Leagues and League points, My concerns
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 9:22 am |
As you'll probably know I am loving this game to the point of thinking about it all the time. So forgive me in advance if it looks like I know it all. I don't know wnothing, I am just an old time boardgamer and videogamer who spent too much of his lifetime thinking about rulesets and such, so know I have an opinion about everything. But please, feel free to ignore me.
On with the thing about Leagues: In the last few days I tried to figure out how Leagues and League points system works. I couldn't understand the average thing and the rounds thing. Finally I grasped it but yesterday night my confusion struck back when I saw Fish Heads jumping at 42 points! How could that be possible, if the best race possible awards 28 - 30 points? Then I understood (I guess) that weekly, when the round is over, a new round/week points are added to the points you "secured" in the last round. First, I think this should be better clarified. Maybe in Intructions, but even better in the League table page too. Second, and more important, talking with some fellow deathracers in the lobby, it turned out that your weekly(round) average is actually just that, an average of your weekly races. This means that, if you place first in your first race of the week.. then you are golden! There's simply no point in running more races for that week as you can only worsten your average! That's unfair for two reasons: a) If someone placed first in his/her first race and decide not to race anymore for the week, unless you place first in your first weekly race too, you have NO WAY to catch up for that round. b) it's unfair toward the guy who placed first! Being the leader for the week, you have no interest in running more races and actually you are discouraged to do so! You are already the first and can only worsten your position risking pilots. Why should you do that? For money and gaming you can compete in other leagues, but for the League you are the weekly leader in, you are basically "invited" not to race anymore for the week. Now, IF ALL what I get about the points system so far is correct (and please tell me if it isn't), how to solve it? Here's a possible solution, without changing much. To get ranked in a round (still assuming a round is a week, going from Friday to Friday, but I am still not sure about that) you have to race AT LEAST 5 races. 5 races in a week isn't that much and they can beter represent a true average. If you race more races then you'll have a better calculated average and you can race as many races you like to try better you weekly score, but this way unless someone races 5 first places in his/her first 5 races (and in such case I think his/her first place is deserved), there's always room for other players to catch up on the first by running more events trying to improve personal weekly average. I think I explined it pretty clear (although in my usual broken English). The system as it is now rewards running your first weekly race at the best and then NOT racing anymore for the full week and cutting out everyone else who didn't win their first event. The system as I propose it rewards any driver who raced AT LEAST 5 events and scored the better average on that. I don't really think you should be ranked in a League if you can't even partecipate in 5 events in a full week. What do you all think? P.S: No, I am not counting on winning the League. I am not good at all 
|
||||
|
Alocalypse Posted May 14, 2007, 10:01 am |
I pretty much agree with what you said and I was going to type up a similar post if I would have come up with a better solution to the current league system that would give players who do less races but do good in them a chance to be competitive aswell.
The average from 5 races is certainly better than average from one race and the average is the only way I can think of to balance a league system where players can have a different number of races and still need to be ranked equally. Also I remember reading a discussion about this in the suggestions forums (link). And the only other way I see would be a hard limit on the number of league races you can do (daily or weekly) and have most events that spawn be non-league events. But I don't see this having much advantage over the average system (I think I would prefer the average out of 5 idea to this) |
||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 10:18 am |
Interesting topic that one.
Point is, and it's a very important one, without a hard limits on how many races you can race (and hard limits suck) you should NEVER take the best results, no matter how many of them cause that would only reward who can spend lots of time playing. The idea of a pure average (as it is now) is good, but there's no way you can get an average out of 1 (one) race! I said 5 but it could be seven or three or whatever, although I think three it's too few and it could be too easy to get 3 first places in the first three races, while it should be a little more difficult to score five first places in your first five races. Plus, as I said, this way wouldn't cut off VERY casual gamers (who can't run five races in seven days?) from running in League events and getting money for it. It just prevents them from being ranked in the League. As previously and extensively noted, one thing is rewarding casual gamers too, another is rewarding a guy who just run 1 race every 7 days and get first in the League. I don't think it's fair. I stand, politely, with my at-least-five-races proposal. Plus, it's a very small modification to the actual system so it should (but I don't know nothing after all) be easy enough. |
||||
|
*JD_Basher* jd.basher@charter.net Posted May 14, 2007, 10:21 am |
From what I've seen, You have a good chance at winning the cash and trophies available. The league points 'average' might need some tweaking. Granted, IMHO. |
||||
|
*viKKing* Posted May 14, 2007, 10:52 am |
Another burning topic.
