Dispersing Wealth

[Deleted User]

So I was thinking about how we can disperse some of the wealth at the top end of events. This does not mean we should reduce the wealth of the top end necessarily as these people put in a lot of effort to achieve these scores; but, I believe we should allow some more opportunities to be provided to the lower end of the leaderboards. Therefore, I will talk about two things:
1) A point system that implements scores of only even or odd numbers.
2) Designated ranking prizes with relatively significant rewards at certain key ranks.

For Point 1, I thought the point system should be devised so that only odd or even scores can be generated. This is will probably be specific to PvP events. For instance, if the points for all objectives, including winning the match, was 2 points. Even if you lost certain objectives/games, your score would always be even. Therefore, players would only be able to achieve even numbered scores. This allows more ties and less disparity between scores, i.e. the absence of odd scores would eliminate all total possibilities of score combinations (both even and odd vs only even). Thus, more people would have access to prizes. In other words, assuming all objectives are 2 points and there are 3 objectives, only a limited amount of possible ranks are created, i.e. 0, 2, 4, and 6 (4 total ranks with the greatest disparity being only 6 points); as opposed to, if an objective being 5 points, another being 2 points, and another being 1 point is present, i.e. 0, 5, 6, 7, 8 [5 total ranks (are there more? I thought there would be more... P.S. I am terrible at math) and the greatest disparity being 8 points]. Perhaps disparity is more important here (I am thinking of this as I go), since we all know that moment you lose 1 point and it drops you like 25+ in the rankings is pretty de-motivating in addition to enraging, considering the amount of effort you put in (but all because the AI cascades like 50 mana and casts their entire hand on turn 1). Overall, this will allow for more ties and less possible score combinations; thus, overall may players get more than less - I am not 100% sure, as having 500 people tied would be kinda awkward; but, at least all 500 get the same prize? Maybe there is a more effective mathematical formula for this?

For Point 2, I thought It would be interesting to provide a single, designated ranking a slightly higher prize than the actual prize of that rank bracket. In other words, as a simple example, the rank bracket 6-25 provides a reward of 20 mana crystals, but being rank 10 provides a 30 mana crystal reward. In this case, I guess it would be changed to 6-9 gets 20 mana crystals, rank 10 gets 30 mana crystals, rank 11-25 gets 20 mana crystals. The same can be down for significantly lower brackets such as rank 100-250 such that rank 100-250, excluding rank 150 and 200, get 5 mana crystals; but, rank 150 and 200 gets 10 mana crystals // or more realistically // rank 100-250, excluding rank 150 and 200, get 300 mana runes; but, only rank 150 and 200 gets 10 mana crystals in addition?. This will allow some more wealth to be provided for those, especially beginners, to have an opportunity of at least getting some wealth/resources, they normally would never see the light of day of, during these events. But additionally, it may add some "fun" to the competitive nature of the game. Currently, with the upper end of the rankings only having access to precious resources such as mana crystals or mana gems, it feels hopeless for newer players/coalitions at times to feel motivated when they know they can't get that high in the rankings because they don't have the collection, which this card collection disparity is even further compounded as the higher end keeps getting significantly more resources for a better card collection. But by implementing this, some of the lower end may have something to strive for that is more about precision scoring/timing/randomness since it will constantly be fluctuating, i.e. the goal is rank 150 but ranks 151 and 149 will both be competing with a very different approach to get there and all the while rank 145 could suddenly jump up to rank 150. It would cause movement on the lower reward brackets and the rewards would not always be provided to the exact same coalition/individual since it is constantly (well.. constantly but limited at some point) in a state of flux.

And once again, I am not implying we should change the prizes drastically for the top end perhaps because they do put in a lot of effort. But provide a means for the wealth to be provided at lower brackets as well, inspiring hope/motivation and weird random competitive fun. Thoughts?

Firinmahlazer

dispersing wealth

Are you some kind of communist?

[Deleted User]

Firinmahlazer said:

dispersing wealth

Are you some kind of communist?

LOL. not that I am aware of? I just feel there is a huge disparity between the top end and the bottom end of the leaderboards and these may help newer players and stagnating coalitions, who we want to retain, to have something to look forward to competitively. Also, I remember when I was first starting out in this game about a little over a year ago and how bleak things felt with the leaderboards and the rewards, granted the rewards have improved significantly since then (in some ways).

Firinmahlazer

jimpark said:

Firinmahlazer said:

dispersing wealth

Are you some kind of communist?

LOL. not that I am aware of? I just feel there is a huge disparity between the top end and the bottom end of the leaderboards and these may help newer players and stagnating coalitions, who we want to retain, to have something to look forward to competitively. Also, I remember when I was first starting out in this game about a little over a year ago and how bleak things felt with the leaderboards and the rewards, granted the rewards have improved significantly since then (in some ways).

Sorry I may have been off my rocker a bit last night  . I guess at the end of the day I don't really see the harm in bumping up rewards a tad on the low and for bronze/silver players. It would have to be balanced in a way that platinum still offered the incentive of higher rewards therefore making sure people still want to progress to the next level. 

[Deleted User]

Firinmahlazer said:

jimpark said:

Firinmahlazer said:

dispersing wealth

Are you some kind of communist?

LOL. not that I am aware of? I just feel there is a huge disparity between the top end and the bottom end of the leaderboards and these may help newer players and stagnating coalitions, who we want to retain, to have something to look forward to competitively. Also, I remember when I was first starting out in this game about a little over a year ago and how bleak things felt with the leaderboards and the rewards, granted the rewards have improved significantly since then (in some ways).

Sorry I may have been off my rocker a bit last night  . I guess at the end of the day I don't really see the harm in bumping up rewards a tad on the low and for bronze/silver players. It would have to be balanced in a way that platinum still offered the incentive of higher rewards therefore making sure people still want to progress to the next level. 

haha it happens. I saw that comment and took it as a joke but after a while I was like... wait.. are other people going to think that is offensive; was actually a little worried someone else would flag it. Also, got a little worried no one else would provide their thoughts after that lol

Honestly, I was thinking all other prizes can be left as is (unless someone feels generous and wants to give even better rewards but I don't want to push D3 into giving out more and more rewards necessarily. I mean they are doing a lot now and I am not interested in making them go broke... otherwise no MTGPQ ) and just provide small incremental boosts to single, designated ranks (i.e. Point 2). After all, there would be a lot of backlash if top tier prizes were nerfed more (comparative to when the game first started and rewards were apparently bonkers compared to now).