Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[Vindilos]

The lower required amount of games did get people to play a lot more games and got more people to play. At least I think it is a result of the lower requirements/less strict rules.
I fear less people will play if requirements/rules go up.

Wasn't there a bonus now for most games played btw?

[Wyand]

You might be assuming that everyone has about the same chances to win or lose,

I didn't assume anything like that.

I guess your issue is that you are at 50% winrate yet equally matched with people who lost twice as often as they won, which may not intuitively feel fair.

No, that's not my issue. I might be a rara avis (oops, sorry Aves ), but I don't need any real life mindgating, I tell what's on my mind.
My current league standing doesn't bother me.

But this is getting off-topic. However, I'm always open to constructive exchange of views.

[kaempfer13]

It's working as intended until proven otherwise. If you agree that winrate should factor into the scoring per match there is nothing inherently wrong with the elosystem.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

It's not just working, it's necessary.
Otherwise good players will only play the same bad players. Slowly, they get no games as the bad players only play eachother. Sorry Wyand, terrible idea to drop ELO

[Wyand]

I'm going crazy... that's the punishment for not being silent. I was even warned. But silly me couldn't hold his piehole.
I feel like I'm in a Parallel Universe... but my opinion clearly hasn't been copied perfectly...

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you something very exciting: LOGIC. And logical fallacies.

Our logical fallacy for today is the Strawman fallacy.

Let me quote myself:

Elo system is very good, but...

(...) I think that the rules should
encourage players to play against everyone regardless of Elo points.

I know that possible changes would make this "most relaxed competition" a bit more "scheduled", but the
situation really worries me. I really want to eliminate the "fear from possible low gain vs. high loss" thinking.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use Elo system. It is good.

[kaempfer13]

But what point are you even making then?

Elo strives to strike the perfect balance of odds of winning and change of rating as a result when a player performs better or worse than expected, weighted by the difficulty of the opponent. As such, the theoretical motivation to play each player should be the same (not accounting for ease of agreeing on rules, generally getting along, poor personal matchups, inaccurate rating (usually due to lack of games), not believing in different winrates and thus thinking going for the big fish is the best option).

Again, my point is:

I really want to eliminate the "fear from possible low gain vs. high loss" thinking.

I don't know the means I'm not experienced enough for that and I'm not an LO either.

This assumes that elo treats highly rated players unfairly or at least assumes they think that way. This comes back to how they should be able to win more often and thus make that fear unjustified, unless they simply got lucky before rather than win by skill (in which case they do deserve a lower rating than they have at the time, regardless of who they play against).

Elo system is very good, but...

... Kinda feel that players are "forced" to play against higher Elo players, since if they lose against
a lower ranked player they can fall back badly. Sometimes I also have the idea that shouldn't play
against my less lucky fellows, and I should covet only bigger crowns. I know that there are others
that are gripping to their well-achieved position in the same way, so I think that the rules should
encourage players to play against everyone regardless of Elo points.

I know that possible changes would make this "most relaxed competition" a bit more "scheduled", but the
situation really worries me. I really want to eliminate the "fear from possible low gain vs. high loss" thinking.

I see the same point here, same thing applies.
It also mentions the other thing of substance that I can gather from what you wrote; you want players to play against as many diffferent players as possible.
I dont think anything in the rules stops people from doing so and personal strengths/weaknesses aside it shouldnt really change the end result much especially since beating up the same poor guy repeatedly gives diminishing returns (so in fact that fear of losing to a poorly rated guy encourages you to play different people, unless they do beat you or recover their rating from other players).

I tried really hard to extract any other points from what you wrote, but all I found was that you dont think I understand you.

[worldwideweb3]

Wyand is basically saying that get people to play others even if they have low elo, as he feels some people look to mainly play against players with higher elo (to get more points). He isn’t saying elo is bad. This is what I understand anyways.

