


Member 15 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Got something you want to change? Got something something you want to add? or som advice that can do EQL better? What is bad/good with EQL? Whenever your feeling sad think of Homer!
WHY YOU LITTLE!!
Member 622 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
like nqr, i want those awards to come back... Closest game in each div, and best key player, best team etc..
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 20 or 21, and 1 point for a 12 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever.
Administrator 181 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 20 or 21, and 1 point for a 12 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever. agreed.
Administrator 2047 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 20 or 21, and 1 point for a 12 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever. agreed. Justify please. Imo a 20 win is a much more tougher win to gain than a 21 win and shouldn't the team winning with 20 be rewarded for pulling that off? www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 20 or 21, and 1 point for a 12 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever. agreed. Justify please. Imo a 20 win is a much more tougher win to gain than a 21 win and shouldn't the team winning with 20 be rewarded for pulling that off? They are rewarded with a better map difference. I can't think of any other sport that has a system like this. In football you get 3 points for a win whether you win 20 or 90.
Member 85 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
yeah i agree with vm also. Mean Machine QuakeWorld Clan
Administrator 2047 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 20 or 21, and 1 point for a 12 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever. agreed. Justify please. Imo a 20 win is a much more tougher win to gain than a 21 win and shouldn't the team winning with 20 be rewarded for pulling that off? They are rewarded with a better map difference. I can't think of any other sport that has a system like this. In football you get 3 points for a win whether you win 20 or 90. Well is there any sport that has a league structure where no game can end in a tie? Is there any sport with a league structure where clans only face eachother once? Is there any sport where there are no home and away games? (ie, always the same basic audience available for both teams). My point is that QW is like no real life sport and i really think that a 20 win is something extra special. Taking down for example tVS on both DM3 and then on their homemap (i think?) DM2 is imo such a nice effort that it really makes sense to reward the team with one more point than if they would've lost DM2 and won E1M2. www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
Member 15 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Whenever your feeling sad think of Homer!
WHY YOU LITTLE!!
Member 8 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Any sort of bonus point system is really, really, really, really bad. Even using map wins to decide ties is very dodgy. Match wins should count far above everything else.
Member 792 posts
Registered: Jan 1970
The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 20 or 21, and 1 point for a 12 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever. agreed. Justify please. Imo a 20 win is a much more tougher win to gain than a 21 win and shouldn't the team winning with 20 be rewarded for pulling that off? They are rewarded with a better map difference. I can't think of any other sport that has a system like this. In football you get 3 points for a win whether you win 20 or 90. Elitserien (Swedish Hockey League) * win during ordinary time gives 3 points * win in overtime gives 2 points * tied game or loss in overtime gives 1 point * loss after ordinary time gives 0 points http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitserien
Administrator 2047 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Argh. I wrote the post above. www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
Member 66 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Season 1 sucked. No reason to do playoffs etc.
Season 2 looks good so far: 20 = 3p is a good thing. It is also good that weeks are only guidelines.
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Awarding 3 points for a 20 and 2 points for a 21 punishes teams that win 21. A match win is still a match win and a 21 should be as valid as a 20. If you are going to take into account the map score then I think you should also take into account the frags on each map. I mean what if it was 20 but both maps were very close? A 21 could equally be a close defeat on one map and 2 big wins. To me, the one of those 2 wins that deserves the most rewards is the 21 because of the manner of victory. However, I still think it should be 3 points for any win. Here's why (this is quite an extreme example, you'll have to think a little creatively to see how it applies to real situations). Imagine a situation where you have a division with 12 clans. Clan A and Clan B have played 10 games each and have won all of them, and the only game they have not played is the game against each other. Clan A has won 10 games 20. Clan B has won 10 games 21. Under a 310 system (3 points for 20 and 21): Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20 Clan B: 30 points, map difference +10 If the final game is not played clan A are rewarded for not losing maps and will finish above their opponents. The key thing is that both teams have been rewarded for WINNING THEIR GAMES and that both have a chance of winning the division in the final game. Under a 3210 system (3 points for 20, 2 points for 21): Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20 Clan B: 20 points, map difference +10 So here we could have a situation where Clan B beats Clan A in the final match and still finishes lower. Is it fair that Clan B has managed to go an entire season without losing, but still hasn't won the division? Certainly not. It is ridiculous to have a system that allows the possibility of a clan playing and winning of their matches, only to finish lower than a team that has won fewer matches. The key point is that the points system should focus on matches rather than maps. And that ladies and gentlemen, is why EQL should adopt a 310 points system from season 3.
