Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[Kalinuial]

See my replies in blue.

Regarding your LRI

3. What if 1 person plays a lot more? Are his extra efforts for nothing? Or does the rest suddenly need to play extra matches?
Reply: Leagues would have a fixed # of matches; I suggested 15 to 20, but it can be set less

4. Its hard enough to get people to do 10. If they cant make it to 10, they wont be able to make it to 15 or 20.
 Reply: 10 matches over 4 months seems to be a minimum amount.  Fewer matches diminishes a "league feel".  Every sports league has a consistent schedule (i.e. NFL one match a week with some byes).

5. I think 4 or 5 times seems more reasonable. I played 20 matches last season, and 4 were against Danieela and 5 against Wyand. They were just more active.
 Reply: 4-5 over 4 months seems kind of pointless.  Someone can do 4-5 matches in the last week and get full consideration for playoffs; they may have avoided many of the participants in the field from the first 3.5 months.  The point is to encourage more regular log-ins and effort.  If 5 matches is the top, then the time of leagues should really be just 1-2 months.

6. I like the idea of all allowed (or free choice) for league. If you know somebody is going for master of death you might decide to bring some purifies. People that dont join trials have an advantage here.
Reply: More people in the community should help define how much leagues vary in terms of rule set.  The element affinity is something to be explored, but it doesn't have to be included; it can be designed for competitive balance. Many players don't play leagues because it is "anything goes".  The organizers should find a way to balance battle rules to attract numerous types of PVPers. 

7. electrum is not a reward anymore with the current state of arena.
Reply: My understanding is that the administrators/council will not want to reward nymph codes unless participants place into top finishes; electrum is still good for beginners and newbies to community; the nymph lottery is a compromise suggestion between too little and too much reward; the organizer/council should help define the rules.  Another idea is to earn nymph/mark "credits" through participation.  For example, participating in X PVP events without placing for a reward can give you Y PVP credit.  If you accumulate Z PVP credits, you get a code for nymph/mark.

8. similar to my post, agreed

10. I don't like the consistancy idea. It scares people away that have less free time.

Reply: Again, it doesn't have a league "feel" if people just join in the last month.  What if there's little activity in months 2 and 3?  if leagues keeps getting reduced and reduced, it's a sign it should not be long-term event.  It should be designed like one of the stand alone PVP events.  The 1x, 5 month format is just an idea.  People who have other match frequency + league total time formats in mind should share them.  Also, those that have less free time -- maybe they don't do league then.  League, in any competitive sense is something with consistent competition intervals over longer time.  If players want PVP to fit their time, they can try tourneys or other event.

Spoiler for Hidden:

If I recall correctly all league organisers are stepping down or inactive. This is the reason nothing is updated. There is a spot open for a LO, but I fear the new LO gets no support.
I wouldnt mind helping out at all, but I don't want do do everything without a team. I'm going for the TO spot when it opens up.
At some point I suggested letting PvP organisers or tournament organisers take care of league. I dont mind doing both (TO+LO) if it becomes a combined position. Having a team to back me up is an important part however. Getting new TOs is also easier then finding LOs.

Leagues Revamp Idea
1. One continuous 5 month long PVP Leagues event; 4 month regular season, 1 month post-season
2. Season begins few months after War and postseason finishes before Trials begin; ex. January through May
3. Participants must complete exactly same amount of Best of 3 matches during regular season
4. Reasonable # of matches throughout regular season could be from 15-20 (approximately 1 match a week); max 5 matches may count in each of the first 3 months; max 15 matches may count in 4th month
5. Participants can face any other opponent a max of 2x throughout regular season
6. Each month of the season will feature new rule set; one of the months will offer an "element affinity" rule set.  Participants will demonstrate loyalty to an element by building decks within rule parameters for matches that month; this may be thematically linked to upcoming Trials/War
7. Participants will earn points for each win; participant(s) with best record each month get electrum bonus
8. Top 4-8 participants from regular season will get (a) entry to post-season and (b) compete for nymph/mark codes and glory
9. Participants not making it to post-season can win electrum for participation and shared entry into nymph/mark lottery with one lucky winner
10. Participants' post-season upgrades are determined by # of months they participated in regular season - activity for 4 months = ex. 30 upgrades, activity for 3 months = ex. 25 upgrades, etc.; point is to give advantage to participants that were consistent over 4 months;  a participant could join last month and get 15 matches in, but will have reduced upgrades for post-season

