SuperLeague Changes - Pre-Vote Discussion

[vagrant]

Total points for all positions.. ie fixed system for all (preferably), or top 5 at the least, is more important then evening spread at the bottom of the table. Imho.

[john4p]

Really don't like varying points for 1st place. But that's what the voting thread will be for.

[linesmachine]

john4p & ED-209: Similar here. Fixed points preferable but I'd accept fixed for top 5.

Good healthy debate though. It's really positive to see so many passionate people commenting on the future of the comp.

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by john4p

Really don't like varying points for 1st place. But that's what the voting thread will be for.

I don't understand why thats a big issue, but can you consider that if the score system doesn't accommodate more players with bonus points or a dynamic system, that perhaps increasing the spread of points in a fixed system could be beneficial?

[john4p]

Originally Posted by mihcael

I don't understand why thats a big issue, but can you consider that if the score system doesn't accommodate more players with bonus points or a dynamic system, that perhaps increasing the spread of points in a fixed system could be beneficial?

The suggested fixed 16-system has the points already pretty much spread out for 20 points max. If we chose a higher maximum to have a wider spread then the gap between titans and mortal players would become so huge that it would discourage a lot of people.
Then I'd rather have Harry's modification after all. 1st place would sometimes get more than 20 points but not too often and not that much more so it's okay.
I've worded this a bit too strongly, it's not a big issue. I prefer to always have 20pts for 1st place but I can live with another system.

But it doesn't matter much what I want, every opinion counts. Please make your own suggestions for a system or a modification to one of the suggested systems! The voting is still 9 days away.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by mihcael

I don't understand why thats a big issue

From my point of view... If you win a round and get x points. Then next round you are unable to play and someone else wins, but they get x+y points. It feels unfair. Especially if the extra points come from chance.

[lifeschool]

Originally Posted by linesmachine

Sorry Dan, I wasn't Dan-bashing in particular...looking like an arrogant prick (something I am not well gifted in).

Hey thats ok. I think most people think Im a superhero of arrogant; like Super Bombastic Man. You could be my sidekick, Super Mouth-off Boy, especially as my last student was killed after my evil experiments exploded.

[vagrant]

lol lifeschool
Super Mouth-Off Boy sounds like a decent idea for a game actually!

Originally Posted by Biscuit

From my point of view... If you win a round and get x points. Then next round you are unable to play and someone else wins, but they get x+y points. It feels unfair. Especially if the extra points come from chance.

Exactly

[linesmachine]

Originally Posted by ED-209

lol lifeschool
Super Mouth-Off Boy sounds like a decent idea for a game actually!

Or an option at a Thai massage parlour.

Just thought maybe we all reclarify our positions as otherwise it's impossible for the for the mods to work out if a vote is actually necessary or if it's only necessary for some elements...

1. Option 3: Fixed points. But I'd totally accept a fixed top 5, proportional after that variant.

2. Option 1: No change and result of vote 1 stands (fixed points at top)

3. No preference: Happy to side with a majority either way if it avoids a vote. Otherwise, happy with a vote.

4. Option 2: Team score is based on league score.

Am I right in saying that 4 is uncontested as a change to option 2?

[Graham Humphrey]

I think we need to be a bit careful with saying things like 'we don't necessarily need a vote' as - for all of the lively, constructive discussion with some good ideas - there's only about half a dozen people taking part: Biscuit, Lifeschool, Mike, John, Lines and ED. It does seem everyone has the same end goal with this, which is really positive, but there's one small unknown - how does anyone really know what the majority (non-hardcore/superhuman) players think? The fact they haven't contributed here suggests they're not too fussed one way or another and the effect this will have on the competition overall is pretty minimal. However, I could well be wrong on this, and having a set of options presented as a straight 'take it or leave it' proposal will prompt a decision - and that is why we need a poll regardless of the format it takes.

For my part though (and whilst I'm here) I'd probably favour the 75-25 method as a kind of halfway house between the current structure and a fixed system. Biscuit's system has potential but I'm not comfortable with the idea of - say - Mike scoring 900 points in Monster Business but earning a quarter of the league points rexsu does with over half a million (and 18 places higher up). If you're going to have a range of points on offer then you really need to use that full range, even if the bottom end is only used occasionally.

