More Tournament Control Features

[riskyone]

thanks kenjoh, thats a nice thing to read. and yes, my idea was not thought through.
i like the idea of occasional or seasonal restricted tourneys. like championships. for all the reasons that have been given: create incentives other than points & medals, give senior players a more challenging .. challenge. and i would also like it if they were attached to fixed ranks, like captain or major and above for instance.
but i am still against a permanent installation of different tiers of tourneys, i just think this would lead to higher ranked players sticking mostly to their peers, and that, in my mind, would not change the overall experience for the better, quite the contrary.
so ideally, for me, we would have a system in place where every so often these kind of special tournaments would open up. but then disappear again until it is time for a new iteration. a special cup. that whoever wins gets to keep until it is time to defend the title. one would also win an island.

I love the idea of a cup that you have to defend every year. Go Vegas Knights. Western Conference Finals baby.

 

[riskyone]

once, some of those cups are so cool.

 

[riskyone]

I waited about a year before I played my first tournament. It was two rounds of 6 players on the Australian map. I could not believe that i had won. It was so exciting. I know over 50% of the field had Higher Rank, Experience, UDO'S, Medals, and such. The fact that I was playing with some players at my level, some newbies and some very good experienced players made it all the more exciting. My biggest point is the AWOL player, but they usually don't stay on the site long. I know that there are times when I should communicate more in team games and I will admit that playing lots of games, makes checking on them often much harder. I like tournaments. Almost all. I personally don't like 3 player games in tournaments, but others love them. So I hardly ever join one of those. Recently both JCUK and Cards beat me in a 3 player final. Cards, I also had a 3 card set. man I thought I had that game. I have learned all kinds of team play from these tournaments. I do understand wanting certain levels reached to join certain tournaments. I like once's comment about a cup to defend. Tapeworm, is a good friend and he understands how to play with honor, but not make points and rank the be all. Thanks.

 

[xsb1977]

couldn't be more aligned with your opinión Loki. Personally, I'm joining ALL the new tourneys I see open. all. And yes, I pray to not be included in the team of the "guy" everytime. But the guy means one that I know he don't listen or play by his own. i mean, more tan newbies, what I don't like to play is with a player that plays teamgames as a single.

Look, I learnt much more with you guys in tourneys that regular games. IMO, many of us wouldn't pay if MC wouldn't have tourneys, that's a great feature. And many newbies love chatting and learning. I did it as a learner many times (and still going thanks to you guys) and from a couple of years ago sometimes as a "teacher". Love the sensation to tell someone some hints and see that in a couple of months he's on your Rank and he beats you easilly From my point of view, rank not always shows a player potential. I know many players that lose many points playing RT games against crazy players just coz they're boried (including myself). so never paid much atention at my current Rank, to be honest

Said that, I undesrstand your point and agree with limited Rank tourneys. On the other hand, I have another proposal. to all those newbies that want to become héroes, we could also do the opposite: limited "mentoring tourneys" where coach and mentored match in a team against other coach+mentored teams. This way, we could make stay in MC some of these new guys that maybe leave MC coz they always lose and no one is telling them how to improve their strategy. what do you think guys?

PD: thanks to kenjoh for letting me know by message that we are having this nice discussion

 

[samps]

thanks kenjoh, thats a nice thing to read. and yes, my idea was not thought through.
i like the idea of occasional or seasonal restricted tourneys. like championships. for all the reasons that have been given: create incentives other than points & medals, give senior players a more challenging .. challenge. and i would also like it if they were attached to fixed ranks, like captain or major and above for instance.
but i am still against a permanent installation of different tiers of tourneys, i just think this would lead to higher ranked players sticking mostly to their peers, and that, in my mind, would not change the overall experience for the better, quite the contrary.
so ideally, for me, we would have a system in place where every so often these kind of special tournaments would open up. but then disappear again until it is time for a new iteration. a special cup. that whoever wins gets to keep until it is time to defend the title. one would also win an island.

You make a good point once, but I honestly think there is a tract of the high rankers that already only play in high level invite games and if that’s how they want to play I think that’s fine but there are also the players like you and I, JC, Edmund and a bunch of others that will play anything anytime so I don’t think the ability to restrict entry on say 25% of the tourneys would really alter the way people play as there are some of us who play it all and some who don’t already.

