FFA Masters League
League => League Discussion => Topic started by: FML|WorpeX on September 20, 2011, 07:18:16 pm
-
Decide whats next for FML! We have plenty of options to choose from, so pick carefully! Read below for information on what each option is:
Season 11 (Swiss)
This would be playing the next season in the same format we used for Season 10. While we will do slight modifications to make things a bit more fair and prevent as many ties from happening as possible, for the most part, the format will remain unchanged.
Swiss means that the matches are decided based upon skill. You can only play a person once. Max 32 players per season.
Season 11 (Classic)
This would be playing the next season in FML original format. This is what was used for season 1-8. This would entail: A 16 player, 2 round qualifier and a 16 player season. 8 players Auto-qualify from the previous season. Every player matches each other once. Matches are completely random.
King of FFA 2
KoFFA is a grueling tournament where players are put in many different aspects of FFA including 12 player, 8 player and 4 player. The tournament winner is the one who is able to master all of these battlefields! Matches are based solely upon availability and uses pre-set times during the week (no scheduling).
FML Open
A FML Open is a tournament consisting of up to 8 rounds of play with an unlimited number of players. Matches are based solely upon availability and uses pre-set times during the week (no scheduling).
Other
Have a different idea? Please share it by posting it in this thread! Perhaps your idea could be in the next FML edition!
-
I pressed classic at first although I just read the descripton, so only 16 players will be doing qualifers + 8 who were already accepted in, so only 24 players? If I am reading that correctly
-
if u do king of ffa last like last time it will be fast so IMO;
king of ffa 2 (for a change of pace and "recovery period") followed by classic
-
I mean, it can change. I think it was 16 in the past... but yeah, it was just for a description.
-
I like the current system. Keep it.
KoFFA with 4,8,12-players games should be played simultaneously with the main season.
p.s. Fit4Gaming FFA Tournament was great fun. We can do the same with some solo stars invited to final.
-
how did the Fit4Gaming FFA Tournament work?
-
FML open = KoFFA but only 4 player, and 8 rounds instead of 3?
-
Fit4Gaming FFA. How it was.
1st quali round. Random 3-5 players games. Top 1-2 players in each game promote to next round.
2nd quali round. 8 players games. Winner goes to final.
3rd final round. 5 winners of 2nd round and 3 invited solo pros played epic 3 hours game @ Gold rush lol.
In general it's pretty similar to KoFFA, just with invited players to final.
-
Semis are great, so is the swiss system.
Swiss system gives us more top level games during the season. Yet the top are still qualifying in the end. No one is eliminated for the race to playoff before final round. There are more decisives games, majority of players have something to play until the very end.
4 rounds is ok, if the season was going to be too long, we would lose too much players (like majin, FFS... this season) because of irl changes.
for the format, I'd like these changes :
- +1 pt rule for a player losing a game but finishing 1st in points
I think the league should be organized in 4 rounds like this :
round 1 - Random games
round 2 - swiss system
round 3 - swiss system
round 4 - balanced games between all potentials playoffs qualifiers. It would be kinda quarter finals, with some seedings.
Last round all playoff potential qualifiers play one against the other according to the points they have but with seeding, trying also to make ppl who didnt play together yet in the same game.
Basically we would have games with like 60/45/45/40 pts in the same round 4
-
Fml open running with fml swiss
-
classic with more players in regular season might be fun. always worked in previous seasons for great games especially in playoffs
-
Dear Fellas,
I voted for Swiss System.
It is a classic tournament mode adapted from chess so it matches FFA the best I guess.
Nevertheless I would consider some minor changes; especially seeding first round and maybe a larger number of games before semi-finals. The swiss system gets more accurate with every game played.
Anyway, maybe this could be discussed or not if the decision is made.
Thanks by the way to Worp, Renaud and Ugri for doing this, especially for your work and time. Although 50 players have 50 opinions how to do a tournament like this I appreciate your fairness and effort a lot.
Up the irons,
Kruppe
-
Dear Fellas,
I voted for Swiss System.
It is a classic tournament mode adapted from chess so it matches FFA the best I guess.
Nevertheless I would consider some minor changes; especially seeding first round and maybe a larger number of games before semi-finals. The swiss system gets more accurate with every game played.
Anyway, maybe this could be discussed or not if the decision is made.
Thanks by the way to Worp, Renaud and Ugri for doing this, especially for your work and time. Although 50 players have 50 opinions how to do a tournament like this I appreciate your fairness and effort a lot.
Up the irons,
Kruppe
Ty Kruppe, greatly appreciate the comment. Also i'm happy you vote for swiss system. Seeding 1st round is a good idea.
-
1st round was seeded. tt
-
1st round was seeded. tt
You seeded from the guys you saw the most on garena if i remember well
-
Yeah, the people who didn't play in FML before were seeded by those who played on garena. The ones I knew from FML before were seeded based on what I remembered their skill to be. What kind of seeding would you expect from me? Should I have just magically known what everyones skill was? The scene had been dead for almost 2 years. The seeds were as good as they were ever going to get.
-
I realize that i'm not a player and therefore my vote should not/only halfly count as a vote. I voted for the classic system, because i honestly don't see so much of a difference in the games (between the old classic games and the swiss style from this season).
