ClockWise 说:
yes but maybe a bit simplified, dunno didn't read the whole thing
[UNAC] Season 1 Feedback, Season 2 Suggestions.
- 主题发起人 Kherven
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
yes but maybe a bit simplified, dunno didn't read the whole thing
I adressed this in my post:
The EU scene mostly had the same issue with there being teams losing interest at the end of the season with teams that are out of the top spot having little to fight for. With the ending bracket, and possibly two for the lower end teams, it keeps people with something to fight for. Also, teams dropping have very little effect on stats, although there was an issue with teams dropping after picks or match-ups are created, but honestly it's the same issue you would have mid bracket with a RR, either it's soon enough that a team can be paired up with a team that has a bye, or that team will get a bye, and are awarded no points. The issue is that a team could be paired with multiple teams that drop after scheduling, and effect their score. Howvere, looking at UNAC and the WNL, there's quite a bit more stability between teams in NA than there was in the last season of the WNL. EDIT: Also would like to mention that with teams dropping, it mostly effects teams that are in the middle, either fighting for the top 6/4 or working their way up, because a team in the top will most likely either keep their spot, or their opponent would have been a threat to them anyway, allowing them to effectively be on the positive end of the drop, rather than it hurting them.
Sota please stop posting.
BTW I was in that WNL, I can speak on behalf of EU to atleast some respect, without being completely ignorant of the situation.
The EU scene mostly had the same issue with there being teams losing interest at the end of the season with teams that are out of the top spot having little to fight for. With the ending bracket, and possibly two for the lower end teams, it keeps people with something to fight for. Also, teams dropping have very little effect on stats, although there was an issue with teams dropping after picks or match-ups are created, but honestly it's the same issue you would have mid bracket with a RR, either it's soon enough that a team can be paired up with a team that has a bye, or that team will get a bye, and are awarded no points. The issue is that a team could be paired with multiple teams that drop after scheduling, and effect their score. Howvere, looking at UNAC and the WNL, there's quite a bit more stability between teams in NA than there was in the last season of the WNL. EDIT: Also would like to mention that with teams dropping, it mostly effects teams that are in the middle, either fighting for the top 6/4 or working their way up, because a team in the top will most likely either keep their spot, or their opponent would have been a threat to them anyway, allowing them to effectively be on the positive end of the drop, rather than it hurting them.
Sota please stop posting.
BTW I was in that WNL, I can speak on behalf of EU to atleast some respect, without being completely ignorant of the situation.
NASTe was a failure in respect to the ladder system. I wouldn't want to play in that again.
One last thing from me, this is a suggestion and feedback, not a voting block, I would assume that if you have an opinion on the matter that you should debate in it's favour, rather than just throw your opinion out there. There was a very clear difference between WNL and NASTe and saying that a ladder system is bad and that you'll stomp your feet and not play is about as backwards as it gets to being in an atmosphere of compromise and constructive communication. (shots fired)
If anyone has any issues regarding my post (Wily) I'm on steam and would gladly clarify anything about my suggestion without spamming posts.
If anyone has any issues regarding my post (Wily) I'm on steam and would gladly clarify anything about my suggestion without spamming posts.
Mr.X
RoBo_CoP 说:
Sota, myself, and clockwise gave the same idea for a tournament style. Why don't you read people's posts instead of telling them to stop posting because you don't like them.
RoBo_CoP 说:Tournament/League Format:
This is the trickiest part of the whole thing, creating a format that works fairly for everyone, is smooth and quick enough to appease everyone aswell. I think that there is just a couple key things to consider. The size of the scene limits the amount of complexity you can introduce without making it unnecessary or have it function properly. The league format that the WNL used / NASTe used are great for larger tournaments with a larger pool of top teir teams being able to duke it out for a top spot. The picking system also allows for better match-ups and higher quality streams for much more intense and interesting play, however is the NA scene large enough for it? The alternative is the round-robin, however it has its own problems. A RR is great for smaller amounts of teams, however with the amount currently in the UNAC, it drags the tournament into months of matches with a lot of poor match-ups. I also dis-agree with two concurrent RRs, since there will still be a problem with poor match-ups, as well as making it a bit harder for the lower teir teams to improve over time and be paired with equals, while if we were to keep the finals bracket afterwards, it would just end the same with the same top-teir teams making it through, essentially just shortening the tournament, rather than improving it. (Though I suppose that is a small improvement itself)
Looking at the number of teams currently playing with the number of teams that can possibly be lost, and added, I would think trying at the NASTe or WNL style formats could work. NA kinda straddles the line between having enough numbers to keep it interesting, and having a Round Robin work effectively. Looking at the current season of UNAC, I think that it can be well worth the effort in attempting to change.
There are two issues that need to be adressed with this method, firstly being that of teams playing each-other too often, and teams leaving and entering. I think with the stability of the NA scene, with the size of the core clans playing, It wouldn't be an issue with either, as long as the rule-set is effect at keeping teams choosing different opponents each week, and having there be a good way to measure the standing, and honestly the current method of doing so works, and translates directly over to other formats.
