1 missed objective in Seize the Day has me in 277th Place! Why?!

Endbringer

I cast 2 of 3 supports so I missed a single 3 point objective and that has me in 277th place, going from earning 4 packs of Odyssey/Torment/Judgement, 55 Jewels, 65 crystals, and 3000 runes to 1 pack of Odysee, 10 crystals, and 3000 runes. That's a huge difference for a single objective being missed. I can't imagine what it would be like to actually lose a match. Probably drop to the 500-3000 ranking rewards and only recieve 3000 runes. That's insanely unfair! That's ridiculous! That's total ****! Participate in every match in the event, and miss a single objective or god forbid lose a match and be placed in the bottom rankings, completely bypassing 6-25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-250, and being bumped down down and kicked out to the curb for trash rewards. Who amongst the game developers came up with this brilliant idea??? This will or at least should cause everyone to eventually quit playing this game. It's not just Sieze the Day either, it's every ranking event. It needs to change now. If you go perfect, you're in 1st. Miss a single 2 point objective, you're in 2nd. Miss a 3 point objective, you're in 3rd. Miss two 2 point objectives, you're in 4th. Miss a 2 point and a 3 point, you're in 5th. And so on and so forth. That's how it should be. I'm sure everyone agrees.

Volrak

It's basically fair that if 276 players performed better than you, your rank as a player is 277th.

But there are certainly some real issues:

• The placement reward system combined with how easy it is to get 100% results in a harsh penalty for the tiniest slip, which is a terrible player experience
• The placement reward system combined with bugs and game issues can sometimes result in a harsh penalty through no fault of the player, also a terrible player experience

The progression system was designed at a time when achieving 100% in an event was rare, and so originally, this kind of problem didn't occur.  Now that the game is at a place where 100% scores are very common, it happens regularly.

Originally, there was also a tiebreak on tied scores, based on the order of when each player joined the event - so no more than 5 players ever got the 1-5 tier reward regardless of how many tied scores there were.  I think most would agree that ditching the tiebreak was a step forward, despite the problems that remain around huge ties at 100%.

Changing rewards from using player rank (how many unique players scored higher than you) to score rank (how many unique scores were higher than your score) is something they could do, but seems like it'd be a lot of work to implement - each tier of rewards for each event would need a complete overhaul since they would be awarded for something fundamentally different.

ArielSira

The quickest way to solve this issue is getting rid of these ridiculous 2000-3000 player brackets

Endbringer

Volrak said:

It's basically fair that if 276 players performed better than you, your rank as a player is 277th.

But there are certainly some real issues:

• The placement reward system combined with how easy it is to get 100% results in a harsh penalty for the tiniest slip, which is a terrible player experience
• The placement reward system combined with bugs and game issues can sometimes result in a harsh penalty through no fault of the player, also a terrible player experience

The progression system was designed at a time when achieving 100% in an event was rare, and so originally, this kind of problem didn't occur.  Now that the game is at a place where 100% scores are very common, it happens regularly.

Originally, there was also a tiebreak on tied scores, based on the order of when each player joined the event - so no more than 5 players ever got the 1-5 tier reward regardless of how many tied scores there were.  I think most would agree that ditching the tiebreak was a step forward, despite the problems that remain around huge ties at 100%.

Changing rewards from using player rank (how many unique players scored higher than you) to score rank (how many unique scores were higher than your score) is something they could do, but seems like it'd be a lot of work to implement - each tier of rewards for each event would need a complete overhaul since they would be awarded for something fundamentally different.

I get that if 276 players get a perfect score, than they should all be tied for first place, but what if 499 people got perfect scores? The rest of the 2501 people that may have simply missed a single 1 point objective, all have to be forced into getting the worse possible rewards at the bottom rung now? Just some runes? For a single point objective missed? That's how the reward system currently functions and it's definitely not fair to all the people that might spend 3 days attempting every single fight. New players wouldn't stand a chance to earn some actual decent rewards that they desperately need to move forward in this game, so they'll likely find it way to hard to come up and just quit shortly after starting the game. Veteran players who've invested so much time and effort will probably wonder why the hell they're doing so, if one little slip up will make their time and efforts grant them a few runes they don't need that bad. Whales who spend a ton of money, are going to wonder why they ever even did in the first place if all of their good cards they bought don't matter a lick (even when they're a good player) because one little tiny objective got missed and now they get junk rewards and feel forced in the long run to have to just spend more money just to get a fair amount of in game currency because the event left them high and dry.

