Event rewards based on Points range instead of Ranking

arNero

I do admit I may sound like a sore loser here, but do please hear me out.

Is it possible that, for events with rewards based on how well we perform (which means, well, practically all the PvP events and some PvEs, coalition or otherwise), instead of rewarding based on Rankings (1-5, 6-25 etc), we instead reward based on Point range (like, if an event can award a maximum of 168 points, the ones with 168 point get best reward, 159-167 points get second best reward etc)?

The reason why I suggest this is because based on my observation, some events (such as Emrakul's Corruptions, the current War on Dragon) seem to have a disproportionately massive number of players who somehow just get perfect scores all the damn time (however they do it is unimportant), and thus a loss of just a single point, forget an entire match, becomes extremely debilitating to the rankings (I still remember full well there was one time with Emrakul's Corruption where, by losing just 1 point, I was kicked out of Top 50. 1. Point).

If we have a Point-Range-based awarding, sure, those losing just one point will obviously still be denied the best reward which hurts like hell, but at least they don't drop multiple reward tiers in one go. That is just very unfair when AI cascades and other RNG can badly screw over even the absolute best decks.

DumasAG

How did you get past the tinykitty filters?

Also, I would generally support this.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Volrak

Event rewards based on points range is something we already have.  It's functionally identical to "progression".

I think the root problem isn't that a player ending with a score lower than 50 other players ends in a prize tier lower than 50 other players.  (I don't think that's a problem at all.)  The problem is psychological (but no less real for that): an almost perfect score feels like it deserves almost perfect rewards, but it doesn't get them, for at least three reasons: Easy objectives, power creep of cards, and terrible AI.  Changing any of those could help reduce huge ties at the top, but a great balance actually takes work to find (especially for objective difficulty).  You'll note that "difficult" objectives like win with <20 life or take <15 damage also tend to be the most disliked.

HarryMason

I've given up on caring about rewards. It's been a while since I've even cared about my score , but the reasons stated in this thread are why . I play in a very high ranking coalition . My average score is between 90 and 99% of total points. Feels like I should be considered a top player. Used to bother me that I wasn't, but truth is I'm not . I'm not going to get bent out of shape and call Greg a cheater because I dropped an objective . I rarely lose ,so sometimes that bothers me ,but between things out of my control and the fact that I refuse to let my hobby feel like work , I'm happy with my 98% scores . If you're not happy with how your score correlates to your rewards you've got 2 realistic options. Build a bridge or figure out why you can't score where you want to score and work on those issues . 

This game has always had and probably will always have issues . It served me well to let go of some of my qualms related to said issues . I understand demanding better from the powers that be , but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. As sad as it is , it's starting to look like they may actually be doing the best they can. Although it also kind of feels like they keep handing in the rough draft of their paper instead of the finished version . Might be doomed . So , let's just all sing the doom song and revel in the fun and innovative ways this game gets broken each update !

[Deleted User]

Well technically all 1st placers should be grouped together and get the 1st place prize. Then it should count from 2 and then group all those people together. Then 3... so and so forth. 

But in this game if there are 7 people who are in 1st place... it starts counting the next "2nd placers" as 8th

I am really really curious to know and would like an answer; is it cause it would make them broke? I dont get it? Is there like an worldwide inapp currency rating organization that determines how good/profitable your app is? Or does it affect actual physical monetary profits? 

Rhasget

Counting the leaderboard like that is common practice. If you have two tied at the lead then there is no second place.

What I would like to see is an extended progression ladder. In TDW for example you reach progression at 125pts and max points is 540. So you only need to score 23% of max to reach it. This should be way higher, like 75%. Then you have something to keep playing for even if you take a loss or two. And it could be just an increase in runes for the most part, yeilding maybe 10-15k total at the top with final tier being a booster of the relevant set for the event.

Events would then be more relevant for more players and could give something many want, more runes.

bk1234

I would like to see the leaderboard eliminated and the progression ladder increased to max points. 

I had 2 losses and will finish top 50 in the second Platinum bracket. Someone with the same score in the first bracket probably won’t finish top 100. 

Also, because of a bug right now players with perfect scores might not even finish top 5, several players were rewarded double points and extra charges. 

I think you should be rewarded for the points you earn — your bracket shouldn’t matter. Perfect scores get the top prize 95-99% next tier; etc. 

Unknown

This content has been removed.

span_argoman

MarvinFine said:

Volrak said:You'll note that "difficult" objectives like win with <20 life or take <15 damage also tend to be the most disliked.

There are other ways to make the game difficult than just making it "difficult".

