Highlander Match Point System

#2415
Topic created · 98 Posts · 719 Views
  • @JohhnyFromCali if I understand your idea correctly, you could lose while getting the same number of rounds as the other team but not more.

    2-1
    0-2
    2-1

    Would be 4 rounds for each team.

  • @Xenagos This cannot possibly be that hard to understand. My points are not contradictory. As stated before, the second point requires that “Each round inside a given match should be worth the same amount”. In a payload game with only two halves, the first and second round are both worth 3 (previously 1.5) points. In a payload game with three halves, all three rounds are worth 3 (previously 1) point. As is clear from my original posts, what matters is that teams are awarded a fraction of match points equivalent to the fraction of rounds they won.

  • @vibeisveryo They are treated differently with respect to a system that is in line with the intention not to prioritize match points. They are currently only “treated the exact same way” because they both follow existing rules that make no sense in the first place.

  • @Xenagos there you go I thought it was posible before which why I never brought it up, but i guess you can argue what teams that cap a pl map last one half and another they don’t reach it. So far it’s the only way we came koth rounds and pl count the exact same.

  • @Inquisition If you think they make no sense, I am happy to explain.

    The system places high value on winning matches. Accordingly, two thirds of the possible points are alloted to the match winner.

    However, in order to not allow teams with more consistent performance to lose to teams with simply easier schedules, especially when there are only seven matches to determine playoffs seeding, the remaining third are alloted based on rounds the loser won. They are qualitatively treated the same as the other two thirds, because otherwise we’d just have a W/L system, which is problematic for reasons I gave above.

    Hope you understand now

  • @JohhnyFromCali This is not the worst idea… this is strictly better than the current system. However, it still fails the basic concept that I am pushing here.

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we all agree that match points are the most important factor, and that purely winning the match is secondary (at least, in regular season - playoffs are different).

    In this scenario, the only quantifiable object for determining score is winning a round. It is unreasonable to try and parse anything smaller than a single round. We don’t care if you capped 3/4 points on payload, and we don’t care if you have overtime when you lost in KOTH. All we see is whether or not you won the round. My proposed system looks only at round wins.

    In Johnn’s system, we are taking an additional level of abstraction, and saying that we should only quantify winning a best of three set of rounds. In this sense, you play a [best of three] best of threes. In this sense, you will be awarded for the number of [best of three] wins you have. At the very least, this will accomplish the goal of consistently awarding points. You get points equal to the fraction of [best of three] halves that you won.

    Of course, the initial claim of Johnny’s system, that we should only quantify winning a best of three, is incorrect for the reasons I stated above. We absolutely CAN quantify winning a single round, so there is no reason that we shouldn’t be doing so.

  • Y’all are making this way too convoluted. The current system makes total sense. As vibe said, the loser can earn up to 1/3 of the match points allotted to a game. Currently in stopwatch this means that if the loser gets a round then they get 3 points. Because they cannot win more halves than 1, they get the 3 points for only one half. They get the 3 points because they won the maximum amount of rounds that they can win and yet still lose the match. The 1 half won coincidentally is equal to 3 points. In koth, rounds are counted and not halves. Because of this, the maximum amount of rounds a team can win and yet still lose is 3. That means that, again by coincidence, each round won by the losing team ends up being equal to only 1 third of the 3 points a losing team can earn.

    This is not contradictory. The winner can get between 6-9 points and the loser can get between 0-3 points no matter the game mode.

    Why should a close game in koth reward the losing team more than a close game in payload?

  • @vibeisveryo I understand completely what the current system does. It does exactly what it was designed to do. Unfortunately, it’s design is the problem. There is no reason that it should be this way.

    You’ve just stated the problem with your own system. As you say, “The system places high value on winning matches”. This is exactly the opposite of what we agreed to do in the poll that I have been referencing. We voted NOT to prioritize match wins, so its absurd that they are built into the system at all. Match wins should not be considered in the world where we decided that they weren’t important.

    Many may claim that the current system is supposed to be a compromise between round wins and match wins. But… why are we compromising to do something that is explicitly ignoring the results of a poll?

    If you want to be 100% about which system is correct, you will have to run another poll. Here, I’ll write it for you. Keep in mind that the way I’m writing this is very deliberate as to avoid any confusion.

    Question 1A (For round robin formats ONLY)
    Should match wins be the primary factor for team rankings in round robin seasons? (Round wins and other tiebreakers will be applied AFTER looking a team’s win/loss record)

    a) Yes
    b) No

    Question 1B (For swiss formats ONLY)
    [[same as 1A, except for swiss]]

    Question 2A (For round robin formats ONLY)
    If match wins are not used as the primary factor for rankings, we will use a point system to award points based on the number of rounds won. If this is the case, should the winner of a match be given additional points, or should we only look at round wins?

    a) Yes, winning should give some match points. (This will result in teams being awarded a fixed majority of points for winning, with the losing team earning some or all of the remaining points based on the number of rounds they won)
    b) No, only round wins should count. (This will result in points being divided exactly according to round wins so that the winning team will still take a majority of points, but no extra)

    Question 2B (For swiss formats ONLY)
    [[same as 2A, except for swiss]]

    Question 3A (for round robin formats ONLY
    If we choose to prioritize match wins for rankings, should match wins still be included in the tiebreaker match points?

    a) Yes. (This will benefit teams winning by greater margins, and will effectively double count the value of winning matches)
    b) No. (This will benefit teams taking maximum rounds on loss, but will still only consider round wins as a tiebreaker after win/loss)

    I’ve chosen to add the important distinction of swiss and round robin, because they are different and we shouldn’t have any problem deciding to use a different points system in them… if that’s what the results of the poll show.

    Question 3B (For swiss formats ONLY)
    [[same as 3A, except for swiss]]

    If you run this poll as it is, then there are four outcomes (for each tournament format).

    Outcomes 1 and 2
    A majority vote to prioritize match wins. If this happens, we do seeding with a win/loss, and match points are only a tiebreaker. Importantly, if this is the case, then you are required to look at the question 3 to see which match point system to use a tiebreaker. We use yours if people want to double count matches, we use mine otherwise. (This system is a little complicated, but also only barely relevant if win/loss wins the vote. I’ll be happy to explain it if you want though).

    Outcomes 3 and 4
    A majority vote not to prioritize match wins. We then defer to question 2. We use your system if people vote to count wins in match points, and we use my system otherwise.

  • I’d prefer johhny’s method of counting halves rather than rounds over more convolution of the current MP system. I’d rather have W/L count first then use MP as tiebreaks, but I fear an alto post coming if I state that any harder. I’d prefer counting halves over rounds in the first place. I very much dislike the MP system, and it only ever leads to debates and arguements about it every season.

    I’d rather prophetize teams that win versus handing out participation trophies

  • @TheS4rr I appreciate this perspective. This is the best way of explaining what the current system does. You have the right idea here, but its still easier to say “award points based on fraction of rounds won”. I’m advocating for this because it makes more sense than the other system, given that we are trying not to prioritize match wins.

    Secondly, a close game in KOTH should give more points to the loser, because it’s physically a closer game. 2-4 on KOTH is equal to 1-2 on payload, so 3-4 KOTH is a tighter game, and should reward the loser more.

  • Just for context to this discussion, I got (through admin channels) results to previous survey questions asked on the matter.

    Season 3

    2832f706-94d6-47e3-8d87-73456c72e731-image.png

    Season 4

    03ca184e-e5fe-4ccf-b53a-4a910ff0980d-image.png

    Season 7

    1fd57f0d-3fe8-4908-ba20-182196800eeb-image.png

  • @vibeisveryo Is there an invite only version of this poll?

  • @ethan No sorry this is from before div-specific filtering was added to the survey tool

  • Just to add my two cents on these surveys, you’ve failed to learn anything correctly because you’re using multiple options without a rank choice system. Also, because you said ‘keep it how it is’ and ‘change it’ instead of explicitly stating what the current system is, or what the changes would you be, you pull in votes from people who are indifferent, and introduce a bias from people who don’t actually know what the current system is. In my poll, you are forced to make a choice so that you absolutely know 100% which option is preferred. My wording also states what happens in each system so that people know more precisely what they are voting for.

    I know for a fact that wording in polls is very important, and with my poll, I believe there is no possible room for bias. I will cite the Lakeside vs Cascade poll from a while back (I don’t remember which season this was), where Lakeside was a more popular map by some small percent, but was rotated out regardless after the poll (that I personally wrote) showed that something like 70% of people preferred map rotations, even if that meant playing a less popular map.

  • @Inquisition I don’t disagree that the poll methodology was flawed, and you have me on record in the past saying we need ranked choice polls where multiple choices are involved.

