User panel stuff on forum
  53 posts on 2 pages  First page12Last page
European Quake League
2006-02-02, 17:49
Member
135 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
So here we could have a situation where Clan B beats Clan A in the final match and still finishes lower.


There was such situation in EQL1 (DIV2). 3TK and D2 had same amount of points, D2 won vs. 3TK but still finished lower .

IMHO the best system would be to play all TB3 maps in every match and to gain one point per map won. So if you win 3:0 it's 3 points for you and zero for your opponent, 2:1 it's 2 points for you and 1 for your opponent, etc.

If in division there are 5 maps that's not the problem, every team picks one, and then every team throws one.
2006-02-16, 09:17
Member
792 posts

Registered:
Jan 1970
In this discussion TB3 has been a default. How about cmt5 and cmt3? Div4 and 5 aren't TB3 only.
It's hard to be good in all 5 maps. I know we won't win our Brittish mates on cmt4.

It's obvious that the divs should be as thight as possible. Earning one point by winning one map of 3 just tightens up the competition and the winning clan just might want to improve their game on the map they lost to prevent the opponent gaining points. This just puts some more weight on cmt3 and cmt4, and I think that cmts are nothing but refreshing pineapple enema for the whole quake scene.
2006-02-16, 17:12
Member
312 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
i'd suggest a method of 3 points per win whether it is a 2-1 or 2-0 and 1 point for losing 1-2 and finally LOSING 1 point when the result is 0-2 in the opponents favor.

and then a more strict line with inactivity and wo. if someone refuses (or makes excuses) to play a game because they'd fear of losing a point they should be forced to play or a wo would be given to the other team
2006-02-17, 07:35
Member
792 posts

Registered:
Jan 1970
everybody ain't such a quakenörtti as you're. that's sad, but it's the current status quo. succeeding in life should be approved as a proper excuse for not playing against some supernerd clan who are constantly spamming your mailbox 4am wanting some serious quake action.

-pek
2006-02-17, 10:33
Member
312 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
doesnt require much nerdiness to play 1 hour of quake per week
2006-02-20, 12:13
Member
792 posts

Registered:
Jan 1970
Quote:
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 2-0 or 2-1, and 1 point for a 1-2 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever.


agree!
2006-02-20, 12:25
Member
71 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
great issue!
i dont like the 3-2-1-0 system
id go with gaz

why not make it possible to get a tied result (1-1)
(if so. i think its only possible in tb3)
2006-02-22, 13:48
Member
47 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
This has been discussed on the nqr-site as well and tho none of the systems are perfect, I think Willgurht put his finger on the two main and unacceptable flaws with the 3-0&3-1 and 2-0&2-1 point systems:

Quote:

a team could give away 1pts to clans they like and still gain 3pts.


There are possible scenarios where a team can loose one map on purpose to chose another opponent in the qualifying matches.

Quote:

besides winning 2-0 is alot harder than 2-1


Teams with one weak (TB3) map should not be able to get as many points as teams that are as good on all (TB3) maps.
2006-02-22, 14:04
Member
693 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
Teams with one weak (TB3) map should not be able to get as many points as teams that are as good on all (TB3) maps.


Uhh, that doesn't really apply to your point system though.

Osams' best 2 maps are DM2 and DM3. Say we went for most of the season without an opponent choosing E1M2, and we won those games 2-0. We'd be being rewarded over other clans in your words for being good at all TB3 maps, which isn't the case.

And as for Willguhrt's point, well couldn't clans deliberately lose games anyway to change playoff opponent? If teams really want to do that kind of thing then they will.

The point that I want to keep stressing is that in QW 4on4 where there is a match system (and if you have 2 teams choosing a map each and then having a decider, i.e. playing best of 3, then it is a match system) then the team that wins the match should be rewarded, and all teams that win matches should be rewarded equally.

Earlier in this football season, my team Bristol City lost 7-1 to Swansea. In January, we got revenge and won 1-0. On both occasions the winning team got 3 points, because it is not the scoreline that is the key factor but the result. Our leaky defence is punished by having one of the worst goal differences in the division, and likewise, a clan that wins games 2-1 won't have as good a map difference (or frag difference, perhaps) as clans that win more games 2-0.
2006-02-23, 07:53
Member
792 posts

Registered:
Jan 1970
you got some valid points, but i think 3-2-1-0 for tb3 and 3-3-1-0 for tb5 is the best solution.

5-4-1-0 could also work, even tho it's a bit odd.
2006-10-30, 16:15
Member
4 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
I'd like to revive the discussion about the scoring system for the future seasons. I am in favor of 3-1-0 scoring system as opposed to the current one.

I present you a real life example from EQL Div2 at the moment, between us (Zoo) and D2.

