Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[Vangelios]

if  stay the way it is,  can having a player who can play 100 games with no bans.

This is OK.  The ban rule is so that players can ban cards if they both want to.  This offers an opportunity to players who want to play with certain rulesets while not changing the basic premise of League PvP: unrestricted unupped/upped PvP.  Why do you think this is a bad thing?

 Cheesy just complementing what Calindu said.
 We have player who has quit the league because of 1 or 2 cards, actually think many players quit because of this, then it is bad,
  Also ban four cards provide more fair and more interesting duels.

[mrpaper]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, using only an ELO or KRACH system for points is doomed for problems because many people lose interest if they start on a mostly losing streak and the fear of not being able to play the next season doesn't help much if at all.  When we had points for victories only, there we're a ton of games played.  I consider only victories is better then ELO or Krach, but I suggested some hybrid way of counting points, like having Krach  (or ELO) system and a bonus of +3 per win for an incentive to play more (the number 3 can be argued).  I didn't play in this season mostly for this, it's not fun to come and have nobody to play but the same 2-3 persons and then wait for hours in case someone shows up.  Also, I don't like the fact that the few that are in it a ton dont have an advantage over those who seeks the minimum of 30 matches.  Cheesy and Blacksmith should have been #1 and 2 looking only at they're record, but this is what happens when we seek to give prizes to whorty by the types of wins over who is also  involved.   

[Vangelios]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, using only an ELO or KRACH system for points is doomed for problems because many people lose interest if they start on a mostly losing streak and the fear of not being able to play the next season doesn't help much if at all.  When we had points for victories only, there we're a ton of games played.  I consider only victories is better then ELO or Krach, but I suggested some hybrid way of counting points, like having Krach  (or ELO) system and a bonus of +3 per win for an incentive to play more (the number 3 can be argued).  I didn't play in this season mostly for this, it's not fun to come and have nobody to play but the same 2-3 persons and then wait for hours in case someone shows up.  Also, I don't like the fact that the few that are in it a ton dont have an advantage over those who seeks the minimum of 30 matches.  Cheesy and Blacksmith should have been #1 and 2 looking only at they're record, but this is what happens when we seek to give prizes to whorty by the types of wins over who is also  involved.   

If I understood you correctly, you mean that if  a player with 50W and 49L, and another with 49W and 0L, the champion would be the player 50W ?, I remember what Jenkar once told me, "promotes quantity rather than their  quality "

[rob77dp]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, using only an ELO or KRACH system for points is doomed for problems because many people lose interest if they start on a mostly losing streak and the fear of not being able to play the next season doesn't help much if at all.  When we had points for victories only, there we're a ton of games played.  I consider only victories is better then ELO or Krach, but I suggested some hybrid way of counting points, like having Krach  (or ELO) system and a bonus of +3 per win for an incentive to play more (the number 3 can be argued).  I didn't play in this season mostly for this, it's not fun to come and have nobody to play but the same 2-3 persons and then wait for hours in case someone shows up.  Also, I don't like the fact that the few that are in it a ton dont have an advantage over those who seeks the minimum of 30 matches.  Cheesy and Blacksmith should have been #1 and 2 looking only at they're record, but this is what happens when we seek to give prizes to whorty by the types of wins over who is also  involved.   

If I understood you correctly, you mean that if  a player with 50W and 49L, and another with 49W and 0L, the champion would be the player 50W ?, I remember what Jenkar once told me, "promotes quantity rather than their  quality "

The scenario you describe would have the 49-0 player ahead of the 50-49 player as the win total is only a bonus onto the ELO rating... If I am understanding mrpaper correctly.

[mrpaper]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, using only an ELO or KRACH system for points is doomed for problems because many people lose interest if they start on a mostly losing streak and the fear of not being able to play the next season doesn't help much if at all.  When we had points for victories only, there we're a ton of games played.  I consider only victories is better then ELO or Krach, but I suggested some hybrid way of counting points, like having Krach  (or ELO) system and a bonus of +3 per win for an incentive to play more (the number 3 can be argued).  I didn't play in this season mostly for this, it's not fun to come and have nobody to play but the same 2-3 persons and then wait for hours in case someone shows up.  Also, I don't like the fact that the few that are in it a ton dont have an advantage over those who seeks the minimum of 30 matches.  Cheesy and Blacksmith should have been #1 and 2 looking only at they're record, but this is what happens when we seek to give prizes to whorty by the types of wins over who is also  involved.   

If I understood you correctly, you mean that if  a player with 50W and 49L, and another with 49W and 0L, the champion would be the player 50W ?, I remember what Jenkar once told me, "promotes quantity rather than their  quality "

The scenario you describe would have the 49-0 player ahead of the 50-49 player as the win total is only a bonus onto the ELO rating... If I am understanding mrpaper correctly.