I don't see a great difference, but that could easily be because of the low amount of rounds, so that the better players didn't get their way to the top or something like that.
I was stupid enough to vote before reading all the comments and I agree with kruppe on all of his points. If these points (mainly a better seeding in round 1, I know it's hard, but it would bring the idea of the swiss system another round forth) wereto get implemented i would stand between swiss and classic without being able to choose.
Furthermore, i would also like to say thanks for the effort you all put into this:)
sorry if I shouldn't have voted:)
-
Yeah, the people who didn't play in FML before were seeded by those who played on garena. The ones I knew from FML before were seeded based on what I remembered their skill to be. What kind of seeding would you expect from me? Should I have just magically known what everyones skill was? The scene had been dead for almost 2 years. The seeds were as good as they were ever going to get.
You know how we use to seed : all admins vote and rank and here we go we have the seeds
-
Yeah, the people who didn't play in FML before were seeded by those who played on garena. The ones I knew from FML before were seeded based on what I remembered their skill to be. What kind of seeding would you expect from me? Should I have just magically known what everyones skill was? The scene had been dead for almost 2 years. The seeds were as good as they were ever going to get.
You know how we use to seed : all admins vote and rank and here we go we have the seeds
You weren't even an Admin at the time.
-
Worpex, keep current system with more rounds (like 6+).
-
There is 1 problem with having more rounds, after 4 round with 50 player, it became hard to make it so no one would match up the same person twice (actually we had a few collision this season). So if we have 6 round, we will definitely have them.
So would you guys be ok with that?
-
There is 1 problem with having more rounds, after 4 round with 50 player, it became hard to make it so no one would match up the same person twice (actually we had a few collision this season). So if we have 6 round, we will definitely have them.
So would you guys be ok with that?
yes, i think rematching players is fine (and maybe even more exciting). with 2 other new players and a new map, the games will be very different i think. with this amount of ppl i think avoiding collisions is asking too much. i also think more rounds (5 or 6) is better because statistically the more skilled players scores will bubble to the top.
as for which system i prefer, i really like swiss system where players are matched on skill. but i think a few changes are needed to make the system better:
1) round 1 should be completely random (start each season with no assumptions)
2) 5 or 6 rounds total
3) subs can get +2 points for winning a game, 0 otherwise. (seksi's idea -- i think it would be good)
4) subs have to be around same points/skill level as who they are subbing for
5) only ever use replacements when one player quits the league or if for some reason there is 0 chance of scheduling a game
6) plan to have a tiebreaking week following the main season if needed. if 5 people are tied with 3 spots open, then have a 5 way and winner gets in. then have a 4 way winner gets in. then 3 way and winner gets in and youre done. chances of getting a tie are smaller with more rounds though too.
7) need some way to get players to schedule their games faster. honestly dunno how to do this but maybe penalty points after 4 days of no talking or something.
i think with these changes the system would be really really solid. as it is now the system is actually very good and weve had a great season so far with a great turnout.
also, seksi had some more ideas for a different way to do playoffs/finals that seemed really exciting when he ran them by me. ill let him tell yall about that when hes ready though!
-
The current format IMO is far superior to any others. The only flaw I saw this season was the fact some people couldn't make their first round (me), and my round2 was way to easy, giving me 25 points. If people throw their matches then they have an easy 30 points, although that is not a system flaw, more of hoping the players make the league better.
More rounds would make it better, and balance the standings a lot more. The rematching thing is a big problem, as i fear every human I rematch will suicide tank me ( for obvious reasons that most can assume.)
Prob would never happen, but make each match anonymous. Have the admins pm the 4 players a topic and to schedule/play on smurf type names. May give an advantage to smart players as they will figure out who's who by mannerisms, but it could prevent the well known better players from getting teamed out and require active scouting to see who the better players are.
Tie breaker system is perfect, playing for second is a part of the game and players should look at the standing before hand and adapt their strategies accordingly. I didn't and it almost made me not make playoffs. Pretty sure I'm alone on this so disregard this paragraph...
Oh and make the spawns on 8 player maps fixed so that one player isn't guaranteed to lose at the start.
-
i also like the swiss system. with the experience from this season, we should be able to enjoy it even more next season.
about the pts-distributation: i see the point why 2nd and 3rd getting same points, although it could also be interesting if it is 15 and 10, then the winner could still get 25 pts for having a bigger difference to the 2nd.
Or keep the current and make the winner getting only 20 pts instead of 25, i felt like a single win can boost ur points way too much while being a close 2nd two times would not pay off.
problem imo with classic fml format is the small amount of players. if u decide to do it like that, will be also fine but probably add a fml b or the open fml ( similar to fml ladder ? ) to give the remaining players more motivation to play and having not just the option for bnet and watching replays.
a lot will be deciding also by the activity / signing /interest again.
a tournament like ft4gaming or koffa could be played on one day only ( most likeley sunday) for some big come-together and fun. maybe also as a promotion for ffa to the wc3players who are not so into it yet.
-
Good ideas guys. Esp. from redz, agreed with everything.
