Please, no pro ladder

[Mevir]

Hi guys,

considering the PRO LADDER I was wondering how many players are currently allowed to participate?
As far as I know 10% of players with the lowest MMR at the end of a season, as well as those who haven’t played at least 10 games lose the ability to play on the Pro Ladder for the coming season.

So it would be nice to know which number you have to reach at the end of this season to stay in the ladder. Or just let us know (or is it possible to find it out somewhere on ttps://masters.playgwent.com/en/rankings/pro-ladder) the total number of players in the pro ladder so everyone could calculate the 10 % limit on its own....

Thx a lot...

keep up the good work ;-)

 

[Raiie]

Even after reading all of this thread, i am not sure what the actual problem is, that people are complaining about.
All i can say is that pro ladder is amazing to play for me, it leads to a very diverse meta and i get to play people i consider to be more at my level than on the normal ladder. Because even if you are at around Rank 20 there, the level of play is really bad atm and i don't care about grinding all the way just to get good games. So only having to play pro ladder from now on means i can have only 100% relevant games all the time and i'm spared the normal ladder grind.

The people are complaining that it takes a lot of time to play 400+ games needed to unlock 100% MMR on the pro ladder.

However, to me the problem is that there's no enough people on the pro ladder. I have to wait a couple minutes for a game, while it takes only seconds in Ranked and Casual.
But the diversity of decks on the Pro Ladder is amazing. I am fed up with netdecking Dagons and NR armor both in Casual and Ranked (I mostly play SK and NG).

The problem is that there is no ban phase thus can your 50 games with skellige be against northern realms while your monster games had less matches against northern realms. This means that your mmr can change depending on how many times you meet the specific overpowered faction. If pro ladder is supposed to lead into tournaments then why isn't it using tournament functions? Furthermore the game itself is flawed with the coinflip, silver spies and summoning circle combo and round 2 mostly being a drypass.

Sure it can mean a lot to be good with 4 factions however if one of them is considered overpowered then this specific faction will have advantage against the other factions. One solution to this would be to have a draft mode in which you pick your 4 factions and then go into a ban mode where both you and the opponent ban 1 deck from each other.

 

[Razhael]

@above:

the coinflip, silver spies, summoning circle, what factions you are matched against ... all of these are not factors that matter when you play enough games.

The coinflip will eventually be happening as often to your opponents as it will happen to you. And just as you'll play against factions that your deck is strong against, you'll also play against others that your deck is weak against. It's completely up to the pro-player to find the best decks to climb the ladder with.

Round 2 drypasses are not the correct play in several of the current match-ups.

The current pro-ladder is not perfect, but this is about as good as I've seen any game developer make one.

 

[Raiie]

the coinflip, silver spies, summoning circle, what factions you are matched against ... all of these are not factors that matter when you play enough games.

The coinflip will eventually be happening as often to your opponents as it will happen to you. And just as you'll play against factions that your deck is strong against, you'll also play against others that your deck is weak against. It's completely up to the pro-player to find the best decks to climb the ladder with.

Since card advantage is the most important resource in this game then silver spies are very common in most decks, summoning circle counters this in someway furthermore if you're able to throw out both a spy and a copy of it then you pretty much have a free win. So then with the first 50 games then its a problem however after 100 games then its not a problem. Its still a problem considering that it affects the early games.
I don't see how a flawed system is ok since it can eventually lead to money, considering that this game is still in beta and not finished therefore I find this a bit odd. At the moment Northern realms can be weak against Northern realms, just to solve this problem then the pro ladder should have a ban phase if its suppose to lead into tournaments that have ban phases.

Round 2 drypasses are not the correct play in several of the current match-ups.

Depends if you have to bleed out their win condition then again drypasses are common because of card advantage.

The current pro-ladder is not perfect, but this is about as good as I've seen any game developer make one.

Compared to?

 

[Razhael]

Since card advantage is the most important resource in this game then silver spies are very common in most decks, summoning circle counters this in someway furthermore if you're able to throw out both a spy and a copy of it then you pretty much have a free win. So then with the first 50 games then its a problem however after 100 games then its not a problem. Its still a problem considering that it affects the early games.
I don't see how a flawed system is ok since it can eventually lead to money, considering that this game is still in beta and not finished therefore I find this a bit odd. At the moment Northern realms can be weak against Northern realms, just to solve this problem then the pro ladder should have a ban phase if its suppose to lead into tournaments that have ban phases.

