Coin Reward System is Backwards

[TheMonolith]

The ranking of decks in this game is determined by how many coins the player has won.  Coins = Score.

The only way to raise your score is to win games - and the more powerful opponents you beat, the faster your score should increase, right?.  And when you challenge an opponent, your score decreases - the purpose being, if you lose, the cost of the match is the penalty to your score.

I hope we all agree that decks that win more should be ranked higher, and decks that get beat by lesser opponents should be ranked lower. (If this is not the philosophy, then we all need to admit this is purely a farming game and nothing more.)

For this to work properly, it needs to cost LESS money (less penalty for losing)  to challenge more powerful opponents;  so your reward is less for beating lesser foes. And the penalty should be greater for losing to weak decks.

If I challenge a L2 deck and lose, my score decreases by only 5 coins.  But if I challenge a FG and lose, my score decreases by 30 coins. 
This indicates that losing to a FG is a larger indication of deck weakness than losing to a L2.

That is all.

[Tea is good]

I thought that the cost for trying to bet a higher ranked opponents made sense. otherwise, noobs could throw themselves at FGs repeatedly and win occasionally, which would make up for as many times as they lost. The system is based on you getting around double what you put in. Your way would make people only put in like 5 electrum and receive 60, thats less "fair".

It's kind of like how famous people are paid to take time out of their day to do things. you have to pay to fight high ranked elementals and FGs. the less "famous" ones cost less. The winning and losing is a gamble, the higher up the scale you go, the better the rewards, but the losses have to be increased as well because they have to scale with the wins.

[TheMonolith]

What you describe is a grinding/farming method:  Put X in, expect to get Y out.   They don't "put in 5 electrum and get 60 out' unless they have a really GOOD deck - capable of beating a FG.

Like I said, if grinding is the name of the game, that's fine, but it completely obliterates the attractive concept of being able to build a better deck from ingenuity and not just hours upon hours of grinding.
 
The fact is, newbs will not beat FG's often enough to make it worthwhile.  If they did, then FG's need to be harder.

[TheMadEvil]

The fact of the matter is, winning against a harder opponent nets you more electrum - as it should. This means it should COST more electrum - as it does.
What should be debated isn't the electrum cost/win, it should be the score basis.

But herein lies the problem: if you are just starting out, you might just lose a little (or a lot) against a L0 or L1 (noobs might do this more than you think), so raising the cost should not even be thought of. Think of it this way: when you had (have) a totally unupgraded, non-killer deck, how often did you lose to AI3 until you got the electrum to make a decent deck with decent win %? Your way, you are making this initial grind harder and longer, while also making early score go down logarithmically.

However, if you change the score differential, making losses to early AIs worth more score loss, while FGs are worth less score loss, then you are still making early scores go down way too much.

IMO, it would require way too much work and code to balance this, but an idea would be to have score losses based on your total score, meaning you lose less against AI3 when your score is low than when it is high.

BUT, also take this into account: How often do you REALLY play against AI3 or less? Once you hit FGs and can win 30-50% or so, you are less likely to go back to AI5 unless you get sick of losing or need the electrum. And by this time, you really shouldn't lose against anything but AI5 or T50 anyways.

So in conclusion: Is this really an issue? Do you lose against AI3 enough (or even play them for that matter? I know I don't) for this to matter?

[Kael Hate]

Because it is impossible to measure the quality of the deck against the opponent, the choice is given to the user as a form of gambling. If you can take on a False god you get the best reward if no your going backwards. If you can take on AI1 without fear your moving ahead but painfully slow. There is no ladder system at this stage which sounds like what you want. Others wish it as well.

[bobcamel]

It's Entry Money, not penalty for losing. It's like paying for a ticket.

[TheMonolith]

No, dude, it IS penalty for losing.

You pay, you lose, you lose your money.
You pay, you win, you get your money back and then some.

[Wisemage]

thats not how score works.

score is NOT based on how much money you have won, you get alot more than 30 score from one FG winning, or else i would be in huge negatives right now.  (650 wins, 1300 losses, 19k score)

[TheMonolith]

Well I wish someone would give me a straight answer about how points/ranking works.

All I have been told is money won = points won.

[Jumbalumba]

I'm not sure what's happening with Wisemage but points won = money won (it does not include any extra from getting 2 in a row in spins).

I do see what TheMonolith is pointing out and I do believe a moving scale of penalty would be the best but I will also answer by quoting TheMadEvil:

"Is this really an issue? Do you lose against AI3 enough (or even play them for that matter? I know I don't) for this to matter?"

Just think of the game as a progression. As you move up imagine the lower levels as not existing. You have a set of opponents with the rewards and penalties commensurate with your abilities. In terms of reward, there is hardly an issue.

The fact of the matter is, the ranking system is far from perfect. It isn't about finding the 50 best players. It is purely about which 50 people have the highest points. As it is, points is very well correlated with the amount of time people spend. Therefore, if you think that the only objective is to get to the top of the rankings then it is a grind. The points system probably could do with an overhaul. I believe this was discussed quite a few times in the past but I do not recall what conclusions were made or even what zanzarino thought about it all.

[Wisemage]

I'm not sure what's happening with Wisemage but points won = money won (it does not include any extra from getting 2 in a row in spins).

I do see what TheMonolith is pointing out and I do believe a moving scale of penalty would be the best but I will also answer by quoting TheMadEvil:

That is completely wrong.

Just ouble checked to be sure, beat a fake god, won 42 coins (43 with spins which you say dont count) and i got 87 score, so obviously it doesnt go by money won, i dont know who started that lie but they are wrong.

[Jumbalumba]

Your score should have increased by 57 I believe. The 30 extra is probably from looking at your points right after you begin the fight against the False God.

I guess I was wrong about the points = money gained thing in all cases.

After a test it appears points = money gained - the cost of losing to the lower level opponent (with the exception in the case of False Gods)
So for False Gods is points = money + 15
For Half bloods it is points = money - 15
For Top 50 it is points = money - 10
For Level 3 it is points = money - 5
For Level 2 or lower it is points = money

So the hypothesis was probably put forward really early in the game....