 

[samps]

couldn't be more aligned with your opinión Loki. Personally, I'm joining ALL the new tourneys I see open. all. And yes, I pray to not be included in the team of the "guy" everytime. But the guy means one that I know he don't listen or play by his own. i mean, more tan newbies, what I don't like to play is with a player that plays teamgames as a single.

Look, I learnt much more with you guys in tourneys that regular games. IMO, many of us wouldn't pay if MC wouldn't have tourneys, that's a great feature. And many newbies love chatting and learning. I did it as a learner many times (and still going thanks to you guys) and from a couple of years ago sometimes as a "teacher". Love the sensation to tell someone some hints and see that in a couple of months he's on your Rank and he beats you easilly From my point of view, rank not always shows a player potential. I know many players that lose many points playing RT games against crazy players just coz they're boried (including myself). so never paid much atention at my current Rank, to be honest

Said that, I undesrstand your point and agree with limited Rank tourneys. On the other hand, I have another proposal. to all those newbies that want to become héroes, we could also do the opposite: limited "mentoring tourneys" where coach and mentored match in a team against other coach+mentored teams. This way, we could make stay in MC some of these new guys that maybe leave MC coz they always lose and no one is telling them how to improve their strategy. what do you think guys?

PD: thanks to kenjoh for letting me know by message that we are having this nice discussion

I love the idea of the mentor / noob tourneys if that could be implemented. I wouldnt be the player I am without an intensive course from Cards he made me love the game and the site. I have helped a few people learn the game but would be well up for helping others and of course them helping me!

 

[JCUK]

To be clear, the suggestion was to have the ability to organise some different tournys to provide more opportunities but in a controlled way.

There would still be the same amount of tourneys as there is now just a few more to allow some players that don't want to drop through the ranks by playing with people that choose not to.

The point about these tourneys reducing the amount of higher ranking players joining normal tourneys - 1. many don't play now anyway, which is the whole point of the suggestion. 2. If this did happen, TOs would manage this and create less or very few of these types of tourney.

there is a tract of the high rankers that already only play in high level invite games and if that’s how they want to play I think that’s fine but there are also the players like you and I, JC, Edmund and a bunch of others that will play anything anytime so I don’t think the ability to restrict entry on say 25% of the tourneys would really alter the way people play as there are some of us who play it all and some who don’t already.

Sam makes a good point that this already happens, so lets do this in an open way and maybe allow some lower ranking players into these games as tourneys.

But if you don't have some where everybody can join, I'll never be able to play lol.

This would never happen as the current mode of playing would not change and if the demographic of tourneys changed in a negative way it could be addressed at that point. There would still be the same amount of tourneys available + more.

I am still against a permanent installation of different tiers of tourneys, i just think this would lead to higher ranked players sticking mostly to their peers, and that, in my mind, would not change the overall experience for the better, quite the contrary.

This would be observed and managed. Bearing in mind that it already happens in casual games and the point being that these players generally avoid the tournys for the same reason they create their own games. It is their prerogative to do this which I don't have a problem with. If it affects normal tourney play for all then it will be addressed by less to no rank range tourneys.

Part of team tournaments is the odd 'uncooperative' player, I may even have ruined some team games for other players. I do not feel that rank has anything with ability to be a good team player.

I disagree that part of playing is tourneys is the odd uncooperative player. This is what I am trying to address. Why would people want to invest time and points playing with uncooperative players that effectively ruin what is a team game. This is why high ranking players are reluctant to join these games.

I agree with rank and ability being separate but if it is the only metric that we can use that works? If people have the ability then their rank will increase in casual games allowing them to get into these occasional different tourneys. They still can also play in every other tourney.

regarding other metrics vs rank. i dont think this would have to be mutually exclusive. honor or udos or score or favourite color - all could be potential criteria for defining a tourney group.

I fully disagree with this due to its complication. I believe rank is the easiest and most practical way of managing entry. Rank can also be changed reasonably quickly.

I'm joining ALL the new tourneys I see open. all. And yes, I pray to not be included in the team of the "guy" everytime. But the guy means one that I know he don't listen or play by his own. i mean, more tan newbies, what I don't like to play is with a player that plays teamgames as a single

Said that, I undesrstand your point and agree with limited Rank tourneys. On the other hand, I have another proposal. to all those newbies that want to become héroes, we could also do the opposite: limited "mentoring tourneys" where coach and mentored match in a team against other coach+mentored teams. This way, we could make stay in MC some of these new guys that maybe leave MC coz they always lose and no one is telling them how to improve their strategy. what do you think guys?

