PDA

View Full Version : Reversing the Gold reward structure for Tournaments



nicosharp
05-27-2014, 02:32 PM
"Gold for Losers"
A few guild members were bouncing around the idea of reversing the gold reward structure for tournaments.
5th-8th place get 20k
3rd-4th place get 17k
2nd place get 10k
1st place get 5k

Reasoning - It sucks to lose, and the packs being won should be incentive enough to perform well. When you are waiting for friends to finish their games, you really can't do much besides spinning chests and playing proving grounds. I think it would be a nice consolation price to those that don't have any luck with draft.

Also, for prize distribution that does not involve pack payout, why not give the gold rewards right away?

More realistic approach to the, "Gold for Losers" structure:
1st place gets 8k gold, 5packs
2nd place gets 10k gold, 3packs
3rd-4th place get 12k gold, 2packs
5-8th get 14k gold.

We need to remember this structure is just in place now as a placeholder due to their being no PvE. The people that will be in PvE the most may also be the same people losing Tournaments the most. At least let the unlucky few spin a few more chest than those pros looking to profit selling packs and singles.

When PvE is in, no more gold for tournaments, so no complaints on this being a permanent negative incentive for drops/rare drafters/gold sellers... At least that is what I thought the plan was?

Zomnivore
05-27-2014, 02:35 PM
Eh, I honestly don't think this is fair.

Good players in pvp are likely to be very good in pve, and the gold income being devalued on the AH is a very real thing to be concerned about.

If too much gold goes into the system it means anyone later to the game who didn't get to play these draft tournaments with big gold payouts...plays they'll feel like their time is worthless.

Gold is not an insignificant thing. Its important in many ways and needs to be protected from getting janked up.


PVE players need to have an approachable gold-based economy. They can't have that if the flow of gold has been janked up dramatically by us early guys and we screw the market up because we're all high rolling ballers who can make it rain.

RobHaven
05-27-2014, 02:37 PM
Right now you have 77k gold going out per match (20 + 17 + 10*2 + 5*4). Your proposed structure would up that to 98k (8 + 10 + 12*2 + 14*4).

Worth considering.

Marsden
05-27-2014, 02:40 PM
That rewards a quick rare draft and drop out if you just want to get some quick rares and gold so while I see the reasoning I think we're good as we are now and I say that as someone who would get more gold with your suggestion!

jimmywolf
05-27-2014, 02:46 PM
i think gold going flow like a river when game is out beta an everything goes live, just their be a lot gold sink help keep it rare. reminds me kinda of MMO WOW were low levels gold was very rare an as you got higher it became more common but still held value.


right know their no real way too generate gold an only one sink too spend it on so it seem rare an can be frustrating when you want spin that chest just...one...more...time.

nicosharp
05-27-2014, 02:49 PM
It's just an idea and I know it's not 'effectively fair', but it would be cool for those players going on tilt to find some bright spot in their draft for losing round 1, even if they walked away with 0 rares.

Rob, your post made me laugh.

majin
05-27-2014, 02:50 PM
i don't think it's a good idea. the aim for drafts is to win to get the best reward and this proposal isn't appealing to me

on another hand, this will probably encourage a lot of rare drafters which will make it reach the finals a lot easier

given these, i still prefer that the prize structure remains the same

incitfulmonk21
05-27-2014, 03:01 PM
I pretty much always lose first round so while I personally understand and would love this sadly from a competitive side I just don't think it is viable.

Yes you get more packs and that would still be the draw of it, but also part of the problem with this world is that if you do poorly it is okay because you still get something good out of it. Mini rant I hate participation trophies.

Reality is more of if you suck you fail you have to keep trying you get better or don't probably still a waste of your time. I suck at drafting I will continue to try because I like to try it is still a waste of my time.

Diesbudt
05-27-2014, 03:04 PM
Gold is just a placeholder until PvE comes out.

halfwing
05-27-2014, 03:06 PM
I think for drafts, the current system works best. However, doing this for SEALED tournaments would get people more willing to try them, without giving bonuses to people rare drafting. Same with constructed, although constructed is a bit less likely to draw a crowd until trading.

It especially works because, being the only tournament to offer Swiss, sealed is naturally more friendly to new players at the moment. This would just make it more appealing for people to give it a go, because they either win some packs, or they at least get a nice amount of gold!

I suggest going with your revised formula though, to keep the amount of money from tournaments the same.

Tinfoil
05-27-2014, 03:16 PM
Nicosharp, I really enjoy your ideas and your posts. I think its a very sympa...nice idea, but I have no clue if its viable from a virtual economics perspective. Currently I think Hex is a bit too hard-core for newcomers.

nicosharp
05-27-2014, 03:18 PM
I pretty much always lose first round so while I personally understand and would love this sadly from a competitive side I just don't think it is viable.

