Darkwind
League points, This really needs to be reevaluated

upgrayedd


Posted Jul 21, 2010, 8:43 am 		League event ties and League over ties really need to be just that...ties. In other words equal prizes/points/etc.

I mean seriously does anybody see anything wrong with this picture? :mad:

Final Standing:
1st Gregg 'Double Kill' Glowacki (Route 666) (3937 pts)
2nd James 'Bullet Poet' Stephens (-^-HellRazors-^-) (3937 pts)

Current Standing After 0 Weeks (of 5)
Pos

Gang

Points

This Wk
1st
Joels Bastards 24 24
2nd
-^-HellRazors-^- 23 23
3rd
Renshai 23 23
4th
The Vanguards 20 20
5th
Route 666 18 18

So even though I'm listed as first in the event and even though we both tied dead even I gained 5 less points. So now instead of being tied for 2nd over all I'm out of the competition for 1st place over all.

I really do not see how this is fair scoring for the leagues and would seriously like to see changes made.
Groove Champion


Posted Jul 21, 2010, 2:26 pm 		I have to agree here... Also when points are actually tied in the standings, someone gets the shaft and gets bumped down to a lower spot.
upgrayedd


Posted Jul 22, 2010, 6:47 am 		Ok now I'm a little more calm. If ties are not going to be treated as equal in points/winnings/etc it would hurt to actually see the criteria for a tie breaker.

There's several things I don't like about the way the leagues work but this one irked me last night. :)
*Marc5iver*
marcg@comcast.net

Posted Jul 22, 2010, 8:08 am 		As far as I know, the tiebreaker goes to the first person who entered the league. It does need a revamp as this makes no sense.
*sam*


Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:10 am 		Sorry about that, upgrayedd.. it's pretty unusual to score identical points to someone in an arena combat, so this is unusual. (And a draw in a race or deathrace is nigh-on impossible). Obviously the ordering of 1st and 2nd shown on the webpage was reversed in the prizes allocation code.. what I'll do in this case is set you both to 21 pts in the league, and see if I can figure an automatic check for this in future.

In terms of league points ties, yes it's not great at the moment; I'll have a think about tie-breaker approaches that would be feasible to implement.. perhaps whoever scored most in their last event.
FireFly


Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:14 am 		Most points in last event, no, that is not good.

Depending on what chassis are used, and what weapons, the point outcome of matches are drastically different.

Toying around with setting, its easy to score 20k+ points in pro events for example, light armor + heavy gun = lots of points.

Anyway, its not a good way unless everyone is fighting in the same circumstances, and this is not the case in the combat league.
*sam*


Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:16 am
FireFly said:
Most points in last event, no, that is not good.

Depending on what chassis are used, and what weapons, the point outcome of matches are drastically different.

Toying around with setting, its easy to score 20k+ points in pro events for example, light armor + heavy gun = lots of points.

Anyway, its not a good way unless everyone is fighting in the same circumstances, and this is not the case in the combat league.


I didn't mean combat-points, I meant final-standing points, i.e. what they actually received from their last event towards their league standing. If their last events are tied we can look at their 2nd-to-last, etc. This approach would be good for any type of league, hence no separate coding needed for combat/races etc.
upgrayedd


Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:20 am
*sam* said:
Sorry about that, upgrayedd.. it's pretty unusual to score identical points to someone in an arena combat, so this is unusual. (And a draw in a race or deathrace is nigh-on impossible). Obviously the ordering of 1st and 2nd shown on the webpage was reversed in the prizes allocation code.. what I'll do in this case is set you both to 21 pts in the league, and see if I can figure an automatic check for this in future.

In terms of league points ties, yes it's not great at the moment; I'll have a think about tie-breaker approaches that would be feasible to implement.. perhaps whoever scored most in their last event.


Thanks Sam. In this case it's the first week of the league. So there were no prior scores. I don't know how often ties come up but it might be something to note if you base it on the prior week's scores.  ;)

Also I apologize if my first message was a little heated. Between the heat and the OT I'm putting it I'm a little short tempered lately  :rolleyes:
FireFly


Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:23 am
*sam* said:
FireFly said:
Most points in last event, no, that is not good.

Depending on what chassis are used, and what weapons, the point outcome of matches are drastically different.

Toying around with setting, its easy to score 20k+ points in pro events for example, light armor + heavy gun = lots of points.

Anyway, its not a good way unless everyone is fighting in the same circumstances, and this is not the case in the combat league.


