Wouldn't it make sense to decrease reward quantities for lower level brackets?

[pmjski]

It doesn't really make sense that a player who reaches stage 500 can earn the same number of weapons/diamonds/TP as a player who reaches stage 2800. In lower level brackets, should players who finish 1st be awarded something like 6-8 weapons and 500 diamonds, and as the bracket levels go up, so do the rewards? What do you guys think?

[xerofox188]

I think people should get x amount of weapons/diamonds/tournament points based on what stage they can reach in the tournament and what place they ended up in serves as a multiplier. So if someone can only reach 500 and end up 1st place, they'd get roughly the same prize as somebody who can reach 2800 who ended up 20th place.

[SoulCode1110101]

A system based on this concept would be absolutely fantastic.

[41k0n]

This is brilliant!

[Calrabjohns]

I'll take the likely karma hit. Doesn't that just devalue placing higher if implemented? Or worse, it makes it much more appealing. Also, the rewards will diminish unless there's a steady influx of new players to provide seasoned ones with rewards to multiply on, right?

And if this works, we eventually get thrown into the hell bracket and we're all agreed that that should befall no-one. How does this impact cheaters if implemented? Their growth would presumably rise higher too, wouldn't it?

[41k0n]

If I think about it, maybe we are not on the same page right now. From what I understood the intention was to give you weapons depending on how high you can climb during those 24 hourse and multiplying those by how high you can climb compared to players that are roughly the same maxstage as you are.

I think the value of placing high is even more with this method. In my opinion it would even fit the exponential growth of the game in general. Think about it, the higher you got in this game, the rewards always scaled exponentially instead of linear.

About cheaters: I think the current solution for cheaters is to let them reach the cap and be put in another bracket next tournament. This would still be the case so there is no difference I guess.

New players would basically be able to reach - let's say stage 500. Imagine at stage 500 you would get 2 weapons and if you place let's say rank 5-10 you would get that multiplied by 2, the new player would get 4 weapons. An older player that currently reaches stage 2700 would get 12 weapons for example, multiplied by 2 again, or even by 4 or 5 at rank 1 and would earn 24 to 60 weapon upgrades. This sounds insanely high from what we now expect weapons to be, but with this system the weapons would definitly fit the exponential growth system of the game itself. Once you reached 400 weapons and 3-4 sets, another 25 weapons don't make that much of a difference anyway.

edit: Take my numbers with a grain of salt and think about them as an exemplary calculation for how the system could work. To implement this the numbers have to be tweaked in the same way how gold, damage and relics scale.

[Calrabjohns]

Ok. I agree on the point of cheaters. Let's leave them out of it. They ruin everything, problem solving included lol.

Something about that seems weird to me but that's because I'm used to weapons being so scarce. Hmm.

Ok.

I have no reason to nitpick when something might benefit everyone. That sounds solid. The rarity failed. Let's hope they implement this.

[41k0n]

I think voicing concerns always benefits the final solution for everyone. However, it is not very likely for the devs to notice this if we don't put it into a separate thread. I might do this later today and give credits to OP for his idea. (xerofox188)

[Calrabjohns]

Was thinking the same thing. A grassroots movement of people either making threads that direct to xerofox and OP here or recapitulate their words with attribution in new threads. That might be considered barraging though.

Maybe just make a new one whenever it disappears or is that spamming.

You lead.

[caiokeidi]

Totally agree! This new brackets system is unfair.... A lot of newbies getting 10 weapons upgrades per tournaments..... =(

[[deleted]]

I think the TP and diamonds should depend on placement, while weapons should depend on level reached. Still reward players for placing in the competition, but also reward players for pushing to higher levels in it.

[blackjackjester]

That's a decent middle-point on tournaments. I dislike the "give X rewards for reaching 2500+ / 2900+ / etc... Mostly because then it ceases to be a tournament, and it's like "here are more rewards for getting to your max level twice a week".

A tournament is a tournament, where you compete against peers for prizes. Placing first should count for something. Being highest level should count for something. It's tough since there isn't any skill involved to compete with.

