Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[Onizuka]

So, what were the changes between last league and this league?

Edit: Missed announcement post.

[rob77dp]

So, what were the changes between last league and this league?

Justa... Cheesy... please verify this, but I believe one change (at least) was the removal of the first month of League season requiring matches to have no bans (which I also recall being new to league last year - so that rule only made it through one season?).  I am curious to see a list of changes as I check rules and couldn't find anything that stood out to me...

[dragonsdemesne]

The other change I'm aware of was in regards to the prizes; the shard prizes were removed as door prizes and added back into the top 6.

[Marsu]

Could the standings be made directly visible in the respective league thread again like last season, without having to click the link?

[Cheesy111]

Could the standings be made directly visible in the respective league thread again like last season, without having to click the link?

That's a super-admin-power that LOs cannot do.

[DANIEELA]

Rating system need to be changed.
I dont know why does it matter score of opponents...
This way participants with lower score have bigger chance for making bether rating in League.
In my opinion ,it should be simply 3 points for win,as in Fotball(Soccer)and thats all.
It will make standings calculation less complicated,and it will encourage all participants to play more games.
Thanks for reading.

[Blaze]

I'm a very big fan of the ELO system, and am glad the leagues are arranged that way

[rob77dp]

Rating system need to be changed. Wasn't regen2k9 working on a modified ELO/Krach system for Leagues?  Why not that one?

I dont know why does it matter score of opponents...
This way participants with lower score have bigger chance for making bether rating in League. Not exactly... lower score position players can gain more rating by beating more highly ranked players, which if it was that simple they would have done already and not be so lowly ranked.
Hence, the rating system

In my opinion ,it should be simply 3 points for win,as in Fotball(Soccer)and thats all. Futbol has great things in it - and the points-standings method is one of them.  However, that works in futbol due to the predetermined set schedule with like-game-quantities by seasons' end.  In this format we have here of "find 'em and play 'em, at least to 30 matches (or 20, or whatever value is enforced that season)" would give advantage to playing MORE matches as opposed to being skilled AND winning matches while playing a good quantity of them.

It will make standings calculation less complicated,and it will encourage all participants to play more games. Surely the standings would be simpler with your suggested method but it would be a far cry from ensuring the winner is at least among (if not at the top of) the best performers that season.  It would do more than encourage playing more matches - it would essentially mandate that to win a participant would need to SPAM SPAM SPAM as many matches as possible as priority number one, with winning them being a lower priority.  I do not believe that is the goal of Leagues and the scoring of them.

Thanks for reading.

I'm a fan of soccer more than the next American but that standings-scoring system is not valid for what we have in EtG League competition.  C'mon regen2k9 - finish up your modified ELO/Krach system!

[justaburd]

Regen was, indeed, working on a modified elo rating. We didn't implement it since we wanted some testing done before using it (lest something go wrong and oh, how the world will end!)

The point of ELO was to factor in player skill. You don't get as much reward for playing stuff on the easy setting as you do playing on the hard setting. Same idea.

Someone gave an example earlier where someone could be 49-0 and lose first place to someone with 50-49. Simple points doesn't work when it's not a set game limit.

As for more participation... that's not really in our control. We're trying to think of ideas to draw in more people. If anyone has suggestions that doesn't involve points simply for spamming games OR rewarding top players more simply because they're the top players, do feel free to suggest them

[dragonsdemesne]

Set points also don't work when you choose your opponents.  Why risk taking on the #1 player in the league when you can take on the #50 or #100 player in the league, at a much lower risk and the same reward?  At least with Elo, there are the higher ranked players, who if you beat you get more points, but if you lose to, you lose less points, and vice versa, so that the risk is proportional to the reward.  Low risk of losing and low ratings gain potential but high ratings loss if you play against a lower ranked player, and higher risk of losing and higher ratings gain potential, but lower ratings loss if you lose against a higher ranked player.

Set points would only work in events where everyone plays the same number of games with each other.  To take the soccer analogy further, in the opening groups of the World Cup, four teams square off against each other, and they all play each other once, with 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.  This works because they all play an equal number of games.  If, for example, Canada and the USA each play 1000 games against each other and go 900-100, and Germany and Brazil go against each other 10 times and go 5-5, then Canada has 2700 points and the USA has 300 points, and Germany and Brazil will each have 15 points.  That's... not fair :p  Someone with a 10% win rate would thus outrank someone with a 50% win, and they would do it losing to a worse team.

[Marsu]

I agree, I don't see a problem at all. Just because Dani is high ranked atm and feels how it is to gain low score for most wins, but lose a lot for every loss... :p
's just fair.

[rob77dp]

Set points also don't work when you choose your opponents.  Why risk taking on the #1 player in the league when you can take on the #50 or #100 player in the league, at a much lower risk and the same reward?  At least with Elo, there are the higher ranked players, who if you beat you get more points, but if you lose to, you lose less points, and vice versa, so that the risk is proportional to the reward.  Low risk of losing and low ratings gain potential but high ratings loss if you play against a lower ranked player, and higher risk of losing and higher ratings gain potential, but lower ratings loss if you lose against a higher ranked player.

Set points would only work in events where everyone plays the same number of games with each other.  To take the soccer analogy further, in the opening groups of the World Cup, four teams square off against each other, and they all play each other once, with 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.  This works because they all play an equal number of games.  If, for example, Canada and the USA each play 1000 games against each other and go 900-100, and Germany and Brazil go against each other 10 times and go 5-5, then Canada has 2700 points and the USA has 300 points, and Germany and Brazil will each have 15 points.  That's... not fair :p  Someone with a 10% win rate would thus outrank someone with a 50% win, and they would do it losing to a worse team.

I cannot resist this.  *AHEM* /clears throat

Your math is wrong, unless Canada is getting 27 points per win and the US one-third of a point per win.   8)

EDIT:  Math FAIL for me.