Expanding Ultimate League and Beyond

---

@AphidOfDeath wrote:

The min % win on Wooden and Bronze should just be "N/A" since, given enough games played, any rate greater than zero theoretically eventually yields a rank up.   "Min % win" should reflect the "worst-case scenario" where the first match/es give a star and the number of stars is never again zero.  As such, @jaydabbler is right that ranking up in the proposed Hero, Ultimate and Legend leagues requires a 75% winrate.

  

Another option instead of requiring a streak-bonus in order to win stars, how about the normal "a win awards a star" (and no streak bonus) but then a loss drops you two stars?  It's still a 75% winrate, but I'm just trying to think of which is better for a player's psychology.

---

mathematically, you can rank up when your win rate is above 'maintain rate'. win +1 lose -2 give us maintain rate 66%. to rank up, your win rate have to >66%

good point ^

66.1% win rate it is then, thanks for pointing that out. 

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

good point ^

66.1% win rate it is then, thanks for pointing that out. 

---

>66% is better because it is continuous, not discrete, even 66.0001% still count. and maybe we better stop talking about math, some people not really care about math lol

---

@zdarcon wrote:

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

good point ^

66.1% win rate it is then, thanks for pointing that out. 

---

>66% is better because it is continuous, not discrete, even 66.0001% still count. and maybe we better stop talking about math, some people not really care about math lol

---

Actually, it's 2/3 so 66.00001% is under and doesn't count. 

---

@AphidOfDeath wrote:

The min % win on Wooden and Bronze should just be "N/A" since, given enough games played, any rate greater than zero theoretically eventually yields a rank up.   "Min % win" should reflect the "worst-case scenario" where the first match/es give a star and the number of stars is never again zero.  As such, @jaydabbler is right that ranking up in the proposed Hero, Ultimate and Legend leagues requires a 75% winrate.

I offer a slightly altered idea for the Hero league... To rank up, you must win a game with every hero (as originally given).  When you win, that hero is marked complete.  When you lose, one of the marked completes is unmarked.  I'd then move the league between Taco and Ultimate, leaving Ultimate and Legend unique in their awarding 0 stars for a solitary win.

Another option instead of requiring a streak-bonus in order to win stars, how about the normal "a win awards a star" (and no streak bonus) but then a loss drops you two stars?  It's still a 75% winrate, but I'm just trying to think of which is better for a player's psychology.

Also, a top 100 leaderboard sounds like a good addition to whichever league is top dog.  And then I was like "every league should get a leaderboard".  And then I was like "but that doesn't even make sense".  And then I was like "I know, but I still want a leaderboard". 

---

@AphidOfDeath Thank you for providing a constructive comment/criticism. It only took 14 replies to get there... 🤔

I like your version of the Hero league, but that would require all players in that league to have unlock all heroes, and I'm not quite sure everyone would be just there yet. Otherwise, a player with only 12 heroes unlocked would level up way faster/easier than a player with all 20 heroes unlocked.

Anyway, the idea is to "encourage" players to use all heroes, as I'm pretty sure some players in the Ultimate league play with the same 2-3 heroes over and over (because that's their best decks) and pat themselves in the back because they are soooooooo good at this game... 😉

Considering the way to earn stars, I weighed the pros and cons of having to make a win streak or losing 2 stars. The reason why I chose the former is because sometimes, sh*t happen. You get a phone call, you temporary lose mobile coverage or your wifi drops out, and you are mad enough to not get the opportunity to win that game where you had a confortable board position. Losing 2 stars in this scenario would be even more frustrating. That's my perspective on it. (However, I wouldn't be against a 2-star loss for those who rage quit when there is a "concede" button readily available)

Finally, for the leaderboard, I placed it in the Legend League because it would eventually reflect the best players in that league. However, we should have a leaderboard from day1, even if the #1 is "only" in the Gold League... 

After further consideration, I'd decrease the win streak to 3 in the Legend League otherwise not many would earn stars. We could also put in place a loss streak where the first loss is "free", the second loss make you lose 1 star, the third loss 2 stars, etc.

I would also like to see a bonus for players winning above their league: 1 league difference +1 star, 2 leagues difference +2 stars, etc. That would encourage new players to give it their best shot instead of conceding just after the match up, which is often the case.

as I said before @MyPouf - you are arbitrarily assigning a winstreak, which makes your math false. 

why not use 20 wins and 18 losses if you are just making stuff up? (52.6%)

XP granted per this suggestion:

---

@MyPouf wrote:

I would also like to see a bonus for players winning above their league: 1 league difference +1 star, 2 leagues difference +2 stars, etc. That would encourage new players to give it their best shot instead of conceding just after the match up, which is often the case.

