PDA

View Full Version : 2/3 in pg ready for arena launch?



Axle
02-15-2015, 12:50 PM
please

I'm tired of intentional draws, I'm tired of time in general. We can't moderate players in a digital format and whether or not they decide to slow play because by playing single games in place of a locked in match, they get 2-3 30 minute clocks and aren't being watched like a live card game so we can't warn them for slow-play or tell if it's on purpose. There's also side deck cheating concerns.

HEX's chess clock system entirely erases the idea of a draw or side deck cheating (less a problem), but 1 and a half years later the ability to challenge someone 2/3 isn't in for community tournaments. Is it coded in a way that only the in-client tournaments can do it? We got a 1v1 queue that was supposed to help, but it really didn't because you can't direct 200 people at once into one queue.

I understand for making this thread I'm going to get a lot of the casual players who just want PVE and don't care about constructed as usual being ignorant and mad at me, but I'd rather you just not post instead of doing the predictable.

RobHaven
02-15-2015, 02:50 PM
Isn't that why they made the 2-man queue in tournaments? I can see an issue there with having no control over your opponent, but still - better than nothing, right?

Axle
02-15-2015, 02:54 PM
Yeah that's for practicing with just a friend or something. You can't direct 200 people starting a tournament round at the same time into a 1v1 tournament, you're just going to have a bunch of people who face the wrong opponent. You can't direct them two at a time either, as that will take too much time. So it's not useful except in the top 8 playoffs.

If they do add 2/3 in PG, the purpose of the 2 man queue won't be lost.
Make it around 100 platinum to enter, and winner gets a pack of the newest set. Since it costs 200 for both to enter and a pack in the store costs 200 platinum anyways, it's impossible for collusion to get cheaper packs.

Lefto
02-15-2015, 04:06 PM
In my opinion they should create private 128-tournies which would require some kind of pass-key to enter.
Those who want to organize tournaments will just buy those pass-keys, select when they want their tournament to fire and then all they have to do is distribute the keys to the participants. All problems solved and everyone will be happy :)

P.S ofc it doesn't have to work only for 128 ppl tournies but all kinds of tournies, in terms of size or type.

Axle
02-15-2015, 04:14 PM
True. That's already one of the planned features I believe. But that's a lot more to handle, esp when HEX can't even host planned tournamentss bigger than 200 on their current servers.

2/3 pg is just an easier temp solution that is something that needs to be inevitably added anyway.

Falaris
02-15-2015, 05:03 PM
While this sounds cool, Hex fixing the hundreds of bugs we experience every day would be a better place to start. Going on 3 months without a bug patch.

Axle
02-15-2015, 05:09 PM
Understandable. I expect one patch with bug fixes before arena launches. Doing it all at once with the launch of arena probably wouldn't end well.

N3rd4Christ
02-15-2015, 11:04 PM
Understandable. I expect one patch with bug fixes before arena launches. Doing it all at once with the launch of arena probably wouldn't end well.

A bug fix patch is bound to introduce new bugs. Its a never ending cycle. Its been 3 months though with same issues. They need to just get bifs fixed. Arena can wait.

TOOT
02-16-2015, 12:40 AM
No offense to the OP but there are plenty of things that should be implemented ahead of a "temporary solution" for something that is barely an issue.

Do people drawing infrequently as it is in a community ran tourney that happens every 2 weeks or so really that important? I'd focus any efforts in this aspect towards ladder, or asynch sealed instead and provide more options for casual or newer players who don't have 8+hrs on a weekend or the collections to sit and play in one of these tournies.

Sure 2/3 pg would be nice, but for something that is a problem for such a small amount of the server population, it seems like a terrible idea to waste resources on in the game's current state.

Tazelbain
02-16-2015, 11:04 AM
Feel like this is such a small change that affects a highly viable part of the community that it is worth it.

thegreybetween
02-16-2015, 11:14 AM
Ha! I interpreted the title as "Two out of three players in the Proving Grounds are ready for the Arena launch?" and expected the OP to say "Really, that's all?"

