Rewards For Losing

Everything that doesn't go anywhere else.

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby slashzero » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:22 am

I don't think that's the conclusion we've come to at all (if any).

Anyways, to shed a little more analytical light on the point system for gran, the current system works like this:

On average, you gain (or lose) 2X - 1(1-X) = 3X-1 points per battle, where X is your win rate.
Thus, the minimum win rate to even net points on average is 1/3, or ~33%.
To even surpass the minimum 10 points a week for any gain (i.e. get 11 or higher), a player needs to play at least about P = 11/(3X-1) games a week.

Lets say a decent player has a 55% win rate. It's not good, but they probably have some solid strategies and files.
To even make it worth his or her while to place in the rankings this player must play about 17 games per week. So, about 2.4 games per day, or two games one day three games the next.
Well, this looks decent, since past that every game played gets them .65 points per game.

A spectacular player, with a win rate of say 85%, they net 1.7 points per game played. Such a player only needs to play around 7 games a week to get on the rankings, which is easily doable. But since P goes on about 1/X an increase in win percentage gains less and less towards the higher end of the spectrum, and towards the lower end any shift in win rate results in drastically more work to place on rankings.

Now, let's also take into account the fact that a player could play just one game per week and get 10 gran for it, win or loss, which is 10 gran per game. The highest possible return for a player who gains over 11 points is only 2 gran per game. Now lets also say an average game lasts around 25 minutes, including the time needed to find an opponent. Of course this is a rough estimate, it can vary widely depending on the duelers' line speeds, computer specs, strategies, how empty the arenas are, and a whole pile of other variables, but from my experience this is a small bit of an underestimation, so I'll just go with it for now. This way I can pin a more tangible number to the amount of time/effort put in. I've prepared a graph of win rate against hours spent per day using these numbers, and it's a bit revealing about the current system:

Alteil Point Analysis Graph.PNG
Alteil Point Analysis Graph.PNG (17.34 KiB) Viewed 1188 times

At about .5 win rate there's an extra investment time of about an hour a day for minimal gain, 1 gran, and probably this plays a factor into why people who are only decent at the game don't play very often. If your win rate is below .5 then it's probably not even worth going for getting on the rankings for gran. It's also fairly unlikely to get treasure battles as well in this range, since win streaks are hard to pick up. Thus the current system doesn't give much reward at all players who break even and win a battle for every one they lose.

On the other hand, this graph also suggests that those guys who somehow rack up 150 or 180 or 230 points in a week are actually getting sleep: around 4-5 hours a day is a fairly reasonable amount of time to spend to get 100 points a week at a 80% win rate.

If we want to reward players more in lower win % range, then a possibility would be to manipulate the point system so the graphs shift to the left: The benefit is enormous to the players in that range relative to the benefit to the players with high win rate, due to the fact the graph flattens out towards 1. It's one method to give more incentive for the lower performers to play while not causing the frequently mentioned problem of the poor staying poor while the rich get richer.
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:36 am

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby Phades » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:29 am

100 points in a week seems rather unreasonable... Someone who is managing to pull that off would be getting a pack every week, but realistically do not need any cards since their file is near unbeatable as it is or have all the cards anyhow and would simply be banking that for the next set. That figure doesn't seem realistic, but it does demonstrate a rough estimate in time.

However, on the other end of the spectrum for low end play, i feel you are leaving out something important. This would be repeat match-ups over the course of a week. Which basically ensures automatic wins and losses given the nature of hardcore (read sucessful) players versus the less sucessful and more casual players. So, for the guy that is playing roughly 3 times a day, there is the very real chance that one of those games is going to be against someone they played in the previous day due to average playtime habits and time slots available to devote to the game. In the instance of the hardcore player, those odds rise that the repeat matches over the week is going to be him and consequently be automatic wins. As a byproduct of this, the overal win percentage would be lower for the more casusal player by default making it somewhat pointless to continue beyond the 1 game per week.

