Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Tournaments and Events => Dominion League => Topic started by: hvb on June 27, 2015, 06:52:23 am
-
Hi all. This season is the third Season in a row, where the Championship is more of less decided, before the Championship match is even played. Seeing that the CM is more of less meaningless is not very satisfiing, as it should be the highlight of the season. I would like to see ideas and a discussion here, how we can change this.
My idea is, to give the leading player more starts in the CM. What are your ideas, feel free to discuss.
-
I fully agree, and a testament to your point is that I feel relieved rather than gutted about not having to play the 3rd championship match in a row as almost guaranteed loser (1st was "well, it's cool to have the experience", 2nd was "ok, there are these designed kingdoms", 3rd would have been "uuuuuh... fml").
I also like your proposol for how things could be changed, to which I'd add that the person who was ahead in the regular season would win in case the championship match ended 3-3.
Ideally these changes are effective immediately, not because that'd be entirely fair, but because it would be hilarious to see Mic lose a title he thought he had in the bag.
-
I like the idea of the leading player being one game up. There should be a significant advantage for winning the group, like there is in all groups (place 1 promoting and place 2 not, independant on how close the scores are) but like you said the game should not be predecided.
-
I said this before during the last championship match:
The points achieved during the championship final could just be doubled.
But also your (hvb) idea just to give extra starts seems okay, but I guess we would need a good formula from points difference to extra starts (like 0.5-1 = 1 extra start, 1.5-2 2 extra starts, 2.5+ 3 extra starts?)
-
I don't think you can make the championship match have more weight without reducing the weight of the actual season. And I don't like that at all.
I think the current situation is perfectly fine. Mic played a lot better then everyone else in A this season. He deserves to win it, and he most likely will do so tomorrow.
Basically what you're suggesting is sacrificing a lot of fairness to gain spectacle, and that is the opposite of what I like in a competition.
-
I don't think you can make the championship match have more weight without reducing the weight of the actual season. And I don't like that at all.
I think the current situation is perfectly fine. Mic played a lot better then everyone else in A this season. He deserves to win it, and he most likely will do so tomorrow.
Basically what you're suggesting is sacrificing a lot of fairness to gain spectacle, and that is the opposite of what I like in a competition.
But isn't the point of having the championship match in the first place to get a spectacle? I can see why you don't want it but then I really think you should ditch the thing altogether and either go back to how it was before or try out that champion-challenger idea (which I still really like). A meaningless championship match is the worst of all options.
-
@Stef I agree, that if we want to measure the performance the current System is totally fair. But why having a CM than at all, and not just a pure league like in season 1. I would Support that immediately.
My opinion is, either you have something like a final (CM) or not (pure League). And if you and we want to have that final, than it should be a real final. With advantages for the leading player, indeed. The CM in this form is just unsatisfiing, for the players and the spectators.
-
I think the whole point of the Championship Match is on one side to have a special event for the audience and on the other side to be an extra reward for getting first or second in the A division. All other divisions have the big "first place gets to play in a higher division next season" point, but it doesn't get higher than A. So i think playing in the CM in front of a bigger audience than usual is kind of that for the A division. Yes, winning in the group phase should give you a significant advantage, but going in with a 5-1 lead or even an unbeatable lead takes away the whole purpose. Less people would want to watch a match where the winner is already predecided and so it also lessens the reward of playing in such a CM.
But that is only my thought. I would like to hear from other A division players what their opinion on that is (specifically if playing in the CM feels like a reward in itself)
-
An alternative solution would be to have two A leagues with a championship match between the winners of the two A leagues.
-
I would like to hear from other A division players what their opinion on that is (specifically if playing in the CM feels like a reward in itself)
For me: only the first time. The second time was saved by (some of!) the designed kingdoms. I'd have played the third only to not disappoint people, but nothing in the world would convince me to not concede in advance a (purely hypothetical) 4th meaningless match in a row.
