English Amiga Board - View Single Post - SuperLeague Changes - Pre-Vote Discussion

Graham Humphrey · 19 November 2017, 14:57

Thanks Dan for writing this up and for John for posting this here. I've now made this thread a sticky so hopefully it can get a bit of attention.

Thanks to all the competition moderators who came up with and discussed these ideas, it was a constructive conversation.

I know a few people don't like the scoring system in particular (although I personally do), and it certainly has its flaws when there's a huge gap between first and second, and first place gets 20 points but the next player only gets (say) 11 or 12. I think the 75/25 method which effectively 'caps' the gap in points earned between positions could be a good balancing act between preserving the current points structure and making things a bit fairer when certain games expose the problems in the current system (Rick Dangerous 2 was one of the more obvious and extreme examples).

Not too sure if, in that case, a Bonus Point system based on the number of players would really work too well with that. It perhaps feels slightly too arbitrary, being based on the number of players who enter.

In terms of the schedule, I am, of course, biased as I helped put it together, but I think the current structure of the season is actually really good, being split into two halves, with four double rounds giving a change of pace and the various themes we run providing plenty of variety. And three weeks per round 'feels' right, and everyone knows that it's a Sunday start. Just in terms of admin, I think maintaning a season where it's done at a certain date every month (the 1st?) is harder because it falls on different days where updating and creating new threads might not happen on time.

Finally, the team scoring issue has been a bit contentious with a few people. Despite the impression it sometimes gives, I don't think the 'average top five players' score on each team' method does discourage people when - say - one team has only four players, as it doesn't happen too often, but the unbalanced scenario does happen occasionally and it is a gap that needs to be closed (it possibly wasn't before because of the rarity of it occurring and the even scarcer scenario that directly influencing the outcome). Having said that - I think the idea of adding up the League points accrued of the top five (or possibly a bit more, maybe?) players on each side is a really good one and instantly removes that inequality issue, instead only encouraging people to add to the score, and prevents a situation where one player can carry an entire team by acheiving a huge score.

But that's just my own thoughts. I'm one individual, so it would be interesting to see what others make of these ideas, and of the competition generally.

19 November 2017, 14:57	#3
Graham Humphrey Moderator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Age: 37 Posts: 11,167	Thanks Dan for writing this up and for John for posting this here. I've now made this thread a sticky so hopefully it can get a bit of attention. Thanks to all the competition moderators who came up with and discussed these ideas, it was a constructive conversation. I know a few people don't like the scoring system in particular (although I personally do), and it certainly has its flaws when there's a huge gap between first and second, and first place gets 20 points but the next player only gets (say) 11 or 12. I think the 75/25 method which effectively 'caps' the gap in points earned between positions could be a good balancing act between preserving the current points structure and making things a bit fairer when certain games expose the problems in the current system (Rick Dangerous 2 was one of the more obvious and extreme examples). Not too sure if, in that case, a Bonus Point system based on the number of players would really work too well with that. It perhaps feels slightly too arbitrary, being based on the number of players who enter. In terms of the schedule, I am, of course, biased as I helped put it together, but I think the current structure of the season is actually really good, being split into two halves, with four double rounds giving a change of pace and the various themes we run providing plenty of variety. And three weeks per round 'feels' right, and everyone knows that it's a Sunday start. Just in terms of admin, I think maintaning a season where it's done at a certain date every month (the 1st?) is harder because it falls on different days where updating and creating new threads might not happen on time. Finally, the team scoring issue has been a bit contentious with a few people. Despite the impression it sometimes gives, I don't think the 'average top five players' score on each team' method does discourage people when - say - one team has only four players, as it doesn't happen too often, but the unbalanced scenario does happen occasionally and it is a gap that needs to be closed (it possibly wasn't before because of the rarity of it occurring and the even scarcer scenario that directly influencing the outcome). Having said that - I think the idea of adding up the League points accrued of the top five (or possibly a bit more, maybe?) players on each side is a really good one and instantly removes that inequality issue, instead only encouraging people to add to the score, and prevents a situation where one player can carry an entire team by acheiving a huge score. But that's just my own thoughts. I'm one individual, so it would be interesting to see what others make of these ideas, and of the competition generally.