wet but you can't game it.

The best idea I have had for setting tiers is based on the win rate of your deck as played by the AI. That has the simple solution of ensuring that decks which are too powerful get bumped up to the next level. This also comes with problems because the AI plays some card terribly (such as Firey Conclusion and reclaim) but solves for the problem your brother has.

Ampmp11

PastrySpider wrote:

Its not a bad solution but comes with some of its own problems. For example, it doesn't take into account cards which can't currently use or can't use effectively. Suppose you get good black cards but don't play a black planeswalker or you get Crumble to Dust and Minds Dilation which are mythic but kind of useless by themselves. There are a lot of rares and mythics which just aren't that useful but one lucky pull of Olivia or Devastator and you are a terror on low levels.

Also, I'm not sure it actually fixes the problem your brother has. The current returns on ranking in Bronze tier are pretty awful so I don't think it makes sense for many players to squat there. If it is a problem, I would suggest making bronze end after a fixed number of non-story games (say 30). Gives totally new player a chance to get their toes wet but you can't game it.

The best idea I have had for setting tiers is based on the win rate of your deck as played by the AI. That has the simple solution of ensuring that decks which are too powerful get bumped up to the next level. This also comes with problems because the AI plays some card terribly (such as Firey Conclusion and reclaim) but solves for the problem your brother has.

Perhaps some of those mythics shouldn't be mythics at all ... It's infuriating that some lowly mythic is supposedly on the same tier as Olivia or given out as such. Olivia is a true mythic, whereas some of the other ones could be rares and they probably still wouldn't be played.

PastrySpider

I agree those cards are probably too weak right now. However, in general, rather than trying to make everything as good as Olivia (arguably the best card in the game), I'd suggest nerfing Olivia. But that's a matter for a different thread.

Really, I don't think you can get away from the fact that the power of a deck can't be accurately determined by tier. If the object of tiers is to ensure that player play against decks on similar power, win rate in each tier is probably the best way of determining which tier a deck belongs in.

Of course, a problem with my suggestion is that decks change and a deck that was once powerful might be nerfed by card changes, so you'd need the ability for decks to degrade in tiers too. Another problem is that there is no visibility into how your deck does when played by the AI but that would actually be pretty cool info to have.

Tilikum

I always thought tiers should be based on the amount of times a player has finished top 10 or 20. Like a formula that calculates your ability to win events. That way if you want to farm a tier, it will eventually boot you out after you've won a few times.

**** off the cuff example:
Rank 1-5 = 5 points
Rank 6-10 = 4 points
Rank 11-15 = 3 points
Rank 16-20 = 2 points
Top 50 = 1 point.

Once you hit 25 points, you tier up.

Somebody (PQMTG RIP) had a cool idea about card mastery a couple months ago. Whenever they finally implement saving different decks, you can only save cards that you've mastered. That way they can change the tier system to something that doesn't stink on ice while still keeping card mastery a thing.

PastrySpider

Tilikum wrote:

I always thought tiers should be based on the amount of times a player has finished top 10 or 20. Like a formula that calculates your ability to win events. That way if you want to farm a tier, it will eventually boot you out after you've won a few times.

**** off the cuff example:
Rank 1-5 = 5 points
Rank 6-10 = 4 points
Rank 11-15 = 3 points
Rank 16-20 = 2 points
Top 50 = 1 point.

Once you hit 25 points, you tier up.

Somebody (PQMTG RIP) had a cool idea about card mastery a couple months ago. Whenever they finally implement saving different decks, you can only save cards that you've mastered. That way they can change the tier system to something that doesn't stink on ice while still keeping card mastery a thing.

Problem with the tiering by ranking is it missed folks like me who have nasty decks but don't rank. Ranking is partially about deck power but also a lot about willingness to grind and wake up at annoying times to finish events. I would still be Bronze now if they used this system.

I like the mastery having more value solution but if people are willing to completely ignore using good cards to stay in their rank, I don't see them ranking up just the get save capabilities. The basic problem is that you can easily make a deck way nastier than your tier and never tier up.

