[Suggestion] Make losses count for tiebreak

Sorry, was responding via phone and I'm not fast on those tiny keyboards (big thumbs), "free loaders" was my short hand way of identifying those who enter but do not play, I did not mean it at all pejoratively. Simply was trying to point out that requiring a game played to get any prize might cause more problems than it solves.

 

No additional games played, and poorer rewards for those who don't play? Man, I just don't get it....

Are you assuming that you have to play a game to receive any prize at all? That is incorrect, totally off from my OP...

Anyone can enter a league for 50 g, log out and come back 4 hours later for 3 magnificent chests. All I suggest is that if you play a few games and earn a few stars you should get a few extra chests, maybe. If you earn them, that is.

It's not like there are a fixed number of chests per pod or something. You aren't having anything taken away from you....

 

Sir Veza was responding to someone else's proposal of requiring games be played to receive prizes and I think you read it wrong.

 

Yep, what peonprop said. (Thanks.)
And I wrote, "poorer rewards for those who do play." If you're in a pod with 2 non-players and win 1 game, you're guaranteed 3rd place or better. It won't matter much to very good players, so I like seeing a low elo player in a pod with a couple of people who won't be playing. Its good to be able to give a helpful nudge. It's disappointing when I see they played 4, won 0, and ended up in 5th place, which is why I support counting victory stars in losses only for players who have no wins.

 

The efford or time it takes in most leagues to even get one VP is quite high. So the chances that somebody would make that efford to get one one more golden chest should be quite low.

I still think the current system is sad for those who play and still get fifth but the possibilties of collusion are minimized. Because atm there is no incentive to to play at all if you just plan to resign.

 

There's no punishment for resigning, either. I don't care if you quit when you get a certain opponent/characters/cards, or if you're quitting to give away "free wins" , you're cheating the system and I hate when that happens. I want to play, to win and have fun. Not to get a chest for 5 minutes of clicking because two people insta-resign against me.
I'd rather everybody fight to the last man. No more of this cherry-picking free-win stuff. People collude enough now, as it is. It's frustrating.

 

You will not be able to make everyone play like you want no matter what you do. In fact, you cannot make anyone play like you want. People will do what they will do. You don't get to tell anyone how they should play or that they're playing wrong. Everyone is free to play exactly like they want to no matter what you think about it. Deal with it.

 

I think that having those who go 0-4 getting 5th place is better than having these deals all around again "give me 5 stars and I'll surrender".
So yeah, losses can't this easily give tiebreaker points. It might be possible to make a better but complicated system for tb points but simple solutions are usually better. I say let it be as it is.

 

You think I'm butthurt or something and I can't deal with a few jerks doing things their way? People will always abuse a system, or not. That's fine. The system is the actual problem.

I don't get how people can believe that things are ok "as is" and they should never change.

I mean, Card Hunter was "fine" for months before Snoozi was implemented. That was totally fine, you could log in , play a ranked match and see who has the patience to waste 20 minutes of time and who would quit and try and play an actual game. Deal with it.

Card Hunter was "fine" before the nerfs, too. It didn't matter that nimble strike was broken, it was the best card and if you didn't have any good items with it than you couldn't compete at a higher level, scrub. Deal with it.

If there is a change that can be made that will improve the game, I'm all for it.

 

Alright, I'll bite for this one, as one of those 'sign up for 50 gold and don't play anything'-people.

What's the goal of the leagues?

If it's just to act as a gold sink for players to pay out 50 gold, then it's working fine. Lots of players pay out 50 gold, and grab their three chests a bit later.

If it's to encourage actual participation, I'd have to say I think it's failing. In my pod in the geomancy league that just closed, out of the five entrants, only one player had played any matches with thirty minutes left on the clock. He/she had played three games and won one. They were in first place, with four people in fifth place. That looked absolutely fair to me. So I figured I'd try and play. Never played the geomancy game, but who knows, maybe I'll get lucky? Well, obviously, the first game was a slaughter, with me only getting 1vp. the second game went better, with me being 3-1 up and then losing two guys to lose the match. I probably wasn't going to win that unless my opponent had had an abysmal draw on that last round, but damn it, I did get 3VPs!

