I’m not saying five medals should be the set number. I was just throwing an idea out there
Even if you’re beating players with higher level cards, it doesn’t mean your skill rating should endlessly go up – for that to happen, you would need to beat all of your opponents much more often than you lose. For all players (except the very best 2-3 players in the game, perhaps) this can only go on for so long until the player finds their (current!) sweet spot and they plateau.
I’m not sure if that makes sense, but basically everyone has some “skill” level. Generally, this goes up a bit as players play the event and tweaks their decks and strategies. Players fall into a few broad buckets: some can beat players with better (or much better) cards, some players find it tough against those of equal level, and some struggle against those with lower level cards. Every player is given (roughly) increasingly harder opponents until their win-loss ratio becomes less strong (and again, this happens to every player eventually). The goal is for players to win about half their matches (it has to be this way, since every match has a winner and a loser!) … so we show harder opponents until this is roughly the case. When a player reaches this win rate (roughly), they’ll also have reached roughly their skill rating (and shortly thereafter, medal) plateau.
Regardless, every player will be able to raise the skill rating to whatever level actually reflects their current skill (indirectly impacted by the cards you have, of course) … and once you hit that plateau (regardless of which bucket you fall in) your medals will also plateau.
Of course, if you find a new strategy and start winning more often than not again, then you’ll resume climbing and reach a new, higher plateau.
But everyone has a plateau, and will eventually reach it. If this wasn’t the case, then winning the event would be about who plays the most matches, not who has the greatest skill (a combination of strategy and, of course, card levels).
Right. I think the hardest part isn’t so much the medals you get. Its the fact that you’re using a ticket and you have a chance to draw a 5 medal opponent or a 200 medal opponent. Granted, as the event goes on this becomes less likely but you still can’t really choose what tier you’re after so you could just be unlucky and you use all your tickets and don’t progress at all. And there isn’t much you could have actually done differently.
Fair point. There are two cases which lead to you getting 5 medals:
- To avoid 5 medal bots, you need to avoid queuing for longer than 4.5 minutes or so (at 5 minutes, you’ll get a 5-medal bot). Not ideal, but it’s a handy trick to know.
- On the other hand, if you’re getting 5 medals after waiting less than 5 minutes, then you’re playing a real person and you’re getting few medals because our estimate of your skill rating has plateaued (and thus your medals have also been plateaued) … the only way to get more medals in this case is to demonstrate that your skill is higher than currently estimated (by significantly raising your win-loss ratio; though to be honest, this probably isn’t likely to happen unless you’ve suddenly found a much better strategy or upgraded a lot of cards).
I think I was just choosing the extremes but there’s a lot of space in between. Given the cost of tickets each match becomes exponentially more important so when the algorithm and result is something so out of your hands, it’s hard for people to have a stable outcome
Listen you guys. They are here to come up with an excuse each week so we hang on just a bit longer. They also promised me with compensation today for how badly I was screwed in the boom event. I heard from no one. I am deeply hurt and betrayed by our brother @S7Dave. I had put so much into this game. I invested nearly $4,500.00 into this game (embarrassing I know) and thought it might go somewhere and that my money was not just wasted, but something that I could build off of for the future to come.
I’ve spent a lot less this last week. Normally I would buy out the shop until I couldn’t buy anymore. And this was just for coins and season tokens! Because, we all know that I have too many copies of cards which are useless now and “gold” which is also useless. And the very last thing that I would spend money on is now broken as well. Events and buying tickets are pointless seeing as how that I can not determine the outcome of my future with gems as advertised. Medals are just a cover up for “ya don’t know whatcha really gonna get. So you better spend until you can’t spend no more!”
Oh well. Maybe I can go back to hearthstone. I was playing it again last night. It was pretty fun. Plus I get gold in a reasonable time and can and do get to play for free, but I also spend money to support Blizzard and buy some packs here and there. Maybe if WB adopted business strategies and models after Blizzard, (which happens to be one of the most successful franchises in the gaming industry) they could stay active and get paid for the next ten to twenty years rather than 10- 20 months.
I’m sorry, but you can’t pull this “you have a chance to pull a 5-200 medal win” on your very first win and first game.
You, me and the community all know that this isn’t right. And you let it happen to me again this event as well as many events before me. You told me I would be compensated for the boom event today after dragging out my compensation for two weeks, I now feel like a once hopeful fool to a hopeless idiot.
Card level is not skill, please stop,calling it that. I don’t care how skillful a player is you give them level 12 cards on the average against a player with level 16-17 cards on average they will not win. Your system does not reflect skill you keep putting harder players against us which usually means players with higher level cards. So what you are saying is that roughly (the word you used) a player will eventually lose because they face opponents with better cards than they have.
This isn’t likely to happen because no one is going to spend gems to get more tickets when they only win 5 medals. Theoretically your system is right if you can keep playing to reflect a true plateau but you can’t your times to play are limited. I probably play 50ish games most events. You can’t tell me that in the 50 games with 25-30 wins that my skill rating has leveled off to the point my events are only worth 5 medals, it is not a significant number to determine that statistically. On top of that you claim it’s not supposed to be about number of games played and then say you need a win streak to improve it. If it were about skill then the reward would be based on what your rating is vs what your opponents rating is. Play against a weak opponent and get less medals but win against a stronger opponent and get more medals. If I follow your system then once you are set to 5 medals you can beat the top rated player and still only get 5 medals… that isn’t right.
I totally agree^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
Question: if you look at the people above you on the event leaderboard, do you believe you could defeat them head-to-head if you were matched in the event?
