Format Adjustment Suggestions

Fashbinder
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 March 2016, 12:28

Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby Fashbinder » 02 April 2017, 07:53

With a cash prize next season, I think it's worth discussing some format alterations.

Problem: I think as highlighted by the R1 Ducke V Mull match is the need for a seeding system.

Solution: It's fairly easily achieved with a 1st v 8th cup with a ticket for the winner going to the next round and the same for the other pairings.

Problem: It seems like there are many new players playing in the ccl, this can result in a qualifying spot going to coach A rather than coach B based on opponent quality moreso than the qualifying coaches skill. It allows players to play for the objective of qualifying rather than winning the knockout which gives their knockout round opponents an advantage.

Solution: I propose an extra round added to the knockout where the top 2 of each race play eachother for the top 16 ticket. This ensures a player who plays 20 games against new players for a 20-0-0 record doesn't automatically qualify over a more skilled coach who runs into ducke 10 times for a x-x-10 record. Would also mitigate a cheater farming his friends from being 2 lucky two times for hundred euros.

I don't have data to prove seeding is a good idea but for suggestion 2 i think someone who handles databases better than I could, for each qualified team this season check their opponents overall win% showing lowest, highest, top 5 and average and i think that data could be interesting. To go a step beyond would do the same for the #2 of each race and it might show the 2nd place coach top 5 opponents win % as being better than the #1 of the race opponents. (at least for the tier 1 races)

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7040
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby dode74 » 02 April 2017, 09:58

Seeding is coming as an option with LE. We plan on using it then. Your suggestion is, basically, a pain in the arse to admin.

Your second suggestion is basically an Elo-style ranking system. There are issues with such systems being used in BB which have been discussed before, but I can take a look at it. Some of those issues may be resolved by the "top of each race" format. The current ranking system seems to work reasonably well in general, though, so I am loathe to change it.

We are looking at ways to expand the KO part when LE drops.
Image

Fashbinder
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 March 2016, 12:28

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby Fashbinder » 02 April 2017, 10:21

a pain in the arse to admin.
It would be an extra 5 minutes at the start of the season to setup the cups and then pressing confirm one extra time per match after tickets are accepted. I think not doing it now would just be lazy and i volunteer to do it if the only objection is "too hard".
basically an Elo-style ranking system
While i think an elo system would be amazing it wasn't the proposition. It was just one extra around using the current system to mitigate shenanigans and opponent based success.
option with LE.
KO part when LE drops.
Wouldn't it be great to have it in place like a well oiled machine before then?

Gnokk
Posts: 3
Joined: 29 March 2017, 20:09

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby Gnokk » 02 April 2017, 16:06

Thanks for the post, Fash. I agree with the seeding system. A simple solution would just be going highest against lowest etc. on the ranking.

I don´t think the playoff amonst the top two of each race is a good idea, for two reasons:

1: At that level of play you can lose a match due to just bad dice, and would be tough to lose your placing because of it. You can lose your placement to a guy sometimes 30 positions down on the ladder if he rolls blitz into short kick every kickoff or you fail back to back 1/36 dodges.

2: Playing against good coaches on bashy teams can often be very crippling. Imagine Jimmy and Lewpac facing off.. odds are decent that they would both get a couple of guys killed or at least MNG right before playoffs. It would give teams like elves an unfair advantage, as they tend to bash eachother less (unless it was a friendly match or whatever).

I get that there is an opponent quality bias, but the only way to really eliminate that is by changing the matchmaking to match pr. rating or something and the wait times would be outrageous :/ I don´t think having a top two match really mitigates the bias, it just changes it to a different more dice based bias. Just my 2 cents anyways :)

Fashbinder
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 March 2016, 12:28

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby Fashbinder » 02 April 2017, 16:25

I think every elf team in the playoffs has a mb and even without it random cas in any game happens anyway. But I would be indifferent to just having top 2 of each race with seeded matches which would presumably be the volume of players in a LE playoff series.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7040
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby dode74 » 02 April 2017, 18:02

Too hard is not the only reason (although I think you grossly underestimate the work required to create 15 - you need one competition for each match in the competition - as opposed to 1 competition and make sure everyone goes in the right place). It's also not the chosen format. Seeding is not a part of this format. We're selecting the top of each race, not the top of the ladder. If we were taking a straight top 16 then seeding would make more sense, but Humans are not competing against DE in the ladder, they are only competing against other Humans. Seeding will be required with LE, afaik (I'm assuming it will be just like BB1) which is why it will be used there.