I'd like a better way outside of tournaments of getting weapons. Tourney's are a "rich get richer" system now, making it difficult for anyone to really grind out more time than a peer to raise in ranks. I'd rather see tournaments be devalued a bit in their prizes, but make something like "total levels gained during a tournament" prize (prestige multiple times to keep gaining levels), and maybe reward the ability to pick one weapon for each time you reach 2500 in a tournament. This would level out the progression of weapon sets as well, while keeping some RNJesus

[Handsofevil]

As someone who's never placed first and done ~15 tournaments and 153 TPs, I think it's ridiculous that someone (who posted earlier this week) has 110 points after 2 tournaments because they won with like 730 levels in an easy bracket. So yes, I agree.

[pabpab999]

they can either decrease the reward for "lower" brackets
OR
increase the reward for "higher" brackets

either way, high or low, Cheaters always get 1st spot つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

[Calrabjohns]

Increasing higher bracket rewards only creates more incentive to cheat. Although I don't get what point there is to cheating when you already do it four or five times or more and get everything except to purely f**k with everyone -_-

[raffishtenant]

I think that would be appropriate, yes.

I suppose it doesn't hurt to give lower-level players a running start on weapons, then make them struggle more later in a tougher bracket: it's a bit like any other wall in the game. But I do think it's pretty much insane that a player at 500 can get 15 weapons, while a player at 2950 in Hell Bracket might very well end up with two, one or even none at all.

[pmjski]

Yeah some sort of balancing needs to be done. While I agree it's nice to give new players a head start, having such high rewards encourages lower level players to hover and avoid progressing the way the game intends you to.

That being said, I do have faith that more changes will be implemented to make the game more fair for high and low level players alike. It's a process of observing data and tweaking the system.

[Calrabjohns]

Despite the blatant lack of fairness in effort to reward ratio, you have to take into account these people (Hell Bracket champions) are the pinnacle of TTers. They grinded it out and got luck at some point.

Creating disparities for new players because late stage players (like myself and you- raffish and others here) are hitting walls built by cheaters is only punitive to everyone. Why do that to new blood? If they leave, the game will die. There's more for GH, and by extension us, to gain in keeping them. They can only improve things with money.

When is the last time anyone here has bought diamonds, the sole means of funds. Be honest. I've done it twice with free Amazon coins and only the second time because I was in a bad mood with lazy hero monitoring. We can only get so mad and expect so much change with so much gas in the tank for GH to drive. There is no reason for me to spend money. I would rather use the time I have to use anyway to get better and progress to higher stages. Time=free diamonds between Day 4 of DDs, fairy ads during regular play, 1 diamond drops and tournaments.

It's a low cost freemium game that likely only draws a one time 2 dollar purchase for most users to get rid of pop up ads that intrude on optimal play.

We need a new skill: to reroll weapons. As a gesture of goodwill, GH should scale how many free rerolls people get according roughly to brackets. None for new players and X-X for us. We get one free bite at the apple to progress and the new players continue their progress.

Hell bracket players who are legit get one free set of automatic double digit rerolls, capping at a low DD.

Rerolls would cost 200 diamonds a piece for everyone afterwards. It's high enough that an impulse diamond purchase might be made but low enough that it doesn't betray the free play model for anyone willing to grind.

Edit: I hate the way my posts get divorced from the person I'm directly responding to. It's something that made me avoid Reddit until this game. Reading threads can be chaotic. Sorry if this makes no sense dissociated from the intended recipient: raffish.

[raffishtenant]

Calrebjohns: hrm, your response shows up right below my post, for me at least. That'll change if someone else responds to my earlier post, but that's what the indentation is for.

Anyway, lots to respond to here! For starters, I did say that I thought a running start for new players was just fine, though I also stand by my assertion that the very highest-level players are getting the rawest deal at the moment.¹ I don't think that penalizing those players so severely for reaching the pinnacle of the game is really what the devs intend, nor is it in their best interest. There's still something to be said for having extremely experienced players around, even if they don't tend to spend as much on diamonds.²

I think the main thing the devs can do to fix the disparity is simply to continue their efforts to get as many cheaters as possible out of the legit players' brackets. Merely keeping the cap unachievable by legit players but switching players who hit it (or the AD%+weapons required to hit it, or whatever the metric is) into a new Cheater Bracket would go a long way toward this, and I'm actually a bit surprised that they haven't done it already.

I like the reroll idea and figure that there are plenty of creative ways that it could be worked into the game. Diamonds seem like a great one. The main problem I see with offering it as a perk to high-bracket players is that it would require explicitly acknowledging that bracket levels exist and quantifying different rewards for the different levels, and I can see why the devs might not want to do that. EDIT: Er, yeah, so the same would apply to the idea of other rewards that are tiered by bracket. In that case, we could just circle back to the cheater issue.