This one comes regularily back... As you may guess, it has been longly debated during the beta period (even the open one). And mainly by me. What has been choosen, is what fits the best the audience targetted: casual gamers. We don't want people to need to play so many races to get involved in the game. And don't forget, leagues are open to non subscribers. If you are really looking for fame, head on professional events; they are better paid and brings back much fame. Despite all the point I raised against current averaging system, I'm not looking to change it; and will support Sam on that point. What we miss in fact, is a professional league, that could require different rules, like the one you mentionned. And that could certainly be added, very quickly. 
|
||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 11:01 am |
"Five races" is "so many events"?
At least make it four, or even three! Is it so bad if an ultra-casual gamer, who can still play, race, and earn money, don't get ranked in the table if he/she doesn't sign in at least say four races? It's not fame that I seek, just some kind of balance. As it is the league is a joke. And I would love to partecipate in pro-races but they are: a) too few. I am not that casual but I am never online, apparently, when they happen. b) too expensive, again I am not THAT casual but I am not even near to have the dough needed to race there without risking to get back to zero in just one race. |
||||
|
Acierocolotl Posted May 14, 2007, 2:17 pm |
Yes. I'm one of these fabled casual players, with a certain amount of random time available on a daily basis which I can't predict. I can generally squeeze in enough rounds to meet my three basic Somerset league requirements. I'm not interested in doing fifteen a week, that's for blamed sure. I'm all for there being more leagues, some of which carry greater burdens for the player to maintain, just as long as there are league(s) and maybe casual one-off affairs for more casual players. |
||||
|
*viKKing* Posted May 14, 2007, 2:32 pm |
We have to check that. I also noticed they weren't so many, and they seem to only happen on the same time schedule (cycle)... which is bad. |
||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 3:17 pm |
Gosh. Make it three then.
There must be a line between "average points" and "I wanna win the League by racing just one race and that's it for the week so you can only tie me or get screwed". As someone else pointed out in the other topic, while the "at least three races" idea could drive away some casuals (why? they can still play!), the actual system fosters NOT PLAYING for a week if you come 1st at your first weekly race. You can't consider DarkWind with the actual numbers. If this game will ever have more than 200 regular users, you can bet on 12 rounds of League with about 10 players all with the maximum score possible. For 12 rounds. It's not rocket science. An average obtained with 1 number is not an average. Again, Acierocolotl, given that you could still play anyway... what's so bad if there's a slight requirement to have your League score ranked, being it that you race 3 times a week? Do you complain when you find out that you need your cars, or money, to build a team and go scouting? Now THAT'S something you can't do without dedication, while the three races rule doesn't change your gameplay experience at all. At all. It's just that you, supposing you can't run 3 races in 7 days, won't read your name in the League table. That's it. Is it so gamebreaking? Here's another idea. Whenever you complete a race, even if it's your first, your points GET added to the League weekly table. But you receive a notice telling you that until you complete two more, your score won't "secured" (meaning it will turn to zero by the end of the round). This way, players would have the chance to see their name in the League Table anyway, and it's their choice if they want/can play a couple of races more and "secure" that score, or let it vanish by the end of the week. It would add another factor: (mild) addiction. I mean, if you know that your score could vanish if you don' t play a couple of race more... wouldn't you play those two races?
And still, the total is a whopping 3 in seven days, not twenty or so. Bottom line: the actual League structure is broken, and proof of this is that yesterday I finished 3rd in my first weekly (round 2) deathrace and now I am not sure it's good idea to race anymore for this week, because if I don't snag 1sts and 2nds places I can only ruin my score. The actual system invites me NOT to play in League until next Friday. This doesn't help to have more populated races, if you ask me :| That said, sorry if I sound "irky". When you try to make yourself clear in a language you don't know well, people told me you often sound aggressive. I am sorry if that happened, it wasn't my intention. I love this game and I love those who made it a reality. If I had any soare cash I'd send it to you right now as a thank you. If I were rich I'd finance you. You go guys! |
||||
|
*Toecutter* Posted May 14, 2007, 3:28 pm |
OMG, not this old dinosaur again 
Trust us guys, after many months of heated debate this was the best compromise that we could come up with to balance the "no-lifer plays every minute" type (read:speedealer  )
and the more casual "I can only squeeze in a few events a week or the wife will kill me" type...without the uber-player running away with the leagues...
well mate it is a Pro event after all....if yer riding on the edge of bankruptcy then just maybe yer not ready to compete with the big boys yet...make some more money on the league events and build up a nice cushion before racing against the "400 car garage" guys
Anyhoo let's just leave this ol fossil buried eh? 
|
||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 3:29 pm |
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the points system of pro races the same as the regular League? I mean, if I snag a first place on my first weekly pro-league deathrace... am I supposed to race again to see if I can worsten my score and let others catch up on me? What's the point in pro racing if they are as broken as stock Leagues, plus I risk my own vehicles? I know this is stupid and kiddish, but people happens, and if they can do something kiddish and stupid they usually do. The more players Dark Wind will get, the more likely this scenario will be. I am not describing my behaviour, I play out of fun, not to win. I am doing the devil's advocate cause I can't get any fun out of the League table as it looks so fake to me. |
||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 3:33 pm |
But why is this a dinosaur? Why is this such a big deal? Isn't 3 races a good compromise between no lifers and wife will kill me?
