Handicap System for the arena

[SnoWeb]

Thanks again to all for your support. A priori, considering the number of positive answers (and their content) and the five stars on the top, I don't think a poll is needed.

@Suxerz: All your remarks make sense but I think these are details that Zanzarino will have to solve by himself when (and if) he'll decide to code it. I suppose that all these questions depends on how the requests are made to the servers, how the data are stored, how often the values are updated, etc...

[TheManuz]

@suxerz:
I don't think the sampling size will be small, because we are not counting the single deck, but the single match.
Every time a deck plays a game, it's counted for statistics use. After all if a deck played more games, that means that more people encountered that deck, effectively raising the cards usage. And if a deck played no games, it should not be counted.
And i can always change a deck between two matches, even 30 times. The only decks that counts are the ones that played a match.

Then we must consider that statistics should consider only a limited time span, maybe last 7 days, or even less. There is no sense in considering last month trend.

[teffy]

I´m surprised to see three pages without counter-arguments.
I´ll give you some.

First, we should see, what the handicap would measure. It measures how often the cards are drawn. But does this directly show, how popular a card is ? No! Only partial.
An example:
Dimensional Shields are often used in chains. If a deck has a Dimensional Shield, it probably has more than one.
The same thing could go for other cards like Devourer, attacker in mono/duo decks...

Other cards are only a few times in decks like Weapons (if not flying) or Shields except Dim Shield, Wings (or Sundial, if you´d see it as a kind of shield). Decks normally don´t have more than 2-3 Shields of one kind.

An number example
                                    Deck1      Deck2    Deck3
Numbers of Dim Shield      6             0           0
Numbers of T. Shield         1             1           1
Total:6 Dim Shield, 3 TowerShield -> Dim Shield more popular -> Higher handicap.
Although all decks in the example have a Tower Shield, and this card should be seen as more popular.

Another counterargument is that the handicap system makes deck building quite mathematical and dependent on rating of cards.
So I´d vote NO.

[Pineapple]

Your first point is that, theoretically, card usage statistics might not measure unoriginality.
However, realistically, card usage statistics do measure unoriginality (http://www.elementsthegame.com/liststats.php), so we can throw that out the window.
Want to know why the results won't be skewed by cards that only work if you have multiple copies? Because:

• When building a deck, each card space is used thoughtfully. You can always switch out that sixth Dimensional Shield with something more useful, and you like to have more copies of more useful (aka more popular) cards in your deck.
• There are not less than 6 people playing elements. For Card A, 6 copies of which are present in X% of the decks in Elements to have a higher usage statistic than Card B, 1 copy of which are present in Y% of the decks in elements, then X has to be no more than six times smaller than Y. If Y is 100%, like in the example you gave, then X cannot be less than 16.7%, and if 1/6 of the people who play Elements use that one card six times, then I would say that it's a more popular card than that one that's splashed but never drawn (and used in-game).

As for your second point...
Mathematical? No! if you have a very good Firestall, you'll still win a lot, you just won't reach Rank 1 as fast as if you win a lot with a Skeleton deck. The Handicap System doesn't force creativity, it just gives an incentive for people to think out of the box.

[TheManuz]

I´m surprised to see three pages without counter-arguments.
I´ll give you some.

First, we should see, what the handicap would measure. It measures how often the cards are drawn. But does this directly show, how popular a card is ? No! Only partial.
An example:
Dimensional Shields are often used in chains. If a deck has a Dimensional Shield, it probably has more than one.
The same thing could go for other cards like Devourer, attacker in mono/duo decks...

Other cards are only a few times in decks like Weapons (if not flying) or Shields except Dim Shield, Wings (or Sundial, if you´d see it as a kind of shield). Decks normally don´t have more than 2-3 Shields of one kind.

An number example
                                    Deck1      Deck2    Deck3
Numbers of Dim Shield      6             0           0
Numbers of T. Shield         1             1           1
Total:6 Dim Shield, 3 TowerShield -> Dim Shield more popular -> Higher handicap.
Although all decks in the example have a Tower Shield, and this card should be seen as more popular.

Another counterargument is that the handicap system makes deck building quite mathematical and dependent on rating of cards.
So I´d vote NO.

I don't think the system would measure how many times a card is drawn, but it would examine the deck codes everytime a duel starts.
From deck codes you can know how popular is a card, even if it isn't drawn in that specifical match.
Also, there will be neutral cards that would not give handicap, and there will be unpopular and popular cards that modify your handicap consequently.
Also, this system has been suggested only for the Arena, and only for submitted decks, to promote innovation and originality.
The rest of the game, even the deck you use to grind arena, would be unaffected by handicap.

