Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting May Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
MrXLink

Current Proposal: PvP Rewards (AOT rPvE)

Recommended Posts

Greetings Skylords, Skyladies, and other Skythings!

After some time and several iterations of the gold reward system, I feel like overall rewards feel like they are in the right place. rPvE and to a degree cPvE rewards feel progressive and most players seem to enjoy the current boosted flow of gold to upgrade and charge their cards. However, there has been one difficult aspect of the game that has been far behind on this income and kind of feels like the younger, neglected brother of the BF gamemode family: PvP, specifically Ranked PvP.

There have been many requests and some threads regarding the gold rewards for Ranked PvP as it stands, and that they are considered to be far too low. Why haven't we touched this before? It's because PvP is always an extra sensitive subject when it comes to game economy, as the game is fully in the hands of two players, and therefore more susceptible to feelings of rage, unfairness or abuse. Specifically the latter, abuse, is something to take very seriously, as we don't want PvP, especially Ranked, to be swarmed with players that don't care or throw for the sake of a better reward. The Ranked PvP income has therefore always been kept relatively low, despite already gaining a 200-400% bonus compared to the original BattleForge. 

I understand this is tough, and that the PvP community feels forced to play PvE or trade in order to get their decks set up and working. While it's a great thing to stimulate hardcore PvP or PvE players to play a different mode every now and then, the gap between rPvE (the main source of income for the majority of players) and PvP was enormous, with rPvE lv. 9 netting more than double the rewards Ranked PvP victories would give, with rPvE lv. 10 clocking in at about 2.75x as much and solo cPvE Expert Victories at nearly 4x on average (if all upgrades go to the same player). Note, however, that despite cPvE being grossly out of proportion with other game modes if soloed and speedran, cPvE feels like it's in a good spot when it comes to earning gold and upgrades as compared to rPvE in the original BF, and we would like to keep it the way it is regardless of its exploit potential for skilled players. This also has to do with the way we set up Loot Lists as per community poll request. Regardless, it sure shows that PvP, both ranked and unranked (which makes no gold at the moment), are not worth it for gold farming. It's time to change that.

With your suggestions and worries regarding this subject, I decided to run some further calculations. While the calculation for PvP rewards is not as straightforward as it would seem, after some thought and many, MANY comparisons to rPvE lv. 9 (the most played gold-rushing rPvE level) and 10 (the most profitable rPvE level), I've come to figuring out some values that would be more in line with other game modes. You can review some of the thought processes behind this in my post in one of the PvP reward suggestion threads: 

After running some comparisons with altered rewards, I feel like the following changes will help PvP be a more viable option for those who wish to earn some gold without having to resort to PvE grinding. Additionally, I am putting some faith in you, the community, to open up some more possibilities to earn gold without having to enter the scary realm of Ranked play, which will hopefully prevent future abuse. Also keep in mind that reward/system abuse and AFK/"just kill me" matches are considered to be report-worthy offenses and you can help keep the community safe and fair by using the in-game /report tool to notify us.

Without further ado, the following changes are proposed for Ranked PvP and Unranked PvP (Sparring Grounds):

  • Increase average Ranked PvP rewards for wins from 72 Gold Per Minute to 125 Gold Per Minute
  • Increase average Ranked PvP rewards for losses from to 27 Gold Per Minute to 35 Gold Per Minute
  • Sparring Grounds will now earn gold equal to 33% of ranked rewards after a set time has been played

These changes will make PvP victories 7x as profitable as they were in the original BattleForge, and will make sure to narrow the gap between it and rPvE. There are more factors to PvP gold rewards than a simple Gold Per Minute ratio, but for the sake of clarity these have been left out for now. rPvE9 victories will now comparatively only be about 16% more profitable (currently 102%), and rPvE10 victories will respectively be 52% more profitable in gold (currently 172%). Yes, this does mean that rPvE is still slightly better to go for, but keep in mind that this is initially what rPvE was made for and will prevent Ranked PvP from becoming dominant in gold rushing, which would be detrimental to match quality. Also, rPvE losses will grant no gold at all, whereas PvP losses will give some gold. Sparring Grounds will now also reward some gold, so you don't have to feel obliged to play Ranked if you still want to earn some gold for your training and PvP pursuits!