Other notes:
1. 5 months league period is quite long, but is overall less than 9 months for 3 traditional 3 month seasons
2. The post-season may thematically conflict with PVP World championship?
3. Regular seasons could have a participant "bracket" component in which the league organizer attempts to roughly divide participants (ex. not putting all previous Masters in one bracket)
4. Structure accounts for participants that may join late; they can participate fully if they get matches in, but have disadvantage for post-season upgrades
5. Incorporated feedback from others - no breaks, increased rewards, shorter league
6. Easy structure for League/Event Organizer to update standings/rules monthly.

[Vindilos]

7. electrum is not a reward anymore with the current state of arena.
Reply: My understanding is that the administrators/council will not want to reward nymph codes unless participants place into top finishes; electrum is still good for beginners and newbies to community; the nymph lottery is a compromise suggestion between too little and too much reward; the organizer/council should help define the rules.  Another idea is to earn nymph/mark "credits" through participation.  For example, participating in X PVP events without placing for a reward can give you Y PVP credit.  If you accumulate Z PVP credits, you get a code for nymph/mark.

Fixed!
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/pvp-events/pvp-event-participation-reward-system/

[Manuel]

so after a sort of global inactivity from the end of war to now, we are trying to do all at the same time:

revamp leagues
move to discord
revamp or reviews the staff/council or something
maybe change forum
start thinking to move to oetg for the flash thing
revamp trials' rules

cool

[kaempfer13]

I think the number of matches should be reduced drastically. I've been thinking to the point where you only need to play 8 matches to compete for the lower tier prizes (placement based on elo out of the people that meet that criteria obv). The winners of the prizes could either fight it out in a tournament (presumably with better elo coming with more ups) or for higher tier prizes you need just 1 match more per tier, 15 making you eligible for any prize tier.
Maybe maximum 50% of your games against the same player (counted at end of league, say if you played 20 games at most 10 should be versus the same player). Then again enforcing this rule can make things rather awkward and the increasingly accurate elo of regular players makes this less necessary anyway.

Longer Leagues: during war time that makes sense I guess. Also more time means the minimum requirement for games can be more statistically accurate, without creating pressure that may result in people not bothering to join at all. At 5 months we would end shortly before christmas and could start the next year with another league. At slightly less than 4 months we could continue to have 3 leagues per year (there really isn't any need for that much downtime, especially if potential rulechanges can be discussed more timely). i also like the thought of having two 3 month leagues outside of war times and an extra long (5 months) league during war times. You can of course do your matches any time you please during each league. Another possibility is to do the opposite and make leagues shorter in general, as people have the tendency to only do stuff when a deadline is close.
However if it drags on with no feedback (in the form of prize/trophy) it doesnt feel as nice. Also wc points should probably be adjusted.
Participation awards for the people that inject a lot of life into leagues are worth looking into (as in a prize for most games played regardless of outcome so long as it wasnt disqualification x))

I dont think assymetrical league rules should be encouraged for balance reasons. You just cant beat dims with monowater.

I dont think there should be a daily(monthly, whatever) cap for games you play. You should be allowed to battle any time you please.

There will be optional weekly rules, just like before, they wont be mandatory though.

[kaempfer13]

Double post because I can now officially make leagues 2/2018 happen and need opinions.

[Vindilos]

I think the number of matches should be reduced drastically. I've been thinking to the point where you only need to play 8 matches to compete for the lower tier prizes (placement based on elo out of the poeple that meet that criteria obv). The winners of the prizes could either fight it out in a tournament (presumably with better elo coming with more ups) or for higher tier prizes you need just 1 match more per tier, 15 making you eligible for any prize tier.
Maybe maximum 50% of your games against the same player (counted at end of league, say if you played 20 games at most 10 should be versus the same player). Then again enforcing this rule can make things rather awkward and the increasingly accurate elo of regular players makes this less necessary anyway.

