Coinflip temporary solution for Ladder. MAKE GWENT FAIR FOR ALL!!!

[gem4ik]

Coinflip temporary solution for Ladder. MAKE GWENT FAIR FOR ALL!!!

Hello!

I always felt that i'm losing coin all the time, and today i analysed last 400 games (200 per 2 of my accounts) and found out that i was right - 115-85 and 123-77 (59.5% overall stats for loosing coin).
Sure, i can check even 1000 or 2000 of my games, but there still will be unfair amount of lost coins and chance will not be even close to 50%.

It means, that there are a lot of players like me (who lose most of the coinflips) and some lucky players (win most of the coinflips, like one streamer i sub to, have around only just 40% of lost coinflips), so we are in pretty unfair poisition, where good players have less winrate than worse players.

So here is mine temporary solution for coinflip in ladder:

Use pseudorandom distribution mechanics to calculate chances to win/lose the coin.

It means that due to manipulating with coinflip chances each game, that at some point, your stats on lose/win coin will always be around 50%, unlike now, when chance to win or lose coin is always 50% for each game separetly.

MAKE GWENT FAIR FOR ALL!!!

If you are not one on those players that are lucky to win 60% of the coinflips, please support me with a comment.

EDIT:
You can read what is PSD here https://ru.dotabuff.com/blog/2016-01...your-advantage
This mechanics being used in most of modern games - Dota 2, LoL, WoW, very likely HearthStone and a lot of other games.
It prevents some lucky-from-nature players to get their advantage over unlucky players. My suggestions is - to use this mechanics ONLY FOR COINFLIP random, not more.

 

[Iuliandrei]

I have to agree with this, in todays gaming world random isn't random anymore, pretty much everything is affected by some hidden mechanic which most players are completely oblivious to, however this isn't a bad thing. This type of "pseudorandom distribution" as the OP calls it can be used to improve game experience, though i have a feeling most devs mostly use it to increase retention and monetization.

 

[partci]

I seem to lose 7 out of 10 Coin Flips constantly. Sometimes I just don't care. The times I do care is on ladder, where I constantly lose against Eredin or Harald or every other deck that NEEDS me to play first. Those are games you just can't win without tons of luck from this position.

 

[BornBoring]

I think the coinflip problem is worse than ever....But I also don't understand what this thread is about.....More important than some conspiracy theories are to find something to make losing the coinflip less of a disadvantage.

 

[Bondonkadonk]

I think the coinflip problem is worse than ever....But I also don't understand what this thread is about.....More important than some conspiracy theories are to find something to make losing the coinflip less of a disadvantage.

This thread is about how it would be beneficial to all players if the game ensured your chance of winning or losing a coinflip is always 50% over ALL your games, not just each match. At the moment, as far as we know, you have a 50/50 chance every single match to win the coinflip. So you could technically lose the coinflip ten games in a row, because each time it flips it's 50/50. However, OP is suggesting that instead, perhaps the game should register how often you've lost the coinflip and then balance it out with some wins, that way you'd never lose ten coinflips in a row, because after a few losses the game would ensure you win the following few (perhaps pairing you with someone who is due to lose some coinflips). Makes it fair for all.

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but not sure how easy it would be in implementation. Could magically be that everyone in your rank is due to win their next coinflip, so the game has trouble finding pairings, that's the pitfall I see. :|a

Edit: coin flip issue seems to be even worse right now thanks to cards like Ciri;nova who almost always require to be last card played to be totally risk free.

 

[Guest 4021160]

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but not sure how easy it would be in implementation.

Appending written code is always a risky route. This solution would cause loads of new bugs in places you wouldn't even expect.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Appending written code is always a risky route. This solution would cause loads of new bugs in places you wouldn't even expect.

This is done all the time and it's why PTR exists.