I didn't mean combat-points, I meant final-standing points, i.e. what they actually received from their last event towards their league standing. If their last events are tied we can look at their 2nd-to-last, etc. This approach would be good for any type of league, hence no separate coding needed for combat/races etc.
DOH!
Haha, well that was embarrassing, but cant 2 people just be tied for the place, I mean, both people get second place?
Lord Foul


Posted Jul 25, 2010, 2:03 am
*sam* said:
Sorry about that, upgrayedd.. it's pretty unusual to score identical points to someone in an arena combat, so this is unusual. (And a draw in a race or deathrace is nigh-on impossible). Obviously the ordering of 1st and 2nd shown on the webpage was reversed in the prizes allocation code.. what I'll do in this case is set you both to 21 pts in the league, and see if I can figure an automatic check for this in future.

In terms of league points ties, yes it's not great at the moment; I'll have a think about tie-breaker approaches that would be feasible to implement.. perhaps whoever scored most in their last event.


Sam, In the RC I offered a solid layout of what would occur in the final league standings if a tie occurred. I can bump it forward again if you need some assistance with this.
upgrayedd


Posted Jul 25, 2010, 2:41 am 		Post removed as LF fixed his typo. :)
*Bastille*


Posted Jul 25, 2010, 3:40 am
Quote:
but cant 2 people just be tied for the place, I mean, both people get second place?


Thats how most points tables work. Neither was the winner, both get the lower place. (It was a tie, 1 point instead of 2.)
upgrayedd


Posted Jul 28, 2010, 9:44 am 		Tied again tonight for 2nd place in the PB league. This time I got the higher of the points.
Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 6:48 pm 		New system sucks.

Should get NO points for losing.

*goat starer*


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 6:50 pm 		yep.. its ludicrous.. the division 5 leader has not won a SINGLE game... none.. zip.. zilch.. nada...

has only in fact PLAYED one game (which they lost)

got points for a 'win' against me because i didnt understand how the thing worked but all their other points have come from no shows and losing. (incidentally i just got points for a 'win' against a team who didnt show but who had set a squad... i dont think i should have these either... you should only get points for matches you played... these should be weighted against how many you turned up for)
d0dger


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 8:49 pm 		Um, I think you guys necro'd a thread from over a month ago that was about all the other leagues to make a point about PVP squad league scoring, which is done entirely differently?
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 8:57 pm 		well i blame joel for that... but teh point stands :cyclops:
d0dger


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 9:03 pm
goat starer said:
well i blame joel for that... but teh point stands  :cyclops:


I disagree with your point, entirely, btw. But you're only looking at part of the picture not the whole thing.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 10:32 pm 		yeah.. i'm looking at the 'part' where i have beaten everyne io have played (2) and am losoing to someone who has beaten NOBODY...

erm???

yeah.. i must be missing some big picture here..

i have 2 games left.. both of these are agsinst morons who have not played a SINGLE match.. so thats 2 no shows in the offing... WOW brilliant league we have here.. a person who has won no games will win...

I'm sorry D0dger.. what exactly is your point?

anyway i have another 15 million dollars to spend sending bounty hunters after the current league leader :cyclops:
d0dger


Posted Sep 11, 2010, 11:17 pm 		Well actually, if it were scored the way you are proposing, you'd be still be losing to the same guy, because you'd both have 1 less point... and the same gap you have now?

Because, you got one point for your loss against him? (even though it was a time mixup on your part, and not an actual fight)

Unless you're proposing that no points are awarded to someone when their opponent fails to show up? In which case, I continue to disagree.

I, for one, do not want a scoring system that promotes the possibility of having my opponents not show up for a match to deny me the chance to get league points.

I think we're both agreeing that the league standings should be based on actual combat prowess in actual fights.
Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 4:14 am 		Let's just make it so the only way you score points is showing up and actually winning a match. It doesn't matter if it's one point of 500, that way.
d0dger


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 6:45 am
Joel Autobaun said:
Let's just make it so the only way you score points is showing up and actually winning a match.  It doesn't matter if it's one point of 500, that way.


  The problem is then you get a meta game where your opponents don't show to your matches, solely to deprive you of league points. Probably because someone bribed them to, or to grief you.

  The current scoring works fine, and unless/until Sam changes how no shows are dealt with it's the best possible system.
Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 7:14 am 		no you still get points if they don't show.

You just don't get points for showing up and losing...which could also be metagame'd
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 12:01 pm
d0dger said:
  Well actually, if it were scored the way you are proposing, you'd be still be losing to the same guy, because you'd both have 1 less point... and the same gap you have now?

  Because, you got one point for your loss against him? (even though it was a time mixup on your part, and not an actual fight)

  Unless you're proposing that no points are awarded to someone when their opponent fails to show up? In which case, I continue to disagree.


i am propsoing that only agreed match times launch games... that only matches that were played score points.

on that basis i would have 2 points.. coolerheads would have 0 and joels team would be winning with 2 and a game in hand.

if you are SERIOUSLY suggesting that someone who has won the sum total of 0 games whould be winning a league then frankly you are mental.


