[Suggestion] Make losses count for tiebreak

OK so this is what my pods usually look like:

Rank Name Wins Tie Break Wins to Prize Played Remaining
1 SomeTryHard 2 /////// 11 /////// 0 /////// 4 /////// 0
2 Jade303///// 2 ////// 7 / ////// 0 /////// 2/////// 0
5 MrMcNogames 0/////// 0 /////// 0 /////// 0 /////// 4
5 NewguyItry ///0 /////// 0 /////// 0 /////// 4 ///////0
5 PlayedWellNowins 0 /////// 0 ///////0/////// 3 /////// 1


So, why do the people that actually play leagues get 5th place with the people that don't play at all?

Please, I've heard people butthurt in the lobby chat for wayyy too long. Give tiebreak points equal to the number of stars you earn in every game, win or lose, regardless. So each enemy you KO, each victory star you earn, goes towards your rank.

Also, the "Wins to Prize" Column serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

I think the wins should take precedence but I strongly agree with counting tie breakers even when you loose. It's really frustrating trying and loosing 4 games and get the same reward as those 0 games played...

 

As a MrMcNogames, this sounds good. Anyone who plays games and can't get a star still deserves to tie for last. Hard, but fair.

 

If you play games but can't earn a single star, yeah, you get nothing over a player that doesn't play any games, as unlikely as that is.

Now if every star you can earn counts... people will play a bit harder. And that's a good thing!

 

http://forums.cardhunter.com/thread...ntribute-to-league-tie-break-points-too.6095/

 

I'd wager against having 4 losses give additional prizes. That would lead to people just going into games, rushing for a VP, and then forfeiting.

I do think that there needs to be alternative ways to earn tiebreaker points -- issues I've addressed many times since its conception. The main issue being that it forces a different type of playstyle, where knowing how many points you need might make you do foolish things simply to maintain VP for tiebreaker instead of going just for a win.

The idea of counting VPs earned during losses as tiebreaker points was one I suggested when the system first came out. Not sure why it wasn't implemented -- but I can only assume Jon wasn't interested in it?

 

Jade, you should also consicer the people who don´t want to play 4 games in such timeconsuming leagues as Geomancers, Ooozeball or just any league they don´t like.
Usually it is enough to win two games, sometines just one to get a purple chest. And that is enough for me and i noticed, a lot of others.

So, if you did well and had some luck, you only need to play one or two games and you are done with it.
If the losses would also count towards the tiebreak points, people who play well get punished.

And about the people who play and get last because they don´t win. Why should they get more?
If they play, they earn experience for the next time, that is incentive enough.

 

OK I consider that fair. You only "have to" play 1 or more games. To do better than 5th, anyways...

This is true. You win X games, and less than 2 other people win X games or more, you all get 3rd or better.

Wait, people who play well get punished if you count tiebreak points for losses? How does that make any sense?

That's the problem. If you play fairly in a few games but don't get any wins, you get "experience" but no better prize for effort. Honestly, the lack of league participation NOW is bad enough that I would like to have a little more incentive than the "experience" of losing a few games.

I'm aware that there are flaws to every system, however simply slapping a "5th" on every player that joins leagues to play but not win is a little unfair.

Heck, even when 2-3 players in a pod win 1 game each and then stop playing is a problem, since they deny other players wins by not playing.

It's complicated but fixable.

 

I will elaborate, but i fear i am getting dragged towards a bridge.
If i play two game and win it 12-0, i did rather well and somebody needs at least 2 wins to get above me in the pod.
Usually i am satisfied with that, because i have a fair chance to get 1st place or at least 3rd with a good but minimal efford.
If losses would also count and someone plays four games and gets 2 wins and with 12-8 but got another 5 or more points from the games he lost, i would land behind him in the pod.

That way the other player who grinded more points in his remaining games gets rewarded for playing worse but more games.

Why fix something that works. To appease the usual complainers?

Here is another possible outcome of your suggestion:
Two players from different pods play against each other and one needs a win and the other only tie points. Now they can collude, so that each one would get the benefits.
Something similar happened in the beginning when Leagues were new.

If you are really only worried about players who lose a lot, just show them your QD guide and make guides for the other leagues.

