PDA

View Full Version : Please do something to make people play free PVP.



Altima
07-27-2015, 02:35 PM
Proper Matchmaking
Daily quest
Season
Ranking

Whatever, I have just finished playing building my deck after playing sealed endlessly.

However, I cannot find anyone to play with to test my deck.

Please add something to make people play this mode.

Saeijou
07-27-2015, 02:41 PM
have you tried the Head-to-Head queue in tournaments? Or just ask in general chat

Zophie
07-27-2015, 02:46 PM
Proper Matchmaking
Daily quest
Season
Ranking

Whatever, I have just finished playing building my deck after playing sealed endlessly.

However, I cannot find anyone to play with to test my deck.

Please add something to make people play this mode.

This is only temporary, and doesn't address your concern but: during the Convocation event there will be a small chance at winning Convocation packs for winners of random matchmaking in the proving grounds, that'll be a good time to use that option if you're interested.

https://www.hextcg.com/hex-update-the-convocation/

Yoss
07-27-2015, 02:49 PM
Daily quest
Please no.

Xexist
07-27-2015, 02:50 PM
Please no.

The only daily quest should be logging on for your special lotus.

Stok3d
07-27-2015, 02:55 PM
This is a release weekend with many incentives to drafting. I do not believe it is the best representation for matchups atm.

I would imagine after today you'll readily find more people to test decks.

Saeijou
07-27-2015, 02:56 PM
The only daily quest should be logging on for your special lotus.

3721

Yoss
07-27-2015, 03:00 PM
The only daily quest should be logging on for your special lotus.

Yeah, I hope they change that to a weekly harvest too.

Largashbur
07-27-2015, 03:02 PM
Convocation weekend is a bonafide motivation to join Proving Grounds :)

Xenavire
07-27-2015, 03:08 PM
This is a release weekend with many incentives to drafting. I do not believe it is the best representation for matchups atm.

I would imagine after today you'll readily find more people to test decks.

24 hour extension says late Tuesday/early Wednesday at the earliest. :p

poizonous
07-27-2015, 03:13 PM
I just want to point out Free and PVP were never meant to go together.

Daily quests are terrible and if they included PvP rewards it simply devalues peoples collections.

Seasons, same thing as daily quests, If they included PvP rewards than it lowers values of the said item

Ranked matchmaking - Sure it will be implemented soon but a mode simply for bragging rights doesnt entice more activity

Overall PvP is not meant to be free, you can fool around in proving grounds all you want for free but the minute you expect something for doing so, it changes value

Shaqattaq
07-27-2015, 03:13 PM
As players have mentioned, a big incentive to play free PVP will start with Convocation weekend :)

N3rd4Christ
07-27-2015, 03:15 PM
As players have mentioned, a big incentive to play free PVP will start with Convocation weekend :)

Would love some sort of ladder!

Vorpal
07-27-2015, 03:22 PM
We just need a ranked pvp ladder.

Altima
07-28-2015, 05:25 PM
Convocation week sound lovely for free PVP but how much chance to get convocation pack from playing free PVP? 5% per win ?

Anyway, it is only a temporary solution for proving ground. What people really need is ladder and reward.

You should add a ladder/season that refresh every month and reward people for their ranking in ladder.

Also a small amount of gold(500-1000) and or some chance to get item after you finish proving ground should be good as well.

israel.kendall
07-28-2015, 05:33 PM
It will be interesting to see what effect convocation has on proving grounds. Hopefully it gets things hopping. But matchmaking needs to be good, if veterans end up matched vs newbies all the time no one will have much fun.

regomar
07-28-2015, 06:06 PM
Please no.

Why are people opposed to daily quests? It's a great incentive for casuals to log in. It's pretty much the ONLY reason I still login to Solforge for example. Ittl be hard for this game to compete without adding things like that in the long run, just the truth.

Yoss
07-28-2015, 06:15 PM
Why are people opposed to daily quests? It's a great incentive for casuals to log in. It's pretty much the ONLY reason I still login to Solforge for example. Ittl be hard for this game to compete without adding things like that in the long run, just the truth.

Svenn has a wonderful diatribe that he can copy/paste about it. Basically, the game should just be rewarding you for playing a lot, regardless of the duty cycle of your play. Playing 1 hour per day or 10 hours once every 10 days should be the same.

Mejis
07-28-2015, 06:31 PM
Why are people opposed to daily quests? It's a great incentive for casuals to log in. It's pretty much the ONLY reason I still login to Solforge for example. Ittl be hard for this game to compete without adding things like that in the long run, just the truth.

The sense of loss for missing a daily log in is often too much for people, myself included.

I strongly believe there will be enough incentives for people to be logging in whenever they can, I just don't think there should be any sense of missing out if you're e.g. busy for a few days.

Gwaer
07-28-2015, 06:45 PM
I personally am pro- daily quests.

Mojumbo
07-28-2015, 07:24 PM
Ranked pvp ladder and daily quests are both good things to have in my books. Incentivize people to play so finding opponent's is easy :)

Svenn
07-28-2015, 08:32 PM
Dailies are a terrible thing that just reek of cheap f2p. They don't enhance the experience at all but instead attempt to trick someone to log in when they don't really want to/have the time to. They also punish those who can't log in every day even if that person can play a ton on the days they do log in.


Why are people opposed to daily quests? It's a great incentive for casuals to log in. It's pretty much the ONLY reason I still login to Solforge for example. Ittl be hard for this game to compete without adding things like that in the long run, just the truth.

Point proven. You log in to Solforge only for the daily quests. Do you enjoy it? Are you just doing it out of habit? Do you even like the game anymore?

Logging in out of obligation to something like dailies does not increase enjoyment. It does lead to resentment in some players (including me).

Altima
07-28-2015, 09:05 PM
I do not care so much about daily. I have 24 hr. work shift every other days but it is fine if I can store daily quest and do it sometimes later.

Zophie
07-28-2015, 09:22 PM
I personally am pro- daily quests.

Same.

regomar
07-28-2015, 09:29 PM
Point proven. You log in to Solforge only for the daily quests. Do you enjoy it? Are you just doing it out of habit? Do you even like the game anymore?

Logging in out of obligation to something like dailies does not increase enjoyment. It does lead to resentment in some players (including me).

They also punish those who can't log in every day even if that person can play a ton on the days they do log in.

Of course I enjoy it, it's my favorite thing about the game and the very reason I log in every day as I quite clearly stated. Way to twist and mangle my words to suit your bizarre stance. Really uncalled for.

Why would you resent people enjoying something? Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever. How exactly are you hurt by adding an extremely common MMO element to a game that purports to be a TCGMMO? By your strange logic I should resent tournament winners and want professional play taken out because I'm not quite good enough to take home the gold! I resent it! It has no place!!!!11111eleventyone

regomar
07-28-2015, 09:37 PM
The sense of loss for missing a daily log in is often too much for people, myself included.

Daily rewards are often very small things, small encouragements. If you can't handle the loss of that I'm entirely unsure how you manage to play a game that features professional play at all. I mean, you might lose a game and not get that prize!

And for that matter, should I campaign against VIP tournaments since they're always held on weekends? I work 12 hour shifts on weekends and it's VERY hard for me to attend those tournament even though I bought VIP to support the game. If I can handle that loss without trying to take it away from people that want and enjoy it, you should be able to handle some piddling little daily quest that you might miss once in a blue moon, it's not like it's going to be some kind of unique sleeve every day or whatever it is that you're convinced you couldn't possibly handle going without for a single day.

Svenn
07-28-2015, 09:37 PM
Of course I enjoy it, it's my favorite thing about the game and the very reason I log in every day as I quite clearly stated. Way to twist and mangle my words to suit your bizarre stance. Really uncalled for.

Why would you resent people enjoying something? Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever. How exactly are you hurt by adding an extremely common MMO element to a game that purports to be a TCGMMO? By your strange logic I should resent tournament winners and want professional play taken out because I'm not quite good enough to take home the gold! I resent it! It has no place!!!!11111eleventyone

I'm curious what it is that you like about the dailies. How is that any better than just playing the game? Because you get rewarded more?

Dailies are the absolute worst system to come to gaming in the last decade. Like I said, they punish people who can only play at certain times. Take, for example, one person who can log in 1 hour a day 7 days a week. Now compare someone who logs in 15 hours across 2 days. Why should the person who logs in daily, but for half as much time, be more rewarded?

Developers should focus on making a game that's fun so people WANT to log in, not making a system that tells people when they need to log in for optimal rewards. It's a crappy gimmick that adds nothing in terms of actual entertainment value.

As someone who has plenty of experience with daily systems in other games, here is what happens. While I'm actively playing every single day, the daily system doesn't do anything for me. It's not why I keep logging in. When my playtime starts to slow for whatever reason, or if I have to miss a few days of it, then I feel bad that I've missed out on the dailies. I've fallen behind other people who logged in on those days and there is no way to make up for that. So then I don't feel like logging in more. Sometimes I'll keep logging in to a game just to get the daily and then log out immediately after. After a while, I resent the game for telling me when I should be playing so that I can be properly rewarded. At this point, I quit the game completely.

I've dumped thousands of dollars into this game and a dailies system would make me seriously consider just quitting.

magic_gazz
07-28-2015, 09:37 PM
Of course I enjoy it, it's my favorite thing about the game and the very reason I log in every day as I quite clearly stated. Way to twist and mangle my words to suit your bizarre stance. Really uncalled for.

Why would you resent people enjoying something? Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever. How exactly are you hurt by adding an extremely common MMO element to a game that purports to be a TCGMMO? By your strange logic I should resent tournament winners and want professional play taken out because I'm not quite good enough to take home the gold! I resent it! It has no place!!!!11111eleventyone

I think you are over reacting.

His point is clear. People log in every day to get the bonus, but that should not be the reason people log in.

A good game does not need to bribe you to play, you log in because you enjoy the game and want to play it.

If player A logs in every day for 5 mins and player B logs in once a week and plays for 2 hours, why should A be getting a bonus and not B?

Altima
07-28-2015, 09:53 PM
I haven't log in to play Hearthstone for months and I do not care about it.

If you are having fun you are having fun. Daily can help people with tight schedule make some significant progress if they comeback to play next time. Daily reward does not make bad game become a good game but it can make good game more enjoyable to play.

Anyway, my point is they need to do something to make people play proving ground. Daily is one of my suggestion.

Svenn
07-28-2015, 09:58 PM
I haven't log in to play Hearthstone for months and I do not care about it.

If you are having fun you are having fun. Daily can help people with tight schedule make some significant progress if they comeback to play next time. Daily reward does not make bad game become a good game but it can make good game more enjoyable to play.
Putting a daily reward for a game which has an economy to worry about means less rewards elsewhere. I'd rather be rewarded the same no matter when I play rather than having to play at the optimal times if I want the most rewards.


Anyway, my point is they need to do something to make people play proving ground. Daily is one of my suggestion.
The only way dailies would make people play proving ground is if it was a specific reward for playing proving ground... in which case you're forcing people to play something they don't want to play on a daily basis which is just going to lead to that person not enjoying themselves.

I'm all for adding something to get more people in proving grounds (a ladder system would be cool), but dailies are not the way to do it.

regomar
07-28-2015, 10:03 PM
I'm curious what it is that you like about the dailies. How is that any better than just playing the game? Because you get rewarded more?

Dailies are the absolute worst system to come to gaming in the last decade. Like I said, they punish people who can only play at certain times. Take, for example, one person who can log in 1 hour a day 7 days a week. Now compare someone who logs in 15 hours across 2 days. Why should the person who logs in daily, but for half as much time, be more rewarded?

Developers should focus on making a game that's fun so people WANT to log in, not making a system that tells people when they need to log in for optimal rewards. It's a crappy gimmick that adds nothing in terms of actual entertainment value.

As someone who has plenty of experience with daily systems in other games, here is what happens. While I'm actively playing every single day, the daily system doesn't do anything for me. It's not why I keep logging in. When my playtime starts to slow for whatever reason, or if I have to miss a few days of it, then I feel bad that I've missed out on the dailies. I've fallen behind other people who logged in on those days and there is no way to make up for that. So then I don't feel like logging in more. Sometimes I'll keep logging in to a game just to get the daily and then log out immediately after. After a while, I resent the game for telling me when I should be playing so that I can be properly rewarded. At this point, I quit the game completely.

I've dumped thousands of dollars into this game and a dailies system would make me seriously consider just quitting.

I'm sorry, but I feel like you're grossly over reacting to a simple system that generally offers small, minor incentives to play actively on a regular basis. I've played over 15 MMOs, most of which had some form of daily quest system, and I have NEVER encountered one where people who can log in every day for an hour had any kind of significant tangible advantage over someone that logs in for less days but more time.

If you'd dump Hex because they offered minor rewards and encouraged people to do something fun on a regular basis, you must not really care about Hex very much because it wouldn't impact your gameplay at all. 0%. (unless they start giving out random vampire kings for logins, but that's just not going to happen no matter how much hyperbole you inject into the conversation) It's all in your head dude. That's all your post really says to me, that and this is apparently so big a pet peeve to you that you feel the need to swoop in and vehemently attack it every time anyone mentions it here.

