seasonal "point system sucks" thread

Topic created · 80 Posts · 506 Views
  • @FlipFTW said in seasonal "point system sucks" thread:

    but I do think forcing teams to stick together can create some really toxic hostage situations.

    but you don’t force teams to stick together. just if they have a match scheduled and fail to show up, they are expelled from the league

  • also i’m not sure you understood what i meant by the finer details in the prorate idea.

    the prorates would be applied at the end of the season and based on ALL non-forfeit matches in the season; for seeding 1.6 points would be given in the meantime as is practice now (as forfeits cause problems for final playoffs seeding, not for Swiss scheduling as much) - so the real points earned/points possible ratio is still directly honoured

    no weight to opponent strength is fair - but i don’t think there’s a better way to do it unless you want to distort the stuff by giving everyone flat 3.0

  • @vibeisveryo
    It’s quite frequent that parts of a team that fall apart find other teams to join - this is especially true for when a team has rough starts or following losses where teams can no longer make playoffs. The act of finding another team once yours has died is an act of determination to continue to play in the league I don’t want to discourage, and can result in the formation of strong bonds and teams going into the next season.

    Even for team leaders responsible for organizing teams that fall apart I can’t help but feel bad for people who are forced to take a break from a game they might love - I’d probably suggest a demerit preventing them from making a team next season (AS A LEADER) which they can even appeal by demonstrating improved responsibility and reflection.

    As a note having a record of teams that a player has played on that died could be framed in a negative manner and in doing so there could be discouragement from the perspective of recruitment for players who have played a high amount of “incomplete” seasons. This could take the form of a 1-hr ban and essentially be a stat on a players permanent record if you were feeling cruel - this probably guarantees that any recruiter will see this and ask about their previois teams dying.

  • @vibeisveryo
    I did misunderstand, I wasn’t aware of the 1.6 points to seed mid season and despite saying it several times I can’t mentally grasp single digit games played per season I guess.

    I’m more for the idea, but I do think it can come into conflict with having accomplishments weighted too heavily especially with this low temporary seeding rule:

    A somewhat drastic example to demonstrate this point: Two forfeit wins early => 1.6 and 1.6 for seeding while will presumably put you against lighter opponents (than actually winning) AND these lighter opponents are technically worth “more” due to the protraction.

    The weighted idea of the average of other teams win record vs the forfeited team has a chance of giving a more accurate seeding for Swiss, and I do think that even just effectively giving a number in the range of 2-3 for a FFW should be the standard.

  • @vibeisveryo @FlipFTW @Micahlele you guys are missing the forest for the trees here really hard

    UGC already gave partial points for FFWs way back in the day and it caused so many issues every goddamn season that even the UGC admins realized it was a terrible system. i’ll go really in-depth on this if you want, but it really boils down to good teams getting punished for random matchups with clown teams. and in the same way that people arguing W/L seeding over MP don’t realize that the system is in place because the alternative has already been tried, and the demerits of the current system have been deemed the least damaging of the alternatives.

    yes, the situation in AM is strange and unfortunate, but the fact that we only have one of these scenarios, if any, each season is an indicator that the system is working. it’s an extreme outlier and any attempts to standardize the system to account for extreme outliers is, more often than not, going to do far more harm than good. so how do we deal with scenarios like this, then? I see two options.

    1. We don’t? Forfeits are, a very large percentage of the time, going to be a 3-0 in favor of the team receiving the FFW. if the 3-4 team had just won both of those matches instead, are we having this discussion? probably not. “but they only went 1-4!!!” no shit, the way swiss works essentially guarantees that a team is going to have “easy matches” or “hard matches”. when you get matched up against a clown team for one of those “easy matches”, and they end up forfeiting, it takes a win that you otherwise likely had coming and “delegitimizes” it in some way, simply because the 90% chance you had of 3-0ing was made 100%. comparison: if shovel forfeited their matches against 3600 and HOOD this season, saying ‘they actually went 5-0 in the matches they played!! maybe they beat hood!!’ is just inane and intellectually dishonest.

