[Suggestion] Have losses contribute to league tie break points too

Right now, unless you get paired against someone in your league, it doesn't matter how close you came to winning, as long as you lost. That loss contributes nothing to your ranking in your team.

I feel like you should be rewarded for having a close, hard-fought match with tiebreak points.

This would also have the effect of causing fewer ties overall, which would slightly reduce the # of chests given out (since ties are treated as both having the higher rank). This might also encourage people to finish playing all 4 games because of fewer ties. Right now you might decide to stop playing if you see that you're tied for 2nd, but would need to win 2 more games to get first.

I'm assuming these are positive side effects, although maybe they're not.

 

Simply put, the difference between your Victory Points and your opponent's gets added to your Tie Break Points, regardless if you won or lost. (this is exactly how tiebreaks work for some real-life team sports, btw).

You win 6 VPs to 0: you get +6 TBPs
You win 6 VPs to 5: you get +1 TBPs
You lose 3 VPs to 6: you get -3 TBPs

As an extention of this, I would suggest a win by Inactivity Timeout and early Resignation should award no TBPs to the winner, but give -6 TBPs to the inactive/resigning player. This is in order to inhibit (at least to some degree) exploits involving alt accounts.

 

That's not a good idea. Little to gain but if someone simply hates his opp for whatever reason or wants someone else in his pod to win, it's very easy to just let your 10-minute timer to tick off when you'd be losing anyway.

But that... why not. Don't really care honestly

 

Not quite.
You lose 3 VPs to 6, you get +3 TBPs, not -3 TBPs.

Otherwise you're discouraged from playing games. Let's say you've played 3 games and are at 3 wins, 10 TBPs. You have 1 match left and are 1st in your pod. Someone else in your pod has 0 games left, and is at 3 wins, 9 TBPs. If losing gives you -TBPs, then you are actively discouraged from playing that 4th game because it can only hurt you.

All TBP gains should be positive.

 

Ahw I see what you mean now. I think I might have read the suggestion too quickly. Yes, it makes sense, sorry for the misunderstanding!

Basically this would mean every match would award 6 TBPs total.

match result 6 to 1: winner gets 5, loser gets 1
match result 4 to 6: loser gets a, winner gets 2

I like it

 

This would negate the "margin of victory" tally for the winners, which is the main purpose of the tie-breaker.
How about awarding 1 point if you score a VP in a loss? Those who lost 4 but scored VPs would then finish ahead of those who didn't play at all.

 

That'd be actually the point abouta Tiebreak system.

Since players get tied only if they won the same number of games, it only makes sense the player who performed better (overall, i.e. including lost games) gets out on top. I.e. consider the following

Player 1 wins first match 6-0
Player 1 wins second match 6-3
Player 1 wins third match 6-0
Player 1 loses fourth match 0-6

and

Player 2 wins first match 6-0
Player 2 wins second match 6-4
Player 2 wins third match 6-0
Player 2 loses fourth match 5-6

Under the current system, Player 1 gets awarded 15 TBPs, beating Player 2's 14, because only winning games add up to the TB. That's despite the fact Player 1 was outright destroyed in his fourth game, as opposed to Player 2 losing a very close game.

Under the suggested system, Player 2 would win the TB with 19 points vs Player 1's 15 (he didn't score any VP in game four). Hence, when it comes to TBs, the player's overall performance (in both winning and losing games) is taken into account in a fairer way.

It wouldn't negate the "margin of victory" tally at all but, rather, would make your overall performance more valuable, even for games where you end up losing. A 5-6 loss would be proportionally more valuable than a 1-6 one.

When it comes to players not playing a single match, the current system works like this "If you don't win at least a game, you automatically get last place". Suppose a player plays 4 games, but lost all of them for 0-6. Even awarding a single TBP if at least a VP is scored wouldn't help that player with winning the tiebreak vs campers. I would rather change the rule to "If you don't play at least a game, you automatically get last place". Should work better.

And yes as an additional effect, as Harwin pointed out, counting VPs from lost games would also make ties even less likely.

