Please refrain from flooding the forums with knee-jerk posts

2»

Comments

  • ZW2007-
    ZW2007- Posts: 812 Critical Contributor
    DuskPaladin said:
    My post was only about low-level players facing high level opponents being an argument versus the new matchmaking. (which is generally for the best, except for that exploit, which can be fixed) 

    I still disagree with you here. Events in bronze and silver don't have great rewards (in fact, no tiers have great rewards anymore thanks to the patch that was supposed to make things better for new players.) Now with the matchmaking update, things are once again bad for new players. New players won't have level 60 planeswalkers. Once you have a level 60 planeswalker you are an established player.
    DuskPaladin said:
    For the newer player, I believe, that he'll only be trying to enjoy the game, discovering new cards and planeswalkers. He'll be trying his best, and using his highest level planeswalkers. 

    Where is the enjoyment in getting mercilessly crushed by an opponent that is more than 30 levels higher than you?
    DuskPaladin said:
    Special Events like Breaking Point are like the Olympic Games, or some other extremely big and prestigious tournaments.

     It is not the place for those newer players yet. But D3H, instead of just making it available to Gold and Platinum players, they decide to allow everyone to participate. It is a bonus, to give them more options, even though they might not be ready for it, yet.

     As such, maybe those newer players feel like they should have a shot at it and if they can't that it would be unfair, but it isn't. 

    All events, even the new Training Grounds, use this matchmaking system though. It's irrelevant if it's for Breaking Points or Training Grounds, the system isn't working as intended. Once again they had a good idea with a serious flaw that was completely overlooked. Maybe they really shouldn't have events for lower tiers at all, that would certainly solve the problem here.
    DuskPaladin said:
    One last thing, if you worry about the well-being of newer players facing those strong low mastery-tier decks, maybe you should stop playing with your alts to give more chances to those newer players to face real newer players.  

    You act as though my alt has a massive collection and can build ultra strong decks that new players don't stand a chance against. In reality, my best decks are probably worse than most decks in the hands of the AI. That's neither here nor there though, you are clearly just taking a jab at me because I'm pointing out a major flaw in a system that you see as beneficial to you. Those who are affected negatively be damned. The system hasn't hurt my main at all and I don't care about the performance of my alt because it's an alt. I can, however, see that this new system could potentially be very detrimental to the newer player experience and making that experience better and more fair was supposedly the whole reason for the massive rewards overhaul in the first place.
  • Gideon
    Gideon Posts: 360 Mover and Shaker
    What the hell is the post about knee jerk reactions it's freaking crazy!!!!! ???? 
  • J23flo
    J23flo Posts: 21 Just Dropped In
    Ideally what should have happened is that base points for a win and the secondary objectives should be scaled with the level of the PW as was the case in QB (may it Rest In Peace). Match people up to the level of their PW but don't let the win of a level 6 PW carry the same weight and value as someone who had the time and means to fully max out their PW level. The smurfing no longer is an issue, people are theoretically matched with appropriate levels of opponents and the system is seen as more fair to all. 
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    J23flo said:
    Ideally what should have happened is that base points for a win and the secondary objectives should be scaled with the level of the PW as was the case in QB (may it Rest In Peace). Match people up to the level of their PW but don't let the win of a level 6 PW carry the same weight and value as someone who had the time and means to fully max out their PW level. The smurfing no longer is an issue, people are theoretically matched with appropriate levels of opponents and the system is seen as more fair to all. 


    The issue raised the last time this solution was proposed is that lower level players will have an even harder time to hit progression rewards.
  • J23flo
    J23flo Posts: 21 Just Dropped In
    I don't actually have a problem with that either.
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    Then lower the progression threshold to accommodate them... or make progression based on wins rather than ribbons.  Honestly, problem solving guys... not that hard
  • LUCIFER
    LUCIFER Posts: 5 Just Dropped In
    I just watched the AI drop two full rows of the same colored gem followed up by another full row of a different colored gem, definitely not negative confirmation bias
  • Volrak
    Volrak Posts: 732 Critical Contributor
    edited May 2017
    LUCIFER said:
    I just watched the AI drop two full rows of the same colored gem followed up by another full row of a different colored gem, definitely not negative confirmation bias
    For what it's worth, your improbability depends heavily on whether by "full row" you mean the whole column was destroyed (i.e. match-4 or better), or the whole column was the same colour (i.e. specifically match-7).

    When a full column is destroyed, the odds of the different matches within the 7 fresh gems (excluding possible horizontal matches) are roughly as follows:
    No match from 7 random gems: 88.0%
    Match 3 from 7 random gems: 10.4%
    Match 4 from 7 random gems: 1.42%
    Match 5 from 7 random gems: 0.18%
    Match 6 from 7 random gems: 0.02%
    Match 7 from 7 random gems: 0.002%
    Match 4, 5, 6, and 7 all result in the whole column being destroyed again, but as you can see, a match-4 is about 700 times likelier than a match-7.  This means for every player who sees three match-7s in a row in a single cascade, about 350 million players will see three match-4s in a row in a single cascade.  If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on you being one of the 350 million.


  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Volrak said:
    LUCIFER said:
    I just watched the AI drop two full rows of the same colored gem followed up by another full row of a different colored gem, definitely not negative confirmation bias
    For what it's worth, your improbability depends heavily on whether by "full row" you mean the whole column was destroyed (i.e. match-4 or better), or the whole column was the same colour (i.e. specifically match-7).

    When a full column is destroyed, the odds of the different matches within the 7 fresh gems (excluding possible horizontal matches) are roughly as follows:
    No match from 7 random gems: 88.0%
    Match 3 from 7 random gems: 10.4%
    Match 4 from 7 random gems: 1.42%
    Match 5 from 7 random gems: 0.18%
    Match 6 from 7 random gems: 0.02%
    Match 7 from 7 random gems: 0.002%
    Match 4, 5, 6, and 7 all result in the whole column being destroyed again, but as you can see, a match-4 is about 700 times likelier than a match-7.  This means for every player who sees three match-7s in a row in a single cascade, about 350 million players will see three match-4s in a row in a single cascade.  If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on you being one of the 350 million.



    So the probability of seeing 2 columns demolished back to back purely off random gem drops after an initial column landfall triggers this is roughly 1.6%^2= 1 in 40k?

    Assuming I win every game with an average of 8 matches, I see it once every 5k games? 

    Assuming I play every event now, I play the sum of

    3x15(weekday events) 
    4x9(weekend coalition event) -is this right? 
    4x7(training grounds) 
    5x8(trials)
    8(ogw)

    = 45+36+28+40+8
    = 157 games. 

    I would on average see this once every 32 weeks? 

    I don't think I've seen this happen to me yet. I'm due! 


  • THEMAGICkMAN
    THEMAGICkMAN Posts: 697 Critical Contributor
    I remember getting a match of the entire row once as a newb... I was doing the math to see if I actually got the entire row... yep, i got it. it was shocking and i did not expect it.
  • Volrak
    Volrak Posts: 732 Critical Contributor
    Ohboy said:

    So the probability of seeing 2 columns demolished back to back purely off random gem drops after an initial column landfall triggers this is roughly 1.6%^2= 1 in 40k?

    Assuming I win every game with an average of 8 matches, I see it once every 5k games?
    Looks right, except you'll get back-to-back columns demolished from random gem drops every 5k games if you make an average of 8 column-wise landfalls per game, not 8 gem matches of any kind per game.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Good catch. 

    Guess I'm not due yet. 

Categories