Beware that these changes are not live yet and won't necessarily be final, but let me know what you think, and hopefully this will help breathe some life and motivation into the PvP sector of the game again! I am thinking of implementing this in the upcoming few days or so, and your reaction would be appreciated!

 

LagOps and xDarkfightx like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello MrXLink,

First of all thanks for making this thread. I'm really convinced that a remarkable part of the PvP community would benefit from higher gold incomes and it can clearly enhance the overall game environment. Sorry for the upcoming wall of text, but I really need to talk about this topic!

 

Current PvP Values 

I would like to start with some basics about the current reward system and potential problems. So let's get into the current formulas to check current rewards (They should be accurate as I double checked my calculations with gold incomes in some of my own games).  

 

1. Winning player

During the interval [0;2] the gold reward is at flat 250. 

During the interval [2;20] the amount of gold f(t) get's calculated as a function of time (t=minutes) -> f(t) = 250+((t-2)/18 * 1100) 

After 20 minutes the gold cap of 1350 got reached and it won't get higher regardless of gametime. I assume this is done to prevent abuse of 2 people agreeing on completely afk'ing in the game. 

 

2. Losing Player

During the interval [0;2] the gold reward is a flat 100.

During the interval [2;20] the amount of gold f(t) get's calculated as a function of time (t=minutes) again -> f(t) = 100+((t-2)/18*400)

After 20 minutes the gold cap of flat 500 got reached. 

 

What does this exactly mean? I'll show some rounded GPM values at 5 relevant game spots throughout the game for some clarity. 2, 5, 10 and 20, 30 minutes marks will be used here.

time -> Winning player (Losing player) [50% wr player]

2min -> 125 GPM (50 GPM) [88GPM]

5min -> 87 GPM (33 GPM) [60GPM]

10min -> 74 GPM (28 GPM) [51 GPM]

20min -> 68 GPM (25 GPM) [47 GPM]

30min -> 45 GPM (17 GPM) [31 GPM]

Comparison: I'll take your rPvE 9 value from one of your previous posts for that (145GPM). This implies that our average rPvE player aproximatly needs 29 minutes on average to win one map. Given that I think the average game time is faster, but there is no 100% winrate for all of these players that may be a quite accurate value. The average player in PvP has a 50% winrate in a normally distributed PvP environment. I'm pretty sure it isn't given (players with avg. skill should sit at sub 50% winrates), but I hope some gold changes may motivate more players to step into action again to fix that matchmaking problem. Anyways, these numbers lead to some problems I see with the current system and make me think that just raw stat increases won't be the solution to the issue. 

 

The big problems I see right now

-> GPM constantly decreases with increased game time. 

-> Winning PvP (highly skilled) is getting compared to average rPvE times (moderately skilled)

-> Losing income is really low, which is very counterintuitive for new players

 

The constant decrease of GPM over time is a problem for balancing. If you straight up increase GPM values on by putting in a multiplicator onto the formula you end up promoting the easiest way of abusing the game which is straight AFK'ing & wintrading. An AFK player will always be finished off after 2-4 minutes. If GPM are at their peak during this time this is a problem for potenial buffs to gold rewards. The question about rewarding 30min games over 20min games is another discussion (maybe you could check the percentage of 30min PvP games, if that is possible for you). From my perspective I would set a soft cap for these last 10 minutes rather than stopping at 20min. If equally skilled players face off against each other in certain matchups games tend to last much longer than average PvP games once the players reach higher tech stages. 

Another problem I see with most arguments is that the PvP Winner gets compared to the average rPvE player. I would consider myself pretty experienced in rPvE, but not top tier. I still get to finish 4 rPvE 9's in an hour. This puts me at a GPM of 280, which is completely out of the range of what I would achieve with my current 92% PvP winrate even in the proposed improved system. This is something that really should be put into consideration when talking about these calculations. 