Longer Leagues: during war time that makes sense I guess. Also more time means the minimum requirement for games can be more statistically accurate, without creating pressure that may result in people not bothering to join at all.
However if it drags on with no feedback (in the form of prize/trophy) it doesnt feel as nice. Also wc points should probably be adjusted.
Participation awards for the people that inject a lot of life into leagues are worth looking into (as in a prize for most games played regardless of outcome so long as it wasnt disqualification x))

I dont think assymetrical league rules should be encouraged for balance reasons. You just cant beat dims with monowater.

I dont think there should be a daily(monthly, whatever) cap for games you play. You should be allowed to battle any time you please.

There will be optional weekly rules, just like before, they wont be mandatory though.

A lot more people should probably post.
There is another discussion about league here:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/general-discussion/elements-the-daily-rewards/

Let me start by asking: what do you think about the play - off system I posted earlier?

In some videogames you can get a placement in ranked with just 10 games. It seems 10 games can be sufficient. Obviously the games need to be played against many different people.
Are you sure 15 is needed? In last league, only 3 people made it to 20 and I think the 4th most active player had around 13. Having a 15 games requirement will have the same result: only a few qualify. Maybe 10 or 12 games gives more accurate results than 15 in terms of rankings. The nymph count you can win should maybe go down though, if you lower requirements.
If you want people to play more games, the statistics reason should not be used. Somehow I feel the is a (hidden) reason of promoting more games played behind the required amount of matches played, not just talking about your post.
People don't let themselves be forced into many games however, they rather just not play league. A higher required amount of games leads to less people joining.

I think rules should be simple. Requirements for 8 games (low tier rewards) and 15 games (all rewards) sounds easier to understand than tiers for 8,9,10 and 11 games. That is if we don't do the play off system ofcourse.

I'm not so sure about sure about the long league as people do everything in the last month. It could work out .. maybe it doesn't.

I never used the weekly rules, so do we really need it?

Part of quote: "Participation awards for the people that inject a lot of life into leagues are worth looking into (as in a prize for most games played regardless of outcome so long as it wasnt disqualification x))"
This is often said but never done. Can we get some commitment for a nymph/mark code in the rules? Or PvP event points.

[kaempfer13]

A lot more people should probably post. Agreed
There is another discussion about league here:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/general-discussion/elements-the-daily-rewards/
Well, I guess I hold about 50% of the shares in PvPrewards, so as much as Id like to say this is up to other people to decide (admins/PvPOs, council (oh wait, that involves me)), i guess this is a topic I should address sometime. The final say however does in fact lie with the Admins there; depending on whether they want to print additional reward codes for regular participation. If that system does go live however, i suppose there is no longer a reason to award prizes for mere activity here, as it will already be considered.

Let me start by asking: what do you think about the play - off system I posted earlier?First off: No substitutes will be allowed. its just not representative. Which leads to the problem of people that legit worked for their awards during the season not being rewarded based on not having time during playoffs. I suggest the following compromise: Amongst the Top 8 players (with at least 8 games), a swiss system tournament will be held. That way, if you miss the first round you can still somewhat compete, since everyone except last place gets sth, with the top 5 getting at least a foil chimera. placing high (during the season) will not give a matchmaking advantage (undecided between completely random seeding for round 1 or even having people of similiar skill pitted against another right away, but your alternative will produce very predictable results, which is kinda intended, but raises the question why even bother?), but it will give an upgrade advantage. The 8th player will be regarded as baseline and always allowed 5 upgrades. Everyone else will receive one more upgrade for each 10 (5?) elo they are above the 8th player during the season.

