Regarding the Regarding the structure of the next Competitive Season

[Mattisamo]

Why not do both B and C.
Each team earns points of it own towards a team ladder, but at the same time they pool their points into a clan pool.
That way small clans can still fight in the team ladder while big clans can fight more on a clan based scale.

[Skrimskraw]

why make the competitive scene based on clans and not on individual teams?
I dont understand this. Every other e-sport is based on individual teams with a permanent roster.
Clans enjoy playing together and have thus decided to use a clantag, have organizing leaders. whereas teams have a competitive function, where in our case 8 players enjoy playing together on a competitive level.

the way I see it clans are just making this system confusing, if a clan wants all its members to participate in one team then they can sign them all up for one team. if they want more than one team they should be allowed to have as many as they would as long as their members dont play permanently for more than 1 team. this is where the substitution rule should limit players to only help one team per week.

All of this introducing alliances, clan scoring, co-op skirmishes etc. really confuses me. The season 1 system was really flawed and we saw that when the ducks where the only team to really gather points, there were no drive to get more points when you were in the top 10. So I don´t understand why we need to implement more things when what we really need is a polish to the old system that is basic and easy to understand and participate in.

[Orangey]

Except it goes against what a clan is supposed to be about. If ducks worked being three autonomous clans,  we would be three autonomous clans.

How is it fair for any competative scene in the world to have more then 1 "team" add points to the same pool. It would be like a soccer match where 1 team has twice the amount of players trying to score xD

Your chances in any competative scene should be about skill, not by who has the biggest amount of players available.

[Mr. Ace Rimmer]

But at the same time Orangey we should not be limiting clans to the amount of members who can play. Just because Overwatch can barely make 1 8 man team does not mean BFs/Duck etc should be limited to one team if they have enough competitive players to make up more teams.

in all honesty my feeling is that GOIO scrims should be between teams. Clans are thew groups we join for the extra social aspect.

[Orangey]

I dont think the team limit should be locked at all. If 20 people want to play for 1 team that should be fine in my oppinion. But multiple teams stacking points on 1 big pile just isnt fair to clans with only 1 team. This would mean that the amount of players would increase your chances, not your skill.

[Sammy B. T.]

I think I should talk about how the Ducks are organized and how I would imagine other larger clans are organized.

For major scheduled events, the Ducks have had three teams. Cogs, AC, anything where there was set times, we could basically act as three groups.

When it came to scheduled scrims throughout the week however, then it really wasn't about the teams as it was about finding 8 Ducks, two of them, containing the ability to fly a ship. We would try and keep ships as cohesive as possible, like if Squash was on but he had none of his Galleon crew on, we generally wouldn't field his galleon. We would also try and have some of the harder scrims be "team heavy" wherein we would try and have the scrim be as close to one of our teams as possible, however most of the time Ducks were just thrown at the scrim until there were no slots remaining.

Now I understand our size gives us some inherent advantages, but honestly, Ducks were the only clan that even tried to play for points consistently last year which is the main explanation as to why we had so many. I would be very open to systems that normalize points, ie perhaps after you cross a threshold of players added, you get a .75 multiplier. However, the two new ideas, would be extremely detrimental to Ducks and any multi teamed clan.

A, is the best way to keep clans together and there are ways of getting around scoring issues without restricting clans

B, requires a functional split of the clan and as I was saying, if we had the ability to be three clans, we would operate more like three clans. However, organizationally the Ducks would not be able to sustain ourselves split in three especially when it comes to subs.

C, as it stands is problematic for us as it would mean one of two people would have to pilot every game. This is incredibly stifling. However it creates in of itself a bigger issue for the clan. It basically forces the creation of an A team. If Alaric and Ghandi are the two captains who at least one of which has to be piloting every scrim, then the two of them become the main focus of the clan. While some duck teams have been better than others, we have always tried to maintain the integrity and competitive of each one independently. C would only be acceptable if there were more pilot options.

[RearAdmiralZill]

So I read that and I'm just wondering why you insist on fielding 3 teams if you have such an issue with it. That's not our problem, frankly.

Having 2 teams in a particular system, depending on how rules work, is an advantage. You should be grateful it lets you at all.

Your points ran so fast because at a certain point we just gave up and stayed in the top 10. It wasn't worth trying to take that spot away, because i'd burn my clan out for no gain. That's not a good system.

If A is to work, only the points from the highest scoring team within clan x needs to count. Otherwise large clans will just run away with high scores. This still gives them an advantage in numbers, but not being able to run away with scores.

B just guts large clans, which even being a small clan I cant say is fair to them. It would be easy for me to say "well that's not my problem anymore" but people do put in work to maintain large clans so that shouldn't be for naught. 

C again just guts large clans, just in a different way. It also limits all of us to 16 people max. I don't know how that sign-up would work but anyone larger than 16 members would be benching anyone beyond that, another option that leaves a bad taste.

In short : they all need work. A is the lesser of evils if the tweak I added is also included. If not, B.

[Sammy B. T.]

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.

[Orangey]

For small clans

A: Would be verry unfair towards smaller clans. Big clans with a lot of people can verry easily gain points on the same pile. 3 teams skrimming, playing tournements and such will greatly increase the chances of getting points then a clan with 1 team. A 1 team clan would have to play a lot more games then the clan with 3 teams to get the same amount of point revenue. This would mean that the numbers of your clan would as important (if not more important) as the skill of the team. I think that the points should represent the skill of a clan/team, not the amount of players.

B: This would be the most suitable for smaller clans. This option would mean that the points would represent the skill of a specific team. It would be verry clear how good a team is and smaller clans do not have to worry about getting more members for more teams to get more points revenue. Every team would have the same chance.

C: Would basicly mean the same for smaller clans as B, this would only restrict bigger clans to put in 1 team as opposed to multiple teams fighting for themselves. I do think Sammy is right and this would increase the chance of elitism within bigger clans (the best will be allowed to play while the other sit on the bench).

I do not understand where the limitation of 16 players for a team comes from. If there are 20 people for in a clan and they want to play as 1 team, why wouldnt they? Could someone explain this?

Option A could work if there is something set in place to ensure number>skill would not happen.
- Depending on the amount of teams a team would get less points. Say 3 teams every team can get 0.33 of their points actually earned. 2 teams means 0.5.
- Only an x amount of skrimss/matches can count for the points in a week.
Just quick toughts...

[Skrimskraw]

If you run a clan / team whatever and cant fill 8 crewmembers you have a problem and should probaly recruit more players to your permanent roster, this is how esports work people commits to a team.

however if there are limitations to how many players can participate on a team that is bad. Lets say a clan with 20 members wants to make a team, they should be allowed to sign up their 20 members, how they decide who plays the final tournament is the teams own problem. Not everyone gets to see the payoff or even get rewarded if they win.

[RearAdmiralZill]

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.

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]

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.   

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.