Well.... maybe pods disappear, and leagues become more of a "how well can you do?" challenge, climbing up the prize ladder as you gain wins, and re-enter the league if you get knocked off by too many losses.
I actually rather like the pods though. It gives me tangible players I'm competing against and makes for a really "big" game if I get matched against one of them. I've had at least one match where the winner of the game was going to take the pod. That's fun! On a business note: Pods make things more predictable for BM. For the leagues that cost pizza to enter, a pod system tells BM exactly how much pizza will be received by every 5 players which allows them to know how much to charge for fees to make money while trying to keep it as affordable as possible for players. (If a pod has 5 players that in some combination receive 75 pizza - 1st & 2nd prize - then any entrance fee over 15 pizza each gives BM a profit.) Knowing the exact numbers means they can (if they choose) keep the fees pretty low and attempt to make some revenue off volume rather than off up-charge. On the other hand, a results based system allows for anywhere between 0-50% of the entries to go 4-0 (and anywhere between 0-66% for 3-1), not a very predictable model for running a business. And while eventually with enough data an average expected result might be able to be estimated, essentially I'd expect that BM would have to hedge their bets until that point and make entry fees more expensive than in the known model.
Yeah, pods make it a league and not just another everyday ratings ladder game. It's important to have real tangible people to measure yourself against. Just trying for wins against an uncaring system is impersonal, cold and boring. Struggling for placing against four people you know by nick and rating makes it personal and gives many opportunities for fun conversations. Comparing, complaining and boasting about your matches is over half the game as anyone who has ever played anything offline against other people knows.
As someone who normally haunts the middle of the table, my perspective is that VP difference for the winner is not enough to break ties. I'd prefer two levels of tie-breaks, like the foooting-ball premier league. They break ties on goal difference and then on goals scored. Whether you choose to look at VP totals first or VP difference, it means the result can still be meaninful for the loser. Take the standings from a league I was in yesterday: Code: RANK NAME WINS TIE BREAK 1 dj 3 11 2 tg 2 8 3 v 1 6 4 EH 1 5 5 c 0 0 I had a chance of second place if I'd won my final game, otherwise I'd stay in fourth. It would be possible for "tg" in second to have 5 tie-break points. In which case, I would be guaranteed second place for a win but have no chance of third, whatever happens. (This is how I read the table first time I saw it. Obviously, I misread tj's tie-break score, but it struck me as a strange position to be in.)
*shrug* I mostly never interact with my pod members, now that there's no match fixing going on. ^_^ Their results are just a randomized benchmark I have to beat to win a prize.
I kind of agree with the idea of just removing pods. For me it felt like a crapshoot in the dark with the match up. Either I got newbies and won the pod (once even with a 2-2 record), get pros (lose with a 5-0 due to being backstabbed over the tie breaker), or get a mix (win / tie with a 4-0 or get lucky and win with a 3-1). Just making it always a 4-0 seems like the most fair option across the board -- although then I guess the crapshoot comes down to who you fight, but at least that's only one random variable instead of two.
It might be, but they're still real people and in all likelihood at least some of them are known to you. One cares a lot more whether one beats TotallyNotAFakeAccount or xDarkElronDx than one cares whether one's score was 4-0 or 3-1 in a cold mechanical void devoid of people. Having it be people one needs to beat generates stories like Stexe's tale of betrayal. That will be a remembered part of game lore from now on for him and those who hear him tell it. That's a lot more exciting and memorable than "the time my league score was 3-1". I get the podmate roulette swinginess downside, though.
That's true and I can definitely see it that way, but ultimately I think the best for the system would be just to have it based on wins. You still have stories of something like "me fighting TheShadowTitan for the very last VP seconds before the game timed out" or whatever -- just not stories about "my pod mate had 3-1 and I just barely got 4-0." It is more about the matches than about who is also in your pod (unless you get matched up with people in your pod, then it has some good epic stories... but that's usually rare).
I will copy my opinion about this system in this thread, as it seems the appropiate one for this debate. While this tiebreaker system may be better 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, because the system forces you to try not to concede vps at all. 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. 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. For the reasons I explained above, I also prefered the option with no pods at all. But now that I see these points I may have to reconsider it. It's a tough one. On one hand, with no pods you have a fairer system. But it's also true that it wouldn't feel like a league and that it's more predictible for BM in terms of prizes.