 

Matchmaking issues

So let's talk a little about this problem beforehand. Right now GPM are vastly decreased by high que times and a very high participation of Top 10/20 players in ranked games resulting in que times. I really hope that after the upcoming reset and potential improvements to the PvP environment it may be possible to overcome some of these issues. With more motivated PvP players there would be a higher gold outcome for everyone as it minimizes the loss through que times. When talking about values it should always be considered, that the gold loss during waiting times has a clear implication onto the true outcome. That said I don't want to include this inconsistent variable too much into my arguments.  

 

Abuse of strong gold incomes 

Let's talk about it as you emphasized potential abuse as an issue. I don't think it is possible to abuse the system in a way, where it ruins game experience for serious players. If a change manages to make PvP interesting enough to attract abusers it will attract more serious players aswell, which has a much greater positive impact onto the PvP scene. There are 2 ways of abusing a high gold outcome for PvP:

 

1. Que up and stay AFK

2. Try to delay the game as much as possible

 

For the first case, this may be a delay of 2 minutes. Finishing off an AFK is an easy task, should be done in less than 2 minutes and grants some valuable gold. I don't think anyone will be too sad about a free win. Since there is a report system nowadays you could also just threaten to ban people that are doing such things. The second case I mentioned is doable aswell. People that try to delay by turteling or running away will run out of gas pretty quickly. Mass towers allow early free wells that result in a fast T3 finish while running away without ressource generation will also be a death sentence, since ressource generation just works through immobile buildings, that can get targeted directly.  

Sure there may be different ways to abuse the system to get gold with a friend, but that doesn't ruin the game experience for anyone as you won't participate in these matches. Even with an increased gold income for PvP it will never get close to certain abuse strategies. You could also team up with a friend in dwarfen riddle expert to let him solo the map. You can make some food during this time and get a 500 (?) GPM value for that. Soultree is also an option to boost gold incomes into different levels in case you are a solo player. Unless PvP rewards for losing players start being competive to 

 

What are my goals?

Before I start talking about real numbers, I want to talk about long term goals. Overall I want to see an attractive game with enjoyable gameplay for the majority of players in all gamemodes. I think the PvP community right now is quite small, but this wasn't always the case. During early 2013 times we had a very strong community and a strong PvP environment. 

 

1. Better new player experience (increased rewards for losing players that tried their best)

2. The possibility for veterans to grind without spamming PvE 

 

I'm convinced, that the amount of people that would try out PvP within a much more begginerfriendly environment gets a little underestimated in general. A more consistent income would increase the ability to get decks and cards, that you see in your first games, where you surely end up getting crushed. But with a quicker removal of competitive discrepance through ressources you can start learning the game much faster and enjoy its beauty when the real PvP gameplay starts. Under equal conditions it is much easier to identify mistakes and improve. At that point the wins start to come in which brings in more motivation to go on.  

 

So the next thing I'm talking about is also about the veterans, that used to play PvP during 2013. I think the majority of people in the PvP community do want to achieve their first playable PvP deck within one month of active gameplay. To get the big picture that means 170.000-260.000 gold depending on the faction you want to play. Sure you somewhat can start playing seriously with some cards being on U2, but I made the estimation, this value may probably the difference, that my final modell doesn't catch due to the loss of gold through que times. With a GPM of 125 this would range from 22-35 hours. Looks bearable for the cheaper decks, but keep in mind only the best players do have winrates above 80% over many games and I used the winner values here. Average values of 125 for winning and 35 for losing imply a 80GPM for 50% winrate players. Back to 35-54 hours of raw gameplay for the first deck again. But without a competive deck the winrate will most likely be lower than 50% at the start even as a veteran. A state where grinding for a deck still isn't worth it.

 

Sparring grounds

Not much I can add here. The potential for abuse is very high, but no rewards at all aren't satisfying especially for people who are afraid of ranked and the ones who want to get practice beforehand. Setting up a low percentage based on ranked income seems like a good solution for me. 

