I understand no one enjoys getting whomped... whether it's because of a skill difference, crappy draw, land screw, etc. However, losing is a part of playing any game. Crappy draw or land screw-- better luck next time. Skill difference-- learn from your losses!

I for one have always taken it as a point of personal pride that I'll play any opponent, regardless of my current standing in whatever league. Doesn't matter who it is. Sure, this has cost me points when I'm up against someone like Altren, but I'm also proud of the fact that ~30% of the time I come out on top against him. And I'm sure it's made me a sharper player. I have a lot of respect for players with skill-- in fact-- they're probably the main reason I stay. If I won all the time I'd have moved onto something else by now.

So here's the way I see the current state of things:

1) A high rating discourages most players from playing against you in ALL competitive environments IF they have a choice. Doesn't matter if it's league, shark tank, or draft keep, when people have something "on the line" they'll try to increase their odds in any way possible.

2) A very high or very low rating makes it more difficult for players to participate in ladder.

3) Occasionally newish players will resign to highly rated players FAR too early. That's about the only perk I see.

Given this trend, I would expect the following response:

1) Once players who "carefully select their prey" rise up in the ratings by avoiding people who could potentially beat them, they'll either have to start losing games intentionally, or they'll be in the same situation as highly ranked players.

2) If highly rated players "just want to play the game" they'll be forced to create new accounts to conceal their real identity. I for one have not done this, but if I want to play anything outside of EC, that appears to be the best option.

In recent months the game has evolved such that "rating" is a detrimental badge of honor. If players want to play like everyone else they'll have to don sheep's clothing with the guise of another user name. And maybe even lose to the AI a dozen times to sweeten the deal. Frankly I think players would be even more upset if they got beat by someone with a low ranking who is obviously very skilled and well-versed in TFW. But then again, maybe that would discourage people from picking matches based on rating.

My only idea at the moment:

To improve the league problem, remove the league lobby. Just add a button on the league tab that says something like "Seek League Games", and so long as there are people with that button on, they'll be randomly matched up. It would work something like the similar/any player matchups in the main lobby (except not display that someone's waiting for game). You could still tell who "might" be on from the scoreboard on the league tab, but it would be much more difficult to cherry pick.

I like that idea. Make the button!

_________________

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|

The whole lobby can't be removed just like that can it? The problem is the name-list in the left tab, which I already suggested could be removed: That has the obvious downside though that it would become harder to know whether anyone at all wants to play a league game at a given moment.

And I came up with a better idea: Give varying amounts of points for wins and maybe for losses as well, based on how well the opponent did in the league, that is what was his / her winning ratio when the league ends. The score table would only show wins, tiebreakers and unplayed matches until the league ends.

I'll use Brass as an example how the points could be calculated. When the Brass League ends, points for every single match could be calculated like this: a win gives 13 points minus the number of losses the losing player had in the whole league. So winning against a given player would give 6 to 12 points, depending on how well he did in the league. 12 if he won all his matches except against you, 6 if he lost all his matches and 9 if he lost exactly half of his matches. Losses could give either 2, 3 or 4 points. 4 if the opponent won at least 7 out of 8 matches, 2 if he / she lost at least 6 out of 8 matches, and 3 in all other cases. To be clear, this example was for brass. To make the formula work for Domain, it would just require simple scaling up from 8 to 20 matches.

I believe this kind of system would 1) make each players points a better indicator of how well he did in the league, 2) make any opponent roughly equally desirable to play against, as "easier" opponents would give less points than now, and tougher ones more than now.

So let's look at two players: Player A, who wins all his games and Player B, who loses all his games except for ONE against player A.

This means that Player B would get 12 points for beating Player A. Player A would get 2 points for losing to Player B.

Doesn't that sort of system really punish the better player? Or am I looking at the math wrong?

_________________

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|

First of all, how often do you see something like that happen? Virtually never, not even close. Secondly, the player who won all his games except one would still probably win the league, unless there was someone who won all except one game too, but against tougher opponents, or someone who won all their games. What's the problem here?

Of course the formula I presented is not perfect, I spent only a couple of minutes thinking about it while taking a shower. Might be better to keep points from a loss at constant 3 and give at least 8 points for a win, for example. Still, I think this scheme comes as close to simulating a real league as is possible here. After all, there's no way to arrange matches for every single player against everyone else, which is how a league should work.

I really like the idea of the variable points.

It just needs to be worked out so that's it fair.

If Player A won all his games but one, Player B won all her games but 2, and Player Z lost all his games except for two (against player A and player B), it would suck if Player Z ended up with more points than A or B.

_________________

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|

Also,
I really like the idea of having a button you click on that puts you in the queue to play the domain. Any one else sighed up in the domain league would then have a little message on their screen that says "X players are in queue for domain".
When you click the button, you play whoever else is in the queue, much like the way "similar" works.
Perhaps this should be implemented along with a variable point system like headshot described.

_________________

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|

That would be fairly unlikely, as beating Z would give 10 or 11 points, and it would be nearly impossible for Z to get ahead of A. But yea, Z might get ahead of B if the other opponents he beat were generally much tougher than B's. But both have the same amount of wins, so Z would have a 50% chance to get ahead of B in the current system too. In the system I suggested it would clearly be less likely than 50%. And B winning over Z might have been a fluke or an AFK-win anyway, so it doesn't instantly follow that B should have higher points. Also, having a minimum amount of points for a win like 8 points would make such scenarios very unlikely.

No, I am not stronger than other players, so it is fun to play against me. Maybe they lose maybe I lose. Play and see.

IMHO variable points lead to nowhere. What is the reason? To see how strong opponents did you have? For this is invented a nice system called Bucholz, which is used in the swiss tournaments of chess to determine a winner when more players have the same amount of points.
The idea of Bucholz is simple> add the final points your opponents have.
I'm not sure but I think that it is used in the leagues to determine rankings within the same amount of points and tie-breakers.