Keeping new players.

Gerard

I think the intention here is to make the game seem so daunting to new players that they feel that they have no choice but sink some $$ into it which some will probably do, however I'd wager that more often than not said new player just gets frustrated and quits.

PastrySpider

Levels are not a good way of capturing power and therefore tier since its relatively simple to level up a planeswalker but very hard to get good cards. A few of weeks grinding quick battle is enough to get you 5 level 60 mono-color planeswalkers but with no mythics you are in no way ready for Platinum tier.

On the question of making the game daunting for new players, I highly doubt that's their strategy as it would be pretty simple to identify that long term players spend more money. I suspect they really want to make the initial experience as non-scary as possible (hence my recommendation of a rookie tier) so people find the game fun and get personally invested.

As to the earlier comment on a combined solution using win loss and power and opponent strength is good. Any ranking system needs to take into account the rank of those you beat but there are plenty of existing systems for handling this in games. One issue is that most of these systems are designed to push you up until you have a ~50/50 win loss ratio which works great for PvP games because 50/50 is a fair match. However, for this game you don't need to be fair because there is only one player competing and currently most successful players probably have closer to 95% win ratio because the AI isn't strong.

bk1234

I recently started playing with an alt account because I wanted to see what the new player experience was like. As soon as I got the crystals, I invested in Origins and SOI boxes which actually dropped better than anything I've ever had with my main.

Having played this for several weeks, I have to agree. I rarely play QB because I'm going against people who have huge card banks and build their unleveled PW -- I do ok in events, but I'm finding bronze tedious so I only play to progression (plus a double grind is just a bit too real for me).

On the flipside, I remember when I started almost a year ago (Happy almost 1 year anniversary MTGPQ) and the game has become much more interesting. I only stuck with it back then because I liked MTG, now I play because I like MTGPQ.

Retention would definitely be better if there were more balance.

Tilikum

bken1234 wrote:

...plus a double grind is just a bit too real for me...

LeafHyren

I was thinking maybe an Elo Rating system, such as competitive chess with a few tweaks to meet the particulars of this game. And make such a thing internal to them, that way matching can be efficient in the way it happens in chess. Allowing for fluctuation in rankings as well.

From Wikipedia:

"The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in competitor-versus-competitor games such as chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-born American physics professor.

The Elo system was originally invented as an improved chess rating system, but is also used as a rating system for multiplayer competition in a number of video games,[1] association football, American football, basketball,[2] Major League Baseball, Scrabble, snooker and other games.

The difference in the ratings between two players serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%.

A player's Elo rating is represented by a number which increases or decreases depending on the outcome of games between rated players. After every game, the winning player takes points from the losing one. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game. In a series of games between a high-rated player and a low-rated player, the high-rated player is expected to score more wins. If the high-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the low-rated player. However, if the lower rated player scores an upset win, many rating points will be transferred. The lower rated player will also gain a few points from the higher rated player in the event of a draw. This means that this rating system is self-correcting. A player whose rating is too low should, in the long run, do better than the rating system predicts, and thus gain rating points until the rating reflects their true playing strength."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_ratin ... ve_ratings


The kind of change I mean is in seeing how likely a player is to beat a particular event boss for example, instead of each other. It is much easier for one player to beat another's deck, the difference in going first and not being a robot. But if both players get the same challenge than some comparison can be made.

And also add an amount of variety that is reasonable. So that players do not get tired or frustrated of fighting each others decks. With this type of player ranking a reasonable amount of challenge can be given to every player individually.

This system can also be gamed as ratings often can. So a good amount of punishment for throwing matches would be good.

majincob

LeafHyren wrote:

I was thinking maybe an Elo Rating system, such as competitive chess with a few tweaks to meet the particulars of this game. And make such a thing internal to them, that way matching can be efficient...

I loved this idea until I imagined how much worse it would feel to hit a bug and get a loss through no fault of your own and lose so many points it would take weeks to regain them.

LeafHyren

majincob wrote:

LeafHyren wrote:

I was thinking maybe an Elo Rating system, such as competitive chess with a few tweaks to meet the particulars of this game. And make such a thing internal to them, that way matching can be efficient...

I loved this idea until I imagined how much worse it would feel to hit a bug and get a loss through no fault of your own and lose so many points it would take weeks to regain them.

haha yeah... I was just thinking of that too. someone can abuse it by deliberately throwing matches. But it can be fixed in the game if instead of per match you do it per event or QB or day, bigger chunks so that a few freezes do not actually weigh heavy on the rating.

Getcheffy

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.

Well why not give each card a weighting number from say 1-20. And if your deck weighs 345pts?( random #) and the silver to gold cutoff is 320 then your in gold. But if your deck is trash you can only go as low as one tier under what you normally play.