We've used the 1v1 queue to successfully run some intra-guild events, and it has been great (though we've never had to deal with 200 players). I agree that a feature which allows users to better gate the queue so that matches against particular opponents are easier to arrange would be a welcome addition. Nevertheless, the current situation is like most things in HEX - In need of some love, but functional. Inconvenient, for sure, but certainly not a priority, all things considered.

meetthefuture
02-17-2015, 08:50 AM
I think the 2/3 in PG should be the top of the top priority, above all 'fun but unnecessary' stuff like pve and double backs

Cyandrel
02-17-2015, 09:06 AM
'fun but unnecessary' stuff like pve

Yeahhh I foresee some disagreement with this definition.

Ebynfel
02-17-2015, 12:50 PM
Yeahhh I foresee some disagreement with this definition.

There will always be disagreement. However, they already have best 2 of 3 working for 2 man queues. How hard would it be to add a UI button and the format to the proving grounds? it is already functioning elsewhere. Honestly, I would thing(NOT a programmer, os im not sure exactly) that it shouldnt be very hard to integrate. As such, IMO, it is worth putting it out there. PVP players and community organizers have been asking for this since tourneys first fired for testing, allowing reserves in community events, etc.

I love the idea of PVE, don't get me wrong, but from the outside looking in, it looks like the solution is right there. Again, I am not a part of the dev team so if someone can enlighten me if it's otherwise more difficult than it seems my opinion may change.

Shippal
02-20-2015, 01:48 AM
There will always be disagreement. However, they already have best 2 of 3 working for 2 man queues. How hard would it be to add a UI button and the format to the proving grounds? it is already functioning elsewhere. Honestly, I would thing(NOT a programmer, os im not sure exactly) that it shouldnt be very hard to integrate. As such, IMO, it is worth putting it out there. PVP players and community organizers have been asking for this since tourneys first fired for testing, allowing reserves in community events, etc.

I love the idea of PVE, don't get me wrong, but from the outside looking in, it looks like the solution is right there. Again, I am not a part of the dev team so if someone can enlighten me if it's otherwise more difficult than it seems my opinion may change.

I'm one of those people who disagree! :) Also, I work in a software company and I do some programming, so I'll take a shot at trying to convince you that this is not the opportune time to implement such a feature. There are several reasons I can think of right off of the top of my head from a software development cycle perspective, but the easiest way I think I can show you is just by saying that it is not as easy as you might think.

Currently, the 2 of 3 match format is a tournament, requiring a "Join Queue" system. I do not know how they implemented this, but if I were the one implementing it, I would build it in such a way that each time a player joined that type of tournament, their "join" was logged and then they were put on hold until the other opponent joins. Given the way that this system was built, I do not assume that the same queue system was the backend architecture used for the PG, which is a direct invite request.

The difference here is in who is being communicated with: when you communicate with the tournament server, you are just doing a 1-way request. When you communicate with another player, you are doing the following requests:

1. you-to-server
2. server-to-opponent
3. opponent-to-server
4. server-to-you

Now, adding this feature in would require that you add a step:

1. you-to-PG server
2. PG server-to-tournament server
3. tournament server-to-PG server (confirmation)
4. PG server-to-opponent
5. opponent-to-PG server
6. PG server-to-tournament server
7. tournament server-to-PG server (confirmation)
8. PG server-to-you

That doesn't look terribly hard, right? We are just adding a step! However, that means we are likely dealing with multiple protocols or transmission methods. Anything can go wrong during the server-to-server communications, so you have to do a significant amount of error checking and QA testing. Furthermore, you have to optimize the performance of this--no one would use the feature if it took more than 20 seconds for this total process to go through.

Now, if you consider all of the work it would take to put this together, including testing, I would imagine that a good developer *who knows both backend architectures* could push this entire thing through in a few hours. Add in another day of testing and error checking. All told, you're looking at about 10 hours total time for a developer and a QA tester.

THE POINT: If you were a manager, would you be willing to remove 10 hours from your team work time every time a player makes a request on the forums? No, instead you would put that as one of the "nice-to-have", low-priority features that you can assign to a person to do *when he gets the time*. And, honestly, the dev who would be in control of this feature just hasn't gotten the time yet.

