Board 8 > Mercenaries Draft, Week 0 Results: I think I've played this song before...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Losing tier bid is pretty much a likely loss.... then you add in not being qble to buy down and having an even bigger gp loss for future weeks.

I think you could almost effectiveky say the game is half guessing better numbers than the other = /
---

Keep in mind I'm not saying it was worthless, but managing cooldowns is only worth so much gp. Some people could've got like 2 or 3 more mercs.

Also half the time people were bidding against each other for the same tier <_<
---

personally, this might be a minority opinion, but I think we should just RNG tiers and just make us fight in all 3 tiers 3 times, but maybe teams built hoping to never fight in certain tiers (even though you have to fight in all 3 in playoffs) so idk
---

Lopen posted...

Keep in mind I'm not saying it was worthless, but managing cooldowns is only worth so much gp. Some people could've got like 2 or 3 more mercs.

Also half the time people were bidding against each other for the same tier <_<

yeah, I do agree with your mostly, I certainly bid on tiers poorly and felt like an idiot at least once with my end-game merc purchases.
---

MajinZidane posted...

personally, this might be a minority opinion, but I think we should just RNG tiers and just make us fight in all 3 tiers 3 times, but maybe teams built hoping to never fight in certain tiers (even though you have to fight in all 3 in playoffs) so idk

True story: This is how I thought it worked until after I had my team. I'm not bitter because I wouldn't have changed how I built it but yeah, it wasn't all that clear. Apparently I missed a random post somewhere where that change was made, I guess, but it was this way in the opening post describing the rules to the game.
---

Second true story I also think that is better but I digress.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Corrik posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Basically I am gonna just say this flat out: Anyone who says 'hey refund me the tier bid' wants nothing but high tier matches, forever. I don't, so I'm not gonna make it happen. That's a vote that isn't gonna fly guys, sorry!

I think that's a lie. People are going to all in in whatever category they feel they are better in. And once you do. You are gonna have less money the following week and thus probably going to lose tier bid.

Let's explain this with math.

I get a 7 and four 6s during draft. Paying them down to mid costs me 38 GP (it's not even worth discussing low) or 20 GP assuming I only pay down a 7 and a 6 (or 18 GP for 3 6s, or...you get the idea, but we'll work with wanting redundancies to guard against removals). Fielding them in high tier costs me nothing, and that kind of squad pretty much wins by default unless you bring KOs or other removals to bear. Thus, fighting in high tier is worth 38 GP (or 'tons' GP if you calculate off low, but let's assume we're not being silly with this hypothetical). Tier bidding without GP loss on misbid is an extremely powerful tier control tool that favors mercs that usually don't get to fight as much - AKA, high tier mercenaries. Those mercs are already huge problems for an opposing team to fight without ability spam or equal firepower. They don't need to be even better than they are as team pieces.

Again.

Week 1. I bid 18 on high tier. Johnbobb bids 20. I win. I pick high tier. Johnbobb can't even bid on a map and lost more gp than me and tier and his match.

Week 1 with refunds. I bid 18 on high tier. Johnbobb bids 20. He is refunded. He can now win terrain to give him a better shot. He still loses. He loses like 4 gp to lose instead of 20.

Week 2 with refunds. Johnbobb has 36 gp. He can now likely win his tier bid on the tier he wants.

I have 25gp. I probably lose my tier bid. I buy down a merc at 18 gp to low. I have 8 gp to bid on terrain or carry over.

Week 3. I have 31 gp after a loss. I can now win tier bid again if such a bid benefits me.


The only question is... if you think gp inc is too high that losing high tier bids just means pay 28 down for the 7.
---

Lopen posted...

MajinZidane posted...

personally, this might be a minority opinion, but I think we should just RNG tiers and just make us fight in all 3 tiers 3 times, but maybe teams built hoping to never fight in certain tiers (even though you have to fight in all 3 in playoffs) so idk

True story: This is how I thought it worked until after I had my team. I'm not bitter because I wouldn't have changed how I built it but yeah, it wasn't all that clear. Apparently I missed a random post somewhere where that change was made, I guess, but it was this way in the opening post describing the rules to the game.

True story: Me too. When Corrik mentioned this was how tiers worked in discord, I thought he was wrong/lying!
---

welp, project over. thanks for dragging me into this for nothing

Yeah, I thought it worked that way for the first half of the draft. Good to know it wasn't just me.
---

The problem with that assumption is that Johnbobb's opponent is...not even going to bother bidding on tier if it's unwinnable. At which point Johnbobb still needs to do a meaty bid to secure the tier he does well in because otherwise he takes a likely loss. This is game theory and takes a while to explain but basically the mindgame is very stacked in favor of the person with less GP, and you're still incentivized to go all-in on high tier just because matches in that tier require removals to win much more heavily than others (because people see a 7/week hit the field and more or less ask 'hey does the other guy have one too? If not, the 7 SOLOS').

Lopen posted...

Second true story I also think that is better but I digress.

RNG'd tiers are really bad because they can lead to completely unearned wins - not because you went all-in on a tier and lose hard in others, that's fine - but because two leaders who distributed their mercs more or less evenly can end up facing each other on the tier one holds an advantage in. It's not exactly entertaining to face something like a 30-70 matchup purely because of a roll of the dice you had no control over. Tier bidding allows for you to potentially outplay your opposition, at the least, or cost them so much GP that you can control terrain and bring more paydowns to bear.
---

I think because everyone is being RNGed for tiers it's more or less fair-- yeah you could have some dumb luck wins where low is drawn for a guy with 11 lows vs a guy with 11 highs, but generally people who have a more balanced tier distribution will be better off on the whole.

And really privately sent in bids where you have equal income isn't all that much less RNG when you think about it. Like how much do I really know about what my opponent is likely to bid. Dude could bid 2 or 4 with fairly even likelihood-- if I bid 3 and he bids 4 did he really outplay me? I'm not sure. Run it again and he might bid 2.
---

Lopen posted...

I think because everyone is being RNGed for tiers it's more or less fair-- yeah you could have some dumb luck wins where low is drawn for a guy with 11 lows vs a guy with 11 highs, but generally people who have a more balanced tier distribution will be better off on the whole.

And really privately sent in bids where you have equal income isn't all that much less RNG when you think about it. Like how much do I really know about what my opponent is likely to bid. Dude could bid 2 or 4 with fairly even likelihood-- if I bid 3 and he bids 4 did he really outplay me? I'm not sure. Run it again and he might bid 2.

This is kind of getting into long term strategy a bit, but with the order of matches known, people can plan bids far in advance - you can know that you'll need the money for multiple paydowns to beat an opponent in week 3 and plan accordingly, for instance, and in turn know that your opponent will need a big money cushion for week 2 because there's a certain tier he just gets totally stomped in and this lets you be more adventurous with your week 1 bid. Yeah, some of it is luck, but it's luck whose impact can be strongly minimized by studying your opposition. Tier RNG can't be fixed if, uhh, let's say you draw eaed in lowbie and redrocket in high, for instance - whereas if you were facing them in opposite order, your collect two much easier wins. In a long season this RNG doesn't matter cause it evens out, but with only seven regular season games, that's not really acceptable.
---

Anyway I don't wanna distract too much-- I think higher seed bonus is the most egregious thing here. The rest is a lot more debatable and a lot harder to fix.

I think as far as changes go, there are some easy options to consider.

1. As I said, 3 gp refund to failed tier bid for lower seed.
2. Loser of tier bid automatically gets the option to attack or defend.
3. Or maybe just separating bids on tier vs attacker/defender bids entirely.
3. Some forgiveness of tier bidding failure-- maybe in the form of a partial refund. Maybe delay that refund till a later week or something if you don't want it to influence the current match.

I would say don't be too ambitious, but some simple changes may be good. Only one I think is a must is 1. Rest are sorta "discuss" kinda thing.
---

re: option 2. I say winner of the bid picks tier OR attack/defend, maybe being the attacker is way more important to me than the tier we fight in for some reason.

like for two teams that are both going to want the same tier due to similar team comp, the person getting to choose attacker gets a huge advantage in that fight.


I also like full or at least % refund for losing tier bid. I get that some tiers are more expensive to fight in, but it still feels really bad to lose tier, lose fight, and have less money next week if you lose tier while bidding a decent amount.
---

Lopen posted...

Anyway I don't wanna distract too much-- I think higher seed bonus is the most egregious thing here. The rest is a lot more debatable and a lot harder to fix.

I think as far as changes go, there are some easy options to consider.

1. As I said, 3 gp refund to failed tier bid for lower seed.
2. Loser of tier bid automatically gets the option to attack or defend.
3. Or maybe just separating bids on tier vs attacker/defender bids entirely.
3. Some forgiveness of tier bidding failure-- maybe in the form of a partial refund. Maybe delay that refund till a later week or something if you don't want it to influence the current match.

I would say don't be too ambitious, but some simple changes may be good. Only one I think is a must is 1. Rest are sorta "discuss" kinda thing.

For what its worth I think this is the crux of the problem entirely. Too much is hinging on just one thing, which is in turn too heavily weighted on RNG.

Splitting the advantages up or evening up the bidding so that the defender has like...any reason at all to bid are the obvious solutions.
---

My long winded solution.

1. Higher seed gets +3 on tier/attack bid. You bid on tier/ attack option. You win bid. You get to choose the tier or whether to attack/defend. If you choose tier, the losing bidder gets the attack/defend option and the defending or attacker bonus on the terrain bid as the choice dictates.

2. Losing bids on tier/attack option are refunded for BOTH parties if they lose the bid at 25% immediate refund and 25% refund at results.

Example. Johnbobb bids 20. He loses. He gets 5 gp back asap. And the not chosen choice by the bid winner. He gets 5 more gp back at results.

This applies to every bid. It rounds down at immediate refund. For example 1.5 rounds down to 1. But you are given the full sum (3gp) at results. Thus. If you bid 6. You get 1gp back right away if you lose. You get 2 gp at results to equal to 3gp.

If you bid 5. You get 1 gp back right away. And you get 1.5 gp at results. Your gp total can be a .5 but a .5 can never be bid. Thus it is half way to being a gp for you.



Thus, recap.

Bid on tier. Higher seed gets +3. Winner of bid picks attack/defend or tier.

Loser gets 25% immediate refund, option left to him, and a 25% refund at results (for 50% total).

Always rounds down in immediate and completes at total. Can have .5 totals but cannot bid the .5. (Have to complete the gp to use it).


Attacker defender option chosen applies to your terrain vote bids.
---

Okay questions here

if we are bidding on terrains can it be any terrain we own even if we dont roster that merc?

When it says attacked and defender positions, does that relate to the attack/defender or does it relate to owner/ visitor of terrain?


Also am I missing something or would loser of bid getting half the bid back work fine?
---

well, for one, we can totally get rid of the +3 bid and just make it so being the RNG person settles ties.

I also think that if you're the person who doesn't get to decide attacker/defender, then maybe you should get the +3 for tier bid.

maybe instead of refunding GP on a loss, you can give the loser of a tier bid +x next week. Maybe if you're on a losing streak for tier bids or matches, you keep on getting +y(x), where y is the number of losses in a row and x is some static value like 3 or 4.

I'm a fan of refund (full or partial) immediately or during results, though.
---

ScareChan posted...

Okay questions here

if we are bidding on terrains can it be any terrain we own even if we dont roster that merc?

When it says attacked and defender positions, does that relate to the attack/defender or does it relate to owner/ visitor of terrain?


Also am I missing something or would loser of bid getting half the bid back work fine?

I assume if it is your map you are the defender but I dunno cuz their is situations where I think it is avantegous to not be holed uo inside of a tower while rhe attackers wre outside just leveling it on you.
---

MajinZidane posted...

well, for one, we can totally get rid of the +3 bid and just make it so being the RNG person settles ties.

I also think that if you're the person who doesn't get to decide attacker/defender, then maybe you should get the +3 for tier bid.

maybe instead of refunding GP on a loss, you can give the loser of a tier bid +x next week. Maybe if you're on a losing streak for tier bids or matches, you keep on getting +y(x), where y is the number of losses in a row and x is some static value like 3 or 4.

I'm a fan of refund (full or partial) immediately or during results, though.

Read my suggestion. I think it is a perfect fix and should be voted on.
---

ScareChan posted...

Also am I missing something or would loser of bid getting half the bid back work fine?

you're not missing something, we're figuring out if enough people agree and think that works fine.
---

Think lopen and my suggestions should be voted on against the way the game is now.
---

ScareChan posted...

Okay questions here

if we are bidding on terrains can it be any terrain we own even if we dont roster that merc?

