(Suggestion) change rewards base on Score

Kalazan

I like the Colossal Tussle event. But sadly lost 2 point due to kill opponent too fast. Then my rank position drop from 1 to 200+ because of 2 point lost.

I'd suggested give reward based on Score instead of Rank. Those who perfect score of course still get top reward. And also who just lose couple can still get some decent rewards. 

Anyone got same situation with me that lost some point just because of careless moves?.. 😂

jtwood

They addressed this in the May Q&A

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/82328/oktagon-q-a-session-may-2020-update-05-29-2020

Like you, I look forward to the day when the game does not demand absolute perfection from every event. It removes a lot of enjoyment when you miss an early objective and now the rest of the event has no upside for your time. 

Kalazan

@jtwood that's great to hear. Thx buddy!

Volrak

The harsh reality: Scoring fewer points than 200+ other players were able to, and having a rank of 200+ as a result, is (a priori) fair.

The problem: Regardless, large rank lost for tiny points dropped is still a massive feel-bad.

The root cause: Huge clusters of perfect scores occur because the game is too easy (for top players).

The irony: The easier the game is, the more perfection is "demanded".

The challenge (for Oktagon): Make events harder to score 100% in while keeping the game engaging and fun for everyone (i.e. without making it more frustrating/grindy/boring/buggy).

The alternative: Make rank matter less.

And from the May Q&A it looks like this alternative is the path they will take.  Because they've tried several approaches to addressing the challenge directly (hello and goodbye TE, TGT, Manu), and haven't been able to strike a satisfactory balance.

madwren

The harsh reality is just a matter of perspective, though. One could also say that  scoring the second highest point total for an event, and having a rank of 2 as a result, is fair and logical. 

The Olympics ranking style--wherein you have rank gaps--is simply far more tenable when you're discussing pools of people numbering 3 instead of 3,000. 

It's within Oktagon's power to remedy that, but they choose not to because it would result in more people gaining more rewards. 

ArielSira

Smaller brackets would help too

Volrak

madwren said:

The harsh reality is just a matter of perspective, though. One could also say that  scoring the second highest point total for an event, and having a rank of 2 as a result, is fair and logical. 

The rewards in question are described as being given according to the "rank" of your "individual placement".  It's hard to see how perspective comes into the interpretation of those concepts.  Sure, individual rank rewards could be changed to score rank rewards, but that would be a change to the reality of those rewards.

madwren said:

It's within Oktagon's power to remedy that, but they choose not to because it would result in more people gaining more rewards. 

Not necessarily.  Changing individual rank to score rank rewards could be done without game economy impacts, e.g. by computing the total individual rank rewards usually given out for the event, and designing a score rank reward scheme which leaves the expected total rewards awarded unchanged, but distributed according to score rank instead of individual rank.  (If that isn't actually what anyone wanted, one would have to surmise there are two requests tangled together - one to reconsider the ranking criteria, and another to increase rewards - which may well be the case.)

Regardless, they've said they are doing something about it.  We will have to wait and see exactly what that turns out to be.

Gideon

As long as it doesn’t require me to race to complete my nodes I will be ok.

Heartstone

One of frustrating sides of the current system is that you have all the useless brackets. 

In this weekend's Seize the day, I missed one objective and I'm in the 26-50 bracket. That means the 6-25 bracket is not used at all, while we automatically expect the second rank price when we have an almost perfect score.

Maybe the brackets should be defined differently:

1st: perfect score

2nd: 1 objective missed (or perfect minus x points for events where the objectives do not give the same number of points)

3rd: 2 objectives missed

4th: one game lost

5th..

Nth: all the rest

It probably won't change much for most players, but at least you won't have the impression to lose prices because there are too many people in the bracket above your own.

jtwood

26-50 for one missed obj? I’m in the 100s at -3 😄

Heartstone

Lucky you

Heartstone

Just to bump this discussion. In this weekend's Titanomachy,  1 objective missed (2 points) meant you ended in the <150 bracket. 

The difference between that score and not playing (500 to 3000 bracket) is 1 pink.

I repeat : one pink extra for an almost perfect score

jtwood

Yeah, but... you only lost what? 4 pinks? Rewards in that event are trash at an individual level. It’s all about the coalition there. 

Heartstone

I know, and I'm lucky to play in a top 10 coalition, but this could be seriously demotivating for players in lower coalitions who do not get a big coalition reward.

madwren

Volrak said:

madwren said:

The harsh reality is just a matter of perspective, though. One could also say that  scoring the second highest point total for an event, and having a rank of 2 as a result, is fair and logical. 

The rewards in question are described as being given according to the "rank" of your "individual placement".  It's hard to see how perspective comes into the interpretation of those concepts.  Sure, individual rank rewards could be changed to score rank rewards, but that would be a change to the reality of those rewards.

That's what it is, though--an interpretation. The determination of individual placement is not immutable. It being implemented the current way does not preclude alternate placement systems from being possible (or viable). So yes, of course it's a change to the reality of those rewards, because this is a thread about changing that reality. 