In this current iteration of the game it's rather clear that cards that give tempo and/or strictly higher value matters more. CA is important nevertheless, but given the choice of going into r3 against NR with one card up, or on equal cards but with them having had to use up Shani and/or Djikstra - it's probably more correct to opt for going in on equal terms.

Imo you are not grasping the point. Over time, individual exceptions such as:

• games when one player is able to setup a lucky scenario where they get 2x spies
• games where you won or lost the coin flip...
• where you drew all four golds and six silvers, or games where you didn't...

... don't actually matter - at least not over enough time. Given that one plays enough games, the trend is that the factors that are equally likely to benefit yourelf, as it is likely to benefit your opponent, becomes less relevant in deciding where a player will end up in a ranking system.

Winning or losing the coin-flip is irrelevant, as it is as likely to happen to your opponent as it is likely to happen to you. And whilst having a streak where you lose the coin flip 3 games in a row is likely to affect your current win-ratio, it is insignificant when you have played over ~500 games. Over time the skill of the player and the balance of the cards will be the factors that determine the hierarchy.

Depends if you have to bleed out their win condition then again drypasses are common because of card advantage.

It depends on a lot of factors, but it's a lesser player whom only opts for dry passes to simply earn CA.

 

[4RM3D]

games where you won or lost the coin flip don't actually matter - at least not over enough time. Given that one plays enough games, the trend is that the factors that are equally likely to benefit yourelf, as it is likely to benefit your opponent, becomes less relevant in deciding where a player will end up in a ranking system.

Except if losing the coin flip would be synonymous to losing the game. Yeah, statistically speaking, it hurts everyone equally, but that doesn't make it alright.

 

[JawsLoanCompany]

The game desperately needs a new mode. Using Hearthstone vernacular it needs a draft or brawl diversion. Or perhaps something original. I know Thronebreaker is on the horizon but Pro Ladder was just lazy. Sure, there's a small subset of hardcore players that relish the idea. But for the vast majority of players it doesn't make the game any better.

 

[Raiie]

In this current iteration of the game it's rather clear that cards that give tempo and/or strictly higher value matters more. CA is important nevertheless, but given the choice of going into r3 against NR with one card up, or on equal cards but with them having had to use up Shani and/or Djikstra - it's probably more correct to opt for going in on equal terms.

If you have more cards then you're able to get more tempo. The problem is that most players will save shani and djikstra for last and if you're not able to go 2-0 or make them use both cards then it mostly makes the 3rd round harder, considering that stennis exist with this combo.

Imo you are not grasping the point. Over time, individual exceptions such as:

• games when one player is able to setup a lucky scenario where they get 2x spies
• games where you won or lost the coin flip...
• where you drew all four golds and six silvers, or games where you didn't...

... don't actually matter - at least not over enough time. Given that one plays enough games, the trend is that the factors that are equally likely to benefit yourelf, as it is likely to benefit your opponent, becomes less relevant in deciding where a player will end up in a ranking system.

Winning or losing the coin-flip is irrelevant, as it is as likely to happen to your opponent as it is likely to happen to you. And whilst having a streak where you lose the coin flip 3 games in a row is likely to affect your current win-ratio, it is insignificant when you have played over ~500 games. Over time the skill of the player and the balance of the cards will be the factors that determine the hierarchy.

If both of them grind enough games doesn't automatically minimize the problem of the system. If a flaw matters during the first few games then 500 games doesn't make it disappear the problem is still there. Since this game tries to be competitive then why have a system that is flawed. This means that the coin flip actually matters since winning could lead to money.

It depends on a lot of factors, but it's a lesser player whom only opts for dry passes to simply earn CA.

What factors do you have in mind? If you go 2nd and win the 1st round then drypass round 2 after that you're able to have 2-3 card advantage in round 3 if you used the silver spy or not, theoretically speaking. Then again bleeding can be useful for getting rid of certain cards or if you're able to regain CA.