This would still happen, normal tourneys will still take place as usual. As Sam stated there will be still be loads of experienced players that join nearly all tourneys (except assassin me for me).

My final point, I believe this will create opportunities, not take them away. If you haven't seen that TOs do manage some of this already based on feedback, then look a little closer, the best TOs put a lot of thought into what they are creating. As Calume once highlighted to me, he spent a lot of time looking to see what worked as I do now that I have spent more time as a TO. Good tourneys over the years don't just appear by magic. We observe what works, react to feedback and create good tourneys based on what people want and how quickly tourneys fill. I'm asking for a little more flexibility to see if it works. Apple would not be where it is today if Steve Jobbs listened to all the negative views, the things that didn't work, he then changed. Kodak disappeared from the market because it didn't observe and evolve with what people wanted as did Blackberry. Sometimes people don't even know they want it until they have seen it. Between 1811-16, Luddites destroyed machines because they thought machines would take their jobs. Their jobs just evolved.

Whats the big deal about being a General? It's because there is a Generals clan that has to be earned entry into and not just given. It makes people aspire to get there, although, all they do in there is sit around and eat cakes - Th-Child loves the cakes, that's why he is desperate to stay in there.. Eduardo used to create creme de la creme games where only the top 20 could get into. Having things to aim for gives people a reason to want to get better. I would have lost interest long ago if I had nothing else to aim for. It took me 3 years but I stuck with slowly progressing. Look at Cards, he has everything, look how miserable he is. TheGeneral is at the top of the tourney board and he is now really miserable. Clearly light hearted, but TheGeneral does need to cheer up and a hug from time to time.

This is my story: https://www.majorcommand.com/blog/first-risk-game/

Note it doesn't include anything about tourneys. I wonder how many people actually ventured into tourneys when they first started playing?

 

[TheGeneral]

Not sure I am miserable at all. I think that is a little harsh. I perhaps don't chat too much but I am busy with work, family and 2 bands so being a major chatty player and contributor to chat boards is difficult.

My general points (no pun intended) around the thread:

I do not think that tournaments should be excluded by rank. I would say I am a decent player but as i enter all the tournaments going i lose a lot of rank points on entrance fees that might be lost in 1v1 tourney in the first round - as well as the points loss in the game i lose.

I used to be mad if my rank fell below captain but now i think it is part of the way i choose to play. I pretty much only pay tournaments. I would never choose to play 1v1 games outside of tournaments in an attempt to protect my rank however. Is it fair that I am excluded from a tournament game with the big guns? I do not think so.

Maybe have a compromise with a combination rank and minimum of tournament entries (maybe 25) so that newbies are excluded but also high ranks who do not play tournaments have to play a certain number of regular tournaments to qualify too. This way it might encourage the high rank absentees as they now they will be against "seasoned" tournament players perhaps? I can understand why they would not want to enter a 1v1 (15 points to enter followed by up to 100 points lost if they draw second versus a private on small map for example).


Team games can be frustrating. I try to give feedback to players where I can and always advice new players / lower rank players on team tactics around reinforcement. I can't stand the following things in team games:

1. AWOL team mates
2. Players that do not communicate - i try to tell my team mates where I have reinforced them (unless the game is already lost for example)
3. Players that do not listen and do the exact opposite of your suggestion with no explanation of why they have done this.

Overall though I love the tournament structure and thank all of you create so many great matches.

Thanks for listening

 

[JCUK]

Not sure I am miserable at all. I think that is a little harsh.

I know you are not grumpy, it was tongue in cheek as I was expecting your feedback as you play a lot of tourneys.

I do not think that tournaments should be excluded by rank.

Standard tourneys won't, just the odd additional tourney.

Maybe have a compromise with a combination rank and minimum of tournament entries (maybe 25) so that newbies are excluded but also high ranks who do not play tournaments have to play a certain number of regular tournaments to qualify too.

I think this would kill the whole concept as I don't believe anyone would join.

I can understand why they would not want to enter a 1v1 (15 points to enter followed by up to 100 points lost if they draw second versus a private on small map for example).

