The post below is basically irrelevant. I get the point that people don't like this idea, but I still haven't gotten an answer addressing it's major flaws. Mostly just "You don't like what I like therefor, you're an idiot." kind of posts. Welcome to the internet. > So this is now a "Discuss different systems for ranked." thread
I'm not sure whether or not this idea is even possible or just too difficult to accomplish. If you know so, do tell in the comments.
So basically my view on how to decrease the "cancer" in ranked, now and in the future would start with changing this "star system" we have now to a point system. This would give Team 5 a better control over ranked games in general anyways (if anything, this would be idea), but it's really the only system that works with this idea.
Next, assign values to each card based on the average amount in a timed period it has been played. If the card is brand new it's value rests on even. (Now, I'm not sure if the value would update monthly, weekly, or daily. This concept isn't very well thought out, so it's going to have plenty of flaws.). High play rate = Higher value - Low play rate = Lower value.
Taking all of these values averaged out, the deck would have a value itself. Based on this number, your points gained/lost when winning/losing a game changes. It also changes based on the value of your opponent's deck as well. Cards that are played to an extreme amount will have a great disadvantage on this number. Putting infrequently played cards in your deck will boost this number and your ranking. I don't believe this would be the end to net decking as long as these cards are valued correctly. An example: You change out a couple of cards in a highly played deck to underplayed cards to balance out the deck's value.
Now the whole point of this ideal is to discourage playing the same card in just about every deck. Not to the point where you feel like you can't do it at all, just enough to have a frequently evolving meta. By decreasing your points gained in ranked when playing overused cards, it would auto-correct any redundancy in the meta.
I could make this much longer, but I feel like I would be dragging on about a topic that might not even be good to begin with. Anything I've missed I'll try to answer in the comments. If someone wants to improve upon this or just give a better ideal please do so.
I need to emphasize that this idea isn't meant to destroy meta decks. It's only to improve the variety of the same decks being played as well as surface new ones! As long as it is "correctly implemented" that will never happen.
I kind of assumed this isn't the first time this ideal has been said, but I'm not sure why it's "idiotic". My best guess is you're just trolling.
You want to discourage people from playing the best decks in the RANKED play mode. Do you know what ranked means?
Keep thinking im trolling though. Get ready to call everyone else trolls when they tell you why it's a bad idea.
This idea mostly comes from people mad about getting rocked by the best decks over and over again in ranked play.
What's funny is this would actually be a fun thing in a different kind of game mode, but people always recommend their suggestions for ranked without even thinking.
I don't think this would really result in more deck variety, because that would still require the average person to have good deck building skills, but regardless, this is by no means an "idiotic" idea and anyone who says so is certainly trolling.
I kind of assumed this isn't the first time this ideal has been said, but I'm not sure why it's "idiotic". My best guess is you're just trolling.
You want to discourage people from playing the best decks in the RANKED play mode. Do you know what ranked means?
Keep thinking im trolling though. Get ready to call everyone else trolls when they tell you why it's a bad idea.
This idea mostly comes from people mad about getting rocked by the best decks over and over again in ranked play.
What's funny is this would actually be a fun thing in a different kind of game mode, but people always recommend their suggestions for ranked without even thinking.
I'm still curious about the responses to this topic tho. You said "again" as if it had already be debunked, do give me the link.
I kind of assumed this isn't the first time this ideal has been said, but I'm not sure why it's "idiotic". My best guess is you're just trolling.
You want to discourage people from playing the best decks in the RANKED play mode. Do you know what ranked means?
Keep thinking im trolling though. Get ready to call everyone else trolls when they tell you why it's a bad idea.
This idea mostly comes from people mad about getting rocked by the best decks over and over again in ranked play.
What's funny is this would actually be a fun thing in a different kind of game mode, but people always recommend their suggestions for ranked without even thinking.
I'm still curious about the responses to this topic tho. You said "again" as if it had already be debunked, do give me the link.
