Highlander Match Point System

#2415
Topic created · 98 Posts · 718 Views
  • @Mothership @vibeisveryo

    You’re correct that the system is consistent with the arbitrary rules that the admins wrote years ago. It’s also true that this system is completely baseless and much more convoluted than it would be to just divide by rounds won, especially since we know that we dont care about wins. As I mentioned above, if you want to know which way we should be doing it, whether it’s my suggested method, or your current one, then we need a poll.

  • @Inquisition you wanted all of RGL to use your system for match-making that you proved was different from swiss and was better than swiss. Then Aad came in and mathematically proved you wrong and you finally dropped it. It doesn’t matter that this happened years ago when you haven’t changed at all since then.

    inq’s system sounds better in theory until you realize that dozens of teams with much better W/Ls lose playoffs/seeding to teams with much worse W/Ls because of MP, everyone will cry that MP sucks and we’ll revert the change

  • @Inquisition

    It’s also true that this system is completely baseless and much more convoluted than it would be to just divide by rounds won, especially since we know that we don’t care about wins.

    I don’t think you can claim that the current system is somehow more convoluted, when it’s 3 points for a half, or 1 point for a round on a koth loss, vs your proposed system which would need to have points either be out of 210, or come in increments of 1/210th.

  • @Micahlele What the hell are you talking about? Aad didn’t do any math and nothing was proved. You guys were literally bitching about how I used a different random generation than you did and how I shouldn’t do that.

    Or if you’re referring to the other proposal I made for the “different swiss system”, still untrue, because nobody did any math. To quote us both in the conversation we had:

    Inq: “Micah, if I prove to you mathematically that this system is better, will we use it?”
    Micah: “No, we wont”
    Inq: “Then you are stupid”

    And I dropped it there because there was no sense arguing after you told me that even if I proved myself right that you would ignore it.

    I haven’t changed at all because I am still correct, and hoping that the new admins are more reasonable than you were. You admitted that you were too stubborn to do anything that exa didn’t tell you to do, and you literally never made a decision as head admin that changed anything about the league. I, on the other hand, was 100% successful in implementing actual changes that we know for a fact were correct, because every change I made was voted for by a poll.

  • @Xenagos Fractions aren’t that hard. I’m stating that my proposed system is very obviously constructed in a way that respects the fact we don’t care about match wins. I’ll make this point once again though… If we think that we actually do care about match wins, then we had better run a poll to make sure

    Its much less convoluted when you see that in the current system, you’re getting something like 1/9 points when you’re winning 1/5 rounds. It makes no sense. The physical numbers you use for the scores are also irrelevant, as long as people can read and easily understand them. We can use decimal approximations to avoid this, as long as we also accept that a team’s proper match points will be exact quotients, so as to avoid the rounding errors that admins have already fixed this season.

  • Should we award points for teams capping swiftwater first or reaching all the way too last?

  • @JohhnyFromCali dont tempt him

  • @JohhnyFromCali Obviously not, and that’s exactly what I told when you suggested this before when I was on staff. This is independent from the argument about KOTH. If we want to prioritize winning, then we should do so by counting wins instead of match points first.

  • @Inquisition

    @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    If we want to prioritize winning, then we should do so by counting wins instead of match points first.

    We probably should count wins over match points. Oh but that would take your team out of first seed wouldn’t it?

    Also, what is your obsession with running a poll? Polls can undoubtedly decide things like taking a break for July 4th since admins need to know if people are actually going to be missing that match or not. But polls can’t decide every little minute detail of how the league runs because most players may not understand an issue well enough or they may gain an advantage from a rule change that is actually bad. I believe that a majority of teams lose more games than they win, correct (Idk the math but I suppose it may be equal during regular season, but if playoffs are accounted for, more teams lose than win for sure)? This means that it would be in more players’ favor for their match points to be counted more than their losses. It may be unfair to let them vote and decide on something like this.

    Currently, gaining a minimum of 6 points per win no matter what seems very fair.

  • @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    @Mothership @vibeisveryo

    You’re correct that the system is consistent with the arbitrary rules that the admins wrote years ago. It’s also true that this system is completely baseless and much more convoluted than it would be to just divide by rounds won, especially since we know that we dont care about wins. As I mentioned above, if you want to know which way we should be doing it, whether it’s my suggested method, or your current one, then we need a poll.

    Literally nobody other than you thinks your method is better. A poll is useful when there is split opinion.

  • @Inquisition I don’t remember suggesting such thing. The only way you get points is on a win it’s been that way since s1 of ugc.

  • @vibeisveryo impossible to know that simply from forum posts… also, even in this thread someone has agreed with me about it being weird that it’s different for koth and stopwatch.

    also, my method is based on the assumption that follows naturally from an always existing poll. if it’s wrong by popular opinion, then by no means has that become clear

    @JohhnyFromCali maybe you were joking then too

  • @Inquisition i don’t remember what I ate yesterday. Give the old man a break.