2slythe. More ponits for 2nd place can go to "playing for the 2nd" and that's no good. Current 25-10-10-5 is great.
I also wanna develop the idea of koffa or something like this. My thoughts:
- Tournament should be held in 2 days (Sat&Sun). What about 8-9 October (9am-2pm)? 2 rounds - Sat; Semi and final - Sunday.
- Need small prize (like 50$) to make more new people to come. I guess we can do that?
- Need special registration for this tour, and special page @ site with all players showed and seeding for rounds.
- hard effort from admin team.
p.s. I can make some advertising at russian cybersport sites.
-
to red :
1- "agree" to the point I think the very top 8 should be seed 1 and then it's random
2- dont agree but why not
3- subs having point is very bad, ppl will fight to sub to get points
4- we do that already
5- some crazy timezone players forced us to make replacement even if we dont like it.
6- too long and no point. As for this year, I still do not consider that messiah or seksi were tied with Humanstar at all. In sports when two team are tied, we do not make them play an extra round, they are untied by some other way according to the results (goal average etc...). This must be decided before the start of the season though. Also, this prevent players who claimed that lossboting two first round could flaw the swiss system by winning easier round after : if you play less top 4, you dont get in playoff in case of ties. Thats fair to me.
7- I have been the "scheduling admin" for a while. You cant force anyone to schedule fast (like in go in holidays 10 days so what?). There were a few slow schedulers this year (trance, duck, ocky...) but when you start to give penalty points to players, the friendly league start to be a little too much dictatorial if I may say
-
for redz!
1) I have no preference either way :S
2) Agreed!! And i'm glad to see so many player with the same opinion ^^
3) This is interesting, however i'm afraid of favor-ism, what if two player are available to sub, choosing the sub will basically be giving him an unfair advantage. And considering how often admin subbed this season, i'm even more scared! So the "ideal" way would be to also have a penality if you lost... but then it might be hard to find subs... hrmmm this one got me thinking a a lot though. However, like this season showed, if sub wins game, that means the entry point for the playoffs gets lowered, giving the sub a better chance of making it in!
(thats sorta insentive to try and win)
4) We tried to do this, but some time we simply don't have the options :(
5) I don't agree. Because of a case that happened a few time in the past, player a,b,c,d agree on a time, player d doesn't show up, we reschedule. We approach the deadline, and the only time that works now, is good for a,b,d. Player c got screwed over, because d din't show up at first.
6) I don't agree. And your 5/4/3 player games mean we might have to schedule 3 times! (not every player would be able to stay for 5h. But, i do agree that more rounds will mean less tie. And we(ugri) figured another tie breaking system, we tested what would have happened if we used it this season, and i think we only had 1 two way tie
7) I agree. But lets add 4 days of not making a useful post unless players has warned us he wouldn't be able too (for example dase told us he would be afk for the first 5 day). And I added usefull, since at some point we had 3 player agree on a time, and when elessar finally showed up, his only answer was "new yorc"
I will now go and try to let that #3 ideal run a few time in my minds, because it is pretty interesting
-
SUBS
I wanted to detail more my explanations about subs.
Red proposition is in the spirit of "some sub do not really play for the win since they have nothing to gain" so let's give them 2pts. It is a bad idea because ppl would fight to be chosen as a sub but I wanna insist on :
1- SUBS have something to gain while playing
Subs play are chosen according to their rankings, so their opponents are direct opponents for the qualification.
When a sub wins, 25 points are distributed to his direct opponents. If he is last, 45 pts are. You see the point of playing for the win?
In the subs this year some didnt got it that way : Murrock trolled in Darkness/Rain game, Seksi seemed to be reluctant to make his opponent lose points (!) and rebule said he didnt play serious when he got 4th in Dase game thinking he was just subbing. Why wouldnt you play serious if you can get points out of direct opponents :icon_question:
2- Sub choice
That's why the choice of subs must remain an admin's decision . Admins decides based on
- the will of a player to sub...
- his ranking
- does he has any interest on suiciding a particular player or not :icon_question:
In my last game, Rain wanted red7s7 to sub for Elessar. I refused and made y.z play (with other admin agreement ofc) to respect at the best the 3 rules above.
We couldnt have put soneone like htrt in our game for example as a sub since he would have had an interest in seeing Rain losing over the 2 others players. That's just a theorical explanation of my point.
We just need to give up on sub who clearly do not get these facts, but in any case we shouldnt ever give any point to them.
-
About point 7 described by renaud, players clearly trolling are just kicked of their game. Elessar wasnt posting anything usefull until we 3 agreed on a time just to say he couldnt and asked us to play at crazy time in the morning. We can be firm sometimes in the best interest of the league :).
-
Red has really good ideas! Agree with everything except points for subs can be unfair like reno/ugri said. And more rounds but also with LESS total players = faster scheduling, higher level matches, more non-league players available to sub. So 36 or 32 players max with 5 or 6 rounds might really work well (play some palyers twice but thats not bad. Me and seksi had two games, both were very different.)