Member 1754 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
I agree, most frags, most wins and such awards should be nice on the now discussed topic about points, whatever...
Member 15 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Awarding 3 points for a 20 and 2 points for a 21 punishes teams that win 21. A match win is still a match win and a 21 should be as valid as a 20. If you are going to take into account the map score then I think you should also take into account the frags on each map. I mean what if it was 20 but both maps were very close? A 21 could equally be a close defeat on one map and 2 big wins. To me, the one of those 2 wins that deserves the most rewards is the 21 because of the manner of victory. However, I still think it should be 3 points for any win. Here's why (this is quite an extreme example, you'll have to think a little creatively to see how it applies to real situations). Imagine a situation where you have a division with 12 clans. Clan A and Clan B have played 10 games each and have won all of them, and the only game they have not played is the game against each other. Clan A has won 10 games 20. Clan B has won 10 games 21. Under a 310 system (3 points for 20 and 21): Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20 Clan B: 30 points, map difference +10 If the final game is not played clan A are rewarded for not losing maps and will finish above their opponents. The key thing is that both teams have been rewarded for WINNING THEIR GAMES and that both have a chance of winning the division in the final game. Under a 3210 system (3 points for 20, 2 points for 21): Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20 Clan B: 20 points, map difference +10 So here we could have a situation where Clan B beats Clan A in the final match and still finishes lower. Is it fair that Clan B has managed to go an entire season without losing, but still hasn't won the division? Certainly not. It is ridiculous to have a system that allows the possibility of a clan playing and winning of their matches, only to finish lower than a team that has won fewer matches. The key point is that the points system should focus on matches rather than maps. And that ladies and gentlemen, is why EQL should adopt a 310 points system from season 3. It dosen't really matter if it's close games. It handle about who wins the 2 maps who earn the points. So i still agree with Ã…ke Vader. Whenever your feeling sad think of Homer!
WHY YOU LITTLE!!
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Awarding 3 points for a 20 and 2 points for a 21 punishes teams that win 21. A match win is still a match win and a 21 should be as valid as a 20. However, I still think it should be 3 points for any win. Here's why (this is quite an extreme example, you'll have to think a little creatively to see how it applies to real situations). Imagine a situation where you have a division with 12 clans.
Clan A and Clan B have played 10 games each and have won all of them, and the only game they have not played is the game against each other.
Clan A has won 10 games 20. Clan B has won 10 games 21.
Under a 310 system (3 points for 20 and 21): Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20 Clan B: 30 points, map difference +10 If the final game is not played clan A are rewarded for not losing maps and will finish above their opponents. The key thing is that both teams have been rewarded for WINNING THEIR GAMES and that both have a chance of winning the division in the final game.
Under a 3210 system (3 points for 20, 2 points for 21): Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20 Clan B: 20 points, map difference +10 So here we could have a situation where Clan B beats Clan A in the final match and still finishes lower. Is it fair that Clan B has managed to go an entire season without losing, but still hasn't won the division? Certainly not. It is ridiculous to have a system that allows the possibility of a clan playing and winning of their matches, only to finish lower than a team that has won fewer matches.The key point is that the points system should focus on matches rather than maps. And that ladies and gentlemen, is why EQL should adopt a 310 points system from season 3. It dosen't really matter if it's close games. It handle about who wins the 2 maps who earn the points. So i still agree with Ã…ke Vader. OK, ignore my point about close games, that was an example anyway. Now address the point I make in the rest of my post. I've trimmed it down so you can read it. As you say it's about who wins the 2 maps, and rewarding those. Well fine, you can do that with 310. But you shouldn't punish those that lose 1 map in the course of winning 21. See my previous post for why.
