Double post! Just to clarify, my above post was not addressing headshot's idea of making the prize structure more even. I think that particular suggestion would work, because bribery would be less warping when the benefits for doing so are low, so that even if it happens it wouldn't be a huge concern.

Of course, what is characteristic of the current domain league is that prizes are concentrated at the top. So if jed wants to retain that characteristic of the league, then making the prize structure even would be out of the question.

The idea of anonymity was proposed to solve another problem as well: that of people not wanting to play their matches against certain players that have a higher ranking or better reputation.

I think you may be on to something with having league points add up over time to give you entry into a bigger tournament...perhaps something like this:

Once a player have played more than 100 games against other players, they are eligible for the Super League. (This is to prevent players from creating a brand new anonymous account to use in this format)

Upon reaching Super League eligibility, points a player earns in any Domain League are added to their Super League points. When a player has 400 Super League Points (i.e. gets the top spots in 4 Domain Leagues, or plays all of their games in several leagues), they get entry into the Super League.

The Super League would be held once every three months, and users with enough Super League Points get to join for free.

Details still need to be worked out.. but how does that idea sound? It should encourage players to play all of their games, even if they lose them, because the points will add up after time.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I'm pro anonymous matching, but have it so that you can see if there are other players waiting for a match.

Especially this domain, I've seen 4-5 people in domain idling, I ask each for a match and none responds, but then they go play one another. I understand not wanting to play a 'better' player, but my deck was pretty average this domain with very few creatures.

I think the main issue is that it's so easy to always play against the 'worst' players. there's no incentive for good players to play good players and truly figure out who deserves to be on top of the heap. good players will trounce the mediocre/bad players and never play each other. anonymous partially addresses this, but another measure would be to limit how many times overall a person can play another (2 per week or 5 over the domain, for example)

The bribery thing. well, that's something that you just can't do anything about. you can make rules and enforce crackdowns, but there will always be ways around it. And honestly, I think it stems more from the highly exaggerated payout structure than anything else. if the difference between places wasn't as huge, there would be less incentive to make a bribe (because the bump from say 2nd to 1st would be less) and less incentive to take a bribe (because you'd be sacrificing more in tossing the match). this would also incentivize more people to play since they'd be more likely to get something back.

besides, if 1st and 2nd are at the same or similar point tally - as is very often the case - does one deserve almost 50% more payout? the answer is of course not, but that's how we do it now. also about 50% of the people playing get nothing. in other words, more evenly distribute the payout structure and you'll foster more people playing, and less cheating.

Doiron, about the more evenly distributed prizes, did you check my suggestion?

Would be good to know what people think about this. If most domain-players like it, maybe Jed could make it so, because the system is really very simple and working. But maybe it's already too even? The payout rises linearly from the bottom. Maybe some exponential behaviour would still be better? Like this:

Let's say there are n players again, and the amount of money in the pool is P(n). Then every player gets k^2*a, where k is their placement counting from the bottom (last one would be 1 and 1st n), where a = 6*P(n)/(n(n+1)(n+2)). This works because the sum 1^2 + 2^2 + ... + n^2 = (n(n+1)(n+2))/6.

With the linear version everyone would just get k times a gold, where k is their placement counting from bottom, and a is a constant gold sum (depending on n). In the squared version everyone's prize would be a times k^2. Opinions? Jed?

I think we have the same brain, but I didn't read that post.. sorry there are lots and I should be studying for finals

No problem, I should spend less time with the game and the forums too..

And I forgot to mention Doiron's suggestion of limiting the number of matches against a given player per interval AND the whole league is good I think. But I also think the numbers have to vary by the number of players. Per interval, it could be 3 for leagues with less than 15 players, 2 for leagues with less than 25 players and only 1 for bigger leagues. Then for the whole league, it could be 3 for leagues with 30 or more, 4 for 25-29, 5 for 20-24, 7 for 15-19, 9 for 10-14 and unlimited for smaller ones. This was just an example, numbers might need tweaking.

The new official "Cheating" Policy will be:

Manipulating your ranking, ladder points, domain points, or any other point system within TFW for any reason is considered Cheating. This includes, but is not limited to, manipulation for the purpose of gaining more gold in the ladder, in the daily tournaments, in the Brass League, or in the Domain League. This also includes, but is not limited to, the buying and selling of wins or playing your own accounts against each other. Punishment for such actions will be determined by TFW staff and may include, but are not limited to, immediate and irrevocable forfeit of your entry fee, immediate and irrevocable forfeit of all cards bought in the Domain, loss of all points earned in a League, or loss of all points earned in the ladder. Determination of Cheating shall be made by TFW staff. Decisions by upper staff are final.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Wow, this is pretty crazy, I didn't realize all this was going on.

But anyway, I think evening the prize distribution is a great idea. I thought this before I realized people were taking advantage of the system anyway. It's a shame to see half the league having unused games because they feel eliminate after the first period. I did well in domain, but I'd gladly take a lower reward if it meant it was more fun for people to battle for prizes in the middle of the pack. The top players tend to be double rewarded anyway: I got great cards in the pack I got, so I was able to win a lot of prize money (and my ranking went way higher than it should).

I agree with the anonymous pairing, too. I felt guilty sometimes playing a low rated player (or one doing poorly because they had a bad deck). Of course, I would still ask them if they wanted to play! I found I always wanted to play someone that gave me a high chance of winning, or I wanted to play someone just ahead of me to try and knock them down. Conversely, it was easy to want to avoid players just behind you in the standings. It seemed that the last week or so it was almost impossible to get a game with anyone besides the top players anyway. But I think that tendency to want to have an advantage in playing is always there (especially when you don't have tons of cards yet!), so an anonymous pairing system would make that more fair.

That's a bit of a harsh broad brush, isn't it? From that statement, my not caring about rank, and not playing enough to maintain my rank could potentially be construed as "manipulation"... since my rating went so far down (high uncertainly*(playtesting goofy ideas in EC + getting whomped in KC)) that I could actually play a few ladder games against newish players. I 'semi-competed' (only played a few games) in the ladder once ever, and I earned ~13 gold.

Clearly, I am in violation of this new policy and must immediately forfeit my ladder winnings.

agreed. if this is the definition of cheating, everyone who's ever played more than a few games is a cheater. ever intentionally not play a match in a league? cheater. ever play sun over and over again to boost your ranking? cheater. and fun.

hell, even playing sars ai would be considered cheating.