    2. ironically one of the few places where UGC was ahead of RGL: give admins the ability to force a play-in for extreme outlier situations like this one or the CSn situation a few seasons ago. there’s a ton of scenarios you can pull for this, but kumori did it back in s15(?) plat for a similar scenario and while the team who had gotten then bye week/ffw that caused it was a little miffed, there ultimately weren’t any issues.

    I’m gonna restate it, but points from FFWs aren’t an issue, like, at all. if these scenarios were happening more often there might be more of an argument for it, but when it’s such a relatively rare occurrence given the large amount of data in a tf2 season, it ironically serves as proof that the system is fine.

  • @Alto i think you misunderstand that forfeit losers don’t gain anything under my proposed system. saying shovel might should get credit if they ff’d is wrong - they would get nothing - but the ffw should gain points commensurate to how they performed in the rest of their season matches.

  • @vibeisveryo that’s not my point, all i’m saying is that the notion of discrediting a team with 2 FFWs for “only having one actual win” is almost as ridiculous as saying a team that only has FFLs is “undefeated”. and again, if you dock points from teams who receive a FFW, you are thereby removing points that a team could’ve rightfully earned during the match that was most likely going to be a 3-0 in their favor, simply because they had the bad luck of getting swiss’d against a team that didn’t have their shit together. that’s not something you can rightfully punish a team for.

  • @Alto unfortunately this is really hard to ascertain, especially for teams with otherwise bad records. in high divs yes, forfeits happen more for the shittiest team dying or something, but in low divs teams forfeit for some of the stupidest reasons even if they’re doing well

    even if patterns exist in every specific case it’s impossible to tell what the expected outcome would have been, in the absence of pages of scrim logs, and so the most fair option would be to simply exclude the ffw from the calculation by prorating points

  • @vibeisveryo Unless we’re seeing teams with their full roster forfeiting because their engi has a headache, if a team forfeited on a given night they were almost guaranteed to lose because of the circumstances of that night. Two seasons ago, my main team (that ended up finishing 3rd) lost to the 2nd worst team in the div because we were missing 4 mains at match time and both of the subs we had arranged to play vanished into thin air. We ended up starting 15 minutes in an 8v9 with like 4 offclassers and an actual pubber on scout so we lost pretty handily. Even though we would’ve rolled that team on any other night, they were able to field the better roster on that night and thus deserved the win. Match night circumstances have always been a part of HL, and will continue to be a part of HL. It ended up not mattering because that team wasn’t close to playoffs, but prorating FFW points is inevitably going to cause a team that got matched against a clown team to miss playoffs and this entire conversation is going to storm back in the other direction.

    and even if a team ends up getting a win against a team they would’ve lost to, in most cases (all except week 7), it’s going to even itself out the week after because that team’s been artificially inflated so they’ll eat an 0-3 the following week to even it out. Like, either you get the FFW and then lose 0-3 the next week, or you play out the match and lose, only to likely win the next week. The only difference is that by being on the receiving end of a FFW, you now have points taken away from you by things completely outside of your control.

    I’ll say it again, we’ve already had this happen in UGC years ago and if the braindead UGC admins were able to realize that it was an awful system, there’s no reason why it should be touching RGL.

  • @Alto the only counter arguement I would state is that currently you only get 1.6 MP for a FFW, and then you get the rest of the points later at the end of the season if the teams cannot schedule a rematch for the rest of the MP.

    so FFW do not punish you as hard in the rankings since you have less MP than a full FFW during the regular season scheduling.

    Perhaps instead we can give full MP on the FFW, and allow a rematch to allow the FF team to “steal” back up to 1.4 MP? I don’t like this idea, but its the only one I could think of at the moment.

  • I propose that we give full MP for the winning team and 0 MP for the losing team. We could keep counters for rounds won/dropped and use this for any tie breakers. This seems like a natural and simple solution that rewards the teams that win with higher seeds.

  • @shotaway So… w/l with rw/rl as a tiebreak

  • @vibeisveryo i for one love this solution

Log in to reply