Meanwhile in parallel Universe......

losdamianos

jetnoctis

Yes, please, bring this in.

Crimmy

I'm still puzzled how this didn't happen 6 months ago.

Steeme

If they increase the number of first prizes given out in events, that has to balance with drop rates in packs and such. So while this helps the people tied at the top of the leaderboard, it ruins the game for the rest of the players. And if you're at the top of the leaderboard, you likely don't need as much help with drop rates.

losdamianos

Steeme wrote:

If they increase the number of first prizes given out in events, that has to balance with drop rates in packs and such. So while this helps the people tied at the top of the leaderboard, it ruins the game for the rest of the players. And if you're at the top of the leaderboard, you likely don't need as much help with drop rates.

Im not really following you, Are you saying that people who scored best score not deserve best prize ?
Do we really need to introduce this unfair condition based on where you happen to be born to be able to compete ?

Steeme

losdamianos wrote:

Steeme wrote:

If they increase the number of first prizes given out in events, that has to balance with drop rates in packs and such. So while this helps the people tied at the top of the leaderboard, it ruins the game for the rest of the players. And if you're at the top of the leaderboard, you likely don't need as much help with drop rates.

Im not really following you, Are you saying that people who scored best score not deserve best prize ?
Do we really need to introduce this unfair condition based on where you happen to be born to be able to compete ?

No, I'm saying if there's a 20-way tie for first place, then you cannot possibly give out 20 first prizes as that would cause inflation in the economy.

The point is moot though. The goal is to create an environment where there are fewer ties. If there happens to be a 25-way tie, and there are 10 first prizes, then there should be a mechanism for giving all 25 players a base prize, but only picking 10 people randomly for the mythic reward.

losdamianos

Steeme wrote:

losdamianos wrote:

Steeme wrote:

If they increase the number of first prizes given out in events, that has to balance with drop rates in packs and such. So while this helps the people tied at the top of the leaderboard, it ruins the game for the rest of the players. And if you're at the top of the leaderboard, you likely don't need as much help with drop rates.

Im not really following you, Are you saying that people who scored best score not deserve best prize ?
Do we really need to introduce this unfair condition based on where you happen to be born to be able to compete ?

No, I'm saying if there's a 20-way tie for first place, then you cannot possibly give out 20 first prizes as that would cause inflation in the economy.

The point is moot though. The goal is to create an environment where there are fewer ties. If there happens to be a 25-way tie, and there are 10 first prizes, then there should be a mechanism for giving all 25 players a base prize, but only picking 10 people randomly for the mythic reward.

Agree, perhaps having bigger nodes so they can hold 10 charges would be a somewhat good compromise but I think we should take one step at a time and lets first fix the obvious issue which is a time based discrimination.

no matter how many obstacles you will introduce, time-based tie will be possible, we should fix it first and perhaps add more games which would reduce the amount of perfect scorers

Szamsziel

Theoretically it could be based on your opponents performance during the event - winning with player with perfect score should be tie-breaking.
But... First of all matchmaking should be resolved - there was over 1880 players when I joined event (in my stack) but I encounter over and over the same player. It's boring

Alve

Shorter recharge time for individual (non-coalition) events would also help. The more battles you play, the more likely you are to lose a few points. With shorter events and longer recharge it's easy to get a perfect score.

Furks

Steeme wrote:

No, I'm saying if there's a 20-way tie for first place, then you cannot possibly give out 20 first prizes as that would cause inflation in the economy.

I'm not sure which economy you're speaking of. Each collection is individual and there is no possibility of trading. Handing out more rewards wouldn't cause any kind of inflation.

losdamianos

Alve wrote:

Shorter recharge time for individual (non-coalition) events would also help. The more battles you play, the more likely you are to lose a few points. With shorter events and longer recharge it's easy to get a perfect score.

please dont confuse recharge times with the amount of battles
I have suggested above that we should start with much larger timers (6-10?) 8 hours recharge times are god send

Alve

losdamianos wrote:

Alve wrote:

Shorter recharge time for individual (non-coalition) events would also help. The more battles you play, the more likely you are to lose a few points. With shorter events and longer recharge it's easy to get a perfect score.

please dont confuse recharge times with the amount of battles
I have suggested above that we should start with much larger timers (6-10?) 8 hours recharge times are god send

For coalition events - yes. For individual I wouldn't care if it was a 2h recharge tbh. I get to play more and if I don't have time for that, I can just safely ignore the event.

losdamianos

Alve wrote:

losdamianos wrote:

Alve wrote:

Shorter recharge time for individual (non-coalition) events would also help. The more battles you play, the more likely you are to lose a few points. With shorter events and longer recharge it's easy to get a perfect score.

please dont confuse recharge times with the amount of battles
I have suggested above that we should start with much larger timers (6-10?) 8 hours recharge times are god send

For coalition events - yes. For individual I wouldn't care if it was a 2h recharge tbh. I get to play more and if I don't have time for that, I can just safely ignore the event.

currently **** holds 15 matches,
instead of lowering recharge times back to 4h which would give you 9 more battles (24 matches in total)
You could start with larger nodes which would hold 6 matches each node (18 at start + 6 during event) = (24 matches in total)

IF the general consensus is that players wants to play more just make nodes bigger!

Alve

I just like playing more often in individual. Having new nodes to play more often is imho better than being able to clear more at once. Also, shorter recharge is a bigger obstacle than just more games - you have to clear your nodes regularly. With **** (5 charges total), no matter your time zone, you get enough time to sleep and live your life whether the recharge is 2, 4 or 8h.

Once again - I support longer recharge for coalition events.

losdamianos

Alve wrote:

I just like playing more often in individual. Having new nodes to play more often is imho better than being able to clear more at once. Also, shorter recharge is a bigger obstacle than just more games - you have to clear your nodes regularly. With **** (5 charges total), no matter your time zone, you get enough time to sleep and live your life whether the recharge is 2, 4 or 8h.

Once again - I support longer recharge for coalition events.

ahh it makes sense I guess its up an individual preference and doesnt really matter as much as coaltion events

tm00

If the number of players with a perfect score is around 4-7 players now maybe just guarantueing the top reward to those people regardless of their posirion could be possible without giving away too many free godies.

Maybe limiting it to platinum if these kind of ties are more common in gold.

Steeme

Furks wrote:

Steeme wrote:

No, I'm saying if there's a 20-way tie for first place, then you cannot possibly give out 20 first prizes as that would cause inflation in the economy.

I'm not sure which economy you're speaking of. Each collection is individual and there is no possibility of trading. Handing out more rewards wouldn't cause any kind of inflation.

Crystals, packs, boxes, PW's, Runes, pretty much everything in game has a price tag associated with it.

QB leaderboards award packs and currency. Event leaderboards and progression award packs and currency. Since these are essentially being giving away "for free", it decreases the amount of crystals that players need to spend in real $$ in order to get the same library.

The game needs to generate a stable amount of income, or it will collapse. We don't want that, because then your collection is worthless and you are stuck looking for another game.

The game generates an amount of revenue based on what players are investing in it. New money = cash purchases. When you increase in-game rewards, this causes less money to come from outside because there is less need to. In order to balance this, they must reduce the drop rates on packs, or they must increase the price of packs / crystals.

Hence the "economy".

losdamianos

................

Brigby

*Closing this discussion thread, due to last post dating back to January. If you would like to discuss this topic, please start a new thread. Thank you!