What do I like about dailies? I'm a casual gamer and I enjoy feeling rewarded for playing a little bit on a regular basis. To me all it is is a little message saying 'Thank you for playing with us today!' which is why I simply cannot fathom the depths of your bizarre hatred of a system that takes nothing away from you at all.


If you are having fun you are having fun. Daily can help people with tight schedule make some significant progress if they comeback to play next time. Daily reward does not make bad game become a good game but it can make good game more enjoyable to play.

Anyway, my point is they need to do something to make people play proving ground. Daily is one of my suggestion.

Exactly this. This guy gets it! Not only that, but in this day and age casuals expect rewards. I've already seen over 10 of my guild-mates from other games try this game and leave because they felt there was basically no reward for playing. Like it or not, people EXPECT these things these days. If Hex wants to survive, it needs to appeal more to casuals. Not all players can be the ultra competitive type. They need to fill the seats. Dailies fill the seats.

regomar
07-28-2015, 10:10 PM
The only way dailies would make people play proving ground is if it was a specific reward for playing proving ground... in which case you're forcing people to play something they don't want to play on a daily basis which is just going to lead to that person not enjoying themselves.

Nobody's forcing anyone to play anything. If they added a small daily reward for a proving ground match, there is absolutely nobody FORCING you to play it. Nobody. Do you think daily rewards are going to be giving out unique valuable items or something? Where is this coming from? This is a GAME. Nobody's forcing you to do anything you don't want to do.

regomar
07-28-2015, 10:15 PM
If player A logs in every day for 5 mins and player B logs in once a week and plays for 2 hours, why should A be getting a bonus and not B?

That concern (if it really worries you that much for whatever reason) could actually be addressed very easily by changing dailies to weeklies. Something like: "Get rewarded up to 3 times per calendar week for participating in proving grounds matches. Resets every Sunday." Many mmos do this and it's a great flexible system which mitigates the issues mentioned above.

Svenn
07-28-2015, 10:20 PM
If you'd dump Hex because they offered minor rewards and encouraged people to do something fun on a regular basis, you must not really care about Hex very much because it wouldn't impact your gameplay at all. 0%.
And you completely miss how dailies work. First of all, there is nothing fun about dailies. The game is either fun or it isn't. Adding a daily doesn't make it fun. Encouraging people to do something on a regular basis? The goal of this is to create a habit of getting someone logging in. Like I said, it's a cheap trick that is used to force people into doing things they wouldn't normally do so the game can claim high numbers of active users (even if said users log in for 10 minutes, do a daily, and log out).

Second, the economy in this game is a big thing to consider. If you add dailies, that means lessening rewards elsewhere to not mess up the economy. You're not getting more rewards. And again, you're screwing over someone who has different playtimes for no reason. The game shouldn't tell you WHEN to play so that you can get rewards. If I play 10 hours in a day or 10 hours over 10 days it shouldn't matter. My 10 hours should be just as valuable any time.

And Hex is one of my absolute favorite games and I greatly care to see it succeed. It's also why I care so much that they don't add dailies. You try to play it off as some harmless system but you have yet to actually explain how it adds any actual enjoyment or address any of the downsides.

The funny part of this is that, as a casual gamer, you get screwed out of a ton of rewards if you don't log in every single day... but somehow you love this system? They've successfully tricked you into thinking you're actually being rewarded it seems.


Exactly this. This guy gets it! Not only that, but in this day and age casuals expect rewards. I've already seen over 10 of my guild-mates from other games try this game and leave because they felt there was basically no reward for playing. Like it or not, people EXPECT these things these days. If Hex wants to survive, it needs to appeal more to casuals. Not all players can be the ultra competitive type. They need to fill the seats. Dailies fill the seats.
Dailies might fill seats temporarily, until the people realize they aren't enjoying the game and are just going through the motions because dailies. I highly doubt your guild mates joined and left because there weren't any dailies. If they did, they weren't the type of people I'd want to see in Hex anyway. They wouldn't be here for the game, but because of some crappy habit forming system.

I will also point out that Cory has said that he doesn't like dailies and has no plans to implement them into Hex. I wouldn't hold your breath for them.

Svenn
07-28-2015, 10:24 PM
That concern (if it really worries you that much for whatever reason) could actually be addressed very easily by changing dailies to weeklies. Something like: "Get rewarded up to 3 times per calendar week for participating in proving grounds matches. Resets every Sunday." Many mmos do this and it's a great flexible system which mitigates the issues mentioned above.
Slightly better, but still doesn't add any enjoyment to the game. There's literally nothing you can do with a daily system that you couldn't just do better without making it a daily reward. What's better, a reward for playing proving ground every time or a daily that says once a day you get a reward for playing proving ground? (Not that either of those would happen)


Nobody's forcing anyone to play anything. If they added a small daily reward for a proving ground match, there is absolutely nobody FORCING you to play it. Nobody. Do you think daily rewards are going to be giving out unique valuable items or something? Where is this coming from? This is a GAME. Nobody's forcing you to do anything you don't want to do.
If you want to not fall behind in terms of rewards, then it is forcing you to play at certain times. Either play at the times the game tells me or fall behind. It doesn't matter what the reward is. It's not a reward for logging in every day, it's a punishment for NOT logging in every day.

I really don't understand how anyone can defend dailies.

magic_gazz
07-28-2015, 10:34 PM
If you'd dump Hex because they offered minor rewards and encouraged people to do something fun on a regular basis, you must not really care about Hex very much because it wouldn't impact your gameplay at all. 0%.

I've already seen over 10 of my guild-mates from other games try this game and leave because they felt there was basically no reward for playing.

Do you not see the problem here?

Obviously your friends did not like the game if they left over something as pathetic as daily rewards.

You realise you can get rewards for playing arena and there is no limit on it right?

Gwaer
07-28-2015, 11:04 PM
Properly designed and leveraged dailies can direct traffic to different parts of the game at off hours to make sure everyone gets to play their favorite part at least sometimes, they can hook people that might not have been hooked otherwise by giving them small goals to accomplish. Which is my favorite part. They're psychologically excellent for a large portion of the human race which is why they are so prevalent, they work. I like them. I hope hex has them.

Though I admit few things are worse than poorly designed dailies. Instead of going to weeklies, I'd prefer it to go to hourlies. Make it clear the point isn't too do all of them. Don't attach a sliding counter to them with increasing rewards necessarily. Unless you have a really cool unique idea for how to do it. But small changing goals frequently is better than none at all Imo.

Xexist
07-28-2015, 11:09 PM
Do you not see the problem here?

Obviously your friends did not like the game if they left over something as pathetic as daily rewards.

You realise you can get rewards for playing arena and there is no limit on it right?

Here I have been coming back and playing because it was fun! I didnt realize I should be angry because I havent been getting rewards! I learned something today!

Yoss
07-28-2015, 11:42 PM
"Hourlies" might actually work nicely. Having a system set to such a high frequency like that would actually seem to cover the problem cases Svenn presented (and I agreed with). Any player who plays a lot will get the rewards no matter whether the time is concentrated or spread out.

On the other hand, if the frequency is high enough, it's not really periodic content at all, it just becomes part of the normal game. For example, the limited time 50% gold bonus in Arena was more or less like this. It gave temporary focus to a particular part of the game. I guess that wasn't a bad thing. Maybe that's the way to cover the same ground as "dailies" without actually having them.

TOOT
07-28-2015, 11:48 PM
Properly designed and leveraged dailies can direct traffic to different parts of the game at off hours to make sure everyone gets to play their favorite part at least sometimes, they can hook people that might not have been hooked otherwise by giving them small goals to accomplish. Which is my favorite part. They're psychologically excellent for a large portion of the human race which is why they are so prevalent, they work. I like them. I hope hex has them.

Though I admit few things are worse than poorly designed dailies. Instead of going to weeklies, I'd prefer it to go to hourlies. Make it clear the point isn't too do all of them. Don't attach a sliding counter to them with increasing rewards necessarily. Unless you have a really cool unique idea for how to do it. But small changing goals frequently is better than none at all Imo.

This post actually made me change my stance on it. Well put.

Hawke
07-29-2015, 01:26 AM
I dont care bout those dailys but I like quest system from Hearthstone. They are constant. When ever you log in they are here until you finish them. Also if you dont like a quest you can change it for another one once per day.

ShadowRealm
07-29-2015, 01:31 AM
Challenges like in the Arena could be fun, and quests that you can keep for a few days before they change. With adapted rewards, it couldn't hurt and add a little something for casual players or pure F2P.

starwing
07-29-2015, 03:39 AM
I thought quests were on the list of features that are intended to be part of HEX, along with guilds and doublebacks, etc. I definitely want quests but they should not be daily--perhaps open for 2 to 7 days, depending on rewards.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 04:54 AM
Do you not see the problem here?

Obviously your friends did not like the game if they left over something as pathetic as daily rewards.

You realise you can get rewards for playing arena and there is no limit on it right?

Here's the thing for games tho.

Either go with the times or die.

I don't play arma3 because I feel like i'm gaining nothing out of it, before the introduction of ranked I didn't play CSGO and if it weren't for random rewards after matches I'd not be playing CSGO and dota2. Heck I stopped playing smite after paying for the "all gods forever bundle" ironically cos I felt like I had nothing to do.

I love the gambling aspect. I like getting rewards after playing arena. Ever since the arena released I see no point in playing proving grounds at all.

Which is something that I predicted: Why would people "waste" their time on Proving grounds when they can earn cards in PvE.

This will surely be adressed in the future as the Paying customers need opponents and people won't be their opponents unless given an incentive.

And no, fun is not enough of an incentive when you can have fun AND the feeling of being rewarded at the same time somewhere else.

Tho I don't think dailies should be introduced. More like a weekly cap to Chests in Proving grounds random matchmaking on games that end in more than 3 minutes. Or maybe just give chests after X amount of played time in Proving grounds. I'd say 1 Arena chest every 20 minutes and if you won in said time you get a bonuschest, capped up to 7 times a week.

Please don't talk about devalueing etc, I just threw numbers around. The fact still stands. People will need an incentive to play proving grounds.

zsinj
07-29-2015, 05:12 AM
I would be so extremely happy if there was an incentive to play Proving Grounds, I quite often just want to play with fun and off-the-wall PVP deck ideas which I don't really want to pay to or feel confident enough in to take into a paid tournament.

I doubt the re-introduction of the small gold reward would happen, ideally I'd love something like Hearthstone's ranked play even if there were no rewards from that.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 05:15 AM
I don't get how a small gold incentive would hurt at all.

You'd still be better off playing arena instead even if an opponent gave you lets say 250gold/game.

Vorpal
07-29-2015, 06:25 AM
Daily rewards don't make a game better, you guys.

How often have you had this conversation?

"Hey, you should try this game!"
"What makes it awesome?"
"It has DAILY LOGIN REWARDS!!!!!" *starry eyes*

Svenn
07-29-2015, 06:31 AM
Properly designed and leveraged dailies can direct traffic to different parts of the game at off hours to make sure everyone gets to play their favorite part at least sometimes, they can hook people that might not have been hooked otherwise by giving them small goals to accomplish. Which is my favorite part. They're psychologically excellent for a large portion of the human race which is why they are so prevalent, they work. I like them. I hope hex has them.
So, the benefit is that they can allow someone to have a person to compete against in a part of the game they might like, at the expense of making someone else play something they will have less fun playing?

As for hooking people... sure. Cocaine will hook people too, does that make it a good thing? Dailies obviously aren't as bad as cocaine, but they can be damaging to mental health.

It's psychologically damaging (maybe not for everyone, but for plenty of us). It can be an addiction and keep someone playing, but not in a good way. The entire idea is to create a habit to keep someone logging in long after they would have stopped having fun. I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it's not a good thing for your players. It's a shitty thing to do to them.


Though I admit few things are worse than poorly designed dailies. Instead of going to weeklies, I'd prefer it to go to hourlies. Make it clear the point isn't too do all of them. Don't attach a sliding counter to them with increasing rewards necessarily. Unless you have a really cool unique idea for how to do it. But small changing goals frequently is better than none at all Imo.

Or just leave out the time based part of it and reward people the same all the time? I don't see why there needs to be a time component to rewards.

Vorpal
07-29-2015, 06:42 AM
People are wired very differently. Some have very strong risk/loss avoidance. Others do not. When one group says "Losing out on dailies doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother you either" they are not correctly understanding what a big deal it is to those other people.

Cainhu
07-29-2015, 06:49 AM
I've seen a lot of dailies/weeklies in various games, and I mostly liked them if they rewarded something out of my comfort zone.

Just some examples from the top of my head from several games :
- you have to play a specific color / race /class (could be specific champion and/or creature type) in your deck
- lose to a goldfish without conceding
- defeat a specific encounter
- defeat an opponent with an alternate win condition or with a specific limitation

I found it really fun to build decks to defeat these challenges, even if the reward was minimal. (HEX analogue would be some gold, or common or uncommon cards)

Svenn
07-29-2015, 06:54 AM
I've seen a lot of dailies/weeklies in various games, and I mostly liked them if they rewarded something out of my comfort zone.

