FFA Masters League

yoooo

I've been having much stress and negative influence in regards to an
unfortunate string of events that keeps on rolling concerning my
family...

I haven't been able to play recently and won't for at least another
week.  I'm pretty certain I'll be back in time for the first game, but
not completely.

Most of what's been going on should be resolved soon, the toughest
times are behind me.  When I come back I will be in a better situation
life-wise and ready to return to normality. Recently it seems that i've
become hungry for attention after essentially being detached from the
people closest to me (family and friends, not some high school gf, etc). 
After a chaotic 2 years most of this is FINALLY starting to resolved.

Anyway, not that basically a stranger's life should concern anyone. 
Just stating to "clear the air" for myself or anyone that was curious.
Also to note that I've enjoyed the different aspects of playing FFA with
everyone and have been for a looong time.  There are a number of cool
people that share a common interest to form what has been the FFA
community for so many years.

As a result of the aforementioned events, I feel that my approach to the
game has been clouded in recent times. Too many emotions, chatting,
etc. Before recently, I've liked to play to the old-school notion represented
today by players like Fly or Dase. This is when players will fight first,
talk second, instead of the other way around. An emphasis on micro
and macro before (if need be) resenting to manipulation or cries for help.

This concept brings the most enjoyment and respect, in my opinion. 
Ending an emotional roller-coaster for me will do wonders in portraying
the persona I wish to represent.     

If we end up needing to play some sort of qualifier, I will do my
absolute best to be back by then.  Looking forward to what's to come!

Thanks,

-Seksi

/endpersonalstory

Good shit!! These improvements look sound.  Props to the admins for a great season, being open to feedback, and getting the next one rollin.  I'm happy to see some of my ideas included in the minor changes!

Although most likely we won't have any tie-break dilemma now, if it ends up we do, are the rules still the same? (Where 2nds > 3rds to determine who advances in the event of a tie)

I personally wouldn't mind either way.  BNet bots seem to have a better host then Garena for me, although I was under the impression it was tough to hack on Garena? while stupidly easy to hack in custom games on BNet.  Even the most common public maphack can be used in custom games on BNet because Blizzard doesn't use Warden on anything but ladder. 

However, having multiple obs in matches would probably shy players away from this, as well as I don't know of any FML players that hack.  (Who do you think hacks, rsm? If so, i'm sure it is some of the non-ffa players that were out early)

I use the ViKi bot (USWest) and GTFO bot (USEast) to host FFAs.  They host cross-realm and also have the auto-save on drop feature (almost certain).  Like I said I do enjoy the improved ping over Garena (for me atleast), as well as the convience that BNet offers.  I believe that it would be easier to expand the league and expose the gametype to more players this way.  As stated by Worpex, Garena is rather confusing for newcomers and may discourage some from joining the community.

Further, I don't have access to the ownu bot, but I'm sure duck does as access to these bots are easy to grant.  If we did go this route however, I think it would be best to create a Clan FML on USEast, and try to get our own bots.  The bots spam whatever messages you want when the game starts and also in the chat pre game.  We could have it briefly advertise the websites, FML, the community in general, etc. 

I'm pretty sure they are rather inexpensive.  If not, ViKi has three bots for use and at least 1 is available almost all of the time.  I'm pretty sure ownu has multiple bots as well.

Regardless if we play on BNet or Garena I agree that we should have a Clan on BNet.  So far, I've recruited a few good players when I run into them (solo and ffa) that play in the games i've been hosting, and told them about the FFA community.  Having a Clan on BNet would definately help and having our own bots even more so. 

Overall, I have a slight preference towards playing on BNet, however Garena would work just fine.  Both have their advantages and disadvantages. 

Yeah, this sounds like a good improvement

1-8-12-16
2-7-11-15
3-6-10-14
4-5-9-13

Keep in mind however even the 15 and 16 seeds will be good players.  It's not like it would be 3 noobs who have to team seed 1 in the 1/14/15/16 format.  14/15/16 this season would oe been like Sparkle/Renaud/w8man for example

Hi, first off I'd like to say that the current system(s) in place are very good.  I like them very much, this is merely a new format idea borrowing some of the current aspects in FML and combining them with some pieces of successful sports models as well as my own tournament logic.  I tried to be as concise and clear possible, albeit lengthy.   

- The current scoring system would be used (+25/+10/+10/+5).  Any change within the point distribution (like the upcoming +4 for top score) would be also be upheld. 

- 6 game regular season.  The regular season would work in the same swiss-style format, however the first round would be completely randomized and not seeded whatsoever.  I believe this will promote the most fair and equal opportunity for all.  One of the benefits that a 6 game season provides is that even if 2 or 3 of the best players end up randomly matched against one another in round 1, there are plenty of rounds to gain back ground in the standings.  The swiss-style format plays into this.

- After 6 games, the seeding and spread in the standings should be mostly accurate based on ability.  A larger sample size of games should best reflect this.  Of course some may have better performances and achieve greater then expected (and vise versa), but that is true in any tournament and adds to the competitive excitement.  Some favorites go down, and some underdogs rise up. 

- 32 players would be accepted into the regular season.  At its completion, the top 16 (out of 32) players in the standings would then make the playoffs.  These players would be seeded accordingly (1-16).  In the FML, the top two finishers in the regular season recieve a bye in the playoff and thus an automatic bid into the Final.  By no means is there anything wrong with this system,  it works well and has been widely successful.  Rewarding the top 2 players in a season makes sense.  However, I believe that even the top seeds should have to win in the playoffs to make the Final, much like successful sports models. 