Ampersand

ArielSira said:

The quickest way to solve this issue is getting rid of these ridiculous 2000-3000 player brackets

I think this is the best short-term solution. Just make the brackets smaller! I missed one 2pt objective and was in 101st place. That is NUTS and should not happen. Just make smaller brackets, please @Oktagon_Support

Avahad

Could a ‘final reward per point’ system work rather than tier brackets?

Just random numbers as an example.

1 rune per point
1 crystal per 10 points
1 Jewel per 100 points.
 (Not sure how packs could work tho)

Make all objectives/secondaries round numbers (for ease) and make the numbers above so that they equal a meaningful reward.

And (as has been talked about before) how’s about making the secondaries count more than the wins
Or award points for fulfilling secondaries even if the match is a loss.

madwren

Yep, it sucks. It's been hashed out many times. 

That being said, at least this one was under your control. 

Imagine how all the people feel who lose a match because their game froze, or because cards can't be programmed to interact properly, or because someone else somehow scored 10 points above the maximum possible amount. 

 

ambrosio191

Just be happy you missed that objective relatively early into the event.  Now you know you have no chance at rewards, so there is no reason to play beyond progression.  Missing that objective on the last recharge after going perfect up to that point feels bad. 

On the topic of bracket sizes, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the 3k brackets used to be reserved for events that gave 300 jewels to 1st place (think HoD or RtO).  All the other PvP coalition events had 1k brackets and much worse rewards (though still better than the last 3 events). 

FindingHeart8

I missed a single objective by defeating a player by turn 11 instead of 10.  He had a deck specifically set up just to prevent that objective from being met (Karn + a deck with every accessible destroy/bounce/lockdown card accessible).  I played aggressive, had a good gem start, and had a Gaeas Revenge out on turn 2, and another one out by turn 4 plus two other creatures.  It still wasn't enough.  Greg's deck had no win condition, it was just lockdown.

I've heard complaints by other players in prior events of facing decks with no win condition but were designed to stop the player facing it from meeting the event objectives.

I think that should be weighed into consideration, because any players who face a deck like that (regardless of their skill level) most likely will not get a perfect score.

ambrosio191

You are assuming you are facing decks designed for those specific objectives, which isnt the case.  I know it can seem like it, but every time it's come up, the devs have said the decks we face on a specific node are not locked to decks created for that specific node. Through community testing, some events have shown to match you up against decks of the same color, if the node is color locked (like RtO), but nothing more.  That hasnt even been confirmed, only tested extensively by the community.

You also cant assume everyone is playing for top rewards.  A lot of people play to progression and stop.  They dont need finely tuned decks meant to meet every objective, only decks good enough to get a win and one secondary most of the time (anyone who faces me in Challenge of the Courts would go against this type of deck).  A lock down deck is perfectly viable in that instance, especially with a limited card pool like Seize the Day. Assuming that Karn deck was built for the bottom left node of Seize the Day, and they ignored the speed objective (an objective a lot of people find annoying and skip) then playing lock down is a tried and true means of winning, and it gets you the first objective. 

If I was under the impression the decks I would be facing were designed for fast wins (or Im new to platinum and constantly getting beat by better decks), I would pack a ton of lock down/kill and bounce and either play to my 3rd ability, or slowly build my advantage until I won (which is exactly what I did when I first hit platinum years ago).  Karn always has a win condition with his 3rd, just because Greg rarely uses it doesnt mean the player wasnt building the deck with it in mind, and it doesnt mean the player was "trolling" you. 

FindingHeart8

ambrosio191 said:

You are assuming you are facing decks designed for those specific objectives, which isnt the case.  I know it can seem like it, but every time it's come up, the devs have said the decks we face on a specific node are not locked to decks created for that specific node. Through community testing, some events have shown to match you up against decks of the same color, if the node is color locked (like RtO), but nothing more.  That hasnt even been confirmed, only tested extensively by the community.

You also cant assume everyone is playing for top rewards.  A lot of people play to progression and stop.  They dont need finely tuned decks meant to meet every objective, only decks good enough to get a win and one secondary most of the time (anyone who faces me in Challenge of the Courts would go against this type of deck).  A lock down deck is perfectly viable in that instance, especially with a limited card pool like Seize the Day. Assuming that Karn deck was built for the bottom left node of Seize the Day, and they ignored the speed objective (an objective a lot of people find annoying and skip) then playing lock down is a tried and true means of winning, and it gets you the first objective. 