Yes you get more packs and that would still be the draw of it, but also part of the problem with this world is that if you do poorly it is okay because you still get something good out of it. Mini rant I hate participation trophies.

Reality is more of if you suck you fail you have to keep trying you get better or don't probably still a waste of your time. I suck at drafting I will continue to try because I like to try it is still a waste of my time.
I would generally agree with all the above, but the gold rewards currently are a participation trophy right now, and have nothing to do with placement. It has everything to do with there not being PvE.

Participation trophies, I agree, are a lame social norm that does not incentivize players to work harder, or to be happy with failing.
However, not everyone, and especially gamers, going into non-ranked based queues will be at a level playing field, or have the skillset to take their loses constructively to achieve better results. The extra gold is not a reward for failing, its a thank you for joining the queue and spending an 'effective' $7.


Nicosharp, I really enjoy your ideas and your posts. I think its a very sympa...nice idea, but I have no clue if its viable from a virtual economics perspective. Currently I think Hex is a bit too hard-core for newcomers.

I don't want this to be all carebears and rainbows, but coming into this spending money and getting the unicorn horn shoved up your backside really sucks for newcomers, and oldcomers. The reason this works now is there is no gold economy, or gold creation method outside of tournaments. I think being generous now has very little recourse on the economy then, and helps stimulate a healthy and active beta.. Both with the crappy players and the good, firing off queues a lot faster.

Gwaer
05-27-2014, 03:20 PM
Gold is the thing I am most interested in... I'd enter and drop repeatedly in every format this change was put into.

nicosharp
05-27-2014, 03:25 PM
I agree Gwaer - and that is $7 more 'effective dollars' and 1 more happy first round loser making it to round 2. It would be interesting getting into a queue where the fastest to concede is considered the winner!

Turtlewing
05-27-2014, 03:28 PM
Gold is the thing I am most interested in... I'd enter and drop repeatedly in every format this change was put into.

me too. I have a ton of chests to spin, and nowhere near enough gold to do it.

cavench
05-27-2014, 03:39 PM
"Gold for Losers"
A few guild members were bouncing around the idea of reversing the gold reward structure for tournaments.
5th-8th place get 20k
3rd-4th place get 17k
2nd place get 10k
1st place get 5k


3rd-4th place get 17k and 2 boosters
2nd place get 10k and 3 boosters

so the question would be... which worth more, 7k gold or 1 booster? It is just enough incentive for me to forfeit after winning round 1. The other deciding factor would be I don't have to wait for round 2 and round 3.

nicosharp
05-27-2014, 03:41 PM
Hey Cavench - I just listed it in reverse order as the baseline example - but that prize payout is too Stronk.. I revised it a few lines below if this were to happen.

halfwing
05-27-2014, 03:45 PM
3rd-4th place get 17k and 2 boosters
2nd place get 10k and 3 boosters

so the question would be... which worth more, 7k gold or 1 booster? It is just enough incentive for me to forfeit after winning round 1. The other deciding factor would be I don't have to wait for round 2 and round 3.

An interesting effect of this would be that it would put a cap on the gold price of boosters once trading is added, and keep it from getting prohibitively high. I'd be okay with that. But as mentioned, not in draft. Good cards are what you get for taking a fall in draft, don't want to further encourage that.

cavench
05-27-2014, 03:52 PM
@nico Ah okay, I would support this idea if say... every participant gets 10k (80k payout per tourney).

Also, the other deciding factor is still a strong one. I have been doing your guide on "econ pack opening" (thanks btw), so I rare draft as soon as I sense others are drafting-for-the-win. When I do rare draft, I still shoot for 1st round win and quit immediately after. I found that is the most efficient use of my time on opening boosters and getting value from drafts.

nicosharp
05-27-2014, 04:11 PM
@nico Ah okay, I would support this idea if say... every participant gets 10k (80k payout per tourney).

Also, the other deciding factor is still a strong one. I have been doing your guide on "econ pack opening" (thanks btw), so I rare draft as soon as I sense others are drafting-for-the-win. When I do rare draft, I still shoot for 1st round win and quit immediately after. I found that is the most efficient use of my time on opening boosters and getting value from drafts.
Yes, and it definitely reduces the sting a bit if you notice that pattern and take em'.
10k minimum would be nice. I guess regardless, what is basically being asked for in this thread is more gold :P
We are so greedy.

fitzle
05-27-2014, 04:13 PM
Come on nico, I heard you drafted two legendaries in one draft the other day. You just want more and more and more! :)

nicosharp
05-27-2014, 04:18 PM
Come on nico, I heard you drafted two legendaries in one draft the other day. You just want more and more and more! :)
Lies! Just 1 eternal Guardian. But it was enough to win.