In the past seasons sub were usually not a problem, just find players who are known to play for win, and explain if they win, their opponents lose points. Guys like Murrock are known troll shouldnt sub ever
-
Thanks red for explaining some of the points we discuessed and came up with! Looks good. Let me clarify my idea for Subs and why I think it would work. One important point was left out. This proposal would be a solution to two of the major problems in an otherwise strong current system. I borrowed one of ugri's ideas as well and expanded on it. And... had some fun with the colors to prevent a wall of text :icon_cool:
BLUE = New idea
SUBS
- If you sub in a game, you have an opportunity to get +2 points only if you win the game. If you get 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, no points are rewarded. This will ensure that players will play for the win as much as their own games no matter what. While +2 points seems small, it would make a difference in the event of a tie, as well as give a better spread in the standings.
-The counter argument to this so far is valid, and that is about favor-ism and certain players getting an unfair advantage due to subbing more games, and further, disputes over which player gets the chance to sub. The point that has not been mentioned yet is that there would be a limit to the amount of times any given player could sub. After a lot of "test runs" and messing around with the math and sample standings, I believe in a strict limit of 2 games allowed to sub for each player.
-Furthermore, a sub would only be allowed to sub in a game based on similar skill level. Darkermirror would be a good sub for Majin, as y.z or Darkness would be a fair sub for Daselend. In same note, a player of more general skill then the match could not sub because obviously the advantage would be to the sub, and a disadvantage to the players in the current match.
The reasoning behind a strict limit of 2 games allowed to sub total for each player is simple. One, it encourages active play and rewards those who participate the most in the matches. However, it does not give an unfair advantage to these players, because of the set limit. One player couldn't "mass sub games" in order to get an advantage, as all players are allowed the same amount of games to sub in. Even if a player does not sub at all, at most he/she will only be 4 points behind someone who won BOTH sub games.
-In the standings, a tied score would be given to the player who won the most SUB games, as it should. Although the points given would only be +2, it would be fair because winning a game as a sub is still a good accomplishment, especially if the skill level is similar to the rest of the match.
-Ugri's idea of giving +1 point for losing a game with the top score is good also. This gives 2 seperate avenues where BONUS points awarded for accomplishments outside of winning your FML match. These bonus points are not extreme at all, but serve more to seperate a tie and as a solution to the subbing problem. With this change, all games in theory should be good where all 4 players, with a sub or not, will be playing for the win 100%. Keep in mind that even if you don't sub one game or win any games as a sub, if you perform well in your FML matches you will still be in a good position, as your matches hold much greater weight then winning a game as a sub or losing with the top score. The BONUS points as well as a slightly entended season would essentially make it very unlikely that any players are TIED going into the playoffs.
I have a full format idea as Red mentioned, I will lay that out a little bit later when I have more time. But as for now my proposal to fix the Subs/Tie matters are as followed:
1 ) 6 game season, instead of 4. In order to give a more accurate sample size. Over 6 games, most or all of the best players would fill the top spots. 4 games is simply too little in my opinion, for if you miss a game or have a terrible game for one reason or another, that's 25 % of your season right there!
-One argument states that adding more games would just make more players trail off towards the end and lose interest. I disagree. In the current system, if a player starts out 0-2 or 0-3, interest would be lost because mainly they would have no shot at the playoffs, not because the season is too long. In a 6 game season however, even if a player loses its first 3 games, they would still have the second half of the season (3 games) to make up for it and recover in time for the playoffs. It goes back to the same idea that a longer regular season (just like any successful sports models) is superior.
-One thought is that if the season is any longer time-wise, it will extend into holiday months therefore it must be short so all players will be available. I agree to some extent here, an idea that could be used with a 6 game regular season is that all games must be scheduled within [10] days, instead of 2 weeks (14 days).
4 games @ 2 week intervals = (56 days).
6 games @ 10 day intervals = (60 days).
I personally believe even if we kept it at 14 day intervals, a 6 game regular season could still be successful. Adding another month of time to the regular season, imo, would not hurt. However, if the extended time is an issue then this proposal of slighty shorter interval between games would be a good fix. If you can't play one game every 10 days, then you probably shouldn't be in an active league.
2 ) BONUS POINTS-
-SUBBING: Players are allowed a strict limit of [2] games that they can sub in for an entire season. Winning one of these games would reward +2 points, any other place rewards 0.
-LOSING w/ TOP SCORE: Players that lose their matches (not as a sub), but finish with the highest overall score would recieve +1 point in addition to their placing. Ex: 2nd place with the top score would reward +11 points total.
These bonus points available would ensure that any sub would play for the win 100%, while still giving the greatest benefit to those who perform well in their own matches. Further the bonus points would give the greatest incentive to play hard in every game, while still not giving too much of an advantage to those who sub and win over those who do not. These points are essentially to fix the TIE BREAK issue and SUB issue, not to give an unfair advantage. Setting a cap on the number of games allowed to sub, as well as rewarding a low amount of bonus points keeps this true.
An example is that even if you win BOTH of your sub games (+4) points, it would still not amount to even the (+5) more points you would get placing 2nd or 3rd over last in one of your matches. The standings and scoring would be almost entirely based on your FML matches, the small amount of BONUS points available would serve essentially only to break ties and add incentive to players that sub. And the incentive is there for sure because while it won't make or break a season by any means, it could possibly decide between an important tie (like we had this season).
Thoughts?
-
I haven't read yet, but im already looking foward to it because it;s colour coded :D
/start reading
-
Done! (god i loved the colours :D)
By adding the limit to sub, the rule makes a lot more sense, and I could agree to it. Not sure about setting the limit to twice (as opposed to 1) and about giving 2 pts (as opposed to 1). The favor-ism is still a scary thing for me, but much less so.
The big problem i can see with making the league 10 days for match, is that most game are played during the weekends (because of the timezone) so it might be a problem :/
-
Read also. There are good points and things I disagree on.
1- Subs + 2 pts
You discard completely what I previously said about sub having already a full interest in winning and we indeed saw a lot of subs winning games already.
I think you try to solve a problem which doesnt really exist. I made the statistic, there were 11 games including subs, in 4 a sub won. It makes 4/11 = 36% of games with subs were won by the sub. Pretty fair statistics.
In fact, you had a motivation problem, as well as Murrock had, while subbing so then... just stop subbing.
Because it will create problems! Examples :
A- We are last round, we need a sub, eshan and seksi are close to the playoff and need one point. There is a spot for subbing, they both wanna play and are qualified to play? Who do we take? Admins will have to decide and it will be a mess in the channel :icon_exclaim:
B- In a game played at akward hour because of the timezone difference, you have like Hydro/Eshan/Renaud in a game and we need a sub. Let's say paterique is there, same level and ready to play but has already subed too much. So we do not take him but instead like 3wd.simo or Beljone because they didnt sub yet? We do not have all the time a lot of players present and ready to play. You saw when I asked you to sub with eshan, you didnt really want but we didnt have really much other choice.
C- What about a good player, like Fly or LW wants to sub in a top game but they are not in the league. Ugrilainen wants to sub cause he needs the point. He is entitled to get the spot right? It would still be better that Fly plays correct?
D- I see a looooooooooooot more cases to describe but i do not want to make too long of a post...
We had subs who played great and won without any interest (y.z, LW...), most of subs tried to win. I see only a few cases that didnt and I dont see why we should make a new rule for these few unmotivated ppl.
2- The 6 rounds league
You say the current format gets you eliminated if you start round 3 with 0-2. That's wrong, I qualified losing the 2 first round.
Still I can understand some of you guys want a longer league so why not but then like some of you suggested, with less players (like 32) and more admins.
"Furthermore, a sub would only be allowed to sub in a game based on similar skill level."
This is not a new idea, we do it (plz read my post...)
Scheduling on 10 days wont work, we need two weekends in semi succeeding of scheduling everything
-
I can go for a 6 round league if that is what the players want.
The admins have decided in MSN a few days ago that we will be making the following change:
A match winner now only receives 21 points (as opposed to 25). However, +4 bonus points will be awarded to the player with the highest score in a match. This than will make the winner have 25 points if he had the highest score. This has the possibility of breaking ties as well as giving players a better incentive to play more aggressively!
We are going to be implementing a player cap for next season as well at 32 players.
Lastly, I am 100% against the idea of giving subs points for winning. Sorry Seksi. Was a great write up, but Ugri explains my opinions on the matter very well. And yeah, scheduling can only either be 1 week or 2 weeks, nothing else.
-
Or it might encourage to hoard up because you will get the hero score eventually (only based on levels, not on kills) and rise up in resource and unit score...
-
Or it might encourage to hoard up because you will get the hero score eventually (only based on levels, not on kills) and rise up in resource and unit score...
lol, what? You can get a resource score by doing that, but thats about it. To get a good hero/unit score you need to fight. No way in hell are you going to "get hero levels eventually" as any race except for orc (Oh wait, you are orc. heheheh). Still, unit score is about killing and leveling structures more than it is about building units. (even then, you need to lose units in order to build enough to have a good score due to cap).
-
im not really worried about hoarding (but worp is right, the only race who might benifit from doing that is the orcs... stupid bats), but, we should add a little part saying "unless the player abused" because there are ways of boosting your final score w/o doing anything
-
I'm not worried at all. The goal is to be first in points... chopping wood and ressources while being completely ravaged by an oppponent will not give you first place. Get 56000 gold with 3-2-1 heroes.... Did camp ever was first in points? doubt it
-
There are ways other than getting resource, killing stuff and creating stuff to get points ^^
at least there was two patches ago, and i highly doubt they fixed it
-
You can't get highest score off of resources alone. It just isn't possible. Not to mention that neither of the other 3 players would let you farm resources for 2 hours anyway.
-
@Renaud: Thanks for taking the time to read and consider! I also enjoyed coloring. :D
I understand your point about games on the weekend, and other's points about either 1 week or 2 week intervals. The 10 day idea was to thought of because one argument was against extending the season time-wise. Personally, I believe that the season should be 6 games for all the reasons I talked about, it's a no-brainer that it would create a better outcome (having a slightly longer regular season). Even if it then lasts 1 month longer, there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion, if anything its better. The current system of 2-week intervals is solid.
@Ugrilainen: Thanks for reading as well, you said there were things you liked and things you didn't. Based on your reply I don't see anything you liked...
