I think by having all 3 systems, although might not be much of a difference, but it might be enough to break most of the ties we got right now. Cause in any of those cases just 1 star difference will change the whole out come.
Do you realize you're just suggesting the system that was already in place before the update... but only counting the first 4 games? I think Stexe's suggestion of the Swiss style tie break is the best I've heard so far... but I don't know that what's in place at the moment is that bad. I'm still enjoying the leagues!
Not sure why we need tiebreaks or pods at all anymore; now that players can win chests by playing in the league, BM should have solved the issue of getting people to play extra games—why can't we just switch to a purely results-based prize structure? 4-0 gives you this, 3-1 gives you that...
FEEDBACK: Played Geo this morning. It was still fun and the changed vps didn't alter the feel for most of my matches. I did have one match that I had rather poor draws in my early couple turns and while in previous geo leagues I think I still would have been able to come back, only going to 4 vp did sink that particular match. Still was able to win my pod though. I guess my early thoughts are that it does make it more swingy, but it's not as bad as I expected. If I have any more thoughts based off future matches I'll let you know.
Geomancer with 4VP is a lot better, now just reduce the timer to 15 minutes because it is a annoying timesink, geomancer already sucked the joy out of me after a week. I hope it gets a pizza fee, so i won´t even get tempted to join anymore. Because usually players don´t win 4-0 and why would they even bother to play further after they lost 2 times with your method.
No, I still saw some almost timeouts playing to 4vp. That was the point of moving it to 4, to eliminate so many timeouts, following that up by speeding up the time would then go right back to the same problem (too many timeouts). It's just a slow style game, and as you note, probably not for everyone. Those who do like it REALLY like it though.
Yes, I've always been baffled about why we have pods in the first place. All they seem to do is add an additional level of randomness and stress that isn't needed. Also, could we increase the signup period? Several times (like right now) I log in 15-20 after the signup period ends and can't play, even though I clearly have enough time to complete 4 games (even the old 6 star geomancy).
Hmmm, hadn't thought about signup times much. I think you're right an extended signup period would be nice and be yet an additional way to get the games spread out over the extent of the league rather than potentially leaving players struggling for games at the end. That said, you really don't want players paying to sign up for a league and then complaining that they couldn't play all their games. I do think all leagues but geo could be 2 hour open signup with 1 hour of continued (non-signup) play, followed by overtime. It's probably good that geo is 1 hour signup only.
I was originally on the fence about this suggestion, but I went back and looked at my results and I decided I really don't like this idea. In all the leagues I've played so far I've finished 1st nine times, but only gone 4-0 four times. Doing purely based on win/losses with no pods may be less frustrating by perception, but it will actually likely result in fewer first place prizes overall. Consider that it would actually be possible for 100 people to play a league and no one win a 1st place prize, whereas with pods, if 100 people play a minimum of 20 are guaranteed the first place prize. Wouldn't you prefer the latter over the former? I know I do! Edit 1: I still think the best I've heard so far is to have pod ranks done by: Wins over first 4 games. Tiebreaker: The wins of one's first 4 opponents in their first 4 games. Edit 2: Just more support, in the current league it looks like I'll tie for first, but get 2nd due to points. However, I went 3-1, so on a results based system I still get second. At least in the current system 3-1 gave me a shot at first (and may have given it to me if the tiebreaker was opponent record).
Haven't played Geomancy yet but my feedback on the tiebreaker system currently used is that it is really flawed (granted not as flawed as the previous one, but still flawed). It rewards completely different play styles instead of simply winning. Additionally, it heavily rewards people who get lucky and get swingy matches. I've lost a match because I was playing for the tiebreaker -- I knew that the only way I could place for rewards was to win 6-0 so I played super aggressively knowing that them getting 1 VP point would be the same as me losing the game. That's not fun and is super stressful. It would be like if Chess Elo was determined by how many pieces you didn't get captured after you won... it would really change the game as you'd not have those interesting sacrifice plays anymore. There needs to be a way to come up with a fair tiebreaking system that doesn't change HOW the game is played. I'd say use a system that looks at your opponents' success outside of your games but still in the League. Beating someone who goes 3-1 should be worth more than beating someone who goes 0-4, but in the current system it is more likely to favor someone who beats the 0-4 person by simply getting matched with them through luck.
Ah, an idea that I haven't even yet heard of: The main tiebreaker can be sum of your first 4 opponents' wins. If wins and this tiebreaker are both equal, THEN 2nd tiebreaker might be your stars minus opps' stars (that's 1st tiebreaker atm). And if somehow these all are equal, then players tie. What do you think?
I hear you. I'm always in favour of a win being a win and not having to worry about what you sacrificed to get there. It's also important to keep the tie-breaker system reasonably comprehensible though and as much under your control as possible.
That's not a bad idea, but a fair amount of rework to the whole system. It does have the downside, as others have noted, that a single loss ends your hope of a first place prize. Does that detract from the overall experience? I'm not sure.
I'd rather see my prize reduced over a loss than over giving my opponent a victory point. Close games are the most fun for me, and only being able to get first by completely stomping people discourages players from trying fun builds (in the constructed leagues) and risky plays (in all the leagues). My 2¢
One thing to note is that in comparable systems (mostly looking at Hearthstone's "Arena" mode here), a single loss also ends your hope of the topmost prize, or even any further prizes than what you've already won. BUT, in those systems you can also re-enter as often as you like (and can afford) for another shot.
I think it would be a better system than what we currently have. Although I'm not sure if it is the best system because that still allows for colluding ("you done your basic matches? cool, give me a free win and next time I see you in League I'll give you one too"). I also understand the want to keep things "under your control" in that leaving the tiebreaker up to who you got matched with feels underwhelming, especially if you go 4-0 and lose to another 4-0 out of something beyond your control. It is a complex subject that I'm not sure has a single best answer.
Good point. Let's see how it would have affected me: Current system: 3 figures (I'm super pathetic at Anarchy) 237 pizza 10 epic, 4 magnificent, and 5 common chests If it was first place for 4 wins and fifth place for 4 losses (as opposed to nothing under the current system): 1 figure (but it's the only one I really care about) 175 pizza 7 epic, 8 magnificent, and 9 common chests So strictly worse results, but it would still feel more fair to me.
Yeah, from my experience with Leagues having first place be 4-0 would probably have resulted in less gains overall. I think most of my first place wins were due to being 3-1 or going 4-0 but splitting it with another. Rarely has it been a 4-0 stomp out from what I can remember. But if we change 4-0 to first place prizes what's the point of pods anymore if 4-0 means first place always? Not sure about that suggestion, but I do think it is better than the current tiebreaker system we're using.