EDIT.. screw it.. its just another broken bit... if it were not giving wilderness advantages to people who i may end up in combat with I wouldnt give a ####... as it is I might as well just drop out and save myself the aggrovation of trying to explain things to people who cant follow basic stuff.
JS


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 12:18 pm
goat starer said:
d0dger said:
  Well actually, if it were scored the way you are proposing, you'd be still be losing to the same guy, because you'd both have 1 less point... and the same gap you have now?

  Because, you got one point for your loss against him? (even though it was a time mixup on your part, and not an actual fight)

  Unless you're proposing that no points are awarded to someone when their opponent fails to show up? In which case, I continue to disagree.


i am propsoing that only agreed match times launch games... that only matches that were played score points.

on that basis i would have 2 points.. coolerheads would have 0 and joels team would be winning with 2 and a game in hand.

if you are SERIOUSLY suggesting that someone who has won the sum total of 0 games whould be winning a league then frankly you are mental.


EDIT.. screw it.. its just another broken bit... if it were not giving wilderness advantages to people who i may end up in combat with I wouldnt give a ####... as it is I might as well just drop out and save myself the aggrovation of trying to explain things to people who cant follow basic stuff.


You should get something for showing.  But definately, weigh the played games WAY more than un-played.
d0dger


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 1:58 pm
goat starer said:

on that basis i would have 2 points.. coolerheads would have 0 and joels team would be winning with 2 and a game in hand.


Right, you would have more points, because more of your opponents bothered to show up, and less of his did.

You keep pointing out that he's only played ONE match.

The fact that he's only gotten the chance to play ONE match, that's not his doing.

Goat, I can follow this 'basic stuff'. I understand how the league and the scoring works, and even why.

I understand that the current scoring gives every team the same chances to earn the same number of points every week, regardless of wether their opponents show up or not. I also understand that it advances a team for showing up and fighting even if they lose, over those that don't show up. I understand that that makes for a fair competition between players, which is what this league provides more than anything else in the game, since it's the only place (other the FP events, bless you Goat) that has skill cap limits to give you even ground on the gangers skills front as well.

I also understand that the reason Splash has 2 more points than you is because you got times mixed up and didn't make it to your match with him. If you'd shown up and kicked his ass, your scores would be reversed, and it'd be you and kometen neck and neck vying for first in that division, just as it should be. And in that case we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all, because you're whingeing over your current placement in the league, not the overall fairness or accuracy of the scoring system.

I've got a lot of respect for you Goat, and I hope you can read this and we can still be friends, but I've got to call it like I see it. I'm not saying the current scoring is perfect or can't be improved, but it does give every teams the same fair chance for the same points every week, on an even footing with both CR allowed and skill of gangers brought. If it changes it needs to remain fair and not penalize someone's chances in the league based on their opponents showing up for the match or not.

We've really got bigger fish to fry. Why have only 8 of the 23 matches so far in div V been actually played out? How can we address all those no shows with the scoring, without penalizing the people that did show up to fight against them? Solve that with the scoring and we solve your concerns too.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 2:47 pm
d0dger said:
goat starer said:

on that basis i would have 2 points.. coolerheads would have 0 and joels team would be winning with 2 and a game in hand.


Right, you would have more points, because more of your opponents bothered to show up, and less of his did.

You keep pointing out that he's only played ONE match.

The fact that he's only gotten the chance to play ONE match, that's not his doing.

Goat, I can follow this 'basic stuff'. I understand how the league and the scoring works, and even why.

I understand that the current scoring gives every team the same chances to earn the same number of points every week, regardless of wether their opponents show up or not. I also understand that it advances a team for showing up and fighting even if they lose, over those that don't show up. I understand that that makes for a fair competition between players, which is what this league provides more than anything else in the game, since it's the only place (other the FP events, bless you Goat) that has skill cap limits to give you even ground on the gangers skills front as well.

I also understand that the reason Splash has 2 more points than you is because you got times mixed up and didn't make it to your match with him. If you'd shown up and kicked his ass, your scores would be reversed, and it'd be you and kometen neck and neck vying for first in that division, just as it should be. And in that case we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all, because you're whingeing over your current placement in the league, not the overall fairness or accuracy of the scoring system.

I've got a lot of respect for you Goat, and I hope you can read this and we can still be friends, but I've got to call it like I see it. I'm not saying the current scoring is perfect or can't be improved, but it does give every teams the same fair chance for the same points every week, on an even footing with both CR allowed and skill of gangers brought. If it changes it needs to remain fair and not penalize someone's chances in the league based on their opponents showing up for the match or not.

We've really got bigger fish to fry. Why have only 8 of the 23 matches so far in div V been actually played out? How can we address all those no shows with the scoring, without penalizing the people that did show up to fight against them? Solve that with the scoring and we solve your concerns too.


dude... this is not about whether i win a league. Its about whether a scoring system that will let someone win who hasn't wopn a single game is sensible. At the end of the day only sam and joel turned up for matches against me. I think its wrong that i got points for a 'win' against a team who didnt make the time. I think its wrong that i got points for lots of stuff. Its not just this league.. its accross all of them.. and if you think i give a flying #### at a rolling dougnut whether i win a league then you clearly dont know very much about me.