- The advantage of winning the regular season consists of two benefits.  First, is an easier path to the Championship, based on seeding.  Second is home court advantage.  A simple comparison is the NBA.  The Lakers being the #1 seed are rewarded by getting to play the bottom seed to begin their tournament.  They also have home court advantage.  Home court advantage in terms of wc3 would be the choice in map.

- With this logic, there would be 16 players vying for 4 spots in the Final.  Similar to the FML's current system, Semi-Final games would be played.  However, instead of 2 games using the (3-10) spots in the playoff, there would be 4 games using all players in contention (1-16). 

- The benefit to having more players in the playoff is evident.  First, it promotes greater competition between all of the top players.  If you look at the NBA model again, 8 teams in each conference make the playoff for a total of 16.  This allows room for nearly all of the skilled (playoff worthy) teams.  If less teams made the playoff, we would never see the upsets or young start-up teams get a chance to perform well at the highest level of competition. 

- In wc3 terms, players like Renaud or Eshan who are talented enough to compete, most likely would've gotten a shot.  In most other cases y.z and w8man would be in the top 16 also.  A counter argument to this is that if these players performed better, they would be in the top 10.  This is true, but still does not cover the fact that ultimately having all of the playoff-worthy players (or close to it) making the playoff ensures the highest level of competition.  I think it is safe to say that no one would dispute this.  Being in the top 16 is still an accomplishment, as only half of the field would make it.

- Another counter argument is that if so many players make the playoff, it does not give the highest seeded players much reward for finishing quite a bit above the bottom seeds.  This answer to this is that it does based on the seeding system and home court advantage explained below:

Top 16 players enter the playoffs, seeded as (1-16).  There would be 4 Semi-Final games to include each of these players.  The winner of each match (4 total) would then go on to play in the Grand Final.  The highest seeded player in each Semi-Final game would have the home court advantage (the choice in map out of the map pool).  This seeding would give more benefit to the higher seeds, as it should be.

Semi-Final Games:
Game 1: Seeds 1 vs 14 vs 15 vs 16
Game 2: Seeds 2 vs 11 vs 12 vs 13
Game 3: Seeds 3 vs 8 vs 9 vs 10
Game 4: Seeds 4 vs 5 vs 6 vs 7

Seeds 1-4 would get their choice in map, respectively.  This format should promote the fairest competition and placings based on seeding.  As in any competitive sport, the playoffs start a clean slate and a new season for everyone involved.  Anything can happen, however there are still distinct advantages to those who have the most successful regular seasons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- A second and seperate idea that is proposed could or could not be used in conjuction with the first.  This would be in addition to the 16 player playoff explained above.  It would add a secondary goal to the playoffs; a secondary championship.  The players that made the playoff but did not win their Semi-Final game would still have a shot at success, a shot at winning the secondary championship.

- Only the Grand Final would deem one a season champion.  This secondary goal would essentially be only for fun, but still uphold the competitve excellence that is apparent in the playoffs.  In a form of "double-elimination", players who lost their Semi-Final game would still have an opportunity to win the secondary championship, if for nothing else then respect or redemption. 

- The 12 remaining playoff contenders that do not make the Grand Final would be able to compete in a "BIG FFA Qualifier" hosted on Divide and Conquer w/ taverns. The top 4 finishers in this game would then go on to play in the secondary Final.  The winner of the qualifier would get to choose the map for the secondary Final.  Map choices for this final would be limited to the 'top 3' (Marketsquare, Twilight Ruins, or Silverpine Forest). 

- If nothing else, this addition would ensure 2 more great FFA games for the community.  All 16 players that would make the playoffs would be respected players, maybe even top players that had unfortunate results in the Semis.  A "BIG FFA" with all of the remaining playoff contenders would be simply awesome, and a secondary final with the top 4 finishers from the "BIG FFA" would also be high level. 

- "Playing for 4th" instead of playing for the win in a "BIG FFA" is much less effective in comparison to a 4 player FFA, playing for 2nd.  Reason being is that with so many players, if you finish in the top 4 undoubtably you played well and either took out some opponents or survived many.  In nearly all cases, if you finished in the top 4 of this game, you rightfully deserved it.  In any case, the secondary Final that would come out of this would be nearly as skilled as the Grand Final.

- A problem arises of course with this idea in scheduling such a large FFA while attempting to accomidate everyone's needs.  My solution to this is simple.  There would be a 2 week period (same as other games) to schedule, and the time that allows the majority of players to attend would be used, most likely a Sunday.  Regardless, it is likely that some players may not be able to attend.  For them, oh well. The true prize in the tournament is to play in-and-win the Grand Final, and for these players that chance has come and gone anyway.  This idea merely provides a secondary goal to keep players interested and competition at its highest.

- If all 12 players cannot make the "BIG FFA", the game will go on with however many that can attend.  DnC w/ taverns is a great map, and arguably even better with 8 or 9 players to free up some gold mines.  The top 4 would move on to the secondary Final and provide another potentially epic game. 

- Time-wise, the playoffs would only be extended 2 weeks for the secondary Final to be played. 

Love the ideas? Hate the ideas? Have some of your own? Please comment in support, question, or argument and share your thoughts!  A lot of thinking and tinkering went into this to solidify a reasonable collection of ideas.  Thank you for taking the time to read.

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" 

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

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 

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?

2 PM EST is 11 AM where I live... that's early!!  But ok that works, please no more earlier if that's possible Paterique.

2 PM EST confirmation