I think if anything, there should be two season ending brackets, with the top 1-6 in a final, and 7-12/ 7-10 in a final, with the top two of each (6 teams) being seeded.
Two concurrent RRs would actually solve the poor matchups problem. Since there would be fewer teams and the RRs would be determined by seed, the top teams in one and the low teams in another, all the matchups would theoretically be a lot closer considering all the teams are more closely ranked. Although I agree the same people vs the same people gets boring over time, so does a rank 1 vs a rank 10, so there's not much you can do there.
I still don't understand the purpose of having a RR and then a final with 6 teams. For arguments sake lets say 6 teams is half of the tournament. You're literally increasing the time spent in the tournament by 3 weeks. That's a pretty long time for people who already don't have much of an incentive to play to wait. Even if they have a tournament themselves, there's no more incentive fighting for 7th place during an RR and a tourney.
There's not really measurable achievement, and measurable achievement is what gives players incentive to play. Moving up a tier and put into a higher bracket is a measurable achievement that's actually achievable given the small number of teams. That gives the last place team a reason to play. Instead of having to beat out 6 teams to make it into the final, they have to beat out 3 teams to make it into a higher bracket. Ok it didn't work in NASTe, but NASTe was a strict ladder, not seperated groups of RR, and had 8 total teams. And the suggestion isn't to redo naste, but to basically combine the ladder climbing aspect of naste thats supposed to give incentive and the round robin actually playing aspect of unac that worked.
WilySly 说:
The truth is comparing the 2 scenes directly is pretty difficult. The key difference here is that the EU scene has a lot of brand new teams who want to try their hand at the competitive side, lose a few matches and then quit. The NA scene is much more stable so it's less of an issue. Really though it's easy enough to create a robust ladder that is unaffected by dropouts. The only real negative effect dropouts had on the WNL was default wins, something that isn't a problem if teams leave before the fixtures are selected. Considering the better stability of the NA scene and the smaller number of new teams, I don't see this becoming a problem.
I think the ladder system would probably work fairly well in NA. Fact is if you treat the fixtures like any other tournament system then I don't see how problems arise. In the WNL we have "pick night" on a Monday when the fixtures are selected. The same evening the fixtures are posted and the teams are given until Sunday to play their match. Unless there's a dismal failure in policing the teams (just be happy to hand out default losses if teams are ****ing about, they'll soon stop) or the teams are simply not interested in playing (in which case you're ****ed anyway) there shouldn't be any problems. The advantages are that you do away with redundant 16-0 matches, after 1 or 2 weeks the league should sort great fixtures. It did work out pretty well in the WNL, though the size difference amongst other things make comparison difficult. Considering how competitive the NA scene is, with like 5 potential winners for tournaments you're unlikely to get many consecutive rematches. Overall it seems like a good fit.
Having said that I still think two consecutive RRs is a legitimate option. Teams get a bit more variety, having 2 is always cool aswell because it means some of the best teams won't fight till the KO stage.
sotamursu123 说:
Honestly if he wants to act like a complete ****wit and use the grammar of a small child then no, I'm not even going to try to translate whatever kind of statement he's trying to make. I read yours, this incoherent non-sense on the other hand...
Mr.X 说:
Not really, a mid teir team would stil be forced to play teams above them and get crushed, say SF vs. GA as of current, and then playing BkS, KoA, then Rebel. It means 50% of their schedule, while shorter, it still going to be a mis-match. In a ladder with a picking system, they could play teams either that they get picked by, which would be teams lower than them, and they could pick teams such as KoA, Rebel, WMT, or what have you on a regular basis. The only time they would play a team that would be of a a bit of a mis-match would be of their own fault, by choosing said team, rathert than being forced to do so. It still leaves them in the position to play them, by beating out teams in the middle and working their way up, either keeping that spot or moving on. I would also argue that teams playing on more equal footing would give them more reason to stick around because they're not getting shat on some weeks by a team they're not ready for.
It's just to increase the amount of teams that can 'make the cut'. That is enough incentive to play if any. It's just a light suggestion, it's just something to think about if we can reduce the overall length of the tournament to an acceptable to level, that could make 6 work without it being harm.
BTW, I'm not saying re-do NASTe, I'm looking at the WNL here. NASTe and the WNL had some major differences, and saying that UNAC can't make it's own is quite silly.
Mr.X
Yaya, there's a difference between ignoring someone and asking for their posts to be deleted.
And you're right, two seeded RR's (I think some people aren't getting the seeded part) wouldn't totally solve the poor matches, but it would slightly stabalize it.
I personally am a fan of something closer to the wnl as well, but I don't think most people will like that.
And you're right, two seeded RR's (I think some people aren't getting the seeded part) wouldn't totally solve the poor matches, but it would slightly stabalize it.
I personally am a fan of something closer to the wnl as well, but I don't think most people will like that.
Kherven 说:
Ladder Rules
- The WNL will be a ladder.
- The top team will be titled "WNL Champions".