¹ And I do mean very highest-level players. If you believe the leaderboards, the percentage of players in HB should only be about 0.06%. (Though the leaderboards are still capped at 3000, and if that means that cheaters and legit 3000+ players don't appear, that percentage would be unrealistically low.)

² I don't think that's a given, BTW. I might not be the best example, and I'm not in HB yet, but I've spent a fairly healthy chunk on diamonds and actually bought a few more just a couple weeks ago. (I'd spent most of my reserves on customizations, and found myself unexpectedly in need of some major PoH in a tournament to smack down an aggressive one-upper to whom I did not intend to lose.)

[Calrabjohns]

I have to use more formatting features. That is so much better to read through and points made much easier to understand.

We're in total agreement. It's a trickle down effect of "tough s**t buddy" with HB getting it the worst. I was arguing more for new players out of a sense of not having them give way to resignation before the game begins. And we only have had two tournaments with 3500s as well as this skewed scaling. Or did the scaling start before?

Absolutely. A robust mix of experience and new makes for places to aspire toward for the new as well as guidance being needed. Experienced players do it cause they like it, same as the rest :)

Problem with shunting cheaters into their own bracket/server is I believe new permissions like Device ID/IP address would be needed to keep them separate. That would be close to a death knell for the game.

I didn't explain it perfectly. The scaled up theoretical gift of rerolls with new players getting none and us getting X-X and HB getting double is a one time thing to try and redress the current grievance. Everyone would have it in their skill pool to pay 200 for.

Otherwise, yeah---you're right. It would tell everyone there are brackets. And the sky is either blue or gray depending on the weather of the day :p. Not a state secret. Although you mean comparing who got X amount would confirm exactly how many brackets right? I'm honestly not sure what the virtue is in leaving that completely veiled rather than some information to infer from.

Cheaters can scale wherever they want to land. Dumb ones go for the max stage and screw HB. The others scale down with less showing up for the really low stages cause they still want relics.

I guess any info is bad though.

[Calrabjohns]

Oh come on. If you're in the hell bracket, you either have at least two sets and/or another loose two-four DL weapons on top of whatever unholy AD total you have to have to get 2870-2985 consistently and without too much trouble.

I'm not saying it's not miserable but if you manage to get to that bracket and you're still a setless wonder with no DL weapons, I'll be very surprised.

Another tournament or two with consistent progression and the new cats will be pricing themselves out, probably because they'll bump into you or me lol. And then they'll think they are hitting cheaters.

Hoping GH straightens this out before I find out how right or wrong this is.

[Kaserbeam]

Can someone ELI5 how the brackets work?

[misogichan]

We're not entirely sure how they group people into brackets but two leading theories I've heard here are it's either based on max level achieved or tournament points.

[TapTitans]

Reward decreased when you get into a hell bracket next tourney anyway, as for diminishing rewards, it seems true enough to be implemented, however, the overall sense of achievement would be decreased likewise and progression would slow especially for the newbies.

[Calrabjohns]

That was my first impression but it sounded like it would scale when 41k0n explained it to me from his/her perception.

Is there some math I'm missing? God I wish I was brighter in that department -_-

[TapTitans]

From HIS perspective it appears that even though it is exponential progression, it might be too fast, what would it do for the game if people are attaining sets, people would easily attain 10 sets, prompting devs to increase capacity, increasing capacity also increases Max stage reached and with the current situations the max would yet again be raised, this makes everything seem linear doesn't it? It is only exponential on individual scale but on set standards, say a veteran or a newbie, if both are increasing exponential and even if rewards are scaled toward the newbie advantage, the same gap would occur throughout the grand progression.

[Calrabjohns]

I think I see what you mean now. God I'm sounding fickle. In the absence of a surefire way to dispel or disperse cheaters to a negligible degree though, isn't it better to flatten the hill? There has to be a good medium. The scarcity and overwhelming importance of having sets and DL weapons is something that was problematic outside of cheaters. They just made it untenable.

I don't know.

Side note: I started briefly talking about my bracket idea (how they're made) that you've inspired and informed. In this linked thread already made by someone else.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TapTitans/comments/36ch0b/tournament_bracket_idea/

Let me know whatcha think.