---

I also find your idea of a loss-streak to have much merit.

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

as I said before @MyPouf - you are arbitrarily assigning a winstreak, which makes your math false. 

why not use 20 wins and 18 losses if you are just making stuff up? (52.6%)

---

I'm not arbitrarily assigning a win streak, I'm selecting the best conditions to level up win the minimal win rate.

Your example doesn't work because an 11 win streak grants an automatic level up.

Hence, the maximum win streak possible is 10. 8 loss is a maximum loss granting a star as a result of the 18 games.

10 win / 8 loss = 55,6% win rate.

QED.

You are yet to comment on the idea submitted. However, it seems you are more interested to prove that math isn't your strong suit. 🥳 

---

@MyPouf wrote:

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

as I said before @MyPouf - you are arbitrarily assigning a winstreak, which makes your math false. 

why not use 20 wins and 18 losses if you are just making stuff up? (52.6%)

---

I'm not arbitrarily assigning a win streak, I'm selecting the best conditions to level up win the minimal win rate.

Your example doesn't work because an 11 win streak grants an automatic level up.

Hence, the maximum win streak possible is 10. 8 loss is a maximum loss granting a star as a result of the 18 games.

10 win / 8 loss = 55,6% win rate.

QED.

You are yet to comment on the idea submitted. However, it seems you are more interested to prove that math isn't your strong suit. 🥳 

---

Let me stab again.  For the first round*, a player winning 10 games earns 9 stars and then subsequently losing the following 8 games nets out at 1 star, a 55.56% winrate.  The next round can't be the same scenario (10 wins followed by 8 losses) because adding the previous 1 star to the newly earned 9 stars grants the automatic level.  Therefore, the second round is winning 9 games and losing 7, itself a 56.25% winrate.  The third round is 8 wins and 6 losses, the fourth 7 wins and 5 losses, etc., with the ninth round being 2 wins and 0 losses and the tenth being 1 win and rank up (it's part of the ninth's round winning streak).  If I've added that up correctly, that's 55 wins out of 91 games meaning that one has won 60.4% of the games.  (Using the same analysis, when it's 20 levels to rank up instead of 10, it's 210 games out of 381 for 55.1%.)

*A "round" is a string of games grouped by a series of wins followed by a series of losses.

---

@AphidOfDeath wrote:

---

@MyPouf wrote:

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

as I said before @MyPouf - you are arbitrarily assigning a winstreak, which makes your math false. 

why not use 20 wins and 18 losses if you are just making stuff up? (52.6%)

---

I'm not arbitrarily assigning a win streak, I'm selecting the best conditions to level up win the minimal win rate.

Your example doesn't work because an 11 win streak grants an automatic level up.

Hence, the maximum win streak possible is 10. 8 loss is a maximum loss granting a star as a result of the 18 games.

10 win / 8 loss = 55,6% win rate.

QED.

You are yet to comment on the idea submitted. However, it seems you are more interested to prove that math isn't your strong suit. 🥳 

---

Let me stab again.  For the first round*, a player winning 10 games earns 9 stars and then subsequently losing the following 8 games nets out at 1 star, a 55.56% winrate.  The next round can't be the same scenario (10 wins followed by 8 losses) because adding the previous 1 star to the newly earned 9 stars grants the automatic level.  Therefore, the second round is winning 9 games and losing 7, itself a 56.25% winrate.  The third round is 8 wins and 6 losses, the fourth 7 wins and 5 losses, etc., with the ninth round being 2 wins and 0 losses and the tenth being 1 win and rank up (it's part of the ninth's round winning streak).  If I've added that up correctly, that's 55 wins out of 91 games meaning that one has won 60.4% of the games.  (Using the same analysis, when it's 20 levels to rank up instead of 10, it's 210 games out of 381 for 55.1%.)

*A "round" is a string of games grouped by a series of wins followed by a series of losses.

---

Nope. 😛

You are trying to over-complicate it...

---

@MyPouf wrote:

For the Hero League (60-69)

• Ranking up to this league awards you with 600 Gems.
• Each level needs 30 stars     <<======
• A single win rewards with 0 star;
• A win streak rewards with 1 star and a win streak must be completed with different heroes* (hence Hero League);
• A 10-win streak rewards you with a level up;  <<======
• A loss takes away 1 star;
• Each time the player levels up, the reward is 150 Gems.

* If you reuse the same hero during your win streak, it reset the streak and gives you 0 star.