Yes, for the majority of the time. And at least they earned or paid something similar. As opposed to someone randomly having max everything. But the lack of players progressing sort of circles back to the economy a bit.
I’m confused, you’re saying you believe you could or couldn’t defeat the people above your in the event leaderboard?
(I’m not talking about random matchups — I’m talking about the event leaderboard and whether the medal calculation is doing what is intended.)
If everything is working as planned, the leaderboard should resemble a stackrank of who would defeat each other most of the time head-to-head if they played each other in the event. if you look at the leaderboard at the end of the event, the people far above you in medals should be people you honestly don’t think you could beat head-to-head in the event. The people near your medal count are people where you would beat each other depending on the card draw luck. The people way below you are people you know you could beat.
My belief with all of the groaning is that the leaderboard more or less is succeeding in doing that right now. But I’m definitely open to hearing evidence to the contrary!
I think I would do reasonably well against the other unenhanced players in my group. I think what people see is that they’re willing to fight against other ACTUAL players. Not bots, not boosted players. It’s really that’s simple I think? But being told that the only other solution is queue times so long that people also quit playing…that’s not really ideal either.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no, but I also have no idea how I end up in the bracket I am in. Similarly ranked players in my guild are usually in other brackets, some of them with much easier to defeat people in it. I never end up in easy brackets. And often a player at the top seems to be hundreds and hundred of medals ahead very early on. I don’t know if the medals just don’t start dropping and they dropped a ton of gems or they just get that particular event, have the right cards, and never lose. But no, not infrequently, I face people above me in the event and win, I also face people above me and lose. Most of it seems pretty random. I have faced Pandread many times in event over the months, sometimes I win, sometimes he wins, I think he has a better record over me, I also think he has better cards than I do. Today we fought and I think it was pretty much luck of the draw, who had the right cards when.
Thats just so unfair, I am speechless. The system works now like even if you have only wins, medals reward count degrading with each win. And for some players this process starts at 1900 medals, and for unlucky ones at 1000-1300. It results in ~500 medals gap in the end of event(with players with close amount of wins). I can’t believe they think it decent mechanics.
And again I have players from 15k to 25k stars in my brackets. Range should be 10% max. Make more small groups if you don’t have enough playerbase, just make events fair for god sake!
Dang. That’s a good way to talk to your paycheck
Lord, these threads can be exhausting.
For my part, the explanation makes good sense, given the realities of engineering around a smaller player base. The groaning — and that’s what it is, repetitively — can really just be chalked up to one of two possibilities, broadly speaking: either people think they’re better than they actually are and chafe at the reality, or the system is not performing as described. If it’s the latter, then we should be able to produce secondary evidence of this. My suggestion to those who are unsatisfied: screenshot the loading screen and reward screen of every single match in the next event. Chart wins/losses, player ranks (as available), and rewards. Even though we can’t see MMR directly, this should be enough to reveal disparities between the described behavior and the actual behavior. I’ll be doing it, too, because I agree that the rewards decay feels off.
But just whining about it when the devs have clearly stated their data suggests it’s working as intended is just crazy at this point.
Our skill rating uses the Elo system. Elo actually converges quite quickly on your actual skill – often just 10-15 event matches is quite enough. Sometimes it takes more (in particular for players who are in the top 5-10 in the game, say), but it usually converges quite quickly.
I don’t think bots are an issue; less than 5% of your event matches are bots. Of those, only 2 paid out small medals (5), and those can be avoided by not queuing for 5min or longer (restart the queue; not ideal, but the option is there if you want it).
As far as boosted players, what’s the downside to you? You get faster matches, not harder matches. If we didn’t give you boosted players, you’d have to wait (very) long times until one of the few players at your skill levels happens to also be online at the same time.
I think having a competitive bracket is a great goal. I think we can do better, but I think cards/stars are misleading. Yes they matter, but skill does too – and we don’t show you someone’s skill. Maybe we should should skill rating instead of card levels – because that takes into account how well you play with what you have … not just what you have.
@Holeesmokes I’m happy to share a chart of all of this for at the first several people who ask for it. I built a tool to generate these specifically to investigate the complaints here – so that I could double-check and make sure the theory (“skilled players who play a decent number of games should beat less skilled players even if they play way more games”) was holding true in practice.
Here’s one representative graph:
Some observations from this one case:
- This player reached their skill plateau after about 18 games (skill rating around 3250). They were able to nudge it to a bit higher peak after a big win streak (to 3400).
- This player’s medals exceeded their skill rating after about 27 games. You can see that the medals line has an elbow / inflection point around this time. That is, the player has played a decent number of games, they’ve driven their medals up to around their skill rating, and they’re now getting more noticeably diminished returns for wins (roughly around 70 per win down about 10 per win at the very end of the event as they continued to push their medals well above their skill rating).
- Though this player played quite a lot of matches, they lost to a player with a much higher skill rating who played fewer matches (not shown).
Here’s another example of a more middle of a pack player who let me share this:
Some observations on this one:
- Our initial estimate for this player’s skill seems like it was pretty close to their actual skill at this event – their win rate was 50/50 right from the beginning, so their skill rate oscillates but doesn’t go up or down meaningfully. The matches this player is getting seem pretty fair – they win about as often as they lose (it’s possible that the wins and losses are both blowouts, but anecdotally reviewing a few replays that’s not the case too often).
- The players medals trend steadily up as they head towards their skill rating, and start diminishing as they get closer to it.
- A player like this (skill rating about 3000) would never realistically be able to pass the player in the previous graph (skill rating 3250-3400 or so) even if they played 100 more matches.
Well, since you’re offering. Would you mind showing a graph of mine then?