If I was under the impression the decks I would be facing were designed for fast wins (or Im new to platinum and constantly getting beat by better decks), I would pack a ton of lock down/kill and bounce and either play to my 3rd ability, or slowly build my advantage until I won (which is exactly what I did when I first hit platinum years ago).  Karn always has a win condition with his 3rd, just because Greg rarely uses it doesnt mean the player wasnt building the deck with it in mind, and it doesnt mean the player was "trolling" you. 

I'm aware that the decks randomly selected by Greg aren't locked per node.

I could see an argument that Karn's final ability could be a win condition, but it would be a painfully slow and long game; someone who was just playing to completion would be less likely to pursue matches that extended the gameplay beyond what is necessary for victory.  While I agree that it's possible that a newer player with a limited selection of cards would take this route, I don't see that alone as indisputable evidence that troll decks do not exist.  All multiplayer games are susceptible to cuttthroat behavior, after all.

In the past, I can say firsthand, on multiple occasions, I've faced decks in the past that were not inserted into the selection pool to win (a more positive example was a deck composed mostly of holiday award cards and cards that do goofy but mostly useless things).  I saw all 10 cards because I was intrigued and held back attacking to see what Greg would play next, there was no win condition, it was just goofy. Lol

jtwood

ambrosio191 said:

Just be happy you missed that objective relatively early into the event.  Now you know you have no chance at rewards, so there is no reason to play beyond progression. 

I don’t know that this is always true. I took a full loss (tried to work around Delaying Shield and screwed up) and ended up 188th and got some prizes. They weren’t mind blowing, but it wasn’t worthless, either. 

ambrosio191

jtwood said:

ambrosio191 said:

Just be happy you missed that objective relatively early into the event.  Now you know you have no chance at rewards, so there is no reason to play beyond progression. 

I don’t know that this is always true. I took a full loss (tried to work around Delaying Shield and screwed up) and ended up 188th and got some prizes. They weren’t mind blowing, but it wasn’t worthless, either. 

Were those rewards worth playing the extra games past progression?  For me i'd say no, because with this event you cant judge where you will fall with 1 loss like you could with many other events of the past.  You could have just as easily gotten 250+ and got next to nothing, for what often is a lot more games played past progression.

FindingHeart8 said:

I could see an argument that Karn's final ability could be a win condition, but it would be a painfully slow and long game; someone who was just playing to completion would be less likely to pursue matches that extended the gameplay beyond what is necessary for victory.  While I agree that it's possible that a newer player with a limited selection of cards would take this route, I don't see that alone as indisputable evidence that troll decks do not exist. All multiplayer games are susceptible to cuttthroat behavior, after all.

In the past, I can say firsthand, on multiple occasions, I've faced decks in the past that were not inserted into the selection pool to win (a more positive example was a deck composed mostly of holiday award cards and cards that do goofy but mostly useless things). I saw all 10 cards because I was intrigued and held back attacking to see what Greg would play next, there was no win condition, it was just goofy. Lol

Karn's 3rd is a 12/12 for 12 loyalty, that is not painfully slow by any means.  His 3rd costs less than most PWs 2nd. I'm not saying troll decks do not exist, but what you (general you, not you specifically FindingHeart8) consider a troll deck can often be explained by something else. I know people who play events just to master cards (even coalition events to the detriment to the team).  For them losing a match or two doesnt mean anything, they are simply mastering cards. Ive seen countless screenshots of decks that are pure lock down because thats what that person enjoys playing. They do not want to win as fast as possible, they want to win with total control of Greg, and thats okay. It's not a matter extending the gameplay just because. If you are playing a "late game" strategy, you have to build a deck designed to get you to the "late game" and that entails lots of control cards. 

For me "just to win" is indeed win as fast as possible, but having been around hundreds of other players in this game, I know my style of play is often an outlier. It's evident by the abundance of perfect scores that it's not hard to do well, even perfect in this game. Jumping to calling someone a troll just doesnt seem right.

Endbringer

ambrosio191 said:

Just be happy you missed that objective relatively early into the event.  Now you know you have no chance at rewards, so there is no reason to play beyond progression.  Missing that objective on the last recharge after going perfect up to that point feels bad. 

On the topic of bracket sizes, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the 3k brackets used to be reserved for events that gave 300 jewels to 1st place (think HoD or RtO).  All the other PvP coalition events had 1k brackets and much worse rewards (though still better than the last 3 events). 

