Only leveling on a win is super frustrating

[thechopsuey]

Only leveling on a win is super frustrating

As someone who has just started and is level 1, I can't get a single win against all these people with better cards, so I have to spend money now? Great idea. Let's not match you with someone on a similar level or card set.

 

[DragonFireDon]

BTW, I like to know, how are the matches generated? Are they with people in the same level or random?

 

[Rednegniw]

I think it's still kind of random. I encounter decks with just Geralt and also decks with multiple golden cards and non-starting leaders.

 

[Fred-Sanity]

Personally I think the current level system is fine, plus we still have the GG feature. But come to think about it, it would be nice if losing a game gives you, say 1/3 progression as winning a game.

 

[DragonFireDon]

The main problem with this game, is LACK of offline rewards and AI is really bad!

As for online playing against other players, nothing against it, but at least 2 players should be on the SAME level.

A level 5 player should not be playing a level 1 or level 10.

 

[MisterBurkes]

I agree, there should be some kind of progression for losing, especially since the GG system is not reliable. it's not only a matter of new players getting poor matchmaking, it's also close Round 3 matches that end without GG's being sent.

 

[Rethas]

As someone who has just started and is level 1, I can't get a single win against all these people with better cards, so I have to spend money now? Great idea. Let's not match you with someone on a similar level or card set.

Matchmaking is based on data, which is being generated by the first players. The game is in closed beta, so you shouldn't expect perfect matchmaking

I'm sorry you feel you've had a bad experience, but matchmaking as with everything else in the game will improve over time.

With regards to levelling on loss, we're looking into some solutions to this. However it isn't simple, as people will exploit it and then we'll have complaints about that also. Much like some are with the GG system, it is frustrating to have to design around this as it makes it hard to reward genuine players.

 

[MisterBurkes]

Matchmaking is based on data, which is being generated by the first players. The game is in closed beta, so you shouldn't expect perfect matchmaking

I'm sorry you feel you've had a bad experience, but matchmaking as with everything else in the game will improve over time.

With regards to levelling on loss, we're looking into some solutions to this. However it isn't simple, as people will exploit it and then we'll have complaints about that also. Much like some are with the GG system, it is frustrating to have to design around this as it makes it hard to reward genuine players.

I would note:

1. Since this is a CCG and not a TCG, you are less likely to encounter botting.

2. You can build in a more expansive daily rewards system. To accommodate losses, you could give a daily reward at 5 games played, 10 games played, 20 games played. But to encourage winning, you build in another daily chain -> win 3 games, win 6 games, win 10 games, etc.

 

[Rethas]

I would note:

1. Since this is a CCG and not a TCG, you are less likely to encounter botting.

2. You can build in a more expansive daily rewards system. To accommodate losses, you could give a daily reward at 5 games played, 10 games played, 20 games played. But to encourage winning, you build in another daily chain -> win 3 games, win 6 games, win 10 games, etc.

Point 1 I would strongly disagree with, other CCGs they have been plagued with bots grinding currency / ranks.

Point 2 As I have stated in other threads, we're looking into ideas to accommodate loses. But it is quite complex as people will try to exploit this, with you your example above this would easily prone to abuse.

 

[bigboss9191]

Point 1 I would strongly disagree with, other CCGs they have been plagued with bots grinding currency / ranks.

Point 2 As I have stated in other threads, we're looking into ideas to accommodate loses. But it is quite complex as people will try to exploit this, with you your example above this would easily prone to abuse.

Point 1 I would strongly disagree with, other CCGs they have been plagued with bots grinding currency / ranks.

Point 2 As I have stated in other threads, we're looking into ideas to accommodate loses. But it is quite complex as people will try to exploit this, with you your example above this would easily prone to abuse.

Have you thought about giving a match a minimum timer in order to give reward on a loss? For example examine the average time a gwent game takes. Let's say 5mins, then if t>5mins give rewards else no. Or give rewards on loss based on a linear eqution with variable the time. Ofcourse do not give rewards if there was constant afk from the loser (what would likely a lose bot will do). Even a bot would be slown down with this and could not exploit too much the reward system.

 

[Peetz]

I don't really think there is any problem with the GG rewards system as it is. I believe the intention of it was a way to thank the other player for their time and the game - not to acquire the measly 5 scrap or ore. From my short experience it looks like most players send a GG at the end of the game - win or lose - and I agree with that.

The ONLY time I do not send GG is if the other player forfeits right at the beginning.

Now - maybe they got a really bad mulligan draw; maybe they clicked on the wrong deck by mistake; maybe they lost their connection; maybe their wife told them to get off that game, RIGHT NOW!... or maybe it's someone or a bot trying to exploit scrap/ore without playing. I don't know why, but I have seen a lot more of that "beginning forfeit" in the past couple of days - and I don't know if it's a bot or someone trying to exploit the GG system - but I simply am NOT going to GG someone who doesn't play. That doesn't make any sense. Anyone else who plays through the game - win or lose - gets a GG from me. It's a "thank you for your time and the game". And I think that's how it was intended to be.