Even though currently the upper limit seems rediculas, but considering any possibility for change there would have to be hard caps placed on the top end before any considerations for the bottom end style of adjustment can take place realistically in order to maintain something similar to the current "normal" trends for gran distribution.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby DanTheTimid » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:57 am

While its true players who are winning alot are more likely to want to be a "hardcore" player as you put it, playing constantly, I've seen plenty of players high up on the ranking scores who I usually beat when I play. Maybe I'm just a bad match up for them, I don't know, but it doesn't necessarily hold that every player who plays alot is one that beats you. Still I grant you it does stack the odds atleast a little more against the mid to low win players.

I also don't think 100 gran a week is that big a deal, though very few people are even reaching that total anyway. Even if you were both good enough and had enough free time to average 100 gran a week, thats 21 weeks (5 months) just to get a single box. I've bought 4 boxes worth of set 2 and I still lack playsets of many key 1 star and 2 star cards, let alone 3 star or highers which I still have very few playsets of. Unless there extremely lucky even with a free box every 5 months if a player wants to be able to use (aka have 3 of) certain unit cards from a new set their going to need to spend money to get them anyway, if anything that single box might entice them to spend more since they manage to pull a single copy of that 1 or 2 star that they want and they figure "theres no way I won't get the last 2 copies I need in 3 more boxes...."

I also don't think shifting the graph to the left would really necessiate a cap. A small boost for the low win players is still only a small boost for the high end players too because the game naturally caps itself. It does this due to the fact it won't re-pair you with people you've played recently. If you play constantly your going to eventually find yourself spending alot of time just watching the "searching for opponents" screen that would have been spent actually play the game if you played less frequently. It may be in large part due to the low number of players currently but in a sense the game naturally encourages a certain amount of play per week and going over that gives increasingly diminished returns (and a heck of alot of bored down time). Because of this fact I'd say these hour numbers are actually a little generous in my opinion for the 100+ point players.
The bunnies of Lavato have special abilities, like 'Action Skill: Make Carrot Disappear.'
User avatar
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby Phades » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:13 pm

Yeah, but anytime you shift multipliers around you can easily throw things off. I was thinking more long term when it comes to adjusting a cap for the game under the assumption that the playerbase increases and the lower end players wouldn't need to fear re-pairing with the same people across multiple days as much. For example, if the game player base increased to the point where matches could be found immediately and completed within 10 minutes. Instantly the graph shifts dramatically all on its own and the high percentage winners get a dramatic bonus out of the gate, while the low end player doesn't recieve much of a change assuming similar play habits day to day. The biggest change for the lower end player would be a win rate that approaches a number closer to 50% instead of lower than 50% while those in the 50~60% range would see the smallest change overal due to frequency of games increasing.

If you were to combine that with an incremental increase in base gran earned, or adjusted the formula to be more favorable the top end shoots up much higher than before due to multipliers invovled. Even if the loss penalty was reduced to .5 instead of 1, most of the top end would get a substantial boost over time since everyone loses eventually. The bottom line is that with the base calculation the game assumes that people will be winning regularly and adjusting rewards accordingly. Unless the game pro-rated a quantity of wins, there really isn't much that can help only the bottom end without potentially facing a scaling issue at a later time without introducing hard caps. For example, wins calculated per week equals 20, then wins and losses affect that total changing the reward with the absolute floor of 10 gran per week as it is currently.