Without pods new or inexperienced players would have a lot less chances to win something. Everyone is talking about ties with other people who won 4-0 but that is not the norm. The most dedicated players are involved in the forum game but they are not the majority. You will not hear about the elo 800 players who was lucky and won his pod with 1-3 or 2-2. Without the pod system those player would win a lot less and get discouraged very fast. I get it that the loudest players who are proud that they belong to the top ~150 with a ranking of 1500+ don´t want to lose against some noob but it can happen with this system and that is a good thing from the point of the silent majority. If there is such a problem with ties then why not just abandon them. What i read is, that people were quite contend to share first or even second place so much that it was okay for them to stop playing 2 hours of tie games when asked. So just let them share the win and if all 5 people in a pod get a 4-0 win, so be it and if they all 5 have a 1-3 score, that´s even better. And i guess it would work without much cheating, since you play against all players involved in the League and not just the ones in your pod.
How do they have a lot less chance of winning something without pods than with pods? It is still random on who they get matched with in the game. There's one random variable (who they are fighting directly) as opposed to two random variables (who they are fighting directly AND who they are fighting for first place in their pod). There's no reason to believe that a new player can't go 4-0 simply due to being matched against weaker opponents through sheer randomness that has already existed. It is more to do with having lack of control over the people in your pod and the results of people in your pod than your own merits.
I don't know if there will be enough player for this to work, but one lead maybe to have a league standings the same way we have an elo ranking. To illustrate that, and using random numbers, one can get +2 points if they finish first in their pod, +1 for 2nd place, +0 for third, -1 for 4th and -2 for 5th. As people will have to pay a fee to participate, noone can reasonably tank their ranking. Pods will be then filled with people of the same ranking and matched with people of their ranking in the limit of the possible. Not sure if it's possible/viable but it's an idea. Otherwise I am not against the current system as long as 4-0 guarantee a tie for first place
So just keep the pods and abandon the tie breaker like i mentioned in my post. Top players like you don´t have to fear to lose, because some unworthy player also won 4-0 but got a better tie score. More people might get more chests and less pizza but the financial output would be same for Blue Manchu.
You make your opinions sound like facts. Or do you know when the new Leagues will be scheduled or what and how high the entry costs will be or most importantly how many people will join Leagues and how it will effect the revenue of Blue Manchu? I have seen your modus operandi in other threads, you drown the opinions of others in your flood of spam, so just go ahead. Since you trolled me already just feel as you have won, but in the future stick to facts not to fantasy, thank you.
To take up this argument, simply put a new player likely will have to get some luck falling their way to get 1st. Now they can get luck by match-ups, or they can get luck by pod competitors. Remove the pods and you remove one of the ways they can luck into 1st. I realize the initial response to this would be that there are more ways for them to get unlucky if there are more ways to get lucky. This is true, but given the fact that they're a new player, just a "normal" outcome results in a loss for them. So unlucky isn't any different for normal (they already should be expected to lose) they are merely benefited by increasing they're chances of getting good luck.
Exactly. Also, I assume there are more newbies than top level players, making it more likely to find some in your pod (though it will be less likely when they charge for leagues). I believe a straight win-based system would result in fewer/lower prizes given out (it certainly would have for me), but I would still prefer it. And I really hate the current tie-breaking system: it rewards people paired against first-turn resigners and punishes people who beat skilled opponents. I would just allow ties instead, especially if you're charging fees to play. If you must break ties, I like someone's suggestion of using the number of points your opponent got when you won (and maybe your points when you lose). Collusion is still possible, but it takes longer and there's a much greater risk of betrayal, even by accident. And it may even encourage people to report first turn resigns.
I know from league experience that how my podmates do interests me greatly during and after my matches are done. It engages me in the leagues much more effectively than if it was just, "3-1, 2nd prize guaranteed, ho-hum, I'm done, I'll go play some SP". If there's a chance of someone tying or surpassing me, I'm very interested in spectating their matches and speculating on our respective chances of taking home the big trophy. I'll be rooting for or booing (silently) the players in matches which affect my placing. Also, pods get us interacting with each other much more than if they didn't exist. I feel anything which makes the players scheme and kvetch and brag together is good for the health of the game. The multiplayer game is the people and not the items and cards. It's the player-to-player acts and talking which creates strong emotions in us for much longer than we remember a great draw or a successful tactical gamble. We come for the tactical goodness and stay for the crazy, wonderful, exasperating and elating people.
How about: Your wins determine your prize. Getting first place in your pod gives you an extra magnificent chest.
Way to attack the person instead of the argument. =/ And drown out opinions of others in my flood of spam? Uhm... what? Anyway, it is fact because the more people you have winning first place, the less reason people have to continue to pay to re-enter to win the exclusive figure. Even if Blue Manchu decides to make first place not win back at the very least the entry fee, which would be very strange if they did not, then the more people winning first place means the less money Blue Manchu makes. I'm not sure how that's an opinion -- it is simple economics. With pods they have to get lucky twice (weak podmates and weak enemies) without pods they only need to get lucky once (weak enemies).
