Whats next for FML?

[Seksi]

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?

[FML|Renaud]

I haven't read yet, but im already looking foward to it because it;s colour coded :D

/start reading

[FML|Renaud]

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 :/

[Ugrilainen]

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
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

[FML|WorpeX]

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.

[daselend]

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...

[FML|WorpeX]

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).

[FML|Renaud]

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

[Ugrilainen]

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

[FML|Renaud]

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

[FML|WorpeX]

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.

[Seksi]

@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.    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).

I also believe in 32 players. 

@WorpeX: Thank you also for reading and the compliment  .  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!

[Ugrilainen]

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 

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" 

[FML|Renaud]

ill be completely honest.  The only reason i read both of these tl dr post is because they had colour

[Ugrilainen]

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 ).