Elements PvP League - Rules

[fnix]

Elements username: xfnixx
Elements chat username: fnix
Account score: 7331

[bojengles77]

Elements username: xfnixx
Elements chat username: fnix
Account score: 7331

Please post this in the beginner's league thread so i don't overlook your signup when i edit the league next.

[Svenningen]

with the max 6games vs each opponent rule in, i think the 1duel vs each opponent a day should go out.

If there are more that 6days left, they should be allowed to do 6battles in a day, and thus reaching their limit, as long as they have time and want to do this.

[icecoldbro]

sorry to be pushy but when do they send out the prizes from the league i sorta need my 3k to pay the mob *scared*
also im almost surei get no trophy but can someone confirm this?

[bojengles77]

sorry to be pushy but when do they send out the prizes from the league i sorta need my 3k to pay the mob *scared*
also im almost surei get no trophy but can someone confirm this?

Prize codes will go out when i receive them from Zanz (SG) and the top 3 players in each league receive trophies.

[giversgivealot]

when wil the next league start???

[Scaredgirl]

when wil the next league start???

Hopefully early next week.

[PuppyChow]

I just want to say I don't think the whole 6 match limit worked out very well, since halfway through the number of matches REALLY dropped off, since people that signed up weren't active. I mean really, unless it was limited to 1 match per person, you wouldn't be able to keep it so less active people can compete. Should the 10-12 or so active players be punished because some people that sign up don't desire to be active?

In fact, in the last league, it was really a contest of who could be luckiest to convince some of the less active players to play a game, since otherwise we all played 6 matches with each other so there wasn't an advantage there if we went 50/50. Instead of being a contest of who can win most, it became a contest of whether or not you could be online when a new or inactive player was.

If the new scoring is changed to +2/-1, I suggest we also raise the number of allowed matches up to 10 again.

[bojengles77]

I just want to say I don't think the whole 6 match limit worked out very well, since halfway through the number of matches REALLY dropped off, since people that signed up weren't active. I mean really, unless it was limited to 1 match per person, you wouldn't be able to keep it so less active people can compete. Should the 10-12 or so active players be punished because some people that sign up don't desire to be active?

In fact, in the last league, it was really a contest of who could be luckiest to convince some of the less active players to play a game, since otherwise we all played 6 matches with each other so there wasn't an advantage there if we went 50/50. Instead of being a contest of who can win most, it became a contest of whether or not you could be online when a new or inactive player was.

If the new scoring is changed to +2/-1, I suggest we also raise the number of allowed matches up to 10 again.

Keep in mind there are other factors leading to inactivity. First of all, mid-league, summer hit. This is going to cause people to change their schedules and some people will be on less and others will be on more. Some will simply be gone for weeks at a time. Second, halfway through the league some people saw they had no chance of winning when they were 30 wins behind the leader. There weren't very many instances where players hit their 6-match limit, and that wasn't the only factor leading to inactivity. +2/-1 scoring should help better players show their skill more accurately in the standings and hopefully that will induce more activity in generally less active players.

[PuppyChow]

I just want to say I don't think the whole 6 match limit worked out very well, since halfway through the number of matches REALLY dropped off, since people that signed up weren't active. I mean really, unless it was limited to 1 match per person, you wouldn't be able to keep it so less active people can compete. Should the 10-12 or so active players be punished because some people that sign up don't desire to be active?

In fact, in the last league, it was really a contest of who could be luckiest to convince some of the less active players to play a game, since otherwise we all played 6 matches with each other so there wasn't an advantage there if we went 50/50. Instead of being a contest of who can win most, it became a contest of whether or not you could be online when a new or inactive player was.

If the new scoring is changed to +2/-1, I suggest we also raise the number of allowed matches up to 10 again.

Keep in mind there are other factors leading to inactivity. First of all, mid-league, summer hit. This is going to cause people to change their schedules and some people will be on less and others will be on more. Some will simply be gone for weeks at a time. Second, halfway through the league some people saw they had no chance of winning when they were 30 wins behind the leader. There weren't very many instances where players hit their 6-match limit, and that wasn't the only factor leading to inactivity. +2/-1 scoring should help better players show their skill more accurately in the standings and hopefully that will induce more activity in generally less active players.

I was at 5 matches with a number of people, but was saving my last match for the end in case I needed it. I didn't, so I just didn't use those matches.

You're right that the limit wasn't reached too much, but it was always a factor to consider when you wondered if you wanted to play a match with someone. Just because the limit wasn't reached doesn't mean it didn't effect match selection.

Among the top 6 where there WAS competition though, it wasn't a matter of skill, it was a matter of whoever was on when someone (let's say, um... Gl1tch ) was available. All the active people began competing for people to get "easy wins" against, which will become even MORE prevalent with +2/-1 scoring.

To offset that, I want the active players to have more opportunities to play each other too, so it isn't just a matter of finding the "easier" people that you can win against since players that aren't active enough to play these people consistently, yet are still formidable, can play more against the active players.

[bojengles77]

I was at 5 matches with a number of people, but was saving my last match for the end in case I needed it. I didn't, so I just didn't use those matches.

You're right that the limit wasn't reached too much, but it was always a factor to consider when you wondered if you wanted to play a match with someone. Just because the limit wasn't reached doesn't mean it didn't effect match selection.

Among the top 6 where there WAS competition though, it wasn't a matter of skill, it was a matter of whoever was on when someone (let's say, um... Gl1tch ) was available. All the active people began competing for people to get "easy wins" against, which will become even MORE prevalent with +2/-1 scoring.

To offset that, I want the active players to have more opportunities to play each other too, so it isn't just a matter of finding the "easier" people that you can win against since players that aren't active enough to play these people consistently, yet are still formidable, can play more against the active players.

 lol  

[Glitch]

Heh.  My record speaks for itself then?