---

 So in your example, each *round* would be the same: 10 win / 8 loss. 

oh ok, I just missed reading the part about your 10 win streak = skip the next 20 stars required to level up. 

as to the idea, everyone wants a leaderboard or continuation of the leage. My opinion of your idea is that it is too difficult. 10 win streak shortcutting 2/3rds of the round just introduces some luck into whether you reach the next level. (because with good luck/bad opponents, you might be able to jump over others in the same league). if you are going to make it really challenging, it should be challenging all the way through (like Taco league and how it takes forever)

I should have specified which league I was talking about as the Hero League is its own beast of play.  (Though now I understand why I was confused by everyone talking about there only being 10 stars for leveling up. 😞 😃)

For the Ultimate League (50-59)

• Each level needs 30 stars 
• A single win rewards with 0 star;
• A win streak rewards with 1 star;
• A loss takes away 1 star;
• Each time the player levels up, the reward is 100 Gems. (The win rate to level up is at least 55%)

Getting to 30 stars using my prior logic/iterative analysis puts the number of games needed to win at 53.4% (465 games won @ 871 games played).

[snipped quote following]

---

@MyPouf wrote:

---

@AphidOfDeath wrote:

I offer a slightly altered idea for the Hero league... To rank up, you must win a game with every hero (as originally given).  When you win, that hero is marked complete.  When you lose, one of the marked completes is unmarked.  I'd then move the league between Taco and Ultimate, leaving Ultimate and Legend unique in their awarding 0 stars for a solitary win.

---

I like your version of the Hero league, but that would require all players in that league to have unlock all heroes, and I'm not quite sure everyone would be just there yet. Otherwise, a player with only 12 heroes unlocked would level up way faster/easier than a player with all 20 heroes unlocked.

Anyway, the idea is to "encourage" players to use all heroes, as I'm pretty sure some players in the Ultimate league play with the same 2-3 heroes over and over (because that's their best decks) and pat themselves in the back because they are soooooooo good at this game... 😉

---

As I'm slogging through the sea of Tacos to reach Ultimate before season 2 hits, I'm even warmer to the idea of a Hero league.  In fact, given the game's inspiration from comics, there could be two Hero-ish leagues where one is the Sidekick League akin to Teen Titans, New Mutants, Young Justice, Generation X, Avengers Academy, etc.  In this league, there is no penalty for losing a match, just that each hero must be used for a win.  10 stars per level with each level switching back and forth between plants and zombies (all 10 plant heroes and all 10 zombie heroes must be played and won with).  Since this is earlier game, whether or not a player has the hero, the player can use one of the pre-built decks in its completeness.  Exposure to these decks could also drive purchases for packs and deck completion.  The Hero Leaguers can also use the pre-built decks, but they are incomplete if the player doesn't have all the cards (it's higher level, so the player should have all the heroes by now or should be willing to invest their gems into the pre-built decks).

Here's my suggested order:

1. Wooden
2. Bronze
3. Silver
4. Gold
5. Sidekick
6. Diamond
7. Taco
8. Hero
9. Ultimate
10. Legend

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

as to the idea, everyone wants a leaderboard or continuation of the league. My opinion of your idea is that it is too difficult. 10 win streak shortcutting 2/3rds of the round just introduces some luck into whether you reach the next level. (because with good luck/bad opponents, you might be able to jump over others in the same league). if you are going to make it really challenging, it should be challenging all the way through (like Taco league and how it takes forever)

---

Now we are getting somewhere... Thank you for your feedback. 😉

Which part is too difficult, can you please elaborate? (We can work all together to make it more balanced...)

When I see so many players already in Ultimate (boring) League, I believe it's not very challenging to get there. Tedious, certainly.

The luck is an inherent part of this game. With the cards in your starting hands, the cards you draw, the random block trigger, the hero you face, etc.

However, I don't think winning 11 matches in a row, with 11 different heroes, (mostly) against other players of your level is luck. 3-4 wins maybe, not 11. This requires real skills, and deserves reward IMO.

---

@AphidOfDeath wrote:

As I'm slogging through the sea of Tacos to reach Ultimate before season 2 hits, I'm even warmer to the idea of a Hero league. In fact, given the game's inspiration from comics, there could be two Hero-ish leagues where one is the Sidekick League akin to Teen Titans, New Mutants, Young Justice, Generation X, Avengers Academy, etc. 

In this league, there is no penalty for losing a match, just that each hero must be used for a win.

10 stars per level with each level switching back and forth between plants and zombies (all 10 plant heroes and all 10 zombie heroes must be played and won with). 

Since this is earlier game, whether or not a player has the hero, the player can use one of the pre-built decks in its completeness.  Exposure to these decks could also drive purchases for packs and deck completion. 

The Hero Leaguers can also use the pre-built decks, but they are incomplete if the player doesn't have all the cards (it's higher level, so the player should have all the heroes by now or should be willing to invest their gems into the pre-built decks).

