Leader abilities cap per season

+
So there is a lot of talk playing against the same decks over and over and to be honest if you nerf the strong decks now some other decks will come up and it will be the same story again. So the answer is not entirwly on nerfing and nerfing every patch.
These decks are being created for ladder advancement I guess from the strongest players who want to go on tournaments and thats fair enough.
My thoughts on the solution is something like a cap on the amount of times you can play a deck with the same leader ability on ranked matches. Maybe 20-25 times each. Thats 175/games per faction. Maybe if you get on the top 1000 or top 500 you remove this cap.
I think it will allow more abilities and more cards to emerge. And it will keep the ranked games active throughout the whole season.
There will be downsides on this so I am waiting to read about them and maybe we can get out something constructive out it.
 
Simply no.
I can understand where you are coming from, however doing this would mean that ranked would become a pure game on how many of the games with worthwhile decks one can win before getting blocked out of them.
Then one would rather switch factions or stop playing, rather than play garbage.
Afterwards those players would descend upon unranked and that as well would purely resemble the meta.

As if that would not be enough this would very significantly punish new players, which should focus on one factions and would then be forced to play practically useless leaders, just to keep playing with the cards they got.

Also this would be a pure "feels bad" change noone would enjoy.
 
Another suggestion aiming to restrict players' choice in decks for no objectively valid or justified reason.
Especially with the top players not having the requirement. That one is a downright terrible idea and would be guaranteed to cause even more upset than just the restriction itself would.

No thank you. I will always be against ideas like this.
 
Simply no.
I can understand where you are coming from, however doing this would mean that ranked would become a pure game on how many of the games with worthwhile decks one can win before getting blocked out of them.
Then one would rather switch factions or stop playing, rather than play garbage.
Afterwards those players would descend upon unranked and that as well would purely resemble the meta.

As if that would not be enough this would very significantly punish new players, which should focus on one factions and would then be forced to play practically useless leaders, just to keep playing with the cards they got.

Also this would be a pure "feels bad" change noone would enjoy.
My thinking behind that is different though. Also most of my games are during the season are in pro rank. In any case my thinking is that more worthwhile decks will be created and you will need to strategise a bit when you want to push on the ladder. More cards will find value in the game. Maybe the cap resets if you move up a rank. Or maybe the cap starts from rank 7 or 5 so new players now have a good idea of what and how.
 
[...] and you will need to strategise a bit when you want to push on the ladder. [...]
Why would pushing people out of ranked be a good thing at all ?

[...] More cards will find value in the game. [...]
No, cards will find the same value, only that after a certain point you are not allowed to use the good cards (with a synergistic leader) anymore (which is honestly a baffling suggestion).

[...] Maybe the cap resets if you move up a rank. [...]
So that some people could get stuck using only garbage, while their opponents would mop the floor with them, while they are not allowed to use serious decks anymore ?

I fail to see any value in that change, not to mention that I agree with Draconifors that this would be upsetting for no real reason.
 
Another suggestion aiming to restrict players' choice in decks for no objectively valid or justified reason.
Especially with the top players not having the requirement. That one is a downright terrible idea and would be guaranteed to cause even more upset than just the restriction itself would.

No thank you. I will always be against ideas like this.
I feel a large number of players database have raised the issue of facing the same decks over and over which puts them off playing the game. Since the game is a product and you need customers to sustain it, I feel addressing the issue is objectively valid and justified. My idea might be really bad but the issue still remains.
 
I feel a large number of players database have raised the issue of facing the same decks over and over which puts them off playing the game. Since the game is a product and you need customers to sustain it, I feel addressing the issue is objectively valid and justified. My idea might be really bad but the issue still remains.
The solution cannot be to force players into a hierarchical structure, where people get punished for not playing competetively and then dropping the game until they are allowed to use usable/their prefered leaders again.
 
Why would pushing people out of ranked be a good thing at all ?


No, cards will find the same value, only that after a certain point you are not allowed to use the good cards (with a synergistic leader) anymore (which is honestly a baffling suggestion).


So that some people could get stuck using only garbage, while their opponents would mop the floor with them, while they are not allowed to use serious decks anymore ?

I fail to see any value in that change, not to mention that I agree with Draconifors that this would be upsetting for no real reason.
I think you are confused. I am talking about leader abilities. I am talking having 30 lockdown, 30 ursine, 30 deadeye, 30 precision, 30 double Cross, 30 patricide, 30 upping, 30 shield Wall games. If you can't advance a rank after all these games maybe you need to rework your game skills.
 
I think you are confused. I am talking about leader abilities. I am talking having 30 lockdown, 30 ursine, 30 deadeye, 30 precision, 30 double Cross, 30 patricide, 30 upping, 30 shield Wall games. If you can't advance a rank after all these games maybe you need to rework your game skills.
That is not my point.
The point is that the solution cannot be more restrictions, it should be more incentives to play different leaders.
Just take a look at SK and ST having multiple very good and viable leader abilities, that should be the aim, not to force people to play the bad ones or play decks they do not enjoy playing.
 
The solution cannot be to force players into a hierarchical structure, where people get punished for not playing competetively and then dropping the game until they are allowed to use usable/their prefered leaders again.
Let's put aside my idea for a moment. Playing ranked is hierarchical. Thats the definition of the word. Arranged in order or rank. And they are not punished. If you consider the ranked games the competitive side why would someone who wants to be competitive and advance on ladder has to face a casual player who only plays lockdown or lippy because he feels its the best ratio of effort/win.
 
