aznkid66's Arena Suggestions: Dynamic Income, Restricted HP, and Sideboard

[Pineapple]

Nor do i see 1. the relation to dynamic income, which has nothing to do with game duration and 2. how the current rigid income system admonishes these type of decks and how the new system would encourage it.

There is a clear relation between Dynamic Income and an increase in game duration, which is a negative playing experience.
Dynamic Income causes decks that have high amounts of HP remaining when they win to make more electrum. Which means Dynamic Income would encourage players to submit decks that have high amounts of HP remaining when they win. Those kinds of decks are usually healing-based stalls, and those decks take longer to play against.

However, you only win electrum if you win, and it's only worth playing against an Arena deck if the deck loses. There is no reason that people do not submit healing-based stalls now, unless they for some reason have less win-rate than faster decks. And if they do have less win-rate than faster decks, then there is no reason to put up healing-based stalls even after dynamic income is implemented because of how devastating losses are to arena decks.

[RootRanger]

And if they do have less win-rate than faster decks, then there is no reason to put up healing-based stalls even after dynamic income is implemented because of how devastating losses are to arena decks.

Actually, there is.
If a healing based stall wins twice as much electrum per win as the fast deck, it will make more electrum if its win percentage is only slightly lower than the fast deck. And that is usually the case.

[Pineapple]

However, this is assuming that the win-rate is less important than actually gaining money. You're forgetting that.
1. The top Arena decks, the one with the most income, are the ones with the highest win-rate because each loss is that detrimental.
2. With enough losses, you're out of the Arena.

[parasite99]

I don't get it why we have to raise rewards for some kind of decks only?
Why not ask for a raise for all if that is a problem?

And btw I want my rush to get more electrum if it wins in less than 5 turns, let's say 10 x electrum cause I like rushes...
I don't see any reason for boring slow decks getting raised amounts of electrum...I say every deck that wins with more than starting hp not gain any electrum and also every deck that wins in more tthan 15 turns, because I am getting bored after 15 turns...
Is that the kind of conversation and opinions that matter?
(The above is not my real opinion, just wanted to show you what some other person would say for all these...)


Anyways Imho maybe the rewards should be raised a bit but I disagree with hp gaining stalls winning more electrum since they are the most boring type of decks a player can face in arena...

[RootRanger]

However, this is assuming that the win-rate is less important than actually gaining money. You're forgetting that.

The most successful decks in Arena are the ones that make the most money. I'm not forgetting anything.

1. The top Arena decks, the one with the most income, are the ones with the highest win-rate because each loss is that detrimental.
2. With enough losses, you're out of the Arena.

1.) No. The top arena decks have the highest rating. Having a high win % helps you have a high rating, but it isn't the only factor.
2.) Of course, but a decent EM stall can last 90% as long as a decent rush, since staying in the Top 500 is easy for the two leagues where an EM stall would be best: gold and platinum. Submitting an EM stall will definitely be worth it.

[Pineapple]

However, this is assuming that the win-rate is less important than actually gaining money. You're forgetting that.

The most successful decks in Arena are the ones that make the most money. I'm not forgetting anything.

1. The top Arena decks, the one with the most income, are the ones with the highest win-rate because each loss is that detrimental.
2. With enough losses, you're out of the Arena.

1.) No. The top arena decks have the highest rating. Having a high win % helps you have a high rating, but it isn't the only factor.
2.) Of course, but a decent EM stall can last 90% as long as a decent rush, since staying in the Top 500 is easy for the two leagues where an EM stall would be best: gold and platinum. Submitting an EM stall will definitely be worth it.

As it currently is in gold, when you lose, you lose five times as much rating as rating gained from winning.

Now, assume the EM stall won 3/5 with 2 EMs and 1 half HP. That's 12 +12 +3 -30 -30 = -33
Now, assume the rush wins 4/5 with half HP each time. That's 3 +3 +3 +3 -30 = -18

Therefore, having HP-based income doesn't necessarily mean that getting EMs will be more important than winning. If the losing penalties are high enough, then win-rate would still be the most important part about an Arena deck. And if win-rate is still the most important part, then, as I've proved many times in this thread, there's nothing wrong with stalls.

I don't get it why we have to raise rewards for some kind of decks only?
Why not ask for a raise for all if that is a problem?

And btw I want my rush to get more electrum if it wins in less than 5 turns, let's say 10 x electrum cause I like rushes...
I don't see any reason for boring slow decks getting raised amounts of electrum...I say every deck that wins with more than starting hp not gain any electrum and also every deck that wins in more tthan 15 turns, because I am getting bored after 15 turns...
Is that the kind of conversation and opinions that matter?
(The above is not my real opinion, just wanted to show you what some other person would say for all these...)


Anyways Imho maybe the rewards should be raised a bit but I disagree with hp gaining stalls winning more electrum since they are the most boring type of decks a player can face in arena...