An alternative solution would be to have two A leagues with a championship match between the winners of the two A leagues.
Not sure whether I'd be a fan of this in practice (would really have to try it out), but it's a a cool idea for sure.
-
I would like to hear from other A division players what their opinion on that is (specifically if playing in the CM feels like a reward in itself)
For me: only the first time. The second time was saved by (some of!) the designed kingdoms. I'd have played the third only to not disappoint people, but nothing in the world would convince me to not concede in advance a (purely hypothetical) 4th meaningless match in a row.
I don't get that attitude at all. You get to play a great game you love, on sets suggested by a lot of different people, commented on and watched by a group of others.
How could that be turned into something meaningless just because you won't be winning a league season?
-
I would like to hear from other A division players what their opinion on that is (specifically if playing in the CM feels like a reward in itself)
For me: only the first time. The second time was saved by (some of!) the designed kingdoms. I'd have played the third only to not disappoint people, but nothing in the world would convince me to not concede in advance a (purely hypothetical) 4th meaningless match in a row.
I don't get that attitude at all. You get to play a great game you love, on sets suggested by a lot of different people, commented on and watched by a group of others.
How could that be turned into something meaningless just because you won't be winning a league season?
Maybe you have to go through it yourself to get it, or maybe you're wired differently and would have a different experience, hard to tell. In any case I'm just relating my own experience, which wasn't particularly great (quite a bit worse than I expected in advance), and I'd expect to enjoy it even less in the future the more the novelty wears off, to the point that I'd much rather just play normal games than a consolation match in front of an audience.
-
I guess I'll weigh in here.
I'm all about spectacle, I'm all about having these high-profile live matches because I think it's good for the game and it's fun to hang out with a bunch of cool people.
That said, the League format we use here is meant to have the purest form of competition, and it sacrifices a lot to get that. I don't think the championship format should be changed. Look at most divisions in the league, they're very close. It just so happens that these last few seasons the A division was sort of a runaway, but that doesn't happen very often. MQ earned his huge advantage in the champion match and taking that away for pageantry would compromise what the league is about.
If you don't like the champion match, then go start your own tournament/league with your own structure and see who joins it. I probably would at some point (and I'd say in this one too, obvs.)
-
I mean, last season in A was an anomaly. Four 6-0 matches, Five 5-1 matches, and a 5.75-0.25 match. Yeah, there is going to be someone finishing way on top.
This season I just flopped 0-6 against Mic Q, otherwise it would have been closer at the top.
But go back and look at season 4 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11927.0). Or season 3 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11695.0). Sure, Mic dominated this season, Stef dominated last season, but then Stef almost got demoted this season! I think the current setup for the championship match is fine. Just because the last 3 seasons haven't produced a close match doesn't mean that the system is broken. Close Championship matches will happen, and yes, they will be more exciting than the seasons that have big gaps between first and second, but I think over the course of time there will be more close seasons than runaway seasons.
-
I agree with anyone who thinks that I should start with a clean slate against Mic tomorrow ;)
-
@ Adam
If you don't like the champion match, then go start your own tournament/league with your own structure and see who joins it. I probably would at some point (and I'd say in this one too, obvs.)
That wouldnt make any sense. I love the League and Stef set it up phenomenally great. The League brought the game to another level for Players who like to play or/and watch competive Dominion. So please, dont misunderstand me, this discussion is just about the CM. This is simply no argument for me.
I respect, that you like the CM as it is. I and a lot of other Players do not.
-
Hmmm this discussion turned a little sour and I hope I can remove that. Everything about the league is always open for discussion. Even though in the end the organization has to make a decision, the post by Adam was (assuming, hoping) a little more blunt then he intended to.
Just for clarity: changing the rules of the league mid-season is not open for discussion. We're simply not doing that.
If there is a better proposal for the CM sure I'm willing to consider it, but only for seasons that are yet to start.
