[WNL3] Suggestions
- Thread starter Scar
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
+Varsung+ said:
yeah nvm it's 2 auto promotions from div C only i think
Moving this over since the issue with PaD and HO has been resolved.Duken said:
Teams, as far as I know aren't matched with other teams of the "most similar record", as the rules state. Instead they are matched with teams even on points and then with highest to lowest round difference (or rounds won? - not sure) first to avoid teams giving away free rounds. This is why Swadia played SSS (for example) this week and not Team Aesir.
It was discussed further back in this thread but I can't see where it's stated in the rules.
My other point was that there doesn't seem to be any need to call the system the "Swiss System" if it's not exactly the same as how it's used elsewhere. You can just clearly define all elements of the system in the rules to limit any potential confusion.
Captain Lust said:
This isn't true. For example next week PaD and HO won't be fighting each other even if they have the same points. We wrote "most similar record" and this is how it is. You don't see this because right now there are still a lot of teams with the same amount of points that haven't played against each other.
You're right. We will fix this asap.
I don't think that really has anything to do with it.Duken said:
Surely "most similar record" would mean that teams with highest points and highest round difference (or rounds won - still not sure), would be matched first. That is not the case in this system where teams with the same points are matched starting with those that have the most disparate round difference (or rounds won). I feel like I'm repeating myself but I don't see how this is matching teams with the "most similar record", which I think is misleading.
I think the rules could do with a little reworking overall to be honest. Separating match rules for league stage and knockout stages would make things clearer, even if parts are repeated it makes it more practical to use, so that depending on what stage my match is, I am only looking at relevant rules.
The same applies for tournament rules which could be separated for DivA/B and Div C. Think about the end-user and the practical purpose of the rules to make it as easy as possible to find the rules relevant for themselves.
Also some rules like:
are a bit wishy washy. "Should" is ineffective wording for a ruleset and fails to clarify how many players a team needs to have added and when. It is then clarified by another rule that sort of negates the need for this rule. It reads more like advice than a rule.
Perhaps some touching up here and there would make it easier for teams and admins to understand the relevant rules for each situation.
Curious as to how the fixtures will be generated for Div C this week. If it's done how I think and (for example) wK get paired with SSS, while Malta play a team on 6 points... there's potentially an issue there with teams being able to manipulate RD. Malta actually benefited from having a close win there since they'll get a 2 win, 1 loss team instead of a perfect record team, which wK will have to play as a result of doing so well. I'm not really sure if the logic is right here and I don't think that, in practice, it's much of an issue. I don't have a solution either but it doesn't sit quite right with me.
With uneven points it simply seems a bit more confusing. Perhaps generating a pick order and simulating autopicks would yield better results, then presumably wK would be picked, which isn't ideal either.
This is kind of the reason I feel like the picking works best. For example, right from the start, Iron Knights could simply pick their opponent and make a judgement about who they want to play, earning the right as the team with the highest rounds won without achieving a win. As it stands, they'll probably be matched with Wolfs and then I'm not sure who sultans gaming get but they're at a disadvantage having to play a team on 3 points, whereas if they'd taken heavier losses they could have sat below Wolfs of Odin and played a team on 0 points.
By dehumanising it, these become problems although, admittedly I don't think of them as major concerns, they do seem like imperfections in the current system.
EDIT: Honestly I feel like quite a nice alternative would be to just order the teams by points, randomise those on the same points and have 1 play 2, 3 play 4, 5 play 6 and so on. Round difference is a pretty unreliable factor anyway and at least randomising avoids any potential manipulation.
You could still enforce extra rules on top of that (no repeat matches etc.)
With uneven points it simply seems a bit more confusing. Perhaps generating a pick order and simulating autopicks would yield better results, then presumably wK would be picked, which isn't ideal either.
This is kind of the reason I feel like the picking works best. For example, right from the start, Iron Knights could simply pick their opponent and make a judgement about who they want to play, earning the right as the team with the highest rounds won without achieving a win. As it stands, they'll probably be matched with Wolfs and then I'm not sure who sultans gaming get but they're at a disadvantage having to play a team on 3 points, whereas if they'd taken heavier losses they could have sat below Wolfs of Odin and played a team on 0 points.
By dehumanising it, these become problems although, admittedly I don't think of them as major concerns, they do seem like imperfections in the current system.
EDIT: Honestly I feel like quite a nice alternative would be to just order the teams by points, randomise those on the same points and have 1 play 2, 3 play 4, 5 play 6 and so on. Round difference is a pretty unreliable factor anyway and at least randomising avoids any potential manipulation.
You could still enforce extra rules on top of that (no repeat matches etc.)
