Sign in to follow this  
Mr Chips

Give end of season rewards based on highest achieved rating?

31 posts in this topic

One of the big reasons a lot of people don't take many risks in higher tier tournaments is that they don't want to risk losing a big chunk of rep. They may also stop playing tournaments entirely once they reach a certain tier.

Both of those issues could be resolved if, at the end of a season, rewards are given out based on the highest rating a player reached during a season. Rather than what their current one is.

This would mean once players reach their desired tier/rating, their achievements would be secure, and they have the rest of the season to either try and top it or just enjoy tournaments without worrying about what their rating is or will be near the end of the season.

 

Edited by Mr Chips
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2017 at 1:30 AM, Mr Chips said:

One of the big reasons a lot of people don't take many risks in higher tier tournaments is that they don't want to risk losing a big chunk of rep. They may also stop playing tournaments entirely once they reach a certain tier.

Both of those issues could be resolved if, at the end of a season, rewards are given out based on the highest rating a player reached during a season. Rather than what their current one is.

This would mean once players reach their desired tier/rating, their achievements would be secure, and they have the rest of the season to either try and top it or just enjoy tournaments without worrying about what their rating is or will be near the end of the season.

 

You have some valid reasoning, but I'm conflicted with the concept.

I like the finish line approach PP has in place. The last two tourneys I've ended up in the platinum tier. The first tourney I made it to diamond, but I made some ill-advised decisions and dropped back down to platinum. 

In your defense, I would have loved to secure the diamond rewards. Although, I wouldn't have any incentive to keep playing ranked games. One can argue that reaching diamond doesn't offer alot of incentive to keep playing anyway, unless you're trying to rank high on the leaderboards.

So the "season's best" reward approach is more suited for players who reach platinum or less. With your concept if a player reaches platinum, but drops down to gold the player will still get the platinum rewards. There's still incentive for that player to continue playing ranked games with the hopes of reaching the diamond tier.

My main concern with a season's best reward approach is that, IMO, it decreases the intensity of ranked games. Your right that players in higher tiers play more conservative, but I think most seasoned poker players prefer that. If a player prefers to play more liberal they can always play unranked tourneys. When I play unranked tourneys the games rarely last as long as ranked games due to more, sometimes ill-advised, risk taking.

Lastly, if the reward system is changed to "season's best" I'm sure the forum would erupt with comments about the risk takers who decrease the level of good gameplay.

Edited by DaWiz_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DaWiz_ said:

My main concern with a season's best reward approach is that, IMO, it decreases the intensity of ranked games. Your right that players in higher tiers play more conservative, but I think most seasoned poker players prefer that. If a player prefers to play more liberal they can always play unranked tourneys. When I play unranked tourneys the games rarely last as long as ranked games due to more, sometimes ill-advised, risk taking.

Lastly, if the reward system is changed to "season's best" I'm sure the forum would erupt with comments about the risk takers who decrease the level of good gameplay.

Allowing people to be rewarded for the highest rank achieved will mean less conservative play, not more. The reason people play so conservatively is because they don't want to risk losing their rank. Especially when they are close to the next tier.
At least this way once they reach a tier they know they can start playing less conservatively - because they know their achievement is safe, and they can try for the next tier. Or if they reached diamond, just enjoy tournament play without worrying about what their end of season tier will be.

I seriously doubt the forums would erupt, the higher tier the match the better the skill level and thus play style. It's not as if gold or platinum players are suddenly going to start going all in with A2. If anything this will mean there are more high tier matches and thus more high skilled games. Because people won't be sitting on their ranks waiting for the season to end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The winner is ALWAYS the person who is the leader when you cross the finish line!  The last man standing.

He who has the most points when the game is over wins. 

We should change this???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Farmer John40 said:

The winner is ALWAYS the person who is the leader when you cross the finish line!  The last man standing.

He who has the most points when the game is over wins.