Just some examples from the top of my head from several games :
- you have to play a specific color / race /class (could be specific champion and/or creature type) in your deck
- lose to a goldfish without conceding
- defeat a specific encounter
- defeat an opponent with an alternate win condition or with a specific limitation

I found it really fun to build decks to defeat these challenges, even if the reward was minimal. (HEX analogue would be some gold, or common or uncommon cards)
You know what's more fun than making those a random daily thing? Just dumping them all in the game as achievements. No reason to limit it by time. Put in a ton of achievements and just let people do it on their own time. You get all the fun of the challenges without the game trying to tell you when you can do them.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 06:59 AM
Daily rewards don't make a game better, you guys.

How often have you had this conversation?

"Hey, you should try this game!"
"What makes it awesome?"
"It has DAILY LOGIN REWARDS!!!!!" *starry eyes*

Tell that to the thousands of people who play these daily reward games just for the daily rewards. I could count up 6 people in my personal space who will play stuff like heros of the storm till their daily rewards are used up.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 07:00 AM
My point still stands in the perspective of a f2p player.

Why would any f2p player EVER play proving grounds on a daily basis? It's not the f2per that loses out on that experience, it's the actual paying constructed customer.

CSGO is the biggest counter strike yet after people actually have an incentive of playing it (weekly rewards)

It would benefit hex to improve on playincentives. Games are not entirely about fun anymore wether you like it or not.

RamzaBehoulve
07-29-2015, 07:08 AM
I am against anything that requires daily log in.

Weekly events? Sure.
Achievements? Sure.

Daily quests make you a slave to the game. I hate them and completely stopped doing them in Hearthstone.

Svenn
07-29-2015, 07:09 AM
Tell that to the thousands of people who play these daily reward games just for the daily rewards. I could count up 6 people in my personal space who will play stuff like heros of the storm till their daily rewards are used up.

Like I said, it's not that it doesn't work... it's that it's just mean to your players. Those people who only play until their dailies are used up either aren't actually that interested in the game or would be just as fine getting rewarded every time as they are for getting rewarded once a day. In fact, they might even play more if that were the case.


My point still stands in the perspective of a f2p player.

Why would any f2p player EVER play proving grounds on a daily basis? It's not the f2per that loses out on that experience, it's the actual paying constructed customer.

CSGO is the biggest counter strike yet after people actually have an incentive of playing it (weekly rewards)

It would benefit hex to improve on playincentives. Games are not entirely about fun anymore wether you like it or not.

Adding rewards is great. I'm all for adding rewards to things. It's when you try and make those rewards time based that it's a problem. The game shouldn't tell you when to play or how often you can get rewarded. It should let you play the game and have a reward structure independent of whether you play in long stretches or short periods each day.

Cainhu
07-29-2015, 07:39 AM
You know what's more fun than making those a random daily thing? Just dumping them all in the game as achievements. No reason to limit it by time. Put in a ton of achievements and just let people do it on their own time. You get all the fun of the challenges without the game trying to tell you when you can do them.

You partly miss my point. In one part the interesing thing in these quests that they are always something new, something to anticipate every week. A change of pace from your regular arena runs / 3-3-3 drafts and Tier 1 constructed decks.

They can be achievements if you want, but new thing should be added regulary. Honestly, I think weeklies is the best way to go, so you can play your own schleude, but it's still an incentive to return to the game regulary.

For more permanent variety we will get the dungeons / raids this year (hopefully), but the two system could work next to each other.

Thrawn
07-29-2015, 07:39 AM
At this rate I'm going to have to start keeping a list of forum links to chats about daily rewards as well. Seems to come up often enough.

Svenn
07-29-2015, 07:42 AM
You partly miss my point. In one part the interesing thing in these quests that they are always something new, something to anticipate every week. A change of pace from your regular arena runs / 3-3-3 drafts and Tier 1 constructed decks.

They can be achievements if you want, but new thing should be added regulary. Honestly, I think weeklies is the best way to go, so you can play your own schleude, but it's still an incentive to return to the game regulary.

For more permanent variety we will get the dungeons / raids this year (hopefully), but the two system could work next to each other.

Again, same thing could be achieved by putting it all in at once. First patch, dump in 20 achievements/challenges to complete with rewards. Every patch, update with new challenges/achievements. Old ones don't go away. You don't miss out on anything. You can complete them whenever you want.

Dailies would be the exact same thing, except you'd have to complete them when the game told you that you could instead of whenever. There wouldn't be more challenges because it's now a daily system. That's my point. There's no advantage from a player perspective for having these things be tied to specific times.

Gwaer
07-29-2015, 07:51 AM
Dailies aren't the same thing as achievements. Unless all your achievements reset after an amount of time and you can do them again. You're in the extreme minority svenn. If you don't like doing dailies then don't do them. They'll still attract a large portion of people whether you like them or not. And more importantly they are a bigger benefit for the game than detriment. I'm certain hex will have something like them, and I look forward to it.

Svenn
07-29-2015, 07:57 AM
Dailies aren't the same thing as achievements. Unless all your achievements reset after an amount of time and you can do them again. You're in the extreme minority svenn. If you don't like doing dailies then don't do them. They'll still attract a large portion of people whether you like them or not. And more importantly they are a bigger benefit for the game than detriment. I'm certain hex will have something like them, and I look forward to it.
I'd like to know where you get your numbers from. Everyone I know absolutely hates dailies. Even here on the forums there's a pretty big split.

Also, Cory already said he doesn't like dailies and has no plans for them.

And dailies won't attract anyone at all. That's not what they are designed for. They are designed to trick people into playing when they aren't having fun. They might keep some people playing when they wouldn't otherwise, but it will also lead to increased burnout as people will log in when they aren't really feeling it just so they don't miss out on dailies.

zadies
07-29-2015, 08:05 AM
Properly designed and leveraged dailies can direct traffic to different parts of the game at off hours to make sure everyone gets to play their favorite part at least sometimes, they can hook people that might not have been hooked otherwise by giving them small goals to accomplish. Which is my favorite part. They're psychologically excellent for a large portion of the human race which is why they are so prevalent, they work. I like them. I hope hex has them.
.
See your entire point here is saying that they should use dailies to encourage me to play the portions of the game that I find to be unfun... small goals to accomplish are the same exact thing as achievements that can be done any time at all. The game already has one of the highest average pay outs of any free to play game on the market and the PvE campaign isn't in. PvP was never ever supposed to be free to play so having any kind of incentive for playing proving breaks the mold of the economy they had every intention of setting up.

Gwaer
07-29-2015, 08:06 AM
Dailies do attract people. You even said it in your rebut, of you want to see it like that. 'dailies trick people to play when they aren't having fun' that's an amazing thing. Because when people first start playing Hex, especially those that aren't TCG people, dailies can trick them into playing until they are having fun. That's the key. They're a hook to get you into the game, they're much more effective than achievements. I think your view of them is hilarious to be honest. But in that one instance you're absolutely correct. They're awesome for retention. That alone is worth having them.

@zadies - nope. Only if dailies make Pvp reward gold, which they don't need to. There will be crafting materials which can be rewarded in extremely small doses. There can be rewards that influence how quickly things are accomplished on your double back, there can be rewards for resetting chest spins so you can spin them again or for influencing your chest spin results. There are literally endless possibilities for small bonuses that you can get from your rewards that are not plat/cards/gold.

Svenn
07-29-2015, 08:13 AM
Dailies do attract people. You even said it in your rebut, of you want to see it like that. 'dailies trick people to play when they aren't having fun' that's an amazing thing. Because when people first start playing Hex, especially those that aren't TCG people, dailies can trick them into playing until they are having fun. That's the key. They're a hook to get you into the game, they're much more effective than achievements. I think your view of them is hilarious to be honest. But in that one instance you're absolutely correct. They're awesome for retention. That alone is worth having them.

They don't attract new players. They make existing players play when they don't want to. An entire system designed with the sole purpose of tricking players into playing your game when they aren't having fun is NOT a good thing. I don't even know how you can argue otherwise. It's dishonest. It's cheap. It's mean to your players. Honestly, what you are proposing is essentially a system designed to create something akin to Stockholm Syndrome in the players.

I would rather not have players playing the game solely because they feel obligated to through dailies. That's not healthy for anyone. In the short term it might be look good to boost numbers, but in the long term it's going to hurt the game. It WILL push away players. It will turn some people who might have played occasionally on their own time into non-players as they burn themselves out on dailies.

Gwaer
07-29-2015, 08:22 AM
You're wrong. And I'm a perfect example of how. Clearly your opinion I'd not universal. Since I don't share it. So it's up to them to do a cost/benefit analysis on it. And they have access to very similar analytics that I do. Which say dailies can and do keep more people than they push away. They're excellent, and the possibilities for how to enable them are huge. They can tailor a system to get and how they want to accomplish it. But getting people to play and making it part of their schedule is not evil or dishonest. If hex doesn't do it another game will. And even if a person finds both games equally very fun, the one with a well designed daily system to capture them and retain them will win out over one without. It just doesn't make sense not to have one. It doesn't have to have rewards you can even miss out on. It just needs to provide a loose framework for playing for people who like frameworks. It doesn't need to restrict people into that framework however.

Now I'm running late to get to the airport to go to Gencon. So this discussion will have to wait.

Tazelbain
07-29-2015, 08:29 AM
Make a "build your own" game room feature. Give them a ton of options. People will find their own casual fun. No arm-twisting needed.

I am sure a "4-player, $5 budget deck with extra mull" rooms will fill up like quick.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 08:36 AM
Make a "build your own" game room feature. Give them a ton of options. People will find their own casual fun. No arm-twisting needed.

I am sure a "4-player, $5 budget deck with extra mull" rooms will fill up like quick.

Not good at all from a business standpoint.

"I spent XXX dollars on my deck but can't join since most people only want to play budget" inc.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 08:37 AM
Like I said, it's not that it doesn't work... it's that it's just mean to your players. Those people who only play until their dailies are used up either aren't actually that interested in the game or would be just as fine getting rewarded every time as they are for getting rewarded once a day. In fact, they might even play more if that were the case.



Adding rewards is great. I'm all for adding rewards to things. It's when you try and make those rewards time based that it's a problem. The game shouldn't tell you when to play or how often you can get rewarded. It should let you play the game and have a reward structure independent of whether you play in long stretches or short periods each day.

I won't argue with you on the daily thing since you're obviously biased against them.

But yes, adding rewards to proving grounds and random PvP will be neccesary, it's just a matter of time when HexEnt sees it.

Lawlschool
07-29-2015, 08:53 AM
My primary experience with dalies was in WoW, and I quickly ended up hating them, because many were essential for certain types of progression. Dalies that "rewarded" alternate currency were particularly awful, since if I wanted some specific item I had to log in to repeat the same dumb tedious quests day after day for weeks, if not upwards of a month. If I missed a day, that just delayed me getting whatever it was I was after, which was quite frustrating. Or you had things like daily quests for crafting, where you'd fall behind if you missed a day or two.

Those kinds of dalies, that are either time-gates on content or set you back in some area, are the worst.

Compare that to something like in LoL, where you get bonus f2p currency (IP?) for your first win. It's not requiring you to do anything you wouldn't be doing otherwise, it's just a nice bonus for playing the game. If you're trying to farm IP, missing a day or two isn't so bad, since the bonus isn't that substantial and you could make it up by playing more in your free time.

I'd support some sort of daily bonus in Hex, as opposed to some sort of daily quest. Difference being a daily bonus is just an unconditional extra reward for something you'd be doing normally, whereas a daily quest is something requiring you to go out of your way to perform specific actions.

kareal
07-29-2015, 08:53 AM
This is relevant to the conversation...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

Tazelbain
07-29-2015, 08:54 AM
Not good at all from a business standpoint.

"I spent XXX dollars on my deck but can't join since most people only want to play budget" inc.
a) It's doesn't exist by itself but lives next door to a comprehensive competitive tournament structure with ranks and prizes.
b) I am sure people would make rooms that require expensive decks like 1%er highlander and EA-only two-headed giant.

The point is give people option so they can go to their happy place.

Prominis
07-29-2015, 08:57 AM
I feel this (https://youtu.be/hQtFo_E_Ea0?t=1m2s) might be rather useful, or the minute or so following where the video starts anyway.
Although energy systems are different from daily quests in a number of levels, I feel that they serve the same underlying purpose: to get you to return day after day after day. A good number of social games utilize this, and as many have noted previously, so has hearthstone and solforge.

Is this a ploy to get you to spend more time on the game more often? Yeah, probably.
Still, I can't see how this is inherently bad, as you can still play whenever you want, and whether you do the dailies or not doesn't matter, it'd just mean that you're not as efficient with your time.
Personally I'd prefer to not have a daily quest system, but I can see why companies implement them: it serves as a hook to keep people coming back more frequently, and it works.