In short, I question the premise behind your statement. Why does the fact that Ducke played Mull mean we need to seed?
Image

Fashbinder
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 March 2016, 12:28

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby Fashbinder » 02 April 2017, 18:31

not the chosen format. Seeding is not a part of this format.

Im proposing that we choose that it should be.
Seeding will be required with LE, afaik
If its desirable and we have the capacity lets do it now!
Why does the fact that Ducke played Mull mean we need to seed?
One of them is getting denied at least hundred euro they probably otherwise get. Seeding in tournaments exist in many games for obvious reasons.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7040
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby dode74 » 02 April 2017, 18:39

One of them is getting denied at least hundred euro they probably otherwise get.
Denied? And what about the other people who might have to play either one of them in other rounds? Are they not being "denied" if we suddenly start seeding? Sorry, but that makes little sense to me: you're assuming performance which we are yet to measure.
Seeding in tournaments exist in many games for obvious reasons.
Seeding exists so that "the best" do not meet each other until later rounds. But we're not playing "the best" of the same against each other, we're playing "the best" of each race against each other, and the whole point of the KO tournament is to find out which of those is "the best". They're already seeded within their own race since they came top. To that end we basically have a whole bunch of #1 seeds. The ladder competition is really 16 individual competitions and the top 1 of each competition advances.
There are plenty of examples of tournaments where there is no seeding (e.g. the FA cup).
Image

samdavies123
Posts: 11
Joined: 08 March 2016, 23:22

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby samdavies123 » 02 April 2017, 19:28

I think Fash has a point here though, there are plenty of coaches that qualify with records that place them quite far down on the leaderboard during the season,

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't fash just suggesting the dude who finished 16th play the guy who finished 1st? No clue how rounds after that would work but it seems a little unfair on ducke that he managed to finish 2nd on the ladder with an incredibly good record, only to match against the only other player who beat him during the season and be knocked out.

Meanwhile coaches who weren't even on the front page could advance and potentially earn money.

Edit: Also for the record, the idea of top 2 of each race playing for a spot (even a friendly to reduce cas issues) adds a lot more variance to who qualifies imo, the ladder is measuring results over 30+ games where as anyone can win a one off. It also tests skill over multiple team values which makes it quite interesting rather than just a single game at high tv (Also this system would have benefited me this season but I still think it's stupid :p). +1 to the other idea about seeding though.

Second Edit: Why don't we just have a poll on it, you like to talk about data Dode so lets create some data! At the end of the day its the people here that are playing in the damn thing so why not see how they want it to be run.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7040
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Format Adjustment Suggestions

Postby dode74 » 02 April 2017, 19:40

Again, you're coming from the assumption that the races are competing against each other for ladder position with some sort of effect after the ladder. They're not: they're competing against other teams of their race in order to get into the KO tournament. The aim of the ladder is not to provide seeding positions across races, it is only to find out the top team of each race each season. All you do by seeding in that manner is exacerbate the ladder results rather than saying "these are the best teams of each race, have at it" and going from there.
Not only that, but since we know the races are not all built equally it gives an inherent advantage to playing stronger races over and above the fact that they are stronger: they will also tend to get the weaker opponents.

Now, as to your point about low-qualifying coaches getting through. Those seem like races other people ought to start competing in. They are windows of opportunity to qualify. If you think they are that bad then beat their place!

Polls are really poor for these purposes. At best we get a tiny proportion of the userbase and no way to tell if people are voting more than once on the matter. The last poll gave us the COL firewall we have...
Image


Return to “Former Seasons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron