Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[DrunkDestroyer]

It's kind of part of the game, although that was more of a dickmove than other times.

If I'm playing against someone who thinks its okay strategy to play the same deck over and over again, I'll counter it. Then, inbetween games, I'll say ready and waiting before theyve had a chance to do anything. 9 times out of 10, they will counter my counter, but really, the whole time I will have been in the bazaar preparing a counter-counter-counter.

I've also pretended I had an eternity hiding away in games against deck outers, to make them try to draw faster and let me deck them out. Or make them play more cards, so my neurotoxin would kill them before I decked them out. (Predicatably, the first one failed miserably, however it probably discouraged the mentioned player from ever trying to deck me out again, and the second one worked, although I might have won that one anyway )

So, I think it's a legal strategy, since it makes up for my lack of talent in other areas of the game.
And while that was a dickmove, again, being the dick of the CL season (or at least to some players) - I can't talk one bit.

[bucky1andonly]

I'd like to challenge the person in the #1 position, mainly because they are worth the most points if I win, but I am being refused because my points are so much lower.  How exactly is this point system fair when people that will provide the most gain refuse to duel you?  So I am supposed to keep risking my points to get up high enough so that they 'might' accept my challenge.  So I have to win every game I play or this basically means I have no chance to catch up to the #1 spot.

Anyone see the problem here, or is it just me whining?

[UTAlan]

Your opponent has the right to refuse your challenge if he or she is busy with other things at the time. However continuously avoiding a specific player just because you think you might lose, is not allowed. Accepting a challenge is an honorable thing to do, and we hope everyone understands that.

[bucky1andonly]

You'd think that rule would make a difference wouldn't you.  tttt logged on just to try and watch a war duel.  So obviously he had time.  Plus early in the morning, he said he was busy and would duel me after a few hours.  He did show back up but didn't duel yet again.  Then the war duel came around, he showed up after it was done, but I asked a 3rd time and he told me to get more points.  If this is how anyone that gets into the top spot is going to act, then the new point system has failed.

But seriously, whats the consequence of constantly avoiding a duel, someones just gonna tell him to quit avoiding?  Pffft.

[kev]

I'd like to challenge the person in the #1 position, mainly because they are worth the most points if I win, but I am being refused because my points are so much lower.  How exactly is this point system fair when people that will provide the most gain refuse to duel you?  So I am supposed to keep risking my points to get up high enough so that they 'might' accept my challenge.  So I have to win every game I play or this basically means I have no chance to catch up to the #1 spot.

Anyone see the problem here, or is it just me whining?

I think this is a somewhat common problem in some chess leagues, but there top players have ratings of 2500+.  I'm not sure that the difference between a 1700 rated player losing to either a 1600 rated player or a 1450 rated player is that huge.  Maybe a LO could confirm that (cuz I'm too lazy to do the math)?  I guess avoiding all matches makes sense if you have the league locked up, but there's still a month left.

So what I'm saying is in addition to it being against the rules, it really doesn't make sense to avoid matches.

[TStar]

First, if you can provide a screenshot of a player specifically stating they will not play you for score reasons you will be awarded a forfeit win against that player.  That type of behavior is a clear violation of the rules.

Secondly, you are not the first player to express frustration over this players refusal to fight.  It seems ironic since this very same player was complaining to me about the previous #1 not being around.  I can state with no doubt that if this behavior continues there will be auto-forfeits and possibly even exclusion from prize eligibility.  Hopefully his attitude on the matter changes soon.

As for scoring, the maximum amount of points a player can gain or lose from a single match is 20.  The gap required for this to happen is massive.  For example:

* Current top rated CL player has a score of 1651.  The last rated player has a score of 1386.  This is a gap of 265 points.  If the top rated player loses it's only a 17 point swing.
* If a new player at 1500 score beats the 1651 score the point swing is only 14 points for a gap of 151 points.
* bucky1andonly at 1524 score beating the 1651 score means a point swing of only 14 points for a gap of 127 points.
* If the second rated player at 1604 beat the 1651 score the point swing is 11 points for a gap of 47 points.
* In BL, 1390 def. 1785 (395 point gap): 18 point swing

Keep in mind the baseline for beating a player of your same score or very close to it is a 10 point swing.  So really all you risk is losing an additional 4 points over the baseline and only 3 points over the second rated player.  It is patently absurd to dodge matches with players out of fear for you score.  For one, the additional points you'd lose for a loss are minimal compared to the second highest player.  Second, dodging matches means you feel you will lose and to be honest a league champion should not be a player too scared to play.  The purpose of leagues is to play anyone and everyone that wants to take a crack at you and to emerge victorious, not to climb to the top and them cower in fear from all challengers.