Here's my suggested order:

1. Wooden
2. Bronze
3. Silver
4. Gold
5. Sidekick
6. Diamond
7. Taco
8. Hero
9. Ultimate
10. Legend

---

I like your idea of the Sidekick league. 

It gives a preview of all heroes (similar to the weekly challenge) and the power of the pre-built decks (and as you suggested, a further incentive to buy them).

Now, this creates a league with "super" heroes playing with the best decks. If you are in any other league, you wish you don't face players of that league!

If we create that new Sidekick league, we may remove the Taco league, which is simply a painful extension of the Diamond league with 0 novelty. 

I would also swap Hero and Ultimate as originally suggested, because Hero and Legend use the same mechanics (different heroes to win stars) and the Ultimate would seem dull/easy after the Hero League.

Alternate order:

1. Wooden
2. Bronze
3. Silver
4. Gold
5. Sidekick
6. Diamond/(or Taco)
7. Ultimate
8. Hero
9. Legend

---

@xSSxSUICIDEx wrote:
You guys and your numbers jeez. Here's my opinion. I think most of the player base isn't even in ultimate league and it already takes a long time to get there. I don't think there is a need for higher leagues. All that will do is create leagues with even less people than ultimate league. I think the best solution for maxed players is a leaderboard so they can still have a sense of progression. It's baffling that there isn't a leaderboard already. Maybe even have it reset every week and award gems to the top players. The new leagues just seem like too much and unnecessary.

---

If I had to take a guess at the breakdown, I'd say the current status is:

1. Wooden - 5%
2. Bronze - 5%
3. Silver - 10%
4. Gold - 15%
5. Diamond - 15%
6. Taco - 30%
7. Ultimate - 20%

The reason for that is because the first two are really quick to go through. The Taco league takes ages. It may even be close to 40% of the multiplayers. And the Ultimate is growing week after week.

There are currently 2 issues for players who reach Ultimate.

1. Lack of Aim (nothing to unlock, no level up, no reward, no achievement)
2. Lack of Comparison (no leaderboard, so you don't know high you rank)

What you suggest is to add only 2. and disregard 1. That would assume ALL players who reached Ultimate are only interested in a leaderboard position. I don't think it's an accurate assumption.

You need to cater for everyone, and to do so, you need to implement both.

Who cares if it takes 6 more months for the average player to reach Ultimate? Once you get there, you are only waiting for the next season. You can't even replay the single mode missions...

The fact that you level up creates a sense of achievement that (most?) players enjoy. The longer and more diverse the path to the end, the better.

Season 1 is running for over a year now, and it's unlikely that Season 2 will be any shorter. With experience, the most advanced players will reach Ultimate under 3 months, and if nothing changes, they'll get bored and move on to another game.

Should every player reach Ultimate (or the top league)? I don't think so.

Should every player be able to reach it if they put some effort into it? Definitely yes.

I don't know if you are old enough, but when I was a boy, I was playing Super Mario Bros on my GameBoy, and the last levels were damn hard and unforgiving. You'd spend more time completing the last 5% of the game than the first 95%. But when you saved the Princess from Bowser, you felt sooooo good. 😉  

---

@xSSxSUICIDEx wrote:
You guys and your numbers jeez. Here's my opinion. I think most of the player base isn't even in ultimate league and it already takes a long time to get there. I don't think there is a need for higher leagues. All that will do is create leagues with even less people than ultimate league. I think the best solution for maxed players is a leaderboard so they can still have a sense of progression. It's baffling that there isn't a leaderboard already. Maybe even have it reset every week and award gems to the top players. The new leagues just seem like too much and unnecessary.

---

nice. similar to my opinion. this game ONLY need Leaderboard, and new leagues will be just the same boring thing. i bet it even give more stress to players

"Season 1 is running for over a year now, and it's unlikely that Season 2 will be any shorter."

^^ FYI - Season 2 is currently set for FIVE WEEKS only.

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

"Season 1 is running for over a year now, and it's unlikely that Season 2 will be any shorter."

^^ FYI - Season 2 is currently set for FIVE WEEKS only.

---

Damn!  That seems too short unless they are considering modifying the leagues.  If it stands as is, I would think people would get burnt out trying to reach ultimate league.  But having a season running over a year is way too long.  Something like three months seems reasonable to me, but let's see what they bring on.

BPRD

https://www.reddit.com/r/PvZHeroes/comments/6a6416/galactic_pack_info_and_news_redux_w_season_info/

taken from the code of the game, like all leaked information.  some users have access to dev releases of future updates, showing them information not released on this forum.