I am particularly annoyed with splash because I made a bloody great effort to agree a time with him,s sending him a whole bunch of PMs and suggestions without recieving a single reply till after the event time. BUt that is not the point.. that will be dealt with by me sending bounty hunters after him till i score a big hit.

You cant have a league that lets people who havnt won anything win... its complete insanity... most leagues make a win score much more than a draw to avoid exactly that.

its simple... really simple... kick people from the league if they dont make 2 meetings... force teams to have more than one member (one person is likely to be unable to turn up from time to time)... give points for wins then weight them by the number of times you actually showed up to get a final score to get a league position.. something like that.

but a league that lets someone 'win' when they cant beat anyone is daft.
Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 6:44 pm 		Goat I can't agree with no points for showing up and your opponent does not show. That is like the Ladder leagues(where it's hard for me to find opponents for some of them).

I simply think one should only score points for a "win" even a win by default. Scoring points for losing is not good. I know it was to encourage people to at least show, but frankly you are not going to win if you don't show.

I'm not sure about kicking people for 2 consecutive no-shows. you might have a situation where a NA player faces off against a European Player(s), two weeks in a row and both "agreed times" (the average) puts that guy into double default because he won't skip work to make a video game match.

As it is you lose CR points(tie breaker) when you don't show. Maybe you should lose points if you set a squad and don't show.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 9:09 pm
Joel Autobaun said:
Goat I can't agree with no points for showing up and your opponent does not show.  That is like the Ladder leagues(where it's hard for me to find opponents for some of them).

I simply think one should only score points for a "win" even a win by default.  Scoring points for losing is not good.  I know it was to encourage people to at least show, but frankly you are not going to win if you don't show. 

I'm not sure about kicking people for 2 consecutive no-shows.  you might have a situation where a NA player faces off against a European Player(s), two weeks in a row and both "agreed times" (the average) puts that guy into double default because he won't skip work to make a video game match.

As it is you lose CR points(tie breaker) when you don't show.  Maybe you should lose points if you set a squad and don't show.


you deal with no shows by disqualification or other penalties AGAINST the no show.... not by 'free' points... its open to stupid amounts of abuse
Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 9:44 pm 		ARRGG this sucks! I Don't want points for NO shows, I don't want points for losing!

That's basically it.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 12, 2010, 11:48 pm
Joel Autobaun said:
ARRGG this sucks!  I Don't want points for NO shows,  I don't want points for losing!

That's basically it.


so you dont want the current system... not clear what you do want?
Lord Foul


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 1:30 am 		In the RC I posted similar concerns and suggestions to fix the problems with the current combat league back in April of this year, but Sam disagreed with my suggestions.

LF said:

Quote:
1 – Award no points to any team if both teams are unable to complete the match. This would encourage both teams to try and work out a time to actually have the battle. No team should be awarded 2 points for just setting up a squad. Getting 2 points for actually having a battle, risking your characters and equipment is a good thing. Getting 2 points for doing absolutely nothing is a bad thing, at best if points must still be awarded, it should be 1 point at most for a forfeit. Considering if both teams do show up they could end up splitting the match at 1 point each, it makes no sense that those who actually have the match could come away with less points than a team that just shows up and claims points due to a forfiet.



2 – Have the server set a warning date with time both teams need to schedule a match by, example- match time set no latter than Sat 2300. If neither team can agree on a time to have their pvp match by the server warn date/time, the server randomly sets a match time for Sunday from 0000-2300.



Next issue:

The schedule system is too restrictive on the suggested times you would like to have your pvp battles. It only allows you to change the suggested time to no more than 10 days prior to the default server date.

So if I your pvp battle against Team X is scheduled 3 weeks from today and team X is sitting in the lobby ready and able to do the pvp battle, the league schedule system will not allow you and Team X to have the pvp battle because the battle has to be played within 10 days of the default date. But in 3 weeks time Team X and/or you may not be able to have the pvp battle for whatever reason.

Suggested fix:

Once paired against each other, allow teams to schedule a pvp battle any time within the league season. Basically have no default server time the match must be completed by, which could also help with issue one as it would open up more days to select from.

Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 3:20 am
goat starer said:
Joel Autobaun said:
ARRGG this sucks!  I Don't want points for NO shows,  I don't want points for losing!

That's basically it.


so you dont want the current system... not clear what you do want?


Just no more points for losing.  Scrap the 1 point given for losing.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 9:28 am 		LF.. those look like sensible suggestions... but i would simply have no match scheduled if both parties cannot agree a time.

people need to be thrown out of leagues if they fail to show for matches.