Other than that, the only option would be to introduce a multiplier for gran reward based upon wins versus the RP of the player. For example if the sub 1400 RP player scores a win, then it would have to equate out to 3-5 (possibly more) wins compared to the 1600+ RP player to try and make up the difference. The hard mean average would have to be in the 1500~1600 range with it flattening out above that to what the current trend is. But even so, it would still require the player to obtain wins potentially against far superior card files and players given the current playerbase. Combine that with tiered RP arenas and it could work, but it also requires a larger base of players.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby slashzero » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:09 pm

The idea of shifting the graph to the left has less and less effect towards the higher end of the spectrum since it's trivial for such players to decide whether to play or not based on their return: the more they play, the more they earn, because they snap up the 11 points needed very quickly. So somewhere along the line it's not a question of "How much should I play?" and changes to a question of "How much can I play?" If the goal is to get more people playing the game then what the shifting does do is move more people into the later category.

As Phades points out there's lots of other effects that would occur in such a shift and I won't claim to be able to guess at them, but I'll point out that sure the benefit is spread out unequally, but the logical conclusion is that the rate of games played increasing is exactly the effect we seem to want. Any change to the system that gets more people in the arenas automatically means more wins for the hardcore players: they're playing anyways. But I think the system was built on the assumption that there's a decent pool of players in the arenas most of the time based on the way match-making seems to work, so increasing that pool in the long run won't cause severe negative effects, although you'll really have to ask one of the GMs for specifics on that.
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:36 am

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby Candi » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:20 pm

As things are right now players get their daily MM gran, and play 1 match in Folrart for their weekly 10. If they win that they may try another (keep plugging away until they run out of time or pass 10 points). If they lose, many stop there and wait until next week.

If we could get more players to join up and play more throughout the week the average players in Folrat would increase - ie: if everyone played say 5 games instead of 1 that's ~ 4*(number of active users) more games going on weekly, which would have noticeable effects on Folrat population and would mean less battles against the super-players (you know, the 2200 RP guy who you seem to fight twice a week for some reason).

So instead of focusing on increasing the player base, increase the number of battles each player plays. Shifting the graph to the left (IE: decreasing the loss penalty) may do that - for a lot of players from both ends of the spectrum. More matches on average => More populated arena on average.
User avatar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:14 pm

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby kitsunekit » Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:47 pm

Saying "the people who win don't need cards and therefore don't need gran" is a little off.

First and foremost, they'll need their Gran for the next set. If you continue to win up until the next sets, you can effectively play Alteil for free.

Second of all, they often recycle away a good portion of their cards and/or only have 1 good sphere. They often play to get gran to get better cards so they can test out other spheres.

Well, all of the above is true enough with myself at least.

And in the end the best contests in Alteil (for Gran) often have nothing to do with win ratio or cards you own. Fortnight offers you 150 Gran in 2 weeks on top of normal mirage master. That's like getting 75 free wins. Although having the card helps you deck test, its not necessary. The cosplay contest got me 2100 gran in a week. Mind you I had to spend more than $21 to make that costume, but I plan on using it for other stuff alteil and non-alteil related :P
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:14 pm

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby Illyasviel » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:53 pm

Hmm. What do you think might happen if, instead of win = +1, draw = 0, loss = -1, what if each went up by two? Then the winners would still get more gran, but the losers would still have a reason to play more.

kitsune: I didn't know half of that about the Fortnight thing. I thought only the winner got Gran, not everyone who enters. And I thought you had to have the card, because it would be kind of hard to use it to win otherwise.
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby Logress » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:49 pm

You can play Fortnight without the card, but you will be taking a risk because if we try it and can't get it to work will just toss your idea out. If you've got a win record on the deck to prove it works, we can't ignore that.

Also, it's +2 for a win, -1 for a loss, +1 for a draw.

I agree, raising the average number of duels per week of the active user to 5+ would be great, we're working on possibilities (and note the random prize drawings for anyone who duels 5 or more times in the meantime...)
"Scissors are overpowered. Rock is fine." -Paper
Posts: 6318
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:36 am

Re: Rewards For Losing

Postby codegeass » Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:28 am

I completely agree. there should definately be some reward for playing a set amount of games regardlss of the outcome. Nothing too big, just something to encorage people to play the extra 2 games to get it.
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:26 am


Return to Alteil General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests