Jump to content

Trophy Hunters League - TEAM LEAGUE SPECIAL WINNERS: ApriIis + Gaz + Shotty + Steve


Season 41  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. League restructuring (see post with season 41 information)

    • I would like to see the leagues be redivided based on the Team League scores
    • I don't want this to happen and want the leagues to stay exactly the same
  2. 2. Golden Games picks

    • I liked the Golden Games that were chosen during the Team League season
    • I like the concept of Golden Games, but don't like the games that were chosen during the Team League season (please elaborate)
    • I don't like the concept of Golden Games and think it should be removed for future seasons
  3. 3. Golden Games value

    • I think Golden Games should be worth less (x1,5 multiplier)
    • I think the Golden Games multiplier of x2 is just right
    • I think the Golden Games should be worth more (x3 multiplier)
    • I don't like the concept of Golden Games and think it should be removed for future seasons


Recommended Posts

I'm against both A and B for similar reasons. I think something the Trophy Hunters League excels at over most (maybe even all) other leagues on PSNP is the sheer amount of strategy involved. While being a powerhouse certainly helps, winning takes not only raw power but also consistency. I don't know how technical my fellow competitors are, but when I'm participating, I'm constantly thinking of how to defeat my current opponent while also prepping for the ones after. There are times where I can easily dominate an opponent, but the way the THL is set up, it was actually a better option most of the season to get as narrow of a victory as possible. Of course, I needed to get more points towards the end of the season to break the score tie between @ShogunCroCop and @Precision-Playyy, but knowing when to make that final push is also part of the strategy of the game.

 

Like the people above, I'm more against A than B. The beauty of the CWC (in my opinion) is less about the crazy-high scores some people bring to the table but the survivalist nature of the winner countering such high scores three days in a row. Letting someone skip a day makes their win feel slightly less earned, whether they won the first day by a great margin or a tiny one.

 

For B, I like the concept of a Wild Card, but I'm against how it would play out. If score is the deciding factor here, it makes it possible for someone who is lower in the standings to join the CWC. If someone had the right ammo, they could go full powerhouse the first seven to eight fixtures to guarantee themselves a spot and then spend the last few prepping, not caring if they win or lose their fixtures. If I ended a season in second place, and someone in third made it to the CWC, I'd be pretty darn upset.

 

How would I want the Wild Card to be handled then? Well, I propose that during the off day between the final fixture and the CWC, all of the second place finishers compete for the Wild Card spot. Some of you may think this idea has a few problems. In some leagues, second place may not be set in stone just yet. Worse so, once the off day (which I'll be calling the Wild Day from this point) finishes, the winner won't be known immediately. I think this works great though, given the concept. The Wild Card will be true to its name, having an absolute mix of excitement and anguish during the last day leading up to the CWC. This will also put some pressure on first-place finishers who are not yet set in stone, making them have to make the difficult decision of whether to unleash prepped ammo early. If all else, I think it'll be fun to watch, and whoever does end up winning the Wild Day will have certainly earned their spot.

 

Also, as long as we're proposing potential changes here, I have one more. With there being a rarity multiplier now in place, I've seen some of my opponents start to take advantage of new games, getting ultra rare trophies that would be rare just a few weeks later. I won't say that this affected any of my match ups (because that would make me a liar), but if left alone, a new game could be the deciding factor of an important match up one day. I feel like we need at least some buffer here. It doesn't need to be crazy; maybe something like halving the rarity bonus for games under a month old.

 

Spoiler

I'll finish this TED Talk by thanking @Lucas for adding me to the participant list. It feels great to finally be on such a great list with people like hibpshman and MidnightDragon. Hold on. I don't remember them being Season 25 competitors! :unsure:

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jemmie said:

 

For B, I like the concept of a Wild Card, but I'm against how it would play out. If score is the deciding factor here, it makes it possible for someone who is lower in the standings to join the CWC. If someone had the right ammo, they could go full powerhouse the first seven to eight fixtures to guarantee themselves a spot and then spend the last few prepping, not caring if they win or lose their fixtures. If I ended a season in second place, and someone in third made it to the CWC, I'd be pretty darn upset.

 

How would I want the Wild Card to be handled then? Well, I propose that during the off day between the final fixture and the CWC, all of the second place finishers compete for the Wild Card spot. Some of you may think this idea has a few problems. In some leagues, second place may not be set in stone just yet. Worse so, once the off day (which I'll be calling the Wild Day from this point) finishes, the winner won't be known immediately. I think this works great though, given the concept. The Wild Card will be true to its name, having an absolute mix of excitement and anguish during the last day leading up to the CWC. This will also put some pressure on first-place finishers who are not yet set in stone, making them have to make the difficult decision of whether to unleash prepped ammo early. If all else, I think it'll be fun to watch, and whoever does end up winning the Wild Day will have certainly earned their spot.