And finally... for all the talk of scoring systems putting people off and the like, I think the numbers in recent years don't necessarily back this up. There's no doubt in my mind that playing the more 'specialist' games, or playing on some quite daunting settings or implementing a (sometimes necessary) convoluted scoring system has a bigger effect than anything. Just look at F1GP for proof - yes, those who played it loved it and got really into it, but for those of us not so committed to the game... well, playing a long race like that is not conducive to settling down for a quick go. And that's why it only got 11 players. It's the sort of game that if you're into it, you're really into it so it scores highly in votes with those who enjoy it (see the Knockout voting for evidence of this). And this is also why that - for all of the alternative methods of giving players more league points - this is pretty ineffective for those less regular or less skilled players if we end up playing a (say) Mega Lo Mania or a Powermonger.

Again though, just my viewpoint etc etc.

[john4p]

Currently I also prefer 75/25 over the purely fixed system as it's more flexible without varying max points.

We could think about changing Biscuit's system to have the proportional scores be 1 + up to 11 points (instead of 5 + up to 7).
Since the score of the current 5th place is the reference for the proportional scores it will be much easier to get bonus points now (compared to our current 50/50-system where the 1st place's score is the reference) so really only token scores would end up with 1 point.

[john4p]

See, for the current standings the results would be:



The Super 5 bonus points would currently be calculated proportionally to Joni's score. On the right is the "unlocked" variation where 1 point is the minimum instead of 5.

[lifeschool]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

Biscuit's system has potential but I'm not comfortable with the idea of - say - Mike scoring 900 points in Monster Business but earning a quarter of the league points rexsu does with over half a million (and 18 places higher up). If you're going to have a range of points on offer then you really need to use that full range, even if the bottom end is only used occasionally.

Here is the Fixed 26 scale I've been working on, and was thinking about earlier this year. Note: Caphorns score is missing below, and it would take too long to change all the numbers to add him, but you get the idea.

Round 2 - Apidya

Pos Name              Team    Score    Now  Super5 Fixed 16 Fixed-26   L64    
 1| john4p           | EAB|    260,733| 20 |  20   |  20  |  30  |  50+P
 2| LinesMachine     |  LA|    143,098| 13 |  17   |  17  |  27  |  40+P 
 3| Joni             |  LA|    132,400| 12 |  15   |  15  |  25  |  35+P 
 4| ChrisN82         |  LA|    109,723| 10 |  13   |  13  |  23  |  30+P 
 5| Roman0           |  LA|    107,874|  9 |  12   |  12  |  22  |  25+P 
 6| capehorn         | EAB|     97,040|  8 |  12   |  11  |  21  |  20+P 
 7| mihcael          |  LA|     88,110|  6 |  11   |  10  |  20  |  15+P 
 8| lifeschool       |  LA|     82,540|  6 |  11   |  9   |  19  |  12+P 
 9| Harry            | EAB|     76,880|  5 |  10   |  8   |  18  |  11+P 
10| Rinusch          |  LA|     73,065|  5 |  10   |  7   |  17  |  10+P  
11| ED-209           | EAB|     67,670|  4 |  10   |  6   |  16  |  0+P 
12| Graham Humphrey  | EAB|     65,180|  4 |  9    |  5   |  15  |  0+P |
13| liviux76         | EAB|     55,700|  3 |  9    |  4   |  14  |  0+P |
14| S0ulA55a551n     | EAB|     55,610|  3 |  9    |  3   |  13  |  0+P |
15| steef-online     |  LA|     47,240|  3 |  9    |  2   |  12  |  0+P |
16| myk              |  LA|     44,630|  3 |  8    |  1   |  11  |  0+P |
17| Predseda         |  LA|     39,980|  3 |  8    |  1   |  10  |  0+P |
18| el_pasi          | EAB|     39,520|  3 |  8    |  1   |  9   |  0+P |
19| MikeyG           |  LA|     35,120|  2 |  7    |  1   |  8   |  0+P |
20| Loki             |  LA|     34,490|  2 |  7    |  1   |  7   |  0+P |
21| OLDGAMER         |  LA|     21,550|  2 |  6    |  1   |  6   |  0+P |
22| eMTe             |  LA|     15,070|  2 |  6    |  1   |  5   |  0+P |
23| maddi            |  LA|     11,150|  1 |  6    |  1   |  4   |  0+P |
24| JanciB           | EAB|      4,210|  1 |  5    |  1   |  3   |  0+P |

