Native Completed [NASTe] North American Small Teams Seasonal Ladder [Season 2]

[Rhade]

No, not the end of the world.

And Marnid, yes, that is a perfect storm -- The season was months and months, I promise there were opportunities; some teams were dedicated enough to make sure they didn't miss them, some didn't care. Apathy is being rewarded, but it's not my ladder, so that's fine.

Just frustrating when the teams that have proven they can't schedule are going to slow the finals down. I never really was trying to make a huge deal out of it, it just sort of devalues the effort you have to put in to get to the top, stay there, and win every match when the finals gets changed last minute to basically negate all the previous efforts.

However, I'd be a lot more happy and content if the top 2 teams were given byes, and didn't have to make their way (again) through the trenches. Use the current ladder ranking system to seed the playoffs, and don't reward the bottom teams or punish the top teams. Personally, I think the top 2 teams should automatically be waiting at the semi's, and everyone else should have to eliminate each other until only two teams plus the top two are left, at which point it should go to the original ro4.

 

[Outlawed]

Well, well.

This has turned to a big **** storm, just like everything else on TW.

To be honest, through this experience we have learned that the challenge system in place is quite obsolete. Ra only really had problems with our challenges during the X-mas period, and one previous one, that we ended up actually finishing within the week. The problem as Marnid said is that we didn't get a chance to issue a single challenge. We got challenges back to back and we seemed to always get stuck defending. Look at our scores. We played 6 matches, which is up there in terms of matches played. Top teams playing 6/7 at most. So its not a problem with scheduling for us in particular. We played, we won, but we didn't get a chance to issue a challenge.

That's why we should probably add something to do with the amount of consecutive challenges issued/accepted next time. Just to make it possible for teams to be able to actually get some challenges issued and won/lost. Maybe also have a minimum number of challenges that a team must accept/issue in order to be part of next season.

For us, it is unfair. We've got the second best win/loss on the ladder, but we couldn't climb up because we were stuck defending. Its not a scheduling/effort/dedication issue. In fact, I think any other team would have just crumbled. We had 2 captain changes and kept shuffling our roster to make it possible to make these matches. Its ridiculous that one match being held up in the middle of holiday season is being used against us in all honesty.

This is why I think its fine to let everyone play in a knock-out round this time around. Did you really expect everything to work perfectly the first time around? Life doesn't work like that.

Edit:
Also Rhade, 8 teams = 3 matches to win.
4 teams = 2 matches to win.

Following your logic, the best teams will make it to the semi-finals, no?
So you really have to wait 1 week more for the two extra matches to take place lol. Its really not that bad.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Well, well.

This has turned to a big **** storm, just like everything else on TW.

To be honest, through this experience we have learned that the challenge system in place is quite obsolete. Ra only really had problems with our challenges during the X-mas period, and one previous one, that we ended up actually finishing within the week. The problem as Marnid said is that we didn't get a chance to issue a single challenge. We got challenges back to back and we seemed to always get stuck defending. Look at our scores. We played 6 matches, which is up there in terms of matches played. Top teams playing 6/7 at most. So its not a problem with scheduling for us in particular. We played, we won, but we didn't get a chance to issue a challenge.

That's why we should probably add something to do with the amount of consecutive challenges issued/accepted next time. Just to make it possible for teams to be able to actually get some challenges issued and won/lost. Maybe also have a minimum number of challenges that a team must accept/issue in order to be part of next season.

For us, it is unfair. We've got the second best win/loss on the ladder, but we couldn't climb up because we were stuck defending. Its not a scheduling/effort/dedication issue. In fact, I think any other team would have just crumbled. We had 2 captain changes and kept shuffling our roster to make it possible to make these matches. Its ridiculous that one match being held up in the middle of holiday season is being used against us in all honesty.

This is why I think its fine to let everyone play in a knock-out round this time around. Did you really expect everything to work perfectly the first time around? Life doesn't work like that.

Edit:
Also Rhade, 8 teams = 3 matches to win.
4 teams = 2 matches to win.

Following your logic, the best teams will make it to the semi-finals, no?
So you really have to wait 1 week more for the two extra matches to take place lol. Its really not that bad.

I'm pretty sure all Rhade is saying it that it seems kind of silly of have a big ladder competition that initially was intended for a select number of teams that placed high enough, and then have all teams be in it anyway. It somewhat negates any progress those teams made. He only wants the bye-week so that there still was a point to making it to the top of the ladder for his team, not necessarily that he is worried about getting to the semi-finals.

