spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that it's good long games aren't given bonus points. People would just wait forever to take their turn to draw things down on purpose for better ratings.

I am more troubled that a win was only 18 points period. If you win more than you lose you should climb.

I pretty regularly get 0 through 30 points for a win and most the time I lose 150 if I lose. So on a normal day I have to be winning 5 times more than I lose to climb. And that is difficult. For one, more and more players are using Pelin and Crow which I personally believe lend themseleves to minimizing the factor that skill may have on a game. On top of that, it takes the que forever to pop. So I can get 5 minute downtimes in between games and that is just incredibly demotivating.

As for the length of games being more rewarding, something like the loot from the box being improved would be appropriate. But really, there should just be balance changes that maximize the skill component of winning a game. In that way, my complaint of fast strategies being advantaged on ladder may be tended to somewhat.

i wonder if it is making the determination based on leaderboard rank, since i see in your screenshot your ranked #3 out of all the competitive players, which means your likely being matched to players 10s or 100s of ranks below you if they are still in the rubedite bracket

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that it's good long games aren't given bonus points. People would just wait forever to take their turn to draw things down on purpose for better ratings.

I am more troubled that a win was only 18 points period. If you win more than you lose you should climb.

I'm more troubled about losing more than 100 points per lost. That's insanely high for no good reason, period.

This match took 43 mins and I got +83 points. Game time doesn't and should never have any relevance on point score.

The only thing that has any relevance to how many points you get is the hidden ranking system assigned to each player over the course of the season. If you win 2 times more than you lose or 10 times more, the points will vary based on how high your opponent is ranked skill-wise on this hidden mmr system. It's possible actual ladder rank makes a difference but I have seen no evidence of this as I rarely see matches against much higher-ranked players than myself.

There are some problems with the overall system but it's most likely not in the point system other than they chose to let you see how many points you get/lose and the total point each player has on the ladder.

For example, in the current system if you only ever saw how many places you moved up and down based on a win/lose you would realize just how many games you have to win to significantly move to the top regardless of the number of wins in a row. Because it is not about winning every game that moves you up the ladder it is about winning more games against equally or higher-ranked players than yourself on this hidden mmr scale. This is very evident if you play during prime hours vs in the late off hours. You are more likely to get a better match up in prime time resulting in better points. When I play late at night I almost never get good point gains and almost always win all my matches because I'm playing lower mmr ranked players.
During prime time I lose some matches but get more points for a lot of my winning matches because I'm being matched up better based on the mmr rank.

The games overall low player population playing ranked matches and the low number of players at any given time probably makes this even worse. This problem occurs in other card games like hearthstone in the ranked tiers but to a much lesser degree because that game has a very high player population.

Another issue is that ToT was designed slightly to appeal to and be slightly balanced for the large casual player base who probably has never played a deck builder/card game. Players who don't realize that there are actual game strategies and hidden mechanics/combos besides just using crow. That the higher you get on the ladder there is a meta and counter meta game play. That, knowing your opponents' strategy is just as important as having your own.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that it's good long games aren't given bonus points. People would just wait forever to take their turn to draw things down on purpose for better ratings.



As for the length of games being more rewarding, something like the loot from the box being improved would be appropriate. But really, there should just be balance changes that maximize the skill component of winning a game. In that way, my complaint of fast strategies being advantaged on ladder may be tended to somewhat.

I agree with you that gaining 0-30 for a win and losing 150 for a loss is demotivating, but better prizes for longer games is a bad idea. Any increased reward for length of game would just incentivize people to waste time.