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 09:06 AM
I'd like a reward energysystem personally. Similar to rested exp, like you can earn X amount of gold from playing proving ground a day or a week until you lose the bonusgold.

Just don't make the difference between winning and losing too much, would be frustrating as hell on this type of game.

odjn
07-29-2015, 10:22 AM
I hate energy systems generally, they just destroy games, b/c they often mean the game relies heavily on farming to get competitive and play the game and to add injury to insult, the farming is monetized. While I appreciated rest exp in WoW, it only made sense because players used alts. I don't want to, as a player feel like I need to race to farm and stay competitive in any pvp environment. PVE is slightly more forgivable as long as there is a cap that can be achieved with a reasonable amount of energy and time, and is a enjoyable journey.

I don't know if this is too off topic or beaten to death in another thread, but in avoiding dailies, aren't daily spectral lotus pickups the same thing?

MuffLord4
07-29-2015, 11:01 AM
Spectral lotus aren't something a f2per gets and spectral lotus don't encourage doing Proving Grounds.

israel.kendall
07-29-2015, 11:29 AM
I've read all sorts of craziness in this thread lol, but we just simply need rank/ladder, that's all.

hitchslap88
07-29-2015, 11:48 AM
I like the idea of dailies that you are unique one-shots. Like, "log in and play an encounter against an AI deck using a mystery deck we construct for you." I'd always be interested to find out what kind of deck I'd be using, and it wouldn't give me that doing-chores like feeling of most games' dailies. Give a small amount of gold and a very small chance of winning a card from the deck you played if you win. This may even encourage AH sales by giving people fun experiences playing cards they don't own.

dogmod
07-29-2015, 11:48 AM
I would prefer a bounty system that gives you 3-4 bounties at a time with a new bounty after you complete one. They could allow you to wipe these bounties and get fresh ones once a day or once a week if you prefer.

Chadatog
07-29-2015, 01:34 PM
I was going to sarcastically sugest an energy system to go along with the daily quests many seem to want, but then people seriously asked for it. Many people need to watch that extracredit youtube video and learn somthing about good game design.

Vorpal
07-29-2015, 01:58 PM
Tell that to the thousands of people who play these daily reward games just for the daily rewards. I could count up 6 people in my personal space who will play stuff like heros of the storm till their daily rewards are used up.

They are not playing those games just for the daily rewards.

Unless you are claiming they play every game in existence that has daily rewards, and no games that do not have daily rewards.

And clearly, they didn't start playing those games because of daily rewards. It's not a feature or element of gameplay that draws you in.

dogmod
07-29-2015, 02:02 PM
I was going to sarcastically sugest an energy system to go along with the daily quests many seem to want, but then people seriously asked for it. Many people need to watch that extracredit youtube video and learn somthing about good game design.

Just because cocaine and heroin are bad for you and addictive doesn't mean people won't ask for it.

wolzarg
07-29-2015, 07:21 PM
I'm all for quests i see no reason for daily ones, honestly the system svenn brought up with just adding a certain amount of quests seems fine to me. Why have play/win x matches in the proving grounds one day instead of just having play/win x games in the proving grounds as a flat quest. Then two months later beat x arenas perfectly is added and you can still do the x proving ground plays/wins if you aren't done. That just gives new players more content.

The only detriment i see to this is the omg i can't finish all my quests ever but that seems superior to having someone go *Sigh* "another reward missed" because the content is still there so should they ever find a week of free time for no reason they can do it.

fabriazp
07-30-2015, 12:06 AM
daily quest thread.. again?
http://edgecast.buscafs.com/www.levelup.com/public/uploads/images/344337.jpg

RamzaBehoulve
07-30-2015, 03:26 AM
They are not playing those games just for the daily rewards.

Unless you are claiming they play every game in existence that has daily rewards, and no games that do not have daily rewards.

And clearly, they didn't start playing those games because of daily rewards. It's not a feature or element of gameplay that draws you in.

I think his point was rather : if there wasn't daily rewards, they would have moved on from playing Heroes of the Storm every day.

When you start logging in ONLY to do the daily quests, then your subconcious already moved on from the game. You just need to conciously realize it and I can guarantee you that after only just 5 days without loging in, you won't be feeling the need to do the dailies anymore, nor play the game daily.

Svenn
07-30-2015, 07:12 AM
I think his point was rather : if there wasn't daily rewards, they would have moved on from playing Heroes of the Storm every day.

When you start logging in ONLY to do the daily quests, then your subconcious already moved on from the game. You just need to conciously realize it and I can guarantee you that after only just 5 days without loging in, you won't be feeling the need to do the dailies anymore, nor play the game daily.
So much this (the bolded part specifically). If you are logging in ONLY to do the dailies, then that's the game tricking you into playing when you don't really want to. While that's good for keeping numbers up in the game, it's a super shitty thing to do to your players.

israel.kendall
07-30-2015, 07:25 AM
Just make rank degrade over time, then we'll have to keep playing to keep rank up. If they put in some sort of daily quest before we get ranked/ladder it will be a travesty.

hitchslap88
07-30-2015, 07:36 AM
I can see it from the point of view of the developers, though; dailies may keep players whose interest is waning playing the game longer, and potentially retain someone who would have ceased playing otherwise. The only reason not to have dailies is if they actively caused more players to quit than they prevented. How would they do that?

Svenn
07-30-2015, 07:51 AM
I can see it from the point of view of the developers, though; dailies may keep players whose interest is waning playing the game longer, and potentially retain someone who would have ceased playing otherwise. The only reason not to have dailies is if they actively caused more players to quit than they prevented. How would they do that?

I know several people (myself included) who see dailies in a game and are instantly turned off. All my friends and I see a game with dailies and go "Oh, it's one of THOSE games". Significantly lessens the chance we'll play it at all, and often ruins the chances we'll play it for very long if we do. That's how.

Khazrakh
07-30-2015, 08:01 AM
I know several people (myself included) who see dailies in a game and are instantly turned off. All my friends and I see a game with dailies and go "Oh, it's one of THOSE games". Significantly lessens the chance we'll play it at all, and often ruins the chances we'll play it for very long if we do. That's how.

Indeed. Now Hex would need to do a lot more than introduce dailys to lose me as a player, but there are several games out there that I don't play or stopped playing exactly because of them having dailys that felt more like a chore than anything else.
Also I quit playing the Might&Magic card game because I missed to log in for a day and had to start the daily login cycle from scratch.

hitchslap88
07-30-2015, 08:07 AM
Yeah, now that you mention it, I've done the same thing.

vickrpg
07-30-2015, 08:20 AM
I've always been a bit torn by dailies. On the one hand, new content daily is nice, but it's not really "new" dailies usually. it's the same one as last week, or a month ago, recycled and reintroduced. missing a cool daily because of schedule, or worse a stacking daily bonus sucks, even when there's a backlog, falling behind generally isn't fun. I thought a lot about everything everyone has said and I think I have a solution that would at least solve most of my own issues with dailies.

I propose a "daily achievement" system, rather than a daily quest system. Rewards should be minor, probably stardust or equips. Maybe even varied by the difficulty of the quest. And Achievements wouldn't expire.

Every day there would be a new achievement to complete. Anything from "Win a draft" to "Defeat X arena champion" to even "Gain X life in a single game" whatever. Any challenges could be added to this system.

What's the difference between this and quests? in my system, you GET a new one every day, but it doesn't expire. ever. It just gets added to the achievement list.

Why not just release them in patches in big batches of 20, 30, or 60? because periodic content is fun. That's the big draw of dailies. it's "Hey, what can I do in hex today?" it makes the game variable from day to day, but there's really no reason to let the dailies expire, except to recycle them. a big chunk of them could be overwhelming to some, and wouldn't keep players coming back.

Wouldn't this system be overwhelming to new players who join a year down the line? Perhaps, but it would be even more so if they got released chunks at a time. With non-expiring dailies, a new player can start on things as they come, and then probably by accident earn some of the older achievements. They could discover things at their own pace, and not have big content dumped on them all at once.

Won't you run out of achievements?
pfft. no way. Defeat X opponent with Y card. Gain X life WITHOUT Y card. Defeat X with Y restrictions on your deck. We have enough to keep this going for years already, and that doesn't even count any new content that we'd have between this being implemented and now. There could even be contests for "come up with more dailies."

Won't this overlap with Double backs?
Double backs are achieves for a SPECIFIC card. I'm talking about quests for encounters, game modes, and decks as a whole. Double backs don't support account achievements very well, at least not as they were explained.

Barkam
07-30-2015, 08:24 AM
I've read all sorts of craziness in this thread lol, but we just simply need rank/ladder, that's all.

Exsctly this. Implement this and the game is ready for public release.

Tazelbain
07-30-2015, 08:36 AM
After they messed up gauntlet IMO, I don't take anything for granted. The devil is in the details and we have 0 details.

Vorpal
07-30-2015, 09:20 AM
I think his point was rather : if there wasn't daily rewards, they would have moved on from playing Heroes of the Storm every day.

Right. It's just a bandaid to make up for the game no longer being fun. It's not a reason to start playing in the first place.

Vorpal
07-30-2015, 09:22 AM
Hex should have a daily achievement schedule. It should be tied to double backs.

"Today, all troops that cost less than 2 earn double exp with double backs"

"Decks with no more than one card per type earn triple exp for double backs" etc.

Do daily achievements that change the rules in some way and change the types of decks you see.

I don't believe this type of daily achievement is bad for people who play less frequently, but for longer periods of time, as they get fewer xp boosts but make more use of the ones they get.

Xexist
07-30-2015, 09:48 AM
After they messed up gauntlet IMO, I don't take anything for granted. The devil is in the details and we have 0 details.

Lol. Gauntlet is great.

Oli
07-30-2015, 11:35 AM
Also I quit playing the Might&Magic card game because I missed to log in for a day and had to start the daily login cycle from scratch.

Same here.
I've read they changed it later on, but I didn't bother any longer...

MuffLord4
07-30-2015, 11:32 PM
Same here.
I've read they changed it later on, but I didn't bother any longer...

Login cycles are shit but stuff like gathering up quests that can be done is awesome. Maybe even put in a 4th "VIP" quest or sth that requires you to draft and gives you dunno 50 plat discount on drafting.

Fact is that f2pers will not play PvP, yes PvP was not meant to be f2p but why would I ever buy cards and pay money as a casual if my cards are not put into action in proving grounds. Personally I see no reason right now to PvP except for drafting occasionally.

The people missing out mostly from PvP not being f2p are ironically the paying customers who lack opponents outside of paid tournaments.

MuffLord4
07-30-2015, 11:37 PM
And btw I played magic Origins duels on steam.

I'd literally have NO NADA 0 REASON to play Magic Origin Duels if hex had:

2v2 mode

and rewarded me for doing f2p PvP.

Hex would blow that game out of the water making it a COMPLETELY unviable product just by a few changes.

israel.kendall
07-30-2015, 11:51 PM
Exsctly this. Implement this and the game is ready for public release.

Just this would make me perfectly happy with the game, but I think for public release we also need that first bit of dungeons.

MuffLord4
07-30-2015, 11:55 PM
Just this would make me perfectly happy with the game, but I think for public release we also need that first bit of dungeons.

The only people who care about ranked are people already devoted to games anyways. A MMO needs every type of customer to thrive.

The F2p crowd (lets be realistic, most of the players and the guys that will also keep the game afloat in long term) will not participate in things that give no progress (aka proving grounds)

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 12:56 AM
The only people who care about ranked are people already devoted to games anyways

Citation needed, did you run some sort of poll, or just assuming you know peoples motivations and values in general?

MuffLord4
07-31-2015, 01:40 AM
Citation needed, did you run some sort of poll, or just assuming you know peoples motivations and values in general?

just assumption.

Again my point still stands, why do PvP in this game when you get no reward for it. Fun isn't enough of a reward, I can do PvP in hearthstone and still earn cards, that's what people would say if this game were more popular and I'm pretty sure of it.

And my question again, how would it hurt the game if we gave 100g for participating in Proving grounds matches if let's say the game at least took 5 minutes. Doing arena would still be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more favourable.

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 02:04 AM
just assumption.

Again my point still stands, why do PvP in this game when you get no reward for it. Fun isn't enough of a reward, I can do PvP in hearthstone and still earn cards, that's what people would say if this game were more popular and I'm pretty sure of it.

And my question again, how would it hurt the game if we gave 100g for participating in Proving grounds matches if let's say the game at least took 5 minutes. Doing arena would still be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more favourable.

Oh I'm with you, I wouldn't object to rewards in PG. We need something, but I'd be happy with rank/ladder.

MuffLord4
07-31-2015, 03:07 AM
Oh I'm with you, I wouldn't object to rewards in PG. We need something, but I'd be happy with rank/ladder.


ranked does nothing for card progression which is a BIG part of why most people play these types of games.

And no, no citation needed. Gathering/Collecting is just human nature.