There are two reasons why dynamic income should be based on HP.
1. It's how it works in PvP, and Arena is Unsynchronized PvP. You don't see people getting extra coins for pulling off 3-turn wins in PvP.
2. It's how it works for in everyone's mind. You never say "This guy was so nooby, I beat him with 1 HP remaining" because most regard it as a close match, but you can say "This guy was so nooby, I beat him with 100 HP remaining."

[parasite99]

@ patchx94  2. It's how it works for in everyone's mind. You never say "This guy was so nooby, I beat him with 1 HP remaining" because most regard it as a close match, but you can say "This guy was so nooby, I beat him with 100 HP remaining."

I would never say that if I used a lock down deck with healing...just that my deck countered his...there are decks that when they win, they win 90% with 100hps. That doesn't make the people playing those decks cooler than others....
So if I play a rush deck vs your stall and finally at 1hp you get your combo working and you win me with your full 100hp left cause you healed meantime wasn't that a close match?
And you are cool because you waited 10 rounds to heal to 100hp to show me how cool you are?
Or if you use a miracle and a heal before giving the final blow that makes you cool? Then we all should add those 2 cards to our every combo.

Anyways I am just teasing you, but I completely disagree with your suggestions and that's the main reason I posted before in your thread

[RootRanger]

1.) No. The top arena decks have the highest rating. Having a high win % helps you have a high rating, but it isn't the only factor.
2.) Of course, but a decent EM stall can last 90% as long as a decent rush, since staying in the Top 500 is easy for the two leagues where an EM stall would be best: gold and platinum. Submitting an EM stall will definitely be worth it.

As it currently is in gold, when you lose, you lose five times as much rating as rating gained from winning.

Now, assume the EM stall won 3/5 with 2 EMs and 1 half HP. That's 12 +12 +3 -30 -30 = -33
Now, assume the rush wins 4/5 with half HP each time. That's 3 +3 +3 +3 -30 = -18

Therefore, having HP-based income doesn't necessarily mean that getting EMs will be more important than winning. If the losing penalties are high enough, then win-rate would still be the most important part about an Arena deck. And if win-rate is still the most important part, then, as I've proved many times in this thread, there's nothing wrong with stalls.

Your assumed stats are meaningless since they do not follow the criteria of the original point.
I mentioned a decent EM stall, not a terrible one that only wins 60% of the time in gold league.
If both decks are actually quality decks, they will rarely lose and will stay in the T500 for at least 4 or 5 days. The rush will only have a few more wins, but the electrum gained per win will be significantly smaller.

[Manipul8r]

People want more gold so I suppose that's why they vote for dynamic income.  However, I don't want to see a bunch of EM stalls in the Arena, so I don't want it.

I do like the restricted HP idea to some extent, it would not nerf creativity but would help people who want to play in a specific arena.

[Pineapple]

1.) No. The top arena decks have the highest rating. Having a high win % helps you have a high rating, but it isn't the only factor.
2.) Of course, but a decent EM stall can last 90% as long as a decent rush, since staying in the Top 500 is easy for the two leagues where an EM stall would be best: gold and platinum. Submitting an EM stall will definitely be worth it.

As it currently is in gold, when you lose, you lose five times as much rating as rating gained from winning.

Now, assume the EM stall won 3/5 with 2 EMs and 1 half HP. That's 12 +12 +3 -30 -30 = -33
Now, assume the rush wins 4/5 with half HP each time. That's 3 +3 +3 +3 -30 = -18

Therefore, having HP-based income doesn't necessarily mean that getting EMs will be more important than winning. If the losing penalties are high enough, then win-rate would still be the most important part about an Arena deck. And if win-rate is still the most important part, then, as I've proved many times in this thread, there's nothing wrong with stalls.

Your assumed stats are meaningless since they do not follow the criteria of the original point.
I mentioned a decent EM stall, not a terrible one that only wins 60% of the time in gold league.
If both decks are actually quality decks, they will rarely lose and will stay in the T500 for at least 4 or 5 days. The rush will only have a few more wins, but the electrum gained per win will be significantly smaller.

Do you see any rush decks with a 40% win rate in gold league? I used the hypothetical scenario to illustrate that, by increasing the losing penalty, you can make those "few more wins" matter enough to place the rush above the EM stall in rating.

[BluePriest]

If you get a sideboard then rushes will have much greater that 40%...
Arena already completely changes the income of players. Takes out a lot of the grinding. There doesnt need to be more ways to get money.

[Pineapple]

1. What do sideboards have to do with the hypothetical situation for disproving the idea of a sudden surge of EM stalls upon implementation of Dynamic Income?
2. Arena income is one way to get money. Changing it to make it more dynamic than "10 10 10 10" isn't adding another way to get money.