PDA

View Full Version : an idea for VIP in the long run



Littlejon24
11-11-2014, 09:11 PM
until all VIP subs expire, it's going to be here and the number of non-VIPs will be increasing every month. when set 2 becomes available, we are sure to see an increase in server population. here's an idea on how to keep VIPs going in the long run and not alienate those that are not in the VIP program

eventually, VIP subs will dwindle down making it possible that some VIP tournaments won't fill. you will also get complaints that others can't join these popular tournaments during the weekends the VIPs run. How about instead of making a VIP specific tournament, would it be possible to tie the AA prizes into your prize payout with the VIP ticket.

For example, player A is a VIP sub. Player B is not. both players enter the tournament and end with a 2-2 record (lets say it's sealed). Player A would get one each of the 2 AA cards and 4 packs while player B would only get 4 packs.

is this idea viable? is it fair for everyone?

Zophie
11-11-2014, 10:23 PM
I dunno, it might be fair but only if there is a mechanism to give VIP members priority in the tournaments, so they aren't prevented from joining in the event that there are too many non-VIP members already involved. If a VIP member decides to join a tournament that is full it should boot the last non-VIP member to join. The problem with that though is it might create a negative player experience for the non-VIP member that gets booted, unless they are sufficiently warned of that possibility prior to joining. Tough call there. Maybe if they put the AA rewards into all tournaments and phased out VIP specific tournaments altogether, but I'm not sure that would be ideal either.

noragar
11-12-2014, 07:29 AM
Why would a non-VIP player want to enter a VIP tournament with reduced prizes (remember the number of packs given out as prizes is reduced in the VIP tournaments since the AA cards are added) instead of entering a normal tournament with normal prizes?

Saeijou
11-12-2014, 10:04 AM
they could add some packs for players that don't receive AA...

but i think there will be other possebilities to get rid of the VIP tickets, after the population gets to small to fill tourneys ... they already discussed that, but it's not clear yet.
and we have nearly one more year :)

YourOpponent
11-12-2014, 02:04 PM
until all VIP subs expire, it's going to be here and the number of non-VIPs will be increasing every month. when set 2 becomes available, we are sure to see an increase in server population. here's an idea on how to keep VIPs going in the long run and not alienate those that are not in the VIP program

eventually, VIP subs will dwindle down making it possible that some VIP tournaments won't fill. you will also get complaints that others can't join these popular tournaments during the weekends the VIPs run. How about instead of making a VIP specific tournament, would it be possible to tie the AA prizes into your prize payout with the VIP ticket.

For example, player A is a VIP sub. Player B is not. both players enter the tournament and end with a 2-2 record (lets say it's sealed). Player A would get one each of the 2 AA cards and 4 packs while player B would only get 4 packs.

is this idea viable? is it fair for everyone?

I think what the OP is pretty much suggesting is a regular 128 tournament where VIP people can use their ticket in the entry fee for "altered rewards." These altered rewards are less packs, but with the possibility of AA cards instead! This I think is a pretty cool idea that they could use for some sort of future content. However I think it would cause a lot of players confusion and anger if it had anything to do with VIP due to not understanding how it actually worked.

To re-cap what I think you are suggesting let's say it was a constructed 128. Two people both do constructed 128 and are 3-1. One of them is using a VIP ticket for "altered rewards" and the other isn't. The non vip ticket person gets the 8 booster packs...where the vip ticket person gets 1 of each AA and 6 booster packs.

Littlejon24
11-12-2014, 08:28 PM
Exactly what YourOpponent said 100%. right now, it is not necessary. however, eventually, it would be right to offer open enrollment to all tournament and altered rewards for those using a VIP ticket.

the only negative i can see is that this takes away from the "exclusive" VIP experience, but I am fairly sure all people care about are the rewards anyway

Yoss
11-12-2014, 09:17 PM
OP is brilliant. The "Daily" tournaments are already the same price and structure as VIP, with the only difference being whether AA gets paid or not. Merge the two and let the existence of VIP be hidden! Great idea!

Rycajo
11-12-2014, 10:03 PM
OP is brilliant. The "Daily" tournaments are already the same price and structure as VIP, with the only difference being whether AA gets paid or not. Merge the two and let the existence of VIP be hidden! Great idea!

I agree. Easiest way to avoid complaints and make sure tournaments fire.

Chark
11-12-2014, 10:36 PM
Giving two people different prizes for some match outcome creates issues with collusion. It's actually a classic example in paper TCGs where international players get a different tax rate than U.S. based players. Imagine a scenario where one match outcome in aggregate creates more prizes then the alternative match outcome. Now there's incentive for both players to create more value and share it.

Yoss
11-12-2014, 11:23 PM
Giving two people different prizes for some match outcome creates issues with collusion. It's actually a classic example in paper TCGs where international players get a different tax rate than U.S. based players. Imagine a scenario where one match outcome in aggregate creates more prizes then the alternative match outcome. Now there's incentive for both players to create more value and share it.

Why do the cheaters of the world always have to ruin it for everyone else? :(
(That's a rhetorical question. The point is well made, Alex.)

Littlejon24
11-12-2014, 11:44 PM
Giving two people different prizes for some match outcome creates issues with collusion. It's actually a classic example in paper TCGs where international players get a different tax rate than U.S. based players. Imagine a scenario where one match outcome in aggregate creates more prizes then the alternative match outcome. Now there's incentive for both players to create more value and share it.

i never considered the collusion part. that would definitely cause you guys a headache