 

 

What changes I would like to see

The gold value I would like to see for a reasonable grind would be the possibility for people to get an upgraded PvP deck in about one month of gameplay. If we say Mr. XYZ plays 1 hour on average each day, this means we "ideally" do have 30 hours of gameplay. A full deck roughly costs 200.000 gold on average. In order to achieve that, we would need 111 GPM. An average player shouldn't earn less than that if PvP should end up in a reasonable state in terms of gold gains. 

The second value that I use to adjust my final proposal is the rPvE average value of 145 GPM. If an average PvP player ends up earning more than that, PvP might get vulnerable to that. So I would like to see an average GPM between 111 and 145. This would push PvP into a position where it still gets outshined by rPvE and especially cPvE, but may be able to bring some satisfaction to the people, that simply don't enjoy playing PvE. 

So let's try to get to the final formula. AFK players shouldn't be rewarded here, so flat loss income for the first 2 minutes should stay the same, while the flat bonus for the winning party could get increased by a little bit. It's less vulnerable to abuse and brings more excitement to very dominant games and decreases potential frustration upon facing an afk player. 

I decided to keep the income between 20 and 30 minutes for now in my modell. It could see a slight change in the future, but for now it should affect the lowest percentage of games.

My model also brings rewards for the losing player, that ended up putting a long fight. Unless the enemy manipulates the game aswell no abuser will last long in these games and I really think PvP needs to be much more beginnerfriendly than it is right now. 

 

Final formula and comparison to initial values and other game modes 

Winning player:

[0;2] -> f(t) = 300

[2;20] -> f(t) = 300+((t-2)/18*3200)

[20;30] -> f(t) = 3500

 

Losing player: 

[0;2] -> f(t) = 100

[2;20] -> f(t) = 100 + ((t-2)/18*1700)

[20;30] -> f(t) = 1800

 

Gold income comparison by using the marks of 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes

time -> Winning player (losing player) [50% wr player]

2min -> 150 GPM (50GPM) [100 GPM]

5min -> 167 GPM (77GPM) [122 GPM]

10min -> 172 GPM (86 GPM) [129 GPM]

20min -> 175 GPM (90 GPM) [133 GPM]

30min -> 117 GPM (60 GPM) [88,5 GPM]

 

These GPM values are what I would look for. It would be possible to farm upgrades for an entire deck within a month and a decent PvP player still gains below avg rPvE values while high lvl PvP player are still out of contention with PvE speedrunners.  

 

TL DR;

-> Increased scaling for losing players by 240% 

-> Increased flat winner bonus for winning games during the first 2 minutes (150% -> 200%)

-> Decreased gold over time multiplicator for winners (175% -> 88%)

-> GPM for an average PvP player will roughly stay 15% lower than the average rPvE player

-> GPM for a high ranked PvP player will roughly stay 70% lower than a top rPvE player

 

Thanks alot for reading and I really hope, that the PvP community can come back strong again! If there is anything you want to talk about, I'll be around for discussion 

Best regards,

RadicalX

Edited by RadicalX
Yuah, Loriens, LEBOVIN and 8 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like (100%)winning PvP player to be bit more profitable than rPvE/cPvE, so I would propose rewards even bit higher :) 

I would see addition of anti-exploiting measures as a better solution that low rewards.

To make speedrunning a bit less competitive I already proposed solution to significantly decrease disenchant rewards and add rewards per objective, which in case of speedrunning would mean they get much less gold because they skip some objectives :D this is not 100% confirmed, but we are now almost sure we can implement this.

I think you both miss one significant point that make PvP less attractive which are quests that mostly force them to not play PvP, but that deserves own topic.

Also the time scale does not need to be same for winning and losing player, so winning player can scale up fast to 15 minutes and then slowly to 30 minutes, and losing player can scale up fast to 10 minutes and then even slower to 30 minutes, for me that is just few lines of code and if the losing player will know his reward scale slower, then he may consider to just give up instead of trying to turtle for 10 more minutes to get maximum profit. It is just suggestion, and I do not know for sure if players mentality will be like that.

