|
|
metadata
**Rumble starts Thursday, January 10 @ 14:00 UTC**
(6:00 PST, 9:00 EST, 15:00 CET)
Have feedback to share about Rumbles? Please use this thread.
GOOD LUCK, EVERYONE!
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
Trying out official feedback threads in the main forum and might do some reorganization to the whole forum in the future.
Rumble is under way! Good luck, everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
one of the biggest issues with rumble is always participation. i understand that the rewards and scoring were built and changed to try and encourage it more but what if we were to add milestone rewards to the system at like every 1000 or something. i believe that would greatly encourage others to participate more.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
We need ppl to join our clan please we need 15 players
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
I agree with sykojoe. Maybe if you adjusted the rewards we could get participation up.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
why does this game make guilds auto-join the rumble?
i want to leave my completely inactive guild, but whenever i try to, it says "cant leave guild during a rumble" while i never even joined one -.-"
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
Wow, it happened in round 3: [4 of Top 5 spots in rumble](https://sites.google.com/view/siegebot/rumblebot) belong to the Walker family. Congrats on that accomplishment!
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
My familiar refrain is please tweak the MMR formula to reduce movement. This would make for more competitive (and more fun) matches.
My suggestion is to take into account the margin of victory/loss but if the devs don't want to do that, an alternative is to reduce movement as a guild climps the ladder. For example, if the MMR ranking is 100, limit the movement to no more than 10 positions. If the MMR ranking is 50, limit the movement to no more than 5 positions, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
1. **Adjust ladder rewards to encourage competition.** As it stands with the linear reward structure there are very few jumps worthy of stimulating that end - top 500 is a case in point.
2. ** Reverse conditions of entry/departure. ** To have players able to join at any time whilst departure is limited to time outside matchmaking/battle stages is backward. New players joining half way through the battle stage and starting to attack, and even ultimately come away with a win is absurd (true siege story). A player should have the right to leave when ever he desires for whatever reason. Likewise, troublesome personalities should be removable without notice by authorised guild members at any time. To discourage dead guilds, players need to be discouraged of joining other guilds, and that's why registration should be closed after opt-in stage.
3. **Raise 'Personal Points' requirement for tier rewards.** As it stands, this requirement merely screens against inactivity (just about), rather than motivate team work. The chosen numbers do not accurately reflect the guild positions and individual effort required for victory at the respective tier levels.
4. **Increase the number of teams on the viewable ladder board.** For instance, to top 500.
5. **Provide additional information pertaining to each match.** That is, in the same way the guild tab illustrates each member's contribution hitherto, create additional content covering each match individually, perhaps under the 'Matches' tab. Also, the information can consist of each individual batle with corresponding score and rival, rather than simply the player's total score of the match.
6. **Allow for this information to be accessible after the Rumble ends, perhaps even retroactively .**
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
Better matching. When I face the same person 3 or more times, it is annoying. I find it hard to believe that out of the pool of players available, I should be limited to 5 or 6.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
> *Originally posted by **[DavidW2727](/forums/727066/topics/1791252?page=1#12998116)**:*
> Better matching.
Agree with David, plus match player deck strength vs player deck strength.
I don't understand how player vs player is chosen but I just walked away with NINE straight losses against various players, all loaded with Mythics (I have none), and did not stand a snowball's chance of survival in a hot oven! Why would I be matched in this manner?
A very frustrating, fully demoralizing experience.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
> *Originally posted by **[Kitty4Unicorn](/forums/727068/topics/1792203?page=1#12996381)**:*
> now I know I've told them to fix this before there's 50 players in a guild no need to hit the same guy battle twice fix your annoying issues with your game first before adding new junk
Pasted from another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
I don't mind the RNG in selecting which players you are matched against. Afterall, RNG is a huge part of this game. It's random what cards you pull, what cards you are dealt, where your punches land, etc.
Part of the reason that a guild can pull off an upset is if their whales are drawn more often than the other guild's whales. Change the matching and the entire match becomes more predictable. Which is a bad thing, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
> _Originally posted by **[werenarc](/forums/726779/topics/1791252?page=1#12998433):**_
> I don't mind the RNG in selecting which players you are matched against. Afterall, RNG is a huge part of this game. It's random what cards you pull, what cards you are dealt, where your punches land, etc.
>
> Part of the reason that a guild can pull off an upset is if their whales are drawn more often than the other guild's whales. Change the matching and the entire match becomes more predictable. Which is a bad thing, IMO.
>
I agree. I love beating the same person over again. That would go away if you make it so that you only face each person once. People that want that seem to forget that. I also like having a second chance at beating someone who beat me. I know they're talking about whale decks they have no chance at beating, but I'm in an appropriate guild for my deck level, so I rarely see decks in the rumble that I don't at least have a chance at beating.
In short, I'd prefer they keep things as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
i suggested earlier a tier reward structure to push as an incentive for player participation but what about also having a reward structure for being the top player in ur guildand a tiered reward structure for like the top 10 and so forth. give the guild some competetiveness within itself.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
Matching is really bad. Second to last round we were 6th, won that and moved **down** to 7th. By no means should anyone to win a round and fall in overall points.
|
|
|
|
|
metadata
> _Originally posted by **[FatAndy8012](/forums/726779/topics/1791252?page=1#12998533):**_
> > _Originally posted by **[werenarc](/forums/726779/topics/1791252?page=1#12998433):**_
> > I don't mind the RNG in selecting which players you are matched against. Afterall, RNG is a huge part of this game. It's random what cards you pull, what cards you are dealt, where your punches land, etc.
> >
> > Part of the reason that a guild can pull off an upset is if their whales are drawn more often than the other guild's whales. Change the matching and the entire match becomes more predictable. Which is a bad thing, IMO.
> >
>
> I agree. I love beating the same person over again. That would go away if you make it so that you only face each person once. People that want that seem to forget that. I also like having a second chance at beating someone who beat me. I know they're talking about whale decks they have no chance at beating, but I'm in an appropriate guild for my deck level, so I rarely see decks in the rumble that I don't at least have a chance at beating.
>
> In short, I'd prefer they keep things as they are.
Guess people are failing to realize that they could also get easy/beatable players multiple times as well. Are they complaining about that? NO. Lol
|
 "ModchiKopi"){kind=avatar}
 "Sykojoe"){kind=small}
 "WashingtonM25"){kind=small}
 "KimberlyC148"){kind=small}
 "jhjhjg"){kind=small}
 "PieterD74"){kind=small}
 "Newbomb501"){kind=small}
 "L4rgo"){kind=avatar}
 "gfore25r"){kind=small}
 "werenarc"){kind=small}
 "Fat__Tony"){kind=small}
 "KennyR252"){kind=small}
 "JessicaG425"){kind=small}
 "DavidW2727"){kind=small}
 "RowdyRhodes"){kind=small}
 "FatAndy8012"){kind=small}
 "1Platdiamond1"){kind=small}