    But this:

    but we polled for it and you are in the minority
    the thing that won a majority of player votes
    We voted not to prioritize wins
    we didn’t want to have wins be the determining factor
    the fact we don’t care about match wins
    This is exactly the opposite of what we agreed to do in the poll that I have been referencing. We voted NOT to prioritize match wins, so its absurd that they are built into the system at all. Match wins should not be considered in the world where we decided that they weren’t important.
    given that we are trying not to prioritize match wins.

    all has even less support than the exact opposite propositions, from the poll results.

    So said past opinion shouldn’t be fallaciously referred to, and your proposal should be discussed on its merit alone.

  • @vibeisveryo I am not sure what exactly you’re trying to point out, other than prove all my points for me…

    The season 3 poll and the season 7 polls are what I have been referencing. Also, as per my statements above, the season 4 poll does not show any conclusive information, whereas the other two polls show with certainty that win/loss is not preferred.

    The results of these polls show two things:
    1 - A majority of people don’t want to prioritize wins
    2 - We have never actually done a proper poll to decide how to divide match points

    The first point conclusively shows that everything I have referenced is correct. You can check this again if you want, but I sense that you misunderstood part of my argument if you think that these poll results (which I have known this whole time, and have based my entire argument off of) in any way disagree with me. Everything I have said was based on the fact that win/loss has never been preferred to match points. The match point system I proposed is the only possible way to fairly incorporate points without giving preference to the winner of the match. If you don’t do it my way, you’re indirectly prioritizing wins when it was very clear in polls that we didn’t want to use wins as the determining factor.

    The second point is why I think you need to run another poll, structured like mine above. If you don’t, you’ll never know what’s actually preferred. I’m not saying that my method will win the poll, but what I know for a fact is that a large number of people will prefer it, so it’s worth checking to see if it’s a majority.

  • @vibeisveryo One other quick thought for my poll is that div-specific filters should be used to separate players based on which tournament format (RR or swiss) so that we only care about results for players in their own format. This was probably implied before, I’m just stating it clearly here.

  • @Inquisition In the context of the poll, none of them have pure round MP as an option (what you want), its all referencing the current system we have. At this point you are just inferring whatever you want from these polls to fit your narrative.

    You cannot say that these polls are flawed

    @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    Just to add my two cents on these surveys, you’ve failed to learn anything correctly because you’re using multiple options without a rank choice system. Also, because you said ‘keep it how it is’ and ‘change it’ instead of explicitly stating what the current system is, or what the changes would you be, you pull in votes from people who are indifferent, and introduce a bias from people who don’t actually know what the current system is.

    While also claiming

    @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    The season 3 poll and the season 7 polls are what I have been referencing. Also, as per my statements above, the season 4 poll does not show any conclusive information, whereas the other two polls show with certainty that win/loss is not preferred.

    At this point, I would not be surprised if some of the things you have said turn into a forum copypasta.

  • Before I start, I’ll remind us that what I am trying to accomplish here is to get something polled. As much as I am convinced that my match point system is better than the current one, I will never contest a poll that shows a clear majority against me. Now…

    @Mothership I’m truly astonished that we still do not understand what I’m saying here, so I will reiterate again. Before we make another attempt to tear me down, let’s make sure we actually read what my argument is next time. If we don’t read it, we’ll end with yet another person “disagreeing” with me by actually claiming exactly what it is that I am trying to prove.

    Firstly, I understand how one comment in isolation may be confusing to some. Granted, it should be explicitly clear what it means in greater context, but my choice of wording was poor so I will elaborate anyways. When I said “you’ve failed to learn anything correctly because you’re using multiple options without a rank choice system,” this is referring only to the poll that used multiple options without a rank choice system. I am not making the same claim about the polls with only yes/no options. The season 3 and season 7 polls are perfectly adequate because they show something with certainty. I cannot dispute these results. Nobody can dispute these results, because there is no information missing from them. We asked a yes/no question and got a yes/no answer with a clear majority (remember that a vote for indifference does not count as a third option other than yes/no).

    Secondly, the reason why the season 4 poll is inconclusive without rank choice is that answer 1 has the most votes, but less than answers 2 and 3 combined. It is possible (not probable, possible) that a majority of people who vote for win/loss would prefer a modified match point system to the current one. It would be wrong of me to assume what they’re votes would be for, but I am pointing out that we do not know. Also, as you stated yourself,

    @Mothership said in Highlander Match Point System:

    In the context of the poll, none of them have pure round MP as an option (what you want), its all referencing the current system we have.