Probably not 100% the same ideas but always the same goal
It doesn't matter how it's done. There should be no incentivizing playing things in ranked mode. The goal is to get the highest rank possible through any means necessary. If you want variety, play casual mode. If you think casual mode has too little variety play wild casual mode. If you think that has too little variety get blizzard to add a mode without gold rewards, or play arena.
It's the competitive game mode. I don't know how I can explain this to you other then saying that. Competitive. Ranked play. I'm just going to keep repeating that until you get it.
No, you can't artificially force deck variety. It's horrible to force players to choose between using the cards they think are best, and weaker cards that'd allow them to earn more points. At that point you wouldn't be optimising your deck against the meta based on strength, you'd optimise based on some elusive weighting system, trying to not gimp your deck too much while picking cards you think others haven't. Just no.
The objective was to decrease the use of these "cancerous" decks everyone complains about after each release. Nothing of what you said could argue this.
No, you can't artificially force deck variety. It's horrible to force players to choose between using the cards they think are best, and weaker cards that'd allow them to earn more points. At that point you wouldn't be optimising your deck against the meta based on strength, you'd optimise based on some elusive weighting system, trying to not gimp your deck too much while picking cards you think others haven't. Just no.
The objective was to decrease the use of this "cancerous" decks everyone complains about after each release. Nothing of what you said could argue this.
Now you're just making yourself look stupid.
"Hey guys, my idea fixes this one thing. Who cares if other things break, i fixed this one thing"
That's not how game design works. You can't respond to complaints about your idea with that argument. I could fix aggro decks by removing aggro classes from the game. That fixes things too, and it's a lot simpler than your idea.
Seriously, this one post makes you look like you don't give a shit about the game. You just want to force your solution to this one thing and fuck everything else.
@gabugga, I don't understand how repeating the phrase "Ranked play" over and over has any substance. It's just the name of the game mode. High level tournaments, which are far more competitive than ranked play, have been known to impose ban systems for decks and even individual cards.
@gabugga, I don't understand how repeating the phrase "Ranked play" over and over has any substance. It's just the name of the game mode. High level tournaments, which are far more competitive than ranked play, have been known to impose ban systems for decks and even individual cards.
Tournaments almost always don't ban actual decks and cards, and blizzard tournaments don't at all. Conquest mode allows players to ban a deck for matchups.
A post like yours looks extremely uninformed.
When they do ban cards it's usually ones that are extremely bad for competitive play (yogg being the most noticable one), not due to how common they are.
Now if you want to argue that tournaments are more competitive than ranked play, we could have an actual discussion, but probably try to watch a tournament before saying things like this. You know, one is going on right now. Tell me about all the cards and decks that are banned.
I could make a tournament and choose to do whatever I want. That doesn't make it the standard for competitive play.
I'm going to politely ask you to stop berating everyone you don't agree with. There is no excuse for language choices like "Now you're just making yourself look stupid." They achieve nothing except making the discussion feel miserable for everyone else, and it's toxic.
I kind of assumed this isn't the first time this ideal has been said, but I'm not sure why it's "idiotic". My best guess is you're just trolling.
You want to discourage people from playing the best decks in the RANKED play mode. Do you know what ranked means?
Keep thinking im trolling though. Get ready to call everyone else trolls when they tell you why it's a bad idea.
This idea mostly comes from people mad about getting rocked by the best decks over and over again in ranked play.
What's funny is this would actually be a fun thing in a different kind of game mode, but people always recommend their suggestions for ranked without even thinking.
I'm still curious about the responses to this topic tho. You said "again" as if it had already be debunked, do give me the link.
Probably not 100% the same ideas but always the same goal
It doesn't matter how it's done. There should be no incentivizing playing things in ranked mode. The goal is to get the highest rank possible through any means necessary. If you want variety, play casual mode. If you think casual mode has too little variety play wild casual mode. If you think that has too little variety get blizzard to add a mode without gold rewards, or play arena.