Except that makes no sense. This isn't a race, it's a series of poker tournaments, in which only the rank held at the end of the season counts.
So if you reach a high rank you can sit on it for weeks and still get rewarded. How does that logic fit into your totally unsuitable race analogy?

In this case it absolutely isn't the 'last man standing' it's the person sitting on the highest rank.

Yes...we should if it improves it - which it would. Unless you like knowing there are plenty of platinum and some diamond players, but none actually playing tournaments, because they don't want to lose their rank before the end of the season/race.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Chips said:


Except that makes no sense. This isn't a race, it's a series of poker tournaments, in which only the rank held at the end of the season counts.
So if you reach a high rank you can sit on it for weeks and still get rewarded. How does that logic fit into your totally unsuitable race analogy?

In this case it absolutely isn't the 'last man standing' it's the person sitting on the highest rank.

Yes...we should if it improves it - which it would. Unless you like knowing there are plenty of platinum and some diamond players, but none actually playing tournaments, because they don't want to lose their rank before the end of the season/race.

 

Again... you make valid points. In another topic I suggested that the devs implement a participation deduction for players who sit on their rank. I felt like this would increase activity, but I later reneged because I ran out of chips and couldn't get into a game. Although PP could benefit with players purchasing chips. In my case I played ring games to increase my chip count. Obviously everyone hated the sound of my ideal anyway lol.

Maybe if PP offered participation rewards more players in diamond would stay in the mix, because the only players sitting on rank are in diamond tier for the "most" part regarding console. Participation awards can be clothing, accessories, table items or refills, etc. Also, I look at the leaderboards periodically and to be fair some diamond players still participate in the tourney.

I still think the current reward system is fine as-is. IMO, season ending leaderboards matter. It's not just about reaching a higher tier, it's also about maintaining your rank. Additionally, in a sense tournaments are a "race" to the top and if I maintain my platinum/diamond status throughout the month I wouldn't be happy with another player receiving platinum/diamond rewards if they end the season in a lower tier. Maintaining my rank is key to reaching the next tier and the current reward system supports that theory.

 

Edited by DaWiz_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Maybe if PP offered participation rewards more players in diamond would stay in the mix, because the only players sitting on rank are in diamond tier for the "most" part regarding console. Participation awards can be clothing, accessories, table items or refills, etc'

We certainly both completely agree on that. I think adding unique items would be a much bigger incentive to players to try and obtain ranks than chips and a name.

 

'it's also about maintaining your rank'

Absolutely, which is why the second players get to their target rank they stop playing, because they don't want to risk losing it (especially if it was hard to get to due to there being barely any high tier tournaments to play in). If you take away the need to protect the rank, and thus a lot of the risk, it allows people to keep going after they've reached a certain rank, or at the very least still enjoy playing in tournaments without a fear of what their end of season rank will be.
 

'I wouldn't be happy with another player receiving platinum/diamond rewards if they end the season in a lower tier'

Why though? That's completely arbitrary, why is someone winning a few weeks or even days before you something that displeases you? It's no different to someone getting to a high tier two weeks into a season, then doing nothing for two weeks and getting the rewards anyway. Which is exactly what is happening now (on PC).
At least this way when the player reaches their ideal tier they have a reason to keep playing all season, and not just sit on their rank.


'Maintaining my rank is key to reaching the next tier and the current reward system supports that theory.'

So you reach one tier, do nothing until the end of season. Lose maybe 50 rank points purely because it's a new season. Then start again. Or you could play all season and get to the highest rank you can, and if you lose it keep trying to get it back until the season ends.

The current system totally works against anyone who wants to push for a high tier, because once people get to a high rank they just sit on them, so there are suddenly no high tier tournaments but lots of gold players who either have to risk silver (or more likely bronze) tournaments for the sake of trying to get to platinum.

As you say maintaining your rank takes priority over actually playing in tournaments and trying to increase it. It is ironically self defeating when that very behaviour limits how able you are to actually play high tier tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point. I think overall PC players vs console players have different PP experiences. The PS4 player base is sizable compared to PC. I've only played in the silver tier once a couple months ago. I spent some time in the gold tier, usually right after provs. The majority of my time is spent in the platinum tier with my ultimate goal of reaching and "maintaining" diamond status.