 

 

 

I proposed the wild card idea, and I had in mind that it would rank players the same way as the regular season standings: league points first, and then trophy score over the course of the season. So there would be no chance of a third place league finisher getting in before the second place finisher from that league.

 

I like your alternate wild card and I actually proposed something very similar with 8 players: either 4 league winners, the defending CWC champion (based on vasorat's suggestion, wasn't my original idea lol,) and 3 wild cards, or 5 league winners (if Manganese returns), defending CWC champion, and 2 wild cards. The CWC champion would be replaced with an additional wild card if they repeated as league winner. The 4 highest scoring (league points, then trophy score) league winners don't play in the wild card round, while the remaining 4 players all compete for one slot in the CWC proper.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andrea9281 said:

 

I proposed the wild card idea, and I had in mind that it would rank players the same way as the regular season standings: league points first, and then trophy score over the course of the season. So there would be no chance of a third place league finisher getting in before the second place finisher from that league.

 

I like your alternate wild card and I actually proposed something very similar with 8 players: either 4 league winners, the defending CWC champion (based on vasorat's suggestion, wasn't my original idea lol,) and 3 wild cards, or 5 league winners (if Manganese returns), defending CWC champion, and 2 wild cards. The CWC champion would be replaced with an additional wild card if they repeated as league winner. The 4 highest scoring (league points, then trophy score) league winners don't play in the wild card round, while the remaining 4 players all compete for one slot in the CWC proper.

 

Interesting ideas, but I think any more than one Wild Card is just too much. I like my approach because the Wild Card has to go through some extra hoops just to get into the CWC. If there were too many Wild Cards, there'd be less of an incentive to try to win the top spot in a league, making the excuse that you could still get in the CWC relatively easily if you aimed for second.

 

I'm also strongly against the idea of a returning champion competing again. If someone wants to compete again, they should re-earn their spot. Previous victory or not, a spot in the CWC shouldn't be guaranteed from the start.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wild card I will expect is every league's second place play a death match, and winner goes to CWC. 

 

The other thing I would like to address is there are too many EZPZ got released these days. A lot people took advantage by playing those games during the first week after release date. During this period the leaderboard doesn't have enough players which make the game qualify to be used in the match. I feel the bar should be raised from 50th place to 25th place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GTA_Darren said:

The other thing I would like to address is there are too many EZPZ got released these days. A lot people took advantage by playing those games during the first week after release date. During this period the leaderboard doesn't have enough players which make the game qualify to be used in the match. I feel the bar should be raised from 50th place to 25th place.

 

I've noticed this as well, and I think this is the more pressing concern than rarity bonuses for new games (since rarity bonuses tend to not be as big of a boost as doing an entire 10 minute plat on release date.) As far as I see there are three options:

 

1.) Require that a game be released for 3-4 days to count towards this. The games that are really blatant for this will almost always have 50 achievers under 6 hours in that time frame. Downside is that people playing new games for fun and not explicitly to spam score for this - like many were with Final Fantasy 7 during this last season - would be unfairly penalized.

 

2.) Your solution or some deviation of it, where we look at a higher position on fastest achiever. This has two problems to me: it makes potentially hacked times more prominent in removing games from contention, and it removes otherwise valid games from eligibility.

 

3.) My idea would be to look at top 25 as you said, but make the eligibility for cut off for that time 1 or 2 hours, instead of the typical 6. So a game could be disqualified by either having 25 times under 1 or 2 hours, or 50 times under 6 hours. This way the good medium-length games aren't removed from contention, and we are dealing with the main issue which is spammy plats being used on or shortly after release date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andrea9281 said:

 

I've noticed this as well, and I think this is the more pressing concern than rarity bonuses for new games (since rarity bonuses tend to not be as big of a boost as doing an entire 10 minute plat on release date.) As far as I see there are three options:

 

1.) Require that a game be released for 3-4 days to count towards this. The games that are really blatant for this will almost always have 50 achievers under 6 hours in that time frame. Downside is that people playing new games for fun and not explicitly to spam score for this - like many were with Final Fantasy 7 during this last season - would be unfairly penalized.

 

2.) Your solution or some deviation of it, where we look at a higher position on fastest achiever. This has two problems to me: it makes potentially hacked times more prominent in removing games from contention, and it removes otherwise valid games from eligibility.