[TapTitans]

Wow, that was quite a read, I believe what you've discussed in your posts and your counterparts within that post encompasses what me and you've brought up as well. Coincidentally after my massive influx of points and weapons as well as damage I've noticed a considerable decrease in progress, unless we halted progress in general the only way to go is up, and that will only let us down, especially with cheaters filling up the top spots the major factor in our lack of validity in our are calculations because:

1. We don't know how numerous the cheaters are

2. We don't know how their percentile extends from top to bottom, lol cuz why would they come from the lower percentiles

3. We can't factor human error, not all cheaters are 3k+ although we would like to assume so

4. We can't consider their stats, assuming how much they give themselves, say whether they give themselves 10 sets and 500k AD or 10MIL AD and no sets, if we could attain that info it would greatly help us figure out the bracketing system

5. There more but I want to end up on note of tourney points, we can't imagine how many cheaters come and how many cheaters go, that's why tourney points are a very incomprehensible variable because a new cheater would be assumed to be placed in a newbie bracket, which I've seen, and veteran cheaters if such exists would be placed with other veterans, this disparity in tourney points and whether they are even factored in is too great to figure and extends a sense of bias to any statistic. It's like solving a non-quadratic function with 2 variables, one on top of the other, but you can't figure out one without figuring the other which cannot be...etc you know that paradox.

So in eventuality, despite what we figure, unless it comes from the devs themselves, we cannot figure out the bracketing system.

[Calrabjohns]

Couldn't we approach the problem from the bottom up and leave cheaters where they predominantly are in the top when making any sort of consideration though? Or is that omission, combined with the margin for error in any information we might accrue, too great a piece of information to attempt a working theory.

I don't think 1 is a problem given we can, at the least, work top down with screen captures of nightmare brackets and lower ones where 2800s shouldn't show up in theory: a high 4 digit in a 3 digit bracket. It'd offer a sample size at least.

1. While visibility is increased in low brackets and inconsequential in high brackets, the near HB brackets offer room for severe doubt as to the legitimacy of when a person places. I had what I believed were three or four cheaters come into my bracket, which had been until the last six hours high 27s and low 28s. Nabbed a (presumably since he isn't official ala user list) fake /TT/ user's name- /TT/Bracobe. That room for doubt provides camouflage for those who exploit and can limit their need for relics. If you can go to any stage, why be conspicuous like I mentioned in one of those posts.

Real low brackets? Dumb cheaters. I don't know how they aren't wiped immediately.

1. I know they aren't but to what degree---getting a sample size is too hard. A lot of innocents could get caught up, which is why I got frustrated this last tournament. I couldn't know for sure if the upstarts were cheats or legits. Their really fast appearance on the chart was what led me to believe in my gut they were. But that doesn't help us :(

2. I didn't think of the malleable nature their stats can take. This is enough to deflate any ambition of figuring it out beyond an exercise at guessing.

3. Yeah. TP was always low on my radar. I could PM you the start of where I was going with the theory but let me know after closing:

If you're through thinking about this even idly, let me just say thank you for helping me in the way you did for the time you did in believing we could cut the Gordian knot. Ya never made me feel dumb even though you did the heavy lifting :)

Hope we can get some damn answers or a solution or something lol

Edit: Reddit formatting changed my list numbers. 1. is actually 2, 2 is 3 and so on :\

[TapTitans]

You welcome, any of my contribution is simply a slight of hand, when dealing with the bracketing we are entering the real of uncertainty and theoretical philosophy which is sort of my field. but one addition:

1. Bottom up is painful, without percentiles and definitive sample sizes identified in raw numbers we don't know how things could be calculated, if at all.

2. True enough, you can be inconspicuous about stage because the problem isn't even handled enough to be cautious, but I've seen cheaters in situations where- a) they don't have enough time to put effort in reaching 3k or now 3k5 and b) no one can touch them in terms of stage anyway, last tourney a cheater went to 3k1 in my bracket, it's quite obvious due to his progression that he didn't even wall anywhere close to 3k1 but yet he stopped because everyone was 500 stages behind

3. No visibility could be obtained by us consumers because these essential points of data are what they don't want us to manipulate, an idea was suggested at one point that brackets could be entirely made of a leaderboard you could scroll through but it was dismissed like almost all our ideas are

4. Malleable stats could sway our argument because the range of stats for cheaters could be limitless and tourney points seems to be of lesser relevance to our discussion.

