Duelyst Forums

Duelyst Patch 1.76 – Duelyst

#98

I think that, ultimately, the failing in the economy change is that they have chosen to use negative reinforcement on the one-or-two-games-a-day (OOTGAD) casual crowd as a whole when they don’t really need to to get players to play more.

Think about it. You basically have two main types of OOTGAD players. Some (OOTGAD-1) go OOTGAD because it’s what’s efficient and they will willingly turn into eight-or-nine-games-a-day (EONGAD) players with the advent of an efficient plateau carrot for the EONGAD play pattern; other players (OOTGAD-2) are OOTGAD because that’s their preferred play pattern and they continue to play Duelyst because Duelyst gives comparatively excellent OOTGAD rewards. You take that away, then they may just go play something else instead of altering their preferred play pattern.

The OOTGAD-1 are fine with either play pattern and don’t need you to punish the OOTGAD play pattern to choose to go EONGAD, just better EONGAD rewards. The OOTGAD-2, on the other hand, may go play something else that fits their play pattern better. I mean, it’s not a zero-sum Game of Gold. When you lose some profit to giving the EONGAD faction X extra Gold to get them to play more, it’s not like you are getting the profit back by taking X Gold away from corresponding OOTGAD faction even if they do stay. It just doesn’t work like that. =S

4 Likes
#99

Actually I did. You could get 4 neutral quests over 2 days, you could also get 4 faction quests, 3/4’s of the quests are faction quests. I averaged that out. Some days playing 4 games will beat both quests, some days it will only beat one quest. I chose the middle ground.

There are all sorts of possibilities, which it seems like you haven’t tried account for. Sometimes players might not replace a faction quest. It’s possible to beat the new 50g quests in 4 games. I used some common sense & based my numbers on a simplified average.

#100

NOTGAD!..sorry reading all those out loud cracked me up. :joy:

1 Like
#101

I said 8 games gets you (around) 90 gold from quests and wins, more than the 80g it used to.
Add 25 for the daily win & 5 gold for the daily challenge. That’s 115 to 120 gold.

majority of players will earn 110 to 125 GOLD. This is slightly more than in the old system.

players will earn 45 GOLD. This is less than the theoretical max in the old system.

It says “theoretical max”, not the average. If you win every game and get the best quests;

  • You could earn; +55 gold from quests, +25 from daily win, & +30 from wins.
    4 games could give you 110 gold before.

  • Now you can earn; +70 gold from quests, +25 from daily win, & +15 from wins.
    4 games can give you 110 gold now.

The theoretical max is not helpful, it was very unlikely before and significantly less likely now.

At 4 games vast majority of players will earn 45 GOLD.

They said after 4 games players will earn 45 gold now. That’s 25 for the daily win, and 20 for the faction quest. But 4 games is also half of the other quest 25 (out of 50) gold, and 2 wins is 10 (out of 15) gold, that’s +35 gold a day which carries over to the next.

This means (if you are efficient) it’s more like 80 gold a day now.

1 Like
#102

Balance Changes

  • [LIKE] Glad to see some Balance Changes to Songhai. Especially like the adjustments of Mana Vortex, Lantern Fox and Cryogenesis. I’m curious to see how this will effect the new meta.

Battlemaps

  • [LIKE] I like the new maps. And having some unique ones to unlock and ‘show off’ to your opponent makes them very special.

  • [SUGGESTION] However, I really liked the randomness and variety of maps I play on. I wouldn’t want to have the same one everytime I’m Player one, or that I would have to choose beforehand which one I like, but rather have the Game choose for me.
    So here is my idea:
    A Panel where to select any number of existing free maps + unlocked Battlemaps. And one of them will be chosen randomly when you are Player 1. If you only select one, that’s where you will end up on (as Player 1). This way you could have more than one Battlemap selected.

