span_argoman said: I was under the impression that the event Progression rewards were the rewards for players who were willing to put in the time and effort to play the event. And it's capped at 150 in this event to ensure that many newer or weaker players who can't always hit the secondary objectives will be able to achieve the top Progression reward still.On the other hand Ranking Rewards, as their name suggests, seemed to be the rewards for competing to be better than the other players rather than to reward effort or be a consolation prize.Separately there are also the coalition ranking rewards which one's event scores contribute to regardless of Progression and indivudal Ranking, helping to improve the coalition's ranking and hence overall coalition rewards.So are people feeling like the Progression rewards aren't enough, or are Progression rewards being taken for granted, or is it something else?
Mburn7 said: You know, an errant Hour of Devastation doesn't automatically mean a failed objective if you plan around the possibility properly.I ran Orbs of Warding in my left node, and didn't play any creatures until I had it out (against a red walker).Sure 2 Hours would ruin my day, but usually I can win before the second one (since the AI prioritizes other stuff).I'm not saying that the objective is good, but there are ways to work around issues like that. That's what makes the game so much fun.And, I mean, there were still several perfect scores in the event, so clearly its possible. Just requires a bit more thought than cycling everything.
bken1234 said:Personal progression stays, but individual rewards are determined by win %. A perfect score would get top rewards. 95% and above next and so on. This way you are rewarded for your time and you're rewarded the same way everyone else in your tier is rewarded for the same effort, no matter what time you join.
bken1234 said: I finished just outside of the top 50 in the second bracket with 4 freezes and one dropped objective -- that is -29. I would have probably not even made top 250 in the first bracket. Why should someone who puts in as much effort and gets the same score get lower rewards because of the time they enter the event?We don't ever talk about brackets here -- and I think we should, because a lot of big groups track these to give their players an advantage. Personally, I would like to see personal rewards as they are abolished. Personal progression stays, but individual rewards are determined by win %. A perfect score would get top rewards. 95% and above next and so on. This way you are rewarded for your time and you're rewarded the same way everyone else in your tier is rewarded for the same effort, no matter what time you join.
DumasAG said: bken1234 said: I finished just outside of the top 50 in the second bracket with 4 freezes and one dropped objective -- that is -29. I would have probably not even made top 250 in the first bracket. Why should someone who puts in as much effort and gets the same score get lower rewards because of the time they enter the event?We don't ever talk about brackets here -- and I think we should, because a lot of big groups track these to give their players an advantage. Personally, I would like to see personal rewards as they are abolished. Personal progression stays, but individual rewards are determined by win %. A perfect score would get top rewards. 95% and above next and so on. This way you are rewarded for your time and you're rewarded the same way everyone else in your tier is rewarded for the same effort, no matter what time you join. I'm not sure I full understand what you're advocating. You're suggesting we drop the current individual ranking system (not progression) in favor of a win-percentage ranking system? I thought the current tie-break system already avoided the problems with "first to the finish line". Are you suggesting that win-percentage over x amount of wins would be your rank? So essentially every node you play is a new bracket you reach, and your rank within that tier is based on win percentage? Are you suggesting that we get rid of support objectives and based solely on win-percentage (which I'm a fan of, actually, because it encourages experimentation and innovation in my mind if I don't have to run streamlined decks over and over for support objectives)?
DumasAG said: bken1234 said: I finished just outside of the top 50 in the second bracket with 4 freezes and one dropped objective -- that is -29. I would have probably not even made top 250 in the first bracket. Why should someone who puts in as much effort and gets the same score get lower rewards because of the time they enter the event?We don't ever talk about brackets here -- and I think we should, because a lot of big groups track these to give their players an advantage. Personally, I would like to see personal rewards as they are abolished. Personal progression stays, but individual rewards are determined by win %. A perfect score would get top rewards. 95% and above next and so on. This way you are rewarded for your time and you're rewarded the same way everyone else in your tier is rewarded for the same effort, no matter what time you join. I'm not sure I full understand what you're advocating. You're suggesting we drop the current individual ranking system (not progression) in favor of a win-percentage ranking system? I thought the current tie-break system already avoided the problems with "first to the finish line". Are you suggesting that win-percentage over x amount of wins would be your rank? So essentially every node you play is a new bracket you reach, and your rank within that tier is based on win percentage? Are you suggesting that we get rid of support objectives and based solely on win-percentage (which I'm a fan of, actually, because it encourages experimentation and innovation in my mind if I don't have to run streamlined decks over and over for support objectives)?Perhaps a workable ranking model would be:Every node played moves the player into a new reward bracket, with incrementally increasing rewardsFinal ranking within every bracket is based off of win-percentage as opposed to point total, every 3-5% could be the cutoff for a new tierPoints for support objectives are added together as a multiplier. Every 10 points multiplies final rewards by x amount more. This could be a relatively small amount, and thus your individual rewards grow for your commitment to objectives, but your ability to win the base rewards doesn't change depending on support objectives
2) Assuming three brackets total: assign the first to join to to the 1st bracket, second player to join to the 2nd, third to the 3rd, then 4th to to the first bracket.There is no reason to cap the brackets, except to perpetuate the auto-generation of the new brackets. With this method, the brackets are evenly populated, and the potential rewards are largely locked down.