It's the competitive game mode. I don't know how I can explain this to you other then saying that. Competitive. Ranked play. I'm just going to keep repeating that until you get it.
Team 5 has already said they are looking at possibilities for changing ranked. If ranked at the moment was just fine they wouldn't have needed to say this. If in your world you're fine with how ranked is, that's you then. But if you have some actual constrictive criticism about this topic, and not your "feelings" do say so.
I kind of assumed this isn't the first time this ideal has been said, but I'm not sure why it's "idiotic". My best guess is you're just trolling.
You want to discourage people from playing the best decks in the RANKED play mode. Do you know what ranked means?
Keep thinking im trolling though. Get ready to call everyone else trolls when they tell you why it's a bad idea.
This idea mostly comes from people mad about getting rocked by the best decks over and over again in ranked play.
What's funny is this would actually be a fun thing in a different kind of game mode, but people always recommend their suggestions for ranked without even thinking.
I'm still curious about the responses to this topic tho. You said "again" as if it had already be debunked, do give me the link.
Probably not 100% the same ideas but always the same goal
It doesn't matter how it's done. There should be no incentivizing playing things in ranked mode. The goal is to get the highest rank possible through any means necessary. If you want variety, play casual mode. If you think casual mode has too little variety play wild casual mode. If you think that has too little variety get blizzard to add a mode without gold rewards, or play arena.
It's the competitive game mode. I don't know how I can explain this to you other then saying that. Competitive. Ranked play. I'm just going to keep repeating that until you get it.
Team 5 has already said they are looking at possibilities for changing ranked. If ranked at the moment was just fine they wouldn't have needed to say this. If in your world you're fine with how ranked is, that's you then. But if you have some actual constrictive criticism about this topic, and not your "feelings" do say so.
You realize the ways they are talking about fixing ranked mode has NOTHING to do with the cards being played right? They wanted to do things for the laddering process, like adding more ranks or having legend players not have to climb as much, or having winstreaks go to legend.
I also never said ranked mode was fine, just that your fix is terrible for the game. But put words in my mouth if you want if you think it makes your argument stronger.
I'm going to politely ask you to stop berating everyone you don't agree with. There is no excuse for language choices like "Now you're just making yourself look stupid." They achieve nothing except making the discussion feel miserable for everyone else, and it's toxic.
Well if my opinion is right I can just ignore your post.
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
Ok? Im not sure what your point is. Do you think reno decks take no skill? Because with this system no one would play them.
@gabugga, I don't understand how repeating the phrase "Ranked play" over and over has any substance. It's just the name of the game mode. High level tournaments, which are far more competitive than ranked play, have been known to impose ban systems for decks and even individual cards.
Tournaments almost always don't ban actual decks and cards, and blizzard tournaments don't at all. Conquest mode allows players to ban a deck for matchups.
A post like yours looks extremely uninformed.
When they do ban cards it's usually ones that are extremely bad for competitive play (yogg being the most noticable one), not due to how common they are.
Now if you want to argue that tournaments are more competitive than ranked play, we could have an actual discussion, but probably try to watch a tournament before saying things like this. You know, one is going on right now. Tell me about all the cards and decks that are banned.
I could make a tournament and choose to do whatever I want. That doesn't make it the standard for competitive play.
(To add on to what you're saying) I understand how the tournament scene works, but I won't compare ranked to it as it already has it's own meta.
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
Ok? Do you think reno decks take no skill as well? Because this idea will be horrible for those.
This was a discussion of an idea for ranked play. If you want to complain about the meta theres hundreds of other posts for you. I'm not arguing about the meta.
What if the meta was entirely the most skillful decks in the game? Well fuck those, because no one wants to play the common decks, then the meta shifts to a bunch of easy skill decks.
Maybe try reading the original post and adding an original thought.
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
Ok? Do you think reno decks take no skill as well? Because this idea will be horrible for those.