It seems as if the PC player base is a little stretched out, and tourney, obviously, relies heavily on player participation to obtain the needed activity to rise through the tiers. 

Additionally, if a player reaches platinum, for example, but ends up in the gold tier end of season they "should not" be awarded the same as a player who "maintains" their platinum status throughout the tourney with the hope of reaching diamond. You can most definitely dispute this reasoning for players who intentionally sit on thier rank, but we don't have the data to know if that's really the case.

Also, if a player puts in the time and effort to reach diamond, for example, the "devs" have made a decision to let these players sit on their rank. As it stands, I'm ok with that. Some people have busy lives or life events that keep them from participating in the tourney all month long. Although, that's why I suggested some type of small non participation penalty, like a weekly estimated 10pt deduction (1.5pt a day) for lack of activity. So if a player is sitting at 1315 mid tourney, for example, and they sit out for 2 weeks they'll be deducted 20 pts (more or less) and will be downgraded to platinum. I think players will be more inclined to play more knowing their ELO rating decreases slowly due to lack of activity.

Lastly, personally I think its dumb to sit on any tier outside of diamond. The rewards in lower tiers (gold and less) is not enough incentive for me to play ranked games consistently. The only time I intentionally sit on platinum is if it's a couple days before the tourney ends and I'm not close to reaching diamond. Also, what I mean by "maintaining" is not falling back to the previous tier. That doesn't mean not trying to reach the next tier. If a player isn't playing their best and striving for the highest tier it's almost impossible to even try and maintain their current rank.

Edited by DaWiz_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it isn't dumb. It's a risk/reward analysis that most of us make. 

As I type this, there are a grand total of four platinum players on XBox. Those guys are likely to sit for the next little while because the risk of losing a bunch of points playing a bunch of gold, or even provisional players isn't worth the potential reward of winning only a very few points, even for first. 

I've said it before: eliminate the resets at the end of the season. The tiers will populate, and you'll see fewer people (people who I think would much rather be playing) sitting on their ranks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hecubus912 said:

Except it isn't dumb. It's a risk/reward analysis that most of us make. 

As I type this, there are a grand total of four platinum players on XBox. Those guys are likely to sit for the next little while because the risk of losing a bunch of points playing a bunch of gold, or even provisional players isn't worth the potential reward of winning only a very few points, even for first. 

I've said it before: eliminate the resets at the end of the season. The tiers will populate, and you'll see fewer people (people who I think would much rather be playing) sitting on their ranks. 

Except you're misinterpreting the context of what I'm implying. :|

If what I typed wasn't clear enough I'm referring to sitting out for the month once a player reaches "their" own decided designated tier. Obviously, you read the next sentence regarding the end of season rewards. I didn't signal that I had anything wrong with players who sit out until more players rank. So slow your roll partner!

Eliminating resets would be ill advised. Tournaments have a beginning and an ending, and then they start over. Enough said...

Edited by DaWiz_
HECUBUS912 doesn't like typos.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DaWiz_ said:

Except you're misinterpreting the context of what I'm implying. :|

If what I typed wasn't clear enough I'm referring to sitting out for the month once a player reaches "their" own decided designated tier. Obviously, you read the next sentence regarding the end of season rewards. I didn't signal that I had anything wrong with players who sit out until more players rank. So slow your role partner!

Eliminating resets would be ill advised. Tournaments have a beginning and an ending, and then they start over. Enough said...

My *roll* is at the exact right speed, thanks. 

I'm talking about people sitting at any tier at any time. What you were talking about had no bearing on what I was saying except in as much as you called sitting dumb to sit at any tier outside Diamond.  I disagree with that. 

What some people seem to miss, or ignore, is that most sitters at Diamond, or Platinum right now *want* to play. We went from well over 100 Platinum players before the reset to (as I write) 7. And if they can't get a Platinum table together, those 7 are likely to sit and wait until the pool of players make finding a Platinum game possible. 

And what caused this decimation of the Platinum player pool?  The reset. 

It seems clear and obvious that the ability to get games at any tier is improved with a large population at that tier.  The reset decimates those populations and disincentivises play.  Why would you ever want to do that?  Especially when removing the resets doesn't disincentive play at all?

Tournaments have a beginning and ending, but rankings are based on play. When a new tennis season starts, Venus Williams doesn't suddenly drop from the number one player in the rankings to 80. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hecubus912 said:

My *roll* is at the exact right speed, thanks. 

I'm talking about people sitting at any tier at any time. What you were talking about had no bearing on what I was saying except in as much as you called sitting dumb to sit at any tier outside Diamond.  I disagree with that. 

What some people seem to miss, or ignore, is that most sitters at Diamond, or Platinum right now *want* to play. We went from well over 100 Platinum players before the reset to (as I write) 7. And if they can't get a Platinum table together, those 7 are likely to sit and wait until the pool of players make finding a Platinum game possible. 

And what caused this decimation of the Platinum player pool?  The reset. 

It seems clear and obvious that the ability to get games at any tier is improved with a large population at that tier.  The reset decimates those populations and disincentivises play.  Why would you ever want to do that?  Especially when removing the resets doesn't disincentive play at all?

Tournaments have a beginning and ending, but rankings are based on play. When a new tennis season starts, Venus Williams doesn't suddenly drop from the number one player in the rankings to 80. 

I'm not going to go back and forth with you about sitting on a tier. I'm not talking about sitting on a tier "right now". For the last time I'm referring to sitting out after reaching a particular tier for the "remainder" of the tournment to secure the end of season rewards. I know you mean well, but once again, slow your roll partner!

Additionally, if the tourney doesn't reset then that means a diamond player can sit on that tier month after month and collect 1.5 million chips w/o playing a game, as it stands. Also, newcomers to PP wouldn't be able to compete against a large pool of players the start of the season. It's pretty simple to understand.

Lastly, this is poker not tennis. 

Edited by DaWiz_
HECUBUS912 doesn't like typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, my roll just fine. Roll. 

Who cares when people start to sit in their tiers?  The point is that they do it less to secure their reward, and more because they can't get full tables at the appropriate tier because there are not enough players at that tier.  If Diamond players could play at Diamond tables, they'd play. 

And what do I care if people get rewards for sitting at a tier without playing if there's no reset?  It doesn't hurt me or anyone else. Why would you care?  If it means the tiers populate an Diamonds could play Diamond tables, I think it's a fair trade off. 

Finally, you're right. This is poker, not tennis. And there are no seasons in poker, are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hecubus912 said:

And what do I care if people get rewards for sitting at a tier without playing if there's no reset?  It doesn't hurt me or anyone else. Why would you care?

We care. Nuking the game's economy for the benefit of people who aren't playing the game is something we're trying to avoid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hecubus912 said:

Again, my roll just fine. Roll. 

Who cares when people start to sit in their tiers?  The point is that they do it less to secure their reward, and more because they can't get full tables at the appropriate tier because there are not enough players at that tier.  If Diamond players could play at Diamond tables, they'd play. 

And what do I care if people get rewards for sitting at a tier without playing if there's no reset?  It doesn't hurt me or anyone else. Why would you care?  If it means the tiers populate an Diamonds could play Diamond tables, I think it's a fair trade off. 

Finally, you're right. This is poker, not tennis. And there are no seasons in poker, are there?

Well, I hope you roll into some "common sense" :P

We'll have to agree to disagree. I haven't had any issues with playing competition within my tier since the devs made changes to the tourney. I play on the PS4, so I can't comment about other platforms. Obviously, it will always be difficult to get a full table in the diamond tier because of the risk vs reward, "even" if you're playing against diamond competition because some players will end up in the bottom 3 and will be penalized heavily.