Here is another option, have event bonuses for using 3+ non-mastered cards in your deck and don't allow deck changes during the event. That cause a bunch of cards to get mastered and also shake up the meta.

GrizzoMtGPQ

Totally agree with this. Too many players are "slumming" in gold and silver so they can benefit from the easier player pool. Mastery is not working as intended because the rewards are not better if you move up. There should be no mythics awarded in silver or gold. Give the incentive to move up.

Mainloop25

When I first started playing this game, I spent all of my time in story mode because I wasn't good enough to compete in QB. Pvp events didn't exist yet. The only difference was that I didn't get frustrated and quit. Maybe he just didn't really like the game that much

moogus

The problem is the matchmaking system. Color mastery is a terrible idea for multiple reasons. They need a more robust algorithm that takes into account your win/loss record, the strength of your previous opponents, and your card pool to a lesser extent. Anyone trying to join this game now is going to hit a brick wall as it's currently implemented.

Lagartha

Mainloop25 wrote:

When I first started playing this game, I spent all of my time in story mode because I wasn't good enough to compete in QB. Pvp events didn't exist yet. The only difference was that I didn't get frustrated and quit. Maybe he just didn't really like the game that much

He did enjoy it. He loved the original puzzle quest and we grew up playing mtg trading card game together. I think now that the game has all the cool new features like events, it can be frustrating not being able to participate fully. I told him all about how amazing it was and how much I loved doing events with my coalition. (Perhaps I set him up for failure in that respect.)

I see this as the main reason why new people quit though. Based on his account and many people in the forums.

Changing this system wouldn't benefit me in any way. I'm a completionist and I only have a handful of cards I haven't mastered yet.

Just trying to find a reasonable compromise to keep this game going. If we're losing old players to burn out and new ones to frustration, it's going to kill the game sooner or later.

Lagartha

moogus wrote:

The problem is the matchmaking system. Color mastery is a terrible idea for multiple reasons. They need a more robust algorithm that takes into account your win/loss record, the strength of your previous opponents, and your card pool to a lesser extent. Anyone trying to join this game now is going to hit a brick wall as it's currently implemented.

That's a really good point. Ultimately I think that would be the best fix. I think it would be much easier to implement a quick, easy fix for the devs to change the mastery system to cards in inventory and then in the long run put in a system like this.

Corn_Noodles

Tilikum wrote:

I always thought tiers should be based on the amount of times a player has finished top 10 or 20. Like a formula that calculates your ability to win events. That way if you want to farm a tier, it will eventually boot you out after you've won a few times.

**** off the cuff example:
Rank 1-5 = 5 points
Rank 6-10 = 4 points
Rank 11-15 = 3 points
Rank 16-20 = 2 points
Top 50 = 1 point.

Once you hit 25 points, you tier up.

Somebody (PQMTG RIP) had a cool idea about card mastery a couple months ago. Whenever they finally implement saving different decks, you can only save cards that you've mastered. That way they can change the tier system to something that doesn't stink on ice while still keeping card mastery a thing.

I'm not opposed to something like this. Those that consistently finish near the top should be playing each other more often.

Corn_Noodles

moogus wrote:

The problem is the matchmaking system. Color mastery is a terrible idea for multiple reasons. They need a more robust algorithm that takes into account your win/loss record, the strength of your previous opponents, and your card pool to a lesser extent. Anyone trying to join this game now is going to hit a brick wall as it's currently implemented.

I agree. I had thought a better color mastery system would be to base it off levels in planeswalkers. For example, Jace is worth 60 blue and Kiora is worth 60 blue and 60 green. Put the tiers at 60 in a color for silver, 120 or 180 in a color for gold, 240 for platinum, 360 for diamond. However, people would just ride the lines using planeswalkers instead of cards. What it would do is take away the grind for someone who wants to purposefully rank up to a new tier. Mastering cards is boring. Leveling planeswalkers? You want to do that and the more you play, the easier it is.