PDA

View Full Version : Gauntlet: Going beyond 5 wins



Sparrow
07-19-2015, 07:27 PM
Even though I won't play it that often, Gauntlet will be popular. The biggest problem I have with it is wins are maxed at 5. As long as the rewards stay arithmetic, I don't see any reason rewards could not be extended out to 10 wins. Given that it's a series of best of one match-ups and given the resource system I think it would be very difficult to get out to 10 wins, but it would be cool to have something to shoot for and it would also give a decent incentive (well, decent may be too strong a word for it, but you know what I mean) for sealed players since most people that play sealed don't consider their participation a success if they haven't won more booster than they ripped to play.

However, if the issue is Hex doesn't want to give away more than 6 boosters for the entry fee, there are all kinds of rewards that could be given past 5 wins. One example I think would be interesting is with each win past 5 the chance of getting a primal pack doubles for 1 booster pack won. So, for 10 wins you'd still only get 6 boosters, but the chance of proc'ing a primal is doubled for 5 of them. If that idea is a reject there are all kinds of non-booster rewards available in the game and I'm sure Hex could come up with something.

I concede that nothing will be changed until the community has a chance to play Gauntlet for a few months, but I think it's good to assume Gauntlet will be successful and talk about how it might be improved down the road.

magic_gazz
07-19-2015, 07:50 PM
I feel you already answered why this will probably not be a thing. If you can keep playing the same event you are not paying more buy ins. Also it will get harder to pair you the more wins you get and will lead to more pair downs and people do not like that.

katkillad
07-19-2015, 08:45 PM
This seems like a format aimed at those who don't have a large amount of free time, so I don't know why they would want to extend the amount of wins.

Sparrow
07-19-2015, 09:17 PM
This seems like a format aimed at those who don't have a large amount of free time, so I don't know why they would want to extend the amount of wins.
Why not aim it at everyone? If you want to drop and collect your rewards because you don't feel playing past 5 wins is worth it, then drop, but it's not necessary to drag everyone down with you with a ceiling that's too low because you don't have the time.

I agree with gazz, tho, that it's about frequency of new gauntlet's firing. Personally I know I'll be disappointed to get 5 wins and have to quit, which is why I won't be playing much.

israel.kendall
07-19-2015, 09:36 PM
They have that marathon sealed thing coming though, so not sure this is needed since marathon will cover people who want to keep going.

Sparrow
07-19-2015, 10:24 PM
They have that marathon sealed thing coming though, so not sure this is needed since marathon will cover people who want to keep going.
I didn't know about that. Could you link it?

BossHoss
07-19-2015, 10:57 PM
I didn't know about that. Could you link it?

Marathon Tournaments
This is like league play on steroids. Players will sign up for this sealed deck tournament and play as many games as they can within a 6 hour period. We’ll allow entries into the tournament at any time while it runs. As a catch up mechanic and to keep things interesting, we’ll let players buy an additional booster after each hour passes while the tournament runs.
We will track players’ total games and their number of wins. The win-loss differential is what we’ll use to track standings in real time. The tiebreaker is the total number of games played. After 6 hours the top 40% of players get prizes. There are 4 tiers for prizes: Top 1% of the players, 2%-5% of the players, 6%-15% of the players and 16%-40% of the players.

Khazrakh
07-20-2015, 12:08 AM
I agree with gazz, tho, that it's about frequency of new gauntlet's firing. Personally I know I'll be disappointed to get 5 wins and have to quit, which is why I won't be playing much.

To be honest, I'm in the same boat.
I really like the concept of asynch play but having to open 6 boosters to play and never being able to win more than those 6 boosters is a dealbreaker for me.
I don't think it really is a problem though - it's meant to be casual so I'm fine with the payout structure being casual as well.

Cernz
07-20-2015, 12:16 AM
i cant wait to play gauntlet tournaments, and i dont care that much about the payouts, but a lot of ppl complain about the "casuality" and BO1 matches, so why not introduce some "competitve" gauntlet format with BO3 matches and single elimination or maybe kick em out after the 2nd loss instead of 1 loss comp.draft, or 3 losses current gauntlet.