    This is precisely my point. The poll from season 4 is the closest to having any semblance of a different match point system, but as stated above, this poll is inconclusive. It also fails to actually explain what the alternative match point system would be (my system), so we really know absolutely nothing from this poll.

    Hopefully this clears things up. Everything above said about polls is factual. This is not opinion, this is how polls work. I have not twisted them, or chose to interpret them in any non-standard way. I am not in any way, shape, or form, ‘just inferring whatever I want from these polls to fit my narrative’. If you are unsure about this, I suggest gaining some understanding of what rank choice polling is and actually reading what I’m saying before making another feeble attempt to tear apart a factual true statement.

    Unlike myself, RGL’s current systems and admins have been inferring something that is unclear from poll results. I don’t really blame them, because most of them try not to disturb the already existing systems, but it’s still wrong, so I’m going to try to help fix it. Almost everything I have said up to this point can be summarized concisely as follows:

    We know from conclusive polls that win/loss is not preferred to match points, yet we assume that win/loss should be the single most important component of the match point system. We have never ran a conclusive poll that elaborates on different match point systems, like mine, so we cannot know what is preferred. RGL has inferred that win/loss must be an important factor in match points despite results from every poll indicating that win/loss should not be the determining factor. There has never been a single conclusive poll that suggests that people prefer the current match point system. Not only do we not know what is preferred, but we have also [hypocritically chosen the option that makes the least sense given poll results].

    I have taken the liberty of putting [brackets] around anything in the above statement that is opinion and not absolute fact. Notice that there is very little. The opinion part is where I fit in that I think my match point system is superior, but the rest of what I have said is more important. In essence, we should run the poll I suggested. There’s no way around it.

  • @Inquisition

    Inquisition, you cannot take polls to say something they do not say. That is the core problem of your argumentation here.

    The polls given gave two options: match points (the status quo of distributing 2 points by default to the winner, NOT necessarily a proportional system as you suggest), and win-loss. That is what “ranks teams based on consistency in every game” means - teams must consistently win to score well. Note the usage of the word “keep,” which implies continuity with the system that was used prior to the survey - which, in Seasons 3 and 4 alike, was the same one we use to this day.

    The results, in favour of match points, say that people prefer the status quo system to win-loss. Nothing less, nothing more. They do not, in particular, suggest that wins should not be specially valued, like you seem to believe. They are completely silent on that. People who don’t believe, as you don’t, that wins should be taken into account at all, naturally voted for match points, but so may have many of the people who DO believe that wins should be taken into account, just because they prefer a hybrid system, embodied in match points, to a rigid win-loss system which leaves no room for differentiation between teams close in skill level where the better one may have lost more matches but picked up far more rounds.

    When we take this into account, every point you have made that refers to polls falls flat on its stomach. Polls consistently favour the match point system that exists, not some mythical one where all rounds in a match are weighed equally, to win-loss. There is absolutely nothing, in this conversation, to be derived from poll results, since they are silent on the topic of discussion: the match point system as you suggest.

    You say RGL’s admins have been inferring something that is unclear from poll results. This is not an active choice on the part of the current admin team or whatever - it has been this way since Season 2. It has worked perfectly fine since then. Very, very few people have complained about it - and those that have usually support moving to a Win-Loss based system, not a proportional match points system. Even in this thread, you have failed to demonstrate that your idea is really one anyone, after thinking critically, likes other than yourself, and you have failed to address the several criticisms of it, hiding behind the polls that don’t, in fact, say what you want them to say.

    @TheS4rr also brings up an excellent point:

    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.

    There is ample justification for the current system. There is also not enough support for running a poll to change it. Just because one (1) person has an idea that they think is good does not mean the league should run a poll to determine if the playerbase agrees with it or not. There have to be several things in place for poll inclusion: broad support (which this does not have), ease to understand (which this does not have, being a fairly technical detail), and an understanding that it won’t majorly screw up how the league works (which, given that four out of our six divisions are Swiss and rounds won are highly dependent on seeding, this has not yet achieved). Otherwise, our surveys would be fifteen pages long, and even fewer people than currently fill them out would.

    Now, please stop trying to avoid criticism of your suggestion by hiding behind polls and appealing to democracy. It is a fallacy. The people are not always right, and even when they are, getting the people’s pulse is often more trouble than it’s worth.

    If you are truly passionate about this, it may be useful to defend your proposal against legitimate criticisms rather than antagonizing everyone by making fallacious arguments for the sake of arguing.

Log in to reply