That's why I specifically stated that intentionally sitting on any tier outside of "diamond" for the remainder of the month is dumb. For example, why settle for 500k when I can keep playing to possibly secure 1.5 mil chips? Also, I'm sure that when some players reach diamond they start playing head to head matches to secure more season ending rewards.

I just played my first prov and I'm playng gold competition. It seems that players have a hidden ELO rating that can't be seen until completing provs. So I would think that if a player gets beat by a prov competitor it shouldn't sting as bad because in reality you're in the same tier anyway. This should satisfy your concern with playing on same tier tables. Just because you're playing against a prov competitor doesn't mean their not in your tier. So the devs actually are not resetting players from the previous season back to square one (bronze). What your asking for is, sort of, already being done.

You're right about the season title, I've already voiced my displeasure with calling a monthly tournament a season. But it isn't a deal breaker, so oh well. 

Edited by DaWiz_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see you finally jump in on this topic Nex. Any other reasons for resets?  Because if that's the only reason, I don't think it's good enough.  Leveling the playing field for newbies on leaderboards makes some sense, but not for player rankings  

As for difficulty getting games at a particular tier, the history shows that people will play if there are players at that tier to play against. That's some common sense. 

In provisional games, yes, you're not back to square one, but there hidden rating could be Diamond, could be Bronze.  But as a provisional player, it appears to me that it doesn't matter. A full provisional table looks like it could be people ranked all over the place. Which is, again, a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Hecubus912 said:

Glad to see you finally jump in on this topic Nex. Any other reasons for resets?  Because if that's the only reason, I don't think it's good enough. 

You're welcome to disagree, but letting people attain a rank in a matter of days then rake in millions of free chips forever whether they're playing or not is not something we're going to do for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

As for player ranking resets, we don't want players to get complacent. If you're good enough to be at the top of the rankings, great! But that's a lot less impressive than if you've got the skills to stay at the top consistently. Without resets, the rankings would be dominated by one or two players who put in very little effort after achieving the goal.

Let's use the bankroll rankings as an example, and let's say a player drops $10,000 on chips. They would immediately rocket to the top of those leaderboards, and outside of spending significant cash, there's very little chance anyone would be able to ever catch them. Since we don't want to push people toward spending cash, that leaderboard suddenly becomes pointless in the eyes of competing players -- unless there are periodic resets.

We'd rather not have one or two people climbing the ranks, then sit there forever with very little effort required. Hence, resets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hecubus912 said:

Glad to see you finally jump in on this topic Nex. Any other reasons for resets?  Because if that's the only reason, I don't think it's good enough.  Leveling the playing field for newbies on leaderboards makes some sense, but not for player rankings  

As for difficulty getting games at a particular tier, the history shows that people will play if there are players at that tier to play against. That's some common sense. 

In provisional games, yes, you're not back to square one, but there hidden rating could be Diamond, could be Bronze.  But as a provisional player, it appears to me that it doesn't matter. A full provisional table looks like it could be people ranked all over the place. Which is, again, a problem. 

Before I played my first prov I was in queue for a match, but no players were available at the time and matchmaking started searching in a lower tier. I backed out and waited several minutes before finding another match.

So I don't think provs are all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do top ranked poker players receive special treatment in live tournaments? Are they automatically placed at the top of the field? Or do they start at the bottom like everyone else?

Also, do live tournament players receive rewards when they lose to better competition?

I always catch the end of TV poker tournaments, so I'm just wondering how poker pros make it to the top. 

Edited by DaWiz_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Nex said:

You're welcome to disagree, but letting people attain a rank in a matter of days then rake in millions of free chips forever whether they're playing or not is not something we're going to do for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

As for player ranking resets, we don't want players to get complacent. If you're good enough to be at the top of the rankings, great! But that's a lot less impressive than if you've got the skills to stay at the top consistently. Without resets, the rankings would be dominated by one or two players who put in very little effort after achieving the goal.