Quest Changes

  • [SUGGESTION] The new Quest System is a nice attempt, and the bigger reward is attracting. But I found the second quest, in particular the ultimate aggressor, quite frustrating and tiresome to complete, and easily taking more than 10 games.
    Also it tempts to building extra decks just for the cause of dealing damage to the enemy general, or destroying minions, but I guess that’s alright.
    The bigger issue for me is the amount of time the 2nd quest can consume, which isn’t in favor of casual players. They might either not have the time a day to complete them, or it cuts them low on their ‘play for fun’ freetime.
    I would like to see some numbers on these Quests lowered:
  • Adventurer: seems fine to me, it doesn’t require wins, only games played. If the reward gets lowered, cutting it down to 6 games might be worth consideration.
  • Ultimate Aggressor: is way to high. In the best case scenario: this quest is completed in 6 games, that is if you win them all and the opponent does not surrender early. Average 9-10 games is more likely, and if it doesn’t go well 12+.
    Cut down the damage to 100 and lower the reward if you wish.
  • Assassin: very hard to predict. Haven’t had this quest yet, and depends hard on how long the games take, or what faction you are playing against.
    Assuming you kill 4-8 minions a game, it would take at least 7 games, and average 9 to complete. That is acceptable, taking swarm games vs Abyssian or Vetruvian into account.
    Might lower it a bit. To 40 or 35 minions.

Per-Win Reward

  • [DISLIKE] Getting only 5 Gold per 2 wins after a while was really low, I agree, but in the exchange of earning 15 gold only every 3 wins now, disfavors and discourages new and casual players too heavily in my opinion.
    Duelyst stands out by it’s very generous and rewarding system, even for beginners, encouraging and motivating them to keep playing, unlike other very grind-heavy or ‘force to pay’ games.
    Of course players that play more, should be able to get some more out of it, than casual players. But gauntlet itself does that already, which is very, very generous and rewarding for experienced players, enabling infinite gold-loops, whereas new unexperienced, or simply less dedicated players, have to rely on the per-win gold.
    This new System is just too much of a drawback for them, in favor of grinding, and that’s not what I’d like to see Duelyst to become. I’d rather see the Community growing. Therefor keep it a beginner and casual friendly game, that motivates with a generous system early on.

  • [SUGGESTION] I would really want to see the 15 gold per 2 wins again, to keep new and casual players attracted. And for the grinders, increase the cap to 10 gold per 2 wins, instead of 5, which would be equivalent to 15 gold per 3 wins. So everyone profits.

~ CHIJO

2 Likes
#103

Great patch which seems to address most of the concerns people had with the meta. Spelljammer change is definitely the best one - keeps it viable, while not making it auto-include in every aggro deck. Not sure about how the gold changes will affect me, but seems to reward winning :wink:

#104

Yes, but the simplified average assumes people will always accept the faction quest, no matter what. In the new system, if I get a faction quest for a faction I’m not comfortable playing, there are two possibilities: 1) ignore it, rank up on the ladder, get no gold from the faction quest or 2) do the faction quest, get the gold and lose ranks on the ladder. Most of the times, I would go for scenario 1, especially if I was next to a goal like Rank 10, which would give me only 25 quest gold per day (half of the long quest done). This is exactly the worst case scenario for the old system.

Trust me, this is going to be frustrating for many players which prefer to play mostly one or two factions. Maybe even 3 factions would not be enough, since 25℅ of the times you would still get a quest for a faction you don’t like. If the devs really want to stick to this change, I would say it’s about time to bring the casual mode in.

How the new quest system will affect me (and the game)
#105

Agreed 8000%, if I am to buy multiple maps (which I am planning to), I want to cycle between them without going into the deck builder, that’s very unwieldy.
Please notice this suggestion devs :slight_smile:

#106

I have a question, have the new battlemaps been added to the droprate of the epic chests? Because if they are i would be more inclined to purchase some.

#107

Yes they have been

3 Likes
#108

I don’t suppose there are any plans for adapting cosmetics in Gauntlet? I’ve bought many cosmetics, but I primarily play Gauntlet, so I never get to see prismatics, card backs, or the new premium battle maps.

I understand if it’s low-to-negligible on the “to-do” list, but I and I’m sure many others would enjoy some extra flair in our Gauntlet runs. :smile:

2 Likes
#111

…or at least put the old ones back in as an additional quest slot. Make those longer quests refill at a different rate if you are so worried about being too generous, CP.

1 Like
#112

They confirmed that they will be toning the new quests down if they end up not giving the results they expected. Relax.