Both clans have played 7 games.

D2 have won 3/7 games. Zoo have won 5/7 games.

D2 have a map difference of +1 (10-9). Zoo have a map difference of +2 (10-8).

D2 have a frag difference of +758, but if we ignore the dm2 round of D2-ToT 420-(-131), we can assume that the "real" frag difference is something less favorable. Zoo have a frag difference of +366.

The game between D2 and Zoo ended 1-2.

The 2 games Zoo have lost are both 0-2. TOTAL frag difference in those games -31. We lost every single one of those 4 rounds with a small margin (22, 4, 3, 2).

Now, to conclude: Zoo have won (not one but two) more matches, have a better map difference, and won the head2head battle. D2 have a better frag difference, that is the case even with paying attention to the ToT lameness, but still the difference is not that dramatic as the statistics show.

Now, I of course am not suggesting any changes for this season, the rules have been accepted by all participants as they are. What I am asking the admin crew is to really consider the scoring system for the next season because, be honest, who can really think that D2 should be on top of Zoo according to the games both clans have played so far?
2006-10-30, 17:14
Member
637 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
haha if this is the truth, it's insanely ridicilous
http://slip.4.pl/ - unblocking myspace facebook firewall
2006-10-30, 22:08
Member
4 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
what do you mean "if"? do the math yourself.

and btw, it would be nice to hear an admin opinion about this. Do you really think that the current scoring system works well?
2006-10-30, 22:14
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
JKova wrote:
Clips ---8<---

Just to continue JKova's examples, I give you a different one, for two point systems:

Current EQL point system 3-2-1-0:

Team A
Wins 4 games 2-0 = 12 points
Loses 5 (the rest of) games 1-2 = 5 points

17 points total.

Mapdifference is
13 maps won
10 maps lost

Team B
Wins 8 games 2-1 = 16 points
Loses 1 game 0-2 = 0 points

16 points total.

Mapdifference is
16 maps won
10 maps lost

And for arguments sake we could also point out that Team B beat Team A =)
And PLEASE note that Team B won _twice_ as many _matches_ as Team A

Different point system 3-3-1-0:

Team A
Wins 4 games 2-0 = 12 points
Loses 5 (the rest of) games 1-2 = 5 points

17 points total.

Mapdifference is
13 maps won
10 maps lost

Team B
Wins 8 games 2-1 = 24 points
Loses 1 game 0-2 = 0 points

24 points total.

Mapdifference is
16 maps won
10 maps lost

Do you see now? I really hope you do. With the current system, even if you win all but one game, you can still be behind a team that has only won 4/9 games. If that doesn't get something going in your heads, I guess nothing will.

With my examples, you can't even claim that maps count that much, because the mapdifference is to Team B's advantage. Keeping the 1 point for 1-2 loss doesn't mess up the importance of winning matches, but evens out the playing field a bit and gives a small non-intrusive incentive.
2006-10-31, 14:19
Member
135 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Personally I've got nothing against 3 points for 2:1. On the contrary, I think it would've been better for my clan, maybe not this season cause we've got experimental foreign lineup, but generally, as we've used to win most games 2:1 instead of 2:0 anyway.

The only question/problem is: should 2:1 win be treated the same as 2:0 win ? I think it shouldn't.

Solutions? I see two:

1) 4 points for 2:0, 3 points for 2:1, 1 point for 1:2 and zero for 0:2.

2) 'ALWAYS 3 maps' rule in groupstage, every map won is one point gained. The scores would always be like 2:1 or 3:0.

I vote for 2) . Yes, it's more games, but I think it's good, more drama, and have in mind 2) differs from bestof5, it's not bestof5.
2006-10-31, 16:28
Member
792 posts

Registered:
Jan 1970
are KTX servers in ok shape for leagues? i like the stats features and would like to see more matches on KTX servers
2006-10-31, 17:11
Member
135 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
played hundreds of games @ ktx servers so far and they never caused any trouble
2006-10-31, 17:42
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
plast wrote:
Solutions? I see two:

1) 4 points for 2:0, 3 points for 2:1, 1 point for 1:2 and zero for 0:2.

2) 'ALWAYS 3 maps' rule in groupstage, every map won is one point gained. The scores would always be like 2:1 or 3:0.

I vote for 2) . Yes, it's more games, but I think it's good, more drama, and have in mind 2) differs from bestof5, it's not bestof5.

Hi Plast,

Thanks for putting in your two cents.

Regarding your suggestions:

1) Everytime we award taking a game / match 2-0 vs. 2-1 we are taking away from the importance of the actual match wins. In my book, match wins should always be number one and thus points for match wins should always be the same. Otherwise we can have situations where teams that have won considerably less matches can be placed higher than those that have won more - to me, this is unacceptable. Unacceptable especially when you think about how close a lot of the games have been.