And there is one more point that was not mentioned Rewarding players from leaderboards which could give boost to everyone who is good. No solid proposal for that yet, but I want to mention it as point of consideration.

xDarkfightx, Ultrakool and RadicalX like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all the suggestions so far and generally agree with RadicalX's way of thinking. Thank you for being willing to address the problem.

Just an an example in all this, I am a formerly active top 20 player (in EA days) and I haven't logged into the game since December, even while following the project, because I have been unsatisfied with the current system. As is, I am being forced to play tens of hours of PvE to get to the game mode which I enjoy so I quit playing until something changed. So I am really looking forward to these changes so I can start engaging with my favorite game again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if GPM income for PvP would be at least equal to PvE. PvP is definitely more stressful and needs better decks than lev 9 PvE ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Draconnor said:

It would be nice if GPM income for PvP would be at least equal to PvE. PvP is definitely more stressful and needs better decks than lev 9 PvE ;)

But PvP is easier to afk farm and do cheaty stuff like that. It's ok when rpve9 gives a slightly bit more gold on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been months now, and I want to apologise for not having had the time to tackle and implement this feedback as extensively as I'd want to. I feel like I may be a little too rough on the abuse factor of rewards in a game mode that is not straightforwardly farm-able and requires a lot of setup. The point @RadicalX makes about the 50% winrate is admittedly a huge oversight that has significant impact on the actual GPM values that would come out of this, let alone the longer queue times. However, we can't factor in queue times that much due to the current server population holding back until the wipe, so I generally hope that through these measures we're going to get some more PvP popularity in general. 

I was sceptical at first about Radical's idea for the higher losing values but I can understand where he's coming from, and I do believe that while this makes things easily more prone to abuse, I think it's only fair to give this system a chance as it's way fairer on your average user. Though I would personally consider this to be a bit high on the loss end for players as opposed to gaining absolutely zero for failing any rPvE, despite the fail frequency being way lower there, I think it may weigh out to make PvP more appealing, which is a general priority here. Therefore I would be willing to adopt the formula @RadicalX stated as it's pretty much in tone with the rest of the game modes (after running some calculations based on fairer, more comparable W/L rates and queue times). I do, however, still want to add to the reward for climbing the steep slope that is PvP to make it more appealing in a less bland way than to add flat rates.

I have an idea of rewarding consecutive Ranked wins and possibly an incentive to keep playing PvP without turning it into a farmfest (which is still my biggest concern and a threat to PvP enjoyability), along the lines of gaining a gold multiplier on Ranked after each win, that would help the PvP community to farm up a bit better without making it directly easier than rPvE, which we can agree on should be the main go-to for farming (or speedrunning Guns of Lyr, the likes of EA-era PtD and Conversion I suppose). Without establishing a ton of dominance for high-level PvP players and/or smurf potential, there could also be a slight gold bonus for having a comeback after X losses (thus making up for lost gold bonuses). This would be a different way of stimulating repeated PvP play without simply increasing the flat gold rates or formula. An example would be to gain +3% gold after each consecutive victory, but a comeback after min. 3 losses may net a +5% gold bonus per previous loss. There would of course me maximum values to this. This way winners and losers do gain a good amount of bonus gold if they do well or manage to come back from a tight spot without it being too prone to abuse. 50/50 players would not be penalised as opposed to comebacks or streaks all that much, rPvE would not siphon unwilling players to PvP and I think this system would be a good motivator. This also incorporates @Kubik's idea of supporting constantly winning players and helping hardcore PvP players to boost their decks ever so slightly more, all without making PvP too appealing for mindless grinding, but appealing enough for variety. Example data below:

Quote

Time: 15m | Avg. Win: 2500 | Avg. Loss: 1250 | Streak +3% P.W. | Comeback +5% P.L.
PvP L/L/L/L/W (comeback +20%) = 8,000
PvP L/W/L/W/L (no bonus) = 8,750
PvP W/W/L/L/W (streak x1 +3%) = 10,075
PvP W/W/W/W/W (streak x5, up to +12%) = 13,400
rPvE 9 W/W/W (similar time) = 12,600
rPvE 9 W/L/W (similar time) = 8,400