If I don't like the proposal but a huge majority loves it I'm willing to go with it anyway.
So far I'm not in love with the suggestions.
One property we have now is that during the season it's always better to win a game then to lose it. No matter what happens, I don't want to lose that property. The suggestion in the OP has such a weak advantage for doing well in the regular season that its no longer true. Throwing games to get a more advantageous opponent in later rounds - even if we assume no one is willing to go there I don't want to put people on the spot. It would also be advantageous to postpone your matches as long as possible and I don't like that either.
The suggestion by DG - effectively chopping of A - is creative but I don't think it works out. While the current setup (splitting it in 5 levels) works ok-ish, if I'd change it I'd rather go to 6 or 7 then to 4. The skill-cap especially between D and E is now already bigger then I'd like it to be.
The suggestion of doubling the points in the championship match is my favorite so far among all the things I don't really like. It should be workable.
I also still like the idea of challenger and champion, although I respect Mics objections of lesser variety for the two players involved.
-
What about reverting back to how it was in the beginning?
If that's not an option and Mic still hates the challenger thing I'm in favor of doubling the points in the CM.
-
One thought. Instead of making it a "challenger/champion" from any given season, what about making it a match against the champion of the previous season. Granted, it would not fix tie-break issues in a given season, but we have tie-break rules for that. What it would do is create a high-profile match between two players for the title of reigning champion. To make a football analogy, the Champions League champion gets an automatic berth in the competition the next year, even if they would not regularly qualify based on play within their own league.
So even though Stef would not qualify based on performance this season, he is the reigning champion, and would have a chance to defend his title in a special match. Granted, this could create a situation of "undisputed champion" if someone were to win 2 seasons in a row, but this is just the beginning stages of a thought, not completely fleshed out.
-
Truthfully, I see both sides of the argument, and I don't have strong opinions about it.
The player who dominates during the regular season league matches plays better overall over the course of the 30 games of the season. In this view, the championship match is just an extension of the season, 6 more games to give the player who did second best during the season a chance to play 6 more games to overtake the regular season champion.
Another way to look at the championship match is that it has nothing to do with the regular season, except that the players playing in it are determined by their performance during the regular season. The player who barely avoids demotion and happens to make it to the championship match has the opportunity to heroically rise from near-demotion to become the champion by being given an even playing field on which to duel with the dominant regular season player.
The latter sounds like the stuff from which movies are made. "It's the... eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fight, rising up to the challenge of our rivals..."
It would be interesting to abandon the championship match and have a tournament to determine a post-season champion. The regular season leaders in each of 4 C divisions play one match each to determine which 2 go on to play the regular season leaders in the 2 B Divisions. Then, the 2 winners of those matches go on to play A regular season 1st and 2nd place, and the winner of those matches plays for the championship. This would be a total of 4 rounds of play.
This totally defeats Stef's whole purpose for the league, if I remember it correctly, which was to have a competitive structure where poor performance on one day doesn't end your chances. But it would be interesting.
-
Lets's summarize what we want to achieve:
-an interesting Series that can be tense until the end
-a fair way to reward excellent in-season results (not dominating over 30 games and then not winning the season due to bad luck in a single match)
-diversity in competitors in the CM over the seasons
i think the only way to achieve both of the above things is to undock the CM from the Season, like the Champion/Challenger ,
"King of the Hill"-type of competition.
If you also want more diversity in players playing in the CM maybe make it a random selection of one of the players, with a distribution based on the seasons results in division A
Example (Number of points earned / 90)= chance of being chosen as "challenger"
And not to take anything away from Winning the Season as it's own thing and as the bigger achievement overall.
-
I think it could make a perceptive difference just by adding a highlight for the winner of the Championship Match if it isn't the league winner.
