Community > Community Events

Regarding the Regarding the structure of the next Competitive Season

<< < (6/9) > >>

RearAdmiralZill:

--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on December 01, 2013, 10:50:31 am ---I am not insisting on having three teams for scrims. I am simply trying to make sure plenty of my clan can play and its not focused on an "A team." Our three teams work well for static events, events that are easy to plan for and that are consistent. What it doesn't do great with is when we try and schedule scrims in the week. Those events in the week should be open to all Ducks, not just an elite team.

Also I wasn't trying to disparage other clans for not making points, the system definitely puttered out last season. I was simply saying the reason wasn't so much that we had extra teams as it was we never really stopped.

I agree with your assessment of the three scoring systems enough to make your salue number prime.

--- End quote ---

Well that's just our inherent issue when making teams. Can't make everyone happy all the time. I won't tell you how to run anything though so ill leave it at that. 

The point I was making regarding points was that it was a bad system because instead of trying to catch you guys, I saw it as a lot cause netting 0 gain to my clan. The fact we were 2nd in points with that mentality just makes that system look worse.

A salute for civil discussions.
 

DMaximus:
I think the rules from last season are basically fine. If the point per week limit is lowered a bit, it would level things a bit. I know it would be hard for MM to put together more than 3 or so scrims a week unless there's a tournament or something. A lower point limit would allow smaller teams to keep up more easily without restricting our bigger clan's organization grooves.   

Captain Smollett:

--- Quote from: DMaximus on December 01, 2013, 01:51:34 pm ---I think the rules from last season are basically fine. If the point per week limit is lowered a bit, it would level things a bit. I know it would be hard for MM to put together more than 3 or so scrims a week unless there's a tournament or something. A lower point limit would allow smaller teams to keep up more easily without restricting our bigger clan's organization grooves.   

--- End quote ---

This so much, I was just about to post almost exactly the same thing.

Lower the point limit so that any team can reach it.  Something around 3 points should be achievable for teams big or small (a small group of dedicated players could theoretically play three matches a week).

Leave in the underdog points so that teams can catch up on high point opponents and the best teams rise to the top by beating the top dogs.

Velvet:
From what I can see, the main problem is caused by the attempt to drag any and all mildly competitive play under the dominion of the Muse points system. Counting points for clans rather than teams is only coming up as an issue becuase every scrimmage is expected to be a part of the new system, which is detrimental by discouraging more casual scrimmages and by tying point gain strongly to quantity of scrimmages played, so producing results that don't in any way - other than coincidence - reflect the quality of the teams participating in the season.
As long as the present structure is retained, regardless of what penalties are imposed on large clans, the point-accruing system will remain a measurement of the quantity of players and free time available to a clan, and it will continue to be down to other events to measure the actual playing standard of teams. Sure, they could add arbitrary caps to weekly point gain, essentially meaning any active team could hit the ceiling and the final results really won't mean that much. Or the structure could be changed in a reasonably fundamental way to produce results that will reflect clan skill without requiring a time and manpower investment that is beyond all but the largest clans.

The other issue is much more simply explained: few people is excited by or interested in the points system as evidenced by the fact that only one clan really put any effort at all into collecting points. The time investment might seem more worthwhile if a fairer and more interesting system was adopted.

Maybe we could get closer to this state of fair and interesting results if only one point per season per specific clan defeated could be claimed. So if the "Lizard People" beat the "Snake Clan", they only ever get 1 point even if they farmed wins off them for months.
For any given matchup, only one clan could hold the point; so if "Lizard People" beat "Snake Clan" and gain a point, if "Snake Clan" win the point back in a rematch the "Lizard People" lose the initial point - or you could maintain a running tally of the scrimmages between each clan; so "Snake Clan" would have to overtake the "Lizard People" first win by winning twice against "Lizard People" to reclaim the point. Some kind of system could be in place to encourage rematches. It would also be made clear that scrimmages for points happen with prior consent of both teams involved; separation of friendly and "competitive" scrimmaging should be available to those who want it.

This remains in a way a quantity based system, but reduces the significance towards point gain of the time ceiling (as many clans should have the time for the 10 scrimmages or so to fight everyone in the season) with a skill ceiling: only an undefeated team may claim the maximum number of points and similarly the amount of points you have is directly proportional to the number of clans you've beaten. Assuming every possible matchup is played - not unrealistic with the current fairly small pool of active clans - you get what could actually be quite an accurate indication of how the clans compare. Additional points could be thrown into the mix, for example each map title would still come with a point, and points could be awarded for winners and runners up in acknowledged tournaments or events.

Yes, this system would mean not all scrimmages would be a part of the competitive season. But do all scrimmages need to be a part of the season, to the point of stifling smaller clans and making them feel there is little point in participating?

Omniraptor:
I think sammy's idea for percentage penalty on point income of large clans is pretty nice/simple/easy to implement, and I don't really see any flaws. We'd have to work on the precise math, but a system of diminishing point returns for additional teams in a clan sounds appealing.


edit: that came out really awkward, but the idea is to subtract a fraction of points from bigger clans.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page