Player Suggestions!

[Johnnyguitar]

It is not a time ban! It’s a way for 90% of the players to be able to compete in pvp.
I understand there is a limit on how manny AI you can get a day.that limit should be extended, had the time ban for the lower players to be able to score some points. This way everyone is happy.
I was talking to a player in chat a week or 2 ago and he was telling me that he had over 200 games, with over 100 defeats..not fair for him and the new players.this game needs, and can only survive from players staying in the game and we all have to admit that pvp is not working at all..
I don’t speak for myself, i finished top 5 last month, to be honest i don’t mind if things stay like this, however change is imperative to keep players playing pvp!

[mtormo]

Hello,

Removing the option to be matched consecutively against the same player is a possibility but it'll reduce the chance to find opponents and that's the real problem. We would prefer to not do that, as in the long run it will cause players to find less opponents (specially on high ratings). We need to find a better solution or something in the "middle" and this is something that we'll look into.

Regards,

[halev]

Community and developers!
I think I know a way out of this situation around PvP. Now we have unfair games, when the weak play against the strong. There is a solution for a long time, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. You just need to make PvP without a rating and connect players in it only at the cost of the deck, when the 10k deck plays against the same 10k deck! This will allow you to have fair games, this will give a chance to complete daily tasks and some battlepass tasks to all active players, this will give old players a chance to remember how they started playing with simple cards, this will diversify the game, this will give players a choice. Those who run into the ceiling of the rating and have most of the losses as it will help now too, if they still want to play rating pvp, then they will not have a reason to complain because there will be an alternative in the form of pvp without rating. The rewards for the battle can be made the same as in the ranking, but these games will not affect the monthly bonus. No rating, no reward at the end of the month. This principle will also stop old players from being abused because they will not give them rating points. Older players will play pvp unrated only for quests or for fun. What do you think about this?

[mtormo]

Hello,

Splitting the queue in two (rated and non-rated) is a bad idea with the amount of players that we have at the moment. We understand that there's no perfect idea but we'll keep trying to find the best possible solution, we're always open to do changes here.

Regards,

[robertodrago]

This may have been discussed before, but what about limiting the number of diamond cards that can be used for each PvP tier? Or perhaps limiting the point value of decks for each tier? The imbalance in PvP play often appears as a player just being beaten by an overwhelming number of top level cards. Twenty plus diamond cards plus a few legendary elites makes for a deck that only a very similar deck can beat. For example, as an upper middle level player, most of my best decks have 3-4 diamond and 2 standard legendary's, plus a mix of 15 or so elites and/or epic elites. A good deck, but unable to compete with top decks for longer than 2-4 turns. Limiting build points or top cards would force players to choose which of their best cards to use for each deck and possibly make things more competitive for everyone.

[mtormo]

Hello,

First of all, thanks for your suggestion about PvP. Usually players with "diamond" decks are at the top of the league but we understand that on other leagues sometimes there are matches where the disparity between decks are too high. Adding limitations to the players to create a deck is something that we really don't believe and it may cause some problems for the PvP but as always we are willing to discuss the suggestion and find better solutions for the PvP issues.

Regards,