Rob, you got that right!  You can't hardly just promote quantity over quality, but using both it wise... for ou're exemple Vangelios, a 49-0 streak would give you roughly a 2000 ElO points as of now and a 50-49 a 1550 points, so adding 3 points more for the 1 more win won't change the stantdigs between those 2... not even close.   Though you just give me people with 49 and 99 games played and 1 unlikely record.
What is more likely is someone with 20-10 record and a 1700 points and someone with 42-36 and 1655 points (only exemples not real points from players) With my bonus system, player 1 get a +60 bonus at the end (20x3 +1700) ending at 1760.  Player 2 get  126 points bonus (42x3 +1655) ending at 1781.  So someone having 30 games(player 1) end up below someone having 78 games (player 2).  Is someone having 20-10 REALLY more worthy of getting leagues prizes then someone having a 42-36... even if that means it likely kills activity in it?  I alsways thought no. 

[Onizuka]

Yes. The person who played 30 games on average won every two out of three games. The one who played 80 games could only manage to basically coinflip every game.


2/3 is clearly better than 1/2

[Elbirn]

Yes. The person who played 30 games on average won every two out of three games. The one who played 80 games could only manage to basically coinflip every game.


2/3 is clearly better than 1/2

That.

Quantity of games played should have no sway on the rankings what so ever. The rankings as they are (being based on one's win-loss ratio and the win-loss ratio of opponents faced) is as perfect as you can get.

[dragonsdemesne]

Quantity of games played should have no sway on the rankings what so ever. The rankings as they are (being based on one's win-loss ratio and the win-loss ratio of opponents faced) is as perfect as you can get.

I'd love to be able to suggest a better scoring method than ELO/Krach, but I can't.  And I agree that quantity of games shouldn't be the determining factor in league prizes.  Unfortunately, due to the small number of participants, the prizes are going mostly to those who play the most games.  I've mentioned it before, but the reason is that people aren't able to play enough games for their ELO ratings to arrive at the true level of the player.  To take an extreme example, if everyone played 1000 games, their ELO scores would probably be quite accurate, but with only a few dozen each, a particularly bad or good streak can skew the numbers more.  Unfortunately, I know of nothing that can be done about this other than to try and get more people involved in league play, and I"m not sure how to go about doing that.

[Cheesy111]

Quantity of games played should have no sway on the rankings what so ever. The rankings as they are (being based on one's win-loss ratio and the win-loss ratio of opponents faced) is as perfect as you can get.

Krach was a system in which quantity of games played had minimal impact on ranking.  As a result, the best way to get a high ranking would be to play against 30 newbs and then disappear for the remainder of the season.  Ranking systems have to encourage activity, even as lightly as ELO does, or inactivity will be the optimal way to play.  I don't want to be inactive to score the best.

[Elbirn]

Perhaps it would be wise to raise the minimum number of games played to qualify for winning league, as was mentioned, more games played = truer representation of skill? I would however prefer that such a rule be separate from the silly "Play 30 games or you're banned lolol" rule.

'Tis hardly a solution, but could help. I see your point, cheesy, but I couldn't support a system that rewards activity above all else. The point of competition is to determine who is the best, not who has the most time on their hands (thought it is nice to see someone playing with a lot of heart). The issue as I see it is finding a more accurate way to determine who is the best, not balancing rewarding activity with rewarding win/loss ratio. I'm at a loss on that point.

[mrpaper]

The problem was and still is, if you don't put an incitive on games played, people aim for 30 games not more, and those that start losing just stop playing instead of learning from they're loss and get more games.  Only 8 people played the required 30 matches in BL so something needs to be done, and it's only a little better in CL with 11 players reaching the minimum. 
Vangelios   1649 games:39   wins :29 losses:10
Cheesy111 1637           83           60            23
Here is a real example from last BL, Vangelios won over Cheesy with both having a ratio of around 2 wins for a loss.  Of course who they face ain't showned but we will assume they fight an average of similar opponents.  Cheesy would need a great winning  streak to catch up which is odd but is reality because it's harder to get ure score higher when you've played more, and I don't get why people think it's heresy should he should be #1 (nothing personal Vangelios, this is just an exemple).  The best boxing champions aren't those who defend they're title once a year and rest, it's those who fights as many times as possible and comes back from they're losses.  Muhammad Ali didn't win all his fight...

[Cheesy111]

The problem was and still is, if you don't put an incitive on games played, people aim for 30 games not more, and those that start losing just stop playing instead of learning from they're loss and get more games.  Only 8 people played the required 30 matches in BL so something needs to be done, and it's only a little better in CL with 11 players reaching the minimum. 
Vangelios   1649 games:39   wins :29 losses:10
Cheesy111 1637           83           60            23
Here is a real example from last BL, Vangelios won over Cheesy with both having a ratio of around 2 wins for a loss.  Of course who they face ain't showned but we will assume they fight an average of similar opponents.  Cheesy would need a great winning  streak to catch up which is odd but is reality because it's harder to get ure score higher when you've played more, and I don't get why people think it's heresy should he should be #1 (nothing personal Vangelios, this is just an exemple).  The best boxing champions aren't those who defend they're title once a year and rest, it's those who fights as many times as possible and comes back from they're losses.  Muhammad Ali didn't win all his fight...

I wouldn't have needed a great winning streak to catch up, only 1-2 more wins.  I think that ELO is currently the best system we can use even though I would have benefited from a "bonus" for more games played.  ELO helps those who play more because beating a lower-ranked person still gives a sizable amount of rating.  To be honest, I lost to Vangelios both because Vangelios played good decks and because I got arrogant.  He deserves the trophy he got.