What would D3 need to provide you in order to start saying nice things about the game again?

12346»

Comments

  • tfg76
    tfg76 Posts: 258 Mover and Shaker
    In some sense, I feel it´s OK to have secondary objectives that sometimes cannot be achieved.

    The real problem is that winning is too easy to achieve. In these events, we play 30-40 matches. For the secondaries to fully count, it means that you have to consistently win all those, meaning, you need a win percentage of 99%+. 

    In real MtG, if your deck has a 90% win ratio, you´d be extremely happy! Here, that´s a real loser.

    If we could somehow get the AI good enough where the top 5 (platinum) consisted of some people with a loss, but good secondary finishes, others with some secondary losses but all wins, etc, I think the events would be much more interesting and there would be a real strategic choice between building your deck "to win" and building your deck to meet all secondaries consistently.

    That being said, the 1-5 prizes are almost no better than 6-25 anyway, so it´s not really such a big deal :)
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    One thing they can do is reverse the decision to make the AI avoid match-5's. 
  • Thuran
    Thuran Posts: 456 Mover and Shaker
    And make the AI cycle, and NEVER kill it's own creatures. Not sure if making it always prioritise the card which requires the least mana to cast next would be good, but it needs better priorities.
  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    Mainloop25 said:
    One thing they can do is reverse the decision to make the AI avoid match-5's. 
    There is of course no reason why the AI couldn't play differently at different levels.
  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    Thuran said:
    And make the AI cycle, and NEVER kill it's own creatures. Not sure if making it always prioritise the card which requires the least mana to cast next would be good, but it needs better priorities.
    If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the AI can't tell one targetted card from another; there's probably some kind of flag in the code which tells the AI whether it's a good spell for it's own team or a bad spell to fling at yours... and Hibernum just used to forget to set that flag on new cards when a new set came out. Every. Single. Time.
  • TheDragonHermit
    TheDragonHermit Posts: 465 Mover and Shaker
    Mainloop25 said:
    One thing they can do is reverse the decision to make the AI avoid match-5's. 
    I suspect this was on purpose, a series of match 5s prevents player interaction with the game. Which can lead to loss of interest or frustration. They may have  been thinking about the infinitely looping troll decks and how much players enjoyed having the he removed from their control.
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    Matchups by rough PW level are quite pointless. A rating system of some sort would help a lot, it's not like there isn't already data collected on players.
    Simple things though, instead of level match roughly on "number of mythics/MPs in deck", it's more accurate than PW level.

    I find it hilarious that some people are saying elsewhere "let us use all our cards!" when they really mean "let us use just our best 10 cards for everything!".
    I _Want_ variety. Forcing limits of 1 MP per deck and 2 Mythics per deck would absolutely annoy a heap of people, but it would encourage them to look at the rest of their collection and possibly make something new and different for the very first time this year.
  • ElvaanStride
    ElvaanStride Posts: 62 Match Maker
    Kinesia said:
    Matchups by rough PW level are quite pointless.
    Rough only begins to describe it. My opponents vary from one level lower than me to 12 levels above.
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    Kinesia said:
    Matchups by rough PW level are quite pointless. A rating system of some sort would help a lot, it's not like there isn't already data collected on players.
    Simple things though, instead of level match roughly on "number of mythics/MPs in deck", it's more accurate than PW level.

    I find it hilarious that some people are saying elsewhere "let us use all our cards!" when they really mean "let us use just our best 10 cards for everything!".
    I _Want_ variety. Forcing limits of 1 MP per deck and 2 Mythics per deck would absolutely annoy a heap of people, but it would encourage them to look at the rest of their collection and possibly make something new and different for the very first time this year.
    I agree in tenor but completely disagree in regards to your suggested matchmaking system. 

    Using an "average quality of cards" method would encourage all kinds of deck manipulations by top players. Also, it would discourage buying and using exclusives. But most importantly, I have met great players with limited collections and bad players with good collections.  

