Elements 1.29

[JonathanCrazyJ]

omg completely off topic, but light_sefi is your avatar from Terranigma?!

[PuppyChow]

The rating system seems off to me, you should be able to rate decks upon winning as well as losing, don't you agree?  Besides stopping chronic winners from rating decks they feel deserve the bonus, the current system limits raters to those the deck to be rated has just beaten, a biased crew at best.

Nope, if you were able to rate decks you win against, people will start creating farms. These farms will lose easily, but they stay in the arena because everyone will give it a thumbs up. And most of these "chronic winners" only give bonuses to new decks. 

The farms would go out. This "Thumbs Up" would just halve the amount of rating lost, as thumbs up currently doubles the amount of rating gained.

This still makes farms stay longer than usual, which would be more evident in plat. Bad IMO.

Farms are bad how? I can see the line of reasoning with the Top 50 -- farms could literally stay up forever, and in addition were self farmable. But with number of decks in the arena, the odds of getting one are astronomically low and nobody really makes them since they want the extra cash, little though it is. Saying that farms would stay too long is definitely not a big enough problem to offset the benefits.

Allowing winners to vote could balance out the bias towards no that only having losers vote does. The winner voting wouldn't gain any extra electrum or score or something -- it'd just half the amount of rank a deck loses, and maybe also award the deck creator one-three electrum.

[koeniewoenie]

IMO, original decks that win deserve a reward (thumbs up rating), but everyone can make an original deck that loses, so there's no point rating them.

[Djhopper :)]

IMO, original decks that win deserve a reward (thumbs up rating), but everyone can make an original deck that loses, so there's no point rating them.

Original decks have lower win-rates than unoriginal decks. They don't deserve to go out after two loses though.

[Polari]

IMO, original decks that win deserve a reward (thumbs up rating), but everyone can make an original deck that loses, so there's no point rating them.

Original decks have lower win-rates than unoriginal decks. They don't deserve to go out after two loses though.

That's not a given. If you ask me, decks that lose deserve to go out regardless of how original they are.

[Djhopper :)]

IMO, original decks that win deserve a reward (thumbs up rating), but everyone can make an original deck that loses, so there's no point rating them.

Original decks have lower win-rates than unoriginal decks. They don't deserve to go out after two loses though.

That's not a given. If you ask me, decks that lose deserve to go out regardless of how original they are.

Here's an example:

Person 1 puts up a Sosa-poison-stall.
It does not lose.

Person 2 puts up an original deck.
It has a 50% win-rate.

Person 2 has done something much more impressive than Person 1, yet goes out after only a few games.

Is this fair?

[hendrydext]

*leaves*

You can not leave Napalm: Elements needs you; besides,  if you leave you are going to miss the creation of the next fire card and that is the first item in my "to do" list after I am done with the shards.

2 months has passed..
There is no progress yet...

*leaves*

[OldTrees]

*leaves*

You can not leave Napalm: Elements needs you; besides,  if you leave you are going to miss the creation of the next fire card and that is the first item in my "to do" list after I am done with the shards.

2 months has passed..
There is no progress yet...

*leaves*

A great Fire card takes longer than 2 months especially since Sept was in the middle of the previous set being added and beta tested.
Please return

[Polari]

Here's an example:

Person 1 puts up a Sosa-poison-stall.
It does not lose.

Person 2 puts up an original deck.
It has a 50% win-rate.

Person 2 has done something much more impressive than Person 1, yet goes out after only a few games.

Is this fair?

Person 1 put up a deck that didn't lose. Person 2 put up a deck that lost half its games. I don't see a problem here.

[OldTrees]

Here's an example:

Person 1 puts up a Sosa-poison-stall.
It does not lose.

Person 2 puts up an original deck.
It has a 50% win-rate.

Person 2 has done something much more impressive than Person 1, yet goes out after only a few games.

Is this fair?

Person 1 put up a deck that didn't lose. Person 2 put up a deck that lost half its games. I don't see a problem here.

Agreed.

The goal of arena is twofold:
1) It provides a dynamic opponent that improves over time and adjusts to metagame changes. At higher arena levels it also is useful for determining the top tier decks.
2) It provides a reasonably difficult means of getting a rare card. This allows everyone access to rare cards while still maintaining their rarity for the collectors.

For the most part the rewards and punishments for the Arena decks winning and losing are related to goal 1. Ideally the most powerful decks would remain until a large minority of the players adjust the metagame to compensate. In the same manner ideally new decks would be tried and replace old decks if and only if they are stronger in the current metagame. Having the Win/loss ratio (base points) and the originality (voting) factor into a deck's lifespan in the arena promotes this behavior.

[Djhopper :)]

Ah... I understand your view now... Sorry...

Just to clarify: Do you think that the high difficulty of arena is more important than the fun factor and that it isn't how impressive the achievment is but how difficult the arena is?

[Polari]

Ah... I understand your view now... Sorry...

Just to clarify: Do you think that the high difficulty of arena is more important than the fun factor and that it isn't how impressive the achievment is but how difficult the arena is?

The difficulty is a secondary thing. As long as the arena works as a competition for the decks, there should be clear rules on how your deck is scored. Right now there's a straightforward system for rewarding wins and punishing losses, and a stupid, fuzzy adjustment thing that changes your score based on what the people who played against your deck felt like.

I'm all for rewarding originality, but it has to be through a solid ruleset that tells you up front how your deck will be scored. In the current system the players you get have almost as much of an effect on your scores than the deck itself, because everyone has a different idea on what's fun or original. Like I already said in another thread, personally I thumb-up everything because why would I not give people free gold when it costs me nothing, and I think the whole system is retarded anyway. I'm pretty sure there are also people who thumb-down everything just because they can. The idea of rewarding originality isn't necessarily broken, but the way it's currently done is.