FRA Idea For Deck Variety and MMO Element

    • FRA Idea For Deck Variety and MMO Element

      An idea to incentivise an increase in the variety of decks used in the arena and would add an interesting MMO element to PVE.

      What if data was made openly available on the percentage of decks that clear the arena with any given champion and the rate of Uruunaz and Zakiir spawning would be based on the champion you use in the Frost Ring Arena and the community success with that champion in clearing the arena in the last week.

      For example if 40% of the arena clears from the community are with Nin the Shadow (due to terror mill) whilst 2% of the arena clears were with Sir Giles Rowan. You would have a significantly higher chance to spawn dragons if you run a deck with Giles as Champion rather than Nin.

      As the community percentages change, so does the odds of finding a dragon with that champion and as such add a driver to move to a less successful champion.

      This could great a high risk high reward where people try and perfect the arena with a weaker champion to increase the odds of a dragon pay day.

      It would be interesting to see the community wide data and how it changes over time and would encourage a variety of deck brewing ?

      Naff idea, too much hassle, refinements, thoughts ?

      edit - This might be a mechanism to balance pve without nerfing cards, for example if slaughter gears become good the champions with slaughter gears would have a high win percentage and therefore a lower dragon odd and therefore less desirable to play.


      KICK
      STARTER Backer and Proud Member of
      The Unnamed Council
      Twitter
    • I don't think FRA decks are that reliant on their champion so they'd just pick the least picked champion to increase their Magic Find.

      I liked the idea someone had where each card was assigned a luck value (based on how much it's been used to clear the arena) which would add up to multiply your loot earnings. So you'd be incentivized to play with cards that aren't widely used. it's probably much harder to setup, but can still be programmatically be done through data once its been setup.
    • I think that some champions are almost literally unplayable in the FRA and what you suggest would just make the dragons not appear at all, if they only have a higher chance to appear to the (I'm being generous) 5-10 least played champions.

      Also funny you bring Giles in your example, who was in the top3 of picks in the previous FRA iteration. Why not Zared Venomscorn?
    • Vroengard wrote:

      I think that some champions are almost literally unplayable in the FRA and what you suggest would just make the dragons not appear at all, if they only have a higher chance to appear to the (I'm being generous) 5-10 least played champions.

      Also funny you bring Giles in your example, who was in the top3 of picks in the previous FRA iteration. Why not Zared Venomscorn?
      because he just picked two off the top of his head. The specific examples are irrelevant, the idea is what matters.


      As to the idea... I think Nico's feedback that he directed towards my own ideas from another thread that punishing people for their choices is not a good idea is very valid. However, offering a reward for people who choose to use underutilised cards/champs/strategies/etc.... there's definite potential there.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      I think that some champions are almost literally unplayable in the FRA and what you suggest would just make the dragons not appear at all, if they only have a higher chance to appear to the (I'm being generous) 5-10 least played champions.

      Also funny you bring Giles in your example, who was in the top3 of picks in the previous FRA iteration. Why not Zared Venomscorn?
      because he just picked two off the top of his head. The specific examples are irrelevant, the idea is what matters.

      As to the idea... I think Nico's feedback that he directed towards my own ideas from another thread that punishing people for their choices is not a good idea is very valid. However, offering a reward for people who choose to use underutilised cards/champs/strategies/etc.... there's definite potential there.
      I think that some champions are almost literally unplayable in the FRA and what you suggest would just make the dragons not appear at all, if they only have a higher chance to appear to the (I'm being generous) 5-10 least played champions.

      Eraia wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:


      Also funny you bring Giles in your example, who was in the top3 of picks in the previous FRA iteration. Why not Zared Venomscorn?
      because he just picked two off the top of his head. The specific examples are irrelevant, the idea is what matters.

      As to the idea... I think Nico's feedback that he directed towards my own ideas from another thread that punishing people for their choices is not a good idea is very valid. However, offering a reward for people who choose to use underutilised cards/champs/strategies/etc.... there's definite potential there.
      In theory only the most broken of PVE cards would need banning in this case as the rewards for using a pre nerf Slaughter deck for example would only net 1/2 (adjust to suit) of the normal rewards thus allowing for the broken decks to still be played for funsies. It's still not ideal but at least it's a (somewhat) middle ground.
    • One of the most balanced ways would be to assign points to each card, according to it's popularity in last week FRA runs. Simple percentage would be enought.

      Then make loot adjustments for a player, based on those points and his deck value. This would be precise way to react to card popularity and give some incentive to deckbuilding. However it's not elegant in any way and also makes it more about building tle lowest Point value deck possible.
    • Merlin wrote:

      One of the most balanced ways would be to assign points to each card, according to it's popularity in last week FRA runs. Simple percentage would be enought.