More reference numbers:
500 point gap: 19 points
400 point gap: 18 points
300 point gap: 17 points
200 point gap: 15 points
100 point gap: 13 points
50 point gap: 11 points
0 point gap: 10 points

Do you see how ridiculous it starts to become?  There is just no point and all in trying to worry about your score.  You need to be over 500 points ahead to even get close to the maximum cap.

[bucky1andonly]

History does not go back that far in the chat room, because that is where he said it, room had active people as well. 


-edit-
Just reading up on the ELO rating system, and the more I read the more I came to realize that this is totally the wrong system for such a small amount of players.
If scores never have a chance of going up a lot of decreasing a lot based on who they place, and it is generally all pretty close to the same amounts for winning and losing, most people will still be in around the same amount of points.  But also, since we can pick and choose our opponents, people can log in, check to see if there is anyone on that has higher points or just slightly lower and only play them and log out, giving them the minimal loss. 
No one is going over 2400 points obviously, and I really doubt anyone will drop below 1000, so there will never be any big gain or losses noticeable enough unless a person wins like 10 games in a row no matter what the score is of their opponent, since the gain isn't all that different.

I notice that xnoize has 13 more wins than me but has quite a few points less than me.  He has 1 more loss than me as well.  It makes no sense to me I guess.  It should be that even though he has more losses, it is only 1, but has 13 more wins than me, that he should in fact have more points. 
I have 35 wins 35 losses, he has 48 wins 36 losses, so his win/loss ratio is better too.  Playing more games over all too, he should logically have more points no matter who he played just because everyone is almost in a 200 point gap, theres the 2 on top and 2 on bottom that are more than 200, but everyone else is within 200 or less of each other.

I really do think a simple who ever wins the most games, and if theres a tie, who ever has the least amount of losses is the better way to go for next time.  This would also mean that people wouldn't be avoiding duels, and there would be more of them.  A person could lose a whole lot but still win a whole lot and catch up to the 1st place person a lot easier especially if the person in 1st place decided to take a week break or something.  A person in 1st place now that decides to take a week off is still pretty safe of remaining at or very close to the top, no matter how many games the other people have played.  So basically in the ELO system it is actually better to play fewer games while on top, while in the system I just mentioned, if that person slows down on playing, others will catch up quicker.

ELO works best when you have random opponents, picking and choosing favours the people on top.

[TStar]

The system you proposed was actually used before and scrapped.  The main issue with it was that it simply became a contest of activity where playing tons of games earns you a championship no matter how much you lost.  For players able to simply log into chat and play 8+ hours per day that's an overwhelming advantage over the player who may only have time for w or 3 matches per week.  Additionally, that system places no real penalty on losses and no value whatsoever on things like winning percentage.  Should a player who finishes 55-47 win over a player who finishes 48-12 since because he/she was able to play more games?  That's the real issue.....a player can have a dominating W/L ratio and be undefeated against another one but still lose simply because he/she couldn't "outspam" someone else for number of games.

Using the current BL standings as an example, this is how the records of the top 6 would look under the old system/the one you propose:
1. 58 - 27 .683 (currently 6th)
2. 54 - 3 .947 (currently 1st)
3. 37 - 25  .597 (currently 7th)
4. 33 - 24 .579 (currently 4th)
5. 31 - 12 .721 (currently 3rd)
6. 30 - 6 .833 (currently 2nd)

You are asking us to reward a player for essentially "spamming the league" by getting in the most games.  For a decent PvPer who wins 2/3's of the time that will be more than enough to win over someone who can't play as many.  Do you really think a player who wins ~68% of the time should be the champion over a player who wins ~95% of the time simply by virtue of being able to play more games?  Should players winning under 60% of the time get rewarded over players with 75%+ win percentages just because they can devote more time, and by result more matches and more raw victories, over players who can't?

The real question becomes do you want to reward activity or skill more?  The current system at least places more value on winning and skill over simple activity and "league spamming" like the past.  Is ELO a perfect system?  Maybe not, but it's far better than the previous method.  As always we are open to suggestions on how to improve it, but I just feel that going back to the raw win totals method would be a step in the wrong direction.  Besides, inactivity and "resting on your laurels" isn't a sure recipe to success.  I played almost twice as many games in the 1/2011 BL and edged out a 1st place victory by a slim margin despite having a nearly 10% lower winning percentage than the #2 guy.  In the end, if you just win the games you play everything takes care of itself.