But I've still got fifth. Well, yes, I've probably got slightly better at this matchup (better than knowing absolutely nothing about it? Definitely!). Is that a reward? No! Nor is that a reward by the standards of most people, I think. Getting some kind of acknowledgement of my four VPs and the thirty-five minutes I played would be a reward. Instead, I've got "you played thirty-five minutes and get nothing, be happy with it!" Does that encourage me to play more? No. If I played enough, I might win a game sooner or later. Maybe. But how many hours of playing will I need to put in to get something better than fifth? The only people playing are people who are better than me, how does that encourage me to join in? It really is a much better use of my time to pay my 50 gold coins and go and do something else.

Well, by now it should be pretty obvious that I think in the case of a tie, VPs awarded during a losing match should count toward the tie-breaker. If that happens, it's worth my time to play. I may be bad at PVP, but I can get *some* VPs in a match. If I only need one more VP than people who also lose everything they play, then I'll have a motivation to participate, and to grab every VP I can squeeze out of the game, as will everyone else. I assume that would be true of at least some of the other people who don't participate, too. The funny thing there is that if you have more people like me participating, we'll sometimes get matched against each other, and have a real chance of winning. That will whet people's appetites for success, too.

On the other hand, collusion has been a problem in the past apparently? (Seriously?!? Why would people do this?) That's not a good thing in any sense. So why not combine both the best proposed systems.

Offer a tie break system of two numbers. The first number is the total number of VPs scored against you in matches you won. The second number is the total number of VPs you scored in matches you lost.

The presentation could be simple enough. In the league I just finished, mine would be presented as something like 0/4. The first number is the points scored against me in the games I won (*coughs*) and is the first number checked for a tie-breaker. If that is also a tie, the second number is checked. I strongly suspect that people will be much more reluctant to collude in giving the other player VPs after they've lost a couple of tie-breakers because of it; they're not giving something away for free ("makes me feel like a good person!"), it means you're probably going to lose something ("NOOOOOOoooooooo!"). In my experience, people are much less generous when they think they're losing something.

I don't believe this system is overly confusing, but it does provide a compelling reason for people to play (fight) for every VP they can, both winning and losing; just one may be enough to get a better reward. That encourages participation and engagement.

If you say the system's not broken, I'd have to ask you what you believe the leagues are for? To me, they should be a way to encourage people to join in more, and I don't think they're working at present.

 

If one wants to win a better prize, one actually has to win a game.
It's a hard thing, but fair.

 

Colluders are the worst...

Earning a greater reward for playing and losing vs just entering a league and not playing is good idea, I just wish I could think of a way to implement it.

 

I'm not arguing the fairness of that, though I don't think winning tiebreaks on VPs earned/lost is in any way unfair.

As I asked, what's the point of the leagues? If they're there to encourage participation; they're not working. Every pod I've been in has had between two and four inactive "players", including me.

 

I think the purpose is just to have people log in. Whether they play leagues, MP, SP, just chat, whatever. If they log in, there is a chance they'll decide to do something and stay a while. I've played in bar bands off and on for over 40 years, and it looks like a similar technique.
The luck of the pods is what it is. One win may get you first, but Scarponi has won 4 and taken 5th place. I'll sometimes play a game if it looks like a win would net an epic chest, sometimes not.

 

Just as a side note, leagues are the only game mode where you don't have to win to get loot. Normal PvP and SP modes will not give you anything for losing no matter how many stars you earn.

 

Well, if that's the case, they're probably working fine. I've been paying close attention to the results of the pods I've been in since I first posted and I'd say it's pretty normal to have four out of five players as non-participants.
What's verging on tragic is where there have been five non-participants and then after a couple of hours, one person starts playing matches, probably thinking they only need to win one... and loses all four. And still gets fifth place with the rest of us non-participants.
Fair? Yes, just as fair as life is generally, but I do feel sorry for someone putting that kind of effort in.

 

Some call it practice. If it involved wind sprints, push-ups, and stadium steps, it would be tragic.