Edit: props to Feleran for pointing out miscalculations!

 

I think the reason you have to win at least a game to not get last place was to prevent you from signing up multiple accounts to the same league and then using the fact that they're "tied" to push them both up (5 players in the same league with no games would be "tied for first". If playing is the only thing that's required, you could queue and concede instantly.

 

True that as well

 

It think it would be 15 and 14 for the first instance, but let's change the numbers and look at the gap. (If I understand the proposal properly.)

Player 1 wins first match 6-0
Player 1 wins second match 6-0
Player 1 wins third match 6-0
Player 1 loses fourth match 0-6

and

Player 2 wins first match 6-5
Player 2 wins second match 6-5
Player 2 wins third match 6-5
Player 2 loses fourth match 5-6

Current: Player 1 = 18, Player 2 = 3
If all VPs count as positive TBP: Player 1 = 18, Player 2 = 23
If only the difference is counted for wins, but all VPs count in losses: Player 1 = 18, Player 2 = 8
And Player 2 would recieve more TBP for the loss than for the 3 wins, which seems a bit screwy to me.

 

Pretty much. There was a bug on the test server where only 2 of us signed up, didn't get to play any games, and tied for first and got chests. The possibility of collusion (nobody play and we all win) prompted the "No Win = Last Place" policy. Multiple accounts hadn't been brought up at the time, but I think it should be addressed now because I believe it's happening.

 

Atm those two players wouldn't tie.

It's not screwy, because (in your example) Player 2 would lose the TBs vs Player 1 anyways. 3 outright wins alone are still worth much more than a very close lost game + 3 very close wins.

 

I'm with Sir Veza here, if you're counting VP different ways depending on whether you win or lose (Win=difference, Loss=points accumulated) that's a little screwy.

 

I don't mean all VPs count as positive TBP, I just mean TBP are always positive. So if you lose 5-6, you gain 5 TBP instead of losing 1. So there's no penalty for playing and losing over simply not playing at all.
TBP for wins would remain unchanged.

Scarponi - does it help to think of it as every match giving out 6 TBPs (for a 6VP match)?
1-6 of those will go to the winner, 0-5 will go to the loser.

 

I didn't see the clarification before my earlier post. Looks very reasonable now that I understand what you meant.

 

Not really.

Another issue, based on the suggested system you could have 1st place in the pod have 3 wins with only 3 TBP, but 2nd place have 2 wins and 22 TBP. Which results in 2nd place then complaining that he clearly out played the 1st place guy since a perfect win is worth 6 stars and he is leading by 19! Therefore he should be in 1st and the system is broken.

 

that's completely normal, Scarponi, and can indeed happen under the current system too. Like in the following:

Player 1: 3x wins for 6-5 (gets first place with 3 TBPs)
Player 2: 2x wins for 6-0 (gets second with 12 TBPS)

Obviously, the first and foremost metric for determining the overall standings would always remain the # of wins. I mean, people say/think a lot of different things, but I guess it's only natural the player with the most wins should always come out on top, regardless of TBPs.

Tiebreaks, on the other hand, are only accounted for... breaking ties.

 

Oh! Duh. That's what I get for posting first thing in the morning. Though I will say with the current system its not very common for someone with less wins to have more points, in the proposed system I'd think it would happen much more frequently.

 

I think either the current or the proposed system would work well enough. Without weighting the skill of the competition it's all pretty arbitrary. The thing I like best about the leagues is that they seem more relaxed than normal MP. Act a fool and have fun, etc. I hope it never gets to "pod by ELO" groupings and a serious attempt to determine who played best for their ELO. I don't play MP enough, or seriously enough, to get into a match with (and have my butt kicked by) top-tier players except in leagues.

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but I think part of the reason for the "no tiebreak points for losses" system is to prevent colluding. In a "tiebreak points for winners and losers" system, if one player needs one more win to place 1st in their pod, while the other player just needs 2 tiebreaker points, collusion becomes a stronger possibility.

I'm not sure if that necessarily makes it the better system, since rewarding for hard-fought matches is neat, but I think it's worth pointing out.