Personally I would rather play more matches but in the end I don't think it will matter too much. This is just the first season of the ladder, everyone knew there would be problems with it. Just finish this season up so we can improve on the next round.

 

[Outlawed]

I would rather have all teams than 4 teams that really didn't deserve it and ended up winning 2 of their challenges, but losing 4, for example.
Both CRAP and LAG lost more than they won, yet challenged more and they are higher on the ladder. This is brought about by the challenge system semantics. Anyone can tell that.

In a general sense, of course, it does not make sense at all to have a long season and then bring everyone along for the party. Too carebear. But given that its first time around, and that challenges need fixing, I think its fine.

Forward is the way to go, I think we all agree to that.
Too bad BkS wont be around next season though =p

 

[POM_Zero]

Match log updated !

 

[Mok the International]

Match log updated !

About time.

 

[Catholic]

I really don't care. I just hope the same problems that caused the 8 team finals - ****ty scheduling - don't bog down the finals as well. Chances are, if you can't schedule during the season, you can't schedule during elimination. I hope everything runs smoothly, and if it does, I'm fine.

 

[captain lust]

I would rather have all teams than 4 teams that really didn't deserve it and ended up winning 2 of their challenges, but losing 4, for example.
Both CRAP and LAG lost more than they won, yet challenged more and they are higher on the ladder. This is brought about by the challenge system semantics. Anyone can tell that.

Yeah... and the challenge system semantics are there for a reason: to sort the teams by who they beat, rather than W/L which is totally irrelevant to the ladder. I don't know how you concluded that the top 4 teams somehow "didn't deserve it". What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

We played the game that Marnid set and we got 3rd place.

 

[Outlawed]

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, or l2comprehension.
I said we were better than you in competition scrims yet you're higher on the list than us because you challenged more.
Obviously win/loss isn't everything in a ladder, which I perfectly understand. But we need to address these semantics.

In theory, a team that challenges for 6 times, wins once will beat a team that defend 6 times and wins 5 of them.
This isn't 'fine', and doesn't help the ladder at all. It only does if teams defend/accept a certain amount of times.

 

[captain lust]

The problem is that you're coming up with your own ideas about what the ladder should do, at the wrong stage in the competition.

I raised multiple concerns about the format before it started and was largely ignored. Regardless, CRAP played the game that was presented to us and we've earned our place complying with the rules of the competition which were clearly laid out and discussed beforehand. Rhade is totally right in this respect, there have been opportunities for everyone and to advocate effectively throwing the ladder out of the window at this stage is ridiculous, in spite of its flaws.

I maintain my position of this not being the end of the world but what you're coming out with is just absurd.

 

[ryizzel]

Ron Paul, 2012.....wait...wrong thread. My bad.

 

[Wappaw_Pizza42]

Wappaw beats GOOD:

5-0

5-1


GGs. Happy to be a part of the playoffs. (Will be updating with SSs).

 

[Mok the International]

Dem Wappaws.

 

[Green Knight]

^^ said screenshots





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Catholic]

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, or l2comprehension.
I said we were better than you in competition scrims yet you're higher on the list than us because you challenged more.
Obviously win/loss isn't everything in a ladder, which I perfectly understand. But we need to address these semantics.

In theory, a team that challenges for 6 times, wins once will beat a team that defend 6 times and wins 5 of them.
This isn't 'fine', and doesn't help the ladder at all. It only does if teams defend/accept a certain amount of times.

We beat the third place team, and this is how you 'earn' third place according to the rules. If you want to ***** about the ladder system, a smart time to do it is not at the end of the season. We earned it per how Orion expected us to. We're not going to deliberately lose or whatever you seem to think we should do just because the system is flawed according to you. We'll get up there however we want to according to the rules set at the very BEGINNING of the season.

And for the captain of a team that doesn't have its **** together and prolonged a match for three weeks, you have a lot of talk. Especially considering CRAP only rescheduled for non-lag reasons as far as I can remember only once with BAD, and we rescheduled to play it three days later.

 

[Outlawed]

Lol, I don't understand why you're so hostile though.
If you actually READ any of my posts, you'd see that I had no problems with using 4 teams, but felt 8 would be better based on the sporadic challenge routine. I also specifically talked about the 3 week hold up and it being holiday season, but again, you just want to open your mouth and blab and flame without even reading anything.

The imbalance is very clear dude. I'm not '*****ing'. If anything, you seem to be so defensive towards your position that you're willing to start a flame war, something I'm not quite interested in. Lets just stay nice and friendly here Xd

Nothing is meant as an attack or offense. I'm just talking about the semantics.

edit: removed flame.

