Guns Of Icarus Online
Community => Community Events => Topic started by: Wundsalz on November 30, 2013, 01:33:07 pm
-
As the poll thread (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2955.0.html) has been locked for whatever reason, here's a sepearate thread to discuss the poll.
I've got a question regarding option A and C:
Same old, same old - Continue Clan based scoring, where a clan can have as many teams as wanted and any of them can gain points for the clan
A bit of both - Clans can enter 1 team of 8-16, points are gained by the Team for the Clan
The previously posted rules (http://rules) state "The teams do not have locked in crews" and all clan members are basically free to hop from team to team as they like.
So how does Option A differ from Option C now if there's nothing to prevent The Paddling/Raft and Brood from fighting as "The Ducks"-team on the same day (or even parallel)?
-
I think that the preciously stated rules are being reworked, so the "The teams do not have locked in crews" rule is being reworked too. A, B and C are the posibilities instead of that rule. So if its A it will stay the same, with C there is only 1 team which can have a max of 16 players in the team that plays for the clan.
-
oops
-
The topic was locked to avoid a debate on the rules before a draft is prepared and posted here, and rather just get numbers from the poll to decide which version to favor. As for your questions you can expect things such as that to be handled within the rewrite for that option should it win. The new rules will be posted once the poll finishes, I'd save the debate for then. It's safe though to not reference previous iterations of the rules as the new ones vary quite a bit. Especially regarding Clans, Teams, and Substitution. After the poll the new rules will be up on here for about a week to get all last minute feedback and get any changes made before they go live on the website.
If anyone wants to talk personally about things regarding the rules, feel free to add me and talk to me on Steam (http://steamcommunity.com/id/knightrelyks/)
-
if you keep the old optionthen we need to ban the ducks due to clan size.
-
if you keep the old optionthen we need to ban the ducks due to clan size.
Our active member count is actually pretty similar to a lot of the other clans around here.
-
I would prefer rules that would benefit smaller clans as opposed to rules that hamstring larger clans. The more competitive party the better and I would rather allow more sucks to participate than just the same ones over and over.
-
I was wondering if B also had a player limit like C?
-
In both B and C teams are to be within 8 and 16 members.
-
The more competitive party the better and I would rather allow more sucks to participate than just the same ones over and over.
This is why you don't post with a smartphone.
Party = Play
Sucks = Ducks
Regardless, both B and C would have a de facto effect of completely splitting up teams that have more players than a team. Hamstringing the Gents and the Ducks is not a good idea for a broad system of scrimmages outside of tournaments.
-
I've always been strongly in favour of keeping team composition rules fairly open. Makes life easier for a lot of people.
We might need to look at other ways to help small clans, however.
-
Fact is that a clan with more then 1 team getting point for 1 clan will statisticly have a higher chance to get more points. Making it verry hard for smaller clans to get above big clans.
-
Fact forcing a team to bench two thirds of its members will be not get support
-
Then B would be the most fair for both small and big clans.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
Problem there is it doesn't totally eliminate all issues. What about large clans that don't field a number of teams in proportion to their size, but still are able to scrimmage more regularly than others? I think since there's not a way of properly and fairly quantifying clan size and how that manifests itself as an advantage, it's not really something that should be penalised.
I also don't agree that clan size is the only issue with the current design - what about clans who are restricted by timezones or limitations on free time from regular scrimmaging, do they deserve to be sidelined regardless of their actual ability?
-
I haven't read through everything so can someone answer me this: why can't any team register clan or not? If a clan has two teams there are treated as completely separate entities. Really what is the fear in this? Why is there a rule even prohibiting it? It seems like the last draft was making rules for the sake of making rules. The Gents are training a second team as we speak and we treat their training as if they will be our opponents.
-
I haven't read through everything so can someone answer me this: why can't any team register clan or not? If a clan has two teams there are treated as completely separate entities. Really what is the fear in this? Why is there a rule even prohibiting it? It seems like the last draft was making rules for the sake of making rules. The Gents are training a second team as we speak and we treat their training as if they will be our opponents.
I've always found that bit to be silly. If the Ducks want to register as a clan, let them. If the Gents want to register as two separate teams, they should be allowed to. You just have to have some kind of substitution rule in place that makes sure they're not the same team while not being stupidly restrictive.
-
Do we need to find out who the greatest clan in goio are? or do we want to find out who has the greatest team?
I'm just asking, cuz I don't care if its the ducks, gents, mm, dutchmen or whatever. What I'd love to see are teams playing with eachother competitively and if they meet a clanmate in battle. thats too bad but somebody has to lose.
