Can some mod close this thread as it is just now a spam thread.
You keep citing ‘studies’ to back your argument, but when asked for proof, you suddenly claim they aren’t public. If they aren’t public, how do you know they exist? Instead, you provided a completely unrelated study on engagement-based matchmaking, which has nothing to do with ticket systems or unrestricted play. This just proves you didn’t have real evidence to begin with.
Your system would create matchmaking dead zones, fragment the ranked player base, and allow frontloading abuse—problems staggered ticketing prevents. Large games can handle unrestricted play due to sheer volume, but Neo Monsters doesn’t have that luxury. And let’s not forget—Neo is a ticket-based game and always has been. Now, I know you ‘don’t care about PvE,’ but the game’s core structure is built around resource management, whether it’s PvP or PvE. Acting like tickets suddenly ruin ranked when they’ve been part of the system from the start just doesn’t make sense.
Your system would also let players exploit the leaderboard by tracking when opponents have likely used all their tickets, leading to calculated late-game ranking pushes that skew integrity. The devs have already taken steps to prevent this kind of manipulation:
• They removed the feature that showed when a player last played.
• They removed the ability to see your opponent’s name at the start of a battle.
• They expressed concerns about matchmaking dead zones after introducing the 12-ticket refill.
These changes all reinforce that the game prioritizes integrity over personal convenience—which is likely in its best interest.
I don’t think this is a spam thread. On the contrary, I believe these discussions are necessary. I’ve played a large number of turn-based games, and almost all of their PvP ranking systems have unlimited tickets. For example, Epic Seven, Summoners War, and even the Chinese mainland domestic game Seer Online (赛尔号).
1 Like
Of course, it’s worth noting that I’m not sure if this game’s player base can support such a PvP system. If there are sufficient daily active users (DAU), I believe this adjustment should be prioritized for implementation.
Summoner war one of my fav. It’s even more older than neo and the most mons are well balanced. Btw you didn’t reply, do u watch donghua?
Also to increase engagement during 3 days rank they can provide total no of tickets of whole 3 days at once and provide gems accordingly to match played or wins like 5 gems every 10 games played. So everybody will play or say 1 rg every 5 win.
You keep avoiding my question and repeating, while the study i have provided clearly state our matchmaking issue and clearly stated that all the theoretical problems you have provided were addressed, and like i said before there are many studies which can be found online but finding a study to link to a game would be considered a ip of the company which will not be public
You accuse the system i suggest in theoretical basis but ignore the fact that these issues already imply to the current system, where it is known that majority of players dont play after securing a top 50 spot, majority play at certain hours, players dont strive for top spots because if they miss a single day or even couple of tickets they are done for, you ignore how much advantage players get playing on the third day and how it is linked to regional benefits, you ignore how much the current system is not friendly towards life balance
This does not only apply to pvp it also applies to pve, but in pve but in pve the problem of match making is not there, but the demotivation of missing just couple of tickets still their
i believe there is no point in arguing further. One day it will be implemented if the game continues to survive mark my word
You claim the study addresses these ‘theoretical issues’; let’s see…
Matchmaking dead zones? Not addressed.
Frontloading abuse? Not addressed.
Leaderboard exploitation? Not addressed.
Competitive integrity vs. convenience? Not addressed.
Time zone issues still existing? Not addressed.
Smaller player base affecting matchmaking? Not addressed.
And the study you provided? It doesn’t support unrestricted ticketing at all. It’s about engagement-based matchmaking (EOMM), which assumes matchmaking is still structured—just optimized to prevent player frustration.
You keep saying I’m avoiding your question, but which one, exactly? I’ve addressed every claim you’ve made. But here’s a catch— the study you linked contains ‘source=chatgpt.com,’ meaning you didn’t actually have a study in mind. You had to ask AI to find one that sounded relevant and summarize it. And yet, the study itself doesn’t even support your system, proving you likely never even read it. If this is the way to do it, I’m sure we could both just throw studies back and forth that support our claims. But that’s not how real discussion works.
You keep saying I ignore these issues, but let’s break it down…
‘You accuse my system on a theoretical basis but ignore that these issues already exist in the current system.’
I never said these problems don’t exist. What I’ve been saying is that your system would most likely amplify them rather than fix them.
‘Majority of players don’t play after securing a top 50 spot, majority play at certain hours.’
And your system would fix that how? All it does is allow players to burn through their matches earlier.
‘Players don’t strive for top spots because if they miss a single day or even a couple of tickets, they are done for.’
And your system would fix that how? Players might stop if they lose too much. Even with unlimited ticket flexibility, many would still drop out after a bad session or once they reach their personal goal.
‘You ignore how much advantage players get playing on the third day and how it is linked to regional benefits.’
Regional advantages will always exist in global games. At the very least, the current system is better than before.
‘You ignore how much the current system is not friendly toward life balance.’
You say I repeat myself, yet somehow miss the parts where I’ve said this more than few times? The devs prioritize integrity over convenience.
Then there’s life balance’—as if this is some high-stakes, career-altering commitment. It’s a competitive ranking system in a mobile game, not a second job. Nobody is forced to play ranked PvP. If someone can’t commit to the time investment, then maybe ranked competition isn’t for them. At this point, calling it a ‘life balance issue’ is just a way to frame personal convenience as a global problem. Ranked PvP is optional—if it doesn’t fit someone’s schedule, that’s just reality, not a design flaw.
As for the ticket part, let’s be real—ticket-based games intentionally create a cycle where players log back in to play again. It’s part of how they keep engagement up and encourage spending due to having egg/shop deals shoved in the face. If tickets were really such a massive issue, the devs would have removed them from both PvP and PvE by now.
Finally, saying ‘one day it will happen’ is meaningless. The argument isn’t about if something could exist in the distant future—it’s about whether it makes sense now or in the foreseeable future. Based solely on Neo Monsters’ current player base and dev priorities, the answer is clearly no.
It looks like your the one who’s using ai to reply to everything, if you want to defend the system feel free, i have already answered your questions and there is no point in going in circles
Its no surprise that global games have used the same system i suggested without facing any issues, neo’s playerbase is not small, and the issues you have give no matter what system is put in place if they players dont want to play they will not play. The system should encourage activity not discourage it
Like i said no point going back and forth
On that last sentence we can both agree.
As for the AI part: there’s a big difference between using AI as a tool to refine arguments (for formulation, structure, tone, clarity, …) vs blindly asking AI to generate a random study as ‘proof’ when questioned. Wouldn’t you say?
Sorry for not being around to moderate this earlier.
@Mr.X Thanks for contributing your ideas to making a balanced and fair PvP system. Your proposal has been clear enough that I don’t think it needs to be stated further.
@Unown @Coltraz (and the others) I hope you’ve enjoyed a good old-fashioned in-depth internet debate. Fun time is over.
Let’s see how everyone feels with the change to the ticket refresh only being 6 tickets rather than 12. Hopefully people in Asian time zones will find this easier to play on Monday morning.
If possible, I would like the ticket for both PvE event tickets (Island Conquest and Ladder Challenge) to be set at 15."