The point of my post, however, was to ensure there wasn't only one option being presented as fair and logical. There are at least two:

Option 1: Individual placement is determined by total points earned by other players in relation to the individual's point total. Thus, if you score fewer than 100 players, you have a rank of 101. 

Option 2: Individual placement is determined by total points earned by the individual in the event. Thus, if you score the 2nd highest point total, you have a rank of 2.  

Those are the two main positions.  However, I very much disagree with the presumption that the current system, Option 1, which works fine in the Olympics, is adequate for 3000-player brackets, especially for players that are struggling to accumulate resources.  Punishing a player who got a -2 on an event by busting them down to 501st place is absolutely ridiculous. 

Thanks. Hope that makes more sense.

Firinmahlazer

ArielSira said:

Smaller brackets would help too

I've been saying this for 2 years and felt like I'm screaming into the void. 

bk1234

Progression should go to 100%. Everyone would get rewarded for the effort they put in. 

I enter brackets very late so I am close to the end of the #1’s. I then do my recharges early. Usually one lost objective right at recharge is already 25th place or higher. I can’t imagine what players with near perfect scores are actually getting for rewards. Doesn’t seem quite fair. They performed just shy of perfectly. 

The only fair solution is progression to full points with decent rewards closer to perfect scores. 

greenmeanie

Heartstone said:

One of frustrating sides of the current system is that you have all the useless brackets. 

In this weekend's Seize the day, I missed one objective and I'm in the 26-50 bracket. That means the 6-25 bracket is not used at all, while we automatically expect the second rank price when we have an almost perfect score.

Maybe the brackets should be defined differently:

1st: perfect score

2nd: 1 objective missed (or perfect minus x points for events where the objectives do not give the same number of points)

3rd: 2 objectives missed

4th: one game lost

5th..

Nth: all the rest

It probably won't change much for most players, but at least you won't have the impression to lose prices because there are too many people in the bracket above your own.

I like where you are going with this.  I too feel that it should be based off of score not rank for rewards.  I just finished seize the day.  Lost only 2 pts and was ranked 71.

In event like seize the day or something similar,y where secondary objective gives you 3, and your third gives you 2. I would have rank system like this:

1. perfect score
2.  Won match Missed 2 pts from third objective
3.  Won match Missed 3 pts from secondary objective
4.  Won match Missed 2 objectives not exceeding over 5 pts.
5.  Won match Missed 3 objectives not exceeding 10 pts
6.  Lost a match
7.  Lost match and third objective
8.  Lost match and secondary objective

Stormcrow

So, here's an idea I've been pondering, I can see some benefits but also some potential downsides so I was curious how people would feel about it: what about open-ended objectives? What I mean is, right now, all the objectives are completely binary, On/Off, either you did it, or you didn't do it. What if, instead of say "Cast 4 creatures", it was just "+1 point: Cast 2 creatures" and the more creatures you cast, the more points you got, totally open-ended. Cast 200 creatures in a single fight, get +100 points for that secondary objective. Just for an example, numbers totally made up.

On the upside, it would dramatically reduce (if not completely eliminate) ties, and encourage some much more creative deckbuilding, instead of just adding a couple of cards to hit the objectives into your usual boring deck. On the downside, it might make individual games drag on a lot longer and encourage a lot of infinite-combo-type shenanigans. Like I said, I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea myself, so I'm curious to see what other folks think.

Mburn7

Stormcrow said:

So, here's an idea I've been pondering, I can see some benefits but also some potential downsides so I was curious how people would feel about it: what about open-ended objectives? What I mean is, right now, all the objectives are completely binary, On/Off, either you did it, or you didn't do it. What if, instead of say "Cast 4 creatures", it was just "+1 point: Cast 2 creatures" and the more creatures you cast, the more points you got, totally open-ended. Cast 200 creatures in a single fight, get +100 points for that secondary objective. Just for an example, numbers totally made up.

On the upside, it would dramatically reduce (if not completely eliminate) ties, and encourage some much more creative deckbuilding, instead of just adding a couple of cards to hit the objectives into your usual boring deck. On the downside, it might make individual games drag on a lot longer and encourage a lot of infinite-combo-type shenanigans. Like I said, I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea myself, so I'm curious to see what other folks think.

Hmm, that is an interesting idea.

The issue I can see with this is it greatly limits the types of objectives that can be used.

Only ones I can think of are:
Cast/Summon something
Deal damage in 1 turn
Get cards in graveyard/exile

Maybe a couple others that aren't quite as open ended?  (deal damage to creatures, draw cards, gain life?)

Also I think that would really reduce deck diversity instead of increase it, since everyone would be running the same token loop deck for a summon creature objective, for example.  Only so many ways to maximize it.

Feden

I know this isn't a poll (yet...) but put me down for strongly against.  The only feeling worse than missing out on first place by a single objective/freeze/whatever, is going perfect and getting peanuts for it. 

I've already stopped trying at many of the new events because they aren't worth it.  I can't imagine the total reward pools growing, so I disagree with this since the goal seems to taking prizes away from top finishers and passing them down the line because it feels bad to some people?  That certainly doesn't sound fair to me.