Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[Xenocidius]

Any chance the standings can get updated by a 3rd party while TStar is gone?

Er, third party? TStar's not the only League Organizer, you know

Rofl. Forever alone.

[mrpaper]

For next leagues .... I would like if we rethink if the Elo system is still the best thing.  A few players have played more then 80 games in the leagues... and most of them are far away in the standings, while some people who doesn't yet filled the requirements (30 games) are currently in the top 6 and are aiming for prize with a very low participation.  I understand we wanted to avoid people quitting playing leasgues because the leaders we're so far ahead, but this system is far from ideal either.  I would suggest some kind of hybrid thing if it can be done, like you're score is 1500 +/- you're Elo scoring + 1 point per game played, it would enourage people to play like crazy and reflect more of the deserving people in the leagues.  For exemple, ralouf1 now has 148 games played, he gets +148 to his Elo score.  It could be calculated only at the end if this is too complicated to do while the league is in effect.

[RootRanger]

If you're an above-average player, there's already incentive to play more than 30 games built into the rating system. As you play more games, your rating shown in the standings becomes closer to your actual skill level. After hundreds of games, your rating in the standings is very close to your skill level, but it takes a long time to reach your true potential. Someone that players 30 games is at a disadvantage because they are further from their actual skill than someone that has played more than 100.

[ralouf]

I totally agree with mrpaper. Actually the current system just me think one thing : I should have stop when I was at 1700 rating and wait the league to end. And I think that's a shame to have such thought because the aim of this league is to make people play and this rating system doesn't reward at all player who played lot of games.. (I'm ranked >10).

Or maybe Root is right and that's my real level, I'm too noob to build correct deck and I deserve this place.

[bucky1andonly]

1) Skill level in elements is very, very low.  It's solely dependent on cards owned and cards drawn.
2) Since more luck is involved than skill, ELO just does not fit anyway.  ELO is meant to show skill level, not luck level.

Suggestion
Find a better rating system.  On top of that, have a stupid high amount of games, like 100, be the goal for the players, and for every game you are below that number, you lose a certain number of points.  After 100 you do not gain any more points, so that is your official score, and skill level.  Or even better, games after 100 cause you to gain or lose only 1 point depending if you win or lose.

And make sure official rules are updated accordingly to match any announcements that have new stipulations added in after league starts.

[TStar]

We've discussed adding bonus points for games played in the past but decided against it.  The main issue with it is that the higher your rating is, the harder it is to get points for wins.  Towards the end of last season I was betting 2-3 points per win while risking losing 17-18 points for a loss most of the time.  Should playing a game at that level be equal to 50% of a win?  So every time someone plays a game it's worth 1/3 or 1/2 of the points a highly rated player gets for a victory?  You can see why that was a problem.

Another reason it was rejected is because before ELO the league winner was determined on a simple W/L method where whomever had the most wins won the league.  Didn't matter if you went 80-10 or 80-120 those players were counted the same.  It simply meant that whomever spammed the most games was likely to win the leagues.  ELO helped offset this problem by making losses count against you so players didn't simply play play play and who cares how many they lose so long as they win enough.  Heck, lets play 200 games and win only 70 of them and chances are you get a top 3 rank.  That's not really a system worth going back to.

A hybrid system just isn't really possible because of the nature of diminishing returns in ELO.  The higher your score, the less your wins are worth so unless you came up with a formula to even out the relative value of wins between top ranked players and low ranked players there isn't much chance of the hybrid system ever being seriously considered.

[ralouf]

Oh yeah forgot to mention about that : LUCK.
I really estimate my opponent but honestly I lost most of the game due to bad luck.. And this system don't forgive that.

IMO : In elements : luck=65%
                             deck choice = 34%
                             skill = 1 %

that can be improved with adding more cards maybe.

[Jenkar]

Oh yeah forgot to mention about that : LUCK.
I really estimate my opponent but honestly I lost most of the game due to bad luck.. And this system don't forgive that.

IMO : In elements : luck=65%
                             deck choice = 34%
                             skill = 1 %

that can be improved with adding more cards maybe.

Deck choice is partly skill.

[ralouf]

Copy pasting a deck from the forum don't need skills. and every deck can be countered by a deck posted on the forum. Even if you make an original deck there is at least one good counter on the forum. If your noob opponent use this deck he will win. (Although I managed to loose with ghostmare vs adrenastave)

[Jenkar]

Copy pasting a deck from the forum don't need skills. and every deck can be countered by a deck posted on the forum. Even if you make an original deck there is at least one good counter on the forum. If your noob opponent use this deck he will win. (Although I managed to loose with ghostmare vs adrenastave)

Not deck taking. Deck choice.
Deck choice is mindgates. Choosing firestall because your opponent has a tendency to start with adrenastaves is that.

[ralouf]

I don"t know a guy who starts always with the same deck, even noobs don"t do that..

[mrpaper]

We've discussed adding bonus points for games played in the past but decided against it.  The main issue with it is that the higher your rating is, the harder it is to get points for wins.  Towards the end of last season I was betting 2-3 points per win while risking losing 17-18 points for a loss most of the time.  Should playing a game at that level be equal to 50% of a win?  So every time someone plays a game it's worth 1/3 or 1/2 of the points a highly rated player gets for a victory?  You can see why that was a problem.

Another reason it was rejected is because before ELO the league winner was determined on a simple W/L method where whomever had the most wins won the league.  Didn't matter if you went 80-10 or 80-120 those players were counted the same.  It simply meant that whomever spammed the most games was likely to win the leagues.  ELO helped offset this problem by making losses count against you so players didn't simply play play play and who cares how many they lose so long as they win enough.  Heck, lets play 200 games and win only 70 of them and chances are you get a top 3 rank.  That's not really a system worth going back to.

A hybrid system just isn't really possible because of the nature of diminishing returns in ELO.  The higher your score, the less your wins are worth so unless you came up with a formula to even out the relative value of wins between top ranked players and low ranked players there isn't much chance of the hybrid system ever being seriously considered.

My system is quite easy, if you take the bonus point while counting the ELO it won't work because it's true you will eventually lose 17-18 points for a potential 2-3 points win.

BUT what I suggested is taking the ELO and add the point per game after it, so the bonus point doesnt affect the ELO
example: column 1 wins       column 2 losses          column 3 ELO                     column 4 games played     column 5 ELO + games
                            35                       20                  1585 (random here)                       55                                    1585 +55 = 1640

It does take the rating in effect, but having a few wins won't make you worthy of a prize in the end.  If you play a ton you get more points, but if you go to play 200 games but lose 130 of em you will get something like 1420 ELO + 200 =1620, so a losing record won't give you a prize either.