It's not like if you can't do 3 races you are out of the game. |
||||
|
*Toecutter* Posted May 14, 2007, 4:01 pm |
Well pro events aren't league events, they're one off events, no points, just cash....
The dinosaur bit...that comes from this being a really really old topic that had been debated to death already... As for the bit of forcing players to race more than once a week, an unreasonable requisite with no real benefit for the league...besides with the new points system it doesn't come down to doing a 3 of events but whether or not you get into the big races with lots of vets where-by everyone involved is risking a "sure win" against the npcs and going for the big points.....I think we can see this round of leagues swinging back and forth between a few players this time 
Well that's risk then isn't it? do u try to make more cash by running more than one race a week, do you try to compete in just one league and use the other 2 for cash making, or do you sit on a good points standing and hope you make a decent bit of cash at the end of the round...these are all choices that add a bit of spice to league system and how quickly one grows their gang... So the system isn't broken at all...you just have to make choices as to what is in the best interest of your gang, points for a big lump sum, or rapid fire cash making running alot of events or something inbetween |
||||
|
*sam* Posted May 14, 2007, 4:34 pm |
Interesting debate here.. and as toe/vikking and others have said, it is one we have been through before. Believe me, the current system is a *lot* better than what we used to have.
But it's not easy balancing players with lots of time against those with very little, and give them all a fair chance of winning. The new system of raising the points in an event that involves multiple veteran subscriber gangs has hopefully helped to make things less predictable. Also, since there are 3 leagues, then if you do well in your first event in one, then you can always drop that one and concentrate on the others for the rest of the week. There is also plenty of wilderness activity you can do to make use of the time that you "cannot" compete in your league. Plus, the structure of the ladders is such that there's no disincentive to doing as many of those events as you wish. I could certainly make more professional events happen, although that may reduce the number of humans entering each one..? Having said all this, making it an average of 3 would not necessarily be a bad thing. However, it would certainly cut out some of us though - the more casual players such as myself - who only manage two or three events in total most weeks. |
||||
|
*Speedealer* Posted May 14, 2007, 4:39 pm |
hey!
Another thing to note is that points increase per event with how many vets are in a race. If I get 20 points in a DR, I may not want to do another until the week is over, but I will be worried there's a 3 vet DR going on with 34pts up for grabs. Now, I'd like to get in on that if I could and one the things the developers have been trying to do is get more human players per event which I think this structure does. I'd rather do 1 big event with 3 or more vets than have to do a minimum of 3 events per league.
|
||||
|
Alocalypse Posted May 14, 2007, 5:18 pm |
I guess the problem with the system is that it might feel like you have to game the league system to do good and not play the game - while it's a good part of the metagame it doesn't feel right.
And if 3 events is too low for some people then you can always use some kind of a confidence percentage so that players with less than the minimum amount of races still get *some* points although greatly reduced. For example: 20p average after winning 1 race = 20/3 ~= 7p in the league 20p average after winning2 races = 20*2/3 ~= 13p in the league 20p average after winning 3 races = full 20p in the league or you could make it 1/2 points for 1 race and 3/4 for 2 races or whatever adjustment would work out best. There's also the possibility of using this in reverse to slightly help more active players who feel they're at a disadvantage for doing more races so people who've done more than 5-10 races get a slight (10-25%) bonus to their average if it's not 20p already. You could make the % dependant on number of races somehow so people who do even more races get a bigger benefit but it should probably be diminishing so someone doing a ridiciulous amount of races and scoring below average couldn't get 20p somehow. However all this is much easier said than balanced. So figuring out the actual numbers for the adjustments in a way it pleases everyone the majority could get tricky if this is any use to you at all. |
||||
|
*Toecutter* Posted May 14, 2007, 5:55 pm |
the other problem with the 3 race min is that it's for 3 leagues which means 9 events per week...a little stiff for the guy like Sam mentioned only gets to play 3-4 events per week...as it stands there already is a 3 race min, just spread across 3 leagues... | ||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 6:10 pm |
The races with more vets and more points are an even bigger problem to me. I love the idea and I think it should stay, but it needs (in my humble opinion) the said tweaking, to avoid what I'll explain here:
What if the famous "one and only" race that you win is the one with a lots of vets in it? What if you get 38 points in your first race? Worst, what if you ARRANGE that? Not now, but let's imagine that DarkWind gets really famous and get flooded by munchkins and powerplayers. What if you and some of your friends have some "veteran" accounts to spend just to increase the point (I am not even touching the money part) payout? And why do you all care if someone can't get his/her score in the rankings but don't care if I have different playtimes from everyone else and won't ever be able to race with other veterans? I would be cut off from the big points loot.. wouldn't that be even more unfair? If someone winning a veteran filled event has to average it with a couple of other results then he/she retains the great win/amount of bonus points but it's still a beatable score. If you can grab 38 points and go home with the loot, then it's frustrating for everyone else 