Exactly. The first part you said about it being a good thing that it happened early so you don't need to waste your time trying anymore, is a very major reason as to why a lot of people don't put in enough effort in coalition events, and in turn the coalition ranks lower, other coalition members become less inspired to give it their all, and even some people get kicked from coalitions because they end up saying "F" it after losing an objective. The long term strengthening of a coalition fizzles out.

FindingHeart8

ambrosio191 said:

jtwood said:

ambrosio191 said:

Just be happy you missed that objective relatively early into the event.  Now you know you have no chance at rewards, so there is no reason to play beyond progression. 

I don’t know that this is always true. I took a full loss (tried to work around Delaying Shield and screwed up) and ended up 188th and got some prizes. They weren’t mind blowing, but it wasn’t worthless, either. 

Were those rewards worth playing the extra games past progression?  For me i'd say no, because with this event you cant judge where you will fall with 1 loss like you could with many other events of the past.  You could have just as easily gotten 250+ and got next to nothing, for what often is a lot more games played past progression.

FindingHeart8 said:

I could see an argument that Karn's final ability could be a win condition, but it would be a painfully slow and long game; someone who was just playing to completion would be less likely to pursue matches that extended the gameplay beyond what is necessary for victory.  While I agree that it's possible that a newer player with a limited selection of cards would take this route, I don't see that alone as indisputable evidence that troll decks do not exist. All multiplayer games are susceptible to cuttthroat behavior, after all.

In the past, I can say firsthand, on multiple occasions, I've faced decks in the past that were not inserted into the selection pool to win (a more positive example was a deck composed mostly of holiday award cards and cards that do goofy but mostly useless things). I saw all 10 cards because I was intrigued and held back attacking to see what Greg would play next, there was no win condition, it was just goofy. Lol

Karn's 3rd is a 12/12 for 12 loyalty, that is not painfully slow by any means.  His 3rd costs less than most PWs 2nd. I'm not saying troll decks do not exist, but what you (general you, not you specifically FindingHeart8) consider a troll deck can often be explained by something else. I know people who play events just to master cards (even coalition events to the detriment to the team).  For them losing a match or two doesnt mean anything, they are simply mastering cards. Ive seen countless screenshots of decks that are pure lock down because thats what that person enjoys playing. They do not want to win as fast as possible, they want to win with total control of Greg, and thats okay. It's not a matter extending the gameplay just because. If you are playing a "late game" strategy, you have to build a deck designed to get you to the "late game" and that entails lots of control cards. 

For me "just to win" is indeed win as fast as possible, but having been around hundreds of other players in this game, I know my style of play is often an outlier. It's evident by the abundance of perfect scores that it's not hard to do well, even perfect in this game. Jumping to calling someone a troll just doesnt seem right.

I'm not saying people who play late game don't exist.  I (like yourself from what it sounds) like to think your average mtgpq player is a decent and sportsmanly player too, but I've played too many online games to not be aware that, if there is an opportunity for trolling to manifest, it will.  Some people enjoy trolling too.

Did you never face decks back during Amonkhet, when you could create decks that looped infinitely and forced your opponent to quit out?  They existed, people complained about them.  I ran into them more often than I liked.

ambrosio191

If I remember right I was still gold during Amonkhet, I jumped to platinum right when HOU came out, so I didnt face as many of those power decks. The only time I assume someone is trolling is when they play certain cards known to lock up decks, like when sphinx's decree was bugged to lock up the game no matter what, or when floodwaters was bugged to give people effectively infinite Health. Even in those circumstances I have to remember that not everyone pays as much attention to this game as I do, and those people could easily just not know those cards are bugged. During the Sphinx's Decree bug I had to remind my coalition weekly not to use that card, and people still used it because they did not pay attention or listen. If someone with all the resources our discord server had didnt know or pay attention, what does that mean for someone just playing for fun who isnt part of a coalition community or even aware this forum exists?

Maybe I'm just lucky, or there is something about my device/settings, but I rarely encounter game breaking bugs and freezes, and I have very rarely faced an infinite loop deck. I know they have and do exist, but I think their prevalence are overstated here on this forum. Nearly all of my lost objectives and/or losses come down to either my poor play or Greg just has a better deck against mine. I dont remember the last time my game froze, and I dont remember the last time I played against an infinite loop deck of any kind, especially in an event that "means" something.

madwren

Not everyone reads the forums. There are thousands of players that don't follow along here. Just because WE know that, say, Sphinx's Decree crashes the game when Greg uses it, doesn't mean that those players know that it does.  