Let's use the bankroll rankings as an example, and let's say a player drops $10,000 on chips. They would immediately rocket to the top of those leaderboards, and outside of spending significant cash, there's very little chance anyone would be able to ever catch them. Since we don't want to push people toward spending cash, that leaderboard suddenly becomes pointless in the eyes of competing players -- unless there are periodic resets.

We'd rather not have one or two people climbing the ranks, then sit there forever with very little effort required. Hence, resets.

It's an awkward situation. Due to the severe lack of gold, platinum and diamond players in tournaments getting to diamond can be a long and potentially very frustrating experience. So for anyone who barely makes it to platinum and decides to sit in their tier until the end of the season. They then have to start the next season as mid gold(?). Which is made worse by the fact that they will either have to play a lot of silver tournaments (more likely bronze) or wait until there are enough gold players to start playing gold tournaments. Just so they can get back to platinum and then try for diamond.

Personally I find the reset very annoying. I won all my provisionals but still went down a rank, but that said I do understand why you do it and begrudgingly accept it as a necessary mechanic.

 

Nex, what are your views on rewarding people based on the highest tier they reach during a season?

Personally I think it's the easiest way to encourage people to keep playing beyond the tier they reach, and risk going for higher tiers. It will also populate the higher tier tournaments because people will know it's worth the risk of trying for a higher tier, especially if they don't have to be worrying about their end of season rank the whole time.

I also think adding incentives would be a big help, but that's a more involved fix as it potentially means creating more unique items as rewards.

 

Edited by Mr Chips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mr Chips said:

Nex, what are your views on rewarding people based on the highest tier they reach during a season?

Personally I think it's the easiest way to encourage people to keep playing beyond the tier they reach, and risk going for higher tiers. It will also populate the higher tier tournaments because people will know it's worth the risk of trying for a higher tier, especially if they don't have to be worrying about their end of season rank the whole time.

I also think adding incentives would be a big help, but that's a more involved fix as it potentially means creating more unique items as rewards.

It would have two effects:

1) It would drastically decrease the difficulty of gaining those rewards (in turn upsetting players who previously earned the rewards the hard way).

2) It would probably do little to increase the number of people playing in those high-tier, ranked tournaments, as the issue there is not "people sitting on a tier because they're scared of losing a relatively small number of chips" but is instead an overall lack of players capable of and interested in participating in those high-tier tournaments at times that line up with whatever schedule a person might have in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nex said:

You're welcome to disagree, but letting people attain a rank in a matter of days then rake in millions of free chips forever whether they're playing or not is not something we're going to do for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

As for player ranking resets, we don't want players to get complacent. If you're good enough to be at the top of the rankings, great! But that's a lot less impressive than if you've got the skills to stay at the top consistently. Without resets, the rankings would be dominated by one or two players who put in very little effort after achieving the goal.

Let's use the bankroll rankings as an example, and let's say a player drops $10,000 on chips. They would immediately rocket to the top of those leaderboards, and outside of spending significant cash, there's very little chance anyone would be able to ever catch them. Since we don't want to push people toward spending cash, that leaderboard suddenly becomes pointless in the eyes of competing players -- unless there are periodic resets.

We'd rather not have one or two people climbing the ranks, then sit there forever with very little effort required. Hence, resets.

Nex, you can't compare bankroll and rankings. As you say, you can buy bankroll. Leaderboard resets, there I can understand, but for ranking it makes little sense to me. 

You say one or two people would get to the top and dominate without playing. If they don't play, they would quickly find others catching up. Even a brand new player would get there with good play given enough time. If you're worried about the economy blowing up, make the awards a one time thing, just like achievements. 

Instead, as things stand, it feels like I'm rolling a heavy stone to the top of a mountain, only to have it roll all the way to the bottom every 30 days. 

If you want people to play at higher tiers, you need to populate those tiers. We saw great success with the one 60 day season. Imagine how they'd fill up without the resets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this