DumasAG said: 2) Assuming three brackets total: assign the first to join to to the 1st bracket, second player to join to the 2nd, third to the 3rd, then 4th to to the first bracket.There is no reason to cap the brackets, except to perpetuate the auto-generation of the new brackets. With this method, the brackets are evenly populated, and the potential rewards are largely locked down. I thought this is what already happened. I had no idea that you could join an event late, be placed in a new bracket of other people that joined late, and get final rewards with minimal effort. Man, do I feel like a chump now...
bken1234 said: DumasAG said: 2) Assuming three brackets total: assign the first to join to to the 1st bracket, second player to join to the 2nd, third to the 3rd, then 4th to to the first bracket.There is no reason to cap the brackets, except to perpetuate the auto-generation of the new brackets. With this method, the brackets are evenly populated, and the potential rewards are largely locked down. I thought this is what already happened. I had no idea that you could join an event late, be placed in a new bracket of other people that joined late, and get final rewards with minimal effort. Man, do I feel like a chump now... Current system is one fills up, another opens. This is why big groups and even individual coalitions often report the size of the brackets when they enter. Getting in a later bracket offers huge advantages.
DumasAG said: bken1234 said: DumasAG said: 2) Assuming three brackets total: assign the first to join to to the 1st bracket, second player to join to the 2nd, third to the 3rd, then 4th to to the first bracket.There is no reason to cap the brackets, except to perpetuate the auto-generation of the new brackets. With this method, the brackets are evenly populated, and the potential rewards are largely locked down. I thought this is what already happened. I had no idea that you could join an event late, be placed in a new bracket of other people that joined late, and get final rewards with minimal effort. Man, do I feel like a chump now... Current system is one fills up, another opens. This is why big groups and even individual coalitions often report the size of the brackets when they enter. Getting in a later bracket offers huge advantages. Got it. That is a terrible system - I'm a little irritated actually.
Mburn7 said: DumasAG said: bken1234 said: DumasAG said: 2) Assuming three brackets total: assign the first to join to to the 1st bracket, second player to join to the 2nd, third to the 3rd, then 4th to to the first bracket.There is no reason to cap the brackets, except to perpetuate the auto-generation of the new brackets. With this method, the brackets are evenly populated, and the potential rewards are largely locked down. I thought this is what already happened. I had no idea that you could join an event late, be placed in a new bracket of other people that joined late, and get final rewards with minimal effort. Man, do I feel like a chump now... Current system is one fills up, another opens. This is why big groups and even individual coalitions often report the size of the brackets when they enter. Getting in a later bracket offers huge advantages. Got it. That is a terrible system - I'm a little irritated actually. Yeah, its always been like that. Used to be the same thing back in Quick Battle, if you timed it right you could get a free mythic after just 1 or 2 matches.Its a terrible system and I personally hate bracket snipers, but hey, I can't blame them. Just the game that lets them do it.
Gunmix25 said: Mburn7 said: DumasAG said: bken1234 said: DumasAG said: 2) Assuming three brackets total: assign the first to join to to the 1st bracket, second player to join to the 2nd, third to the 3rd, then 4th to to the first bracket.There is no reason to cap the brackets, except to perpetuate the auto-generation of the new brackets. With this method, the brackets are evenly populated, and the potential rewards are largely locked down. I thought this is what already happened. I had no idea that you could join an event late, be placed in a new bracket of other people that joined late, and get final rewards with minimal effort. Man, do I feel like a chump now... Current system is one fills up, another opens. This is why big groups and even individual coalitions often report the size of the brackets when they enter. Getting in a later bracket offers huge advantages. Got it. That is a terrible system - I'm a little irritated actually. Yeah, its always been like that. Used to be the same thing back in Quick Battle, if you timed it right you could get a free mythic after just 1 or 2 matches.Its a terrible system and I personally hate bracket snipers, but hey, I can't blame them. Just the game that lets them do it. Woah... this is new news to me. I had no idea that this was being done. It is all in the past now though, but still a rather surprising bit of info. crazy