-I did not mean to "discard" anything, I wrote something up quick and did not put much time into it... Please be open to new ideas without bias. I apologize If I missed one of your points. I understand that in the current system a sub still has incentive to win, that is to deprive the other players of points. That works and is all good, just to be honest no matter what players won't put 100% effort (maybe 95%) without being rewarded anything. I understand your point that if you win as a sub, no one will get the 25 pts. If you perform well as a Sub, you will deprive others of points. That's good. But in most cases it won't matter for the sub and in the cases it DOES - doesn't he now have incentive to make another player lose to get ahead in the standings (creating a worse problem, wanting another player to lose before the game starts)? For example, if I were to sub a game knowing that a certain player had to win to advance past me, it would be worth my time to make sure he loses rather then trying to win myself. If I would be rewarded even by the slightest margin for winning as a Sub, then I would play for the win rather then playing to make someone lose. Hope that makes sense. There is a problem with the sub system, I'm not trying to create something that doesn't exist. It's not a huge problem, it can be generally avoided and hopefully next season if nothing is changed in regards to subbing, players will understand the incentive to win and not be dirty and make sure someone loses to benefit themselves.
-To your example situation: You must think about it more because it would be so rare that this case would happen. The points rewarded would be insignificant and by that time, 95% chance both of us would have already subbed two games. Throughout the season, there will be many games and active players would have subbed their two games far before the finish. Even if that case does happen, what are the chances that 2 players competing for the last spot have both not subbed two games AND are exactly tied after 6 games? Slim to none.
-I recognize that some times are bad and tough to schedule matches. In this event it is more difficult to find a sub. This does not change regardless of the system. You could even say that if paterique already subbed twice (used up both chances at +2pts), he could still sub a third time for no points, but for the incentive that already exists, that players should want to win as a sub for the chance to deny others of points.
-C: No, ugri would not be entitled to the spot because you would not be at same level of those players. That's again the same regardless of the system, as you stated. Subs are only allowed to sub if they are around the same skill level (as it is already). If a player outside of the league like Fly or LW wanted to sub, they still could. We'd just hope they would take it as serious as if it mattered to them. In the same breath, there are many players that are good but not quite elite. This bracket is easily subbed, is is more difficult for the few players at the top.
2: You took what I said too literally. :icon_exclaim: I understand that players can still make the playoff if they start 0-2, thats obvious. It is a theoritical situation. If players start out a 4 game season by losing their first 2 or 3 games, some will be less motiviated to finish and schedule, obviously. Now if the season is 6 games, even if they start out poor their first games, they know they have 3 more games (2nd half of the season) to bounce back. A longer season promotes many positive things, including a more accurate sample size to determine the top players and playoff contenders. Like I said, games are less weighted which is a good thing. Missing a game or playing horrible for 1 game at the moment is 25% of your season!! That's too much and easily fixed and improved by having a longer regular season (6 or 8 games). :icon_exclaim:
I also believe in 32 players.
@WorpeX: Thank you also for reading and the compliment :icon_wink:. I really believe in the subbing idea stated but I guess we agree to disagree on that one.
As far as the system you just explained, that sounds good as well.
That in addition to a longer season will basically ensure that no one will be tied at the end. All that I ask in this regard is that 2nd's and 3rd's count for the exact same, as you intended it to be. Don't judge the difference in 2nd's and 3rd's when deciding a tie. It should be firsts, seconds/thirds, and fourths. 6 game season example record : 2 (firsts) - 3 (seconds or thirds) - 1 (fourth) - (2 - 3 - 1)
I agree with the 32 players. A quick glance at the standings shows (40+), but around 35 FFA players who would (possibly) try to play next season, obviously a few wouldn't make it, but that's how it should be.
So far it seems that more then a few players have liked the ideas Red and I have presented, but I also see the other side and that's why good healthy discussion is helpful! You cannot always see different viewpoints that may change your mind about something.
I'll put my idea of a full tournament system out there soon too, probably tommorow. If anything just for food for thought maybe for the future!
-
Well seksi the things I agree on I didnt have to debate them. I like 32 players like it was before, I prefer that to the "let everyone in" actual format. Virtuous ruined my round 1 before running away I mean, I was pissed...
I'm ok for 6 rounds, my only defiance to that is that i firmly things we will lose players along the way and in the end, only the active players like you and me will pass to playoff, no especially the best. I'll gave Brainman as an example for this year. We seem to be losing him even if he seems like a potential season winner. That's for what i agree on.
And i'm "begging" you guys to stop saying I'm bias all the time when I do not agree on something like disagreeing with you makes me bias. Also stop saying I'm defensive when I give argument to clear my points (thks in advance).
I'm admin for a long time (since S2 or 3 cant remember) so you can guess that i put a lot a thinking in dealing with the league and there are things I know doesnt work cause we tried them before (the 2nd 15 pts format for example). There are question I thought also about and some I didnt and that i gave my opinion just now, like the subs.
You didnt mention the subs success rate this year (36%) which is in contradiction with you claiming subs doesnt play motivated. You seem indeed to need point to get motivated, it doesnt make this fact a general problem.