In my opinion, you have to think to the less exploitable system possible while granting fun and chances for everyone. All that said, I trust you and your choices. Because if you managed to put together something this good, then it means you can definitely end up with something working for Leagues too. But on the other hand, I hope you won't underestimate the "League" part as opposed to the RPG/Managerial part, cause to many people (not me) the concept of ladders and rankings is a winner. And if that doesn't work right, or if they feels like it's broken and/or exploited and/or exploitable then it will crash. More on this, you can expect lots of people doing multiple accounts, one (free) to race "perfectly aimed and scored first races", and one to play the complete game, and racing League events without worrying about the average. In fact, I am thinking about creating another one myself. And that's a bad sign :| Once again, please don't take my opinions the bad way. I love your (Sam, Vikking and everyone else involved) work so far. |
||||
|
Falconeer Posted May 14, 2007, 6:12 pm |
By the way, I like Alocalypse ideas (although a bit too complex and the reasons why I discarded something like that myself in the first place) for players attending too few events, but I won't use the opposite rule. No rewards for attending many and more evnts. That's your choice and your personal challenge against your average.
|
||||
|
*sam* Posted May 15, 2007, 5:33 pm |
Yes, we are concerned about the exploitable nature of the 'bonus points for events with multiple veterans in' feature. Extra checks could certainly be put in - things such as IP addresses.
The whole idea of forcing you to be a subscribing veteran to increase the points was mainly to stop exploitation. Another suggestion is that we make it so it takes longer to become a veteran in the first place: 50 events has been suggested (as opposed to the current 10). |
||||
|
Acierocolotl Posted May 15, 2007, 6:16 pm |
With all due respect again, I'd like to think that operating on a gentleman's agreement is probably for the best--that maybe rushing to solve problems that don't yet exist isn't an ideal situation.
I'm not entirely convinced that somebody would buy multiple accounts and then throw races with those backup accounts for the sake of gaining some points in a tournament which, at the end, simply mean a little extra virtual cash. If somebody wants cash bad enough, the field combats remain profoundly more lucrative. Should this game become flooded, particularily by the less-than-desireable, the income generated would probably be enough to permit Sam (and possibly also others) to dedicate themselves to coding fulltime, which would permit solutions to problems only then arising. And as for the initial problem: If you win your first race of the week and elect to not race again in fear of points, well, that's a hamstringing of your own design. |
||||
|
*Toecutter* Posted May 15, 2007, 6:33 pm |
Exactly! nicely put Ace
|
||||
|
Alocalypse Posted May 22, 2007, 1:53 pm |
you could always slow down the league a bit so it's a minimum of 3 races per 3 weeks - same activity required or actually it might be even better for *really* casual players since they can play 2 or more races per day and be set for up to 3 weeks.
Sure the league would run and finish a lot slower unless you change the number of rounds, which is fine as it is, but it'd require consistently doing well in races and it should make getting max points in the league harder. I'm not sure however if the change would be significant enough to really make a difference compared to the current system - it might in fact make it worse if you'd do all 3 of your "good races" in the first day and then decided to not race for 3 weeks because it'd not be worth the risk. Also from the old thread on this I really liked the idea that gave extra points (or diminishing returns for doing the same thing over and over and over again) for trying racing on different tracks or with different car-track combinations - it'd mean to even have a go at the max points you'd need to be skilled on multiple tracks and multiple cars (and with 3 weeks to pick the races it might be more feasible for casual players to do this too?) Also thinking about it retiring is much more of an issue to casual players with an average based system right now than to more active players who can easily throw in a few more races which they wouldn't necessarily need to win to up their average a bit (they'd be less screwed with the 3 race average I think/hope) Anyway the more I think about it the less confident I am that there's a real workable solution to this and more likely the problem lies in that there's no stock-non-league races for active players to do without messing up the average, but I'll throw these thoughts and ideas out there anyway in odd case some of this is useful. I guess eventually, once DW has more players you can implement more league systems with different characteristics so everyone can find something to their taste such as leagues with fixed number of races per week or 1 race per week in which everyone who wants points must participate in, pro leagues with a fixed budget for repairs, knockout style tournaments etc, etc the possibilities are limitless really. |