Even in dedicated coalitions/alliances, you have cross-sections of people who have experienced a bug, and who haven't--and may not even be aware of it.  I do a fairly good job keeping up on current bugs, but even then some slip past my notice. 

Regarding troll decks, if you lose to a deck, you lose to a deck. If you lose to a bug, you lose to a bug.  While I agree that deliberately playing insta-crash cards is poor sportsmanship, in general people are under no obligation to help other people win. Your deck should be able to meet the objectives to the best of your ability regardless of the construction of the other deck. That's why Dowsing Dagger was so popular, for example. 

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

jtwood

ambrosio191 said:

jtwood said:

ambrosio191 said:

Just be happy you missed that objective relatively early into the event.  Now you know you have no chance at rewards, so there is no reason to play beyond progression. 

I don’t know that this is always true. I took a full loss (tried to work around Delaying Shield and screwed up) and ended up 188th and got some prizes. They weren’t mind blowing, but it wasn’t worthless, either. 

Were those rewards worth playing the extra games past progression?  For me i'd say no, because with this event you cant judge where you will fall with 1 loss like you could with many other events of the past.  You could have just as easily gotten 250+ and got next to nothing, for what often is a lot more games played past progression.

I had a high degree of confidence which band I would finish in. I wrapped up the next-to-last set of charges in ~160th place, IIRC. Based on that, I assumed there was a low chance of dropping out of the T250.

FindingHeart8

madwren said:

Not everyone reads the forums. There are thousands of players that don't follow along here. Just because WE know that, say, Sphinx's Decree crashes the game when Greg uses it, doesn't mean that those players know that it does.  

Even in dedicated coalitions/alliances, you have cross-sections of people who have experienced a bug, and who haven't--and may not even be aware of it.  I do a fairly good job keeping up on current bugs, but even then some slip past my notice. 

Regarding troll decks, if you lose to a deck, you lose to a deck. If you lose to a bug, you lose to a bug.  While I agree that deliberately playing insta-crash cards is poor sportsmanship, in general people are under no obligation to help other people win. Your deck should be able to meet the objectives to the best of your ability regardless of the construction of the other deck. That's why Dowsing Dagger was so popular, for example. 

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

I agree that players are under no obligation to help their opponents win: an exploited bug is technically still fair play by the parameters of the rules.

My ultimate hopes is that the developers consider variables like this and perhaps result in making better rewards for lower reward brackets.  

FindingHeart8

ambrosio191 said:

If I remember right I was still gold during Amonkhet, I jumped to platinum right when HOU came out, so I didnt face as many of those power decks. The only time I assume someone is trolling is when they play certain cards known to lock up decks, like when sphinx's decree was bugged to lock up the game no matter what, or when floodwaters was bugged to give people effectively infinite Health. Even in those circumstances I have to remember that not everyone pays as much attention to this game as I do, and those people could easily just not know those cards are bugged. During the Sphinx's Decree bug I had to remind my coalition weekly not to use that card, and people still used it because they did not pay attention or listen. If someone with all the resources our discord server had didnt know or pay attention, what does that mean for someone just playing for fun who isnt part of a coalition community or even aware this forum exists?

Maybe I'm just lucky, or there is something about my device/settings, but I rarely encounter game breaking bugs and freezes, and I have very rarely faced an infinite loop deck. I know they have and do exist, but I think their prevalence are overstated here on this forum. Nearly all of my lost objectives and/or losses come down to either my poor play or Greg just has a better deck against mine. I dont remember the last time my game froze, and I dont remember the last time I played against an infinite loop deck of any kind, especially in an event that "means" something.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong or that those populations of people do not exist.  Mtgpq has had a wide player base, with a diverse array of people and personalities.  I would wager both examples of people we are talking about exist in this game.

Endbringer

It really needs to be like as follows for ranking rewards in pvp events : If a player gets a perfect score, they're in 1st place. If a player misses the least value objective once, they're doing the second best a player could possibly do and would be in 2nd place. If they miss the high value objective once, they're doing the 3rd best a player could possible do and would be in 3rd place. Basically if you're 1 less point from perfect, you're in 2nd, 2 points less you're in 3rd and so and so forth. This way when a person spends 3 days straight playing an event and they end up getting unlucky and miss a single objective, they won't feel so destroyed and ranked so very low for all of their efforts. Then all of the 6-150 or more brackets would actually have purpose and payout.