Anyway Your arguments against my example make sense for some but for case A it can happen and one of the guys will cry for injustice, for B it will be good but then I suppose you'll say paterique wont be motivated for this game and for C Ugrilainen will be very angry and will feel injustice as well.
-> I just want to point out the tensions your system would create. Every rule must be simple and clear enough to apply in every case without tension. Your rule works on paper but you do not take into consideration the feelings of the players who would want to sub and wont be allowed to, hence creating bitterness and anger. 11/42 games this season required subs, that's not the majority
Realize how you 2 guys were angry of being tiebreak eliminated, even if it was according to the rule. Now for these subs example I gave, players will be angry at decision which would be completely arbitrary and felt as it.
But most cases it won't matter for the sub and in the cases it DOES - doesn't he now have incentive to make another player lose to get ahead in the standings (creating a worse problem, wanting another player to lose before the game starts)
You didnt read my explanation on how subs were chosen so I'll quote myself :
- the will of a player to sub...
- his ranking
- does he has any interest on suiciding a particular player or not :icon_question:
About my 0-2 example, I meant that the swiss system solves this problem whatever the number of rounds played. That is just the bright idea of Worpex to put on this system. It will work fine of course as well with 6 rounds and if it is what players want, 6 rounds it will be.
As a conclusion Seksi, plz from now on read my messages knowing I respect you as a player, I recognize you have a lot of good ideas and I'm glad we get into constructive discussions about them. But give me the right to disagree without especially being "bias"or "defensive" :icon_neutral:
-
ill be completely honest. The only reason i read both of these tl dr post is because they had colour
-
All that I ask in this regard is that 2nd's and 3rd's count for the exact same, as you intended it to be. Don't judge the difference in 2nd's and 3rd's when deciding a tie. It should be firsts, seconds/thirds, and fourths. 6 game season example record : 2 (firsts) - 3 (seconds or thirds) - 1 (fourth)
This tiebreak rule has been erased for next season, that something i was rooting for, so we agree on that too.
(I really want ppl to understand I was against it before round 4, asked for it to be erased even if i knew i could take advantage of it by being the only 1/2/0/0 :icon_exclaim:).
-
As a conclusion Seksi, plz from now on read my messages knowing I respect you as a player, I recognize you have a lot of good ideas and I'm glad we get into constructive discussions about them. But give me the right to disagree without especially being "bias"or "defensive" :icon_neutral:
I'm sorry dude, I guess it seemed, at the time, like you put my ideas down in negative tone after I put a lot of thought and time (color) into them lol. I'm glad to hear that and I won't say you are biased or defensive anymore. I feel the same and am glad to have constructive discussions also. It's easy to misinterpret conversation over text, my fault.
We still disagree in a couple ways (not a bad thing) but in general we are on the same page as you said. <3
-
o wait better fix that for renaud :icon_mrgreen:
<3 (no homo, but love for the ffa'ers and admins)
-
My concern is not solely directed at the resource score. The problem with scoring as a measurement in general is that hero scores are capped, while resource and unit scores are not. That means, for instance a hoarding human with a lot of towers, and that's not something you kill easily, will have enough resources to support a large amount of armies later on. The latter is beneficial for reaching decent hero levels eventually, the longer a game goes on, the higher everyone's hero levels are on average. That makes it much less useful to fight on early because you mainly gain hero score there.
I never said the player doing that wouldn't fight. Of course he will, eventually, perhaps harass too. And if you know how to hoard/tower, it's not really like you are "chopping wood and getting ravaged" to get first place.
Also, I never said it's just about the resource score either. It's the correlation between resource score and unit score as well as a certain playstyle adapted to that that worries me.
Also, it seems to me that 4 points bonus are quite a lot.
-
voted for King Of FFA 2 :D
-
But then i would have to give up my crown :(((((
-
I started playing wc3 and ffa like 2 months ago, and have followed fml ever since. Quite like the current system, and i would really like to participate in next season's fml, maybe we could get even more wc3 players to discover this gametype :icon_razz:
-
Great to hear that Shen! I'm definitely hoping more wc3 players discover the gametype as well. :D We play on Garena in the Masters League channel quite often, I would love to see you stop by and play some games with us!
And back on topic; Personally, I sort of want to do a tournament next. I voted for FML Open, but KoFFA 2 would be great as well!
-
yeah yeah but swiss style won!
-
i think a lot of people voted for swiss because they wanted to talk about what they think would make an even better system (and wanted to show that they preferred swiss to classic). i dont think many ppl would mind taking ~a month off to fit a tourney event between this season and the next.
-
We should make an tournament and use it to help us seed the player for the next season!
-
You're going to use some random tournament to seed players for next season instead of their performance in the last season?
P.S. This website is really fricken slow sometimes randomly, what's up with that? :icon_neutral:
-
I said to "help" us. Because since we are talking about cutting the number of players to 32, it would give a chance to every unknown player who recently discovered the league to prove themselves!
-
dont see the point, they cant prove themselves in some games we host with these unknown players.
-
I agree with daselend and others about the +4 for top score problem. It encourages a certain style of play, but all styles of play should be equally encouraged. Like CampandSpank style would never get +4 points, even if he won his games. So its like you are saying getting three heroes and being really good at micro deserves points more than just winning the game...