DarkErazor
07-31-2015, 07:34 AM
First of all, I really like Hex, it's community and developers so far and I hope the following lines are judged as constructive critisim and not as a pure rant :)

From a new player's perspective, PVP is pretty much unaccessible at this point. I've spent quite some time farming the arena for gold and doing a draft here and there when my limited time allows it. The deck I was able to build is mediocre at best but it suits my playstyle and I'd really like to test it against other players. But there's no way to do so.

Proving ground lacks players and often times you find people testing their luck by bringing a starter deck which isn't fun for anyone. Everytime I see Elizabeth as a champion I am strongly tempted to just leave.

Constructed tournaments fire rarely and there's no point in paying the entry fee and getting crushed immediately. I know my deck is not strong enough, but in order to improve it I need to play against better decks.

Constructed gauntlet is not an option since its Meta is entirely different. Having no access to reserves is the reason why I finally decided to leave Hearthstone and never come back. I simply hate losing against no-skill decks that solely focus on rush/burn and would be torn apart by reserves in game 2 and 3. I'd really recommened switching gauntled to best of 3. Hex isn't able to support 2 different Metas at this stage of the game anyway because there simply are not enough players.

2-man-queue is a cool feature once you have a deck, but in my situation it's just too expensive because losses come quick and hard.

Conclusion: Hex really needs to give people an incentive to play proving grounds or include a ranked system. What irritates me is that lots of people claim PVP isn't meant to be free to play and therefore no rewards can be granted. Well, it simply doesn't matter if I receive 5000 Gold for playing one hour of PVP or one hour of arena. And there are people like me who are here for the construceted PVP and are not willing to just dump 150 $ into a game without knowing if it's worth it or not.

Oh, and we really need a spectator mode.

incitfulmonk21
07-31-2015, 07:50 AM
First of all, I really like Hex, it's community and developers so far and I hope the following lines are judged as constructive critisim and not as a pure rant :)

From a new player's perspective, PVP is pretty much unaccessible at this point. I've spent quite some time farming the arena for gold and doing a draft here and there when my limited time allows it. The deck I was able to build is mediocre at best but it suits my playstyle and I'd really like to test it against other players. But there's no way to do so.

Proving ground lacks players and often times you find people testing their luck by bringing a starter deck which isn't fun for anyone. Everytime I see Elizabeth as a champion I am strongly tempted to just leave.

Constructed tournaments fire rarely and there's no point in paying the entry fee and getting crushed immediately. I know my deck is not strong enough, but in order to improve it I need to play against better decks.

Constructed gauntlet is not an option since its Meta is entirely different. Having no access to reserves is the reason why I finally decided to leave Hearthstone and never come back. I simply hate losing against no-skill decks that solely focus on rush/burn and would be torn apart by reserves in game 2 and 3. I'd really recommened switching gauntled to best of 3. Hex isn't able to support 2 different Metas at this stage of the game anyway because there simply are not enough players.

2-man-queue is a cool feature once you have a deck, but in my situation it's just too expensive because losses come quick and hard.

Conclusion: Hex really needs to give people an incentive to play proving grounds or include a ranked system. What irritates me is that lots of people claim PVP isn't meant to be free to play and therefore no rewards can be granted. Well, it simply doesn't matter if I receive 5000 Gold for playing one hour of PVP or one hour of arena. And there are people like me who are here for the construceted PVP and are not willing to just dump 150 $ into a game without knowing if it's worth it or not.

Oh, and we really need a spectator mode.

Welcome to the forumns and new perspectives are always great to hear as a lot of the older players are biased. I also want to say I completely agree with what you have said. Gauntlets should be best of three. New players really don't stand much of a chance starting out against teir 1 decks, and the proving grounds is a joke because there is absolutely no point in playing it. You can't select the type of game you want and there is no incentive, like a ladder, to keep pushing find an opponent.

All that said I actually wanted to make a suggestion, find a guild or group of players and join them that really helps increase the playability of PvP for beginning players with little cost other then time to you.

My rant: Seriously where are guilds? I don't mean the awesome cool guild features of 100k boners I know you will give us. I mean hey we have a dedicated chat channel that notifies us when someone talks and has a list of everyone online guilds. It would greatly increase the game for a quite a large group of people.

Tazelbain
07-31-2015, 08:48 AM
Conclusion: Hex really needs to give people an incentive to play proving grounds or include a ranked system. What irritates me is that lots of people claim PVP isn't meant to be free to play and therefore no rewards can be granted. Well, it simply doesn't matter if I receive 5000 Gold for playing one hour of PVP or one hour of arena. And there are people like me who are here for the construceted PVP and are not willing to just dump 150 $ into a game without knowing if it's worth it or not.

Agreed with everything except using gold as a reward. Keeping the gold fountains tight is good for the PvE economy. For PvP progression things should be done with formats. Imagine a rock format gauntlet that cost 50p to enter paid out tokens per win. You turn the tokens for prizes (exclusive AA commons, exclusive PvE cards, exclusive sleeves, and packs). Players could to get to battling each other in competitive environment with being crushed by $$$ decks. That way players can gain confidence, experience and build their collection with a more modest investment.

Yoss
07-31-2015, 09:53 AM
Everyone is biased, including me.

+1 for making Constructed Gauntlet best of 3. (Leave Sealed as one and done.)

+1 for adding ranked PvP play so long as it doesn't outshine paid constructed. I agree that a "feeder league" is needed to prepare players for what should be the true competitive scene (paid PvP).

vickrpg
07-31-2015, 10:04 AM
I really don't see any negative economic effects for letting proving grounds reward players at a similar level as arena T1. 100 gold per random Bo1 isn't going to break the economy. heck, it's actually giving LESS gold out than the arena. If 2 players play arena for 1 T1 round that's 200g generated. if 2 players play each other only 100. and it's likely that the random match took more time too.

I propose a scaling proving ground system. Winning is 100 gold. A 5 win streak increases it to 200 on your 6+ win. again to 300 on your 10th+ and it caps at 400 on your 15th. still waaaaaay slower than arena, especially since it is still split by 2 people, but it would encourage people to play (and try to win) PG matches.

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 10:15 AM
A scaling reward system for win streaks sounds like a cool idea.

Yoss
07-31-2015, 10:16 AM
A scaling reward system for win streaks sounds like a cool idea.

1g for first win, doubling per win until you lose. ;)

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 10:45 AM
1g for first win, doubling per win until you lose. ;)

Hell, its better than what we have now, I'll take it!

dogmod
07-31-2015, 10:48 AM
Gold is too valuable currently. We will see what they do.

vickrpg
07-31-2015, 10:48 AM
1g for first win, doubling per win until you lose. ;)
that would exceed the gold earned in my proposed system in only.. 11 wins?




EDIT: Added Sexy math table



Wins

Yoss Joke

Vick system



1

1

100



2

2

100



3

4

100



4

8

100



5

16

100



6

32

200



7

64

200



8

128

200



9

256

200



10

512

200



11

1024

300



Total Gold

2046

1700

Yoss
07-31-2015, 11:00 AM
Exponential growth is a beautiful thing. If you can win 20 times in a row, you'll be "rich" (roughly a million gold). :D

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 11:34 AM
Yeah, I like the yoss system even more now, if you can get that many wins in a row in random PG then you deserve it.

MuffLord4
07-31-2015, 11:35 AM
I really don't see any negative economic effects for letting proving grounds reward players at a similar level as arena T1. 100 gold per random Bo1 isn't going to break the economy. heck, it's actually giving LESS gold out than the arena. If 2 players play arena for 1 T1 round that's 200g generated. if 2 players play each other only 100. and it's likely that the random match took more time too.

I propose a scaling proving ground system. Winning is 100 gold. A 5 win streak increases it to 200 on your 6+ win. again to 300 on your 10th+ and it caps at 400 on your 15th. still waaaaaay slower than arena, especially since it is still split by 2 people, but it would encourage people to play (and try to win) PG matches.

This and it still hasn't been refuted.

vickrpg
07-31-2015, 11:46 AM
Yeah, I like the yoss system even more now, if you can get that many wins in a row in random PG then you deserve it.

uh... only if capped. That system very much could break the economy very quickly on 1 lucky streak. Let's expand the table and have a fun lesson on exponential growth and sum totals.


12 2048
13 4096
14 8192
15 16384
16 32768
17 65536
18 131072
19 262144
20 524288
21 1048576
22 2097152
23 4194304
24 8388608
25 16777216
26 33554432
27 67108864
28 134217728
29 268435456
30 536870912

total from 1-30: 1,073,741,822g
That's a billion gold. 10 million dollars. for 30 wins.

I'm sure Yoss was joking when he suggested it.

Xexist
07-31-2015, 11:49 AM
This and it still hasn't been refuted.

If they could find and prevent (or punish) afk abusers, I think this would be a good idea to get more people playing.

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 11:50 AM
Good point, would need to cap it at maybe 20 wins lol

Xexist
07-31-2015, 11:51 AM
That's a billion gold. 10 million dollars. for 30 wins.

I'm sure Yoss was joking when he suggested it.

If it was capped, and also if there was a way to 'cash out' ie. if you decide to keep playing and you lose, you lose your streak winnings.

Can choose to cash out and start over from 1g, or let it ride.

hitchslap88
07-31-2015, 12:01 PM
Then Kismet appears evey 5 wins and gives you an offer. No deal!

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 12:06 PM
If it was capped, and also if there was a way to 'cash out' ie. if you decide to keep playing and you lose, you lose your streak winnings.

Can choose to cash out and start over from 1g, or let it ride.

"Do You Want to be a Millionaire: HEX Edition" lol

Tazelbain
07-31-2015, 12:07 PM
This and it still hasn't been refuted.There is nothing to refute. It's design decision: HexEnt doesn't want player to expect free stuff from PvP outside of limited time special events. It's not about right and wrong, it's what kind of game they are trying to build. "PvP is primarily P2P" is a line they have drawn. Obviously there is plenty of room to make PVP more new player friendly, but continually doling out free stuff isn't it.

vickrpg
07-31-2015, 12:17 PM
If it was capped, and also if there was a way to 'cash out' ie. if you decide to keep playing and you lose, you lose your streak winnings.

Can choose to cash out and start over from 1g, or let it ride.

That would be fine! Interesting even.

But if it weren't capped, after 20 straight wins (not impossible as arena has shown, and this is way worse than my hearthstone win streak) you could just ask people to concede for a million gold, and break the economy forever.


There is nothing to refute. It's design decision: HexEnt doesn't want player to expect free stuff from PvP outside of limited time special events. It's not about right and wrong, it's what kind of game they are trying to build. "PvP is primarily P2P" is a line they have drawn. Obviously there is plenty of room to make PVP more new player friendly, but continually doling out free stuff isn't it.

Yeah, I just think that this "design decision" is based on nothing but a whim, and IMO is bad for the game and them as a company.

"PvE cards are earned, PVP cards are bought" is a good economic plan and there is no reason that it should lead to "PVE is free, PVP is paid" I think that "Free activities give gold, Paid activities give cards/packs, regardless of PVE or PVP" would draw in waaay more players.

but as you said, this wasn't an economic decision, but a design one. I'll play the game either way.

israel.kendall
07-31-2015, 12:30 PM
Yeah, but the devs have access to all chat logs, so I imagine they could nip that in the bud.

MuffLord4
07-31-2015, 01:26 PM
There is nothing to refute. It's design decision: HexEnt doesn't want player to expect free stuff from PvP outside of limited time special events. It's not about right and wrong, it's what kind of game they are trying to build. "PvP is primarily P2P" is a line they have drawn. Obviously there is plenty of room to make PVP more new player friendly, but continually doling out free stuff isn't it.

Heres the thing tho.

I'm a cruel customer.

If I feel like the games design won't benefit me (i.e logevity) then I won't be putting money into the game (which I already stopped due to such "decisions".)

Either make this game a real MMO and cater to the customer or live with the fact that it has no big future.

When people will flock to this game for the PvE they'll ask why PvP random matchmaking gives no reward and where the point in PvP is.

Then they'll go back to hearthstone or maybe the even atrocious DOTP after being done with the PvE content.
The "you are the product" line won't even apply to them because they'll just solo the PvE and be of no use in PvP for other consumers because they won't be bothered.

Paying customers can only play their decks in a paid environment or against friends and nobody benefits from such "design" choices.

Wildstar also had a "design" choice of going monthly, TESO too. Stupid design decisions are doomed to fail and so far nobody gave any good reasons to why time in random Proving grounds should not at least be rewarded somehow for people to participate.

It being a design choice doesn't mean it's good. It's gonna be changed sooner or later when hexent sees that proving grounds is a dead rat but it's better to change something stupid sooner than later.

And please stop talking about "exploiting with bots". there's enough ways around that.

Tazelbain
07-31-2015, 01:58 PM
It being a design choice doesn't mean it's good. It's gonna be changed sooner or later when hexent sees that proving grounds is a dead rat but it's better to change something stupid sooner than later.
PG is a stopgap while we wait for final systems. Remember when PG was the only thing we had? Now it under used because we have better options. And we will continue to get better options 'till new players don't even know what Proving Grounds was.