      Then make loot adjustments for a player, based on those points and his deck value. This would be precise way to react to card popularity and give some incentive to deckbuilding. However it's not elegant in any way and also makes it more about building tle lowest Point value deck possible.
      Sure it does but its the lowest point functional deck each week which is incredibly interesting compared to what we have now. Imagine trying to make a deck that can win all tiers using cards like vanila 2/2s and other totally unthinkable stuff.
    • Wolzarg wrote:

      Merlin wrote:

      One of the most balanced ways would be to assign points to each card, according to it's popularity in last week FRA runs. Simple percentage would be enought.

      Then make loot adjustments for a player, based on those points and his deck value. This would be precise way to react to card popularity and give some incentive to deckbuilding. However it's not elegant in any way and also makes it more about building tle lowest Point value deck possible.
      Sure it does but its the lowest point functional deck each week which is incredibly interesting compared to what we have now. Imagine trying to make a deck that can win all tiers using cards like vanila 2/2s and other totally unthinkable stuff.
      Yeah, it's still better I guess. There might be a struggle with equipment, but I've probably recommend to bind it to the card when evaluating points.
    • Also, the biggest con of them all is that you're hindering any good will that made people share their PvE decks. Why would I share my PvE deck with you if it's netting me 3x gold and loot? In fact, I will keep running this deck, maybe share it with a couple trusted friends (guildmates?) and then we're going to buy every piece of equipment or rare/legendary card that's low priced from the AH, publish the deck as "This deck that noone uses has triple chances to find Zakiir" and list everything we got for dirt in the AH at super high price.

      I'd like to avoid that behaviour the suggested system is rewarding.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Also, the biggest con of them all is that you're hindering any good will that made people share their PvE decks. Why would I share my PvE deck with you if it's netting me 3x gold and loot? In fact, I will keep running this deck, maybe share it with a couple trusted friends (guildmates?) and then we're going to buy every piece of equipment or rare/legendary card that's low priced from the AH, publish the deck as "This deck that noone uses has triple chances to find Zakiir" and list everything we got for dirt in the AH at super high price.

      I'd like to avoid that behaviour the suggested system is rewarding.
      Did you just mean the very thing that happens in PvP every now and then before big tournaments? It gives it additional kick, rewarding competative skills, smart strategical overall decisions (as opposed to tactical in-game decisions). This is the great way to implement indirect player interraction for PvE.
    • Even with raids introduced, PvE is, by default NOT competitive. The "First!" thing-y I mentioned is definitely not a serious competition. Unless you want to HXE to implement a mechanic where something is only available until it's been defeated a total of X times globally, the PvE environment is non competitive.
    • They can also make it possible to store and choose when to use those rewards/lifelines from Hogarth challenges, as often they are more useful against the Elites than the tier boss itself. This will make arena easier but should allow more decks to "go through".
      "Winning with terrormill is not fun? Try losing with it"
    • I think competitive PvE will leave a bad taste on people's mouth and I agree with what Vroengard said in the matter. I mean, I would like that 3x gold and loot and I am probably one to reap the benefit if they implement it. However, PvE is already the entry point to this game and trying to make this side of the game competitive as well is going to chase away new players. You can't just make everything in the game cut-throat and hardcore if you want to attract more players.

      PvP tournament isn't an issue here because PvP tournament are the peak of the game in terms of competitiveness and we should reward whatever skill that can give the players an edge there. PvE, you are "Fuffing" around with rewards that every player can get.

      Edit: This is mainly for FRA at the current moment. If they find a way to implement competitive PvE in future for exclusive rewards, then maybe I will be fine. But FRA is a place accessible to everone.
    • @Artifaction Good call.

      I would think a combination of frequency and win rate to determine which cards get bonuses...

      So if everyone using a card is doing well, it would still not get bonuses even if not many use it...

      So basically, if a card has 100% win rate it would kind of overwrite the fact that only one person uses it and make it ineligible for bonuses.


      I still think we should stick to bonuses rather than penalties though. No reason to penalize people for what they find fun, just 'cause it's successful.

      By doing that it ALSO overwrites the concerns about people refusing to share tech... since even if you're the only person using it, if you have THAT good of a win rate it'll still lose its bonus the next time the bonuses change... so there's no reason to keep it secret.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      I would think a combination of frequency and win rate to determine which cards get bonuses...

      So if everyone using a card is doing well, it would still not get bonuses even if not many use it...

      So basically, if a card has 100% win rate it would kind of overwrite the fact that only one person uses it and make it ineligible for bonuses.
      Would in this version HXE publish a list that they'd update every Friday on each card's stats? Because how are players going to know what cards they're supposed to be using?
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      I would think a combination of frequency and win rate to determine which cards get bonuses...

      So if everyone using a card is doing well, it would still not get bonuses even if not many use it...

      So basically, if a card has 100% win rate it would kind of overwrite the fact that only one person uses it and make it ineligible for bonuses.
      Would in this version HXE publish a list that they'd update every Friday on each card's stats? Because how are players going to know what cards they're supposed to be using?
      They're supposed to be using whatever they feel is fun. The bonus reward would be aimed more at people for going outside of their comfort zone and experimenting with other things they think might be fun. At least that was my takeaway I could be off mark.

      If you wanted stats the cards could have a hover-over tooltip luck stat I suppose.