This a fair observation but these tourneys generally fill in 24/48 hours and commonly requested. It's more the team tourneys that my suggestion is aimed at.

Is it fair that I am excluded from a tournament game with the big guns? I do not think so.

Is it fair that the Generals have their own clan and set up their private games?
Is it fair that Creme de la creme games are created for the top 20 players?
Is it fair that people can create casual games with passwords?

I believe all the above is acceptable and it is clear that other people enjoy these games to or they wouldn't exist.

There is no difference in this niche area for tournaments. All normal tournaments will still exist.

Everything I have suggested about rank ranged tourneys already happens via the forums or in private clans just painfully managed by someone. Having the functionality as a TO makes it visible and may inspire some people to want to get into them.

All that said, this suggestion is only excluding a very small minority from a small number or tourneys. This will allow some regular players to be mostly rest assured that there is a lower likely hood of all thing things you and everyone else hates happening.

1. AWOL team mates
2. Players that do not communicate - i try to tell my team mates where I have reinforced them (unless the game is already lost for example)
3. Players that do not listen and do the exact opposite of your suggestion with no explanation of why they have done this.

 

[Redstorm]

Firstly, JCUK has presented a valid and well thought out and supported suggestion. I believe all posts in a forum are valid as forums are designed for any and all discussion regarding a topic. I do wonder at this point just what is the desired result of implementing this idea. At first, I thought it was about (1)designing a way to prevent?, prohibit?, block? those players deemed non team players in a team game tournament. Then the idea kind of morphed into (2)creating a special category (for lack of better words) or categories of tourneys which would limit participation in them to players possessing certain criteria. In either event, there will have to be a mechanism (software, I assume) by which this suggestion would indeed work. I don't pretend to understand how the techno geeks will do that. However, my point is that depending on what the desired result is, either 1 or 2 above, would drive any changes made to tournament participation. I would add to JCUK's suggestion in support of option 1, designing a way to block those players deemed non team players, by the following method: Any player would be able to use the private support or usual suspects forums, both private to admin only, to report players who they believe are guilty of being that non team player. At that point, the admins could either decide on a BANNED from majcom or use a new ability thru software changes to BLOCK those players from tournaments. Either way, I applaud all participants in this and any forum as that demonstrates to me at least some concern and interest in the continued improvement to this site.

 

[JCUK]

Firstly, JCUK has presented a valid and well thought out and supported suggestion. I believe all posts in a forum are valid as forums are designed for any and all discussion regarding a topic. I do wonder at this point just what is the desired result of implementing this idea. At first, I thought it was about (1)designing a way to prevent?, prohibit?, block? those players deemed non team players in a team game tournament. Then the idea kind of morphed into (2)creating a special category (for lack of better words) or categories of tourneys which would limit participation in them to players possessing certain criteria. In either event, there will have to be a mechanism (software, I assume) by which this suggestion would indeed work. I don't pretend to understand how the techno geeks will do that. However, my point is that depending on what the desired result is, either 1 or 2 above, would drive any changes made to tournament participation. I would add to JCUK's suggestion in support of option 1, designing a way to block those players deemed non team players, by the following method: Any player would be able to use the private support or usual suspects forums, both private to admin only, to report players who they believe are guilty of being that non team player. At that point, the admins could either decide on a BANNED from majcom or use a new ability thru software changes to BLOCK those players from tournaments. Either way, I applaud all participants in this and any forum as that demonstrates to me at least some concern and interest in the continued improvement to this site.

I'm not sure I follow Red, I may have explained it very badly as somehow it keeps going down different rabbit holes. I have tried to extensively explain it to provide clarity.

My suggestion is not to ban people from tournaments. I suppose that is something for the admin to consider across the whole site should it be required.

My suggestion is for additional tourneys that have restrictions that would attract potentially more people to the board that normally avoid it.

For example, I come to MC primarily for the tourney aspect of it although I do play casual games while I'm here. I am at the point now where I'm really tired of investing time and energy into tourneys and games that are ruined by people that are just not interested in team games but insist on joining every one. I generally wait until the tourney is filling before I join so I can see who has joined.

My initial suggestion was to create a few extra tourneys limited by rank for example Sgt to limit some of these people. The idea has morphed into other suggestions such as tourneys just for specific ranks etc which may work but would require trialing.

