Adding an option to accept or reject the opponent match up

+

Should there be a filter or an option to accept or reject the matched opponent

  • A filter for factions you wish to play against

  • The option to accept or reject the match-up

  • Neither

  • Both

  • A filter added only to Casual Mode

  • Add a filter for factions but lesson the rewards gained

  • Add a filter to casual mode but lesson the rewards gained


Results are only viewable after voting.

Guest 4375874

Guest
With each update in recent memory there are new additions/mechanics that are added that are questionable with regard to how they balance the game. The recent updates have brought Hidden Cache which has arguably made SY as much of a plague as NG. I'm sure there have been countless suggestions made by other about how the devs can balance these factions however in the interim or in the future I would suggest giving players the option to accept the match against the opponent selected or reject it without being penalized with a loss.

NG and SY are obviously imbalanced right now whether the devs want to admit this or not, at this point it frankly feels like there is a bias towards those two factions since the last two major updates have only continued to buff them. SO until it's addressed I'd like to avoid playing those factions since they now require little to no effort on the opponents part to even win. A newby could pick up SY and almost assuredly win with very little effort, so much so that most times i just forfeit the game as soon as it begins rather than waste time hoping they make a mistake that costs them the match. This would be a good indicator for the devs as well to show where they royally screw up if they see ppl opting out of matches against a specific faction.
 
I would suggest
Moved to Suggestions.

I can't say I like this idea, as it would punish players for playing whatever faction(s) dominate(s) the meta and/or is what people are tired of facing. Being able to pick and choose without being penalized for rejecting unpleasant matchups doesn't sound beneficial. Especially considering a faction is MUCH more than whatever single ability/deck is the #1 hated one.

Edit: And imagine it from the point of view of the player(s) being rejected because of their chosen faction. I daresay it wouldn't feel nice at all, and it would inevitably happen to you as well. Would you like it then?
 
Last edited:
A newby could pick up SY and almost assuredly win with very little effort

That is the function of broken content, giving a false sense of skill that results in sales. It is not uncommon that it takes more than 1 month to nerf HC considering people are playing that even in low ranks where they had already admitted almost nobody played SY before. That means that players either spent their resources on SY or paid money to use the deck.

Personally I think that the people who play those things deserve to be isolated by mediocre, or at least they should play only among themselves, but this is not about competition, we are talking about selling.

Don't expect something like your idea to be approved someday.
 
If you add that option almost nobody will want to play against their deck's weakness at all.

Also, SY isn't imbalanced imo. I mean I do hate phillipa and sometimes I forget they have her but well that's part of the game.

NG is just too many of them on the ladder. Every 5 matches at least 3 will be with NG.

Maybe giving a player such an option say about 3x a day whether they would accept the match or not would be a fairer suggestion, as sometimes there's real heartache if a certain player wishes to face other opponents but somehow always end up facing a certain faction, like NG after NG after NG.
 
Well in principle this is understandable. However what's the point of a ranked system if you can choose who to fight.

This idea would be better as a training tool in the unranked matches, whether you want to play against the deck or not.

It would instead be better to have a filter in the unranked, ie I do / do not want to play against say NG.

But I don't think the OP's idea will be implemented.

It would be better to have more balance.

Limit NG's control (or in general) offer something else, balance SY and rework poison to not be so abundant and cheap.
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
If you add that option almost nobody will want to play against their deck's weakness at all.

Also, SY isn't imbalanced imo. I mean I do hate phillipa and sometimes I forget they have her but well that's part of the game.

NG is just too many of them on the ladder. Every 5 matches at least 3 will be with NG.

Maybe giving a player such an option say about 3x a day whether they would accept the match or not would be a fairer suggestion, as sometimes there's real heartache if a certain player wishes to face other opponents but somehow always end up facing a certain faction, like NG after NG after NG.
Or it would push the devs to address the issue. There's a difference between being weak against a deck and straight up imbalance in select factions. My monster deck sucks against SK but I still play them. SY on the other hand, I just straight up forfeit because it's pointless to play them right now. Until there's some balancing you either keep losing or stop playing, I'm slowly inching towards the latter, I don't think players should be punished for an imbalanced system and my win to loss ratio has taken a nose dive since the last update
Post automatically merged:

Moved to Suggestions.

I can't say I like this idea, as it would punish players for playing whatever faction(s) dominate(s) the meta and/or is what people are tired of facing. Being able to pick and choose without being penalized for rejecting unpleasant matchups doesn't sound beneficial. Especially considering a faction is MUCH more than whatever single ability/deck is the #1 hated one.