In some videogames you can get a placement in ranked with just 10 games. It seems 10 games can be sufficient. Obviously the games need to be played against many different people.
Are you sure 15 is needed? In last league, only 3 people made it to 20 and I think the 4th most active player had around 13. Having a 15 games requirement will have the same result: only a few qualify. Maybe 10 or 12 games gives more accurate results than 15 in terms of rankings. The nymph count you can win should maybe go down though, if you lower requirements.
If you want people to play more games, the statistics reason should not be used. Somehow I feel the is a (hidden) reason of promoting more games played behind the required amount of matches played, not just talking about your post.
People don't let themselves be forced into many games however, they rather just not play league. A higher required amount of games leads to less people joining. You need just 8 games for a reward, 10 for the first meaningfull one (assuming no end of season tournament). Ofc i want you to keep going after that. it is my hope that with lower minimum requirement more people will bother at all, giving the ones looking to more than cover the 15 games more opportunities to reach that amount by simply having more times during which people other than themselves would agree to a match. league rewards have already been reduced by merging and delaying and possibly making them longer, i certainly dont want to go lower, but i dont want to award people who just win twice in a row and then just tactically intentionally never play again to keep their score high either. So we either need a tournament or more games to decide a worthy victor.

I think rules should be simple. Requirements for 8 games (low tier rewards) and 15 games (all rewards) sounds easier to understand than tiers for 8,9,10 and 11 games. That is if we don't do the play off system ofcourse. Those are the 2 hallmarks i want people to look out for, which is why they are outlined, but i think a constant progression is best to account for effort put in.

I'm not so sure about sure about the long league as people do everything in the last month. It could work out .. maybe it doesn't.

I never used the weekly rules, so do we really need it? They're optional. if you have no faith in my rule making you dont even have to look at them.

Part of quote: "Participation awards for the people that inject a lot of life into leagues are worth looking into (as in a prize for most games played regardless of outcome so long as it wasnt disqualification x))"
This is often said but never done. Can we get some commitment for a nymph/mark code in the rules? Or PvP event points. If its done by LOs (basically just me) Id be begging admins for an extra shard or even nymphcode for this (presumably to be randomly drawn between the top 3 contributors, so its not completely pointless to try to keep up if youve fallen a little behind). PvP-Event points are not meant to be connected with leagues which aren't organized by PvPOs, though it would make giving awards easier for me. has it been said that often? i thought i was the first with the actual ability to realize it to consider that idea, obv after a bunch of people not currently in that position asked for it.

[rob77dp]

I want to join the next League cycle. Count me in.

I support:
* something along lines of 8-match and 15-match thresholds
* 50% max games against one player (you can play more than that at any time... but come season's end only the first "up to 50% of total" against any one player count)
* longer or short league season, either way
* no general caps
* weekly or similar preset rules should def be optional at most
* assymemtrical? if you mean elemental affinity then I don't want that.

[Manuel]

i think 8/15 matches is perfect, same for the 50% rule

about the playoff/swiss tournament, i don't understand if it is something more or u need to play it no matter what for getting the reward

[Wyand]

As a sports fan I think the simplest version is where everyone plays with everyone twice. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A#Results.
That's the cleanest and fairest method I think. Imagine X playing multiple times against a weaker player (or a player having less upgraded card, less experience etc.) - things like
that can distort the results.

[Manuel]

As a sports fan I think the simplest version is where everyone plays with everyone twice. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A#Results.

in this way u turn the most relaxed competition into a huge, indefined 10> rounds tournament, depending on how much rounds (if we play in 10 players this means 20 rounds) most players at half of the league can't even go for third place, and they will be forced to play no matter what
also serie a >>>> premier league, i'll open a soccer thread

about the last announcement i think is perfect

[kaempfer13]

As a sports fan I think the simplest version is where everyone plays with everyone twice. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A#Results.
That's the cleanest and fairest method I think. Imagine X playing multiple times against a weaker player (or a player having less upgraded card, less experience etc.) - things like
that can distort the results.

Just like Manuel said, this would drastically change what leagues are all about. It's supposed to be like hitting "ranked" in any other game, except there is no matchmaking, so you can do it whenever you and someone else wants to. Since elo gain is based on the elo difference, griefing the same (weak) player over and over again gives diminishing rewards, so beating up someone whos already at the bottom hardly improves your rating, but theirs can skyrocket if they do win. Only things the system doesnt balance out quickly enough is pulling new players in that often start with a much higher rating than they actually deserve and the fact that some players just have a hard time vs a specific opponent in particular. I dont want to make the rules any more restrictive than they have to be.