Do we want a contest about who has the better clan?
If thats the case wouldn't you want to settle for a vanity scoring system for clans that is seperate from the team leaderboard?
I'm looking at these rules and the further down I come the more my head just starts hurting over all these rules and exceptions to 2vs2 battles.
-
Do we need to find out who the greatest clan in goio are? or do we want to find out who has the greatest team?
I'm just asking, cuz I don't care if its the ducks, gents, mm, dutchmen or whatever. What I'd love to see are teams playing with eachother competitively and if they meet a clanmate in battle. thats too bad but somebody has to lose.
Do we want a contest about who has the better clan?
If thats the case wouldn't you want to settle for a vanity scoring system for clans that is seperate from the team leaderboard?
I'm looking at these rules and the further down I come the more my head just starts hurting over all these rules and exceptions to 2vs2 battles.
well if the season is going to rank teams in order, then it would be preferable for the clans to be in order of "greatness" rather than some other arbitrary figure, yes. If you don't want a winner or scoring, then it's not at all clear what you could want out of an organised competitive system - unless you're arguing for the whole thing to be abandoned.
-
I think he wants to compete, just by team not clan, like me. That was unnecessarily aggressive velvet.
-
I think he wants to compete, just by team not clan, like me. That was unnecessarily aggressive velvet.
yeah, in retrospect it seems I may have misunderstood sorry.
Besides my lack of reading skills, no aggression was intended, so again my apologies if that is how I came across.
-
I know it's pretty chaotic thread, but I would like to add here some idea that would IMHO mix clan/team.
You register 2 crews (8 nicknames!) as team under some specific tag.
Every week you can have max 3-5 points from skrimmages. Points go to TEAM.
Every skrimmage you can substitute max 1 player per crew (perhaps excluding pilots?).
Every skrimmage you fly with team-specific TAG.
Once a player signs-up for a season of skrimmages with a specific team they can not help any other team.
If clan is small, it can have 1 team (clan name as tag).
If clan is large, it can have 2-3 teams (i.e. Duck* clan could have teams DckA, DckB), but it can NOT mix or borrow players between teams.
I don't believe anyone will have any right to be angry if some big clan will be able to create 2 different good teams, getting their points separately.
If, for example, DckA team wins the event, then we will know that the entire clan deserves respect.
What I think is perfect about this system is that clan with only 1 team has same chance of winning as many skrimmages as any team from clan with multiple teams, because there are no points for clan, only respect for clan's team(s). This also makes it possible to create inter-clan teams. people from AK, OVW, Ducks, Gent or whatever could create team [XYZ].
*Sorry for using Ducks as an example of big clan. Hope you don't mind. No Ducks were harmed while writing this post :D
-
Every skrimmage you can substitute max 1 player per crew (perhaps excluding pilots?).
Once a player signs-up for a season of skrimmages with a specific team they can not help any other team.
but it can NOT mix or borrow players between teams.[/b]
I'm speaking for myself here and no one else but I think this sums up the issue with teams being entered individually. I was in the competitive scene for almost 9 months and I typically had to sub on average 2-3 players per match no matter what the event. Scrimmages, which typically were a bit more casual usally involved grabbing any duck I could find to play, which was honestly one of the best things about scrimmages since any duck who wanted to play competitively could wet their chops on scrims and substituting before a regular crew position opened up on a competitive team.
The ability to allow everyone who wanted to compete the ability to do so, was the best part about competitive play. Restrictive substitution rules have always rubbed me the wrong way specifically for this reason since it took so much of the fun and community aspect out of competiting.
-
But if you keep substituting missing players with the best ones you have then we go back to 1 elite team per clan :(
-
I gotta ask, what was wrong with the last season's system?
-
But if you keep substituting missing players with the best ones you have then we go back to 1 elite team per clan :(
As far as I understand this is already how most clans are. They have their best players on their competitive teams and use the best available substitutes to fill in when there are absences.
The Ducks were never much bigger than other established actively recruiting clans. They just fielded more teams into tournaments. When competing in scrimmages they did so under one team banner "Ducks" thereby enjoying the same ability to freely substitute as the rest of the clans. In tournaments the "Ducks" could only earn points from one team regardless of how many were entered.
So really, three teams was never an advantage in point gaining. The Ducks were just vigilant at submitting screenshots, so any time we played in a tournament that was part of the competitive system (like cogs) or we had a scheduled or impromtpu scrim that we won we'd make sure we received credit for it.
A small dedicated clan that could play a few matches a week or a comparative sized clan that competed regularly could have easily earned the same number of points and probably would have if they had submitted their victories.