I am currently aware of the possibility that Streak and Comeback bonuses could theoretically be abused by stalling a match, but I do believe stalling a PvP match would put the player at risk of being beaten in the process, and with the max time for earning gold being in place, this stalling would be a risky but not really abusive practice.
With these ideas up and going for implementation, the final changes would look as follows: 

  • Increase base ranked PvP gold for victories by 20% (250 > 300)
  • Change the gold-over-time formula for PvP matches to bring win and loss values closer together
    • Maximum time win gold increased to 3500 (up from 1350)
    • Maximum time loss gold increased to 1800 (up from 500)
    • This means loss and win scaling are now 88% apart as opposed to the original 175%
  • Sparring Grounds will now grant 33% of the gold Ranked PvP would earn, after a set time has elapsed in a match (likely more than 2m)
  • Ranked PvP matches may benefit from a win streak and comeback system
    • For every consecutive victory, gain a +3% gold bonus, stacking up to a max of 15%
    • For every consecutive loss, gain a +5% gold bonus applying to your next victory, stacking up to a max of 25%

Hopefully, these changes will make PvP significantly more attractive. Please feel free to give further input on these proposed changes, sorry again for the delay, and thanks a lot to @RadicalX for bringing the ongoing issues to light, so that they are ironed out before implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrXLink said:

It has been months now, and I want to apologise for not having had the time to tackle and implement this feedback as extensively as I'd want to. I feel like I may be a little too rough on the abuse factor of rewards in a game mode that is not straightforwardly farm-able and requires a lot of setup. The point @RadicalX makes about the 50% winrate is admittedly a huge oversight that has significant impact on the actual GPM values that would come out of this, let alone the longer queue times. However, we can't factor in queue times that much due to the current server population holding back until the wipe, so I generally hope that through these measures we're going to get some more PvP popularity in general. 

I was sceptical at first about Radical's idea for the higher losing values but I can understand where he's coming from, and I do believe that while this makes things easily more prone to abuse, I think it's only fair to give this system a chance as it's way fairer on your average user. Though I would personally consider this to be a bit high on the loss end for players as opposed to gaining absolutely zero for failing any rPvE, despite the fail frequency being way lower there, I think it may weigh out to make PvP more appealing, which is a general priority here. Therefore I would be willing to adopt the formula @RadicalX stated as it's pretty much in tone with the rest of the game modes (after running some calculations based on fairer, more comparable W/L rates and queue times). I do, however, still want to add to the reward for climbing the steep slope that is PvP to make it more appealing in a less bland way than to add flat rates.

I have an idea of rewarding consecutive Ranked wins and possibly an incentive to keep playing PvP without turning it into a farmfest (which is still my biggest concern and a threat to PvP enjoyability), along the lines of gaining a gold multiplier on Ranked after each win, that would help the PvP community to farm up a bit better without making it directly easier than rPvE, which we can agree on should be the main go-to for farming (or speedrunning Guns of Lyr, the likes of EA-era PtD and Conversion I suppose). Without establishing a ton of dominance for high-level PvP players and/or smurf potential, there could also be a slight gold bonus for having a comeback after X losses (thus making up for lost gold bonuses). This would be a different way of stimulating repeated PvP play without simply increasing the flat gold rates or formula. An example would be to gain +3% gold after each consecutive victory, but a comeback after min. 3 losses may net a +5% gold bonus per previous loss. There would of course me maximum values to this. This way winners and losers do gain a good amount of bonus gold if they do well or manage to come back from a tight spot without it being too prone to abuse. 50/50 players would not be penalised as opposed to comebacks or streaks all that much, rPvE would not siphon unwilling players to PvP and I think this system would be a good motivator. This also incorporates @Kubik's idea of supporting constantly winning players and helping hardcore PvP players to boost their decks ever so slightly more, all without making PvP too appealing for mindless grinding, but appealing enough for variety. Example data below:

