Put an option to rate the tavern of the week from 1 to 5 stars so the devs know how much they are sucking at it.
1 Like
Only if you have to play three times first, without early concedes. Feedback without experience is worthless.
But with that caveat I agree, good idea.
1 Like
They don’t need ratings since they can know how many times the brawls are being played.
When you have to wait 5+ minutes to get a game the last day of the brawl you know no one is playing it
Whereas you can play 100 games throughout the whole week with no delay between games, you now that’s a popular one
Thats not a good metric to use. Often the most frustrating Brawls need multiple attempts just to complete once for the free pack, inflating the number.
Most played =/= most popular in this regard.
1 Like
even with that caveat, if its an enjoyable one it will still get more plays regardless of how many it takes to get that win for the pack. I think that should be the metric focused on, how many return plays once the prize is won would give more insight into a tavern brawl’s successful design as far as measuring enjoyment goes. Which would lean more into the “sometimes the more plays it gets does = most popular” but not “always”. kinda like how all toads are frogs but not all frogs are toads, type of classifications.
Bruh. They don’t have to count the plays before the first win.
1 Like
This isn’t representative of what the actual experience looks like then. Even if a person checks the brawl and it’s a choose deck and proceeds to rate it 1 star it’s valid input.
Your system would be biased towards players willing to suck up to blizzard, not representative of reality at all.
What you think about an experience you have not had is not valid feedback. Research has shown that customers have essentially no ability to predict what they’d like. You can do focus groups and surveys asking them what they’d like and their responses will lead to utter disaster if you follow them. People in general are only good at feedback when it comes to the past tense. They NEED to taste a sample first.
A player not playing further than the free pack would be considered a player not enjoying the brawl anyway
Your system will be biased. It’s better for the rating system to be somewhat inaccurate than it being rigged with restrictions that only inflate its rating. Every input is valid if you want to be fair.
Says you. I play until a pack because I gain nothing from the brawl even if I win after the pack. If it was good I would still rate it high.
Look, it’s obvious that all the big companies know this. You don’t get to fill out a feedback survey for Burger King without a receipt. And when you do they don’t ever ask for any suggestions, they only ask about what happened. If that’s a bias, it’s a bias against trash because customer suggestions are consistently trash. That’s not an opinion, it’s well documented fact.
Is a game mode really relevant if players only play it because they have someting to earn by playing it ? Is it really relevant to rate something when your rating isn’t driven by your appeal for it ?
I would be more enclined to trust data than blindly trusted opinion
If you are trying to create an inflated rating system to promote the mode yours make sense but it’s tavern brawl. It’s free. It’s better to have a system to tell you which ones to use more often than others. That can only happen when you include everyone’s opinion. The restriction at most should be 1 game played.
They don’t have the time to waste to read the data regarding tavern brawl especially when it changes every week. That’s where a rating system would help because it does your work for you.
Says you
Why do you assume they would need to read data manually and ratings automatically ?
They can automate the data reading just as much if not better than the rating system.
They can automate the data reading with a dashboard of every metric they want to monitor.
A rating will only given them a subjective output from a limited number of players, willing to give their output
I completely agree that both systems have pros and cons, but your cons against the data reading system just feel missinformed on how it could work
Because even reading the data automatically requires manpower and money. They wouldn’t bother for the brawl because it’s no revenue. A rating system after its creation and implementation can be an one man job.
That doesn’t make any sens.
Once the rules for reading the data are settled you don’t need anything more than just reading a dashboard
“How many players played this week”
“How many players claimed their pack this week”
“How many players played past the free pack”
“How many games they played in average”
You just need to setup the rules once and you don’t have anything to do to update them weekly.
Reading the rating system will still require someone to read in the end so I odn’t understand why you don’t use the same argument for both systems.
Each time the reading can be done by the exact same team that manages tavern brawls.
In both cases you need to dev something to extract metrics out of the game, either the data or the rating.
You then need somewhere for them to be readable.
Only remaining part is extracting information from it. This is the only point where the data reading can cost more mandays to setup, but there are a a lot of ways to do that efficiently for a minimal cost.
Unless their data model is horrific, I doubt the type of information we’re debatting about is hard to extract from
This is what I was getting at for the metrics they would readily have available.
Line 3 was the one I was specifically saying would be the metric to use as an indicator of a “successfully designed Tavern Brawl” in terms of how enjoyable it was for the players.
I feel like this entire methodology of data review is already what they do on a day to day or week to week basis. I dont think a rating button or any UI should be added to the Tavern Brawls area for them to get this leading metric. I think they already have a good idea of where these numbers are at or were at previously, and keep track so they offer successful ones again next year and let the lesser ones fall to the back of the line for the rotations all year, or allow them to be retired.