This was a discussion of an idea for ranked play. If you want to complain about the meta theres hundreds of other posts for you. I'm not arguing about the meta.
What if the meta was entirely the most skillful decks in the game? Well fuck those, because no one wants to play the common decks, then the meta shifts to a bunch of easy skill decks.
Maybe try reading the original post and adding an original thought.
So you're saying this idea would kill a deck that you can exchange out any of the 30 cards in it with another of the dozen so tech cards, and the deck wouldn't be playable???? What?
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
Ok? Do you think reno decks take no skill as well? Because this idea will be horrible for those.
This was a discussion of an idea for ranked play. If you want to complain about the meta theres hundreds of other posts for you. I'm not arguing about the meta.
What if the meta was entirely the most skillful decks in the game? Well fuck those, because no one wants to play the common decks, then the meta shifts to a bunch of easy skill decks.
Maybe try reading the original post and adding an original thought.
So you're saying this ideal would kill a deck that you can exchange out any of the 30 cards in it with another of the dozen so tech cards, and the deck wouldn't be playable???? What?
While reno decks exchange cards a good amount they still have at least a 20 card skeleton. Honestly this idea would hit every top deck. Reno decks also have the factor that some cards are played in multiple classes, making the problem worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The post below is basically irrelevant. I get the point that people don't like this idea, but I still haven't gotten an answer addressing it's major flaws. Mostly just "You don't like what I like therefor, you're an idiot." kind of posts. Welcome to the internet. > So this is now a "Discuss different systems for ranked." thread
I'm not sure whether or not this idea is even possible or just too difficult to accomplish. If you know so, do tell in the comments.
So basically my view on how to decrease the "cancer" in ranked, now and in the future would start with changing this "star system" we have now to a point system. This would give Team 5 a better control over ranked games in general anyways (if anything, this would be idea), but it's really the only system that works with this idea.
Next, assign values to each card based on the average amount in a timed period it has been played. If the card is brand new it's value rests on even. (Now, I'm not sure if the value would update monthly, weekly, or daily. This concept isn't very well thought out, so it's going to have plenty of flaws.). High play rate = Higher value - Low play rate = Lower value.
Taking all of these values averaged out, the deck would have a value itself. Based on this number, your points gained/lost when winning/losing a game changes. It also changes based on the value of your opponent's deck as well. Cards that are played to an extreme amount will have a great disadvantage on this number. Putting infrequently played cards in your deck will boost this number and your ranking. I don't believe this would be the end to net decking as long as these cards are valued correctly. An example: You change out a couple of cards in a highly played deck to underplayed cards to balance out the deck's value.
Now the whole point of this ideal is to discourage playing the same card in just about every deck. Not to the point where you feel like you can't do it at all, just enough to have a frequently evolving meta. By decreasing your points gained in ranked when playing overused cards, it would auto-correct any redundancy in the meta.
I could make this much longer, but I feel like I would be dragging on about a topic that might not even be good to begin with. Anything I've missed I'll try to answer in the comments. If someone wants to improve upon this or just give a better ideal please do so.
I need to emphasize that this idea isn't meant to destroy meta decks. It's only to improve the variety of the same decks being played as well as surface new ones! As long as it is "correctly implemented" that will never happen.
I don't think this would really result in more deck variety, because that would still require the average person to have good deck building skills, but regardless, this is by no means an "idiotic" idea and anyone who says so is certainly trolling.
@gabugga, I don't understand how repeating the phrase "Ranked play" over and over has any substance. It's just the name of the game mode. High level tournaments, which are far more competitive than ranked play, have been known to impose ban systems for decks and even individual cards.
I'm going to politely ask you to stop berating everyone you don't agree with. There is no excuse for language choices like "Now you're just making yourself look stupid." They achieve nothing except making the discussion feel miserable for everyone else, and it's toxic.
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
In order to fix ranked mode they should introduce ban...