[bucky1andonly]

The current system doesn't take into account your win loss ratio either, if it did, people that played more games than me, and has a better win/loss ratio would be ahead of me in rank.  Using xnoize as the example,

I was 35W 35L
X was 48W 36L

Logically, he should be ranked higher for having a better win rate, and for having more games, but this wasn't the case.

Think about chess ratings, people never play an equal amount of games, and the ratings are spread out more so than what will be accomplished here in only 3 months with so few players, and so few games played compared to what takes place in chess.  ELO system would be good for elements in general, giving each player a rating, but for league play that only lasts a limited time, ELO just isn't precise as seen by my rating compared to xn's.


League play should reward high activity anyway.  The more you play the better your overall ranking should be.  This promotes activity.  ELO promotes inactivity.  People that have a busy life style may not be able to play as many games, but then why are catering to those that can't play in the first place?  Cater to those that are highly active.

Rating = Total Games + Wins - Losses

In case of a tie, you compare wins, and if there is a complete tie, simply have those people duel it out in a small tourney (i doubt more than 2 people would tie exactly anyway)

[RootRanger]

Bucky has it backwards. ELO gives advantages to good players that play a lot of games, more than good players with few games. For example, look at the #1 and #2 spots of last BL.

Good players play as well as someone much better than someone with a 1500 rating. If someone is as strong as a 2000, it will take a lot of games to reach 2000. Which means if there are two players as strong as a 2000, the one with more games will win because they have more time to go from 1500 to 2000.

Do we really need a rule against avoiding challenges. Some people desync games when they are about to lose, and I don't want to play someone that might try to cheat. Also, due to ELO, some players start significantly weaker than they actually are. At the start of the league, a certain player would not play me until I was 1600, because they knew I was stronger than a 1500 and would not want to lose more points than they deserve to lose. This is a valid reason, and there shouldn't be a rule against it.

ELO is great, and it was a huge step forward. But if we want a rating system that doesn't reward players with more games or cause players to avoid players with low ratings, KRACH should be used. I can discuss this more when I have time.

[bucky1andonly]

When ELO is used properly, it is a permanent rating, but if we did it permanently, obviously the rewards would be thrown out the window.  ELO with so few people and league duration short, ELO is not the system to use.

Rootranger, even though the actual gain from playing the top person in CL and someone with 1500 rating is fairly small, dueling the top player is the way to go.  Elements relies less on skill than chess obviously, so anyone can win any game.  So since I need to play more games just to try and catch up to 1st place, and if I get a lot of bad draws (which I usually do in PVP) but also if my rating is slowly increasing, it will take a long time just to get up to the 1st place persons rating providing they are not playing.  But if they are not playing, that means they have no chance to have their rating lowered, which is not fair.  Everyone else has to play daily to increase their rating, but because someone managed to get up real high fast from winning, and reaching the min games required, they cant just stop playing, which is why there always must be a rule and there needs to be a better rule as to forcing players to play.  Like instead of an overall number of games played, there should be a weekly amount required, failure to do so should drop your rating by 50 or something. 

ELO requires a game mostly based on skill, unfortunately elements does not fall into this category.  Due to the fact decks are randomized, and done poorly most of the time, elements relies on luck id say 80% of the time, with the other 20% based on deck size and # of copies per card in the deck.

Bucky has it backwards. ELO gives advantages to good players that play a lot of games, more than good players with few games.

This is wrong. 
ELO gives advantages to good players that WIN a lot of games.  But that also applies to players that are newbs too.
But a player with the minimum amount of games played, but lets say they won them all, could easily not play any more, chances are they are in the #1 spot due to not losing.  ELO does not work here, plain and simple.

[RootRanger]

There is no need for games to be played daily or weekly. If someone is skilled enough to reach te #1 spot in one month and stay in first for the next two months, they are the best player in the league.

ELO does not require games to have no luck. It is actually better in games in which the best player has a chance to lose to the worst player, otherwise there would be no reason for the worst player to play the best player.

I'm not sure you completely understand ELO, bucky.
As more games are played, a player's rating becomes further from 1500 until an equilibrium is reached. For the best players in the league, it takes a large amount of games to reach their equilibrium. This means that playing a lot of games is beneficial to the best players in the league. Perhaps players in CL are avoiding you because of reasons unrelated to your rating?