Administrator 2047 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Well Gaz. We could also have a scenario where clan A wins all their games with a 20 mapscore and clan B lose ALL their games in a very narrow way (199200). Then this final game comes up with clan A and clan B where clan B is the winner  but they still can't win the division. :cry:
You're bringing up the most extreme example here. I don't think it will be that decisive in the long run. www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
Administrator 2047 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
This is only my opinion though and we will of course discuss possible changes until next season. www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Well Gaz. We could also have a scenario where clan A wins all their games with a 20 mapscore and clan B lose ALL their games in a very narrow way (199200). Then this final game comes up with clan A and clan B where clan B is the winner  but they still can't win the division. :cry:
Well of course not  that makes sense. If they have lost all of their games then they don't deserve to win the division!
Member 47 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
I was going to make a similar extreme case example but with another conclusion. IMHO the team ("A" that won all theire matches but one with 20 is clearly better then the team ("B" that won all theire matches with 21. A team that only play well on two maps (in a TB3 only div) should not be able to win theire div.
Member 5 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
agreed with term why team which lost 1/3 of maps in group deserved a division win more then a team that lost only 2 of all. point system is fair. work hard not to lose ur point.
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
I just think it's unfair to overly focus on map wins/losses. Competitive 4on4 has always been focused on match wins and rewarding a team equally for a win whether it is 20 or 21.
Member 5 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
ice hockey is a good example. winner at overtime got 2 points instead of 3. if u able to win both, home and opoonent's maps, u should be rewarded. bout close game  bad example, there is luck in every shpere of game and life
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
ice hockey is a good example. winner at overtime got 2 points instead of 3. if u able to win both, home and opoonent's maps, u should be rewarded. bout close game  bad example, there is luck in every shpere of game and life I mentioned close games specifically BECAUSE it was a bad example. Who says that a 20 win can't be to do with luck? But you reward all 20 victories the same way anyway. If you are going to justify 3 points for 20, 2 points for 21 by saying that you must reward teams who don't lose a map, then I am saying surely you should be thinking of rewarding teams who win maps by large margins. After all, they conceded less frags than their opponents! YES. I know that that idea is flawed. But so is the 3210 system  why do you think it was dropped by NQR after a couple of seasons? And why do you think that Smackdown has always used 310?
Member 5 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
dunno what system nqr used, i play qw half a year after 5yearidle %) just a point of view, i think 3210 is good, thats all =)
Member 248 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
hm, i say that just make it so that it always a fixed amount of points in all game, and that is devided among the teams... so if there is 2 and 0 points for a 20 win, then there cant be 2 and 1 points for 21 win
Member 693 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
dunno what system nqr used, i play qw half a year after 5yearidle %) just a point of view, i think 3210 is good, thats all =) NQR used 310 from NQR4 or NQR5 (I don't recall exactly). NQR1 was a ladder so it had a strange point system, NQR24 (or 3) used 3210 but most didn't think it was good.
Member 1 post
Registered: Feb 2006
Suggestion: I think we should have list of recently played matches in specific division on division's page. Similiar to list which is on the frontpage.
Even a date after match that has been played in your divpage would help a lot to spot new games. Now I have to memorize which games were here last time I visited and which weren't...
Member 2259 posts
Registered: Jan 2006
Suggestion: I think we should have list of recently played matches in specific division on division's page. Similiar to list which is on the frontpage.
Even a date after match that has been played in your divpage would help a lot to spot new games. Now I have to memorize which games were here last time I visited and which weren't... Sounds like a good idea