I'm curious. Do you have any suggestions besides improving the AI which people seem deadset against? I highlighted that because it was the only one that immediately came to mind.

bk1234

This is why the leaderboard system needs to be replaced with a points based rewards system: 

Platinum first bracket with a little over 3 hours left in event: 




Platinum second bracket at the same time: 

Matthew

@bken1234


If you think this is annoying, you should look at the top standings. People with perfect scores have been bumped out of the top 5 placement bracket because of others getting extra charges added onto their account due to connectivity issues.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bk1234

Matthew said:

@bken1234


If you think this is annoying, you should look at the top standings. People with perfect scores have been bumped out of the top 5 placement bracket because of others getting extra charges added onto their account due to connectivity issues.

@Matthew -- I have that one, too. And it's another reason why points should be awarded based on a scale of scores and not on rank. Everyone with perfect scores should get top rewards.




Edited to add:

But again, in the second bracket as of right now the perfect scores will still get better rewards:

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Aeroplane

Bugged cards and bugged events(extra charges and points)..... I lost 1 match, goofed a few objectives and will end up in the 100-250 bracket. Yeah! can't even be bothered sending tickets anymore as it should be a nice little relaxing game that takes me back 20 years of actually card game.Oh well...

Mburn7

I remember this being a huge issue in the old Nodes of Power, and the "solution" that happened was twofold:

1)  Added annoying secondary objectives so it would be harder to get perfect scores (this is pretty universally disliked)

2)  Created the current "ties share rewards" system, which was really a necessary change (you think you're annoyed now, just imagine what it was like to lose out on top 50 because you took 15 seconds longer than someone else to clear your perfect score)

3)  Reduced bracket sizes (which was pretty universally loved until they got rid of it)

While I certainly sympathize with having 1 loss kick you out of the top 100 (since it happens to me literally every event), I don't think it is really a huge issue.  I think restoring the smaller brackets would be a good enough fix

bk1234

Mburn7 said:

I remember this being a huge issue in the old Nodes of Power, and the "solution" that happened was twofold:

1)  Added annoying secondary objectives so it would be harder to get perfect scores (this is pretty universally disliked)

2)  Created the current "ties share rewards" system, which was really a necessary change (you think you're annoyed now, just imagine what it was like to lose out on top 50 because you took 15 seconds longer than someone else to clear your perfect score)

3)  Reduced bracket sizes (which was pretty universally loved until they got rid of it)

While I certainly sympathize with having 1 loss kick you out of the top 100 (since it happens to me literally every event), I don't think it is really a huge issue.  I think restoring the smaller brackets would be a good enough fix

Smaller brackets mean much smaller rewards. 

Mburn7

bken1234 said:

Mburn7 said:

I remember this being a huge issue in the old Nodes of Power, and the "solution" that happened was twofold:

1)  Added annoying secondary objectives so it would be harder to get perfect scores (this is pretty universally disliked)

2)  Created the current "ties share rewards" system, which was really a necessary change (you think you're annoyed now, just imagine what it was like to lose out on top 50 because you took 15 seconds longer than someone else to clear your perfect score)

3)  Reduced bracket sizes (which was pretty universally loved until they got rid of it)

While I certainly sympathize with having 1 loss kick you out of the top 100 (since it happens to me literally every event), I don't think it is really a huge issue.  I think restoring the smaller brackets would be a good enough fix

Smaller brackets mean much smaller rewards. 

I think I could live with that, since the current system means I get much smaller rewards anyway (2 losses and I'm lucky to be top 100)

bk1234

Mburn7 said:

bken1234 said:

Mburn7 said:

I remember this being a huge issue in the old Nodes of Power, and the "solution" that happened was twofold:

1)  Added annoying secondary objectives so it would be harder to get perfect scores (this is pretty universally disliked)

2)  Created the current "ties share rewards" system, which was really a necessary change (you think you're annoyed now, just imagine what it was like to lose out on top 50 because you took 15 seconds longer than someone else to clear your perfect score)

3)  Reduced bracket sizes (which was pretty universally loved until they got rid of it)

While I certainly sympathize with having 1 loss kick you out of the top 100 (since it happens to me literally every event), I don't think it is really a huge issue.  I think restoring the smaller brackets would be a good enough fix

Smaller brackets mean much smaller rewards. 

I think I could live with that, since the current system means I get much smaller rewards anyway (2 losses and I'm lucky to be top 100)

In the second bracket I’m finishing top 50 with 2 losses. The system is so flawed. It’s time to say goodbye to ranked scores and hello to scaled ones. Equal rewards for equal work no matter which bracket you are in. 

Brakkis

I wholeheartedly support the idea of dropping rankings and instead earning rewards based on your final score out of the maximum possible score.