The awards for taking 2-0 wins should be secondary such as possibly better map and frag differences.

2) This would make the groupstage / regular season a lot more map focused as opposed to match focused. I don't see a real problem with that per say, but considering the current status of our beloved qw scene, I just think adding that one map for every game would be too much.
2006-11-01, 00:49
Member
135 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
niomic wrote:
Unacceptable especially when you think about how close a lot of the games have been.

Now look at this:

D2 vs ZOO DM2 179:182 - we lose 1:2 instead of 2:0 win
D2 vs LS E1M2 190:223 (one of our players timeouted when we had map under control) - we lose 1:2 instead of 2:0 win
D2 vs MNY DM3 138:153 - we lose 1:2 instead of 2:0 win
D2 vs TOT DM3 145:147 - we win only 2:1 instead of 2:0
D2 vs FREEDOM DM3 154:188 - we lose 1:2 instead of 2:0 win

1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 6 points <- this is what we've got
3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15 points <- this is what we would have if we had a bit more luck

So please don't tell me more about close games . It's part of the game.

But I can see flaws in your logic. You bring 'close games' argument but only when it comes to close map scores. But what about close _games_, I mean 2:1 or 1:2 is close, 2:0 is not. If you really want to reward team who mostly loses games but every game of that team is close then the current system is just doing it . This way team who won 3 games 2:1 and lost 7 games 1:2 (13 points) still have chances for better place than team who won 6 games 2:1 but lost 4 games 0:2 (12 points) if you know what I mean.

That doesn't change my mind of course, I prefer 3 points for 2:1. Winning map with 1 frag is in the same price as winning it 400:10 so why is 2:1 win worse than 2:0 win. Quake shall be brutal .

niomic wrote:
2) This would make the groupstage / regular season a lot more map focused as opposed to match focused. I don't see a real problem with that per say, but considering the current status of our beloved qw scene, I just think adding that one map for every game would be too much.

Too much for who?
2006-11-01, 10:56
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
plast wrote:
But I can see flaws in your logic. You bring 'close games' argument but only when it comes to close map scores. But what about close _games_, I mean 2:1 or 1:2 is close, 2:0 is not. If you really want to reward team who mostly loses games but every game of that team is close then the current system is just doing it . This way team who won 3 games 2:1 and lost 7 games 1:2 (13 points) still have chances for better place than team who won 6 games 2:1 but lost 4 games 0:2 (12 points) if you know what I mean.

Too much for who?

In a way you are correct, I was really referring to maps that were really close that lead to the _match_ winning team getting one less point. I simply can't accept a team that wins 3 games having more points than a team that wins 6 games. If that system persists, we might as well not talk about matches anymore, but instead of just map wins. And just so you don't forget, whether or not you win 2-0 or 2-1, you still have to win two maps and that's all you can win So this is kind of like a mutated bastard child points system that can't make up it's mind which system it's going to be :F

Too much for a lot of the less active players / clans.
2006-11-02, 23:55
Member
135 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Leagues ain't meant for inactive clans/players nor these people should dictate/enforce rules.

If twenty more minutes per game can make teh point system much more transparent and fair I say go for it.
2006-11-03, 10:41
Member
47 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
In my opinion this is more a matter of taste then fairness. All pointsystems suggested have flaws in some extreme cases, for example:

TeamA have won all 2-0 but one that they lost 1-2 and teamB have won all 2-1.
3-0/3-1
Team GP MW ML Points
teamB 10 20 10 30
teamA 10 19 2 28

Here I think 3-0/2-1 better describes how good the two teams are.
3-0/2-1
Team GP MW ML Points
teamA 10 19 2 28
teamB 10 20 10 20

Now Niomics case, teamA won five matches 2-0 and lost five 1-2, teamB won nine 2-1 and lost one 0-2.
3-0/3-1
Team GP MW ML Points
teamB 10 18 11 27
teamA 10 15 10 20

The above sure looks like a good description while 3-0/2-1 might be unfair.
3-0/2-1
Team GP MW ML Points
teamA 10 15 10 20
teamB 10 18 11 18

As a player I might like 3-0/3-1 better, my team have lost only one match so far and loosing only one match automaticly means u qualify to a higher division. But being admin I rather prefer tight standings and a point system where matches played late in the season can change the standings a bit more, I think this is good for the activity. Like I said, it's more a matter taste, either you value maps more then matches or the other way around. I'll make a poll about this.
2006-11-03, 12:04
Member
15 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I like the idea of playing 3 maps per match, 1 point for winning the map.
  53 posts on 2 pages  First page12Last page