- Teams will be assigned levels according to how many matches they have won. Teams with 0-3 wins will be level 1. Teams with 4-7 wins will be level 2. Teams with 8+ wins are level 3.
- Teams will be awarded 1 point for a draw. Teams that beat an opponent of a higher level than themselves will be awarded 4 points if the team is 3 or less points ahead and 5 points if the team is 4 or more points ahead.
- The fixtures themselves will be done by the teams on selected "pick nights", similar to the ENL Division C.
- Pick nights will take place every Monday between 18:00 - 20:00 BST. Each team will be allotted a 5 minute timeslot to pick their opponent in. Picking order will be prioritised as follows:
- Teams with 0 points that were in the WNL the previous week.
- Teams that have joined the WNL in the current week.
- After these, teams will pick in order of points (from lowest to highest).
- Should teams have equal priority, then the team with the most rounds won will be given priority.
- Teams may not pick a team more than 1 level above themselves. Teams may not pick a team they fought last week, unless there is no other option.
- If a team misses their pick, it will be randomised from any of the next 3 teams in the picking order that lost their new match or are new to the division. Failing that, the pick will be taken from the next team in the picking order that lost their last match or is new to the Division. Failing that, the pick will be random.
- If a team only has two teams to choose from and one of the teams sat out the previous week, they must pick that team.
To break it down:
1. One fixtures to be played a week.
2. Each week's fixture to be selected at the start of the week. This can either be through "Picking" as shown above or through another method like the Swiss system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament . Though i'm sure there's lots of other ways to do it too.
3. After a certain number of weeks the team at the top is the champion. Though you could also split it off into a single elimination if you wanted a more exciting ending.
Why wouldn't you want to play the same team more than once if they're roughly on your level? If they beat you the first time you get to come back at them with something different, if you won you have to prepare for that. It's more interesting than turning up to harvest teams of wheat or the other way aroundBoogyLoH 说:
BoogyLoH
Knight
The reason I dislike it is more from experience of doing it in other competitive leagues in similar games. It's a good theory because you match up well with them and that should make it a nice competitive match. However, it gets really bland playing the same people week in and week out, seeing the same playstyles, the same strategies, the similar map choices. I would rather see how my clan looks against an opponent that is thought to outmatch us than play against the same clan three times in a tournament. You learn more by playing against the best than you do from playing against those that equal or worse. Also, it is very hard to predict who is going to do well at the beginning of the tournament. No one expected Rebels to 16-0 GKR.
WilySly 说:
Yup. Please don't do it again. If you want a free-form ladder system, you absolutely must have a rigid schedule and enforce penalties against teams that screw it up. I feel like it will lend itself towards more drop-outs than a round-robin, though.
Personally, I think the results of this tournament could be used to seed group stages for a second go. That would make the tournament shorter but still give everyone a fair shot, as long as you passed enough people from each group to make the final bracket less exclusionary.
Also, I kinda got to agree with Rhade in the fact that I personally did not feel this tournament is/has been way too long. I know for some teams its hard to get guys rallied once a week, but for my clan personaly thats never been a problem. So my question is what exactly is a good length for the rest of you ? (For comparison, UNAC will be 15 weeks or just under 4 months and BIT was 12 weeks.)
Attendance isn't the only problem with long tournies; enthusiasm is also a concern. One only has to compare the start of UNAC (and all that enthusiasm) with the pundit/power rankings inactivity we have now. Some teams are showing up to matches, but not really putting much in to win them, now that the relative rankings have been mostly established. If you're one of the teams that has absolutely no chance of making the playoffs, of course we're going to see them let off the gas. The problem with this tourney length is that the timeframe between your team losing its shot at the playoffs and your team getting a fresh start/motivation is like a month and a half, instead of just a few weeks.
I love scrimming and we personally have never had trouble with attendance, but I think a shorter tournament (similar to the window Mad's suggesting) would do a lot to keep enthusiasm consistent and tournies fresh. Plus, I'd rather have 6 faster-paced tournies a year, instead of 2 giant tournaments.
I love scrimming and we personally have never had trouble with attendance, but I think a shorter tournament (similar to the window Mad's suggesting) would do a lot to keep enthusiasm consistent and tournies fresh. Plus, I'd rather have 6 faster-paced tournies a year, instead of 2 giant tournaments.
I agree with Wily here. I would like more tournaments more often, it just gives more people a chance to run a tournament with perhaps different rules and styles and also gives teams more chances to have a run for 1st.
I would also say that we need more good maps with balanced MOTFs and balanced spawns. River Valley is the perfect example to not follow
I would also say that we need more good maps with balanced MOTFs and balanced spawns. River Valley is the perfect example to not follow
BoogyLoH
Knight
Mad Dawg 说:
That seems fine. Although if this is repeated again, I can foresee the issue of teams getting stuck in the same group with the same clans and not getting to scrim other clans that they may want to scrim. Maybe you could include a cross-divisional match midway through the season? Current Rank 1 from Tier A plays Current Rank 1 from Tier B, Current Rank 2 from Tier A plays Current Rank 2 from Tier B, etc.
- 状态
类似的主题
