Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[bojengles77]

Another request that never seemed to be addressed was that I requested an upped league for less than 20,000 score I am currently hovering around 12,000 but I don't like my unupped decks even if my upped pwn the world

Splitting up the beginner's league isn't going to happen anytime soon. If you want to use your upgraded cards, i'd recommend grinding for a couple days to get 20,000 score and join the championship league. The beginner's league does have members like yourself, with some upgraded cards, however, many members only have a few thousand score and don't have the money to create a variety of upgraded decks needed to compete in a league - upgrading one card costs about the same as a 30-card unupgraded deck. This means that the league you requested would probably be too small to function properly.

One of the players in the beginner's league at the beginning of the season (anotherbrother) got 20,000 score and decided he wanted to use his upgraded cards too, so he joined champs league mid-season.

[TheOwner]

Can you remain in the Beginners League if you go above 20,000 mid-season?

[bojengles77]

Can you remain in the Beginners League if you go above 20,000 mid-season?

You can remain in the beginner's league with your win/loss record in tact, or you can choose to move to the champs league and start over at 0 wins/0 losses.

[Demagog]

I think scoring should be one point for each game won. Meaning a match win is two points, and the person that lost gets one point if they won one of those games. For instance, at the end of the league, you have two people with the same number of games played, let's say 80, and the same win ratio, let's say 50%. Right now, they'd both get 40 points. But that's not looking deep enough. In 75% of the matches Player 1 lost, they went 2-1, while player 2 did exactly the opposite, going 2-0 in 75% of the matches they lost. Isn't it pretty obvious that player 1 did better than player 2? If we used a one point per win system, you would be able to see this. Player 1 would have 110 points, while player 2 would have 90. That's a pretty big difference (the difference would be "smaller" if I had used a smaller number of games played). Still, this would be a much more accurate way of representing how people performed in the league.

[Scaredgirl]

I think scoring should be one point for each game won. Meaning a match win is two points, and the person that lost gets one point if they won one of those games. For instance, at the end of the league, you have two people with the same number of games played, let's say 80, and the same win ratio, let's say 50%. Right now, they'd both get 40 points. But that's not looking deep enough. In 75% of the matches Player 1 lost, they went 2-1, while player 2 did exactly the opposite, going 2-0 in 75% of the matches they lost. Isn't it pretty obvious that player 1 did better than player 2? If we used a one point per win system, you would be able to see this. Player 1 would have 110 points, while player 2 would have 90. That's a pretty big difference (the difference would be "smaller" if I had used a smaller number of games played). Still, this would be a much more accurate way of representing how people performed in the league.

Yes, this has been suggested before. There are three reasons why I like the current system better:

1. Current system is what most (if not all) real life league use
I don't know any real life league (sports or something else) that has a scoring system based on how many goal or points teams got during their game. Sure there might be something like that, but at least the huge majority uses a system where the winner gets a certain amount of points, and the loser gets a certain amount of points.

2. "Winner takes it all" system makes the last match more exciting
If we give one league point per match win, there is no exciting last duel for the glory. Last match is just as important as the others, and losing it is not even a big deal because you still get that 1 point. Boring.

3. Current system is more simple.
Enough said.

[Demagog]

Soccer tournaments here in the US do that. If I remember correctly, in each game there is a possible 10 points for a team. 1 point per goal, up to 3, 6 points for the win, and 1 point for a shutout. I think it's 9 points if you win by forfeit. And I think ties are 3 points.

I really can't remember, but I think club seasons were the same way.

2. "Winner takes it all" system makes the last match more exciting
If we give one league point per match win, there is no exciting last duel for the glory. Last match is just as important as the others, and losing it is not even a big deal because you still get that 1 point. Boring.

This kind of goes against what you're saying. Every game is equally important and equally exciting. If you don't treat every game properly, you're probably going to lose. Players don't say, "ah, well the first two games don't matter, I'll just win the third one."

[Scaredgirl]

Soccer tournaments here in the US do that. If I remember correctly, in each game there is a possible 10 points for a team. 1 point per goal, up to 3, 6 points for the win, and 1 point for a shutout. I think it's 9 points if you win by forfeit. And I think ties are 3 points.

I really can't remember, but I think club seasons were the same way.

Tournaments. This is a league.

This kind of goes against what you're saying. Every game is equally important and equally exciting. If you don't treat every game properly, you're probably going to lose. Players don't say, "ah, well the first two games don't matter, I'll just win the third one."

You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the first 2 matches are not important. They are important because if you lose both, there won't be the 3rd one.

I'm saying that making the 3rd game a tie-breaker and "winner takes it all", makes it a lot more exiting, compared to if it was just one point.

Again, this is a system used in most (if not all) real life sports leagues. It's simple and works. What you suggest is more complex, takes away the added excitement of the last match, and is exploitable. Two players could have a deal that all their games are reported as 2-1 or 1-2. This way they will both get extra points compared to others who have 2-0 and 0-2 as well.

[Demagog]

Well I also said that I'm pretty sure the same format is used during the regular season, which is a league, although it's not called that.

I guess I just don't see your point about excitement because every game I play is equally exciting.

I know you're dead set on using this format and/or the +2/-1 format, but I at least had to try to convince you. It's pointless to have an opinion if you never voice it.

And I hadn't thought of players exploiting it, but that's probably because I doubt they would take the risk of getting caught and being permanently banned from organized PvP. It wouldn't surprise me if one or two tried to do it, but they'd have to proposition another player first, and if the player they proposition believes in following the rules, they'll get reported and dealt with.

[DrunkDestroyer]

More league organisers? I mean, the BL hasnt really been updated at all since SG added some of the names. It seems a bit out of control with a lot of people joining and then never playing again after losing to BL giants (KDZ Nijlse come to mind ).
At this point, with 30 pages of results and maybe 1/15 of it documented, it doesn't seem like it will end happily for the busy league orgainser.
I shouldn't complain though. IMO the PVP leagues are really great, because I will never be able to participate in events with fixed times. Even though eventually it does seem a bit desperate for the newcomers when there are people with a W:L record of 32:5

[artagas]

Hey!

I would also like to adress the scoring system.
I dislike the current one because it favours volume too much over success rate.

For example in the BL now Killsdazombies has an 0.864 winrate over 22 games (quite impressive) and is ranked behind some people with 0.5xx winrates. Not sure if its a good thing.

Of course a purely pct based ranking would also be bad since people who already have a good winning pct would be discouraged to play anymore games. I propose 2 possible modifications:
1) simply winner gets +1 loser gets -1 points. In other words the difference between your wins and losses determines your score. Still encourages people to put in some volume (you can not win the league with 3 points...) but people with higher winrate will be more succesful.

2) You can either do the current system or 1) for most of the season, then at the end of the season you look at the top 10/8/6 (whatever you like) players and their pct-s in the games played against one another. If some of the top 10/8/6 players have not played yet they are required to play a game after the end of the season. this pct determines they final ranking/final winner.
Or some other sort of playoff system amongs the most active/succesful players that decides the final winner.

Thanks for reading my 2 cents.

[Taparu]

In addition to what artagas said this would make it so that newer players like me could still get a fair score even if they don't have much time for matches. This would also prevent one person from doing say 300 matches and winning only a third yet still winning the league.
Also I think that it would be better if it was +2 and -1 insted of +1 and -1. That way people wouldn't easily go into the negatives.

[Demagog]

Let's start off with an example. Person A has 100 games played and 51 wins. Person B has 50 games played and 50 wins. Should Person A be placed above Person B? Person B clearly did better than Person A. In my opinion Person B should be placed higher.

So, I came up with this: multiply the number of wins by the percentage of wins. Would that work? I could see someone complaining about having played a lot more games than anyone else while having the most wins, but losing due to this, so if that system alone isn't fair enough, perhaps adding one point to the final score per 10 games played would be the solution (could be a different number).

All of that encourages players to play more, while rewarding those that play better.