Posts made by Mothership

@dlphn said in Matchpoints on king of the hill HL ruleset:

seems like nothing would change but it seems weird to me that the third round is worth less points than the first two, i feel like they should have equal point values. maybe .4 per round? idk

The third round is not worth less than the first two, all the rounds won have diminishing returns. You get .6 for the first round, .4 for the second, and then .29 for the third.

This is because we are taking the loser rounds won and dividing by the total rounds played. For koth, the winner will always have 4 rounds won, so you are basically doing a fun line graph of y=3x/(4+x). As you win more rounds, the number you are dividing by also increases.

@calo said in Matchpoints on king of the hill HL ruleset:

@Mothership ill give you a hat if you run stats on this data for playoffs seeding in invite seasons 1-9

Doing that would not necessarily help since the way the league ranks teams might of changed multiple times since season 1.

Current system:

This is the official math on how points are given out. to break this into a formula, we would say this:

(Loser Points)    L=x/(y-1)
(Winner Points)   W=3-L
                  3=L+W

So if we were to plug in the Koth info, we would get this: (Only showing the loser points math as I hope we can all do W=3-L on our own.)

Score |  MP          | Math
 4-0    3-0             0=0/(4-1)         
 4-1    2.66-.33      1/3=1/(4-1)
 4-2    2.33-.66      2/3=2/(4-1)
 4-3    2-1             1=3/(4-1)

As you can see, the winning team’s rounds for koth is always four, so the math for the original formula is simplified to [Loser score]/3 or, Rounds won times 0.33

Lets also test this with Payload.

Score |  MP | Math
 2-0    3-0   0=0/(2-1)         
 2-1    2-1   1=1/(2-1)

So we can simply the Payload formula to (Loser score/1) or even more simply Loser MP = Loser Score.

Using a Different Formula:

Now to to make the koth 4-2 be the same match points as payload 2-1 would require us changing the formula completely. This is ignoring if the community agrees that 4-2 on koth is the same as 2-1 on payload.

IDK what math you are using to dist. in your doodle. But the only way to get a flat distribution like what you are wanting is by dist the final points based off if the losing team got 1/3 of the total rounds in the game. Leading to this formula:

Loser MP = 3(Loser rounds won)/(Total rounds played)

Basically, you want to gain one (1) MP off winning one third (1/3) of the total rounds played.

Score |  MP     | Math
 4-0     3-0        0=3(0/4)
 4-1   2.4-.6     3/5=3(1/5)
 4-2     2-1        1=3(2/6)
 4-3  1.71-1.29   9/7=3(3/7)

 2-0     3-0         0=3(0/2)
 2-1     2-1         1=3(1/3)

This has the fun side-effect of having proportionally decreasing MP gained as you win more rounds as the losing team.

R:    MP:    Change:    Diff:
0     0      +0         +0
1     0.6    +0.6       +0.6
2     1      +0.4       -0.2
3     1.29   +0.29      -0.11

Applying the New Formula to Season 10:

Current league standings are as such:

Rank    Team            Pts
1       Hood           11.34
2       WJQ308          9.33
3       FroggieLand	9
4	3600	        9
5	Yeye	        5.33
6	somebody help   3
7	Amigos    	1
8	Train Station	0

This would change to:

Rank    Team            Pts
1       Hood           11
2       WJQ308          9.4
3       FroggieLand	9
4	3600	        9
5	Yeye	        5.31
6	somebody help   3
7	Amigos    	1.29
8	Train Station	0

Basically nothing for this current season would change.

Applying the New Formula to Season 9:

Lets try this again with last season however just for shits and giggles.

Rank    Team                Pts
1       Don't Press Tab     20.34
2       Man Crush Monday    13.67
3       Froggie Land	    12.68
4	RunItBack            9.34
5	Yatch Club           9.34
6	somebody help        8.66
7	Yeye                 6.32
8	Goose Lagoon	     3.65

The new formula would change to This:

Rank    Team                Pts
1       Don't Press Tab     20
2       Man Crush Monday    13.4
3       Froggie Land	    12
4	RunItBack            9 
5	Yatch Club           9  
6	somebody help        9
7	Yeye                 7
8	Goose Lagoon	     4.6

The change in this case is that RunItBack, Yacht Club, and Somebody Help would all now have the same MP, but all with different records.

In the case of last season, this would not result in any change in the regular season rankings, and thus would not affect playoffs. THIS TIME!

What about a different formula?

The issue resolves around the fact that the current system rewards 1 match point to the winner of the match and then divides the rest of the points based off rounds.