Khazrakh
07-20-2015, 12:57 AM
i cant wait to play gauntlet tournaments, and i dont care that much about the payouts, but a lot of ppl complain about the "casuality" and BO1 matches, so why not introduce some "competitve" gauntlet format with BO3 matches and single elimination or maybe kick em out after the 2nd loss instead of 1 loss comp.draft, or 3 losses current gauntlet.

The player base is probably too small to do that yet but it sounds like a good format to add down the road.

ossuary
07-20-2015, 04:30 AM
You also can't have the number of wins be too high because unlike some other games with gauntlets, you're being matched against people with similar records (so there is a difficulty progression, as it should be). If you were sitting at 9 wins and you had to wait for someone to come along who ALSO had 9 wins, you could be waiting a very long time. By keeping the win count lower on the event, you ensure that the wait time to get into the next round is not too long, even with a smaller player base.

Sparrow
07-20-2015, 06:48 AM
I thought you'll always be matched quickly to whoever is closest to your record, not the same record? If it doesn't match quickly then it's already failed in its goal of being the format for players with no time.

YourOpponent
07-20-2015, 06:57 AM
To be honest, I'm in the same boat.
I really like the concept of asynch play but having to open 6 boosters to play and never being able to win more than those 6 boosters is a dealbreaker for me.
I don't think it really is a problem though - it's meant to be casual so I'm fine with the payout structure being casual as well.

In Alpha for awhile we did have Competitive Sealed which they said they would re-add when the player base gets larger. So keep in mind it's not just Marathon Sealed in the works, but also content they still have the coding for too so that's definitely a big plus.


I thought you'll always be matched quickly to whoever is closest to your record, not the same record? If it doesn't match quickly then it's already failed in its goal of being the format for players with no time.

Well the thing about Asynch in the way they have it (which I think is for the best) is that it searches for the person with the same record first...and as time progresses it goes for further and further records. So depending on how long the time is before it increases range it realistically could be between 10-15 minutes (during dead time) if you already have 6 games under your belt...which is yet ANOTHER reason you really DON'T want to be adding an option for more prizes and at the least another 3 games...I know from playing other card games with a rating system such as Kings and Legends that the higher up you are in the rating system the longer it takes to get a match. At times on that game for a 4v4 I would be waiting 30-45 minutes with my team for a 5 minute game just because of how high we were rated.

ossuary
07-20-2015, 07:12 AM
Exactly. And even if the delay before it casts a wider net is not that large, it wouldn't be very fair for the other players with lower records (say, only 4-5 wins) to eventually get paired against someone whose deck has been untouchable 8-9 times in a row. That's a turnoff as well. It's in everyone's best interest for the matches to be against even records as often as possible, and making the tournament go on for too many wins is detrimental to this process - both in time spent waiting for matches, and fairness of those matchups at higher levels.

Xzaron
07-20-2015, 07:24 AM
You also can't have the number of wins be too high because unlike some other games with gauntlets, you're being matched against people with similar records (so there is a difficulty progression, as it should be). If you were sitting at 9 wins and you had to wait for someone to come along who ALSO had 9 wins, you could be waiting a very long time. By keeping the win count lower on the event, you ensure that the wait time to get into the next round is not too long, even with a smaller player base.

Not necessarily true. Its similar record and we don't the formula. I asked in one of the other threads to make sure there was some sort of formula taken into account and colin did reply with a yes however one of my opponents on the test server was 4-0 when i was 0-0(unless he was yanking my chain). I know for a fact as well I played a game as 2-0 when one of my opponents was 0-0. My concern all along was playing someone with a drastically better w-l when just starting and imo a 4-0 should not play a 0-0

purpenflurb
07-20-2015, 07:30 AM
You also can't have the number of wins be too high because unlike some other games with gauntlets, you're being matched against people with similar records (so there is a difficulty progression, as it should be).

The reason this is an issue is because hex has so few players. If in the future there were more players and gauntlet was popular, they could change it. Hearthstone arena goes to 12 wins and matches you against players with the same record.