Half of these threads are "I am impatient at the pace of development." This is no different, but I can sympathize. How long have we been waiting for details of the 100K tournament? Yeash.

MuffLord4
07-31-2015, 03:13 PM
PG is a stopgap while we wait for final systems. Remember when PG was the only thing we had? Now it under used because we have better options. And we will continue to get better options 'till new players don't even know what Proving Grounds was.

Half of these threads are "I am impatient at the pace of development." This is no different, but I can sympathize. How long have we been waiting for details of the 100K tournament? Yeash.

PG is the equivalent of free play PvP. Again mark my words, these complaints will rise alot.

Yoss
07-31-2015, 03:20 PM
PG is the equivalent of free play PvP. Again mark my words, these complaints will rise alot.

Only time will tell. HXE has done pretty darn well so far.

Thrawn
07-31-2015, 03:27 PM
PG is the equivalent of free play PvP. Again mark my words, these complaints will rise alot.

Complaints about the resource system and Kickstarter rewards and other things arise even more than this one does, it doesn't necessarily mean something needs to be changed.

Yoss
07-31-2015, 03:51 PM
Yes. Now, about that Raid Leader bonus...

MuffLord4
08-01-2015, 01:22 AM
Complaints about the resource system and Kickstarter rewards and other things arise even more than this one does, it doesn't necessarily mean something needs to be changed.

- The resource system cannot be changed, it's the fundament of this game. It would require overhauling every card and rebalancing everything.
- Dunno about the kickstarter rewards, haven't kept track of mine.

Yoss, raid leader bonus?

Yoss
08-01-2015, 05:11 PM
Yoss, raid leader bonus?
AKA, the Pay To Win Tier. It's the only one of the bonuses that actually makes the content easier by giving a direct mechanical advantage to an exclusive few players. There haven't been any big discussions on it recently, most likely because we don't even have Raids yet.

MuffLord4
08-02-2015, 03:00 AM
Is it even specified what these bonuses will be?

Yoss
08-03-2015, 08:45 AM
Is it even specified what these bonuses will be?

+1 card opening hand (stacks with party members who also have RL)
start with Raid Leader Blessing (card) in play (does not stack)

Applies only to "non-tournament PvE" raids, whatever that means.

Metronomy
08-10-2015, 02:21 PM
this game realy needs a ladder asap...you dont even have to give any additional rewards...just make a ranked mode for proving grounds with bo3 games and display a leaderboard (elo system)...are there any plans for a ladder system ?

Boreaquis
08-10-2015, 02:30 PM
this game realy needs a ladder asap...you dont even have to give any additional rewards...just make a ranked mode for proving grounds with bo3 games and display a leaderboard (elo system)...are there any plans for a ladder system ?

This is the main thing I'm missing from the PvP side of the game. Sadly, it seems like many of the loudest people on the forums are very opposed to something like this, based on the previous threads I've read.

Gwaer
08-10-2015, 02:36 PM
I'm fine with a ladder, and am very loud. I just think a standard elo type ladder will not work in this kind of game, and it needs its own queue and perks.

Metronomy
08-10-2015, 02:41 PM
why should it not work ?...i have nothing against different queues..perks are welcome but not realy needed (just make sure you cant get paired against the samer player twice in a row)

RamzaBehoulve
08-10-2015, 02:48 PM
this game realy needs a ladder asap...you dont even have to give any additional rewards...just make a ranked mode for proving grounds with bo3 games and display a leaderboard (elo system)...are there any plans for a ladder system ?

Ladder is a future feature they discussed, but after the PvE campaign. All their energy is on the PvE campaign and squashing set 3 bugs right now.

Metronomy
08-10-2015, 03:24 PM
thats a shame...would go a long way to keep players playing the game and increasing interest in constructed play

Zophie
08-10-2015, 03:45 PM
[A ladder system] is the main thing I'm missing from the PvP side of the game. Sadly, it seems like many of the loudest people on the forums are very opposed to something like this, based on the previous threads I've read.

Who's opposed to ladders? Most people I've heard are definitely in favor of getting some kind of ladder system at some point, but I don't think it's as simple as just slapping an ELO leaderboard onto the game, they would need to come up with some interesting solutions to our unique game to make it work in a great way that is fun and engaging for all players. Like Gwaer said, a standard ELO ladder probably won't be the best fit, would need to be modified somehow to work well with our game, but I'm sure it's coming at some point.

I'm also pro-daily PVP challenges that give some small gold rewards. Nothing big, just a small incentive for PVE players to justify taking a break from Arena and dipping into PVP. It would be daily so that there is a cap on how much gold can be generated this way, and would only be gold that anyone could easily farm in Arena anyway so they don't feel like they're missing out if they can't log in every day. Save the cooler rewards for Ladder progression systems, like unique sleeves.

Turtlewing
08-10-2015, 04:11 PM
why should it not work ?...i have nothing against different queues..perks are welcome but not realy needed (just make sure you cant get paired against the samer player twice in a row)

As I understand it ELO performs poorly for games that contain random elements, as players winning/losing due to the random elements adds enough noise that it takes a lot more games before a rating can be predictive of skill.

Additionally in Hex there is an issue where a player may play several decks of differing quality, and some decks juts lose to some other decks, and handling that elegantly is nontrivial.

Some variation of a ladder where each of your decks in ranked separately and new decks start at "unknown" would be a lot harder to get right but also a lot better for Hex than juts slapping an ELO leaderboard on the existing proving grounds.

Metronomy
08-10-2015, 04:22 PM
each ladder is better than no ladder imo...concerning the system..i still dont see a better system than elo (and its not realy trivial)..the elo system has prooved itself over and over again in all kind of games

Are you proposing a ladder for each deck ? I dont get it..

saffamike
08-10-2015, 11:04 PM
You could have a blended ranking which includes a player ranking which is then weighted by the deck ranking. New deck is a 1 for instance while one that has gone 5-0 has a factor of 1.2.

Edit: and the deck ranking needn't be unique to a particular player.

israel.kendall
08-11-2015, 12:06 AM
All these systems and tweaks you guys mention are great. But something in the meantime would be nice, and anything is better than nothing. They could always tweak the system or completely replace it later. It's been too long without a ranking system IMO.

Sparrow
08-11-2015, 12:36 AM
Dumb question, maybe, but why does it matter how accurate ELO is? Don't people just want a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly system that ranks their play relative to others? It's just a matter of setting the right k-value, for each set of ratings. For example, a k-value of 8 would give very small gains for a win which would prevent wild swings from a player getting on a lucky/unlucky streak. A low k-value would be appropriate for players with high ratings, whereas players with lower ratings could have a much higher k-value.

israel.kendall
08-11-2015, 01:20 AM
Dumb question, maybe, but why does it matter how accurate ELO is? Don't people just want a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly system that ranks their play relative to others? It's just a matter of setting the right k-value, for each set of ratings. For example, a k-value of 8 would give very small gains for a win which would prevent wild swings from a player getting on a lucky/unlucky streak. A low k-value would be appropriate for players with high ratings, whereas players with lower ratings could have a much higher k-value.

I think even if its not that accurate, it could at the very least prevent veterans being matched vs newbs, which would be a good thing.

Tazelbain
08-11-2015, 07:25 AM
Having a ladder is good for a level playing field and would be great for competitive constructed. But your average player, especially a new one, doesn't have a level playing field that's a bigger commit mentthan they ready for. If ladders were tied to formats and there low-end formats, things could work

Any idea ideas for competitive format that fits between the rock/pauper and standard? I imagine 3 ladders and players self-selecting which ladder fits them based their confidence/collection/mood. But it would a clear progression of cost/prizes/investment for new players to follow.

zadies
08-11-2015, 10:20 AM
Elo won't work because of the amount of variance in the game. Elo can't even predict wins in scrabble with 7 years of data which has no where near the amount of variance of this game given everyone draws from the same pool. There is no way on earth that elo can provide any sort of accurate prediction. This leaves you with a grind fest ladder like hearthstone has. There isn't a statistical model for a ladder that I'm currently aware of that can even come close to providing accurate matchmaking for a game like this.

asdf2000
08-11-2015, 10:22 AM
zadies what are you talking about

I think you think a ladder is more complicated than it needs to be

Just look at the hearthstone ladder. That's all that's needed...

Metronomy
08-11-2015, 10:26 AM
i dont get all this criticism...cant we agree that any form of a ladder would be better than no ladder ?...i dont wanna wait another year just because elo is not optimal...besides...when elo is such a bad system why is it used in virtually every game that ranks players ? (its good enough for chess and mtg and you name it...so even if there are negatives it doesnt seem to be simple to put a better system into place)

Gwaer
08-11-2015, 10:48 AM
i dont get all this criticism...cant we agree that any form of a ladder would be better than no ladder ?...i dont wanna wait another year just because elo is not optimal...besides...when elo is such a bad system why is it used in virtually every game that ranks players ? (its good enough for chess and mtg and you name it...so even if there are negatives it doesnt seem to be simple to put a better system into place)

Personally? No I don't think any ladder is better than no ladder. If a ladder can't reasonably do its job it is just another thing to complain about, even more so sense everyone in client presumably will see it all the time, and feel cheated by it. So on one extreme a very bad ladder is worse than no ladder at all from a complaint standpoint. Though there have been some neat ideas in this thread, I like the one that takes into account a deck strength that is not tied to a person but instead to the deck/cards within it with a global ranking of their own. It'd be neat to see cards ranked by wins globally, and how those shift between sets and metas.

Metronomy
08-11-2015, 02:48 PM
lets forumulate it this way...is any incentive better than no incentive ?

magic_gazz
08-11-2015, 02:54 PM
Personally? No I don't think any ladder is better than no ladder. If a ladder can't reasonably do its job it is just another thing to complain about, even more so sense everyone in client presumably will see it all the time, and feel cheated by it. So on one extreme a very bad ladder is worse than no ladder at all from a complaint standpoint. Though there have been some neat ideas in this thread, I like the one that takes into account a deck strength that is not tied to a person but instead to the deck/cards within it with a global ranking of their own. It'd be neat to see cards ranked by wins globally, and how those shift between sets and metas.

I like the idea but deck strength would be hard to measure.

If you let players select the strength of their deck then people will put lower than it is.

If you try to make it automatic based on contents it becomes too complicated.

Gwaer
08-11-2015, 03:04 PM
I dunno. It doesn't seem like it should be that complicated does it? Every card and deck starts at 0 just like players and as particular cards/decks perform better they get weighted. I mean don't get me wrong. It's really hard, especially when you need to track cards individually and as combos. But it could be a neat system worth exploring. I do t think self ranking is ever a good idea though.

zadies
08-11-2015, 03:22 PM
zadies what are you talking about

I think you think a ladder is more complicated than it needs to be

Just look at the hearthstone ladder. That's all that's needed...
Hearthstone is a grind fest. Once you hit a certain point you can't go lower on the ladder and it is just a matter of grinding out enough games to get to the rank you need before it is reset to get the prize.

Since you are going to make me look it up again... not that you will read it. There was a study done on Scrabble and why elo didn't work for it due to the variance at high and low levels of play.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

This game has a much larger variance then scrabble so trying to apply elo to it with less data will provide even worse results.

You are asking for a check box to be filled in, adding a feature with a non-functional model is worse then not having it in the first place.

magic_gazz
08-11-2015, 03:36 PM
How about if they just give you the option of ranked or unranked games. That would be the simple solution.

In regards to ELO, it seemed to work ok for MTG. The reason for the change was because of people sitting on rankings so they solved that with a much worse system that rewards grinding.

asdf2000
08-11-2015, 04:45 PM
Hearthstone is a grind fest. Once you hit a certain point you can't go lower on the ladder and it is just a matter of grinding out enough games to get to the rank you need before it is reset to get the prize.

Since you are going to make me look it up again... not that you will read it. There was a study done on Scrabble and why elo didn't work for it due to the variance at high and low levels of play.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

This game has a much larger variance then scrabble so trying to apply elo to it with less data will provide even worse results.

You are asking for a check box to be filled in, adding a feature with a non-functional model is worse then not having it in the first place.


dude I don't give a crap about a scrabble elo system and im not going to research a scrabble elo system. I have played many games and have seen many ladders and I know how they work. I know about variance, I played poker professionally for like 8 years. I want a ladder because it is fun to *attempt* to go to the top, and whatever you say, it is not ONLY grinding, skill does come into play. Yes there is variance, no I don't care. I want to be matched up vs similar skilled players who also have a reason to care about the game they are playing. That is the point.