Mike411
05-27-2014, 04:36 PM
I'm in favor of making the gold a bit more loser friendly, but there should always be an incentive to win, so the gold rewards should always be a tiny bit better if you win.

hex_colin
05-27-2014, 07:58 PM
I can just see it now... Rare drafting followed by a race to see who can concede first... ;)

Banquetto
05-27-2014, 08:15 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with everyone in the tournament getting the same amount of gold.

But I think you have to be really, really careful when you make winners get less of some reward than the losers, because you assume that said reward is low enough in value to be outweighed by the "real" prize.

Not everybody puts the same value on everything.

e.g. when Hearthstone launched, it was popular for people to deliberately concede out of Arena after eight wins, because although the maximum nine wins gave you a "more valuable" prize overall, it gave less gold on average, which meant that it was less valuable for players who were more interested in going infinite on arenas than in winning cards and packs.

darkwonders
05-28-2014, 04:42 AM
I wouldn't have a problem with everyone in the tournament getting the same amount of gold.

But I think you have to be really, really careful when you make winners get less of some reward than the losers, because you assume that said reward is low enough in value to be outweighed by the "real" prize.

Not everybody puts the same value on everything.

e.g. when Hearthstone launched, it was popular for people to deliberately concede out of Arena after eight wins, because although the maximum nine wins gave you a "more valuable" prize overall, it gave less gold on average, which meant that it was less valuable for players who were more interested in going infinite on arenas than in winning cards and packs.

If the only incentive for people to win this tournament is a temporarily placed gold prize, then the tournament structure is incredibly flawed. What's going to keep everyone playing once the gold prize disappears?

Gwaer
05-28-2014, 04:43 AM
Winning set 2 packs. The issue is that most of us have too many set 1 packs to really care about winning more in draft.

Unhurtable
05-28-2014, 05:23 AM
Gold is a temporary solution to a temporary problem (we need gold to roll chests).

When PvE is implemented gold will not be awarded from drafts anymore, so there shouldn't be much design in how much gold is awarded from drafts as its not something thats going to stay.

Lastly, why incentivize failure?

DocX
05-28-2014, 06:47 AM
Winning set 2 packs. The issue is that most of us have too many set 1 packs to really care about winning more in draft.

If you've got too many packs, I know plenty of folks who would like them :-)

Hell, I'm a Grand King and I won't turn down packs. Also, I always care about winning more in draft. This is balanced by my desire to collect which tends to lead to Rare/Legendary drafting, but I don't think it's quite true to say "most of us" have so many packs that we don't care about winning in draft.

Cory has all the packs in the world and he still cares about winning more in draft.

DanTheMeek
05-28-2014, 07:20 AM
This is an idea I'd thought about before myself, so needless to say, I approve of and would support it. With out knowing the gold to platinum conversion rate or how much packs will be selling for on the auction house, its hard to say exactly how the gold distributions should be, its essential that its always better to win then lose overall, but anything you can do to take the sting off losing even a little bit is always a plus and this really does feel like the perfect way to do so.

Thrawn
05-28-2014, 07:27 AM
The solution here seems simple. Stop losing.

Vorpal
05-28-2014, 10:19 AM
As this is just a temporary thing I don't see any reason to bother changing it. Eventually all gold will come from pve in any case.

Actually doing as you suggest would put way more gold into the economy, and thus devalue the gold obtained from pve when it happens.

Svenn
05-28-2014, 10:23 AM
This just reminds me too much of the whole "everybody wins!" mentality you see in schools/little league sports these days. I don't see why the losers need to be compensated more.

Banquetto
05-28-2014, 02:41 PM
If the only incentive for people to win this tournament is a temporarily placed gold prize, then the tournament structure is incredibly flawed. What's going to keep everyone playing once the gold prize disappears?

Who said anything about the only incentive?

The risk I was talking about is that if you make the winner get A + B, and the loser get 2xB, you run the risk of players valuing B (in this case gold) more than A, and being incentivized to lose.

Have we not seen people in this thread saying that this would give them more incentive to rare-draft and then concede?

nicosharp
05-28-2014, 03:06 PM
The whole social experiment of this thread was to reveal carebears that I want to draft against.

darkwonders
05-28-2014, 03:09 PM
Who said anything about the only incentive?

The risk I was talking about is that if you make the winner get A + B, and the loser get 2xB, you run the risk of players valuing B (in this case gold) more than A, and being incentivized to lose.

Have we not seen people in this thread saying that this would give them more incentive to rare-draft and then concede?

Then give everyone the same amount of gold. That would keep the baseline the same once the gold is gone.

Banquetto
05-28-2014, 04:15 PM
Then give everyone the same amount of gold. That would keep the baseline the same once the gold is gone.

Indeed, I said in my first post in this thread that I would be perfectly happy if everyone got the same gold as a participation reward, whilst competing for packs as the prize for winning. :)