Here are my latest league results: I am getting the first place so not complaining but I feel really bad for Jacques. Maximum tie break points is 24 (4 x 6 - 4 x 0), that means Jacques gave a total of two VP to his opponants over four matches. That's almost a perfect score and he probably played all his matches perfectly. Now imagine someone in the same situation who actually paid to participate in the league. Do you think it's normal that he doesn't get the top prize after winning all his matches with great skills? I don't so my suggestion would be the following one: everybody in a pod with a 4-0 score tie for the top prize no matter what. I don't mind the tie break points being used in other cases but here it's kinda sad.
I dissagree. The new system is there for a reason. Since now every vp matters, you need to hunt for them every game, even if you are 3-0 already. And there's nothing unfair - you gave less vps away. (Also your paying argument is weird - the entrance fee has nothing to do with it.)
The kid has talent, I have been probably more lucky with the match-ups. Plus ties at 4-0 would encourage different play styles, you could play any setup you want as long as you win all your matches. And as for the paying argument, that makes the thing even more frustrating. A guy who pay for a shot at a new figure (or else), do everything right and still don't get it?
Well, someone else did it righter this time, isn't that what leagues are all about? A contest of skill? Be perfect or else! I get your point, though. It's a rough deal to be on the losing end of such a happenstance. It depends on how lenient Blue Manchu wants to be. I don't know that leagues are about making sure as many as possible get a prize, though.
Thanks for the compliments, Squidy! It bothered me a bit that I just got killed one of my characters in one match and that was why I lost the 1st place, but I imagine it would be more frustrating if you actually pay a fee and expect to recover some pizza. While this may be a better system than the previous one (or at least a faster one), there are 3 things that I think are problematic: 1) This one is more personal. I don't like the fact that this system forces you to play in a different way than you usually do. Today, for example, I knew that my guy was going to die but, even that I could save him, I didn't move him away because I thought it was better to apply some damage with him and then kill my opponent's warrior with another character. I always concede a vp or even a kill if I'm sure that I will be in a better position later. Now, that way of thinking is over, I fear. 2) This kind of tiebreaker system could benefit certain builds over others, which could lead to less variety in the game. In Wicked Waterways, for example, a good FS build is more than viable, but even in a great FS build that can win fairly consistently, it's more than probable that at least one of the guys in the party gets killed because of their own FS damage (along with some damage dealt by the opponent). Usually, and I know because I played FS in mp before, this is like a sacrifice you make to achieve the higher goal that is winnin the match. So it feels weird that certain kinds of builds like that are being penalized when they are also perfectly capable of winning, just at a higher cost. This could mean that most players prefer to play lots of WW and rely on luck, as it can be at least a more "clean" way to win (meaning that you don't have to make necessarily a life sacrifice in order to win). 3) This is the most problematic thing I see with this system. Squidy has already said something about it, it's about the match-ups. Let's make an example: there are two 1400 elo players who tied in 4 wins in the pod. But while 1 of them fought against all 1000 and below rating players, the other one had to face one 1600 and one 1700 players, and also two below 1000. So, they both get 4 victories each, but the 2nd player had less tiebreaker points because he had considerable stronger matchs, which led to winning by few vp's difference, while the other player won every match easily. Now, who is this system rewarding? The one who got 4 wins and was capable of defeating some higher elo opponents? No, it rewards the one that got the easier macth-ups. This is the problem I see with this system, and it can be very unfair. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about my case, I knew about the rules previously, so may be I should have played in a different way. I couldn't care less if I got 1st or 2nd (I would care more if I had to pay a fee). But I'm just trying to emphasize how unfair this system can be because all of these factors.
Seems to me that if league play promotes a different meta than regular competitive play that is all to the good. Different decks and stratagems will prevail under a different set of constraints. Every real world league has tough and easy match ups, they are just part of what makes it a gamble to enter. Longer leagues with more matches would go some way to reducing some of the luck of match ups, or the reliance on VP difference, but would result in more drop outs. A different system for determining tie breakers doesn't eliminate the problem or encourage more variety, it just shifts the meta to favour a different solution, not a better one. Eliminating the variables that account for luck merely stultifies the league system, reducing its appeal.
I'm sorry, but that doesn`t make much sense. It's not about reduccing the luck factor of having easier or tougher match-ups. That is ok, as long as you don't extra- penalize the unluckier players by saying: "Hey, you don't just have to beat this better ranked opponent, but you have to do it perfectly too". As you said, in every world league you have the risk of meeting someone very tough early on. BUT, in those cases you just have to worry about how to manage to win the match, it doesn't matter if you do it tightly or not, and it shouldn't. That has the problem of splitting too much if there are multiple ties, but it would be at least fairer.
Today it happened to me again in Wicked Waterways. 4 wins but less tiebreak-points. The worst is that I had really tough matches this time but I was able to pull them off, while I can't say the same with the other player with 4 wins. At least with his last match that I spectated, he got into the vp in turn one and his opponent didn't do anything for the first 5 turns. Of course it was an easy 6-0 win. Man, I'm starting to hate this tiebreaking system, I can't see myself paying much pizza for leagues if this goes on. I really like Flaxative's proposal of just giving prizes according to the win-lose results instead of this silly pod system.
If all scores (4-0, 3-1 etc) were to give fixed prices then it wouldn't be tournament and pods wouldn't have a reason any more. I wouldn't be against it but I'm not against the current system either. And I do know what you feel: such loss in my strongest league. (like who gives only 0.5 vps to opps per game in geomancy :S) Edit: Still very unlikely..