4 Likes
#113

:sunglasses: chillin’ like a villian, @raqyee. :kissing_heart:

1 Like
#114

The problem with the conclusion of the analysis that players that play less than 8 games a day get more gold is the following:

That is assuming that the 50 gold quest can reasonably be completed under 8 games.

The 50 gold quest is the majority of the gold one can earn assuming that they are not playing 20 or so games a day.

Basically if one can not reasonably complete the 50 gold quest in their allotted time (less than 8 games played a day), then their gold income takes a 50 gold hit.

This quest change only favors two kinds of players:

Those that would play 20 games a day regardless, and those that play fine “tuned” “quest completion decks”.

For example on the “quest completion decks”:
OTK sajj for the ultimate aggressor quest(win or lose you deal 20 damage a game)
An aoe heavy deck for the assassin quest(keeper magmar?)
Swarm abyssian and similar decks for the minion summon quest.

So basically if your deck is not well suited for the daily quest and you have time constraints. You will basically not have fun playing the game (since per win gold income was nerfed meaning that you also lose on that too since you have time constraints).

As for me, since siphon was nerfed, I am just playing OTK Sajj and hoping for ultimate aggressor quest. Build up the combo, deal 20 damage concede. repeat 6-8 times and log out.

#115

I thin your overlooking the fact that completing a quest partially prevents progress on the quest from disappearing the next day.

#116

The lost of 45 gold from not completing it before the next day’s quest refresh is a far bigger concern when it comes to quest completion.

#117

change back to old quest.

mods go ahead and stop me

#118

Well I think you would get a similar amount of gold now if you play 4 games. That’s not because I think you will complete the big quest every day. Instead imagine it this way:

Now 4 games can beat the 20g faction quest and half of the 50g big quest. That’s 45g a day.

Before 4 games could beat a faction quest and a neutral quest to get 50g, or you might beat a faction quest and fail a faction quest for 25g.

Now you get 45g, before you got 40g (between 25 & 50g). Now you get 10g from wins, before you got 15g. So you get 55g (45+10) now and 55g (40+15) before.

For a more advanced comparison you need probability (which I can’t really remember). I don’t know if every quest is equally probable (I assume so), only 1/4 of quests are neutral, also players sometimes don’t replace a faction quest for a few reasons.

I believe the odds of getting 2 faction quests is 6/85/75/7 = 38% (one replace unused).

38% of 25g + 61% of 50g = 40g on average. That’s what I used above.

1 Like
#119

The majority of the mathematics looks correct, however the 5 gold minimum from failed faction quests wasn’t taken in account.

The change from 15 gold to 10 gold from wins makes playtime more optimal in two extremes:

One in which one play 3 hours or more a day.
And one in which one plays the bare minimum to complete quests, since grinding out games is less effective until one passes the 12 wins thresh hold.

Now instead of there being an incentive to play past the bare minimum, it is not only less economical (until more than 15 wins is achieved), but also less Flexible.

This is rather important for casual players, they want to be able to play and stop playing when they feel like it. Assuming a 50% win rate, consider the psychological effect of the following:

One is doing well and wants to play a couple more games(until the gold from wins is proct since they want to feel they did something for playing a bit more/ they are at 90 gold):

25% chance of winning 2 in a row and thus finishing with the little bit of gold needed for the pack under the old system.

12.5% chance of winning 3 in a row and thus finishing with the little bit of gold need for the pack under the current system.

The psychological change desensitizes one from playing a little bit more, since it “halves” the chance of getting gold in the very short term.

Also an additional psychological effect is on “greed”, say said person does “win” the chance (be it 25% or 12.5%), there is a further discouragement for going for another roll at an other gold bonus. This is rather minor but from my own experience there were times that I played far more than I intended since I kept “rerolling” the chance at more quick gold due to previous good fortune. The psychological effect of having “halve” the chance has greatly reduced the frequency of such behavior here.

Now I will admit such behavior stops at the very latest when the 12 wins bonus gold was exhausted, however the frequency of getting to that stage has been greatly reduced in my personal experience.

I honestly think they are going to change it (at the very least tweak it), at the month’s end patch since it appears it to have an ill effect from the statistics available (600 average players compared to 1,000 average players on the steam version of the game).