 

3.) My idea would be to look at top 25 as you said, but make the eligibility for cut off for that time 1 or 2 hours, instead of the typical 6. So a game could be disqualified by either having 25 times under 1 or 2 hours, or 50 times under 6 hours. This way the good medium-length games aren't removed from contention, and we are dealing with the main issue which is spammy plats being used on or shortly after release date.

I vote for option one here. This also at least partially responds to the rarity concern.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this has been interesting. I think there is merit to the new games with the rarity bonuses and also the mention of EZPZ. I was thinking about this over the course of the season because I noticed it too. 
 

I like the idea of allowing 3-4 days before new games count, but it does detract from games like FF7. So I think the best way to do it is this: any games over a month old gets the rarity bonus applied. Games under a month old just get credit for base points. That way games like FF7 still count at least partially for the score. 

31 minutes ago, Redbeard-Rik said:

Exactly. Ruling against those games just feels like it's a personal attack against him.

He retired. But yes, I agree. We don’t want anyone to feel personally attacked.

 

I also want to address the WC possibility for CWC. Give me another day or two to sleep on it. If anything, we keep the same format this season until we can hammer out something that’ll work. The last thing I want to do is water this down and not make it enjoyable for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will formally announce a rules change pertaining to 0-0 ties.

 

Per Rule 13, if a participant has a score of 0 through the first 5 fixtures, they are rendered "inactive" for the rest of the season, and automatically removed at season's end.

 

There is also a footnote in Rule 10 that specifies that 0-0 ties do not count towards the standings.

 

The rule change is this:

0-0 ties will count towards the standings, under the given circumstances:

1) both participants are active. (In Fixture 2, Season 25, Psy had a 0-0 tie with MDGW25. While MDGW25 would eventually be considered inactive, Psy was dealing with personal issues and couldn't earn a trophy. Sometimes life happens. We should not be penalized for that. In this case, this is considered a tie, and both participants are issued 1 point. If one of the participants is later deemed inactive, they lose the 1 point credit for the tie.

2) if one participant is inactive. After Fixture 5, if one participant is considered inactive, their scores are no longer counted, even if they score points after that. This essentially means the inactive participant gets an automatic loss for every fixture for the rest of the season. If they get an auto loss, it only makes sense to give their opponent an auto win regardless of score. The active player should not be penalized for saving points for more active opponents. In this case, it becomes a 1-0 win for the active participant.

3) both participants are inactive. This is the only scenario where 0-0 ties will not count. If both participants are already deemed inactive, then their scores no longer matter, and the 0-0 result is meaningless and doesn't count.

 

This is probably the fairest way I can do this.

 

So @Lucas, if you can remove the footnote about 0-0 ties from Rule 10, and add the above as Rule 15: (I'll condense it down), that'd be great.


Here is essentially what I think it should read.

 

 

15. Regarding 0-0 ties:

-If one of the participants is inactive, it will change to a 1-0 automatic win for the active participant.

-If a 0-0 tie occurs between two participants who are already deemed inactive, it will not count towards the standings.

-In any other case, a 0-0 tie is considered a legitimate tie, and 1 point will be awarded to both participants, as per Rule 10. If one of the active players is deemed inactive later in the season, they lose their 1 tie point, but the active player keeps their 1 tie point.
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lucas said:

Hmm, if I have to edit the OP every time, I might as well rejoin the league for a bit :angel:Yeah that´s totally the reason. You can put me back in the league if you have any open spots left, Shogun :D.


There are plenty of open spots. Welcome back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lucas said:

Hmm, if I have to edit the OP every time, I might as well rejoin the league for a bit :angel:Yeah that´s totally the reason. You can put me back in the league if you have any open spots left, Shogun :D.

 

You're not allowed here ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lucas, would you kindly (Bioshock FTW) remove hibpshman and MidnightDragon as current participants, and move the waiting list into the current participants list? Also, please add yourself, Arctic Cress, and X18JELLO18X to the participant list as well.

 

EDIT: Please also remove the inactives - MDGW25, aztekXI, and AmarisSkye from the participant list. And also please remove AffectatiousDonk due to retirement.

 

Many thanks!

20 hours ago, shadowhood1111 said:

Glad to see old members coming back. Too bad Prinny dood and Dragon Archon are still gone

 

I am offering a reward for anyone who catches a prinny and a Dragon and brings them back here. I do not yet know what the reward is, or if there actually is one. :P 

Edited by ShogunCroCop
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ShogunCroCop said:

Also, I noticed a typo. Season 26 begins on May 18, not May 16.

 

Of that I am glad, because I'm currently stuck away from home and I would have to throw the first fixture, but hopefully I will have time to get some points on the board when I get back.

 

I have a crown to defend ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...