By this I mean, if dudeabides wins the match 4-2, he would be recognized as the winner of the Championship Match even though Mic still wins the league. I don't know if that adds a significant amount of incentive to the 2nd place player in this situation or not. I think I would personally enjoy playing the high profile games if I ever made it there even without any chance for recognition. This at least give the player something to "play for" at least until the Champion gets 3(.5?) games.
-
Even though in the end the organization has to make a decision, the post by Adam was (assuming, hoping) a little more blunt then he intended to.
Dangit :'( , I knew I should have put some emoticons in that post :-X ???. They always help stuff like that out 8), but sometimes I worry that I put too ;) many emoticons :-* in my posts. ;D ;D ;D
It's such a hard line to walk. :) ;D ??? :-X :P ??? ;D :D :P :-X :-* :'( :-* :P :o ;D
-
I think it could make a perceptive difference just by adding a highlight for the winner of the Championship Match if it isn't the league winner.
By this I mean, if dudeabides wins the match 4-2, he would be recognized as the winner of the Championship Match even though Mic still wins the league. I don't know if that adds a significant amount of incentive to the 2nd place player in this situation or not. I think I would personally enjoy playing the high profile games if I ever made it there even without any chance for recognition. This at least give the player something to "play for" at least until the Champion gets 3(.5?) games.
If I beat Mic 4-2 tomorrow, I view myself as a champion regardless of how the rest of y'all view me. At the end of the day, I play Dominion for fun. If the winner of a game were simply the player who had more fun, well, I win 95% of my games, and I'm the top-ranked player :). The 5% of the time I lose on that metric is when I play Big Money to avoid demotion in the league.
Lastly, simply playing in the CM is reward enough for me.
-
I'll suggest starting the division leader off with 1 free win in a best of six match. That guarantees at least 3 good competitive games.
-
I'll suggest starting the division leader off with 1 free win in a best of six match. That guarantees at least 3 good competitive games.
That seems like it still has the problem Stef is worried about where there is no incentive to do as well as possible. Maybe 1 free win for each 2 games that the leader is ahead? That makes the runaways closer and does not change much for the matches that are already close.
-
The central problem is any playoff cheapens the regular season, but pretty much every sport does them anyway because they're so exciting/fun. I think the current system is a nice balance of the two opposite goals. Sometimes, like the past few seasons, the result is "pre-determined" and I think that's fine. It's quaint. When baseball first began teams played the bottom of the ninth even if the home team was winning. "Gentleman's game" and all that. The championship match is 6 high-quality games of Dominion with a big spotlight on it and I think that's enough. Most of the time they'll matter, anyway.
I also wouldn't begrudge the 2 championship players if they wanted to stop playing after a point where it's irrelevant, but I doubt most anyone in the league would do that.
-
I always thought of the championship match as an exhibition match, and never gave any consideration to how it could affect final standings. Treating the champsionship match as part of the standings always felt like it was breaking symmetry for the sake of having the match. That's not an entirely bad thing, since it gives incentives for the players to play their best. But on the other hand, once you have a match between the top 2 players of division A, I'd think natural competitiveness and drive to win means you don't need any more motivation.
Let's put it this way: it can be hard to find time to watch streams of games during the league because these games are scheduled whenever the players are available. The championship match is usually scheduled at some time during the weekend that is easier to make, and since it's a spectacle you can also count on a larger audience which makes things more fun. So, I want something like the championship match to continue, but I don't want the results of that match to actually change the standings. It's a round robin structure; you had your chance during the main season, this is just for fun.
-
Doubling the points seems to be a very nice solution.
Also, while we are discussing that, my little idea: instead of #1 playing vs #2 let #1 play vs #5 and demote if losing. Even with the doubled match points it would be hard to lose this for #1, but that last match would gain a lot of tense.