I have 2 games left.. both against people who have never turned up for a single game... do I

a) turn up and wait at teh scheduled times just in case they set a squad?

or

b) risk handing 3 points to them by being absent?

frankly i have better things to do than hang around waiting for no shows.


ABSOLUTELY agree that you should be able to launch your PVP at any time if both parties agree it.


Joel - absolutely scrap teh 1 point for losing.. but there is simply no reason for giving points to a team for just being in teh lobby either. If soemone wants to ignore their PMs or deliberately avoid rescheduling so they dont have to fight why should they get a point for turning up at a time they KNEW their opponent (who did make an effort to reschedule) cant make.

*Longo*


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 4:35 pm
Lord Foul said:
In the RC I posted similar concerns and suggestions to fix the problems with the current combat league back in April of this year, but Sam disagreed with my suggestions.

LF said:

Quote:
1 – Award no points to any team if both teams are unable to complete the match. This would encourage both teams to try and work out a time to actually have the battle. No team should be awarded 2 points for just setting up a squad. Getting 2 points for actually having a battle, risking your characters and equipment is a good thing. Getting 2 points for doing absolutely nothing is a bad thing, at best if points must still be awarded, it should be 1 point at most for a forfeit. Considering if both teams do show up they could end up splitting the match at 1 point each, it makes no sense that those who actually have the match could come away with less points than a team that just shows up and claims points due to a forfiet.



2 – Have the server set a warning date with time both teams need to schedule a match by, example- match time set no latter than Sat 2300. If neither team can agree on a time to have their pvp match by the server warn date/time, the server randomly sets a match time for Sunday from 0000-2300.



Next issue:

The schedule system is too restrictive on the suggested times you would like to have your pvp battles. It only allows you to change the suggested time to no more than 10 days prior to the default server date.

So if I your pvp battle against Team X is scheduled 3 weeks from today and team X is sitting in the lobby ready and able to do the pvp battle, the league schedule system will not allow you and Team X to have the pvp battle because the battle has to be played within 10 days of the default date. But in 3 weeks time Team X and/or you may not be able to have the pvp battle for whatever reason.

Suggested fix:

Once paired against each other, allow teams to schedule a pvp battle any time within the league season. Basically have no default server time the match must be completed by, which could also help with issue one as it would open up more days to select from.



Award no point if both teams cannot complete the match. I am fighting Player A...and he sees I am winning the league, so he opts to not fight me so I dont get any points...or I am supposed to fight FF, who takes another Sabbatical...I get no points.... Surely not fair to me...
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 5:00 pm 		longo.. if you are winning the league why would someone behind you choose not to fight you when fighting you is the ONLY way to narrow the gap?

If you award points for matches that dont take place then the leader has an incentive if their lead gets high enough to simply not turn up for matches. If I am in second and i will get a point out of not playing someone above me it might be worth my while.. if i get nothing... and a strike towards disqualification... i might as well buck my ideas up and play the tie.

FF takes a sabbatical.. he gets disqualified...


*Longo*


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 8:56 pm
goat starer said:
longo.. if you are winning the league why would someone behind you choose not to fight you when fighting you is the ONLY way to narrow the gap?

If you award points for matches that dont take place then the leader has an incentive if their lead gets high enough to simply not turn up for matches. If I am in second and i will get a point out of not playing someone above me it might be worth my while.. if i get nothing... and a strike towards disqualification... i might as well buck my ideas up and play the tie.

FF takes a sabbatical.. he gets disqualified...




2 teams supporting the same camp, in the same league. Im tied with one of them, and have to fight the second. They discuss it, and decide that the one team wont show for the event so I get no points and their camp bud wins.

And yea, I agree with the disqual
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 13, 2010, 11:11 pm 		longo... the idea that there can be 2 teams supporting the same camp in a league is in itself a problem..

perhaps you have hit on something really good...

it should be camps that join leagues not individual players...

anyone from the camp can play.. the camp decides... can be in several leagues so newer players play in div 5... real vets in div 1.

would solve lots of stuff.... i mean camps already manage their camp attacks fine and its camps that benefit from PVP...

*Bastille*


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 2:18 am 		From an outsiders point of view of one with concern (but little to no real experience) these sound like some sensible solutions.

But, if the above were to apply, could Div 5 be excluded from the camp run squads idea, just to act as incentive into PvP for newer players or those that are too cowardly (as in me, I'm the first to admit it) to get into PvP in other ways, and wave the camp production bonuses for Div 5, training bonus and money reward only. (I guess this makes it really confusing with who goes up into div 4 etc... I was just thinking out loud. )

I've been thinking of a way to note the efforts a player may make to arrange a time. Could this be done via some sort of time auction or similar in the web page, rather than with PMs that are hard to prove or follow for a mediator. I see that it is done roughly this way already, but for the circumstance where neither will agree on a time, some way of forcing a choice, rather than just a random time as stated above by LF.
*Longo*


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 5:05 am
goat starer said:
longo... the idea that there can be 2 teams supporting the same camp in a league is in itself a problem..

perhaps you have hit on something really good...

it should be camps that join leagues not individual players...

anyone from the camp can play.. the camp decides... can be in several leagues so newer players play in div 5... real vets in div 1.

would solve lots of stuff.... i mean camps already manage their camp attacks fine and its camps that benefit from PVP...