Axle
02-20-2015, 05:55 PM
This isn't just a normal player request. This is an inevitable feature that adds to the game by existing. Something every dTCG with some sort of reserves has, and is basically an industry standard. It's a competitive feature in a game that trys to focus on competitive play as an avenue. This is the ability to play on demand with others the game for what it is, and not just some imaginary 1 fight format designed for casual play. Sets are balanced for 2/3, for decks to interact with reserves. For example, cards like Nature's Reign or Shrine of Ulthar. There is a reason why 8 man tournaments are 2/3 and not just 1 game.

Honestly, the 1v1 tournament queue is the "nice-to-have", but we got that instead. Cards snapping to the screen and moving from your hand to the board from the test server is a "nice-to-have" and we got that. Or the new draw animation.

Like I said, 2/3 outside of tournament is a mandatory feature that we will need no matter what. It builds into further features coming to the game and is not wasted dev time in the slightest. This isn't like adding an extra sorting feature in the deck editor.


Yes it temporarily hurts other projects, but because it's a promised feature in the first place, and solves a problem in the community, while also making competitive play more approachable, it does have a small connection to increasing auction house activity and pack sales, is worth the effort, and will speed up another project in the long term.

Chark
02-20-2015, 06:18 PM
please

I'm tired of intentional draws, I'm tired of time in general. We can't moderate players in a digital format and whether or not they decide to slow play because by playing single games in place of a locked in match, they get 2-3 30 minute clocks and aren't being watched like a live card game so we can't warn them for slow-play or tell if it's on purpose. There's also side deck cheating concerns.

HEX's chess clock system entirely erases the idea of a draw or side deck cheating (less a problem), but 1 and a half years later the ability to challenge someone 2/3 isn't in for community tournaments. Is it coded in a way that only the in-client tournaments can do it? We got a 1v1 queue that was supposed to help, but it really didn't because you can't direct 200 people at once into one queue.

I understand for making this thread I'm going to get a lot of the casual players who just want PVE and don't care about constructed as usual being ignorant and mad at me, but I'd rather you just not post instead of doing the predictable.



Sorry guys. I know it sucks for community based tournaments. It's definitely a priority to give you that feature, but it won't make it into the Arena patch.

Just to alleviate some concerns that we may not be focusing our resources correctly: the 2-person queue was a very low engineering cost to us, since it was just a tournament with min/max number of players set to 2. In fact we do a lot of testing on our internal servers using 2-person tournaments (they are easier to fire off), so really the cost was just to push the new tournament live.

I know it may not necessary work for every community-ran tournament, but I am curious why more organizers don't set up their tournament more of a league style: each round lasts 2-3 days with opponents scheduling their own time by which they must finish that round? This gives more flexibility for players and allows players to play best of 3 using the 2-person queue (because the demand to play the matches is less concentrated).

Gwaer
02-20-2015, 06:33 PM
I know it may not necessary work for every community-ran tournament, but I am curious why more organizers don't set up their tournament more of a league style: each round lasts 2-3 days with people scheduling their own time by which they must finish that round? This gives more flexibility for players and allows players to play best of 3 using the 2-person queue (because the demand to play the matches is less concentrated).

That is how the first HTP tournament ran, and I enjoyed it. I know they had some problems with people getting their matches done, and the tournament ran basically the entire month rather than a couple of weeks, I doubt it would work very well for a monthly tournament, but maybe a quarterly one. So that way the people running the thing can take a break between tournaments.

tecnophi
02-20-2015, 10:49 PM
I know it may not necessary work for every community-ran tournament, but I am curious why more organizers don't set up their tournament more of a league style: each round lasts 2-3 days with opponents scheduling their own time by which they must finish that round? This gives more flexibility for players and allows players to play best of 3 using the 2-person queue (because the demand to play the matches is less concentrated).

The only type of league that is active that I am aware of is the Rock League that is a non-standard, commons, and 4 uncommon cards only. That league is more of a ladder system, and the players can freely change decks from match to match. It works very well for them, but for standard competitive play it's goals are different.