I am currently aware of the possibility that Streak and Comeback bonuses could theoretically be abused by stalling a match, but I do believe stalling a PvP match would put the player at risk of being beaten in the process, and with the max time for earning gold being in place, this stalling would be a risky but not really abusive practice.
With these ideas up and going for implementation, the final changes would look as follows: 

  • Increase base ranked PvP gold for victories by 20% (250 > 300)
  • Change the gold-over-time formula for PvP matches to bring win and loss values closer together
    • Maximum time win gold increased to 3500 (up from 1350)
    • Maximum time loss gold increased to 1800 (up from 500)
    • This means loss and win scaling are now 88% apart as opposed to the original 175%
  • Sparring Grounds will now grant 33% of the gold Ranked PvP would earn, after a set time has elapsed in a match (likely more than 2m)
  • Ranked PvP matches may benefit from a win streak and comeback system
    • For every consecutive victory, gain a +3% gold bonus, stacking up to a max of 15%
    • For every consecutive loss, gain a +5% gold bonus applying to your next victory, stacking up to a max of 25%

Hopefully, these changes will make PvP significantly more attractive. Please feel free to give further input on these proposed changes, sorry again for the delay, and thanks a lot to @RadicalX for bringing the ongoing issues to light, so that they are ironed out before implementation.

I like it, baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RadicalX you should probably read Link's post and respond, because he said he is waiting for the reactions, and you are probably the most qualified one to respond :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kubik said:

@RadicalX you should probably read Link's post and respond, because he said he is waiting for the reactions, and you are probably the most qualified one to respond :) 

I'm just looking at the response in general. Radical already upvoted the post in approval. Looks to me like we can implement this soon though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hey Fellas!

First post from me , lately i have the problem that i don't find PVP enemy's , and that´s Because none plays it. I don't want to spread negativity or anything close to that. But even if i see an open lobby that isn't from like the 10 PVP players that actually play active, it´s "i just want to finish the PVP quest ASAP"-guys.

I think For the Reward you should not get gold, because when you play PVP you already need a pretty good deck and there is a high possibility that you already have everything on U3.

Now my Idea , if you Win a PVP game (on a certain Rank or Deck-lvl ,min game length 7,5 minutes so Smurfers cant abuse it too hard)  you get a  booster (that contains 1 card, like in ol´ BF) with the difference it also has a 10% chance of being a Rare / Ultra-Rare and maybe 0,XX% of being a promo. Next point would be that some promo you get from "normal"booster other only from PvP boosters.  Also maybe remove the PvP quest, and make all quests kinda Pve relevant, you you ether can play pvp to get your stuff together or pve

That maybe would make it worth to play pvp, even if its just a small reward its a reward that you only can get with playing PvP.

(If someone wants to play pvp im on the discord like all the time )

Sorry for my terrible English

(posted same in current proposal rewards, but i think it fits here aswell)

Edit: spelling

Edited by Gravitas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think removing the gold reward from PvP would lead to even less fun for beginners because like you said, most of the decks would have anything on U3 so the difference between experienced and non experience people would be even bigger than now. Additionally the change that you give only the winner the booster increases that even more because the beginner rarely wins a match so he doesn't get as much cards as he needs.

We shouldn't reward people for winning in PvP when the reason why they won wasn't the skill but the time they farmed upgrades and Bfps in Pve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just yesterday I got my ass whooped because I had no more charges in frostmage, that feels way more terrible than an actual mistake I make in macro/micro play. 

Fun fact if you make guns of lyr speed runs you have your entire deck u3 in 3-5 hours. (at least in a frost/fire deck w/o mounteneer) 

Per game 10.000g+ > 15 min with loading screen =120.000g in 3 hours

Many of the potential pvp players are pve players. I just think we should give this kind of player a reward they actually need, or maybe some kind of tokens with whom you can buy account bound cards. But I don't think people should get only Gold bc most player don't need it at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.