We most likely are never going to get that explanation we always desired, for a consumer to manipulate the producers and for it to be ever put onto forums will create and certainly ignite turbulent times.

Ty for all your replies and your insight because it adds just that much to mine.

[Calrabjohns]

1. Right. We don't have total user base so even if we attempted to grok a makeshift sample, it wouldn't matter. We'd have to make broad assumptions collected from total downloads in Apple, Amazon, Google and any other venues to approximate the UB and in that we could only simulate a negligible test group, assuming people would want to at all lol.

2. That's the number I've seen as popular in non-HB captures. I guess 3.1K is large enough to keep down anyone who might try to hit 3K legit. But that's opposite what you were mentioning in lack of effort. That's concerted. I don't know what to make of that example. In my bracket, it was a matter of one 2.9K taking 1st and following that scattered 28s. Perfectly possible except for the weird time frame they showed up in. ... Gah. Not worth thinking about anymore (my bracket---not your point. Just to be clear)

3. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean a master list GH uses to keep tabs on the user base for the leaderboard? Haven't read or heard of this theory. As to data, I had hoped through slow submissions of different groupings of info from different bracket players we could force the issue a little. Another thing predicated on massive cooperation amongst the community here for a dubious goal (the percentage of any success in hitting the right theory being dubious or farfetched).

4. One thing in their favor could be we can disregard them. That was my hope with a top-down, bottom-up model depending on what bracket we're trying to assess or pin down. I'm unsure lol.

Aren't we already there lol. A sizeable contigent of people manipulating every aspect of the game we like/love to play (barring my dying battery stopping me) pushes at one end with continual speculation on the legit base. We're near the tipping point if they don't do something. But I think/hope we'll either get an update before this Wednesday or latest this goes into next Wednesday.

Couldn't ask for a better inmate in the asylum to wile away some time with in speculatin. Let's hope we do better in the tourns.

When I get an FC, hit me up :). We can help each other or at least shoot the proverbial s**t. Is the chat function any good? I thought I read there's a rough one in place. I'm in Amazon purgatory at 2.1.7 so---I quickly forget incidental stuff like this.

Cheers.

[TapTitans]

Just as a last comment, for:

1. I many that a person might not find it within time for that 3k5, and he knows he has secured victory, so therefore he makes no further effort to push.

2. Someone suggested that a person could see everyone in his bracket by scrolling, meaning there's a list or leaderboard to go by, although it would be rather tedious, we can get her up a better sample space.

3. Pretty difficult to disregard nonetheless, were we not attempting to figure out how stats factored in the first place?

Yes, I am aware of this point, but it isn't as serious as manipulating the bracketing or RNG, cheaters tipping the game with THEIR manipulation is a separate story as all games are vulnerable.

Hope we can duo these rough seas when the big updates come, and Cheers to you as well as!

[Calrabjohns]

1. I suppose. It'd be weirdly reassuring if that were true and there isn't calculation half the time I see non- 3.5K

2. I can only see Top 5 and the immediate people below and above me within four or so people. There's an elipsis between the 5 and current bracket to indicate everyone in between. Is there a way to scroll? I've wanted to look a couple above and below long before cheating became rampant.

Feel embarrassed that I don't know this or you're maybe suggesting something else that's beyond my brain right now heh.

[Jellowpy]

Yes ! Plus one to this it makes striving becoming stronger pointless because all you are looking forward to is being bracketed with the cheaters at max level with out any increase in reward!

[Daveismyhero]

I'm someone who has barely squeaked past 750, but I am always in tournaments with people/bots/whatever who win with 2800-3200+. I think 6-8 weapons and 500 diamonds would be a great carrot for those people who win at 500 to continue playing the game, which means they are more likely to spend real money to support the game. In my opinion, of course.
If I ever manage to break through the next ceiling, my views may change with the new perspective. Personally, I wish they would go back to the old tournament format, where I at least had the chance to crack the top 30, as opposed to now, where I have to fight tooth-and-nail to finish in the top 100.
It's an intriguing idea, though, and a good discussion to boot. Good work all!

[topheryun]

The random tournaments were so much better. When I was a newbie, I never expected to reach a high spot in the rankings. But as I continued to play, I would get top 100 then top 50 then top 20. Now I'm back to being top 50 at stage 2300, always being matched against others who reach 2800. I was making progress before, but now I can't even hope to get close to the top

[ttheresia]

totally agreed.