Re: Expanding Ultimate League and Beyond

you can't average an unknown sample of 100 games by making up the wins/losses in order to prove your math.

The only % that can be obtained from your scenario is 'worst case', which is 3:1 win ratio. 

to reduce that number over 100 games (which is what you said) you would have to assume some form of win streaks. And that assumption makes the "average" invalid.

Correct.

"Worst case" scenario is 3:1 ratio.

How about "Best case" scenario? Wouldn't that be the minimum % required to level up? 😉

best case scenario is winning 100% of your games

winning 51% currently is how to level up, worst case scenario. If you win more - great. Best case scenario is 100% of your games

your proposal has a new "worse case" scenario, which is 75%.

and now that I type that out, I actually don't see any method to getting 55.6% win percentage, as a best or worst case scenario

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

and now that I type that out, I actually don't see any method to getting 55.6% win percentage, as a best or worst case scenario

---

Forget about best/worst case.

Your daily challenge is to find how you can level up by winning only 55.6% of your games. 😉

Then, perhaps, you can discuss the idea rather than the math...

---

@MyPouf wrote:

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

and now that I type that out, I actually don't see any method to getting 55.6% win percentage, as a best or worst case scenario

---

Forget about best/worst case.

Your daily challenge is to find how you can level up by winning only 55.6% of your games. 😉

Then, perhaps, you can discuss the idea rather than the math...

---

it is not like your idea is bad or good, but it is too complicated. even the owner of idea fails to mathematically proves that this new idea will bring more disasters or not. i mean, look at your own proposed rules, i bet it will bring more stress (no offense). you are just stall the boredom by adding more league, not solving it. This game lack of Leaderboard. I mean, i rarely found mobile games with PvP feature not have Leaderboard

---

@zdarcon wrote:it is not like your idea is bad or good, but it is too complicated. even the owner of idea fails to mathematically proves that this new idea will bring more disasters or not. i mean, look at your own proposed rules, i bet it will bring more stress (no offense). you are just stall the boredom by adding more league, not solving it. This game lack of Leaderboard. I mean, i rarely found mobile games with PvP feature not have Leaderboard

What is too complicated? Can you elaborate?

Perhaps I shouldn't mention the win rate at all, that's probably what put you off and made it "too complicated"

I believe you did not even read what I suggested in the first post...

@MyPouf wrote:

(...) 

For the Legend League (70)

• Ranking up to this league awards you with 1000 Gems.
• There is no more levels. Instead, there is a Public Multiplayer Ladder, with the Top 200 players. 
• A single win rewards with 0 star;
• A win streak rewards with 1 star, from the 4th win onwards and a win streak must be completed with different heroes; (the win rate to climb the ladder is at least 60%)
• A 10-win streak rewards you with 100 gems;
• A loss takes away 1 star;

(...) 

---

 I also believe while a Leaderboard is "nice to have", many players who reached Ultimate League don't care if they have 200, 500 or 1,200 stars... You need to cater for everyone.  

---

@MyPouf wrote:

---

@zdarcon wrote:it is not like your idea is bad or good, but it is too complicated. even the owner of idea fails to mathematically proves that this new idea will bring more disasters or not. i mean, look at your own proposed rules, i bet it will bring more stress (no offense). you are just stall the boredom by adding more league, not solving it. This game lack of Leaderboard. I mean, i rarely found mobile games with PvP feature not have Leaderboard

---

What is too complicated? Can you elaborate?

Perhaps I shouldn't mention the win rate at all, that's probably what put you off and made it "too complicated"

I believe you did not even read what I suggested in the first post...

---

@MyPouf wrote:

(...) 

For the Legend League (70)

• Ranking up to this league awards you with 1000 Gems.
• There is no more levels. Instead, there is a Public Multiplayer Ladder, with the Top 200 players. 
• A single win rewards with 0 star;
• A win streak rewards with 1 star, from the 4th win onwards and a win streak must be completed with different heroes; (the win rate to climb the ladder is at least 60%)
• A 10-win streak rewards you with 100 gems;
• A loss takes away 1 star;

(...) 

---

 I also believe while a Leaderboard is "nice to have", many players who reached Ultimate League don't care if they have 200, 500 or 1,200 stars... You need to cater for everyone.  

---

your idea is to add leaderboard in Legend League. i believe everyone will be exhausted even in hero league, therefore leaderboard in legend league will be not interesting. what i suggest is JUST leaderboard on ultimate, without additional league. i do love your idea to encourage players use every heroes. we can put it as a way to get extra stars in leaderboard

the mechanism to get stars in Hero and Legend too complicated. you sure add an indicator streak, but even in taco league, most players are having difficulty to get stars with just 'Win +1 Lose-1' mechanism. and like i said before, developers will test us with shorter season (5 weeks). IMHO, adding this more league will be pointless. 

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 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. 

---

@MyPouf wrote:

---

@jaydabbler wrote:

and now that I type that out, I actually don't see any method to getting 55.6% win percentage, as a best or worst case scenario

---

Forget about best/worst case.

Your daily challenge is to find how you can level up by winning only 55.6% of your games. 😉

Then, perhaps, you can discuss the idea rather than the math...

---

10 wins followed by 8 loss gives you 1 star.

This is a 55,55% win rate that will eventually make you level up. 

I was mentioning minimum win rate, and this is it.

75% is the minimum win rate that will guarantee a level up with the worst sequence possible. 3 win - 1 loss - 3 win - 1 loss.

Between the best sequence and the worst, there is an infinite number of sequences that will still have you leveling up. However, you can still have a 70% win rate and lose stars... 

---

@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