Edit: And imagine it from the point of view of the player(s) being rejected because of their chosen faction. I daresay it wouldn't feel nice at all, and it would inevitably happen to you as well. Would you like it then?
I take your point but players are already being punished much in the same way. And yes a faction "Should" be more than a single ability except the majority of NG and SY players are running the same deck. And why wouldn't they, if a new player joins then he or she will likely want to use what has the highest win ratio and so you that's what dominates that faction right now, Control and Hidden Cache.
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
For unranked I wouldn't think it's a terrible idea to be able to blacklist (a certain amount of) leader abilities. Especially since it often takes the developers months to address or at least solve the OP/frustrating ones.
I really dislike certain play styles and wish to avoid them (super control heavy ones in particular) as they make me feel discouraged from playing the game, regardless of the result.
 
Or it would push the devs to address the issue. There's a difference between being weak against a deck and straight up imbalance in select factions. My monster deck sucks against SK but I still play them. SY on the other hand, I just straight up forfeit because it's pointless to play them right now. Until there's some balancing you either keep losing or stop playing, I'm slowly inching towards the latter, I don't think players should be punished for an imbalanced system and my win to loss ratio has taken a nose dive since the last update

Not to sound like some obnoxious guy, but honestly if your deck is *that* weak against SY, maybe the problem lies in your deck or strategy itself.

I have taken a look at your deck which you suggested btw. Pure Dettlaff archetype. Easy to counter and easier to predict.

Maybe try ammending it like I did and try some different strats. Just by adding/removing 1/2 cards, you will be surprised at the results.
 
Last edited:
I take your point but players are already being punished much in the same way. And yes a faction "Should" be more than a single ability except the majority of NG and SY players are running the same deck. And why wouldn't they, if a new player joins then he or she will likely want to use what has the highest win ratio and so you that's what dominates that faction right now, Control and Hidden Cache.
It is a multiplayer game. Yes, many people are going to pick the most effective decks, of course they are when they're facing other humans who're also doing their best to win (not always, necessarily, but that's beside the point).

This, however, should not be punished by wasting their time in matchmaking (even if it only takes two seconds -- and it often takes longer -- it adds up quickly) only to be denied the match because the other person doesn't feel like facing that faction. Not to mention the "feeling rejected" aspect, which can also add up when it happens multiple times.

You can always insta-forfeit if you want, and being penalized with a loss is how it should be because there is another, real person at the other end and not an AI like in practice mode. If you don't care enough to play a match -- especially if that decision is based on nothing more than the opponent's faction -- then you shouldn't care about recorded losses either.


Blacklisting would be one thing (and is a topic of its own), this would be something else.
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
Not to sound like some obnoxious guy, but honestly if your deck is *that* weak against SY, maybe the problem lies in your deck or strategy itself.

I have taken a look at your deck which you suggested btw. Pure Dettlaff archetype. Easy to counter and easier to predict.

Maybe try ammending it like I did and try some different strats. Just by adding/removing 1/2 cards, you will be surprised at the results.
I don't use Detlaff in my deck friend :\ Thanks for the suggestion I suppose but the issue isn't my deck. I'm sure my post isn't the first topic on SY and Hidden Cache which should tell you that. I'm not new to the game so I've obviously played SY many times before and came to this conclusion after experiencing several patches and updates prior, none giving SY as many buffs as the last.
Post automatically merged:

It is a multiplayer game. Yes, many people are going to pick the most effective decks, of course they are when they're facing other humans who're also doing their best to win (not always, necessarily, but that's beside the point).

This, however, should not be punished by wasting their time in matchmaking (even if it only takes two seconds -- and it often takes longer -- it adds up quickly) only to be denied the match because the other person doesn't feel like facing that faction. Not to mention the "feeling rejected" aspect, which can also add up when it happens multiple times.

You can always insta-forfeit if you want, and being penalized with a loss is how it should be because there is another, real person at the other end and not an AI like in practice mode. If you don't care enough to play a match -- especially if that decision is based on nothing more than the opponent's faction -- then you shouldn't care about recorded losses either.