I need to be clear though, I am not asking for people to be banned from tourneys. If I have still have the will power to stay here and create tourneys, I will create just the same amount as normal with no restrictions.

Personally, I'm giving up on it all as I can't believe the amount of unsupported negativity a simple idea has received. The reason I keep commenting is because people keep twisting what my intentions actually are.

 

[kenjoh]

I am aware of one new player who played on one of my crusade teams recently who played the entire game as a single. This was not in a tournament game. He did not not respond at all in game chat. He attacked his own team to improve his position on 3 of 7 turns and was AWOL on 2 of his turns. I sent him about 7 or 8 very positive and polite PMs over the course of the game, and he replied twice. But both times, there was no text from him in his reply. To my mind, it would be nice if, on review by an Admin, this guy, and others like him, could be banned from team play until he can be reasoned with. He is the most extreme example that I have seen of this behavior. Most newbies catch on to the team concept within a few turns, if not right away. But I think this type of player is rare, and maybe the software change in the new engine isn't worth the effort.

I contribute this to say that maybe this would address this type of behaviour by an individual - restricting a member's access to team games or tournaments on the odd occasion where it is warranted.

 

[kenjoh]

Let me add that although I don't play in very many tournaments, I observed jcuk's outreach recently for input on the types of tournaments that members wanted, and I applaud his initiative with that effort. I also applaud jcuk for the awesome effort overall that he has made to create a vibrant tournament life on MajCom. I think his selfless efforts in this regard far exceeds the efforts of most members on MajCom, and I like giving credit where it is due.

Sometimes it can be hard to find an appropriate time to give due praise, but this seems like a good time and place for me to express these opinions also.

 

[JCUK]

Thank you Kenjoh, I appreciate your comments.

 

[Redstorm]

My final comment on this thread is to say again that I welcome any changes that MC may make as I don't anticipate anything new that would drive me away from this awesome site. If I've come across as negative or overly critical then I apologize as I try never to be rude or heavy handed with anyone. Full speed ahead & look forward to meeting you all on the battlefield soon.

:beer:

 

[TheGeneral]

Separate Clans are completely different to Tournaments in my opinion.

I guess from a selfish perspective I would feel aggrieved that being ranked 1 on the tourney board would not allow me to enter every tournament available.

I would also feel aggrieved that I have made tournament success my main mission on majcom at the expense of rank and what if the tournament home page would be false - as it would be polluted with "private tournaments".

If private tournaments were available that did not affect tournament stats then I would be more inclined to agree otherwise I think it is unfair.

Private clan matches and so on do not affect leader boards other than the wins or losses per that match. There is no leaderboard for clan wins for example. I think these off piste things are great and allow those guys who want to play by themselves.

I appreciate I am just one player and probably a little unique in that I am a tournament crack addict but private tournaments that I have no way to enter that would effect the tournament leader board is a non starter to me.

Ultimately I view tournaments as a real mixed bag of settings and maps - and even being paired up with a real **** is all part of it. To me that is the essence of tournament play and why I am so proud to be at the top. Tournaments sometimes get ****ed up by an AWOL or a dickhead who refuses to play team but this is no different to a World Cup Football Match where a ref sends of a player wrongly and Brazil don't win a game, or Iceland can beat England, or a player for no reason handballs in the area and concedes a penalty.

I don't think tournaments should be sanitised to make them nice for the guys in the top 10. Let them get down and dirty with us grunts in the tournament world. Pay your points and take the risk.

As I say, if these guys want to be able to private tournaments that do not affect the main leaderboard that would be no problem. It would be great too for a clan tournament too. I have no objections in using the engine - I feel it needs to be separate.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[JCUK]

If I've come across as negative or overly critical then I apologize as I try never to be rude or heavy handed with anyone.

I didn't think you did Red, I've just found some of this thread a little frustrating.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Separate Clans are completely different to Tournaments in my opinion.

I guess from a selfish perspective I would feel aggrieved that being ranked 1 on the tourney board would not allow me to enter every tournament available.

I would also feel aggrieved that I have made tournament success my main mission on majcom at the expense of rank and what if the tournament home page would be false - as it would be polluted with "private tournaments".

If private tournaments were available that did not affect tournament stats then I would be more inclined to agree otherwise I think it is unfair.

Private clan matches and so on do not affect leader boards other than the wins or losses per that match. There is no leaderboard for clan wins for example. I think these off piste things are great and allow those guys who want to play by themselves.

