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?
Sure, here’s your event so far:
Your skill rating initially stabilized around 2400 after 9 games, but later on you outperformed expectations and raised your rating to a new plateau of around 2925 after 23 matches. Your medals are about 5k over your current rating, so your gains per win have diminished to about 20-30 per win as you’ve played another 13 matches with your skill rating estimate remaining relatively stable as it oscillates around 2925+/100 or so, which seems right since you’ve gone 7-6 since hitting your skill rating plateau (with a 50/50-ish win streak we wouldn’t expect to see your skill rating change much, and it hasn’t … i.e., the estimate is probably about right).
Congrats on a very successful event so far! I wish everyone on my team was doing as well as you! (You’re scoring better than the average player’s score on the top team right now!).
Could I see mine as well. Please and thank you
Maybe there’s a way to have a graph built into the game for viewing. Seems like people want to see?
Actually seeing the data really helps a lot. Thanks.
Boosted anything is an issue. The new seasons are insanely expensive and I just fought “someone” with a level 17 hive worm. What are the odds that is an actual player and their actual level? Very unlikely. So you fight people who have been given things that for anyone is a hugely unreasonable cost? Nope.
I’d love to see mine! There are so many vertical axes, though. What are the units for skill level, for instance?
@Pandread you were likely fighting a bot.
While I believe our event medals system does a good job of rewarding players on a balanced basis of skill (strategic ability + card levels) and grit (how much they play), this thread has resoundingly established that:
- It’s too hard to understand, even by extremely smart players who are engaging in the conversation here, and
- The rubber-banding feels really bad when you can’t really progress at the end of the event anymore.
To this end, we’ve developed a new way to reward event medals … read more about it and discuss it in this new thread, please:
In the progression graphs below, I’ve added a thick purple line which shows how many medals smallz and holeesmokes would’ve had in the event if we’d been using this new formulation.
Skill rating units aren’t meaningful – the unit is “skill.” It’s only meaningful when compared to another skill rating. Like chess, we use Elo to compute skill, if that helps. A 100 unit difference (with the tuning params we are using) in skill rating indicates that the higher rated player is expected to win a matchup with 74% likelihood. A 200 unit difference increases that to 91%.
Closing this thread because we’ve massively overhauled how event medals will work in future events. I’ll start a new thread to discuss the new system. Thanks for all your feedback, and for helping us arrive at a better system, I think!