Artifact - About Constructed (Ranked) Ladder |  |
- About Constructed (Ranked) Ladder
- Why there are no streams ?
- I was smashed by the best player in the world
- Is there a way to end in a draw?
- I Hate It
- Valve, I am day one Artifact 1.0 player, played 65 hours, last tillme played in April, submitted for beta and still haven't received Artifact 2.0, something sure must be wrong?
| About Constructed (Ranked) Ladder Posted: 19 Aug 2020 09:10 AM PDT I do not think that a classic ladder would be suitable for this game. TCG are not like chess where both players essentially have the same tools at their disposal, it is much more match-up dependent. The problem:Usually, when a digital TCG implements a classic ladder system where two players are matched around the same skill, but every match is essentially in a vacuum, FAST decks which win 51% of matches (it is an example, calm down) will be preferred over slow decks with higher winrate because people want to grind the ladder to the top in a time-effective manner. This grind tactic includes conceding when a match takes too long to be worth playing out since there are only so many hours in the day. Many of us who have played TCG ladder remember this issue from Magic or Hearthstone. I believe this to be a flawed system since it does not actually reward good players and good, consistent decks. It rewards fast decks, good starting hands and on-curve draws. Better but slower decks which win consistently lose out on ladder in the long run simply because you get fewer games in, so your MMR/hour sucks. My suggested solution:I propose that the Constructed Ladder is implemented as a series of 3 matches at a time, much like a Dota 2 Battlecup. So if a player wins the first match, the next match he queues for will be against another player who has also won his first match. If he wins again, he advances to the final against another player who has won two games in a row. Players cannot change decks in between these three matches unless they forfeit the remaining games in the series. When this series of three matches is over, the player's success is evaluated. He gains ranked points for every match he won, each victory in the series being worth more ranked points than the last. This means winning all three will give a considerable boost in MMR. Generally, a player who wins the first two matches but does not win the final, will come out of this series with more points than he started with because losing the Final game should not redact as many points as he gained in winning the other two. The advantages:This means that a player is matched with increasingly successful players within the same series of matches before ranked points are awarded or redacted. Not only does this reward good players, it rewards good decks which win consistently against a variety of decks which have proven their own success. This system also counter-acts smurfs because players with a high rate of success, who consistently win matches in succession will rise faster through the ranks since winning a complete series would boost MMR greatly. An FAQ for clarity:Q: Is it really a problem that players who spend more time in ranked ladder get more points over time? Also, I love Aggro-Decks, why am I the problem now? A: The problem with the players I was referring to above is not their time investment but the way they abuse the usual ladder system with inconsistent decks. There is nothing wrong with fast decks as long as they are consistent and the player using them knows how to avoid being controlled and delayed and built his deck accordingly. In the usual ladder, someone using an inconsistent deck which relies on a good start and on-curve draws will simply concede when the time investment is too high. He takes a single loss and wins two other matches in the time that the first match would have taken place still. Despite using a deck which only wins when things go his way against certain decks, he is rising through the ranks by time management alone, not skill. It is like cutting bread using a blunt object. In the system I describe, you cannot effectively rise through the ranks without consistently winning three games in a row. This is impossible without playing well with well-built decks. Q: Doesn't that mean you have to wait for the game to match 8 people into that Battlecup? That'll take way too long for a 1v1 card game! A: This system would not actually populate an entire mini-tournament and create groups like that. The game will simply match you with another player of your skill range that is looking for his first game of three. And assuming you won, you will be matched with a player in your skill-range who also won his first match. Same applies to your second win. Q: This isn't Dota, I don't want to dedicate an hour to gain some MMR. What makes you think people will stick around for three games?! A: A player doesn't have to dedicate himself to playing three matches at a time whenever he wants to play ranked. A player could win his first match, queue at a later time and the game will simply search for another player who has also won his first match. This is not exactly like the Dota 2 Battlecup where you only have a small window of time to queue for it. You can continue your series of matches at any time. Q: So you get points for winning and lose them for losing...where is the difference to normal ladder? A: One difference is that each successive match is against increasingly successful players. So generally, you will be up against a player who is above the average of your current bracket once you make it to the final of the series. You will also be up against better decks which do not rely on a good start or a good curve alone. Only good players with good decks will reach the final of a series consistently. Q: I don't get the different ranked points thing. So each win gets you more points than the last? A: Let's look at a super simplified example using stars * instead of numbers. The fighting games Fantasy Strike on Steam actually uses this system. You are a Guardian 1. You just played a whole series of three games but you lost the final. You gain +1 for winning the first game. You win +2* for winning the second game. Your loss costs you -1 . You have gained 2 altogether for this series and are now Guardian 3. If you had won the final, it would have rewarded you 3, allowing you to get into Archon. The number of stars required to advance increase as you rise through the ranks. Q: Doesn't this system require a playerbase of more than 2 players? OMEGALUL A: Yes. I am a hopeless optimist. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 19 Aug 2020 11:12 AM PDT due to boredom i thought i would start streaming. I thought i would die in the sea of streams, but theere is no one streaming artifact. Why ? [link] [comments]  | ||
| I was smashed by the best player in the world Posted: 19 Aug 2020 05:01 PM PDT
 | ||
| Is there a way to end in a draw? Posted: 19 Aug 2020 04:42 PM PDT If me and another player are going to kill each others towers (for example I'm going to kill right and they're going to kill left) is there that ends in a draw or just luck on what side attacks first? [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 19 Aug 2020 01:15 PM PDT Men I hate it. I didn't get into the beta fast enough. Game is bad. Ill be back tomorrow. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 19 Aug 2020 03:37 AM PDT Can devs clarify the situation with invites? Because I am starting to think thatthe invite system is somehow broken, and I don't think I am alone with this thought. [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Artifact - The Dota Card Game. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment