Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[TStar]

Oty ate the rewards codes.  They were good.  Zanz is busy trying to get him back in his cage but when he does he'll get us some new ones right away.

[DrunkDestroyer]

An idea I think could change the leagues, for the better. - Yes, it comes at a cost. Yet, some discussion couldn't hurt.

Players can make an agreement with Player B for his CL Match
[10:16:00] DrunkDestroyer: I hate having to build my decks then realise that it's useless since everyone will just pack flooding. Hey, what if we had a game without flooding, and SoGs?
[10:17:13] PlayerB: Ahup! Yup! That's a great idea! You don't have to worry about flooding at alll in this matchup

95% of the time there is no abuse or infraction, or it is sorted out between players, game is more fun, everyone is happy.

5% of the time, Player B posts a win for that match/duel. Since DrunkDestroyer is a clever boy, he screenshotted both the opponents game and the chat quote. He proceeds to post them in the thread. That match is now void. (DrunkDestroyer does not get a win, or a loss, or anything at all)
The burden of proof always falls on the player who followed the agreement. Without proper proof (proof of agreement and proof of breaking it), nothing is done, and win is recorded as usual.

I think this may make the event slightly more fun.
Probably more fun if it was simplified or made more acessible somehow to make it easier on the player, and especially the organisers.
And maybe even doable?

[TStar]

At first glance it sounds like a good idea, but there are several potential problems with this:
1) Once a match is entered into the results its not very easy to just "undo" the entry, so if the dispute arose after results were updated this would be a headache on the organizers.
2) Even if the dispute arises before that it means standings updates can't be performed until it is resolved and if that drags out at all it bogs down the league experience for everyone.
3) Making a change like this to the rules opens the possibility of players refusing to play matches unless certain conditions are agreed to, meaning players can "stack" their matchups by banning counter cards to certain decks, and because doing that would be officially allowed in the rules there is really no recourse to stop them aside from telling a player they must play games but how to force a player to play more, especially if they are already at or over the 30 match requirement?

This small change has the potential to be a big headache for LO's I think.  I think right now a player who makes agreements and then breaks them would most likely quickly get the reputation of being a liar/cheater and find it very hard to get matches in the future, not to mention non-League drawbacks like finding teammates for PvP events or a team who'd want to take them on in the War.  The "Honor System" I think would do well enough to enforce any unofficial player-agreed bans.

[RootRanger]

I've played at another site where many different game options would count to the same rating.
50% of the players used the standard options.
40% of the players used a slight deviation of the standard option. In Elements, this would be like banning SoG.
10% of the players only used ridiculous options. They were completely different from the standard.

What would happen is that one or two of the small group of 10% would go very far in the rankings with the same playstyle every game, because they played with constricted settings. They were criticized for not having skill, and a lot of people were very mad that they were taking up spots in the rankings.

In Elements I fear that we would have the same problem. Some of the players would only play with their specific ban list, and master that metagame perfectly. They would get far in the rankings, and a lot of the community would be disappointed in them.

[vagman13]

Can someone from the LOs try and contact Zanz for the rewards of the previous league? I mean,come on,we are halfway through 2011/2 and no rewards sent for 2011/1.

Thanks.

[Jen-i]

I like the ELO system - It's a huge improvement over the previous versions.

However I'm finding that it creates a fairly intense environment of rank protection. People start only playing matches they think are easy or play no matches at all. By comparison I had more than double the matches played by the end of CL last season - this time I'm feeling like I'll be lucky to get to 60.

One possible solution to this form of rank protection is to penalize inactivity:
   1) We could go 1 point per day without playing a game - not crippling but requires you stay active - and could decide close races
   2) We could go 10 points per week without playing 3 or 5 games - this could be crippling - but allows people to be away for a day or 2

The problem with this system is what do you do for legitimate inactivity - I propose nothing - just understand your holidays or sickness will make League's harder on you - there are other leagues to come.

One other point of concern - it looks like between 60% and 80% of players between Beginners and Champion's League's this season are not going to make the 30 game cut off. This could mean mass banning and a significant drop in players next season - just want to bring this up for the TO's to consider - I'd hate to see leagues get hurt by the ruling (the intent of the ruling was to stop the problem I just brought up) unfortunately it hasn't worked in my experience and is creating another problem

[TheCrazyMango]

hmmm maybe a league with 6 upps allowed, like an intermediate league. i think it might be to much work, but it cant hurt to post the idea

[RootRanger]

A few of us (TStar, jmdt, me, and others) talked about 3 leagues at the end of last season. There are two main problems with it: there would be fewer reward codes for each league, and there would be fewer players in each league. It won't work until Elements has more people playing. From what I've heard, it's not always possible to find a CL match, and BL is occasionally hard to find.

[TStar]

If all the active players chose to join the Leagues then there would be more than enough people to populate 3 of them.  However, the majority choose not to play so the fact of the matter is there simply are not enough League players currently to make a third League viable, even if we ignore the award code issue.

[Deamon19]

If this is in wrong place for somethen like this please inform me where it needs go   

Lies in Bl shouldnt be allowed cause it allowes for easy wins example   me and photonswarm

Deamon19   that your only deck?
Photonswarm  yes
Deamon19   good

if he didnt lie i would have swoped my deck for nother but he did and not wonting take advantage of it i used same deck things like this shouldnt be allowed thus i dont consider the 2 losses i have from him counted and they shouldnt be thanks ttyl

ps is not right place for this please inform me asap thanks

[TheonlyrealBeef]

You shouldn't ask such a question in the first place xD
Of course people will switch decks, especially if you actually believe your opponent won't
Btw, I think this belongs in League feedback.

[pikachufan2164]

Yes, this is the wrong place -- feedback for Leagues goes in the League Suggestions and Feedback (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7503.0.html) thread.

What happened here was a classic case of mind games. The fact that your opponent gave you misinformation had nothing to do with whether or not you could switch decks. Since you made the decision on your own to not switch, it's perfectly fair game -- you just happened to fall into your opponent's clever trap.