Blacklisting would be one thing (and is a topic of its own), this would be something else.
PPl are already insta-forfeiting because of the imbalance so someone's time is already being wasted. I already do that with SY because there's just no point playing. This game is largely dependent on the luck of the draw and it's a bit difficult to win against a faction that cannot draw a bad hand no matter what. Being given the option if anything saves time, not waste it when you can be playing against more balanced factions. You'll notice I mentioned SY and NG but not Skellige. Because although ppl are spamming the hell out of Lippy and Crowmother is annoying af, they can make a mistake that cost them or not draw a perfect hand each round. SK is tough to be beat but it's a challenge and doesn't suck the fun out of game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PPl are already insta-forfeiting because of the imbalance so someone's time is already being wasted. I already do that with SY because there's just no point playing. This game is largely dependent on the luck of the draw and it's a bit difficult to win against a faction that cannot draw a bad hand no matter what. Being given the option if anything saves time, not waste it when you can be playing against more balanced factions. You'll notice I mentioned SY and NG but not Skellige. Because although ppl are spamming the hell out of Lippy and Crowmother is annoying af, they can make a mistake that cost them or not draw a perfect hand each round. SK is tough to be beat but it's a challenge and doesn't suck the fun out of game.
Missed the point there.
 
I wouldn’t mind this, however, that leads to the problem of players will always want to play favorable matchups and decline other ones. Only way this works is if you pick you pick a faction say SY and every time you queue, you don’t match SY. The ability to just look at your hand/match up and decline games over and over u til you find a favorable match up sounds broken
 

Guest 4398794

Guest
It is a multiplayer game. Yes, many people are going to pick the most effective decks, of course they are when they're facing other humans who're also doing their best to win (not always, necessarily, but that's beside the point).

This, however, should not be punished by wasting their time in matchmaking (even if it only takes two seconds -- and it often takes longer -- it adds up quickly) only to be denied the match because the other person doesn't feel like facing that faction. Not to mention the "feeling rejected" aspect, which can also add up when it happens multiple times.

You can always insta-forfeit if you want, and being penalized with a loss is how it should be because there is another, real person at the other end and not an AI like in practice mode. If you don't care enough to play a match -- especially if that decision is based on nothing more than the opponent's faction -- then you shouldn't care about recorded losses either.


Blacklisting would be one thing (and is a topic of its own), this would be something else.
Cancel the faction before the mm, so it doesn't even starts to search for them.

I want to have fun, nit forfeit every damn match wasting my own time.
And if this doesn't happen at least in unranked mode, well goodbye game you are nit fun so I delet you.

For the real people on the other side, well I don't care about him/her, he doesn't care about me either especially if they play purposefully frustrating and annoying decks.
 
Cancel the faction before the mm, so it doesn't even starts to search for them.
Why would you quote me to say something that has nothing to do with what I'd said (except maybe the last paragraph)?

I'm not going to support your idea either, because I have no problem with the current system.
 
No.
Cache is super strong, but it's nowhere near that OP you suggest. It NEED to be balanced, but there is numbers of ways to win with it.

Banning faction WILL actually unbalance this game.

I really don't get numbers of topic about "this deck I'm losing to, lets nerf it/ balance it/ whatever".

If you win, git gut. Build good deck. Netdeck good deck.
Sitting in corner and saying "others are winning, ban them" will not help anyone.

I'm low pro rank. And firstly There is no "only cache games". Secondly, I'm not losing to every cache I will find (yes, most probably, like 2/3). Thirdly after full season, I believe i can build against this one specific deck.

If you are pro rank - I don't understand you. I for real don't see a problem. I mean, I belive cache IS to strong, but you do not encounter only cache decks here. Even in Syndicate right now I think more popular is congregate right now.

If you are not pro rank yet, probably there will be more netdecks. That's not nice. But you will learn to play against them, you will know them exactly, you will easy counter them knowing those every single card.

You are not supposed to win every game. In general you are supposed to win 50%. The worse you are, the more, but more like 50% if you are on your own level. If you are not playing best decks for ANY reason, how you expect yourself to win 50%? You will win 1/3. Or take best deck.

How selfish is saying "I'm not playing best deck so lets nerf other deck/ban other deck/whatever because I'm refusing to play other deck, I want MINE deck to be best."?

Again, I agree, cache is to strong and is waiting for balance.

But those topics going on and on and on and on and on "I'm losing agaisnt this deck - do something about it" is worse than one in kindergarden.

I personally don't want to specific kids of decks to be to strong - like no unit artifact deck. Because it's no fun for other players. I want them to exist, but not dominate meta.

But you don't have a problem with deck that would make game boring. You have problem with deck that is better then yours.

ARGH?
 

Guest 4398794

Guest
I bet none of you get what I mean, pretty sure of that.

I don't have problems with any meta strong deck, and I certainly don't want my decks to be the best. I'm not naive, I know how this works, there is no balance in any game ever.

But why can't I have fun in a game instead of facing somthing I hate!?