BossHoss
07-20-2015, 07:43 AM
Not necessarily true. Its similar record and we don't the formula. I asked in one of the other threads to make sure there was some sort of formula taken into account and colin did reply with a yes however one of my opponents on the test server was 4-0 when i was 0-0(unless he was yanking my chain). I know for a fact as well I played a game as 2-0 when one of my opponents was 0-0. My concern all along was playing someone with a drastically better w-l when just starting and imo a 4-0 should not play a 0-0

That could easily be the case for only the test server as they could've temporarily disabled the similar pairing functionality to make sure there is always an opponent to test the system. Post patch may be different.

Xzaron
07-20-2015, 08:15 AM
Yep that could be the case because my 4-0 game when i was at 0-0 took me seconds to get. I don't doubt it exists its just very important to have a matchmaking for it.

Showsni
07-20-2015, 08:29 AM
I'm not sure it would be good to force people to play the same deck for so long, either. If you end up playing 12 games with the same deck, I can see it getting pretty boring; especially if it's not a particularly exciting deck. And no one is going to want to drop early if there are the chance of more prizes. 12 games is like having to play 5 or 6 matches with the same deck; that would get old fast.

Tazelbain
07-20-2015, 08:29 AM
Bo3, ironyeti, constructed gauntlet would be my ideal format.

jonsnow2000
07-20-2015, 09:50 AM
What do you guys think about a "1-time-extension" option for Gauntlet Sealed where, if you have 5 wins and you like your pool so much, you can pay 500 Plat to keep your pool (and dont open new packs of course) and your win/loss record is reset to zero. After that run is over, you receive the 6 packs from your first run and the additional packs from the 2nd run.

Poetic
07-20-2015, 09:53 AM
So someone opens a broken pool and just farms 6 packs at a time for 500 plat? Doubt it.

Khazrakh
07-20-2015, 09:59 AM
So someone opens a broken pool and just farms 6 packs at a time for 500 plat? Doubt it.

This.
Keep playing until you open that perfect pool filled with bombs evasion and removal then keep on smashing through the Gauntlet again and again. Pairing someone that is 0:0 against someone with 5:0 or even 10:0 is absurdly unfair ;)

Yoss
07-20-2015, 11:09 AM
it will get harder to pair you the more wins you get and will lead to more pair downs and people do not like that.

You also can't have the number of wins be too high because unlike some other games with gauntlets, you're being matched against people with similar records (so there is a difficulty progression, as it should be). If you were sitting at 9 wins and you had to wait for someone to come along who ALSO had 9 wins, you could be waiting a very long time. By keeping the win count lower on the event, you ensure that the wait time to get into the next round is not too long, even with a smaller player base.
The posts I quoted above answered the mail, but I’ll provide a little more detail. Every tier divides the pool by 2, so you get exponential decay of available players for pairing as you move deeper and deeper into the gauntlet. At 4 wins, you're divided down by a factor of 16, which means that even if our entire group of a few hundred people online at a time were in the gauntlet, there'd be less than 20 pairing at the 4-win tier. Now factor in that not everyone is going to be on Gauntlet since there's Arena, Draft, Constructed, idle, AH, and more and you've probably only got a couple other people in your tier to match against. If they let it go even one more tier deeper, you'd be almost certain to require a pair down (e.g. 5-0 playing versus 4-0 or 3-0) most of the time.


Not necessarily true. Its similar record and we don't the formula. I asked in one of the other threads to make sure there was some sort of formula taken into account and colin did reply with a yes however one of my opponents on the test server was 4-0 when i was 0-0(unless he was yanking my chain). I know for a fact as well I played a game as 2-0 when one of my opponents was 0-0. My concern all along was playing someone with a drastically better w-l when just starting and imo a 4-0 should not play a 0-0
I really hope this was just a bug. Queue decay should have a floor limit. Players at 0-0 should always be paired perfectly, no exceptions. Only after the first match should it be possible to get alternate pairings, and even then the pairings should make sense (4-0 vs 2-0 makes sense, 4-0 vs 0-2 doesn’t). I would collapse the tree something like this:

W L Downgrades
3 0 20
2 1 20+11
1 2 02+11

4 0 30 > 20
3 1 21 > 11+20
2 2 11

4 1 40+31 > 30+21 > 20
3 2 31+22 > 21 > 11

4 2 41+32 > 31 > 21