  • @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    mpossible to know that simply from forum posts… also, even in this thread someone has agreed with me about it being weird that it’s different for koth and stopwatch.

    That’s probably because koth and stop watch are different game modes. What’s the equivalent ratio between a koth round and a payload/steel half. Hell, at that point what’s the ratio between a payload half on swiftwater and a payload half on vigil or upward?

    If you look at last season, every swiftwater match in invite/advanced was a 3-0, there was one 2-1 on upward, and five on vigil. If we want to talk about things being equivalent, should picking up a round when you lose on vigil be worth less than if you pick up a round on a loss on swift because statistically it’s harder?

    You could get excessively granular with this, but after a certain point you’re going to get diminishing returns, where do we draw the line?

  • @Xenagos said in Highlander Match Point System:

    If you look at last season, every swiftwater match in invite/advanced was a 3-0, there was one 2-1 on upward, and five on vigil. If we want to talk about things being equivalent, should picking up a round when you lose on vigil be worth less than if you pick up a round on a loss on swift because statistically it’s harder?

    You could get excessively granular with this, but after a certain point you’re going to get diminishing returns, where do we draw the line?

    okay this is just a bad argument no matter how you look at it. Asking for consistency in match points between koth and payload is not equivalent to trying to construct some arbitrary match point equivalency system between different maps. Or even worse, trying to give match points per point capped on a payload. All it does is delegitimize any other arguments you make because trying to present that one argument just makes everything else seem so much worse.

    I think when you have undeniable evidence that the system is inconsistent with itself (payload’s match points equaling the number of rounds you have won vs koth getting extra points solely for winning), something should be rectified so it makes more sense. What that solution is can be up for debate, as even I think that 210 match points being up for grabs is a bit much, but we can see.

  • @Kastaling To clarify, I’m not trying to say that it’s a good argument or something that we should do, I’m just pointing out that there is going to have to be some kind of compromise between functionality and fairness.

  • @Xenagos I’m not sure where the confusion is here. I am drawing a very clear line, based on the following ideas.

    1 - Each match in regular season should be worth the same amount of match points. This is obvious, we all agree on this.
    2 - Each round inside a given match should be worth the same amount of match points. This is the natural conclusion that anyone can come to after we decide that we prefer to use match points rather than wins to determine ranking.

    There are no other considerations. We can still play to four in KOTH because the rounds are shorter, but there isn’t a good reason why winning the 7th round should be worth more than winning the 4th round. In payload, you get points by the fraction of rounds you won. It shouldn’t be different in KOTH. What I’m trying to accomplish is exactly opposite of the unrelated arguments that have been brought up. You have to treat everything the same. Maps don’t effect anything, gamemodes shouldn’t make a difference either.

  • @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    @Xenagos I’m not sure where the confusion is here. I am drawing a very clear line, based on the following ideas.

    2 - Each round inside a given match should be worth the same amount of match points. This is the natural conclusion that anyone can come to after we decide that we prefer to use match points rather than wins to determine ranking.
    In payload, you get points by the fraction of rounds you won.

    These 2 points are contradictory. Either each round can be worth the same, or you can get a fraction of the rounds won in payload. Currently a payload round is worth either 3 points or 4.5 points. So should we force teams to play 3 halves on payload even if a team wins the first 2? The same applies to your proposed koth system, is a round worth 1/7 of the points or 1/4th of the points. Should each koth map have to have 7 rounds played even if a team wins the first 4?

    This is what I mean by having to balance functionality and fairness. You have to make a compromise somewhere.

  • @Kastaling The system isn’t inconsistent with itself. Payload and koth are treated the exact same way.

    The match winner gets 6 points (2 before) by default. The remaining 3 points (1 before) are allotted depending on how many rounds the losing team picks up.

    A team can take up to 3 koth rounds, or 1 stopwatch half, without winning. If they take any more they win. so if they get that much (the max possible) they get all of the 3 points.

    Since you can pick up 1 or 2 koth rounds as well, you can also get 1 or 2 points out of the 3 on koth. You can’t take half of a payload half, so you can’t get 1 or 2 points out of 3 on payload.

    Payload’s match points equalling the proportion of rounds won is a coincidence caused by the fact that there can only be 2 or 3 halves in a payload match

  • How counting koth half the same as a player half doesn’t matter if it’s 2-1 or 2-0 first team that gets the 2 on the scoreboard gets the half. So that way you can 3 koth halfs like it is on pl. I do believe there is a potential of having a team lose the game while getting more “rounds”

    And the potential of playing 9 rounds of koth which personally I don’t mind. I always hated how koth was shorter than pl in a close game.

Log in to reply