Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[Wyand]

TBH I just miss this type of more "restrictive" play, (half-)fixed dates for matches, everyone playing with everyone etc. OK, let's not change this league, but I just yearn
for that kind of league I've written of.

Off-topic

also serie a >>>> premier league, i'll open a soccer thread

- Well I'm not into football like I was... well, earlier... Serie A is faaar from its golden years (mid-late 80s/early 90s, every prominent player wanted to play in Serie A, and I played, after that something
has changed, and I don't mean just the Bosman-rule). I'll check the topic. And it is football, we are Europeans.

[Wyand]

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.

[kaempfer13]

there needs to be a weighting according to chances to actually win. I'd actually wager that elo doesnt hit hard enough since we have relatively low sample sizes so the true elo of a player that just joined should probably be very different then it is here (elowise vindilos would beat the average player only 2/3rds of the time, but he won much more than that). Making it just about w/l will create the reverse mindset of what you think is going on right now and in that scenario perfectly justified. Why would you ever take an unnecesary risk?

Not saying elo is perfect, but its definitely better than griefing the lowlvl players.

[Wyand]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use Elo system. It is good. What I say that I don't think it is respectable to avoid players
just because their Elo is much lower. I don't want to complain about any specific player (because I also played with the idea),
but there is a rule:

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. If necessary, you may notify a League Organizer regarding frequently refused matches.

I kinda think we should extend/change the 50% rule, with something like "you must play at least 1 match against every other player."
I know, I know, this is strict, since the lower limit is 10 matches, but you can figure it out somehow, dilute it and implement it in the next League.

[kaempfer13]

Wow, with incompatible timeschedules thatd be even harder to do than play 50 matches. What are we supposed to do about the person that played only one game? Does nobody get anything then? Do you expect me to calculate the largest possible group that has had each member play against one another at least once? Anyways, not happening.

[worldwideweb3]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use Elo system. It is good. What I say that I don't think it is respectable to avoid players
just because their Elo is much lower. I don't want to complain about any specific player (because I also played with the idea),
but there is a rule:

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. If necessary, you may notify a League Organizer regarding frequently refused matches.

I kinda think we should extend/change the 50% rule, with something like "you must play at least 1 match against every other player."
I know, I know, this is strict, since the lower limit is 10 matches, but you can figure it out somehow, dilute it and implement it in the next League.

If someone is refusing to play  just because of Elo rating, then you can raise that issue via pm to LO as that’s not really allowed.

[Wyand]

Sometimes I do feel that you don't read my posts thoroughly or you just stuck at one specific line and neglect the context.

I don't ask for a round-robin style league, no. As I wrote you can dilute the idea, like...

... changing the 50% rule to ~30% rule
... keeping the 50% rule but stating that you must play at least 1 match against ~6-10 players

... or anything else which is easily implementable and won't deter ppl from play. And personally I think it is silly that there is
a 2 months long pvp event and a mere 10 matches are enough to qualify.

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.

[Wyand]

If someone is refusing to play  just because of Elo rating, then you can raise that issue via pm to LO as that’s not really allowed.

That's right. However, I try to avoid such things, and deal with it personally.

Point is that one can do that passively, like sitting in chat and not answering to players who are publicly searching
someone to battle. You weren't asked privately, you are not forced to answer, but the mindset is there... I don't know
if there is an idea which could encourage ppl not to do so.

[phoenix1211]

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

I think the best way to eliminate it is to just encourage people to play, irrespective of their standings. I really don't know if it's possible or ideal to enforce this through rules. Personally, while I've taken league seriously most of the time, I've never thought of it in terms of risk/reward when I'm playing someone. I just enjoy playing against different people, and I see league as a way to have some casual-yet-competitive games, get better at prediction/mindgating, and just enjoy building decks on the fly.

[Manuel]

this is the same exact case of the kalinual's rule suggested in war, u take things too seriously and u think someone will ""cheat"" even if there is a rule to punish them (really sad to enforce)

the point should be have fun rather than find rules for penalize players for everything

[Wyand]

I agree with both of you, Phoenix and Manuel. Encouraging is more important than penalizing. Maybe a rule like
'in case of a tie the player who has more matches gets the better place' or 'the player with a more diverse matchset'.

(However I still don't think it would be a big restriction to change the 50% + 10 matches rule. You play 5 matches
with a friend plus 5 random matches and you are set? Strange for me. The League spans across 9 weeks, that's
about 1 match/week, not a huge feat to achieve it.)

[kaempfer13]

There is already plenty of reason to play against someone that is more likely to lose to you. ELO is supposed to represent that chance. You might be assuming that everyone has about the same chances to win or lose, which doesnt hold water when you look at certain persons trophy collections. Elo is definitely more accurate than simpler alternatives and the only rulechange suggestion I heard from you was to force people to play a larger variety of players. You simply wont win as often vs Vindilos than some other players, so its only fair you get rewarded/less punished for trying. Ratinggainwise your suggestion would be marginally more accurate towards a random newcomer -as individual playstyles factor in less with a larger variety of players-, when it comes to evaluating overall skill it shouldnt really make much of a difference though. It really doesnt seem worth the effort.

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. Once you factor in the difficulty of each win the respective players fought for it should be fair within an unavoidable margin of error though.

Ok its more of a case that they havent played enough games yet to drop where they belong if they keep going like that, but thats what the minimum number of games is for.