Side note. When using the black card defiant blood lord when it says you heal if one of your creatures had regen +2 on it would that ability proc from the regen? Or only from health gained to plainswalker? If anyone can help plz do.

Alve

I feel that something like Elo would be a good solution, provided that you can also drop a tier. This way players who are in this uncomfortable place between gold and platinum are not stuck forever with their platinum uncommons. And if someone is willing to throw some event matches just to stay in gold, so be it. This way players honestly trying to do their best should have a better chance to score decent rewards.

Foznertep

I think the best solution might be a function that matches decks, rather than players, based on the accumulated card value in terms of rarity/power. So if you enter a match with a low value deck you won't be pitted against an all-rare/mythic opponent who crushes you in a few rounds.

Ohboy

A simple solution to people hiding in bottom tiers with dominating decks would be to just award mastery points as prizes as well in the top 25.

If you're topping the charts consistently, you eventually tier up.

Abbot_Nalaar

My bad that was a typo i meant spot on.

Tilikum

Ohboy wrote:

A simple solution to people hiding in bottom tiers with dominating decks would be to just award mastery points as prizes as well in the top 25.

If you're topping the charts consistently, you eventually tier up.

But then, like PastrySpider was saying, all the dominate decks that just play events casually to get progression rewards would be lurking in the Bronze Tier. Those players also don't care about secondary objectives and just bring power-house decks to the party. You can make a pretty sick deck by just winning QB and throwing money at this game. You don't even have to place in an event.

Then again, I haven't played the Bronze Tier in a while. Maybe winning all your matches for progression rewards will land you in the top 25.

Edit: Oh wait a minute, but you would still tier up from mastery... duh.. Sounds like that would work then.

Brigby

I'm loving the brainstorm session you're all having in this thread. There are some great popping up.

bk1234

I'm playing my alt in my first **** and I'm getting all non-event decks at the max level over (5).

A level 42 G1 will never hold up to a level 47 non-event Aj with the limited cardpool available to newer players -- and my cards are probably better than most.

This has to be fixed.

This is not fun and I will no longer suggest this game to new players until it is.

huntly

bken1234 wrote:

This is not fun I will no longer suggest this game to new players until it is.

I was considering starting a thread asking whether or not anyone could suggest this game to a friend before this thread popped up. Now it seems a little redundant. My opinion is that unless a person is prepared to spend ALOT of time or money right off the bat they are in for a long, often unrewarding, grind before they feel they have a foot in the door. Mainly due to a tier system that punishes the evolving decks of new players and an underwhelming drop rate on mythics.(too many times have I gotten a BB containing only one rare) I think the simplest fix for tiers would be to have every card come mastered and increase the number required to tier up. As for the drop rates, I think there should be a meter to fill up causing your next BB to contain a guaranteed mythic. Something like every fourth or fifth BB having a guarantee would at least give us something to work towards and look forward to.

chispito

Lagartha wrote:

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.

As someone who just moved from Silver to Gold I can't say I noticed much difference.

But I agree that in general it must be hard for people just starting out. It's a snowball effect. The better cards you have, the more you can earn in QB and events. But you can't get cards without earning/paying first.

Plastic

bken1234 wrote:

This is not fun and I will no longer suggest this game to new players until it is.

You could always quit and give your account away. Not that I'd do such a thing.

Norksman

Based on my own experience, if your only measure of enjoyment in a game is high placement and progression, you won't last long unless you get lucky with your boosters and boxes.

I played a lot of story mode to start out, mostly because I was intimidated by the quick battles and events. Once I had a deck that I felt confident in, I realized that QB and the events weren't that bad. Though I'll be honest, I really haven't noticed a difference in the decks I faced in Bronze to the decks I face now in Silver. Have had to play against decks with multiple mythics even though I had none in mine.

As far as I know, the match making process is still behind closed doors right? I'm pretty sure we only see decks from our current tier, but we don't actually know what goes into the calculations for who we face? If I'm wrong, please let me know where I can see this information. e.g. Facing red decks in the current Terror event - why?

All that said, I like the idea that you gain additional mastery points based on your placement in event/qb, though I wouldn't restrict it to just the top 50 etc. Every bracket should receive some mastery points. Though any mastery type system is going to be flawed because of the high variations in the actual value of a given card. There are some cards that are super strong by themselves, some need to combo with a specific PW or single other card, or need a combo to be effective, but are useless otherwise.

It's a tough nut to crack, but ultimately I think you probably stay if you're enjoying the actual gameplay, not the progression you make. This puts a lot of onus on the matchmaking and mastery seems to be the main driver for it.

bk1234

Plastic wrote:

bken1234 wrote:

This is not fun and I will no longer suggest this game to new players until it is.

You could always quit and give your account away. Not that I'd do such a thing.

I was thinking about hooking it to a dummy fb and sharing it with anyone who wants to see just how bad the new player experience is.

As a public service, of course.