Update!!

[EkoFox]

(01-30-2013 03:36 AM)Ja Karta Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 03:29 AM)Harti Wrote:  So you're saying placing a 3 HP "Soldier" (in terms of defense) hypothetically anywhere on the field at the cost of 1 (without having to move to the destination) is expensive?

A half-cost soldier that can't attack and moves like a heavy (with you paying for each move)?
I'd call that expensive, yes.

Don't you pay for each move of any unit? Why did you feel the need to make that point?
It sounds like you're not managing your wits and are upset about losing your bramble patches a lot because you aren't protecting your parents.

---

(01-30-2013 03:33 AM)zoraster Wrote:  Maybe I'm misreading this, but the new league system seems a bit off. Let's say that I'm at the top of my division and I'm at about 50% win rate. The matchmaking system is working, right? But here's the problem: maintaining that seems mostly about churning out games. In theory, those who play 35 games at a time will have higher ranks.

Compare two players that have about equal success: an aggressive player and a defensive player. The aggressive player's games might last a significantly shorter period of time, so he can churn through 2 games in the space of what a defensive player goes through 1 (on average, obviously).

If players are earning more simply for playing games, then this situation does create incentive just to play as many as possible -- even to a degree at the expense of playing well.

If a player can beat his opponents twice as quickly as a different player, then maybe Player A is just better? It seems justified that a player who can win often by playing aggressively should have more points than one who wins by playing defensively. In my opinion, playing defensively is much easier than being aggressive.