    The fair way to do it is like a true elo system where you keep moving up or down based on quality of competition until you reach a level that is appropriate. If you sandbag and then drop 10 mythics in a deck, then oh well.  Remember, the AI is still awful.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    The austerity package is just the chickens coming  back to roost. Nothing to do with newbies being unable to win games. Truth be told it was gentler than I thought it would be. I kept waiting for the worst to drop and it never did. 

    But that's neither here nor there. We should move on. 
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    The ranking system suggestion sounded perfect but something was bugging me about it and I couldn't work out what...

    I just bought Sorin and I'm levelling him up and trying to work out a cool deck using my cards.
    I'm trying to test it in Training Grounds because he's only level 20 and there is nowhere else I can try things out.

    Training Grounds _should_ be the right place for this but it really really isn't, it doesn't work at all.

    With my level 20 planeswalker all 5 of the games I've been given so far have been against level 60s.

    I have been able to win 1 or 2 but it's _not_ a reasonable test and more importantly it's not fun.

    An ELO system _by itself_ would not fix this problem. Because if I'm only matched against people of my level then i'm almost never going to get the games I'm actually looking for.

    Perhaps the distinction can be a ranked matching that the rewards are from, but a _non_ reward option where you can pick the rough level of your opponent or put in other criteria like say "I want to test this deck against a level 40 Elspeth" and have it pick a deck not just out of the people _in_ training grounds but out of any decks anyone has saved that match the other requirments. Since it's not reward based it doesn't hurt anything else.



  • majincob
    majincob Posts: 732 Critical Contributor
    Kinesia said:
    ...
    Perhaps the distinction can be a ranked matching that the rewards are from, but a _non_ reward option where you can pick the rough level of your opponent or put in other criteria like say "I want to test this deck against a level 40 Elspeth" and have it pick a deck not just out of the people _in_ training grounds but out of any decks anyone has saved that match the other requirments. Since it's not reward based it doesn't hurt anything else.
    What if you could select a difficulty and get different amounts of runes per battle based on your choice.
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    majincob said:
    Kinesia said:
    ...
    Perhaps the distinction can be a ranked matching that the rewards are from, but a _non_ reward option where you can pick the rough level of your opponent or put in other criteria like say "I want to test this deck against a level 40 Elspeth" and have it pick a deck not just out of the people _in_ training grounds but out of any decks anyone has saved that match the other requirments. Since it's not reward based it doesn't hurt anything else.
    What if you could select a difficulty and get different amounts of runes per battle based on your choice.


    That could be good.  I wouldn't mind a huge range of options though, pick the potential level range of the enemy, the possible colours, all kinds of stuff.
    It'd be nice to go "I want to fight a level 60 Koth", (except I wouldn't do that!), but the defaults should be "someone of your rough skill level with roughly the same PW level", since that will _probably_ not be matchable I'm not sure how you try and prioritise things...
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    Kinesia said:
    majincob said:
    Kinesia said:
    ...
    Perhaps the distinction can be a ranked matching that the rewards are from, but a _non_ reward option where you can pick the rough level of your opponent or put in other criteria like say "I want to test this deck against a level 40 Elspeth" and have it pick a deck not just out of the people _in_ training grounds but out of any decks anyone has saved that match the other requirments. Since it's not reward based it doesn't hurt anything else.
    What if you could select a difficulty and get different amounts of runes per battle based on your choice.


    That could be good.  I wouldn't mind a huge range of options though, pick the potential level range of the enemy, the possible colours, all kinds of stuff.
    It'd be nice to go "I want to fight a level 60 Koth", (except I wouldn't do that!), but the defaults should be "someone of your rough skill level with roughly the same PW level", since that will _probably_ not be matchable I'm not sure how you try and prioritise things...

    Great idea @majincob. 

    I agree that the ELO system should be for competitive play and that we should have loads of options in which to deck test.  How many people would love a mirror-match mode of TG?  Or the ability to test other decks or those of friends/coalition mates.

Categories