Defense team diversity


#1

After fighting the same teams over and over I started to wonder about how to improve things.

I think we should separate defense rewards from pvp. There should be a separate bonus for defense, and it should be based on win % times team rarity. That way you’d get the largest bonus for having an unusual team that won often, and it would give people a reason not to field the exact same team as everyone else.

Thoughts?


#2

So you think that change wouldn’t result in players eventually finding the optimal deck that provided the highest win % with the best bonus?


#3

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. “Rarity” in this case refers to how often the card/team is played, not how often folks get it from keys. So you’d get a big rarity bonus from a Peasant/Finley/Elywn/Dwarven Miner team, though unless it won some it wouldn’t pay off.

And if everyone started playing that team the bonus would go down, and the rest of the cards would be worth more.


#4

Sounds like penalizing people for finding something effective. It’s a complex enough challenge just to build effective teams for offense and defense, but to then have to worry about how many other people have thought up the same teams would be annoying, and pressure people to constantly be changing their teams attempting to dodge the penalty.

Rather than directly rewarding or penalizing people based on how common a team is, it’s better to create a diverse array of counters to encourage team variety. People should be looking for ways to beat the meta teams and catch their opponents by surprise, rather than being penalized for other people finding the same good combinations.


#5

I am constantly amused at how people can transform any sort of reward into a penalty for the rest.

It’s not that it’s hard to beat any teams out there. It’s just boring to beat them over and over again.


#6

In most cases, I’d express the same sentiment myself. People perceive any bonus they can attain most of the time as the default state, rather than a bonus, and if they lose it, they perceive that they’re being penalized. And while that’s frustrating, they’re not necessarily wrong. If it’s a bonus, you shouldn’t be able to consistently acquire it.

In this case, however, the problem is that you take an action to acquire a bonus, and lose it when enough other people do the exact same thing. You’re not failing to meet the requirements, other people are taking it away from you, because they’re doing the same thing you are, for the same reasons. If you excluded the first person who fielded a particular defense, that would address that problem, but make the other angle even worse: now everyone else has to avoid using what they know is a good defense team in order to get the bonus, while one person is then rewarded by both having the best defense team and an additional bonus for it.

If there were a wide variety of equally effective defense teams, such an idea might be remotely tenable. As it is, it’s rare to find a team that can even achieve a 20% win rate. But requiring players to be conscious of what other players are doing would still be an enormous distraction from what in many other respects is very much a single-player strategy game.


#7

I agree. I’m tired of Khorvash, Queen Mab and Manticore… it’s getting tedious.

Its not even hard to beat them.