In many games if there is somthing I don't like, u just simply skip w/o wasting any time on it.

With banning a faction (be it NG or Sy or whatever) from my own matchmaking, why would that make the game more unbalanced? Or why would that make shift in meta?

Put it in the unranked mode which is mit competitive, and let me ban the one thing I can't stand in this game.
Simple as that.
 
With banning a faction (be it NG or Sy or whatever) from my own matchmaking, why would that make the game more unbalanced? Or why would that make shift in meta?

Because then every player can just ban the faction their deck is weak against, creating an unnatural win-rate. Furthermore, you can actually start optimizing your decks, knowing you will never have to face X faction for an even higher win-rate. That's one of the reasons blacklisting is a bad idea, outside of tournaments.
 
Because then every player can just ban the faction their deck is weak against, creating an unnatural win-rate. Furthermore, you can actually start optimizing your decks, knowing you will never have to face X faction for an even higher win-rate. That's one of the reasons blacklisting is a bad idea, outside of tournaments.

Everyone can finally be at pro ranks.... How "ideal" would that be?

Actually come to think of it, may not be a bad idea. At least the forums can become more constructive for one. Hmmm. I mean who doesn't like constructive comments, even if it's criticism but at least, it has some basis to it?
Post automatically merged:

If you are pro rank - I don't understand you. I for real don't see a problem. I mean, I belive cache IS to strong, but you do not encounter only cache decks here. Even in Syndicate right now I think more popular is congregate right now.

I have MASSIVE problems with SY congregrate. Because it does exactly what my deck wants to do, but only does it much better.

Also, I don't know what they play. Some has poison, others have that random damage dude, others have swarm, some have phillipa.....

Of all my matches with congregrate, I don't think I have ever won one, tbh. I came from the dumpster though lol.
 

Guest 4398794

Guest
Because then every player can just ban the faction their deck is weak against, creating an unnatural win-rate. Furthermore, you can actually start optimizing your decks, knowing you will never have to face X faction for an even higher win-rate. That's one of the reasons blacklisting is a bad idea, outside of tournaments.

That is why I said unranked mode.
And banning one faction is not like I don't have to prepare for certain mechanics Poison is still a thing in more factions, and skelige on it's own is really strong.
I just want one game mode where I can have fun and not eat frustration because I gave bs decks all the time. And if I don't want to face then I just forfeit 10+times in a row (that by its own is annoying).

Edit: my frustration comes from every NG.
And I'm certain that devs intent was that NG to be annoying, but I don't want that part of the game. Is it so hard to understand that?
For example I don't mind to play against strong decks like everyone mentioned SY or some ST or any ,because I enjoy beating them or loose to the, because that is fun to play against, is not always predictable. But none of those mentioned generates that much frustration like any NG does. What developer team was to do that to their players?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of all my matches with congregrate, I don't think I have ever won one, tbh. I came from the dumpster though lol.
Yeah, when I saw congregate first time, I was much much more destroyed than from cache. Cache we know. Kongregate was something I didn't encounter before, and could just destroy enemy so hard... still can.
And they still rant about cache...

Edit: my frustration comes from every NG.
And I'm certain that devs intent was that NG to be annoying, but I don't want that part of the game. Is it so hard to understand that?
For example I don't mind to play against strong decks like everyone mentioned SY or some ST or any ,because I enjoy beating them or loose to the, because that is fun to play against, is not always predictable. But none of those mentioned generates that much frustration like any NG does. What developer team was to do that to their players?
Yep, my frustration comed form NG too. But I'm amazed by it. It's so incredible lore friendly. So many different ways of playing.

OK, lets do other things. You can't really cut out part of competitive game like this, even in unranked. Still there are people who want to test all decks, not just "bad decks" or "not annoying decks". It wouldn't be fair to make them wait longer for game.

BUT

Maybe - just maybe - you can make sandbox part. You know, when I want to test something, or play against something specific (or NOT play against something specific) I ask friend. Same way believe communities like Leviathan team or aretuza team are working - you have friends and you ask them to specific way.
No look. What it - I'm still not sure if it's good thing, since you already have it in "friendlist" - what if in sandbox you would be able to request game against anything BUT Nilfgaard. Or EXACTLY Nilfgaard. Or Mystic echo. Or even give enemy specific deck to play against you, because you need to test. Or because you don't want to play against Nilfgaard.
It would be like friend lists without friends.
You would need to wait long time for very specific types of request, but maybe not so long for "no nilfgaard game"?
Would something like this satisfy you?
 
Top Bottom