If you make koth 4-2 = 2-1 in MP, then 4-3 would have to give more than 1 MP to the losing team. This means you cannot award extra points to the winning team because there would not be enough points to give away to make 4-2 = 2-1 in MP.

This means that my formula is the best (that I could think of at 2am) alternative that we could use. HOWEVER:

Final Conclusion

One thing everyone should keep in mind is that HL does rankings on MP and not win/loss. This means that it is completely possible for a team to rank higher than another team while having a worse Win/Loss record. And this formula, would increase the amount of points a losing team gains via rounds taken, and thus exponentially increases the chance of this happening.

It honestly comes down to if we think that one payload round is equal to two koth rounds (currently its equal to three). Which I personally do not as it is much easier to take 2 koth rounds than it is to take a full payload/stopwatch round.

Data:

• Link to S9 Rankings & Teams
• Excel Data to get the reworked MP

Guys, please don’t make me have to moderate a covid thread.

@Constantly I don’t know if there is room for something like that. I think just copy pasting the 6’s payment structure is what is best if we want to take HL seriously.

I am just interested in hearing why Challenger was removed.

@WiLLmaTiC said in Highlander Season 9 Survey Results:

70% of players from IM to Invite are interested in having their division become a paid division and playing for a prize pool. Be on the lookout in 2022 for more info regarding this!

This is something I am genuinely excited for.

It is nice to know that my favorite map poll I did Here aligns really well with the league poll results. It also matches the changes from when I ran it last time as well.

You are not trying to discuss the mission statement of RGL, you are trying to convince yourself and others that because Antlers was a Caster/Producer, he should not be held to the same standard as everyone else in this community.

If you want to have a discussion on it’s mission, then perhaps you should actually post what you think is wrong with the mission, or what needs to change instead of:

@Deltamarket said in Thank You Letter to the RGL Admin Team:

The clear intent was satire aimed at the entire point of RGL.**

If you want to have a discussion on something, make actual points with backing evidence instead of baseless comments.

We are dropping support for the Invite 6’s STVs. The secondary page (https://engineer.tf/rgl_demos.php) which contains the 6’s demos will be officially retired two weeks from today (10-16-2021).

@Deltamarket said in Thank You Letter to the RGL Admin Team:

Again is RGL going to be a group that legislates useless rules until the bitter sweet end, or will it reorient itself to benefiting the community? I can’t make that choice, but you can.

Your ignorance to why these rules exist do not excuse your actions. Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit a spend some time thinking about the reasoning behind why these rules exist.

RGL Anti-Cheat Updates from 3/20/2020

Tl;DR: Random POV checks are a Anti-cheat issue and thus this rule directly correlates to helping stop cheating.

@Deltamarket said in Thank You Letter to the RGL Admin Team:

I suppose you again misunderstood the point of the thread. I’m not arguing the rules nor am I arguing he should be unbanned under how things are currently done.

The clear intent was satire aimed at the entire point of RGL. To anyone who read that and thought “I’ll write about why you should be able to record a demo” you just misread the entire thing please try again :).

Its fairly obvious this is just a rgl-hate circlejerk thread. However this is not the TFTV forums, and we actually require discussion on these forums.

@Deltamarket

The rules are very specific and clear. [1008.5] - POV and STV Demos

This includes the penalties for doing so:

You are asking for discretion where there is none to give. Perhaps if you provide an actual valid reason why your buddy should have the ability to not have to follow the rules like everyone else, that would help your cause.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I really don’t see any excuse for not submitting demos on three separate occasions. If P-rec is not working, the built in demo recording works just fine.

https://forums.rgl.gg/topic/75/forums-feedback-updates/62?_=1631947713946

Time for the results of the poll. The map selection went pretty much as expected with some changes from last time in unexpected ways. Anyways, lets go ahead and just right into things

Round 1

Round one starts off showing the percentage that a map got 1st pick. Vigil currently leads with a 27% pick followed by cp_steel at 19%, and lastly by ashville with 14%.

Round 2

Already in round 2 we have 1% inactive votes, this means one person only chose Borneo as their favorite map and did not select any alternative map in their ranking. Ignoring that however we can see that the 2nd pick for those who initially chose borneo is pretty evenly spread unto the other map picks.

Round 3

Now with cascade eliminated from the selection, we can see that those who had cascade followed up with a pretty even spread between upward, steel, and vigil.