 

[Catholic]

That's funnily hypocritical as I expressed my contentment with using eight teams. I have absolutely no problem with that. I could just quote it for you:

I really don't care. I just hope the same problems that caused the 8 team finals - ****ty scheduling - don't bog down the finals as well. Chances are, if you can't schedule during the season, you can't schedule during elimination. I hope everything runs smoothly, and if it does, I'm fine.

Hey, I even bolded what I was referring to for you.

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, or l2comprehension.
I said we were better than you in competition scrims yet you're higher on the list than us because you challenged more.
Obviously win/loss isn't everything in a ladder, which I perfectly understand. But we need to address these semantics.

In theory, a team that challenges for 6 times, wins once will beat a team that defend 6 times and wins 5 of them.
This isn't 'fine', and doesn't help the ladder at all. It only does if teams defend/accept a certain amount of times.

I would rather have all teams than 4 teams that really didn't deserve it and ended up winning 2 of their challenges, but losing 4, for example.
Both CRAP and LAG lost more than they won, yet challenged more and they are higher on the ladder. This is brought about by the challenge system semantics. Anyone can tell that.

In a general sense, of course, it does not make sense at all to have a long season and then bring everyone along for the party. Too carebear. But given that its first time around, and that challenges need fixing, I think its fine.

Forward is the way to go, I think we all agree to that.
Too bad BkS wont be around next season though =p

Your 'holiday season' excuse doesn't lend you any credit either, as far as I recall we had either a BAD or a BkS scrim right around then.

12/24/2011 - BkS 2-0 CRAP

Yup. Both of our teams made it, full numbers, no reschedules or delays. And we scheduled it a week earlier. Generally, however random/true your claim that "Ra is better in competition scrims", a good place to start proving that is actually making the times and dates that you schedule. CRAP was bogged down for three weeks due to GOOD scheduling and lag problems, and despite that we still pulled in third, once again fully according to how the ladder works. Another reason we lost more is naturally because we challenged the top two teams on the ladder. We had two choices, either sit there and do nothing, or challenge BkS/BAD. It's not a particularly difficult choice of what I'm going to do.

 

[Outlawed]

I was referring to stats bro. Nothing more, nothing less.

We are better at winning than you are, according to the ladder. Its not a general statement. I'm referring to the matter at hand.
Also, I don't know about BkS and you guys, but our members are mostly college students who went back home for the break, so it was literally impossible to make those times.
Maybe you can afford to spend time playing Warband on x-mas eve but for some people its a time they'd rather spend with their families because its the only time of the year they actually get to see them. Try to be more considerate. People have circumstances, and **** happens.

Why are you bringing scheduling up? We aren't 6th because we can't play our matches. We only had trouble with ONE match in the whole season.
We played the same number of matches as you! xD How are we unable to schedule then? Do tell! We had a challenge come in every week, so we were pretty pre-occupied. I'll give you that the teams were quick to issue their challenges right after we finished our match, which is where we can improve. But we made all of our matches with the exception of that one game that everyone is holding on to, so dearly, and making general statements with.

All I am saying is to implement a challenge semantic to allow for the stats to make a bit more sense.
Its not us, or you per se. Its more of a general statement towards the ladder. If you were in our place, and we were in yours I would say the same thing. I don't know why you're taking such a defensive stance and attacking our scheduling ability. ffs.

 

[Catholic]

I'm willing to drop the subject matter, and willing to apologize for any offenses against Ra and yourself. To clear up, I was not getting uppity and defensive about your scheduling or your team. I was mainly pissed at this line:

I said we were better than you in competition scrims yet you're higher on the list than us because you challenged more.

as well as the other one I bolded.

We lost more because we were facing opponents we could not beat. We won our way to 3rd with a 2-1 record, I believe. Once we started fighting BkS and BAD, two teams we did not beat but continued trying to, our record slumped. As everyone else, including your team, was not fighting BkS and BAD, your record was better. This is simply how the ladder works and not because we're worse as you implied.

I am in agreement that this system did not work as intended. I challenged BkS and BAD over, and over, and over again, often 24 hours apart, because when you are challenging, you cannot be challenged. Thus, essentially the 3rd and 4th spots in the ladder, low enough spots where you can challenge multiple teams, but yet high enough to make the top 4, are the best places to be. Season 2 I would recommend having a one-week "no challenge" period after each challenge so that each team can both challenge and be challenged without any issue. Having a 24 hour window to be challenged was far too short.

 

[Outlawed]

Lol I was just referring to the stats as I said.
I wasn't making any general statement about our clan and yours.
Even though we did beat you when we played you

Let season 2 be our judge.