If people don't try or are bad they will go down over time. That's how it works.

btw your "just a grindfest" about the hearthstone ladder is nonsense. Sure, there is lots of grinding. But pros have a huge edge in climbing the ladder, they've proven that time and time again. At the top variance is big because people are of similar skill levels but so what! Maybe to be at the very top you SHOULD have to play a lot to edge it out.


god, I don't get it, why do people have to shit on things other people like just because they don't want it. if you guys don't want it then don't use it, but tons of people do want it and there are even people who would play this game but don't because it doesn't have a ladder. lots of them.





also, while we are at it and talking about hearthstone ladder - it doesn't matter if you are casual or serious. the point is that you get matched against people of similar levels. I had friends who were happy every time they ranked up on the hearthstone ladder, with their mediocre play and shitty decks. I had another friend who grinded his way to legendary and was thrilled. I had another one who played with a basic deck and was terrible and eventually got to 20 and this was a big deal for him. All of them had a blast. If people have a problem with not being able to get to the top of the ladder because the opponents are too good or it took takes too many games or they don't have good enough cards, then that's them having an attitude problem, that's not a problem with the system.

israel.kendall
08-11-2015, 04:50 PM
They just need to put in a system and not tell anyone how it works. That should fix it.

Xenavire
08-11-2015, 05:04 PM
I would be interested in a lifetime ranking system - have a present ranking (last 3 months or this season) where you accumulate points, and a lifetime ranking (that is based off how well you have done overall.)

That way at the start of a new season, a brand new player won't be matched against a veteran right away, because the old ranking would kick in under a certain threshold of games (so lets say between 10-20 games).

So bear with me as I hash this out:

Player A is an alpha player, knows all the ins and outs of the game, plays in all the shard cups. In the first few seasons he was in the top 5% of all the players in the game.

Player B is another veteran, but came in after missing the first season. He performed in the top 10% of players.

Player C and D are both brand new, itching to earn their way up the ladder. C is more skilled, but has less time to devote than D.

All 4 players queue. Players A and B are matched with other players that were in the top 10% form the previous season (roughly). This continues until they complete 10 games each. Player A performs badly with a 30% winrate, and player B performs very well with a 90% winrate.

Player C takes a while to complete his 10 games, but his edge nets him a rather good percentage of 70%. Player D has a very poor winrate in his first 10 games, but continues to play, learning from his mistakes, and climbs up to a 30% winrate.

At this point, players A and D could finally meet, and players C and B would be close enough that if B had a few losses, they could also meet.


I think just basing it off winrate is entirely too shallow, but I used it to illustrate the point I was trying to make (to try and keep a certain level of matchmaking at the start of each season.) Because I hear many complaints about hearthstones model, and at the bare minimum I want to avoid that model. (Really, I already feel bad enough meeting new players in the random queue, lets not make it for ranking too.)

zadies
08-11-2015, 05:33 PM
Ummm elo is elo it really doesn't matter where it is applied it is based on the same statistical model... so yes showing how a game with variance but much less variance then this game doesn't work well with the elo system does in fact prove a point. That elo cannot work properly in a variance based environment. Scrabble has a much larger variance then poker even the letters aren't evenly distributed and there are 100 tiles instead of only 52 cards. Thus the effects of elo's lack of adaptability to variance are more easily disguised(and eventually filtered out after about 2 years of games to the point only the top and bottom 3% are miss matched) in poker. The fact is saying I want elo is like a kid asking for a broken toy simply because he wants a toy.

In hearthstone great players do have an advantage with the ladder they keep getting matched with shit players trying to grind the hell out of their ranking. The fact that you mentioned that it takes too many games for someone to up their ranking means that it quite simply allows for you to grind the ranking which in fact is a huge issue with a ladder system regardless of if good players get to the top faster on those grinding ranking. In hearthstone you don't get matched against players of similar skill levels someone who has much higher skill can easily get matched with someone with half the skill but invested 4x the time to get the ranking.

asdf2000
08-11-2015, 05:43 PM
Well I never said it takes "too many" games. I don't think it takes too many games, but I am somebody who plays a lot. Realistically, I think top players are going to play a lot.

However, I do think that the hearthstone system does involved more grinding than is actually necessary. Something like the system that LoL uses is a little better.

As for getting matched up with "shit players who grinded more", I would suggest that most people overstate how good they are compared to their opponents. It does happen, but odds are one's edge on these "shit players" isn't as big as they might think.

That said, you do have somewhat of a point about the hearthstone ladder, especially about the flaw of worse players being able to climb just from grinding. To be honest, when I think of a ladder for this game I kind of considered that to be an aspect that would be left out.

Metronomy
08-11-2015, 06:03 PM
again...why is elo used in so so many games then ?

and again...i dont realy care that much about which form of ladder...just give us some sort of ladder...people need incentives to get cards and to play constructed and even if you dont bring any additional rewards just having a visable ranking system would do so much incentive-wise

I honestly do think that this is a more imporatant issue than most think. Its not something we should wait over a year for. I do think its something that should come when the qualifiers for the 100k start.

zadies
08-11-2015, 06:22 PM
Metronomy because a lot of games are skill rather then variance based. MTG moved away from elo due to people sitting on rankings and because the rankings were inaccurate to begin with.

People complain about elo in games like LoL and they are partially correct but only in the sense of the non-team rankings being inaccurate more so then the team ones, and it is a skill based game rather then one that requires rng to function. A ranking system based on a broken model will generate more issues becuase the system itself is indefensible... at least in the case of games like CoD or LoL they are literally skill based games in function and yet people still complain about how they get stuck in elo hell. The difference is in a variance based game elo hell is actually real.

A lot of games simply use elo because it is easy to use even though it is broken for their particular game which is EXACTLY what the Scrabble federation said, though they then followed up and broke you the game into divisions so the people with low elo couldn't even compete for the national title to make absolutely sure people got matched with those of similar skills. Simply put most gamers are satisfied with a broken toy so it is reused again and again instead of trying to develop a new model that can account for variance.

It's no use debating this you want a toy even if it is broken regardless of consequences because it is what you want. I would be fine with a ladder if it was based on a valid statistical base but am against putting one in that is based on grinding or a failed statistical base. Your entire argument is that well the broken toy is used over there so please please fill in the check box and that is so irrational it is pointless to talk because you admit the toy may be flawed but you would rather have a flawed toy then them to work on one that isn't broken.


If people have a problem with not being able to get to the top of the ladder because the opponents are too good or it took takes too many games or they don't have good enough cards, then that's them having an attitude problem, that's not a problem with the system.

You did admit that people have an issue that it takes too many games to get a high rank, that statement in itself is an admission that the system can be ground even if it doesn't have to be.

Also a more through dissection of the hearthstone grind of hell
http://www.gosugamers.net/hearthstone/features/4086-why-hearthstone-s-ranked-ladder-is-unrewarding

YourOpponent
08-11-2015, 06:25 PM
Who's opposed to ladders? Most people I've heard are definitely in favor of getting some kind of ladder system at some point, but I don't think it's as simple as just slapping an ELO leaderboard onto the game, they would need to come up with some interesting solutions to our unique game to make it work in a great way that is fun and engaging for all players. Like Gwaer said, a standard ELO ladder probably won't be the best fit, would need to be modified somehow to work well with our game, but I'm sure it's coming at some point.

I'm also pro-daily PVP challenges that give some small gold rewards. Nothing big, just a small incentive for PVE players to justify taking a break from Arena and dipping into PVP. It would be daily so that there is a cap on how much gold can be generated this way, and would only be gold that anyone could easily farm in Arena anyway so they don't feel like they're missing out if they can't log in every day. Save the cooler rewards for Ladder progression systems, like unique sleeves.

On a different card game I used to play called Urban Rivals they had many many different types of Leaderboards/ladders. They had a rating system for one leaderboard for a traditional format (with prizes when the season ended including the pay to play currency.

Then they had a different leaderboard/reward system which I think would be very interesting to do. There''s definitely no way we could do most of what they do on that game due to the gaming mechanics of our game and theirs being different (which is a good thing.) However on that "other leader board" there is a "survivor" type format. What you do is play your deck from the bottom of the ladder. Every time you win you go up on the ladder (with no limit for what the top of the ladder is.) However. there is a drawback. The higher you get on the "survivor ladder" the less "HP" we would start out with. This is even more interesting, because if you lose then you just get your ladder rewards and that's it...you're done and off the ladder. So we could have something such as "each time you win on the ladder you go up a rank and have one less HP when you start...after every 5 HP loss that way your starting hand gets +1 more card (with that being your max hand size). Making it so that when you start at 5 HP you have a starting hand of 10 (which is also your max hand size for you), but you only have 5 HP.

Such a format would cause your playing style to shift as you play (and assumes you'd have a sideboard between matches which that other game doesn't have.) because the early steps on the ladder would be much more different than the higher steps which is more like, "Do I kill my opponent quickly or do I hope that I can heal myself quicker than they can kill me."

This suggested format could also be usable (if decided that way) so that a rank 15 player (that has 5 HP) could be challenged by a Rank 4 player (that has 16 HP) leading to likely two very different play strategies and to help make it more of a unique experience each time opposed to being a high rank and the winner being just whoever won the coin flip....also I think it'd be more fun if after each match you could decide whether to "cash out" or keep playing (this decision could be made whenever until you click keep playing. Then you're locked out of cashing out until after you win (or lose) your next match...but you get less rewards if you lose than you would of if you just cashed out. For example somebody wins 3 matches and cashes out to get 2500 gold. Somebody else has 7 wins, but doesn't cash out and loses their 8th match and ends up getting 2500 gold....sure the latter could of had much more if they cashed out at 7, but high risk high rewards is that way.

Xenavire
08-11-2015, 06:29 PM
Snip

One huge flaw I can see here is the person who goes first gets to win, more or less. Burn T1, Crackling bolt T2, and thats game (later in the ladder.) So it would essentially be an uphill battle at the start and instant wins later.

I think the number of cards in the starting hand could be tinkered with, but health shouldn't be dropped by much, if at all.

I do think there are other options that might work though, if that was a popular idea.

magic_gazz
08-11-2015, 06:33 PM
Zadies, seeing as you are so opposed to ELO, what do you suggest is a suitable option that avoids the downfalls of ELO and doesn't bring its own set of problems?

Also saying MTG changed because it was inaccurate is not true. If you look at the model they use now it rewards playing more, so it was probably a financial decision.

zadies
08-11-2015, 06:40 PM
Gazz I did say that they needed to develop a suitable ranking system. The issue that I have is simply slapping elo on is that it is a failed system and once it's in place it is most likely done and over with for the next 5 years. People want a check box checked regardless of how well the end result actually works this isn't a good development practice. I could careless if there is a ladder as long as the ladder works I have an issue with a ladder based on a flawed system. It is the job of those that want a ladder to actually find a system that works with the variance involved with the game. A number of individuals want a ladder regardless of if the ladder is working and accurate. An inaccurate ladder will cause many more problems then no ladder in the long run.

I am not enough of a statistician to develop a system that actually accounts for the variance in this game, I'm sure there are smarter people then I on this forum that could work on it, but really if you slap elo onto the game there really is no reason for them to even try to work out a better statistical model.

I mean Microsoft has dumped millions into their true-skill system.. but most games on xbox live are actually skill based rather then variance based. I haven't looked too closely at the model but it does take into account uncertainty which might possibly be able to begin to account for variance but either way it is a much better starting point then going and getting on the elo train.

Fyren
08-11-2015, 06:41 PM
Because Zadies' whole argument, to the best of my ability to determine it, is based on a fallacy.


Elo won't work because of the amount of variance in the game. Elo can't even predict wins in scrabble with 7 years of data which has no where near the amount of variance of this game given everyone draws from the same pool. There is no way on earth that elo can provide any sort of accurate prediction.

The premise is that "Elo is an imperfect model for games of chance (and, to be fair, there Zadies cites a paper)"...


This leaves you with a grind fest ladder like hearthstone has.

Therefore no other possibility exists?

dogmod
08-11-2015, 06:43 PM
Gazz I did say that they needed to develop a suitable ranking system. The issue that I have is simply slapping elo on is that it is a failed system and once it's in place it is most likely done and over with for the next 5 years. People want a check box checked regardless of how well the end result actually works this isn't a good development practice. I could careless if there is a ladder as long as the ladder works I have an issue with a ladder based on a flawed system. It is the job of those that want a ladder to actually find a system that works with the variance involved with the game. A number of individuals want a ladder regardless of if the ladder is working and accurate. An inaccurate ladder will cause many more problems then no ladder in the long run.

Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Games like Dota2 and others reevalaute and modify their MMR and ranking systems quite often, so saying that it will be one and done is disproven by example.

This game needs ranking and it needs it soon.

magic_gazz
08-11-2015, 06:48 PM
I found ELO in mtg to be fairly close to correct a lot of the time.

Rankings would have big swings sometimes if you had a good or a bad run, but most of the time peoples rankings sat close to where they should.

The main problem people had with it is you would get a guy have a good run 2 months before National qualifier and then they would stop playing. It made sense for them to stop playing as it was not worth the risk of a bad run putting them slightly below qualifying. That does not mean that most of the people who qualified on ranking did not deserve to be there.

Saying its a flawed system does not help and if it is the best system available without coming up with something extremely convoluted that is only marginally better then why not use it?

zadies
08-11-2015, 06:59 PM
My argument is why accept a broken toy instead of trying to develop an accurate solution. Your argument is that lets take a broken system and use it. Once a ladder is in place the likelyhood of more development time being devoted to it in a non-trival amount of time is unlikely which is why people complain about the AH it is functional and likely won't get another development pass for a very long time simply because it is functional.

