A system suggestion which should make everyone happy

[Demongod]

Since freebies don't like getting stomped on by paid players, and paid players want to play other paid players (or else they have major self esteem issues), why not do this:

Simply implement a boolean variable whether or not a player has spent money on the game. If he has, he'll only get matched up with other players who've spent money. In the meantime, the freeloaders will only get matched up with other freeloaders and that way not run into any situations that frustrate them simply because they didn't pay.

This way, we segregate and avoid frustration.

Of course, this begs the question as to what happens when a player spends a little bit and gets matched up against someone for whom money is no object. Sucks for the little spender then. Shouldn't have spent to begin with. The idea of more precise matching by spending levels is also an option, but not with the community as tiny as it is.

[Galandros]

Sounds like a great idea!

[Illyasviel]

Personally, I am stridently against this. I am a light spender. (Been here going on eighteen months, spent maybe $30.) I don't have a top class deck, I have a win % of like 20. I lose against everyone. But at least with the system as is, I can sometimes be matched against other people who aren't top tier. Still don't win, but it's generally closer. Including letting me last at least ten turns, so the matches qualify for those 5 of 7 events...

Now, if I were to be paired off only against other spenders, I think that would change a lot. My win ratio would stay about the same, minuscule, but I'd also be likely to lose faster, and as a result, miss out on events. That, in turn, would likely make me completely give up on even the once a week game I do now.

And if you're wondering why I paid a little, instead of a lot, well nuts to you. I don't know about you, but being someone who makes a whopping $5 American a month, that means I plugged in HALF A YEAR'S WORTH of my spending money into this game. I do what I can, and even if I want to do more, well, too bad for me. I wanted more than what I could get as a freeplayer, so I put in what I could afford. (Technically more than that...) Put the money in so I'd have enough Gran to get the Ex packs I wanted, plus start my collection off with a box of set 1. Didn't get what I wanted, but I did the best I could. Doesn't mean the file can win easily. I suppose it's possible, though.

So yeah, definitely don't like being forced into a pay-only arena. (Now, if it was an optional thing, maybe. But we don't have the population to divide any further with additional arenas.)

[Demongod]

I c wut you did thar.
Okay, let me clarify--let's make a paid-only arena and a free-only arena without level caps as *additions* to Crest and Folrart. That way, anyone can play anywhere they wish and it isn't just "level 1-14 play *here* and level 15+ get stomped all day long"

[DWildstar]

Galandros, if you're going to post something as a joke please at least say something to contribute to the actual discussion.

[Illyasviel]

That would be better. Once we get more players, that is. I still don't think we have a high enough population to warrant any extra Arenas. (If we did, we'd probably already have the RP arena. Which could potentially do the same function. After all, people who have paid for cards and made the deck they wanted would likely have had practice, thus raising their RPs. While free players might lose more often, thus lowering their RPs.)

[Galandros]

To add some commentary: Your proposed system throws light spenders under the bus. Someone, for whatever reasons, may only be able to put in $5, $20, etc. However because they elect to spend the money they get pooled into the paying player arena where they face a bunch of players who have spent a couple hundred, or more. In that situation they are more likely to opt not to spend anything to stay in the free arena where they would be able to win more frequently.

Bottom line: Alteil loses revenues. No one, the company and community itself, benefits from that.

Your proposed system also throws in a few variables.
Think for a moment, what % of users go into each pool? If paying players represented 30% and non-paying 70%, then you put the paying pool at a disadvantage as far as finding a game. There are already times of the day where it takes minutes to get a game. It would make certain times practically unplayable.
Also keep in mind that player skill can make up for lack of cards. If you are a good free player, you likely won't beat a good paying player (match-up depending) but you have a good shot at taking down the less skilled paying players. You also get a bunch of XP to level more quickly off of them when you do snag a victory.
The disadvantage to the free players are that they never learn how to get better at the game. They'll play mostly other new players or paying players on free accounts. And the majority of those paying players when on a free account A). Aren't going to reveal it's an alt and B). Won't be staying around to chat and give out pointers. If they are on their main account they are far more likely to be lend a hand and give suggestions. If you want a system where the free players play in the kiddie pool all day and never take their floats off, then I guess this system would benefit them. However, my parents when they taught me to swim just tossed me in the deep end and said "learn". Man up buttercup.

[Demongod]

Galandros, you're taking it far to the extreme. I say we have four arenas:

1) Pay only--this way, pay players are guaranteed to find a match with someone who also pays and not crush the spirits of free players.
2) Folrart--anyone of any level can go here.
3) Free only all levels--this way, free players can be sure that regardless of the experience of their opponents, they'll be assured they're not going to get stomped by some card acquired by purchasing gran and EX boosters or whatnot. Here, only experience matters, not the power of your cards, unless you get absurdly lucky with your lottos.
4) Crest--training arena, 3 foot pool.

Players who have spent not so much get access to the pay only, but they can also go around in Folrart, while the free players who wish to maintain the "I don't want to get stomped by a paid player" can choose not to play there. Right now, even in Crest, there are people who buy Lapierre boosters and generally have at least one very good matchup.

All I'm saying is that if you utterly wish to avoid paid players, you should be given that option. And if you feel confident enough that you have enough skills to take on paid players, you can go into Folrart and play to your heart's content.

Rest assured: my suggestion takes nothing away. It only adds on.

[Galandros]

By publicly dividing the community as a paying player vs free player you are attempting to tear apart the very existence of this community. The players should stand together for all improvements to the game. There are "paying" players who seriously advocate and are big voices in supporting the "free" players. You should have seen the "free" player system prior to the improvements made during set 3. Any free players from set 1 and 2 are super troopers, all of them.

You would classify me as a "paying" player, but I'm just a player. I support this game and the GM's in the decisions they make. I've personally posted numerous ideas that mainly support those who do not spend. Ideally, I would like to see all players who are able to spend just a little bit on the game to show their support for a game they enjoy.

However, when I play games on Galandros, there are some "free" players who will criticize me or complain about playing me simply because I have spent on the game. They might be seething because I have multiple copies of a card they likely will not have unless they spend, but oftentimes it comes across as a "I'm only losing because you have card X, not because of your skill level."

As a free player advocate (and as a player advocate in general) it stings being criticized during games by the very player base I go into the chat and forums to support. Physically dividing a player base with an arena option based on this factor would have far more negative impacts than any positives gained. It becomes an East vs West at that point.

I would think the GM's are very aware of what kind of rift this would cause if happened, but this is more about the players needing to stop labeling themselves as "paying" or "free" and rally around as only players in the continual efforts to improve a great game.

[Demongod]

No argument with trying to improve the game. It's what I'm trying to do. However, the intention isn't so much to create a rift but if someone has a conviction that the only reason he or she loses is that his opponent has X card which he feels is a gamebreaker (Lapierre for instance...without her, the yellow starter is a much easier MU. But once she hits, you have to completely change the way you play just to deal with her. I once beat a Lapierre deck by using Flame Arrows and then two Scylla soul skills end over end just to keep her down without losing too much critter tempo)

I just believe in giving more options. If a free player thinks "I don't want to face paid players", they should have that option. If a paid player says "I only want to face other paid players", they should have that option. If a player thinks "I want to face a mix", they should have that option as well.

I'm not saying to remove Folrart and say "paids this way, frees this way". I say "this way, that way, or take a third option. There's something for any type of player here."

Now if devoted free players say that they simply don't want to face anyone paid on principle, that should be their prerogative, and we should try to be inclusive of them.