Good point goat, there is actually a team that supports LV that I wasnt even aware of, or didnt "sanction" but when this was brought to the RC, I didnt get any support for a change....

Im on 2 teams, my team in D1 and another in D3, so I am a major participant, but gotta say Im pretty frustrated.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 12:34 pm 		Using div 5 as an 'intro to PVP' might be a good idea...

BUt i do think camps enteringthe PVP leagues will massively ease the scheduling issues.
*sam*


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 12:55 pm 		Camps as teams.. yes, interesting idea...
JS


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 12:58 pm
goat starer said:
Using div 5 as an 'intro to PVP' might be a good idea...

BUt i do think camps enteringthe PVP leagues will massively ease the scheduling issues.


Here's the only issue I see.  If you limit it to camps, then the new guys must be a member of a camp.  So they might not get much action if the "sanctioned" camp team won't allow them to play.  Unless you are going to allow "independants".  And if you do that, the camp bonus award does not mean much to them. 
If all that is the intention, it would certainly make camp membership much more important in regards to PvP, and might make who people allow in their camps change quite a bit.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 8:35 pm 		the fact that camps cupd play in multiple leagues would sort that out i think... the older players in the higher leagues... newbies in the lower
JS


Posted Sep 14, 2010, 9:33 pm
goat starer said:
the fact that camps cupd play in multiple leagues would sort that out i think... the older players in the higher leagues... newbies in the lower


Could do I suppose.  Not totally against it, but would liek some kind of ability for newer guys to be "independant".  Of course, it would increase importance of camps, and maybe that is along the lines of the factions upgrade etc.
d0dger


Posted Sep 15, 2010, 12:10 am
goat starer said:
the fact that camps cupd play in multiple leagues would sort that out i think... the older players in the higher leagues... newbies in the lower


How does that affect teams moving up and down in divisions?

If Camp Y has a Div II team the drops to Div III, and same camp has a Div IV team that moves up to Div III... what happens?
JS


Posted Sep 15, 2010, 12:21 am
d0dger said:
goat starer said:
the fact that camps cupd play in multiple leagues would sort that out i think... the older players in the higher leagues... newbies in the lower


How does that affect teams moving up and down in divisions?

If Camp Y has a Div II team the drops to Div III, and same camp has a Div IV team that moves up to Div III... what happens?


Dammit dodger, we told yo to never cross the streams!
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 15, 2010, 5:59 pm
d0dger said:
goat starer said:
the fact that camps cupd play in multiple leagues would sort that out i think... the older players in the higher leagues... newbies in the lower


How does that affect teams moving up and down in divisions?

If Camp Y has a Div II team the drops to Div III, and same camp has a Div IV team that moves up to Div III... what happens?


in my head camps would simply have a first team, second team, third team, fourth team etc in the divisions.

which one you played in would be up to the camp to choose... so no 'up and down as such' just places.
*sam*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 8:52 am
goat starer said:
d0dger said:
goat starer said:
the fact that camps cupd play in multiple leagues would sort that out i think... the older players in the higher leagues... newbies in the lower


How does that affect teams moving up and down in divisions?

If Camp Y has a Div II team the drops to Div III, and same camp has a Div IV team that moves up to Div III... what happens?


in my head camps would simply have a first team, second team, third team, fourth team etc in the divisions.

which one you played in would be up to the camp to choose... so no 'up and down as such' just places.



That would limit the leagues to 10 camps, though..?

I think promotion/relegation is a good thing.. it adds to the goals in getting involved. Since we now have the facility to 'sell' teams, I don't see a problem..

How about if a team is affiliated with a camp, any camp members can play its battles; if it's not affiliated with a camp, its battles can only involve its 3 'official' members? -- we'd need an extra rule so that a camp can only affiliate one team per division, also that a player can't fight against themself in any one battle..
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 9:37 am 		that sounds very interesting
Glurps


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 10:37 am
*sam* said:

That would limit the leagues to 10 camps, though..?

I think promotion/relegation is a good thing.. it adds to the goals in getting involved. Since we now have the facility to 'sell' teams, I don't see a problem..

How about if a team is affiliated with a camp, any camp members can play its battles; if it's not affiliated with a camp, its battles can only involve its 3 'official' members? -- we'd need an extra rule so that a camp can only affiliate one team per division, also that a player can't fight against themself in any one battle..


