PDA

View Full Version : swiss reward sistem needs improvement



kartelis
03-06-2014, 08:42 PM
hello,

straight to the problem... i beat my two opponents in a minute and than i lost final match (which was close) and i end up in a 3rd place and didnt get any reward this is happened to me like 5 times now. that is not fair>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls..t..............................

sir_z
03-06-2014, 09:49 PM
There are a lot of problems with the swiss tiebreaker system, but every alternative I've seen proposed highly favors one type of deck over any other, which will hurt the diversity of swiss tournaments and make them much worse than they are now.

So, unless you have a better solution than all the ones proposed before...

sorry, that sucks.

malkorion
03-06-2014, 09:55 PM
There are a lot of problems with the swiss tiebreaker system, but every alternative I've seen proposed highly favors one type of deck over any other, which will hurt the diversity of swiss tournaments and make them much worse than they are now.

So, unless you have a better solution than all the ones proposed before...

sorry, that sucks.

How about this? You leave the system in place, but give the top 3 players prizes. Maybe a bit of gold to the 3rd player or an Emilio's pack.

npavcec
03-06-2014, 11:25 PM
How about this? You leave the system in place, but give the top 3 players prizes. Maybe a bit of gold to the 3rd player or an Emilio's pack.

Exactly.

Even better, give ALL the players some prizes (don't have to be something big, but enough to make a psychological impact on players and competitive atmosphere), which will fore sure motivate them to hang around and finish their all three matches. This is the key, everybody needs to finish their all three matches. I've not been in swiss yet in which at least 1-2 players haven't quit at one point or another. Quits break the "breaking points" system like a bad joke breaks the good mood.

For instance, I particularly hate it when the player which I played first (and/or second) quits after I beat him. This directly hurts my break points accumulation to a point where I can actually win first two matches and end up being 3rd in more cases than not. So, in other words, if you beat someone badly, being this his purpose or not, he can really HURT you by just rage-quiting the tournament.

Proposal for solution by giving rewards to all:

1st - premium 5t pack
2nd - 5t pack
3rd - emilio's pack
4th - 5k gold
5th - 4k gold
6th - 3k gold
7th - 2k gold
8th - 1k gold

I bet this would motivate everyone to play all three of their matches to a big extent, thus making the Swiss tournament in general more fair an accurate in their final ranking.

Also, in addition to that, the ultimate solution for the Swisses would be (beware - this one requires some programming!):
If someone quits, fill his spot with someone who just spent his ticket and entered the global Swiss tournament que. Refund his ticket and give him the spot in the ongoing tournament with an empty spot and a chance to win some gold by completing one or two leftover matches. Ofcourse, his score and breaking points start from zero, and should not be inherited from the quiter.

3rd kind of solution - this one kind of needs a round of simulations to prove it mathematically (I'm just throwing numbers by hunch) - add someone who beats the Quiter in the first round additonal 4 breaking points, and 2 breaking points if the Quiter leaves after second round. This should amend the lost breaking points due to the quiter not scoring anymore for the ones who stay in the tournament. This is lazy-guy solution and would never implement it, but it would fix the problem to some extent. I do prefer solutions no1 and no2.


So, unless you have a better solution than all the ones proposed before...

So, what do you say about those, sir_z?


p.s. I know what I am talking about, used to handle ranking systems of all kinds through my life and career.. :)

ColdHeart322
03-07-2014, 11:06 AM
I find the order of placement is pretty random. While the current system can still reward a player who loses their first match, I don't like the idea that a player who wins their first two doesn't get rewarded apart from the very small chance of the Emilo Pack.

Having a set of rewards based on win ratio rather than random placement would be nice. So maybe all players who got the 2-1-0 get 2,000 gold while the winner gets 5,000 gold. And the packs can be done the same random way.

sir_z
03-07-2014, 09:02 PM
So, what do you say about those, sir_z?

The way I see it, Swiss tournaments have 2 major problems.
1. Not enough incentive to stay in the tournaments results in too much quitting.
2. The tiebreaker for 2nd, 3rd and 4th is something that is entirely out of the player's hands. I can't tell you how many tournaments I've been in where my position was determined by "does my/his first opponent win their third match or not."

option 1 is probably the best solution I've seen out there for the "everyone quits" problem , assuming you forfeit all rewards by not finishing the tournament, but it doesn't really address the problem of "I have no control over whether I finish 2nd 3rd or 4th when I'm 2-1," I don't think the people who are not getting a 5T pack and instead getting 5K gold are going to be just as annoyed as they are now. As an aside, the random disconnects are still going to result in someone screwed by break points. Obviously, fixing this should be an even bigger priority than fixing the Swiss system, but it's been the case for at least 9 months now. I think we need to find a reward structure that rewards all 2-1 players more similarly, and the dropoff from 2-1 to 1-2 needs to be larger.