I appreciate I am just one player and probably a little unique in that I am a tournament crack addict but private tournaments that I have no way to enter that would effect the tournament leader board is a non starter to me.

Ultimately I view tournaments as a real mixed bag of settings and maps - and even being paired up with a real **** is all part of it. To me that is the essence of tournament play and why I am so proud to be at the top. Tournaments sometimes get ****ed up by an AWOL or a dickhead who refuses to play team but this is no different to a World Cup Football Match where a ref sends of a player wrongly and Brazil don't win a game, or Iceland can beat England, or a player for no reason handballs in the area and concedes a penalty.

I don't think tournaments should be sanitised to make them nice for the guys in the top 10. Let them get down and dirty with us grunts in the tournament world. Pay your points and take the risk.

As I say, if these guys want to be able to private tournaments that do not affect the main leaderboard that would be no problem. It would be great too for a clan tournament too. I have no objections in using the engine - I feel it needs to be separate.

Hope that makes sense.

I find that to be a compelling argument

 

[JCUK]

Yes, from TheGenerals view, it is a compelling argument.

 

[samps]

Not sure I am miserable at all. I think that is a little harsh. I perhaps don't chat too much but I am busy with work, family and 2 bands so being a major chatty player and contributor to chat boards is difficult.

My general points (no pun intended) around the thread:

I do not think that tournaments should be excluded by rank. I would say I am a decent player but as i enter all the tournaments going i lose a lot of rank points on entrance fees that might be lost in 1v1 tourney in the first round - as well as the points loss in the game i lose.

I used to be mad if my rank fell below captain but now i think it is part of the way i choose to play. I pretty much only pay tournaments. I would never choose to play 1v1 games outside of tournaments in an attempt to protect my rank however. Is it fair that I am excluded from a tournament game with the big guns? I do not think so.

Maybe have a compromise with a combination rank and minimum of tournament entries (maybe 25) so that newbies are excluded but also high ranks who do not play tournaments have to play a certain number of regular tournaments to qualify too. This way it might encourage the high rank absentees as they now they will be against "seasoned" tournament players perhaps? I can understand why they would not want to enter a 1v1 (15 points to enter followed by up to 100 points lost if they draw second versus a private on small map for example).


Team games can be frustrating. I try to give feedback to players where I can and always advice new players / lower rank players on team tactics around reinforcement. I can't stand the following things in team games:

1. AWOL team mates
2. Players that do not communicate - i try to tell my team mates where I have reinforced them (unless the game is already lost for example)
3. Players that do not listen and do the exact opposite of your suggestion with no explanation of why they have done this.

Overall though I love the tournament structure and thank all of you create so many great matches.

Thanks for listening

I don’t want to start a kicking match but I disagree a little with this, I also only really play tourneys (I do play a couple of clan games as well) I join 95% of the tourneys and with the entrance fees retain around the general mark (sometimes I drop or raise but circa 4000 points). I wouldn’t agree with every game being rank based but a small proportion of them I think is fair on the players like me who play a lot, lose the points to the noobs and don’t really care (because I don’t) but every 10th tourney or something would be great if it was the elite players and you knew it was going to be even tougher than usual.
It would give the players like you and I something to push our rank for cause let’s be honest once you get your star rank no longer really does anything. This could keep it relevant!!

*addition*

I just saw the second post and wanted to carry on my crusade, I just replied a long message to it only to have server say no so here I go again.

I completely get the fact you don’t want to miss any tourneys being like me an addict and the reality is you would be able to play most because you do retain a decent rank. The reason I was so pro them is I am most the time a top 20 player but I hardly ever get to play a game against or with another one in a non advantageous setting (so neither team can choose there own settings I’m 10 for 10 in a triples games with JC and F15 because we rock the settings we choose). Having the occasional tourneys that lets you put yourself against the best ranks (not all the tine and only a small % of the overall tourneys) would actually let me see if I’m better / the same / worse (probably worse) than the other big guns. I don’t think that is too elitist I think it’s fair.
As with any change there will always be for and against but surely you agree with me that it would make you work more on your rank to get up to being able to enter say a crown major and up game (it would have to be a small one lol)making each defeat hurt a little more and as such each victory sweeter!
I really think it will make points a little more relevant as once you have got your star they don’t really matter anymore.