If i chim raze everyones bases i dont get many points, same with tanks, same with manipulating for the win. basically +4 is a micro/battle/score reward...but many times the crazy guy who rapes everyone and gets high heroes doesn't deserve win because he played stupid and aggroed everyone even if he has good micro (solo players). why should he get +4 at end?
-
I believe this is your honest opinion, since you would have gotten +8 pts that way :D.
So maybe we should lower the number? Or/And just give it as a reward and not as a penality
IE: Winner gets 25 pts no matter what, loser with top score gets 10+X pts
This way it would pretty much only be useful as a tie breaker, and trying to abuse the system would probably increase your chance of losing
But one of the "good" thing about the +4 pts, is that it might end 3 way hell (ppl being more active to try and get at least the 14 pts, and the idiot player who just sat and won because the 3rd one suicided only manage to get 21pts)
Hrmmm
-
I agree with daselend and others about the +4 for top score problem. It encourages a certain style of play, but all styles of play should be equally encouraged. Like CampandSpank style would never get +4 points, even if he won his games. So its like you are saying getting three heroes and being really good at micro deserves points more than just winning the game...
If i chim raze everyones bases i dont get many points, same with tanks, same with manipulating for the win. basically +4 is a micro/battle/score reward...but many times the crazy guy who rapes everyone and gets high heroes doesn't deserve win because he played stupid and aggroed everyone even if he has good micro (solo players). why should he get +4 at end?
So what you're saying is, this discourages people from cheesing in order to win a FFA game? I see nothing wrong with that.
-
anybody who thinks getting points for having the highest score has an iq lower than deuce and should go play random team. Have a nice day.
-
hmmm thats kind of insulting, elaborate?
-
I think i liked the +1pt rule given to the loser which most points better than this 21-4 format.
my idea was a small compensation which helps to untie players
Your idea gives much more importance to be 1st in points, it becomes something to fight for which could lead to long ending of games where the winner doesnt finish his opponent too fast to try to get top score for example.
It should be a compensation, not a bonus.
Oh and Duck stfu. Have a nice day
-
i do not really like the "highest score points"... i never play for any points i play only for win....
why do you want to change so much?
its a tournament if u win ur games u should play in the playoffs if not you are out... simple..
-
To make tie breaker easier mostly
-
Say you are sorry for telling me to stfu and I won't suicide you.
-
Say you are sorry for telling me to stfu and I won't suicide you.
Say you are sorry for telling us we have an iq below 2 and I won't suicide you. Should i remind you that I consider having 1% chance of qualifying so suicide would be an enjoyable option.
-
So to get back on subject, I think players doesnt want to change the point system, but wants 32 players and 6 rounds.
-
Bah! Players don't know what they want! Only I do! MUAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!
But in all seriousness... 32 players will happen. Anything passed 4 rounds and I might want to slit my wrist... but we'll see.
I think the point system change will make the games more exciting to watch instead of having hour long stand-offs. Hopefully making them shorter as well. It promotes aggressive and strong play over sitting around all game and trying to snipe the win at the end. I do want to remind people that their was only 6 (I think) games where the winner didn't have the highest score this season. Almost all of them happened because two players teamed the strongest player to death. (Or from Abusing human heroes. *glares at johny*)
-
So, when would this season start? When would the application start? If we considering we have 2 week for application, i'm gonna die of boredom!
Unless we start an open tournament now (~1 month) while we wait for the semi/finals/application
-
Okay I know you guys think im biased or something but I think if you actually ask the ffa players most people (even the ones who get high scores) would be against this highest score reward
worpex said "It promotes aggressive and strong play over sitting around all game and trying to snipe the win at the end. I do want to remind people that their was only 6 (I think) games where the winner didn't have the highest score this season. Almost all of them happened because two players teamed the strongest player to death. (Or from Abusing human heroes. *glares at johny*)"
So basically thats like saying we should have a basketball game with ONLY slam dunks because thats more exciting to watch. Just because one person considers chims or tanks to be 'cheese' doesn't make it less legitimate than other styles. And if someone got teamed and lost or someone got suicided, they should get better at diplomacy and manip, not change the rules to make a certain style of play more rewarding.
Fixing tiebreaker problem is important, but shouldn't change the dynamic of the games. FFA is great because it encourages all these styles of play because the end goal is the same: to win (not 'to get highest points').
Not all players have micro like maga or das or darkness, but the beauty of FFA is that they still have a chance to win. Theres nothing wrong with playing smart with 60 APM and sniping the win at the end. Renaud mentioned I would have benefited from a high score bonus this season, but I remember the days when I had 50 APM and would manip vs FLY to get the win. So yeah, thats my 2 cents
-
Having your own opinion does not make you bias Eshan.
I think enough people have stated that they don't wish to use this system (although I personally think it would help make games more fun to play and watch). Instead, we will just use the +1 point for highest score if you didn't win.
-
Having your own opinion does not make you bias Eshan.
I think enough people have stated that they don't wish to use this system (although I personally think it would help make games more fun to play and watch). Instead, we will just use the +1 point for highest score if you didn't win.
I agree with this the most