I think this is on the right track, but it only answers one of the major issues with Swiss tournaments to me.

option 2 really doesn't address either problem, and adds a slew of its own IMO. If the newly added player's score is not inherited from the first player, then my opponent who quit is still destroying my break point score. If we go the other way, and I do get credit for the new player's score, what if my 250 ELO opponent quits, and a 1500+ ELO player gets put in his spot, wins the next two games, gives me +10 break points, why should I be rewarded for that? this just seems like another layer of randomness added into the tiebreaking system,

Also, how do we score that person in the final standings? If your score isn't carried over, then if you sub in in round 3 of a swiss, your best possible record is 1-0 and 5 points, or you can quit as soon as the match starts, move on to a new tourney and bag the 1000 gold for 8th place for doing nothing. I think you'll see a lot of this.


I don't know, the more I think through this the more I think the only solution to problem #2 may be thinking of it as more a feature than a bug (assuming the quitters problem is solved).

wongbak
03-18-2014, 07:46 AM
If you need player to stay at the tournament even after 0-2, you need prize to lure them.

In MTGO, if you play Swiss-Draft, you would get one booster per win. So if you win 3-0, you get 3 boosters. If you lose 0-2 but win the last round, you still get 1 booster. It works in MTGO because the entry fee is Three Boosters plus two tickets (~ USD 11 if you are curious), so the holder can distribute prize more generously.

In MMDOC, because the entry fee is relatively economical, a 3-0 win can only award one booster. So how about this? You get 50 Seals per win, and there is no more 2nd place or 3rd place in the tournament.

3-0, reward a latest premium booster (just like now)
2-1, reward 100 Seal
1-2, reward 50 Seal
0-3, sorry you better improve next time.

Player can get prize no matter he or she played all three matches. If someone dropped before match started, then the pairing opponent gets an auto-win.

I am not skilled enough to join any tournament yet. But from the reading on the forum, it seems that many players disagree the calculation about 2nd and 3rd place. If the Standing is a problem, then re-work the prize structure maybe viable.

malkorion
03-18-2014, 08:10 AM
If you need player to stay at the tournament even after 0-2, you need prize to lure them.

In MTGO, if you play Swiss-Draft, you would get one booster per win. So if you win 3-0, you get 3 boosters. If you lose 0-2 but win the last round, you still get 1 booster. It works in MTGO because the entry fee is Three Boosters plus two tickets (~ USD 11 if you are curious), so the holder can distribute prize more generously.

In MMDOC, because the entry fee is relatively economical, a 3-0 win can only award one booster. So how about this? You get 50 Seals per win, and there is no more 2nd place or 3rd place in the tournament.

3-0, reward a latest premium booster (just like now)
2-1, reward 100 Seal
1-2, reward 50 Seal
0-3, sorry you better improve next time.

Player can get prize no matter he or she played all three matches. If someone dropped before match started, then the pairing opponent gets an auto-win.

I am not skilled enough to join any tournament yet. But from the reading on the forum, it seems that many players disagree the calculation about 2nd and 3rd place. If the Standing is a problem, then re-work the prize structure maybe viable.

1st place - Premium booster pack
2nd place - Regular booster pack
3rd place - 100 seals
4th place - 0 - 50 seals

Booster packs should be the prizes for the 1st / 2nd place. That's the whole point of the swiss. To win packs from the latest expansion.

Zmajoubica
03-18-2014, 11:08 AM
1st place - Premium booster pack
2nd place - Regular booster pack
3rd place - 100 seals
4th place - 0 - 50 seals


100 and 50 seals is much better then pack when you have all the cards in the current expansion.

malkorion
03-18-2014, 11:13 AM
100 and 50 seals is much better then pack when you have all the cards in the current expansion.

Don't take away my chance to get booster packs.

sir_z
03-18-2014, 05:01 PM
I agree that 100 seals is WAY too good of a prize for 3rd place, you'll have players tanking the 2-0 round to hope they get third.

Emilio's or gold works, if it's seals, maybe 20?

nunovix
03-18-2014, 08:25 PM
you could also make it like an elimination tournament...like the 4 that win go on...the four that lose are eleminated...and so on...like quarter finals....semi finals...and final...Who won the final was the winner, the loser was second, and the '3rd and 4th' would make a match to decide who would be in 3rd

Revalon
03-18-2014, 10:01 PM
you could also make it like an elimination tournament...like the 4 that win go on...the four that lose are eleminated...and so on...like quarter finals....semi finals...and final...Who won the final was the winner, the loser was second, and the '3rd and 4th' would make a match to decide who would be in 3rd

Not better than what we have now. In no way less luck dependent.