Minor Setbacks

[Paladinios]

My dear CDPR your game rocks and it has been the best card game i played so far it's almost flawless and it's hell lot of fun...However when i said ' almost flawless' i meant two minor flaws in this game which makes a lot of players uncomfortable first of all the ranking system i really wanted to ask you this why the mmr progress is getting so damn hard when u reach rank 20 it becomes nearly impossible to hit GM sometimes when you win u get like 20 pts but when u lose your points go down by 25 this is not logic u know winning should be more than losing because rank 20 is so competetive and losing is inevitable so when i win a match then lose the next one it's like i have not achived anything so please dear CDPR fix the ranking system for us . Secondly there's is something else that i felt lost from gwent i remember the company releasing events from time to time in the closed beta maybe like 3 or 4 but now we didn't get any event since febuary i wonder why though ?!

 

[devivre]

1) Ranking up was already made a lot easier a while ago. It wasn't always that easy to get to rank 16-18 that fast. But the thing is, titles like 21 shouldn't be too easy to get. It makes sense that you need to win more than 50% of your games for that.

2) Because Homecoming will change the game a lot. New events will likely be based on the new features of the game, so they can't release them now. It might be possible to have one of the old events a second time but I'm not sure that's the plan. I'm sure once Homecoming is out, there'll be new versions of events like the Mahakam Ale Festival.

 

[Witcher3point0]

I agree with Devivre, in order to gain a "Grand Master" rank you should have a heck of a lot more wins than losses..

Otherwise it's just too easy.

 

[BinchenChaos]

I think that its fine too. With just 50% winrate to Rank 21 it wouldn´t be a challenge anymore, and it wouldnt make sense to let so many player into the pro ladder.

Oooh i liked the festivals a much too and miss them, hope they make something similiar again )

 

[BoYoDes]

I think you missed the point that it's not the Win/lose percentage than to the MMR distribution. Two totally separate things.

 

[devivre]

I think you missed the point that it's not the Win/lose percentage than to the MMR distribution. Two totally separate things.

The distribution is based on the MMR of your opponent. I don't think it's that much of an issue.

 

[Witcher3point0]

The distribution is based on the MMR of your opponent. I don't think it's that much of an issue.

Well you had said winning should grant more than losing. So this does suggest that even under par on a win/loss ratio you'd be able to achieve Grand Master through sheer grinding. In y

The likely hood may be low, but it still enables that possibility. I don't think a below average athlete/basketball player should play at a varsity or national level, let alone for the NBA. It should be the same here. Produce wins, show results and gain rewards accordingly. You don't win a pot in poker with a losing hand, you certainly don't win when you fold. Your money may very well deplete before you get a chance to win much the same should your rank / MMR if you're not performing. Winning as frequently as losing in poker just pays the house and you break even if you're lucky. You gotta be sharp and produce to get paid. Just like in Gwent.

Point being you're saying the point distribution and win ratio are separate entities and it isn't related and we missed the mark with our replies. I however don't think that's the case. They are directly related and you can't talk about one without mention of the other.

Bare in mind I'm not really sure what system they presently use thus I don't complain about it; But if it were me putting together a ranking system it would look something like this.

Factors:
- Win Streak ( 3+ Wins Consecutively )
- Ending Opponents Win Streak ( 3+ Wins Consecutively )
- Opponents Win/Loss Ratio + Rank (these should be some how tied into each other)
- Your Present Rank

From Ranks 1-7 Win Streak / Streak Ending Bonuses Would Be Awarded As Normal. However A Rank 1 Vs Rank 3 Wouldn't Yield Any Extra Reward Or Penalty For Win/Loss Where A Difference Of 3 Ranks Would.

Example (RD = Rank Difference) (These Numbers Would Be Subject To A 1.5x Multiplier Between Ranks 15-21)
RD 1 W +6% Additional MMR / L -3% Additional MMR
RD 2 W +10% Additional MMR / L -5% Additional MMR
RD 3 W +18% Additional MMR / L -12% Additional MMR
RD 4 W +30% Additional MMR / L -20% Additional MMR

Rank Differences Exceeding That Probably Would Not Face Off.

All Modifiers Would Be Calculated After Base. EG; 20 VS 20 MMR Base. (No Streaks Between Players) R1 VS R4 Where R1 Defeats R4 Player They'd Receive 24 MMR (Rounded To Nearest 1) And R4 Player Would Lose 22MMR (Rounded To Nearest 1).

This Allows For The Community To Grow In Rank, But Also Ensures The Deserving Players Are The Ones Advancing, Not Just The Grinders.

Now Grinding Wins Is A Different Story.