When it says attacked and defender positions, does that relate to the attack/defender or does it relate to owner/ visitor of terrain?


Also am I missing something or would loser of bid getting half the bid back work fine?

A) No, it's the same as in M4. Gotta roster the guy the terrain's attached to.

B) Owner and visitor of the terrain. If the terrain is yours, you are always the defender.

C) Mostly it encourages people to draft high tier and go super ham on bids - if you win, hey, your team stomps. If you don't, hey, you can still make paydowns. But some of the suggestions presented so far might address this.
---

Corrik posted...

MajinZidane posted...

well, for one, we can totally get rid of the +3 bid and just make it so being the RNG person settles ties.

I also think that if you're the person who doesn't get to decide attacker/defender, then maybe you should get the +3 for tier bid.

maybe instead of refunding GP on a loss, you can give the loser of a tier bid +x next week. Maybe if you're on a losing streak for tier bids or matches, you keep on getting +y(x), where y is the number of losses in a row and x is some static value like 3 or 4.

I'm a fan of refund (full or partial) immediately or during results, though.

Read my suggestion. I think it is a perfect fix and should be voted on.

yeah, you have all the same ideas as me. Bid winner has to pick tier or attacker, bid loser gets a refund and gets to have the other thing. Seems fair! The exact way the refund happens, I'm not super concerned with.

+1

Why do we have/need the +3, though? I feel like that's just a carry-over from defender terrain bonus. Maybe just have the bold person win a tie if there is one, else everyone is +0. That eliminates Lopen's losing tier bid concern and helps to mitigate the huge advantage winning the RNG gives you. Hell, with your system, we don't even need a randomly chosen bold person because you're bidding on attacker or tier. In the case of a tie, do the coin flip then, I guess!
---

I think Corrik's suggestion in #67 + combined with Boko's suggestion of neither player getting a +3 and just RNG deciding the tiebreaker would probably be best.
---

Okay if the issue is that high stomps then work something like


if you bid on low and it wins you get 50% of your bid back
If you win mid on your bid you get a free buy down

Or something to that extent. It gives incentive to not just go high
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

C) Mostly it encourages people to draft high tier and go super ham on bids - if you win, hey, your team stomps. If you don't, hey, you can still make paydowns. But some of the suggestions presented so far might address this.

I think this concern is legitimate and people aren't really considering the reason you incorporated it to begin with, but I also think that it just sucks so much to lose a tier bid as it currently stands.
---

ScareChan posted...

Okay if the issue is that high stomps then work something like


if you bid on low and it wins you get 50% of your bid back
If you win mid on your bid you get a free buy down

Or something to that extent. It gives incentive to not just go high

some of us have incentive to not go high because everyone else in their draft drafted a f***ton of high tier mercs and we're very scared of them!!!
---

Lopen posted...

I think Corrik's suggestion in #67 + combined with Boko's suggestion of neither player getting a +3 and just RNG deciding the tiebreaker would probably be best.

I think the team with the better record should get a bid advantage. Maybe just plus 1. Instead of +3. Could make it so higher seed with better record gets +3 but lower seed wins ties. Only rng involved is when tied records.
---

Or do a weekly special

like Group A gets a 50% bonus to low teir this week
Group B gets a 50% bonus to mid this week

or even match by match

Tom and Scare gets a +3 to low bids this week


or even have that be the weekly thing. Bidding on low is +6, bidding on mid is +3, bidding on high is no bonus

and get rid of the base +3
---

ScareChan posted...

Or do a weekly special

like Group A gets a 50% bonus to low teir this week
Group B gets a 50% bonus to mid this week

or even match by match

Tom and Scare gets a +3 to low bids this week


or even have that be the weekly thing. Bidding on low is +6, bidding on mid is +3, bidding on high is no bonus

and get rid of the base +3

Scare rhat suggestion is kinda crazy lol
---

But fun!

And if its a weekly thing go ahead and make it known in advance which bonuses are what weeks
---

ScareChan posted...

But fun!