About deckbuilding becoming mathematical, you shouldn't bother about that: if you submit a mainstream deck (Firestall for example!), it will win anyway, but give less electrum for that. Right now Arena gives 5 electrum per match, so i don't think it's a big deal!

[SnoWeb]

I´m surprised to see three pages without counter-arguments.

I am too. I still wait for the detractors (I've met some in chat) to express themselves and to tell us why it is not a good idea. What would be worse with this system that with the present one (except the increased workload on Zanzarino's shoulders)?

Another counterargument is that the handicap system makes deck building quite mathematical and dependent on rating of cards.

You wouldn't be obliged to take the handicap into account. You could submit your deck whatever its H value. However, if others do it and do it successfully it might lower your rewards and rankings. If they do it but create ridiculously bad decks you would just win more ... Remember that the cards which are rarely used are rarely used for a reason. Using them is taking a risk. Right now if you take this risk you have nothing to win. So you have no reason to use those cards. With the system put forward, you have a reason to do it and therefore some might do it. If we want to introduce more creativity/variety in the decks in the arena, I think it is fair to reward those who do it (successfully). Two question remain (a) do we really want it? (b) will this system do what we want it to do?
I have an argument against this system. Let say that part of the players who usually submit only well-known-very-efficient-decks are convinced by the new repartition of the rewards to do otherwise. They will them replace their well-known-very-efficient-deck by a less-used (Higher H value) and maybe-less-efficient-deck. We might end up with a lowering of the difficulty level of the leagues. What do you think?

[Djhopper :)]

I have an argument against this system. Let say that part of the players who usually submit only well-known-very-efficient-decks are convinced by the new repartition of the rewards to do otherwise. They will them replace their well-known-very-efficient-deck by a less-used (Higher H value) and maybe-less-efficient-deck. We might end up with a lowering of the difficulty level of the leagues. What do you think?

Hmmm...

Dynamic rewards would balance it over time but it is definately a bad thing if platimum stops being the ultimate challenge.

[TheManuz]

I have an argument against this system. Let say that part of the players who usually submit only well-known-very-efficient-decks are convinced by the new repartition of the rewards to do otherwise. They will them replace their well-known-very-efficient-deck by a less-used (Higher H value) and maybe-less-efficient-deck. We might end up with a lowering of the difficulty level of the leagues. What do you think?

Hmmm...

Dynamic rewards would balance it over time but it is definately a bad thing if platimum stops being the ultimate challenge.

But unsuccesful decks will go out, exactly like as it is now.

[Djhopper :)]

I have an argument against this system. Let say that part of the players who usually submit only well-known-very-efficient-decks are convinced by the new repartition of the rewards to do otherwise. They will them replace their well-known-very-efficient-deck by a less-used (Higher H value) and maybe-less-efficient-deck. We might end up with a lowering of the difficulty level of the leagues. What do you think?

Hmmm...

Dynamic rewards would balance it over time but it is definately a bad thing if platimum stops being the ultimate challenge.

But unsuccesful decks will go out, exactly like as it is now.

Sucessful is different to difficult. With the proposed change, difficult to beat decks (common decks) will become less common.

[Pineapple]

I have an argument against this system. Let say that part of the players who usually submit only well-known-very-efficient-decks are convinced by the new repartition of the rewards to do otherwise. They will them replace their well-known-very-efficient-deck by a less-used (Higher H value) and maybe-less-efficient-deck. We might end up with a lowering of the difficulty level of the leagues. What do you think?

Hmmm...

Dynamic rewards would balance it over time but it is definately a bad thing if platimum stops being the ultimate challenge.

But unsuccesful decks will go out, exactly like as it is now.

Sucessful is different to difficult. With the proposed change, difficult to beat decks (common decks) will become less common.

Easy to beat decks are those that are unsuccessful and in turn those that will go out..

[TheManuz]

I have an argument against this system. Let say that part of the players who usually submit only well-known-very-efficient-decks are convinced by the new repartition of the rewards to do otherwise. They will them replace their well-known-very-efficient-deck by a less-used (Higher H value) and maybe-less-efficient-deck. We might end up with a lowering of the difficulty level of the leagues. What do you think?

Hmmm...

Dynamic rewards would balance it over time but it is definately a bad thing if platimum stops being the ultimate challenge.

But unsuccesful decks will go out, exactly like as it is now.

Sucessful is different to difficult. With the proposed change, difficult to beat decks (common decks) will become less common.

You're confusing "common" with "successful". For now, it's true that common is successful. With this modification we should be able to separate the two concepts!

[Astrocyte]

People have already said all the things I would say, so +rep to SnoWeb, and +fat to the thread to help it get Zanz's attention.  8)