Let's put aside my idea for a moment. Playing ranked is hierarchical. Thats the definition of the word. Arranged in order or rank. And they are not punished. If you consider the ranked games the competitive side why would someone who wants to be competitive and advance on ladder has to face a casual player who only plays lockdown or lippy because he feels its the best ratio of effort/win.
My argument was that it would be hierarchical with regards to the players, rather than the meta, which from my point of view is far worse.
 
I think the original idea has merit as a creative way to increase deck variety. Encouraging players to use different leaders/cards for advancement is a nice tool to improve variety. Perhaps limiting number of plays with a given leader is the wrong way to go about this, but there are related approaches.

For example, under the present MMR system, I try to play all my ranked matches with only one faction — even though I like to play all factions. And once I reach my desired reward level, I quit playing ranked at all. And the reason is entirely the current MMR system. I found within two months of playing, that I would rise fairly fast through ranks until I started getting paired exclusively against very good players who played much stronger decks than I had, at which point advancing required huge time investment — mostly losing hopeless match-ups. By only playing one faction, and only playing the minimal needed matches, I artificially keep my MMR low enough to get interesting matches when I do play.

Rewarding people for varying leaders or even cards — say by biasing parings towards other players who do the same might make a bigger difference than one would expect.
 
My argument was that it would be hierarchical with regards to the players, rather than the meta, which from my point of view is far worse.
Can you expand on that a bit? Why is it worse the more capable and skillful player long term through the season should not be rewarded or end up higher. There still needs to be a good amount of luck to favourite the underdog. I did mean on the players because it doesn't matter what balances you make on a game there is always going to be a meta.
 
I feel a large number of players database have raised the issue of facing the same decks over and over which puts them off playing the game.
And how many of those complainers do the exact same thing themselves? You're not going to find any (reliable) data on that one, but it absolutely is something to take into consideration.

Besides, those who are unhappy about something are always more vocal than those who aren't, which is why complaint threads and posts are far more common than appreciation ones.


Also, I'm certain that the very same people who make suggestions like this, would, in many cases, end up complaining about their own ideas if such ideas did get implemented. The restrictions would, sooner or later, end up coming back to bite them, at which point they would see how their idea was not objectively good after all.

That last point is a general one, not about this suggestion specifically.
 
I think the original idea has merit as a creative way to increase deck variety. Encouraging players to use different leaders/cards for advancement is a nice tool to improve variety. Perhaps limiting number of plays with a given leader is the wrong way to go about this, but there are related approaches.

For example, under the present MMR system, I try to play all my ranked matches with only one faction — even though I like to play all factions. And once I reach my desired reward level, I quit playing ranked at all. And the reason is entirely the current MMR system. I found within two months of playing, that I would rise fairly fast through ranks until I started getting paired exclusively against very good players who played much stronger decks than I had, at which point advancing required huge time investment — mostly losing hopeless match-ups. By only playing one faction, and only playing the minimal needed matches, I artificially keep my MMR low enough to get interesting matches when I do play.

Rewarding people for varying leaders or even cards — say by biasing parings towards other players who do the same might make a bigger difference than one would expect.
That's my whole thinking. Making people use other abilities. But I was also thinking that it needs to be a change that from the point of view of the programmer is viable. Meaning that effort, manpower and manhours have to at least make no loss for CDPR. Also I understand the MMR issue but I haven't really bothered with it so far so I'm in unchartered waters how will it affect anything.
 
Can you expand on that a bit? Why is it worse the more capable and skillful player long term through the season should not be rewarded or end up higher. [...]
That already happens though, especially in pro rank.

I think the original idea has merit as a creative way to increase deck variety. Encouraging players to use different leaders/cards for advancement is a nice tool to improve variety. Perhaps limiting number of plays with a given leader is the wrong way to go about this, but there are related approaches.
[...]
There could be different approaches.
One option would be to require filling the mosaic with multiple factions to increase one's rank.
That would work until one reaches pro-rank, at which point the issue becomes neglectable anyways.
However using meta decks one would reach pro-rank anyways, so the same would hold true in any case.

Since that happens anyways I do not see any point in such a change.
 
And how many of those complainers do the exact same thing themselves? You're not going to find any (reliable) data on that one, but it absolutely is something to take into consideration.

Besides, those who are unhappy about something are always more vocal than those who aren't, which is why complaint threads and posts are far more common than appreciation ones.


Also, I'm certain that the very same people who make suggestions like this, would, in many cases, end up complaining about their own ideas if such ideas did get implemented. The restrictions would, sooner or later, end up coming back to bite them, at which point they would see how their idea was not objectively good after all.

That last point is a general one, not about this suggestion specifically.
I feel we are having a nice discussion so don't worry. I dont take any offense. I'm quite happy with the state of the game. Beside some very obvious unbalanced things (viper mentor for example which I understand was not intented). I'm like in the region of 2000 on pro rank and I get a fairly balanced variety of leaders. Dont care if I lose or win. But I would like to see something fresh. New cards is not the answer for me. There are around 1000 cards on the game. Facing different combinations playing different strategic thinking would be fresh. Its a skill based game but ranked games shouldnt feel like playing a high level training game.
 
Top Bottom