What if there was a sand box mode kind of like gauntlet except you used cards for that commanders factions only? You would fight bots or alliance members.
Yes this game desperately needs a casual mode against live players, it could also use a tournament standard for events, such as setting a level cap of 10 (beginning legendary level) and a players actual level for a specific card is only used if it is below the cap. I still firmly believe that 2v2 should be unranked, as we should be earning our rank, and especially our positions on the leaderboard, through our own merits. I’ve noticed that depending on the player, ranked 2v2 is either lifting a lot of people above where they should be in rank, or it’s holding them back because they are too eager to try to help lower rank alliance mates (while I have no hard statistics to back this up, I have noticed that active RGBC members tend to instantly gain 2-4 ranks within a day or so of moving up to the main RG faction, many are unable to hit challenger until moving up and then it becomes a regular achievement for them every reset).
It is also worth noting that very few card based strategy games have a ranked 2v2, while most do have 2v2 play options.
@Chucklesb011 love it. Everything that you said would improve the game and shouldn’t be impossible to implement.
I love ranked 2v2 it’s an awesome part of this game. You don’t you love playing solo great more power to you. Don’t mess with ranked 2v2 cause the day that goes away is the day the game dies it’s final death. I will be out, I know half my guild will be out then you will have no one to play against.
I love that this is a social cooperative game. I’m not here to play solo, I left the last game before this cause that’s all it was and it was 90% figure the latest exploit. There is so much more strategy playing with a partner and it’s completely different between chosen partners and random partners.
To be fair I believe he has a point. 2v2 is great fun and integral part of the game, but it is also the mode where you can potentially use more exploits (6 madness). A lot of game has only 1v1 ranked mode while 2v2 is more casual, but there are also others which have both ranked 1v1 and 2v2 modes but with separate rankings.
That being said 2v2 is much less cheesier in this games that in many others, so I believe it is fair to keep it as ranked, maybe just tweak the amount of point lost/gained per match, but that is more of a general problem.
well said Chuckles. The ranked 2v2 allows weaker players in string factions to win and conversely keeps people in weaker factions down. Make 2v2 social and unranked and rank people on their own merits.
@Lyth Ranked 2v2 doesn’t need to go away. There just needs to be a casual pvp mode so that people can try out new strategies and decks without the loss of medals.
Here’s the problem:
- We already have massive matchmaking problems because we don’t have enough players to match together for fair fights with short wait times.
- The more “modes” we have in the game, the worse our “liquidity” becomes as the player base gets sharded among all the different modes in the game.
- At some point in the future when we’re a huge game with a huge player-base, maybe it would be good to add more modes because our matchmaker could take the hit without drastically increasing wait time or battle fairness.
What could work:
- Having more modes, but it rotates which ones are available today.
- In other words, it’s ok to have many modes as long as the entire playerbase is using the same times at the same time – the playerbase doesn’t become sharded as a result.
Out of curiosity, if it doesnt take too long, can you give a rough estimate of what % of matches played are 1v1 against 2v2.
Objectively, I would say 2v2 is almost harder than 1v1 in some ways since you DO have to balance having a partner. I think both have their merits, I DO however, think they need a separate ranking system.
I dont know the number off the top of my head, but 1v1 is in the range of 10x usage per day than 2v2.
Surprisingly, playing Campaign with 2 allies has more usage per day than 2v2. People on this forum are a very “biased sample” of our playerbase and don’t realize how many people “just like to play campaign” and don’t want to do any of this PvP stuff.
I could definitely see that, I think PvE has a lot of potential if dont right to help grow a certain segment of the possible playerbase.
I fully support the idea of a separate rank for 2v2 if it could be pulled off. I do agree that it is a different skill entirely and is in many ways more challenging.
If they just did it like this, I think a lot of people would happy,
I know this has been asked before, but since the lack of players in the game seems to be the root of a lot of issues, is the Android release in the near future? I’ve made the suggestion a couple times that we should have a referral program. That would motivate your established player base to bring in more. There are a lot of ways the amount of players can go up significantly in a short amount of time without worrying about the Android release right now.
Idk, I just see this topic come up a lot, and I guess I just don’t understand why there isn’t some sort of marketing campaign in play right now.
Doesn’t campaign just end? How much of that is people trying the game, playing campaign and then quitting?
@S7campusLifer then how about a bot only opponent for a scrimmage mode? Make it mirror the power level of the player. No rewards. Just a place to go try out new tactics and cards with no medal loss.
^ if this happens solved.( especially if it has cards you don’t [like gauntlet])
This right here… plus there’s the thing about money. Most of the players who stick around don’t keep dropping large amounts of money on the game… higher levels would certainly spend money for cosmetics, something that I’ve mentioned on here in the past. A challenger player doesn’t want loot crates, they want Black Kuro.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.