Elements the League: Questions, Suggestions & Chat

[Cisco]

noted

[Cisco]

think the rules really cover all now.

[Cisco]

think the rules really cover all now.

Yeah.  I've been thinking about SG's suggestion and was trying to figure out the best way to implement it while still giving us flexibility.  But I'm happy with the rules too.  I won't change anything else unless you and I both think we should change/add something.  How's that sound to you?

yeah is ok with me. yakyakyak idea is good. also allowing one game to be enough if both decide it should be ok too? what you think about it

[Daxx]

My suggestion would be to change it depending on the length of the match, if that's possible. Best of three gains the winner 2 points, best of one gets the winner 1 point. That could be too complicated, however, and it's probably better to keep it simple.

No points lost for losers. Benefiting players who play a lot is fine (it helps improve the activity of the league, and you don't have people saying "oh, I shouldn't play this match because I might lose"), provided you keep a tally of the number of games played so people can do the requisite mental adjustments.

[Delreich]

Best would probably be some proper rating system, where gain/loss depends on relative rating, but for a manual system I think keeping track of games played and won should be enough.
Optionally, substitute "match" for "game".

[Dragoon]

@yak  I think that's a good idea about the points system.  That would bring more balance to those who play fewer games well and those who just play a ton.  At first I was trying to have two lists to cover both of those areas (total wins/points and winning ratio).  But we could do the +1 for a win, -1 for a loss.  Or do you think +2 is better for a win?  Hmmm.  Gotta think on that one a little.

@cisco  Here's the pros and cons as I see it.  1 game is great for quick league games.  People don't always have time for 3 games, especially if they have to redo a couple because of desync problems.  Plus there is no possible confusion between "match" and "game".  When we update the spreadsheet and we see 2-0, we won't wonder if that's 2 sets of 3 games or 1 set where a person won 2 games and the other won 0.  The bad side of this is the results of who win is more prone to luck since either can have an awful or great opening hand.  The more games you play, the less luck affects things since things should even out on both sides.  So I don't know.  Which do you think is more important?  Right now, I think the pros outweigh the bad.  So I lean towards making individual games count for points instead of only best of 3.  For the league we could have every game count for points, but in the future if we host a tournament, we can set that up as a best of 3.

[Dragoon]

Thanks for your thoughts Daxx & Delreich.  We'll keep it the way it is for now until we can come up with a good, balanced solution.

@cisco  A word on the spreadsheet.  All you should need to do is add a 1 in the next empty slot for the person that won and a 0 to the person who lost.  The "Games Played" column will automatically count all the 1s and 0s to see how many games a person has played.  The "Games Won" will automatically add up all the points to get a total.  And the "Winning Ratio" will automatically divide the games won by the games played to get their winning ratio percentage.  Those 3 columns have formulas in them and shouldn't be directly edited.  The only things you'll need to do is add names, add the 1s and 0s for winners and losers, and add columns after column "N" if you need more space to record games.  The formulas will automatically readjust for additional columns.

[Dragoon]

Rule Amendments

The parts in italic are changed or new.

1.  You can play anybody you want, anytime you want, as much as you want.
2.  Each challenge is called a match.  Each match is made up of a best of three games.
3.  The default rule for changing decks is that you can switch out as many cards as you want between every game.  But if you want to play by different rules that's fine as well.  Just make sure you both agree beforehand how you want to do it.  Here are some variations you can try if you'd like:
     a.  No one can change their decks between each game.
     b.  Only the loser can change his deck between games.
     c.  Both players can change (or not change) their decks between games.
     d.  Both players have to change their decks between games.
     e.  Each player is only allowed to change x number of cards between each game.
4.  Desyncing happens.  If it happens to you while playing, throw the game out and start over.  Fortunately, PvP Duel doesn't cost any money so you can do this as many times as you need to.
5.  The winner posts to the "Games" thread to let us know about the game.  If you find that somebody is lying about a game that you played (or didn't play), you can respond to their post in that thread.  If no screenshot can be produced to help prove a match was actually played and won, we'll throw the match out.  You should include this information:
     a.  Both players names.
     b.  How many matches each of you won and lost.

[Dragoon]

think the rules really cover all now.

Yeah.  I've been thinking about SG's suggestion and was trying to figure out the best way to implement it while still giving us flexibility.  But I'm happy with the rules too.  I won't change anything else unless you and I both think we should change/add something.  How's that sound to you?

[yakyakyak]

My suggestion:
Since win -> +1 score
loss -> +- 0 score
only benefits the mass players, and doesnt represent player skill at all, I'd change it as following:
win -> +1 OR +2 (I'd chose +1)
loss -> -1

[Cisco]

I´m going to move the League into the system SG has set up in the next few days. So updates will be done later.

[Silkenfist]

My suggestion:
Since win -> +1 score
loss -> +- 0 score
only benefits the mass players, and doesnt represent player skill at all, I'd change it as following:
win -> +1 OR +2 (I'd chose +1)
loss -> -1

Since the new season is about to start:

I think, this scoring system will lead to massive problems:
- It doesn't encourage honesty about the games. After an unfortunate desync, you are much more likely to blame your opponent if you know that losing a match would be harmful to them.
- Players will only cherry-pick the weakest players to play against and get high league scores. The players who are actually the strongest ones, might have problems to find any opponent at all.

The only advantage of that scoring system is, that it avoids rewarding the player with the most games but the one with the best performance. However, this is already achieved by limiting the number of games allowed against each other player (we can further limit the number if 10 is too high. I'd suggest 3-5, even). Far more important would be to reward losing honestly and encouraging to play a lot. So I'd suggest:
3 Points for a Win
1 Point for a Loss

If you want to have a measure of the performance, read: relative number of wins, we could implement the ELO ratings for league players. They should be farily easy to use if we calculate and actualize them every two weeks.