And if its a weekly thing go ahead and make it known in advance which bonuses are what weeks

You would have to stop the gme and literally let everyone redraft
---

if it wasnt clear the % bonuses I meant were gp, not paramater boosts
---

ScareChan posted...

if it wasnt clear the % bonuses I meant were gp, not paramater boosts

I know.
---

Just as a clarification, players' opinions here are a poll, not a mandate. If the players all vote for something that the admin team sees as being manifestly stupid, we'll go for the closest reasonable thing we can find to what everyone voted for (for example, it doesn't matter if the players all vote for full refunds on bid loss. It will not happen, period). But I do think that things like a partial level of bid refund, granting tier/attacker choice to one player each, or eliminating the GP bonus on tier bidding (and retaining the tiebreaker) are all on the table. We might use all of those, or only some, but none of these things read as being so dumb I'd want to instantly shoot them down, and on the contrary make a solid amount of sense. The trick is just finding a suitable combination of them.
---

We understand and appreciate it mister kanz
---

Higher seed retaining +3 is fine when their record is actually better I suppose yeah. Should definitely be no bonus with RNG tiebreaker otherwise though.
---

I think being handed both a tier bid bonus as well as choice of attack/defence is excessive for a first round tie where everyone is supposed to be starting on a level playing field. If you want to run it that way beginning with the second match, then fair enough, but it's too great an advantage to be given off the back of winning a coin toss. Like, I think people are either unaware or unwilling to admit just how much of a benefit those two things are.

If I were in charge I'd be tempted to postpone tier bidding altogether this week and give the high seed choice of either tier or attacker/defender status. In all but the most lopsided of match-ups I think that's pretty fair, and a better alternative than the "free" win some teams are effectively being handed this week under the current rules. If this is too extreme, then keep the tier bids but make it a choice between the +3 bonus or attack/defence. That way you can still have tier initiative if you want but you might have to pay to guarantee it.
---

Kinda dont care cuz i made a team thats balanced so whatever
---

What he said
---

Seems like everybody is in favor of breaking up the high seed bonuses, and also axing the monetary bonus when two equally winning opponents face each other. So what I'm looking at is:

-Bid winner gets their choice of attacker/defender or tier. Loser gets the other one.
-Higher seed wins ties, but has no monetary bonus (IE, if you bid 20 vs 20, then the higher seed wins, but if the higher seed bids 19, they lose).
-On a bid loss, 50% of the bid is refunded, 25% immediately afterward, 25% during the next results phase. Any roundings are rounded down for the first refund, and up for the second one (so if you bid 5 and lose, you'll get 1 GP back immediately, and 2 GP in the next results. For a 10 GP bid, you'll get 2 back immediately, and 3 in the next results, and so on and so forth).

Does this seem acceptable to everyone?
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Seems like everybody is in favor of breaking up the high seed bonuses, and also axing the monetary bonus when two equally winning opponents face each other. So what I'm looking at is:

-Bid winner gets their choice of attacker/defender or tier. Loser gets the other one.
-Higher seed wins ties, but has no monetary bonus (IE, if you bid 20 vs 20, then the higher seed wins, but if the higher seed bids 19, they lose).
-On a bid loss, 50% of the bid is refunded, 25% immediately afterward, 25% during the next results phase. Any roundings are rounded down for the first refund, and up for the second one (so if you bid 5 and lose, you'll get 1 GP back immediately, and 2 GP in the next results. For a 10 GP bid, you'll get 2 back immediately, and 3 in the next results, and so on and so forth).

Does this seem acceptable to everyone?

Rather use the .5 part of mine so a refund for an odd number is not always the same as the preceding higher even number. But idc. Whatever lets get this shit on the road then. Guess I gotta bid 20 now. = /
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Seems like everybody is in favor of breaking up the high seed bonuses, and also axing the monetary bonus when two equally winning opponents face each other. So what I'm looking at is:

-Bid winner gets their choice of attacker/defender or tier. Loser gets the other one.
-Higher seed wins ties, but has no monetary bonus (IE, if you bid 20 vs 20, then the higher seed wins, but if the higher seed bids 19, they lose).
-On a bid loss, 50% of the bid is refunded, 25% immediately afterward, 25% during the next results phase. Any roundings are rounded down for the first refund, and up for the second one (so if you bid 5 and lose, you'll get 1 GP back immediately, and 2 GP in the next results. For a 10 GP bid, you'll get 2 back immediately, and 3 in the next results, and so on and so forth).

Does this seem acceptable to everyone?

Yup
---

Yeah that looks good to me.
---

You have no idea how happy this makes me.

Thank you guys so much.
---

sure, whatever

I support this change.
---

Bump
---