Two major community tournaments are currently running with Day 1 swiss with Top 8 playoffs in Day 2. With players registering a single deck to play the entire tournament. The "one deck" rule creates an interesting environment and I think competitive play wants to keep this rule. With the meta still in flux, I am not sure of the risk of negative play experience for players that picked a bad deck for the current meta and will be playing that deck for the next X weeks.

Having it focused to a weekend makes organizing, hosting, streaming, judge ruling, and deck checking so much easier. I think to achieve the same quality as a single weekend tournament for a multi-day long one would require a lot more resources. To me that is one of the top logistical reasons not to do a X-days per round tournament.

Next issue is game rules stability. What I mean is patch schedules, and card interactions issues. The community tournaments have banned certain cards and card combinations in decks because they break the game or are clearly not behaving as intended. The community has no idea of when these will be fixed, or if the next patch will introduce new bugs. With the "one deck" rule, X-day per round, a deck could have been completely legal one day and illegal the next. Tournament organizers will have to established rules to deal with this type of event.

Ebynfel
02-21-2015, 07:41 AM
I'm one of those people who disagree! :) Also, I work in a software company and I do some programming, so I'll take a shot at trying to convince you that this is not the opportune time to implement such a feature. There are several reasons I can think of right off of the top of my head from a software development cycle perspective, but the easiest way I think I can show you is just by saying that it is not as easy as you might think.
*Sorry for snipping the rest, Just didnt want the post to be mega-huge :)*


I think I understand it a little, Shippal. I was fairly certain that, again, as a non programmer that I would be missing something. It's a whole different world than I have ever been involved in and I definitely respect that. I also appreciate the attempt at explaining the differences, and after Chark's clarification it makes even more sense that it is a bit more work than simply porting it over. Again, I was sure I was missing something, but being ignorant on the skills/time/labor/language/workflow, etc etc, it's easy for me to see something from the outside that just isn't true, but correlates in my own internal common sense. I realize it's never so easy as "put that thing over there over here and click okay," but I do believe that coders do sometimes forget that the rest of us aren't as enlightened in the topics sometimes. Other than saying "It's hard" I appreciate an explanation that attempts to shed light on the situation for me, the observer.

The one thing in your post I do not agree with though, is the whole "Adding something every time someone asks on the forums."
I just don't believe that this one is the case. It has been a "nice to have" since Alpha, tbh, if it fits in there. And yeah, it would definitely be nice to have, but it's something that a vocal, if not large, portion of the PVP community has wanted for a long time. I know, resources are needed elsewhere and such, but again until recently, between you and Chark, I was kind of flabbergasted as to why it just hasn't happened yet. For us, it's a pretty big deal. Between the big community tournies, this being the most amazing option for them to run it short of an actual supported in client tourney creation tool, which hopefully will happen in time, to even the league type setup such as the Rock League, etc. It's just plain good, and definitely enhances the play of anyone who wants to take part in any of these awesome community events. Not to mention proper deck testing for queues and VIP, etc.

Now I know, and to make a wordy post short:
Thank you guys for the enlightenment in the difficulty of the execution.
No disrespect meant with this Shippal, Just as you were figuring that I did not understand how much work it takes(in your case you were 100% correct, btw), I believe you do not fully understand how huge this feature is for a pretty big subset of current players. Now, this could be my mind shading what I see said amongst fellow players, so I'll just say it would be an awesome tool to have at our disposal.

BlackRoger
02-21-2015, 09:52 AM
I know it may not necessary work for every community-ran tournament, but I am curious why more organizers don't set up their tournament more of a league style: each round lasts 2-3 days with opponents scheduling their own time by which they must finish that round? This gives more flexibility for players and allows players to play best of 3 using the 2-person queue (because the demand to play the matches is less concentrated).

Actually Asta and Xena tried running a guild-team tournament using similar methods, however this tourney idea ran into many organization problems.

For one, the moment the tournament is not in a set time frame, you will have EU and US players having to coordinate matches with each other, when those will have a hard time just getting in touch with one another, not to mention finding a good time for the match.
It's also less likely that people will even sign up for the event if they know they have to work to set up every single one of their matchups.
Then there is also the fact that if every round takes a couple of days, the tourney will be frustratingly long.