From my newb point i can see a problem here. If any camp members can play the battles, it means that even in div 5 i can meet a very experienced player.
Also as there is the production gain for camps, i can imagine some camps will try to use their best PVP player for each and every battle (time provided of course).
The non-camp membership teams would then suffer greatly.
*sam*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 11:04 am 		Hmm yeah. Do you think we could improve the situation simply by relaxing the scheduling rules then, Glurps?

My original idea of forcing you to play each event within a specific period of about 10 days was so that at any time the teams always had approximately the same number of combats completed.. to make for a more fun league

.. but maybe this could be expanded so you can schedule an event over a wider period, say 20 days?

In terms of the '1 point for losing' - this was added last season to try to encourage participation. It could be easily removed.

Glurps


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 11:52 am
*sam* said:
Hmm yeah. Do you think we could improve the situation simply by relaxing the scheduling rules then, Glurps?

My original idea of forcing you to play each event within a specific period of about 10 days was so that at any time the teams always had approximately the same number of combats completed.. to make for a more fun league

.. but maybe this could be expanded so you can schedule an event over a wider period, say 20 days?

In terms of the '1 point for losing' - this was added last season to try to encourage participation. It could be easily removed.



I don't have the solution for the whole league points problem.
I think that something must be done, because it seems weird at the moment.
I played some other leagues-like in other games. It's still mainly the same :
- either a specific period to play an event
- either a period to play a group of event (at the end  of phase 1 ending yyy: all players must have completed X rounds.)

The main concern is how to handle people that don't show (this is time consuming), and a lesser concern about the point system.
- Severe drawbacks for "not showing" at an event is essential. This means : losing AND having another sanction (loss of experience for gangers, loss of fame, ...). Of course the opponent must then considered winner.  The main concern is to prevent abuse.
- You need a league manager per league : his main role is to receive complaints or warning about the organisation of events. Mostly to prevent abuse.
(For example : X doesn't want to play against Y but doesn't want to be considered as "not showing" so offering very short period or none.)
Of course, for a worldwide game, you can have the case of a true problem organizing an event, but even that should be solved by players.

I also have a problem with giving additional points in league races when racing against human players -> This leads to abuse. If you want to do that you need to distinguish a newb from a vet. So a kind of Ranking system for players... (why would a super-vet would gain more points for racing against a newb ?)

Hope this helps
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 1:23 pm 		the easiest thing would be to ban teams with less than three members. At least then you would have a bunch of people to arrange with.

but the fundamental point that it should be impossible to win a leage if you dont actually have any fights remains.

I dont think i agree with Glurps point about experienced players... league 5 already has in it me, joel, kom, latte and erm... the most experienced (in terms of time but not ability) ... Sam. I think that probably means that div 5 has the MOST experienced players in the game.

the thing that mitigates that is that we are all restricted to playing within the league restrictions on ganger skill and squad CR.
Glurps


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 1:55 pm 		I agree with Goat on winning term.
I disagree on banning teams with less than 3 players. Why a single player wouldn't run his own team if he has time enought ?

I disagree about the Div5 name then. Why the hell can we meet some of the more experienced players in Div5 ?

For me, it's like Racing against Joel in a race-League :) What's the point for me to play against them if i'm sure i'll get blasted ?
To be a spare partner to give them points and easy wins ?

IMHO, if you want new player to play more in events, you need to make ranking on a player basis as well as ganger limits as is today.
*goat starer*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 2:24 pm
Glurps said:
I agree with Goat on winning term.
I disagree on banning teams with less than 3 players. Why a single player wouldn't run his own team if he has time enought ?

I disagree about the Div5 name then. Why the hell can we meet some of the more experienced players in Div5 ?

For me, it's like Racing against Joel in a race-League :) What's the point for me to play against them if i'm sure i'll get blasted ?
To be a spare partner to give them points and easy wins ?

IMHO, if you want new player to play more in events, you need to make ranking on a player basis as well as ganger limits as is today.


you only get beaten by joel in the races because he is using highly skilled gangers... the leagues restrict the skill of teh gangers you can use so its not an issue.

so yeah.... if i were using 400+skill gunners it would be unfair but we are both limited to sub 60 skill characters. Experience plays a part... but you only learn by playing against people who have more experience than you.


-------------------------------------------------------
it seems to me that single player teams can only possibly make scheduling harder... with people in different parts of the world and with different schedules. Its easiest enough to get another person to join you.
*Bastille*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 3:13 pm 		I agree here with Glurps

Some players are not as social as others, and this would make new problems and maybe exclude players.
It might make people work together more but could also cause problems here and over all could even make scheduling even harder(???)


I think removing the point for losing is a good idea.

I understand that we can already see the others suggested time, but then have to work out middle ground, could this be worked out with an equation on the league page and displayed, and then Bid on a time between the crossover of both teams preferred play times?