Win Streak Ender = 2 MMR Per Opponents Consecutive Win + 10% Additional MMR After All Tallies.
Win Streak = 3W 5% Additional MMR After All Tallies / 4W 7.5% / 5W 10% + Immunity to Rank Penalty Until Streak Ends, Exceeding 5W Still Rewards The Additional 10%, But Protects You From Penalties As Well.

This Is Just Rough.

Would A Model Like This Intrigue You? Or Would You Be Opposed To This As Well?


I Mean Who Knows What Is Coming With Home Coming, But Let's Just Look Forward To It For Now!

 

[qbim]

1) Ranking up was already made a lot easier a while ago. It wasn't always that easy to get to rank 16-18 that fast. But the thing is, titles like 21 shouldn't be too easy to get. It makes sense that you need to win more than 50% of your games for that.

2) Because Homecoming will change the game a lot. New events will likely be based on the new features of the game, so they can't release them now. It might be possible to have one of the old events a second time but I'm not sure that's the plan. I'm sure once Homecoming is out, there'll be new versions of events like the Mahakam Ale Festival.

Well, to be honest, losing twice and more points for a loss than you would get for a win is also not right. That implies a steady 66,6% winrate from 4000-4100 onward. That's just ain't that much realistic in the game that is based on luck to a degree. I ran like 65-70% winrate deck last season and I couldn't get more than 4150-4170 in that season. Especially considering the occasional lose-streak which you can't objectively prevent. Grandmast should be hard to reach, I agree, but in the current state it is only avaliable for less than 0.5 percentile of the player base (considering that there was only around 3000 or even less people with rating higher than 4200 and the whole playerbase is around 150-200 thousand-ish).

If the loss of points would be capped at like 1.5 (or at least 2) of the possible gain that would be fair and imply a solid 60% winrate to get the grandmaster which is also fair and realistic. And it doesn't make grind a viable strategy, you still need a solid deck and win more than lose (by quite a big margin) on the higher rankings.

 

[Witcher3point0]

Well, to be honest, losing twice and more points for a loss than you would get for a win is also not right. That implies a steady 66,6% winrate from 4000-4100 onward. That's just ain't that much realistic in the game that is based on luck to a degree. I ran like 65-70% winrate deck last season and I couldn't get more than 4150-4170 in that season. Especially considering the occasional lose-streak which you can't objectively prevent. Grandmast should be hard to reach, I agree, but in the current state it is only avaliable for less than 0.5 percentile of the player base (considering that there was only around 3000 or even less people with rating higher than 4200 and the whole playerbase is around 300 000-ish).

If the loss of points would be capped at like 1.5 (or at least 2) of the possible gain that would be fair and imply a solid 60% winrate to get the grandmaster which is also fair and realistic. And it doesn't make grind a viable strategy, you still need a solid deck and win more than lose (by quite a big margin) on the higher rankings.

Where are you getting your numbers from? And also if Grand Master is the final achieved rank and sets you apart from other players a top .5% if it were true seems just.

Back to your numbers regarding ratios and mmr how did you get those numbers?

 

[qbim]

Where are you getting your numbers from? And also if Grand Master is the final achieved rank and sets you apart from other players a top .5% if it were true seems just.

Back to your numbers regarding ratios and mmr how did you get those numbers?

I assumed the numbers by the place on the ladder, when I was on the 4170-ish I was 3400 something on the ladder. In the start of the season I was around 12 rank (not sure) and i was at around 80 000 position. Everything is based on the ladder. Now that I think about it, I might have had the overall player number mixed up, shouldn't be higher than 150-200 thousand. Pushing the grandmaster percentile into the 1-2% of the playerbase.

 

[qbim]

Okay, this is a complete BS, one win gives me 10-15 points, one loss removes 30-40 points. This is completely unacceptable. That implies that I need more than 66.6% winrate to rise above 4100.

 

[4RM3D]

Okay, this is a complete BS, one win gives me 10-15 points, one loss removes 30-40 points. This is completely unacceptable. That implies that I need more than 66.6% winrate to rise above 4100.

It depends on the MMR of your opponent compared to yours. If yours is a lot higher, then losing will subtract more points, which I don't really like.

 

[qbim]

It depends on the MMR of your opponent compared to yours. If yours is a lot higher, then losing will subtract more points, which I don't really like.

So, if I understand you correctly, getting the grandmaster in the start of the season is much harder than in the end because the density of players with higher rankings will also be higher - meaning the average gap between the players will be smaller.

That makes absolutely no logical sense from the players standpoint, to be honest. It also implies that if the game becomes more popular increasing the amount of dedicated players, the accessibility of the grandmaster will also be broader, easier to achieve, not by much but still.

 

[4RM3D]

So, if I understand you correctly, getting the grandmaster in the start of the season is much harder than in the end because the density of players with higher rankings will also be higher - meaning the average gap between the players will be smaller.

Exactly, but that doesn't bother me as much because the vanguard should be more challenging.