Dota2 is a skill based game at it's core. You may not want to accept that because it isn't a 1v1 game and trying to adapt elo to a team based system when you are not in a set team is actually rather complicated, but does not eliminate that at it's core it is skill based. This is a vastly differnt issue then trying to apply a skill based mathematical model to a variance based game.

I am not saying there isn't another option I am saying that it is literally not my job to come up with the alternative it is the job of the person who wants the toy. I refuse to simply bow down and silently allow for a broken system to be put in place, but I do acknowledge that putting a ladder may be great for some section of the games population, but it is the job of the people that want it to find a system that actually is accurate.

Tazelbain
08-11-2015, 07:03 PM
Some preliminary investigations using 7 years of tournament data from cross-tables.com demonstrates that the ogive ratings curve used by the NSA seems to systematically underestimate the winning chances of the lower-rated player and systematically overestimate the winning chances of the higher-rated player. This may be due to the total absence of any model of luck in the theory underlying the Elo system (developed for chess, where there is no luck component, essentially). A model that includes luck would likely predict that the mean influence of chance on the expected outcome of the game is different for different pairs of ratings (i.e. stronger players rely less on lucky draws) which would mean that the standard deviation used in an Elo-style model should vary across ratings levels, either producing curves with different standard deviations for each ratings level (for an example of a what a ratings curve might look like using a single fixed standard deviation parameter that exceeds the NSA parameter by a factor of two, click here) or, if the standard deviation should vary with both players' ratings, producing curves that look nothing like a cumulative normal. Relevant section from the paper. Didn't say elo was useless. Said that it less accurate the the further the players elos are apart.

zadies
08-11-2015, 07:11 PM
Actually it said the tails the top end and the bottom end it was inaccurate even when the elos were close together.

Sparrow
08-11-2015, 07:37 PM
The reason luck plays such a large role in Scrabble is that both players are pulling from the same pool. One person getting good letters means their opponent is more likely to get bad letters. So ELO may not be right for Scrabble.

Hex doesn't have that problem. All players can pull from separate, identical pools. So, one person getting lucky doesn't translate directly into their opponent being unlucky.

TL;DR CCG's like Hex are better suited to ELO than Scrabble.

dogmod
08-11-2015, 08:22 PM
My argument is why accept a broken toy instead of trying to develop an accurate solution. Your argument is that lets take a broken system and use it. Once a ladder is in place the likelyhood of more development time being devoted to it in a non-trival amount of time is unlikely which is why people complain about the AH it is functional and likely won't get another development pass for a very long time simply because it is functional.

Dota2 is a skill based game at it's core. You may not want to accept that because it isn't a 1v1 game and trying to adapt elo to a team based system when you are not in a set team is actually rather complicated, but does not eliminate that at it's core it is skill based. This is a vastly differnt issue then trying to apply a skill based mathematical model to a variance based game.

I am not saying there isn't another option I am saying that it is literally not my job to come up with the alternative it is the job of the person who wants the toy. I refuse to simply bow down and silently allow for a broken system to be put in place, but I do acknowledge that putting a ladder may be great for some section of the games population, but it is the job of the people that want it to find a system that actually is accurate.

But I don't want a completely accurate system. I just want a system. It is actually the job of the people who want a completely accurate system to come up with that system. And it just so happens that person is you. The rest of us are fine with an imperfect system.

Tazelbain
08-11-2015, 08:50 PM
Actually it said the tails the top end and the bottom end it was inaccurate even when the elos were close together.http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/prelim.html
It's pretty clear from graphs of his data analysis that having the same elo gives you 50/50 chance of winning. And having a higher elo gives you a statically advantage. Is there some something that could better? Maybe, but it as a tool to get people play games against similarly skilled player it seems to work at high level for Scrabble.

zadies
08-11-2015, 09:48 PM
Yes it works fine until you get to the last three graphs which are completely messed up which would indeed mean that getting a high ranking has no actual benefit and in fact provides a horrible match making experience for those at the top.

No just putting a check mark in a box with a broken system where people will have to strive to get to the top to realize wtf is wrong with the match making is horrible and then getting complaints from the "best" players in the game about the system is actually worse then having no system at all.

dogmod
08-11-2015, 09:58 PM
Yes it works fine until you get to the last three graphs which are completely messed up which would indeed mean that getting a high ranking has no actual benefit and in fact provides a horrible match making experience for those at the top.

No just putting a check mark in a box with a broken system where people will have to strive to get to the top to realize wtf is wrong with the match making is horrible and then getting complaints from the "best" players in the game about the system is actually worse then having no system at all.

Except all those graphs prove is that there is variance in a low sample size not that the system doesn't work. And I imagine you have something that shows that these players at the high end of the ELO are actually having a bad experience?

Learn to interpret.

Biz
08-11-2015, 10:10 PM
elo is much more accurate than having no rating whatsoever

zadies
08-11-2015, 10:10 PM
You do realize that those graphs are based on 7 years of data right? I don't think that 400,000+ games is a low sample size.

If you are a middling player then elo is better then no rating. For an actual good player the rating provides absolutely nothing, and thus once you get to the top of the ladder you are as bad off as not being rated at all for all your hard work.

dogmod
08-11-2015, 10:44 PM
You do realize that those graphs are based on 7 years of data right? I don't think that 400,000+ games is a low sample size.

If you are a middling player then elo is better then no rating. For an actual good player the rating provides absolutely nothing, and thus once you get to the top of the ladder you are as bad off as not being rated at all for all your hard work.

There aren't 400,000 data points in the 3 graphs you pointed out in the very specific areas that they mention as "weird" they actually specify that a lot of that "weirdness" is related to low numbers of high ELO players playing at a significant ELO disadvantage and as such the variance in that area of the data is marked. Your conclusions are flawed to begin with and you would favor no system over a system that would work perfectly for a huge percentage of individuals and would merely not be predictive at worst and at best function fine as well for a small set of high ELO players.

Again, if you are the one who has a problem then you should be the one to offer a solution.

Sparrow
08-11-2015, 11:04 PM
You do realize that those graphs are based on 7 years of data right? I don't think that 400,000+ games is a low sample size.

If you are a middling player then elo is better then no rating. For an actual good player the rating provides absolutely nothing, and thus once you get to the top of the ladder you are as bad off as not being rated at all for all your hard work.

There are many ways Scrabble is different from Hex that render that article useless. The biggest difference is that if a player draws good tiles his opponent is much more likely to draw bad tiles. I haven't studied the article deeply, but this is an obvious cause of ELO not being a good predictive system with high rated players.

With Hex it's much less of a problem. Starting with the initial draw both players have the power to draw any cards in their respective pool. So my opponent drawing well doesn't increase the likelihood that I've drawn bad.

Without a doubt there will be no system that makes everyone happy. I think it's clear, though elo could/might/will work much better with hex than with scrabble.

Tomorrow I'll spend some time looking but there must be all kinds of articles written about elo and ccg's. Finding one would at the least lead to a more correct answer to the question of elo.

zadies
08-11-2015, 11:16 PM
My solution is to not implement a ladder that will generate complaints in high level play period. If you set a goal to reach paradise at the end of a trip and drive through whatever you view paradise would look like and then when you get to the end of the road you find that it is completely barren field. What would you do? How would you feel?

The point here is that an elo system has a barren field at the end where it just completely breaks down meaning that the goal of the ladder to get to the top provides you the worst experience thus causing complaints from the world leaders of competitive play. Is it really in the best interest of anyone trying to call themselves competitive to actively pursue a model that is known to be flawed in top end play? You are basically saying I want to be able to look at a pretty number in front of my name that is basically meaningless because once I become part of the elite(scrabble elite actually starts at 1600 and the issues start soon after at 1700) the entire match making system breaks down.

Ummm the paper doesn't blame the weirdness on a lack of data points it states some of the issue can be attributed to the shrinking of the division, it is impossible for a 2000+ player to play anyone less then 1700 in a tournament setting while most of the graphs... also you do realize that those graphs the dotted line is the elo based prediction while the solid line is the actual results. The fact that they are statistically significantly different is why elo doesn't work really regardless of rating, it just seriously breaks down at high end play. The fact that they meet in the middle isn't really a good indication that elo works because the likely-hood of queuing with exactly matching ratings is fairly slim.

Voormas
08-11-2015, 11:30 PM
My solution is to not implement a ladder that will generate complaints in high level play period.

there's your problem, people will complain about everything always!


It will be interesting to see how CZE handle match-making, but as long as on the whole we are playing against others of similar skill that is the only important metric for the system

WWKnight
08-11-2015, 11:39 PM
This discussion is all well and good, but has Hex ever said they intend on putting in a ladder? I would assume that if they intended on it, it'd be in there already.

dogmod
08-11-2015, 11:45 PM
My solution is to not implement a ladder that will generate complaints in high level play period. If you set a goal to reach paradise at the end of a trip and drive through whatever you view paradise would look like and then when you get to the end of the road you find that it is completely barren field. What would you do? How would you feel?

The point here is that an elo system has a barren field at the end where it just completely breaks down meaning that the goal of the ladder to get to the top provides you the worst experience thus causing complaints from the world leaders of competitive play. Is it really in the best interest of anyone trying to call themselves competitive to actively pursue a model that is known to be flawed in top end play? You are basically saying I want to be able to look at a pretty number in front of my name that is basically meaningless because once I become part of the elite(scrabble elite actually starts at 1600 and the issues start soon after at 1700) the entire match making system breaks down.

Ummm the paper doesn't blame the weirdness on a lack of data points it states some of the issue can be attributed to the shrinking of the division, it is impossible for a 2000+ player to play anyone less then 1700 in a tournament setting while most of the graphs... also you do realize that those graphs the dotted line is the elo based prediction while the solid line is the actual results. The fact that they are statistically significantly different is why elo doesn't work really regardless of rating, it just seriously breaks down at high end play. The fact that they meet in the middle isn't really a good indication that elo works because the likely-hood of queuing with exactly matching ratings is fairly slim.

"The ridiculousness that creeps in from the left in the graphs for players above 1700 comes from the fact that players rated 2000 just don't play any games where they are the lower-rated player by a margin of 300 points. A similar ridiculousness begins to creep in from the right for players rated below 900.".... So the graphs are ridiculous because people don't play games in those ranges commonly = small sample size

I see nothing that states the match making system breaks down, I only see that the paper states that ELO significantly varies from the regression model used by the author. So what? Where is this barren waste land? Where is this failed Nirvana?

OH MY GOD GUYS I HAVE A HIGH ELO AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE MATCHMAKING DOESN'T EQUATE TO KERNEL REGRESSION MODELS EFF I AM QUITTING.

Gwaer
08-12-2015, 12:17 AM
This discussion is all well and good, but has Hex ever said they intend on putting in a ladder? I would assume that if they intended on it, it'd be in there already.

I believe that a ladder of some sort is in the plan, yes.

WWKnight
08-12-2015, 12:37 AM
Does the plan involve cleaning gutters?

Gwaer
08-12-2015, 12:48 AM
Does the plan involve cleaning gutters?

No. Pipes maybe. But not gutters.

Sparrow
08-12-2015, 04:36 AM
OH MY GOD GUYS I HAVE A HIGH ELO AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE MATCHMAKING DOESN'T EQUATE TO KERNEL REGRESSION MODELS EFF I AM QUITTING.
Sigh, I can hear everyone saying that now.

Tazelbain
08-12-2015, 06:03 AM
You do realize that those graphs are based on 7 years of data right? I don't think that 400,000+ games is a low sample size.

If you are a middling player then elo is better then no rating. For an actual good player the rating provides absolutely nothing, and thus once you get to the top of the ladder you are as bad off as not being rated at all for all your hard work.
He admits at the bottom that his models go wonky at high end because it hard for best players to find games were they are a sever under dog.

Vorpal
08-12-2015, 06:42 AM
I would assume that if they intended on it, it'd be in there already.

I don't think this is a good general principle when it comes to Hex. We know there are all kinds of things, vaste swathes and mountain ranges of content, that exist only dimly as a longed for promise on a kickstarter page.

Xenavire
08-12-2015, 07:36 AM
I don't think this is a good general principle when it comes to Hex. We know there are all kinds of things, vaste swathes and mountain ranges of content, that exist only dimly as a longed for promise on a kickstarter page.

And on the other end of the spectrum, we have modes and things to interact with that were never even mentioned in the KS (Arena, Gauntlet, Wheels of Fate.)

We were told in the past though that a ladder was definitely planned for, we just need to wait.

Metronomy
08-12-2015, 05:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnbkveM5h4&feature=youtu.be&a

so...rank system is coming pretty soon (even before pve)...very informative..it will be ranks with a placement system within those ranks

Yoss
08-12-2015, 05:13 PM
FYI, Cory was talking about tournament ranking tiers, not for F2P in the Proving Grounds. At least, that's what it sounded like to me. Watch the video for yourself.

Metronomy
08-12-2015, 05:51 PM
i gues we will have to wait for more infos...but there will be a ranking system in some form