[LEAGUE] Problems with the League system

Hey, just thought I'd post some feedback on the League system. It is a ton of fun and really going to liven the game up, but there are a few major flaws.

1.) Tiebreaking after the minimum number of games is annoying and broken. Getting 4 wins and then having to replay over and over to keep your tiebreaker score up is more about who can get the most VPs faster and churn through games than it is about actually doing well. I'd suggest changing it to 5 or 6 matches and if people still tie with the "tiebreaker" points then that's it -- they tie and split the pizza / gold prize. If they want to continue playing just for fun that's fine, but it shouldn't count towards tiebreaker points.

Right now you have a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma going on with the whole "do I want to play 1 more game and break the tie and get slightly more pizza than the person I tied with, or do we just agree to not play any more." While maybe interesting on a psychological level, it isn't entertaining and is very stressful.

2.) Seeing the current standings in your pod can lead to collusion. Yes, colluding is against the rules (it is found under "Reports"), but it is much easier and possible with the ability to see how your pod is currently doing. Essentially, what happens is you see that everyone else in your League is 2 wins and 2 losses except one other person who is at 3 wins and 1 loss with a tiebreaker of 22 (3 wins for 6 each and their loss with 4 VP earned). You're at 3 wins and 1 loss and you're on your 4th match -- you negotiate a deal with your opponent that you'll lose the match as long as he gives you 5 VP points first (giving you 23 tie breaker points). Problems like that can arise if you know how the rest of your pod is doing before your minimum number of matches is over.

-----

I'm sure there are other issues out there. If anyone else has any suggestions or ideas post them here!

 

Is nr 2 a problem?
In the situation you desrcibed the other player can simply play 1 more game to get more VPs. And so on. Although nr 1 is really annoying, yes -.-
It could at least look at win % not amount of VPs.

 

#2 could be problematic if you changed how tiebreaking works.

Additionally, what if everyone in your pod is 2 wins and 2 losses and you're at 3 wins? There's no incentive to win another match, so why not give the enemy a free win? That's another problem I can see with seeing the current pod standings before your minimum number is over.

 

Ok, you are right. But then again it's fun to see how your pod is doing.
Most importantly #1 could be changed.

 

I like seeing how the pod is doing, I'd rather see the system change to make collusion pointless.

 

The "bring your own deck" leagues are problematic for lower-rated players. They're fighting the top of the ratinglist who are using their top-of-the-line items. Basically, newer players have little chance of winning such a league if anyone from the top 100 is in their pod. And there probably usually will be. Should the matchmaking work as usual in these matches? So a 900 player rarely needs to play a 1,600? And that the top 100 mostly play each other to cut down their 4-0 records a bit and give others a better chance?

 

Stexe: #2 assumes the very unlikely case that both you and this other player get matched together on your 4th games.

I do like the first suggestion. I would rather just play a set number of matches and be done, instead of constantly checking back in to the standings to make sure I don't get sniped on the tiebreaker during the last 30 minutes.

Jarmo: That would give players a tremendous incentive to tank ratings before entering the league. For example, Qivril (who won that tournament a couple months ago), plays a style that keeps his rating around 700, even though he's a top-tier player.

 

I don't see that as a common problem. The current community doesn't have many people who'd do that, is my gut feeling. The lowbies being whacked on by highbies was clearly a large problem already in the first Chess Madness tournament.

 

I was planning on starting my own thread about leagues, but since this already exists I'll post my comments here.

I entered last night's Artifact Anarchy league expecting to do well since I've been playing on the test server and knew what all these cards did, and I had even played this specific league more than once. So I should have had an unfair advantage against folks who first heard about leagues a couple hours ago, right? In fact, I lost every game.

Maybe it was luck, in which case each league gives me a 1/16 chance of getting nothing for my efforts. Or worse, maybe it was skill, which means that after playing CH for nearly a year, I'm still one of the worst MP players. Either way, it seems this is another set of figures that's completely out of my reach (along with the beta exclusives and season slimes).

I'll still play the free leagues (when I have time) in case I get lucky and win some pizza, but the way things currently work I cannot afford to play leagues with entrance fees. And if all us below average people avoid those leagues, that greatly increases the chances that the better players will get unlucky and win nothing.

A few possible solutions:

• Increase the number of games to 8. This doubles the time commitment, but even I should be able to win 1 out of 8 games. (On my worst day it took 7 games to get the first MP chest.)
• Allow the extra tie-breaker games to count towards the minimum wins needed to get a prize.
• Instead of requiring 1 win to get a prize, require that you play all your games and never resign in the first round.

 

8 games would be FAR too many. Maybe it was just a bad luck you didn't win any. Your other ideas are better.

 

Artifact Anarchy had incredibly high variance in card draws. You won based on what you top-decked, not based on your skill level.

(e.g., no amount of skill will ever make up for top-decking Impetuous Slash off a Parry, while standing next to all three opponents, which then replaces itself with Massive Chop, while you're holding a Strong Chop, for a total of 40 damage... fortunately, I was dealing that damage, not receiving. Similarly, no amount of skill can make up for not drawing any extra move for the entire match, and being quickly torn apart while isolated.)

 

No, you don't have to get matched together with your 4th. You just have to get matched with anyone who agrees. It doesn't matter who, but you're giving them a free win so why would they argue unless they think you plan to backstab them or something.

 

As neoncat said, Artifact Anarchy is more about luck than skill. There is a bit of skill in there, but the Trait cards are so swingy and random that it really boils down to luck. Don't let that set up disparage you! Try some of the other leagues, since they are a lot more interesting and "balanced" (well I don't know about Geomancers since I haven't played it yet).

 

How about using "number of stars collected minus number of stars collected by your enemies" as a tie breaker (only the first 5 games)?

 

Yes, that's basically what I was suggesting in the chat room earlier. Not sure if it is the best method or most fair (since some builds thrive on winning but not necessarily stopping the enemy from getting VP). Any alternatives people have?

 

Rating of your opponents as a tie breaker. (Maybe as an additional tie breaker if the number of stars is equal.)

 

Or... *gasp* ... why not just have it so that instead of awarding prize based on rank in a pod every given result guarantees a certain prize? >_>
"4-0 gives this, 3-1 gives that..."

 

"number of stars collected minus number of stars collected by your enemies" - this looks good
"4-0 gives this, 3-1 gives that..." - this look good
And well, almost anything would be better than the qurrent system. It shouldn't force to play (many) more games. Rating suggestion is more tricky. With high amount of players we have during the free week it would work well but later, when leagues might well have less than 10 players total (1-2 pods), players with higher rating would be in a clear disadvantage since they can't play against themselves to increase that tiebreaker.

If really wish to use rating, it could look at the sum(rating_of_your_opps)/sum(rating_of_all_your_possible_opps) as a tiebreaker instead.

 

I think the leagues are fun and different.
Dont see any problem with the 2 pre-made decks. Sure you or i can have mor elucka nd drawn better but that doesnt matter much if you play badly wasting your good cards..thats what playing with geo teached me,same for the Artifact Anarchy league.

My only problem is with the tie-breakers. Keep the games at 4 but put a cap of 6(or 8) games we can play for the tie breaker