RE: Splinterlands Ranked Battle Overhaul
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
500 battles played, 70% win rate = 350 wins = 3800 + 350 * 20 - 150 * 20 = 7800
200 battles played, 95% win rate = 190 wins = 3800 + 190 * 20 - 10 * 20 = 7400
Playing more battles will be more important than having good win rate.
0
0
0.000
Sounds like an incentive to burn more DEC/VOUCHER for energy to get those extra battles! Of course win rate is important for the efficiency of earning ranked rewards, but it is now not the only important metric.
Although I understand that those who don't spend on the extra battles will get left behind a bit, now there is an incentive in place for people to actively purchase energy to get as high as they can. Provided that Modern remains bot-free (with honorable people not using battle helpers), then this is another positive change that encourages people to spend more to earn more. People with high win rates will still prosper in tournaments and brawls, but this ranked change is still a net positive for me regardless if people can spend more energy to win more battles.
Seems there are quite a few without honor.
Yes indeed, but we lack the technology to deal with it. So at this point, we just need to resort to name-calling and social shaming!
But the extra energy is a complete rip off and offer negative expected value when considering the value of chests and SPS rewards. Around 17 cents for one energy in gold 1, just to get rshares that contribute to a chest which probably has merits, potions or soulbound cards in it. 17 cents! .7 cents would be a fair price!
This is a bit inaccurate. You didn't include the win streaks which means in higher win rate, you get 40 per win rather than 20.
So assuming in 10 games, at 70% win rate, you lose every 3 games, then you get +20, +20, +40, -20, +20, +20, +40, -20, +20, -20 = 120 rating every 10 games OR at best
+20, +20, +40, +40, +40, +40, +40, -20, -20, -20 = 180 rating every 10 games.
While on 95% rating,
+20, +20, +40, +40, +40, +40, +40, +40, +40 -20 = 320 rating every 10 games.
So, to get 5000 rating from 0 rating,
at 75% win rate, you need 278 games.
at 95% win rate, you need 156 games (still higher since this is calculated at 90% based on the example above)
TLDR: Higher win rate is still better than more battles.
There won't be winstreaks in champion league.
No win streaks in Champion doesn't really affect me - since I'd need to win more than two games in a row and that is rare :D
Just to clarify, the computation I did was applicable from ratings 0-3999, technically except champion, that's why I said it was inaccurate. Your example above is also the same... Unless you're specifically talking about champion league.
Hate to break it to everyone but people aren't winning 70-95%. Even the best on average is only going to win 60% of the time because of how much "luck" is in this game. With the removal of league caps you're going to find yourself constantly matched up against players who have better/more cards than you and therefore expect to lose more games and settle around a 50% win rate that will keep you even once you hit a point where they want you to buy more cards to have a “better chance” of winning. But as they stated this game has a "significant amount of luck". It would be dumb to invest another couple grand to max multiple cards when that is only going to get you an additional 10% win rate, at best. For example it would cost about $12k to max all the cards in modern format at diamond. Silver would cost $3k. I don’t see someone wanting to drop $9k to max at modern diamond to win 10% more of the time. Imaging buying extra energy at 500dec a pop. You buy 10. That’s $5 and you only win 5 of those games. Did you make $1 off each of those wins? With Sps at $.027 you need 18 Sps to get just half that back and then hope you get extra value in chests.
Doesnt seem worth it. But hey that’s just me.