Arena Change?

[EvaRia]

From my understanding, you basically want the game to spoon feed you the exactly when to skip matches?
And then, you want the game to reward you for skipping by letting you leave with less penalty?
And then, you want to punish decks that you skip against?

I'm sorry, I know you feel you have a good argument, and I DO understand that it pains you, but these requests are somewhat self centred.

No, you don't understand.  I'd rather not skip any matches.  What I want, win or lose, is to enjoy the match.  I think there's an over-abundance of copy and paste identical decks in the Arena and I would rather that a bit of thought and imagination went in to creating them.  To discourage people from posting cut and paste decks.  The best way I can think of to do this is to create a way that people can skip boring decks.  I'm open to other suggestions, if anyone has any.

I mean, really, if what you're going to face in the Arena is the same few decks over and over again, then what's the point of the Arena?  zanz might as well just scrap it and create AI6 with special spins.

People keep talking about what the point of the Arena is.  Well, when you get the same card from the Oracle 2 days in a row you can't create a new deck with it.  zanz has explicitly said that this is because he doesn't want people putting up the same decks and getting rewards from that.  So, really, how is putting up an Oraclebow in the spirit of the Arena?

Alright, we're getting somewhere. So now that we've established what you really actually want, I'm going to forget about your arguments before and see if I can come with an idea.

I was thinking maybe there could be a "Free Play" mode in arena.

Basically you get to play against other arena decks with no risk and no reward, just for fun, to see what people have come up with.
After playing a deck like this, win OR lose you can rate it up or down and it affects the deck's actual ranking in the arena. Maybe only if you actually play once against the deck.

This makes two things happen:
1. The top decks would get people checking them and downvoting them if they are particularly unoriginal/uninspired.
2. Gives you the opportunity to play what decks you want for the fun of it, instead of caught in the RNG.

No idea how possible this is, but it shouldn't really be that much more complicated than the actual arena itself.

[RRQJ]

Jenkar assumed a super conservative 10/500 decks that your deck would counter.  People will definitely bring decks that have higher levels of coverage.  I already gave an example: black hole decks.  Do you really think there would only be ~10 rainbow decks?

If creating a rainbow deck is no longer a winning strategy, then I would imagine that there would be fewer rainbow decks.

Also, you're assuming everyone would think rationally.  Unfortunately, that isn't the case, since you can see how ineffective the thumbs up/down worked.  They're not going to think, "oh, this isn't very efficient getting electrum."  They're going to think, "this deck's annoying, I'm skipping. No win count for you, hah!"

Which would be their loss, wouldn't it?

Rainbow decks is no longer a winning strategy, but they will also be the only decks being played.  People that build other decks won't get played.  And you have said that decks that don't get played will rank lower than decks that do get played.  Also, those rainbows will still be able to pull out some wins.  So basically, rainbows get more plays, gain more electrum (since other decks won't get played, they gain 0 electrum), and rank higher .  This goes right back to what I've been saying, that deck creators are in a lose-lose situation.

Also, I gave one example of a deck that people can bring.  Other people can bring in decks that counter others.  So in the end, rainbows are no longer a winning strategy because of people bringing in black hole decks.  Mono decks that are not particular fast is no longer a winning strategy because of other people bringing in discord-black hole decks optimized to crush said mono decks.  Few/no PC decks is no longer a winning strategy because still other people will bring in instosis/mono aether/etc. that rely on permanents to win.  And so on.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Alright, we're getting somewhere. So now that we've established what you really actually want, I'm going to forget about your arguments before and see if I can come with an idea.

I'm not really sure why you're posting this, as there's nothing in that post that I hadn't already said.

I was thinking maybe there could be a "Free Play" mode in arena.

Basically you get to play against other arena decks with no risk and no reward, just for fun, to see what people have come up with.
After playing a deck like this, win OR lose you can rate it up or down and it affects the deck's actual ranking in the arena. Maybe only if you actually play once against the deck.

This makes two things happen:
1. The top decks would get people checking them and downvoting them if they are particularly unoriginal/uninspired.
2. Gives you the opportunity to play what decks you want for the fun of it, instead of caught in the RNG.

No idea how possible this is, but it shouldn't really be that much more complicated than the actual arena itself.

That's an interesting idea, but I don't see it having any more effect than the current thumbs up/thumbs down does - which is very little, if any.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Rainbow decks is no longer a winning strategy, but they will also be the only decks being played.

How are people going to play just rainbows if there are no rainbows posted?

Also, I gave one example of a deck that people can bring.  Other people can bring in decks that counter others.  So in the end, rainbows are no longer a winning strategy because of people bringing in black hole decks.  Mono decks that are not particular fast is no longer a winning strategy because of other people bringing in discord-black hole decks optimized to crush said mono decks.  Few/no PC decks is no longer a winning strategy because still other people will bring in instosis/mono aether/etc. that rely on permanents to win.  And so on.

So what you're saying is that there will be a variety of decks and that Arena strategy will evolve very quickly in response to what decks people are playing?  This is a good thing, surely?

[RRQJ]

Rainbow decks is no longer a winning strategy, but they will also be the only decks being played.

How are people going to play just rainbows if there are no rainbows posted?

Also, I gave one example of a deck that people can bring.  Other people can bring in decks that counter others.  So in the end, rainbows are no longer a winning strategy because of people bringing in black hole decks.  Mono decks that are not particular fast is no longer a winning strategy because of other people bringing in discord-black hole decks optimized to crush said mono decks.  Few/no PC decks is no longer a winning strategy because still other people will bring in instosis/mono aether/etc. that rely on permanents to win.  And so on.