 

I understand. How about if points gained in losses only counted if the player had no wins?

 

My suggestion (that I've made before) is to have the tiebreaker be the sum of points your opponents earned in all 4 of your games, regardless of who won. That way close games against tough opponents count more than first turn resigns. (Wins still trump tiebreakers, and resigns or timeouts do not increase your opponent's points to 6.)

I'd also like to require players play at least one game to qualify for any prize (they don't have to win it).

 

You're rocking the boat. Non-players are currently a benefit to those who compete. I can see a point to this, but I can't see who would benefit from the change you propose.

 

Possible outcome:

Rank Name Wins Tie Break Wins to Prize Played Remaining
1 SomeTryHard 0 /////// 1 /////// 0 /////// 1 /////// 3
1 Jade303///// 0 ////// 1 / ////// 0 /////// 1/////// 3
1 MrMcNogames 0/////// 1 /////// 0 /////// 1 /////// 3
1 NewguyItry ///0 /////// 1 /////// 0 /////// 1 /////// 3
1 PlayedWellNowins 0 /////// 1 ///////0/////// 1 /////// 3


We can list a lot of combinations and variations of the system but there will always be a downside for some players.
Atm the only ones who have a disadvantage in the opinion of some are the ones who play but don´t win compared to the ones who don´t play at all.
That is a very acceptable minority and in my opinion they don´t deserve more.

 

First, that. My Response:

Alright, so let's delve into this a little deeper.

You play two games, scoring 6-0 both times. Now, either you dominated both games or your opponents quit/disconnected (and IMO, disconnects should not count as wins... but that's another matter which bothers me greatly, for another time).
So you played 2/4 games, and scored 12-0 or 2 /12.
Now another player comes along, getting two wins with 6-4 in each game, scoring 12-8 or 2 /4 with the current system.
Then, he proceeds to play two more games, scoring 5-6 in each game, which I would like to count and thus bringing the player's score up to 2 /14 and beating you out of your place.
Now, you might have played perfectly in two games, earning 12 stars. But I would suggest he played BETTER, scoring a whopping 22 stars worth of points over 4 games.
And therein lies the key- you scored 12 points with less effort, but you can still play one or two more games and easily beat that player's score, thus earning your place.
That's what it should be about, is earning your wins.

Next:

You misunderstand the system, players with no wins CANT get first, they can only place better by comparison. IE, in this situation they all tie for 5th, but if each player got different tie break points (1,2,3,4,5) in this pod then they would place 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And with a result like that after 1 game, I see no reason for the 4th/5th players not to play another game!

Apathy is the worst crime of all, friends. Getting more participation in leagues, more games in ranked multiplayer, it's all for the health of the game.

 

Unfortunately this would only require free loaders to queue and then instant resign a game which merely increases the number of wins by resign which doesn't help the game.

 

OK so instant resigns + not needing wins to place are bad things. I'm not sure how strict we could really be with resigns, whether they be intentional or accidental, but like I said, losses should continue to not count towards 1st. Wins take priority.

 

Basically you want to force people to play more League games.
The current system works very well, good or lucky players get better rewards than the ones with a surplus of free time.
That is the way it should be.
Any suggested new systems offer a lot more possibilites of collusion than the current one.

 

I agree that most proposed changes offer collusion issues which are probably why they can't/won't be implemented, however I also think that encouraging more play is good for the health of the game. I have no problem with someone who plays all their games having the ability to pass in tiebreaker points someone who didn't as long as wins still have priority.

 

Nope. This argument failed last time too, as I recall. These are pod leagues and don't take into account the opponent's strength. They're supposed to be simple and should not be taken too seriously. We have ranked play for people who want to take games too seriously.

Apathy about a game is the worst crime of all? You're piling the fertilizer a bit deep, friend.

Free loaders? Freeloaders, by definition, wouldn't pay the entry fee. At worst we are enabling other players to receive higher rewards than they deserve. I don't see that as a problem. If the devs do, they should require a game to be played to receive any prize. I won't queue and resign, I just won't enter. I suspect many others would do the same. End result, no additional games played and poorer rewards for those who do play.

 

I think it's worth reposting this from the older thread.