*goat starer*


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 3:37 pm
Bastiel said:

It might make people work together more but could also cause problems here and over all could even make scheduling even harder(???)



Bas.. i take it from all the question marks that not even you have the faintest idea what you mean by this?  :cyclops:
Joel Autobaun


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 5:39 pm 		I think what is great about the combat PVP leagues is the limits on ganger skill and CR for fights. That was VERY well done. I would love that for the rest of the leagues (very time consuming for sam though).

As a general comment, I still play leagues where the prizes have no value to me for the sole reason of competition with other players. I love it. I like to compete with newer players too, they are sometimes the best racers, particularly if they are just coming off the typical newbie racing frenzy when learning the game, they can REALLY surprise you.

Like Goat said, do not be discouraged racing a vet who is using a monster Ganger in a race, it's a huge advantage. One that should be tier'd as suggested by Goat. I would advocate Sam's time to this endeavour ahead of anything else except the implementation of vehicle specialisms(lol).
d0dger


Posted Sep 16, 2010, 5:55 pm 		To go slightly off topic, I'd love to see more leagues with skill capped divisions, or maybe even one off 'amateur' events or mini leagues that limit relevant skill levels.

To get back on topic... Perhaps we need to formalize the time 'suggestions' and setting process. In Goat's example, he says he contacted his opponent several time to try and reshcedule, but got zero response. No effort was made to work with him. However, his opponent still showed for the event at the time he knew Goat would have trouble covering.

Now we might say, 'Get 3 on your team from different time zones and have each cover a different shift.' Maybe that's fine, and I know it's why Sam originally allowed 3 team members.

But perhaps we could address it somehow by formalizing the scheduling a bit, instead of leaving it solely to PMs.

Right now, an opponent can agree to a suggested time, suggest a different one, or... ignore the request entirely. What if we removed that third option?

Player A inputs a suggested match date/time, player B is notifed via email, and has 24/48 hours to:

1. Agree, and match time is set

2. Counteroffer, and we restart the 24/48 hour timer, with a notice back to Player A.

No response means the suggestion goes through and the match is set for the attentive player's time choice.
upgrayedd


Posted Sep 17, 2010, 8:12 am 		Edit: disregard Bas filled me in. :)
Zephyr


Posted Sep 24, 2010, 9:29 pm 		I think we're getting about five or six different issues all wrapped up together in this one thread. I'll be careful to specify what I am and am not commenting on.

I'm not commenting on the special pvp team leagues. I am commenting on the "normal" leagues.

I would second (third?) the suggestion made on this forum to take the skill cap limit for participating gangers that was put in the pvp team leagues, and implement that in most of the standard leagues. Or perhaps introduce new "amateur" leagues where this rule is in effect.

I also have to say that it is discouraging to see leagues (and one-off pro events as well) regualrly dominated by a core cadre of high achievers. While their accomplishments are impressive and respectable, I fear their presence may have a chilling effect on participation by newer players.

It is clear to me now that there is a "human engineering" element to winning normal leagues. The tactic is this: finding an event with no other top-tier players participating, and convincing several new/raw/unskilled players to join you in that event so you can beat them and get the "over 20" boost to your score for that event.

Several times I have withdrawn my registration from a league or pro event at the last minute because I have seen a top-tier player join the event who I know is simply going to dominate me and use me to score bonus points off of. I imagine this is a common phenomenon, and most likely not good for encouraging event participation.
*Longo*


Posted Sep 24, 2010, 11:58 pm
Zephyr said:
I think we're getting about five or six different issues all wrapped up together in this one thread.  I'll be careful to specify what I am and am not commenting on. 

I'm not commenting on the special pvp team leagues.  I am commenting on the "normal" leagues. 

I would second (third?) the suggestion made on this forum to take the skill cap limit for participating gangers that was put in the pvp team leagues, and implement that in most of the standard leagues.  Or perhaps introduce new "amateur" leagues where this rule is in effect. 

I also have to say that it is discouraging to see leagues (and one-off pro events as well) regualrly dominated by a core cadre of high achievers.  While their accomplishments are impressive and respectable, I fear their presence may have a chilling effect on participation by newer players.

It is clear to me now that there is a "human engineering" element to winning normal leagues.  The tactic is this:  finding an event with no other top-tier players participating, and convincing several new/raw/unskilled players to join you in that event so you can beat them and get the "over 20" boost to your score for that event. 

Several times I have withdrawn my registration from a league or pro event at the last minute because I have seen a top-tier player join the event who I know is simply going to dominate me and use me to score bonus points off of.  I imagine this is a common phenomenon, and most likely not good for encouraging event participation.


Zeph-
The problem with town events is the lack of participation. Further dividing the events I feel would only make matters worse. As for a few core vets dominating.....well keep trying to win...you eventually will be the one dominating. When Joel was new he used to complain to me all the time in town events....and look at him now.  ;)

Back