So what you're saying is that there will be a variety of decks and that Arena strategy will evolve very quickly in response to what decks people are playing?  This is a good thing, surely?

Maybe if I put it this way, my argument is clearer:

zanz implements your suggestion.  It's been a week/month (basically some time has passed so people have adjusted). You're a deck creator.  What should you put in?

1. rainbow - the only people who would play it are those who brought in black hole decks; everyone else sees the deck list and decides to skip it
2. no PC deck/life rush/etc. - the only people who would play it are people who brought tons of sundials, dim shields, perms (that help survival); everyone else skips
3. some other deck - people who play it brought in the appropriate counter deck; other people skip
4. some strong deck that has a unique counter - everyone skips, you get no plays

The above should encompass all possible decks you can build.  If you build something in 4, then your deck will fall out pretty quickly, since you've said that decks that don't get played will rank low.  If you build something in 1, 2, and 3, you get some wins, but probably mostly losses.  However, since they get played, they will still rank higher than decks in 4.  So you're given the option of putting in a deck that will lose often or a deck that won't get played.  What do you do?

My opinion is that eventually, deck creators will get tired/demotivated and stop trying, and the arena becomes a joke.  You seem to think otherwise; if you can, care to explain why?

[ElementalDearWatson]

Maybe if I put it this way, my argument is clearer:

zanz implements your suggestion.  It's been a week/month (basically some time has passed so people have adjusted). You're a deck creator.  What should you put in?

1. rainbow - the only people who would play it are those who brought in black hole decks; everyone else sees the deck list and decides to skip it
2. no PC deck/life rush/etc. - the only people who would play it are people who brought tons of sundials, dim shields, perms (that help survival); everyone else skips
3. some other deck - people who play it brought in the appropriate counter deck; other people skip
4. some strong deck that has a unique counter - everyone skips, you get no plays

Again, I question whether everyone would always skip everything they didn't have the exact counter for.  Lots of people farm False Gods, and they know exactly what decks the False Gods have.  There are plenty of matches against False Gods where, going in to them, you know you've got a chance of winning, but also a fair chance of losing.  Yet people mostly only autoquit those matches they know they're going to lose.  And that's with only 120 and the possibility of winning an upped card on the line.  Against the Arena it's much more , the chance of winning a card, and the further chance of winning an upped rare.

My opinion is that eventually, deck creators will get tired/demotivated and stop trying, and the arena becomes a joke.  You seem to think otherwise; if you can, care to explain why?

My opinion is that deck creators already are lazy/demotivated, have stopped trying, and the Arena is a joke.

[RRQJ]

Spoiler for Hidden:

Maybe if I put it this way, my argument is clearer:

zanz implements your suggestion.  It's been a week/month (basically some time has passed so people have adjusted). You're a deck creator.  What should you put in?

1. rainbow - the only people who would play it are those who brought in black hole decks; everyone else sees the deck list and decides to skip it
2. no PC deck/life rush/etc. - the only people who would play it are people who brought tons of sundials, dim shields, perms (that help survival); everyone else skips
3. some other deck - people who play it brought in the appropriate counter deck; other people skip
4. some strong deck that has a unique counter - everyone skips, you get no plays

Again, I question whether everyone would always skip everything they didn't have the exact counter for.  Lots of people farm False Gods, and they know exactly what decks the False Gods have.  There are plenty of matches against False Gods where, going in to them, you know you've got a chance of winning, but also a fair chance of losing.  Yet people mostly only autoquit those matches they know they're going to lose.  And that's with only 120 and the possibility of winning an upped card on the line.  Against the Arena it's much more , the chance of winning a card, and the further chance of winning an upped rare.

My opinion is that eventually, deck creators will get tired/demotivated and stop trying, and the arena becomes a joke.  You seem to think otherwise; if you can, care to explain why?

My opinion is that deck creators already are lazy/demotivated, have stopped trying, and the Arena is a joke.

Perhaps you may be right and people won't always just skip decks they don't counter.  Just one thing: the difference between false gods and the arena is that skipping the false god does not mean you won't see it again.  Skipping a deck in the arena contributes to its fall.  Enough skips, and the deck creator can be convinced not to post the deck again.  So your way gives people the ability to "punish" the deck creator.  I don't think you should underestimate people's tendency to partly act on emotion.

Now, if you think deck creators are already lazy/demotivated, what makes you think your solution changes that?  If they're lazy, that means they probably don't want to think too much about their arena deck.  You attempt to force them to think more by punishing the "boring" decks, but what makes you think they'll actually do that?  What if they just put up farm decks, or maybe even continue to put up "boring" decks?  As you said, there might be some people who will play them regardless, so they might get a sufficient number of plays to convince them that it's not worth the hassle to think of a good, unique deck.

[Naesala]

Potential solution: Increase the effect of thumbing up and down and let us vote on decks we beat. A common argument is that the thumbs system doesn't really have an effect as it is now, I feel that if we can rate every deck and that rating have more effect on the standing, the thumbs system will work. My current deck for fighting the arena has several upped chargers so i can easily beat mono aether, which i frequently see, so i never get to thumb it down. I know a loss puts them down, but why not just push a bit harder. That said, I can win versus a very fun new idea, and not give them the thumbs up they deserve

[justaburd]

I like the idea of thumbing the decks we beat. Something unoriginal that we beat would get extra score loss, but something original that we managed to beat should get less score loss, maybe even net the deck builder some extra elec?