Maybe, but I think that's artificial interest. The only reason it would matter to see how your pod is doing is to determine how to play or tiebreakers. Maybe the answer is a mix of the two like Flax suggested -- prizes are ultimately based on wins but pod placement is for something "extra"?
Yes, these are good points not to remove the pods. The random factors always tend to favor the "weaker" players, so the more random factors there are, the more chances they have to win the pod. So, while it may be very difficult for a 1000 or below elo player to get a 4-0, they could win a pod with a 2-2 and some luck, for example. So if we remove the pods, their chances to get the 1st prize are diminished. The thing I would still change is the tiebreaker system though.
Actually, increasing the amount of randomness doesn't mean it will be easier for a weak player to do better. It should mean the average player should do well as the more randomness there is then the more it will average towards the middle.
Stexe, there is nothing artificial about the keen interest people feel in other people. It is one of the most powerful, basic human drives. I claim keeping that element strong in the game will do it much more good in the long run than making it academically a bit fairer while diminishing the human angle.
I mean "artificial" in the sense that the interest has no bearing on your actual outcome. You could have an interest in anyone's game, but by them showing you a list of other people that you're indirectly competing with it creates a sense of meaning that technically doesn't exist (because their results have no impact on your results).
One's podmates' results have a direct impact on one's placing. The interest in their results stemming from that and the resulting player interactions and emotions would be lost if the pods were removed. A player may not be able to do much about their podmates' matches directly, but they sure affect her. That is enough to matter greatly to the player engagement level of the league system. I feel placing a very great weight on mechanical rules and systems and a very light weight on real, existing human interactions is not good, realistic systems design leading to success. One ignores the human interest element at one's peril. It's "bearing", not "baring (disrobing)" .
Agreed. Even if, strictly speaking, there is no benefit to watching the games of other people in the pod, I am curious how they are doing. It's not just card hunter, it is any competitive sport where the opponents are not just faceless masses. It is, in fact, one of the reasons I enjoyed playing the leagues this week.
Bearing, yes -- my bad. But their results have a direct impact on your placing, but not on how you play. I'm more curious about other people I know than random people in my pod, outside of seeing their games to gauge tiebreakers. I wonder how it would be if the pods were larger, or if they simply had the standing for everyone playing so you could gauge based on that.
Precisely, if more randomness averages towards the middle that means that the distance between the high elo players with great items and the low elo players with poor items is reduced. With the result of the last ones having better chances to win.
Kinda curious of this myself - while I don't know if I'd pay for leagues with the current tiebreaker system, if the devs have suspended them to discuss possible changes to the system, perhaps simply keep them free for a few more days while they discuss? I rather miss them
Your podmates' results don't even have to have an impact on how you play to still be valuable and worth keeping. It's not an either-or situation. You being more interested in people familiar to you (while a completely natural and expected reaction) doesn't mean you're not interested at all in the results of your podmates. This means they still add value. It's easier both in practical and emotional terms to care about 4 competitors than 40. Increasing the pod size would diminish the engagement effect, is my gut reaction. Besides, wouldn't it then almost be just plain old ratings play, not league play?
When the promotional free week is over, it's over. They've already gotten their Mind Hooks deep into us, now it's time to let us stew in our own juices a bit before they reel our pizza in.
I think they are re-tooling some stuff and getting feedback before they launch the paid League version? It would be interesting to see Leagues with no cost but no prizes continuing on until they finalized things though. At least get people who missed the free week to taste some of the action.