Round 4

This time with the elimination of lakeside, we see the upper most maps getting an even spread. However product and swiftwater once again did not get any picks, leading to swiftwater’s removal next round.

Round 5

Swiftwater is eliminated in this round with most of the votes going to ashville. Sadly product will be eliminated next, falling out of favor compared to last time (got 1st place last time, this time got 5th place).

Round 6

Now with product’s removal we see ashville start to slowly gain on the steel’s position. we can also see that our percentage of inactive votes has rose again, meaning that 3.8% of people only votes for the maps that has already been eliminated and none of the remaining maps. (this includes that one person who only voted for borneo.)

Round 7

With the removal of upward, ashville finally overtakes steel to avoid getting eliminated and now we can finally see which map is the most popular HL map.

Round 8 (Final Round)

Vigil wins with a final pick rate of 56%. Meaning that vigil won overall most favorite map as well as the most initial picks for favorite map in this poll. A much higher rating than last time when vigil got 3rd place. cp_steel held unto the reins and got into 3rd, a drop from 2nd place last time. And lastly, ashville came in and replaced product in the top 3 as well as replacing product as the most favorite koth map.

Previous results:

Thread Locked

@puntero said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

@Mothership said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

@puntero okay, cus that was not at all said previously:

@puntero said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

@Mothership said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

I was asking if simply post-phoning the rule until next season would suffice, as it would be a much easier argument to make if the real issue was the timeliness of the rule update.

It would suffice, at least for now. A better solution could be discussed after this Season plays out.

Sorry if that sentence was misunderstood. What I meant by that is discussing about this after Season 7 is finished (if there is room for it tho).

Requesting discussion means that you have issues with the rule besides just the timing of it. Which is what I was trying to help to provide an additional solution for that you guys might not of thought of yet.

I honestly don’t have any ideas that could assist you guys other than just trying to LFT on teams while you still can.

@puntero okay, cus that was not at all said previously:

@puntero said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

@Mothership said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

I was asking if simply post-phoning the rule until next season would suffice, as it would be a much easier argument to make if the real issue was the timeliness of the rule update.

It would suffice, at least for now. A better solution could be discussed after this Season plays out.

@puntero See you are not understanding what I am saying. I am asking if this rule would go into effect next season, with zero changes or debates or updates, would you be okay with that.

This means that this rule would go into effect at the start of next season with zero changes.

Is that something you would be okay with?

@civ said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

@Mothership I think at least giving them a season, while the RGL team worked on it would be the best bet. It kind of bones them to work during the preseason and be blind sided by rule changes a few weeks, or even days(?) before the seasons start.

I was asking if simply post-phoning the rule until next season would suffice, as it would be a much easier argument to make if the real issue was the timeliness of the rule update.

Post-phoning AND also changing the rule would be more work than just changing the rule like they are already requesting.

@puntero said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

@Constantly said in RGL & South American Inclusion:

ok so the issue isn’t necessarily the individual rule “blocking SA players from competing in NA”, the issue is that the timing was horrendous for the SA teams that were not part of the high ping issue and are now forced to either change their rosters or not play the upcoming season

Am I understanding that correctly?

Exactly. This is what we’re trying to fix, at least for Season 7 which is the one we all were already set-up to play before this rule change hit us.

We can talk about other flexibilities or inclusion whenever this season finishes if anybody is up for the game.

So if this rule goes into effect next season instead, you guys would be okay with it?

@minty said in HL s10 Qualifiers Predictions Thread:

mothership holding up the big middle finger when the players expressed interest in casting the quals first before rgl even thought about it.

I am not sure if you realize or not, but I am not apart of the production team, did not write the rules, nor could of had any input in any decision regarding rgl casts. But I guess if answering a question with a direct link to the source of the answer is a middle finger, then yeah I guess I am.

@calo said in HL s10 Qualifiers Predictions Thread:

@DolphiN I understand and youre clearly caught in the crossfire. Having the RGL badge gives me hope that you and mothership can shake the bushes the admin team is hiding under.

I appreciate this as all me and Dolphin can really do is answer questions and explain why things are the way they are currently.

As far as creating actual change in regards to the rule [1010.2.5] - Casting the same match as RGLgg, I would suggest you guys look at the previous discussion in RGL Conduct Survey #4 Results, Global Rule Edits, & 2021 March/April Bans and then make suggestions or ideas.

I am encouraging everyone to continue the discussion on this topic, as finding a proper solution is something I am all for, I just don’t want you guys to simply dismiss the reasoning behind why the current rules exist the way they do.

@watterson According to the global rules, yes.