Isn't that a direct consequence from the rule-change based on your suggestion to discourage intentionally lost rounds?Captain Lust said:
Without writing a wall of text I'll just toss in that in my opinion intentionally losing rounds isn't a thing and every assumed problem based on it can be dismissed. Even if it were a thing the involved troubles the "cheating" team would have to go through to actually make it work, and the circumstance that in the end it doesn't matter at all as far as the final rankings of the teams are concerned, makes the whole rule-change (I still maintain that the forced autopicks last season weren't ideal too
) as well as the doubts redundant.Giving up round-counts altogether would be the only solution if intentionally lost rounds were a thing - I don't think it is, misunderstanding the flag-mechanics on the other hand is ubiquitous.
I guess that's the cold light of logic again.Captain Lust said:
Although if you actually dehumanised it, it wouldn't become a problem to begin with.So essentially the Swiss/Danish system. Round difference resulting from intentionally lost rounds never was an issue in the end anyway though. Independently, I'm still curious whether the majority of people prefers playing best of 16 or (some sort of) first to 9.Captain Lust said:
I don't think so, since in the original system (highest points then RD plays second highest points then RD, and so on) this would still be possible. It's more a consequence of having an uneven number of teams on the same number of points (the first week that's occurred).ModusTollens said:
Yes I do agree that practically it might not have an effect at all but there is a good chance that in one week, one team (who plays on deadline day, for example) will be met with a very good chance to lose rounds to achieve a certain position for a predicted advantage. And if/when that time comes, it will be silly.ModusTollens said:Without writing a wall of text I'll just toss in that in my opinion intentionally losing rounds isn't a thing and every assumed problem based on it can be dismissed. Even if it were a thing the involved troubles the "cheating" team would have to go through to actually make it work, and the circumstance that in the end it doesn't matter at all as far as the final rankings of the teams are concerned, makes the whole rule-change (I still maintain that the forced autopicks last season weren't ideal too
Giving up round-counts altogether would be the only solution if intentionally lost rounds were a thing - I don't think it is, misunderstanding the flag-mechanics on the other hand is ubiquitous.
ModusTollens said:I guess that's the cold light of logic again.
Yes but ignoring round wins/losses as any sort of sorting mechanism. That's where it differs from the original.ModusTollens said:
I would be keen to see a match format that ended the game when a team won. Also interested in seeing picking maps and perhaps factions.ModusTollens said:
I don't really think it makes sense to change the system at this point. Just theorycrafting.
Captain Lust said:
Have you read my PM Lust?
On to the actual topic: The Swiss System wasn't made with multi-round games in mind. However, such methods of losing in purpose to get a weaker oppoment can be too risky and in the end, you have to face the big ones.
Yes, I meant it in regard to the new matchmaking. In the former system it would have been wK vs Malta, SSS vs Aesir and TKoS vs WW, which, in my opinion, wouldn't only make for more interesting matches stream-wise but also more sense in general. The only argument for changing it, seemingly was the practical impossibility of intentionally losing rounds.Captain Lust said:
If it's practically impossible it's kinda useless to even use it as an example for anything with practical consequences. Even if there was such a scenario (and not mentioning the necessary prerequisites to make it work), I still don't see how someone is able to lose rounds intentionally without it being obvious - and therefore being punished for "cheating" or due to the behaviour rules.Captain Lust said:
I think the best of 16/first to 9-thing would be one of the few cases where a poll would actually make sense (not as basis for a decision but as a general opinion survey). Personally I'm still conflicted between the practicability of first to 9 and the having-fun-playing/let-everyone-play aspect of best of 16 - therefore I don't care.Captain Lust said:
As far as maps- and factions-picking is concerned I still agree with you that the NC would have been a perfect opportunity for re-evaluating ancient stuff like that (or for testing something along the line of the UNAC-system).
Also this:
Furthermore I also think that the Div C-system works pretty well and is, at least in my opinion, preferable to a ladder system with autopicks (even though the pick-nights are sorely missedCaptain Lust said:
).
Olonzo said:
Depends on the matches of the prior week.
We match the teams with the closest amount of points. In case we have more then 2 teams on the same amount of point, the team with the highest RD gets to fight the team with the lowest RD and so forth. In case two or more teams have the same RD, these teams get randomized and then matched with their opponents. In case we have an uneven number of teams, the team that is "left over" gets to play the team with the closest amount of points.
Dr4g0nkn1ght
Sergeant Knight at Arms
After our experience in our last match I would appreciate if some people with modding experience would look into the flag randomizer again.
Im not saying its broken or anything but 4 flag spawns at the exact same spot on one set doesnt really feel like its randomized.
This isnt supposed to be a rage or QQ post but I would feel better if I knew that the randomizer is working properly.
Im not saying its broken or anything but 4 flag spawns at the exact same spot on one set doesnt really feel like its randomized.
This isnt supposed to be a rage or QQ post but I would feel better if I knew that the randomizer is working properly.
Dr4g0nkn1ght
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Im not saying this because it happened to us, in fact it happened several times in previous matches.
But of course its up to the admins whether they want to research the issue or not.
But of course its up to the admins whether they want to research the issue or not.
- Status