John said he couldnt get a Fixed 20 system to work because of the spacing of the numbers. This Fixed 26 system keeps the 3 point gap to 1st, and 2 point gap to 2nd and third. Only this time, it allows for more than the maximum number of players we've ever had playing a round of a compo, 26 players (cue someone to tell me I'm wrong ). It awards 30 points instead of 20, so its like it incorporates an average of what the bonus systems ideas tried to do, but in every round. i.e. more points on offer. It affectively gives 10 bonus points for getting into the top 10 over what we have now. It means there is no maths or guesswork involved, and it doesnt depend on who's on fifth place (Who?) to rank the others.

I'm not heavily invested in the idea, but it would be nice to offer a fifth option, so we can rank them 1-5 in the votes.

Originally Posted by linesmachine

4. Option 2: Team score is based on league score.

Am I right in saying that 4 is uncontested as a change to option 2?

Graham is right, at this stage there is no clear consensus, to its best if the voting structure for the 4 votes stays. I've been thinking about the team voting for the 'top player domination' problem in some rounds.

In a scenario where team A has 2 players in the two top spots of the leaderboard, and Team B has 18 players filling up the other places, here's how that would play out using the fixed top five Fixed 16 system:

Current System: Top two players get the highest score average. Team A wins.
Average Team Score based on 5 players: Team A = 37/5 = 7.4 points, Team B = 60 points/5 = 12 points. Team B wins.
Team score based on 1:1 (2 Vs 2): Team A = 37 points, Team B = 27 Points. Team A wins.

So it would seem that if we tried to match player numbers e.g. 1 Vs 1, 2 Vs 2 etc, it might lead to players holding back scores in order for their team to win. So averaging the team score based on 5 players seems like it works in this example.

[john4p]

The fixed-26-spread does look good but with 30 points for 1st place it will increase the gap between titans and human beings again which will discourage some players after only a few rounds.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by john4p

We could think about changing Biscuit's system to have the proportional scores be 1 + up to 11 points (instead of 5 + up to 7).
Since the score of the current 5th place is the reference for the proportional scores it will be much easier to get bonus points now (compared to our current 50/50-system where the 1st place's score is the reference) so really only token scores would end up with 1 point.

Super 5 Unlocked still offers a decent spread of points and importantly keeps the opportunity for all players to get at least 12 points. You can vary the base points for participation to whatever feels right but I’m worried this version doesn't offer enough uplift compared to Fixed-16. In your example the players in 8th - 11th would be better off on Fixed-16, even though those below are better off on Super 5 Unlocked. I’d rather use at least 2 + up to 10 points to make Super 5 a little more generous and have more impact. But the mods should have final say over the options. It can be tweaked many ways.


Fixed-26 has the same ratio of points for it’s top 16 players as the Fixed-16 system has. eg. 1st - 10th = 13 points difference, 1st - 16th = 19 points difference. The average number of players per game this year was a little over 17. Half the games had at least 19 players. So Fixed-26 does offer a little extra for those in 17th+. But for me neither offer enough reward for the bottom half of the board so I’m still preferring Super 5 to get closer championship points.

[vagrant]

What about fixed 21 then? (I'm probably missing something vital here)

