seasonal "point system sucks" thread

#1907
Topic created · 80 Posts · 509 Views
  • it makes no sense that in a league where it is supposed to be a fair and competitive experience, there are teams with worse records in playoffs than those who are not.

    the point system is a good tool for tiebreaking, but nothing else

    the fact that we base solely on points means in theory there could be a team who goes 2-5 that ends up with more points than a team that went 5-2

    here is how

    Team A (2-5)

    • 3 points for match win (2-0 PL)
    • 1 point for match loss (3-4 KOTH)
    • 3 points for match win (2-0 PL)
    • 1 point for match loss (3-4 KOTH)
    • 1 point for match loss (1-2 KOTH)
    • 1 point for match loss (3-4 KOTH)
    • 1 point for match loss (1-2 AD)

    Team A has a grand total of 11 points

    Team B (5-2)

    • 2 points for match win (2-1 PL)
    • 0 points for match loss (0-4 KOTH)
    • 0 points for match loss (0-2 PL)
    • 2 points for match win (4-3 KOTH)
    • 2 points for match win (2-1 PL)
    • 2 points for match win (4-3 KOTH)
    • 2 points for match win (2-1 A/D)

    Team B ends up with 10 points

    Team A, despite winning less than half the number of games as Team B, is in playoffs or a higher seed in playoffs, and Team B is not.

    This of course is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. And that’s the issue.

    Team A might have been a better team at getting rounds, but like in any sport, just because you score points doesn’t mean you win games. And winning should be everything. If your team is good enough to score rounds, but not good enough to secure wins, you shouldn’t be in playoffs. That’s just the nature of sport.

    The 1984 Denver Nuggets were one of the highest scoring teams in NBA history, they went 33-48, nobody was arguing they should have made playoffs.

    Change this stupid system.

    W-L should be everything, then if two teams are tied for a record, use points to fix any disputes.

    I’m sick of seeing sub .500% teams in playoffs with higher seeding than teams that actually went positive and were able to secure wins.

    If all that matters is rounds, why even have the W-L in the first place?

  • Also, playoff wins aren’t determined by points, they’re determined by win loss. The way you get into playoffs should be the same way you win playoffs.

  • https://forums.rgl.gg/topic/1848/matchpoints-on-king-of-the-hill-hl-ruleset

    You could have an endless debate about what is more valuable, wins or rounds.

    Our current system right now is based off a compromise of both. Where the winning team will always get at least two points.


    @Xenagos said in seasonal "point system sucks" thread:

    Also, playoff wins aren’t determined by points, they’re determined by win loss. The way you get into playoffs should be the same way you win playoffs.

    The goal of playoffs and the regular season are completely different. Playoffs are about bracket eliminations from a skilled order of teams.

    The goal of the regular season is to determine the skill order of teams. You cannot rely on only Win/Loss to determine final skill rankings of teams.


    To use the example you gave, if we ignore the Win/Loss ratio and just look at the matches themselves, we will be able to see that Team A had 2 rolls and 5 close games. Team B had 5 close games and was completely rolled in 2. Which team is better? The team that was able to take rounds and almost defeat the top two teams in the division or the team that was completely rolled by them?

    I will also point out that for your example to be realistic, the whole div would have to be very competitive with itself, which would support a round focused point system even more, since it would more representative of how a Div’s skill is dispersed.

    As you can prob tell, I support a Round based score system, since it is more representative of a div’s actual skill spread.

  • While i haven’t been as vocal as other folk. I’ve always wanted a W/L score rather than a MP system. To me its irrelevant if its a 4-0 or a 4-3 game, the primary thing is that you won. Sure some games will be closer than others, I think it makes a fantastic way to break up ties between scores, but it should not be how teams are ranked.

    If you’d like comparisons, the PGL Major for CS:GO going on right now ranks their swiss sections based on W/L and then uses rounds as a difference

  • @Mothership You can’t tell if a game was close or a roll based off round wins though. a 4-0 Koth match where every round goes to double over time is close than a 4-3 where a team held the point for 3 minutes straight for 4 rounds and double OT’d the other 3.

  • Also if you want to talk about judging teams based on actual skill then we should just get rid of the swiss bracket entirely and have everything be round robin.

  • @Xenagos said in seasonal "point system sucks" thread:

    @Mothership You can’t tell if a game was close or a roll based off round wins though. a 4-0 Koth match where every round goes to double over time is close than a 4-3 where a team held the point for 3 minutes straight for 4 rounds and double OT’d the other 3.

    This is a very good point honestly.


    @Xenagos said in seasonal "point system sucks" thread:

    Also if you want to talk about judging teams based on actual skill then we should just get rid of the swiss bracket entirely and have everything be round robin.

    I think everyone agrees that RR is better than swiss, its just that we cant have full RR divs without perfect admin placement. A ton of small RR divs was tested in the last prolander cup, and while I am not aware of how well it played out in the big picture, I don’t people liked it.

  • this might be true but personally i cannot be assed to consider the merits of a scoring system while advanced is still running swiss

    swiss sucks big fat donkey dick, please change it to rr or give us back challenger

  • What’s the largest div size for which round robin is realistic ?

  • @lYnn said in seasonal "point system sucks" thread:

    What’s the largest div size for which round robin is realistic ?

    Number of matches+1 (HL has 1 match a week, 7 weeks long, + 1 equals 8 teams.)

  • Should be 8 weeks no idea why 7 weeks is still a thing.

  • @JohhnyFromCali If we want 8 weeks we need 8 maps and I don’t think you can convince HL players to play Cascade and Lakeside in the same season again.

  • Like genuinely is there any other reason to not have a longer season other than the fact that we don’t have enough good maps to support it?

  • @Xenagos I’ve been a supporter of a longer season, matching seasonal dates with 6’s for a while now.

  • selfishly i’m against more matches a week simply due to scheduling, but length of season is irrelevant to that, in fact i’d prefer longer seasons in the first place. problem comes down to map selection and while (other than lakeside) I’m fine with most maps, even ones tested in cups like synthetic, I don’t think people would prefer that.

    This is when we switch to a pick/ban system every week

  • @Pain-Seer I definitely don’t want more matches a week, 1 is enough. Pick ban could be fine but I think we need a way to force certain game modes. Maybe a week where it’s just Koth, a week it’s just PL, and then add more steel like maps.

  • I have no idea why RGL decided when it was launched that it should change both the season lengths and playoff seeding system from UGC. There was almost NO contention to that system in UGC. And since the beginning of highlander, the thing that matters the absolute MOST in the league is to WIN MATCHES.

    Stealing rounds off of top teams was always a feel good moment, and it could affect playoff seedings as a good tie breaker. But if you win the match, you should always reap the rewards of it. The MP system is stupid, nobody thinks that a team with less wins than another should make it to playoffs.

    Even Mothership’s example is dumb because I’d still say that the 5-2 team that got rolled twice is a better team than a team that fails to close out 5 matches in 1 season.

    Using a contemporary example, in Season 2 of RGL invite, Fast Forward had a record of 3-2 at the end of regular season, and not one, but TWO teams made it into playoffs ahead of them with a 2-3 record. “Oh, but those two teams got more match points, so they were the better team!” except Fast Forward beat both of them head to head. The MP system is broken and should NOT be used for seeding. Win/loss is the standard that I think the majority of players would agree with if they were informed of the issues of the MP system.

  • @pajaro based secret agent

    honestly this was my point, but put in a much more coherent form. if your team can’t close out matches, you don’t deserve the benefits. its like if you have a shitty closer in baseball, just because you were winning for 8 of the 9 innings doesnt mean you should get half credit, you lost the game.

    we have to have winners and losers. this weird in the middle pussy footing shit is stupid. if you want to have a system based entirely off of points, just remove the W/L column entirely, because at this moment it serves no purpose other than to make the league look dumb to outsiders looking in. because it really does.

    if i am a spectator who knows nothing about rounds, it is extremely confusing to see a team with a worse record be higher in the standings, and if you are a new player who may have gotten pushed out of playoffs by a team with a worse record but more match points (because they played a shittier team and took enough rounds) that could cause you to not sign up the next season because when people are sort of wronged like that, if you don’t have the ties like higher div players do, there is no reason to come back unless you really enjoyed playing. you need those players who are on the fence to come back; a system where they can be punished for focusing on winning matches and not rounds will push them away.

  • Can we get this question added to the end of season poll for this season? Whether or not the next season should be win/loss seeding or map point seeding? At least that way we can see what people think (and I say this recognizing that twice as many people said Advanced should be round robin if challenger didn’t remain and we ended up with 14 team swiss so a poll might be meaningless)

  • I don’t have a particular preference for wins or points, I can see both of their merits, but I think people should discuss why we have playoffs/playoff cutoffs in general. For me, you let in the 4 (or however many) teams that are most likely to win the entire bracket based on their regular season results. That feels slightly less subjective to me than the concept of the “better team”.

    Would a 3-4 team that upset the #1 and #2 seeds and played all the mid table teams super close but lost to a shit team too do better in playoffs than the 4-3 team that beat all the mid-table/low-tier teams but got bodied by the top 3 teams? I mean, in either system, beating the 4 worst teams without dropping a round and getting 0 rounds against the top 3 teams would be counted the same as steamrolling the top 4 and getting 0 rounds against the bottom 3 teams.

    The concept of which team is “better” when teams are close is so subjective. Is the difference in skill more important? Experience? Map pool? Teamplay? Tactics? Consistency? How do you weigh those different aspects?

    The question imo should be “How do we have the most competitive playoffs possible?” rather than “How do we let the ‘best’ teams into playoffs?”.

Log in to reply