-
My two-seconds-of-thought suggestion as an alternative to doubling points:
Rather than the championship match being a set number of games, make it first to X points, where X is 3 more than the score of the regular season leader (or whatever number seems best). This season, dudeabides would have to get 8 points before Mic Qsenoch gets 3, and the match could last anywhere from 3 to 11 games. This gives the challenger more of a chance (and someone overcoming a large deficit would be memorable) while still giving a deserved advantage to the dominant regular season performance. (The players could of course agree to play a minimum of 6 for exhibition purposes even if the match is over by then.)
-
make it first to X points, where X is 3 more than the score of the regular season leader (or whatever number seems best). This season, dudeabides would have to get 8 points before Mic Qsenoch gets 3, and the match could last anywhere from 3 to 11 games.
CM with won games counted twice and your suggestion can be ok in respect to reward the player's performance. The question is, how do you handle 11 games? Playing many games are in general a question of time and endurance of mental power. I am not a dominion pro and do not play regulary, so I can only guess that 11 intense games are no fun or even demolishing. Is a 6-blocksplit an acceptable solution (e.g. 1h break or 1d break after every 6 games played)? I don't know.
-
11 game matches are nightmares in my experience.
-
11 games is the worst case here, though (and would require 7.5-2.5, about a 2% chance with evenly matched players and a 5% draw rate). Most matches would still be over by 6 games even with the large point differential, and about 5/6 by 8 games. Of the 6 matches so far, only the first would have gone longer than 6 games given the way the matches actually played out (a first to 22 in season 3 would have stood at Yed 21-21.5 Stef after the 6 games they played, so it would have required the maximum of 7).
For season 8, the challenger win probabilities:
Fixed 6 Games (Current System): 1.9%
First to 23: 5.4% (max 11 games)
Fixed 6 Games (Double Points in CM): 12.6%
First to 25 (Double Points in CM): 19.4% (max 7 games)
(Ok, I've spent more than two seconds on this now.)
-
I feel like it shouldn't be the top two A's playing. They already played each other this season. It should be the top A and top B. And if so then obv. the score is just for that match rather than adding in how they did over the season. It could also be a little tournament among division winners although that takes longer.
I mean winning A just means you won A. No-one outside of A got to play you. You put in whatever work to get to A in previous seasons, but now, this past season, you just played other A's. So playing the winning B feels more like you are a champion; you beat the guy who beat those other guys.
-
Donald, don't you think you could join the league for a season or two? :)
-
I feel like it shouldn't be the top two A's playing. They already played each other this season. It should be the top A and top B. And if so then obv. the score is just for that match rather than adding in how they did over the season. It could also be a little tournament among division winners although that takes longer.
I mean winning A just means you won A. No-one outside of A got to play you. You put in whatever work to get to A in previous seasons, but now, this past season, you just played other A's. So playing the winning B feels more like you are a champion; you beat the guy who beat those other guys.
But this makes less sense than having two A divisions (as suggested by DG).
For one thing there are two B divisions - I guess you could have a playoff match to determine which B winner plays the A winner. But a more significant problem with the A-winner-vs-B-winner format is that it can easily create incentive to demote from A league, as people figure that going through B is an easier path to the championship match. Another problem is that it makes the championship match much less likely to feature the two truly best players.
-
I feel like it shouldn't be the top two A's playing. They already played each other this season. It should be the top A and top B. And if so then obv. the score is just for that match rather than adding in how they did over the season. It could also be a little tournament among division winners although that takes longer.
I mean winning A just means you won A. No-one outside of A got to play you. You put in whatever work to get to A in previous seasons, but now, this past season, you just played other A's. So playing the winning B feels more like you are a champion; you beat the guy who beat those other guys.
But this makes less sense than having two A divisions (as suggested by DG).
For one thing there are two B divisions - I guess you could have a playoff match to determine which B winner plays the A winner. But a more significant problem with the A-winner-vs-B-winner format is that it can easily create incentive to demote from A league, as people figure that going through B is an easier path to the championship match. Another problem is that it makes the championship match much less likely to feature the two truly best players.