[Manuel]

yes he is saying pretty much this

fighting against someone with more elo so u got more or lose less points means u are smart, at one point players will develope a sort of strategy even if u put all the clauses/restrictions of the world

[rob77dp]

yes he is saying pretty much this

fighting against someone with more elo so u got more or lose less points means u are smart, at one point players will develope a sort of strategy even if u put all the clauses/restrictions of the world

This only benefits your own ELO rating if you win more than expected - which would mean you are winning more than expected against good players so it makes sense you get higher ranking. There is no ELO advantage, in a pool where players are playing a fair quantity of games, in only playing the high ranked players. The only advantage you could speak of comes in when you bring win percentage against opponents into play - which ELO already factors in!

I do think the ELO system and rules as-is are fine as it relates to who-plays-against-who. kaempfer's most recent post says it just right I think.

[Wyand]

Wyand is basically saying that get people to play others even if they have low elo, as he feels some people look to mainly play against players with higher elo (to get more points). He isn’t saying elo is bad. This is what I understand anyways.

spot on, thank you, www3.

[Jen-i]

Elo system is very good, but...

... Kinda feel that players are "forced" to play against higher Elo players, since if they lose against
a lower ranked player they can fall back badly.

It is true that playing highly ranked players gains more score and playing lower ranked players gains less score.

But unless you are also willing to argue that luck plays a vastly more important role than skill in the game it should also be true that your ELO ranking is representative of your skill in the game. (In fact this is the entire purpose of an ELO ranking system ... it's an effort to evaulate a player or teams skill)

If your ELO ranking is representative of predominantly skill (and not mostly luck) then it stands to reason that you have a higher chance of winning matches against players with a lower ELO score. Which should mean that playing players with a lower score should result in less points per match but with a higher win rate, and playing players with a higher score should result in higher points per match but a lower win rate.

So the incentive to play lower ranked players should be for the expected easier wins. And the incentive to player higher ranked players should be for the greater risk/reward of potentially higher points at the risk of a higher number of loses.

Sometimes I also have the idea that shouldn't play against my less lucky fellows, and I should covet only bigger crowns.

In my opinion the 'bigger crown' comes from the ranking at the end of the season rather than who you had to defeat along the way to get there. Again the assumption of ELO ranking is that given a sufficient number of games that your ranking is representative of your actual skill at the game. This is why there used to be a higher number of games required ... it forced enough games for ranking to roughly equate to skill.
[Not that I have any complaint over the reduction in the number of games if the result is more people playing in leagues.]

I know that there are others that are gripping to their well-achieved position in the same way, so I think that the rules should encourage players to play against everyone regardless of Elo points.

I know that possible changes would make this "most relaxed competition" a bit more "scheduled", but the
situation really worries me. I really want to eliminate the "fear from possible low gain vs. high loss" thinking.

The strategy in an ELO based league is to play matches against players when their ELO ranking is higher than their actual skill. Because everyone enters a league with a ranking of 1500 this means that early in the season it is strategic to play against players you expect to fall in the rankings. Your wins against them are worth more points while their ranking is overinflated. It also means that you should wait until later in the season to play matches against the top players as their scores are artificially low early in the season and wins agains them will be worth more points later. However the removal of the 'max games per player' limit greater reduces the effect of this strategy.

[kaempfer13]

Ok, its high time to discuss end of season and the next one.
This season will end on time, there were certainly enough plays to wrap things up on schedule, all prizes will be awarded. If you still need matches get them in quickly!

I think the only thing that requires discussion about end of season is how to roll the contribution prize. As you may recall, the contribution prize will be randomly awarded to one of the 3 players with the most matches. I think I will use chat dice (1d3) in the tournament room to determine the winner of that award, where 1 means the player with most matches gets it (2 second most, 3 thirdmost). I assume you 3 would like to be present while it happens? Let me know when you would be around!
Edit: Nope, there is another thing to discuss: a few people (usually the ones with 3 or less games) threaten to have over 50% of their matches against the same player. For the players with few games it kind of seems like a hassle to remove the extra games against the same player in retrospect. However those are also probably the players whose elo is the most inaccurate and as such, disregarding their games might give a more accurate overall result.

About next season: War is a factor to consider, but I think there is no real reason to just not count matches for leagues. If people are too busy i can extend the season, but the next league season should be up roundabout a week after this one ends. Just play whenever you feel like!
So, are there any rules you would like to see changed? Last season was a huge success, i assume largely because the rules are more relaxed than ever, so it'd be easy to just keep them as is, but let me know what you think.