Pos Name              Team    Score    Now  Super5  Fix16  Fix26  Fix21   L64    
 1| john4p           | EAB|    260,733| 20 |  20   |  20  |  30  |  25  |50+P
 2| LinesMachine     |  LA|    143,098| 13 |  17   |  17  |  27  |  22  |40+P 
 3| Joni             |  LA|    132,400| 12 |  15   |  15  |  25  |  20  |35+P 
 4| ChrisN82         |  LA|    109,723| 10 |  13   |  13  |  23  |  18  |30+P 
 5| Roman0           |  LA|    107,874|  9 |  12   |  12  |  22  |  17  |25+P 
 6| capehorn         | EAB|     97,040|  8 |  12   |  11  |  21  |  16  |20+P 
 7| mihcael          |  LA|     88,110|  6 |  11   |  10  |  20  |  15  |15+P 
 8| lifeschool       |  LA|     82,540|  6 |  11   |  9   |  19  |  14  |12+P 
 9| Harry            | EAB|     76,880|  5 |  10   |  8   |  18  |  13  |11+P 
10| Rinusch          |  LA|     73,065|  5 |  10   |  7   |  17  |  12  |10+P  
11| ED-209           | EAB|     67,670|  4 |  10   |  6   |  16  |  11  |0+P |
12| Graham Humphrey  | EAB|     65,180|  4 |  9    |  5   |  15  |  10  |0+P |
13| liviux76         | EAB|     55,700|  3 |  9    |  4   |  14  |  9   |0+P |
14| S0ulA55a551n     | EAB|     55,610|  3 |  9    |  3   |  13  |  8   |0+P |
15| steef-online     |  LA|     47,240|  3 |  9    |  2   |  12  |  7   |0+P |
16| myk              |  LA|     44,630|  3 |  8    |  1   |  11  |  6   |0+P |
17| Predseda         |  LA|     39,980|  3 |  8    |  1   |  10  |  5   |0+P |
18| el_pasi          | EAB|     39,520|  3 |  8    |  1   |  9   |  4   |0+P |
19| MikeyG           |  LA|     35,120|  2 |  7    |  1   |  8   |  3   |0+P |
20| Loki             |  LA|     34,490|  2 |  7    |  1   |  7   |  2   |0+P |
21| OLDGAMER         |  LA|     21,550|  2 |  6    |  1   |  6   |  1   |0+P |
22| eMTe             |  LA|     15,070|  2 |  6    |  1   |  5   |  1   |0+P |
23| maddi            |  LA|     11,150|  1 |  6    |  1   |  4   |  1   |0+P |
24| JanciB           | EAB|      4,210|  1 |  5    |  1   |  3   |  1   |0+P |

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by ED-209

What about fixed 21 then? (I'm probably missing something vital here)

Same ratio. 1st - 16th = 19 points. It offers more to players in 17th+ than fixed-16 but less than fixed-26. They are all fair and easy to use systems.

[linesmachine]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

I think we need to be a bit careful with saying things like 'we don't necessarily need a vote' as - for all of the lively, constructive discussion with some good ideas - there's only about half a dozen people taking part.

I also support that. Graham is totally right in saying that this has to be a mass decision.

[linesmachine]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

And finally... for all the talk of scoring systems putting people off and the like, I think the numbers in recent years don't necessarily back this up. There's no doubt in my mind that playing the more 'specialist' games, or playing on some quite daunting settings or implementing a (sometimes necessary) convoluted scoring system has a bigger effect than anything. Just look at F1GP for proof - yes, those who played it loved it and got really into it, but for those of us not so committed to the game... well, playing a long race like that is not conducive to settling down for a quick go. And that's why it only got 11 players. It's the sort of game that if you're into it, you're really into it so it scores highly in votes with those who enjoy it (see the Knockout voting for evidence of this). And this is also why that - for all of the alternative methods of giving players more league points - this is pretty ineffective for those less regular or less skilled players if we end up playing a (say) Mega Lo Mania or a Powermonger.

Again though, just my viewpoint etc etc.

"A round for all gamers." Wether you are a hardcore, play through the night, gamer OR a pick up and play for a few minutes just for a blast of nostalgia...we should really have both in mind (as much as it's possible) as we set the scoring system for a round. With F1GP we could have gone for 2 races, first: 5 laps of Imola of an Amateur and second: 10 laps of Suzuka on Pro. Or something like that. The end result of catering for a wider audience is ultimately more work for mods (?).

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by linesmachine

... With F1GP we could have gone for 2 races, first: 5 laps of Imola of an Amateur and second: 10 laps of Suzuka on Pro. Or something like that. The end result of catering for a wider audience is ultimately more work for mods (?).

That's not unreasonable and don't think it would be that much extra work.