I am going to guess that B1 and B2 are supposed to be at the same level, rather than B1 being a rung up, since otherwise it's just a question of what you call B1 and why would you care about that.
In which case, okay, two A's, acceptable.
-
I'd like to revive this discussion and possibly change the rules this time (we have another week before season 10 starts). I've written down a proposal, even though I'm not 100% sure I like it myself. Honestly I'm just fine with the way it is, just suggesting this because I like the idea of listening to people.
| lead | leader requires | challenger requires |
| 0 - 0.5 | 3 | 3.5 |
| 1 - 2.5 | 3 | 4.5 |
| 3 - 4.5 | 3 | 5.5 |
| 5 - 6.5 | 2.5 | 6 |
| 7+ | 2 | 6.5 |
It would of course still be an uphill battle for whoever is behind, but not as impossible as it sometimes has been with the current set of rules.
Would you consider this an improvement?
-
Am I missing something? The challenger would need even more wins under this system than before. Having a 1 deficit, you would need a 4-2 before, now you need 4,5? What even happens when the challenger gets to 3 or 3,5 (nobody reaches the requirements)?
-
Am I missing something? The challenger would need even more wins under this system than before. Having a 1 deficit, you would need a 4-2 before, now you need 4,5? What even happens when the challenger gets to 3 or 3,5 (nobody reaches the requirements)?
It would no longer be "play 6 games" but "play on until either player reaches the requirement"
So yes challenger might need more, but so does the leader. The match could take a little longer but it also could be over quickly.
If I got some of the numbers wrong... feel free to suggest improvements :)
-
I'm fine with the way it is, but I think this proposal is better. I'm not sure if it's worth making it that much more complicated, though.
-
My two-seconds-of-thought suggestion as an alternative to doubling points:
Rather than the championship match being a set number of games, make it first to X points, where X is 3 more than the score of the regular season leader (or whatever number seems best). This season, dudeabides would have to get 8 points before Mic Qsenoch gets 3, and the match could last anywhere from 3 to 11 games. This gives the challenger more of a chance (and someone overcoming a large deficit would be memorable) while still giving a deserved advantage to the dominant regular season performance. (The players could of course agree to play a minimum of 6 for exhibition purposes even if the match is over by then.)
I still think this is the best proposal if we want to change things. I'm also fine with things staying the same.
-
i'm still biggest on the two A groups myself
so in competitive gaming, the organization Major League Gaming uses a "continuation" rule that's similar to some of the suggestions here. all sets are 3/5 games in MLG, but if two people play each other twice (because double-elimination) then it's the first to 6 wins total. and you know what?
everyone *despises* that rule. i don't know anyone outside of the biggest MLG loyalists who actually likes it. many players love the idea that you can lose to someone, adapt, and get revenge in the losers bracket...and the continuation rule makes that much less likely to happen. it also kills the excitement for spectators.
i feel like we really, really need an evenly-matched championship game somehow, and two A groups is the only fair method i can think of atm
-
I don't think the league needs an "evenly-matched championship game". The championship itself was an afterthought in the original design. What makes the league great is the focus on the "regular season," and I don't want to see that cheapened. If that means there isn't an excitement for spectators, so be it - that's not a goal of the league (at least not as I see it).
-
I don't think the league needs an "evenly-matched championship game". The championship itself was an afterthought in the original design. What makes the league great is the focus on the "regular season," and I don't want to see that cheapened. If that means there isn't an excitement for spectators, so be it - that's not a goal of the league (at least not as I see it).
I like it the way it is. If someone pwns the regular season then they deserve an associated advantage in the championship. The format of the league doesn't lend itself to "one big match" or big events -- we just kind of tack that on for-funsies and personally I don't think making that better is worth compromising the way the league is structured.
If you want "one big match" then we'll be doing an F.DS championship soon anyways, so we'll get our fix of that. :)
But I'm just one person. I'll live with whatever we come up with.
-
I don't think the league needs an "evenly-matched championship game". The championship itself was an afterthought in the original design. What makes the league great is the focus on the "regular season," and I don't want to see that cheapened. If that means there isn't an excitement for spectators, so be it - that's not a goal of the league (at least not as I see it).
It would be absolutely thrilling if the league would focus on the regular season, but the only way to do that is, you know, to actually do it! I.e. ditch the championship match altogether and possibly decrease the 2-week break between seasons to 1 week, so we even see more regular seasons in any given year.
What we have right now is an awfully half-baked compromise between a focus on the regular season and a spectacle at the end, and, like all awfully half-baked compromises, it fails to achieve either objective.
If someone pwns the regular season then they deserve an associated advantage in the championship.
If the point is to focus on the regular season that's much less than he deserves: someone who pwns the regular season would deserve to win the league.
I would really like to see a clear choice being made: either focus on the regular season and then actually focus on the regular season, or include a spectacle at the end and have it actually be a spectacle.
-
Underwater Dominion would be a cool spectacle
-
I'd like to revive this discussion and possibly change the rules this time (we have another week before season 10 starts). I've written down a proposal, even though I'm not 100% sure I like it myself. Honestly I'm just fine with the way it is, just suggesting this because I like the idea of listening to people.
| lead | leader requires | challenger requires |
| 0 - 0.5 | 3 | 3.5 |
| 1 - 2.5 | 3 | 4.5 |
| 3 - 4.5 | 3 | 5.5 |
| 5 - 6.5 | 2.5 | 6 |
| 7+ | 2 | 6.5 |
It would of course still be an uphill battle for whoever is behind, but not as impossible as it sometimes has been with the current set of rules.
Would you consider this an improvement?
This is basically the first to X (double CM) proposal with a cap on total possible games (8) and a bit more advantage to the leader to avoid ties. This is what it looks like if you make it a little more precise:
0: Leader (3), Challenger (3) - If regular season tie was broken by head-to-head Leader has advantage in the Game 6 tied situation (2.5-2.5 followed by another draw; 3-2 or 2-3 would already be a win for someone); otherwise just play a Game 7 to decide it.
0.5-1: Leader (3), Challenger (3.5)
1.5-2: Leader (3), Challenger (4) - Challenger wins if they both get there Game 7. (That is, 2.5-3.5 followed by a draw. 2-4 would already be a Challenger win, 3-3 would already be a Leader win.)
2.5-3: Leader (3), Challenger (4.5)
3.5-4: Leader (3), Challenger (5) - Challenger wins if they both get there Game 8.
4.5-5: Leader (3), Challenger (5.5)
5.5-6: Leader (2.5), Challenger (5.5) - Challenger wins if they both get there Game 8.
6.5-7: Leader (2.5), Challenger (6)
7.5-8: Leader (2), Challenger (6) - Challenger wins if they both get there Game 8.
8.5+: Leader (2), Challenger (6.5)
(In the 2, 4, 6, 8 point lead situations, really after 7 or 8 games there is a tie on points with CM points doubled; I have chosen to award that to the challenger as having performed better in the championship match, and for simplicity, but you could award those to the Leader or require a tiebreaker instead. These situations would be quite unlikely to happen because of the draws required.)
-
You could have an invitational.
The winner of the league A division wins the league, that's it for that.
Then there is an invitational tournament to provide a spectacle. Probably really small which means probably 4 people. You invite the winner of the league, the next best performer in the league ignoring division (with division as a tiebreaker - so, the highest 6-0 if there is one). Then you invite two other people somehow. Highest ranked online player not in the league not already invited? Someone voted in? Two high-ranked non-league online players would be fine. Of course they have to want to do it.
The tournament is say a round-robin using the custom kingdoms. You play maybe two games against each other player, that's 6 games, an acceptable length. If you need a tiebreaker at that point you play tiebreaker games. If you want you can deal with an N-way tie in one game by having a multiplayer game.