 

[EazyR]

Winning or losing the coin-flip is irrelevant, as it is as likely to happen to your opponent as it is likely to happen to you

It happens to everyone losing the coin-flip, but how often it happens, because if you lose the coin-flip a lot of times in a row you gonna struggle in alot of matches, i´ve had a situation that i lost the coin-flip 15 times in a row , and if you´ve seen the stats of the Gwent Open who lost the coin flip +-70% of the times lost the game, thats relevant and in the Pro Ladder when you are playing one of the weakest factions and you keep on losing the flip makes it almost impossible to have a good wr, and i get what you´re saying skill determines a lot but when it´s on equal grounds, in Gwent we have to deal with our draws, the opponents draws, it´s a luck game at its core we just minimize it with deck building, skill, whatever you want ,and still have to deal with the coin-flip that has huge impact.Sorry for the rambling

 

[DeathandTexas]

If both of them grind enough games doesn't automatically minimize the problem of the system. If a flaw matters during the first few games then 500 games doesn't make it disappear the problem is still there. Since this game tries to be competitive then why have a system that is flawed. This means that the coin flip actually matters since winning could lead to money.

I think you don't fully understand the Law of Large Numbers.

 

[Raiie]

I think you don't fully understand the Law of Large Numbers.

Do you even know what the flaws are?

 

[MedievalHistory]

I see nothing wrong with the pro ladder since it only offers incentive to be a better player by playing against other exceptional players.

 

[TheReal4982]

The pro ladder is awesome though.

 

[Swifty4]

It happens to everyone losing the coin-flip, but how often it happens, because if you lose the coin-flip a lot of times in a row you gonna struggle in alot of matches, i´ve had a situation that i lost the coin-flip 15 times in a row , and if you´ve seen the stats of the Gwent Open who lost the coin flip +-70% of the times lost the game, thats relevant and in the Pro Ladder when you are playing one of the weakest factions and you keep on losing the flip makes it almost impossible to have a good wr, and i get what you´re saying skill determines a lot but when it´s on equal grounds, in Gwent we have to deal with our draws, the opponents draws, it´s a luck game at its core we just minimize it with deck building, skill, whatever you want ,and still have to deal with the coin-flip that has huge impact.Sorry for the rambling

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from of it you've really looked at the analysis of the coin flip. So I've seen two people's data, person 1: First = 39% winrate, Second = 62% winrate. person 2: First = 59% winrate, Second = 71% winrate. So yes, I don't think there's any argument that says that going first is better, though the power of this effect isn't too great, for the person1 there's a 23% difference, now this is a problem and for him it goes over the crucial 50% bound. For person2 there's only a 12% difference and it doesn't go over the bound. What this tells me is that there are ways to play to mitigate the coin flip, when you play first you have to understand how to play differently in this position.
All turned based games have some variance and who goes first matters, even in chess GrandMasters will say there's about a 4-12% difference in it. However with such small potential differences in Gwent as 12% which is further mitigated over a large number of games then it really isn't a problem. If the differences were larger then I would say it's bad and I'm sure CDPR have the numbers are keeping an eye on them, but at 10-20% it's not something that needs an overhaul. In tournaments however a decision of who goes first should be based on other factors, like winning a previous match or position when entering the tournament so the strength of a coin flip matters more when you're only playing a few games.

 

[EazyR]

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from of it you've really looked at the analysis of the coin flip. So I've seen two people's data, person 1: First = 39% winrate, Second = 62% winrate. person 2: First = 59% winrate, Second = 71% winrate. So yes, I don't think there's any argument that says that going first is better, though the power of this effect isn't too great, for the person1 there's a 23% difference, now this is a problem and for him it goes over the crucial 50% bound. For person2 there's only a 12% difference and it doesn't go over the bound. What this tells me is that there are ways to play to mitigate the coin flip, when you play first you have to understand how to play differently in this position.
All turned based games have some variance and who goes first matters, even in chess GrandMasters will say there's about a 4-12% difference in it. However with such small potential differences in Gwent as 12% which is further mitigated over a large number of games then it really isn't a problem. If the differences were larger then I would say it's bad and I'm sure CDPR have the numbers are keeping an eye on them, but at 10-20% it's not something that needs an overhaul. In tournaments however a decision of who goes first should be based on other factors, like winning a previous match or position when entering the tournament so the strength of a coin flip matters more when you're only playing a few games.

So, first of all sorry for for the delay in responding, got sick of the game so i stopped for more then a month, second here is a link for you to see what i'm talking about : https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/6w64ur/statistics_of_gwent_open_top_at_gamescom_2017/

Best of regards

 

[VanDerBass]

As long as there is still casual I don't mind

 

[Metales1949]

The solution is reset proleague and just open for 4.3k players.