SuperLeague Changes - Pre-Vote Discussion

[john4p]

We've been discussing some changes that might further improve the experience for everyone and also reduce some frustration in the case of runaway-scores diminishing everyone's efforts (besides the winner).

In the week from December 2nd to 8th we'll have a vote regarding changing the scoring system, and in the three following weeks we'll have further polls for other changes (bonus points, league schedule and team scoring system):

Originally Posted by lifeschool

The first vote is for Player Scoring. The first option means things stay the same. To help with certain issues, we have suggested a fixed system, which would make things more linear, and hopefully bring players much closer together. 75/25 is also a possible option in case players want to hedge their bets against a complete change, a kind of half-way house between the options.

The second vote is for Bonus Points. The first option means there are no extra bonus points. The second awards one point for each new player, the third option only awards bonus points after an arbitrary number of players, in this case >= 12.

The third vote looks at the Season Schedule. With option 1 if you would like to continue with things the way they are. Or option 2 to change to a fixed start date format, with 2 games played per round. 18 games would be played in each case. Although if the current system stays in place, there would likely be one extra double round added, to bring the total played games up to 20 next year.

Lastly, the fourth vote is for the Team Score; whether to base this on player score, or league points. I know certain mods were keen to implement this switch as a rule, but this thread is open to discussion in case we forgot something.

This topic is open for everybody, nothing is cast in stone. Feel free to join in and have your say.


Thanks lifeschool for the writeup! Here's the original Lemon thread.

[lifeschool]

Hope everyone got to see this thread. I think many casual players arnt too fussed either way, but we've taken on board what EAB players have said over the whole season, and have come up with a few ideas which could be much fairer for everybody.

John suggested a fixed 16 place system, and then added the 75/25 system as another alternative between the two. I came up with bonus option 2. Bonus Option 3 is a variation of a Dynamic system Harry suggested years ago. Biscuit on Lemon suggested a new season schedule (http://www.lemonamiga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14634) which may be interesting? Lastly, the Team Scoring option based on championship points was another of my brainwaves, and John updated it to be based on the top 5 players only. So it really was a collab effort.

I hope you are proud of our fine competition, and would like to see some feedback on this.

[Graham Humphrey]

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.

[vagrant]

Yeh great work coming up with the ideas guys, awesome, long live the competition

Just a quick indication where I'll head with votes:
1. Player Scoring - 16 player fixed I just think would be better for the comp overall.
2. Bonus points for new players - does this refer to voting points, or league points per round?
3. Schedule - No change, I like the current system to I think 2 games every round will have some players thinking they can't keep up, especially if it's 2 games that require a lot of time.
4. Team scoring - It's a tricky one.. not sure yet.

[john4p]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

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).

Yes the 75/25-system should work very well. But honestly the results would probably not differ that much from the purely fixed system anyway.

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

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.

I don't really understand the logic for this either. You get more points if you take part in a popular round...why?

Originally Posted by ED-209

1. Player Scoring - 16 player fixed I just think would be better for the comp overall.

Okay, that makes four of us so far (LinesMachine, lifeschool, you and I).

Originally Posted by ED-209

2. Bonus points for new players - does this refer to voting points, or league points per round?

League points. There are two suggestions for this, one by lifeschool and one by Harry. Everyone would get the same amount of bonus points - based on number of participants for a round. Personally I don't see the necessity for this but maybe some people would feel better when they get 22 instead of 2 points (while the winner gets 40 instead of 20). It'd destroy some of our statistics though.

Originally Posted by ED-209

3. Schedule - No change, I like the current system to I think 2 games every round will have some players thinking they can't keep up, especially if it's 2 games that require a lot of time.

That was Biscuit's idea. Every round would be one full month now meaning you'd have about 15 days per game. That's plenty in my opinion. I still think the current format is equally good.

Originally Posted by ED-209

4. Team scoring - It's a tricky one.. not sure yet.

Adding up the league points would eliminate the problem that someone could drag his team's average down by participating. The more play the better for each team! I think this would be a good change.

[Shatterhand]

Although I barely played even though I kinda tried... I really do like the current score system. I've played in many different online competitions during my life. The score here is cool because it makes you keep wanting to improve even if you are in first place. I think that if you really do trump everyone else you should indeed get more points.

Do people have a problem with this system?

[john4p]

Originally Posted by Shatterhand

Although I barely played even though I kinda tried... I really do like the current score system. I've played in many different online competitions during my life. The score here is cool because it makes you keep wanting to improve even if you are in first place. I think that if you really do trump everyone else you should indeed get more points.

Do people have a problem with this system?

Yes, because if someone has e.g. 20,000,000 points in 1st place due to a ridiculous end of game-bonus and all of the other players have scores from 50k-500k then the one with 500k gets about the same points as the one with 50k even though the one's 500k-score is 10 times higher than the other. This can lead to frustration/de-motivation.

[BippyM]

The issue is one or two players usually dominate, so the scoring would be irrelevant anyway.

It's very difficult to make a scoring system that works effectively with the number of entries each time varying. Maybe have rounds to start with the top 10 or so going into the actual game competition to score points.

[linesmachine]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

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.

...that's pretty much exactly what I said over at LA. I even used the 'arbitrary' word.

However, I am interested in anything that might keep new blood coming into the comp. Not just to keep it alive but to encourage people to join and gain from the enjoyment I've had over the years.

[kkgarbod]

• 75/25: Based on (25% fixed, 75% proportional based on score)
• Dynamic: One extra point for each new player >= 12.
• Doubles: Schedule starts same date each month, 2 games per round.
• Points: - Team score based on top 5 players league points

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

...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...

This change would rule me out from helping. (not that i do)

Originally Posted by john4p

...
I don't really understand the logic for this either. You get more points if you take part in a popular round...why?

The logic is simple, as the number of competitors increase, so does the competition.

Originally Posted by Shatterhand

... The score here is cool because it makes you keep wanting to improve even if you are in first place. I think that if you really do trump everyone else you should indeed get more points.

Do people have a problem with this system?

That was the intention, and it seems to work mostly.

Originally Posted by john4p

Yes, because if someone has e.g. 20,000,000 points in 1st place due to a ridiculous end of game-bonus and all of the other players have scores from 50k-500k then the one with 500k gets about the same points as the one with 50k even though the one's 500k-score is 10 times higher than the other. This can lead to frustration/de-motivation.

What you are saying is that the game is broken so fix the comp scoring.

Originally Posted by john4p

... It'd destroy some of our statistics though.

This is not true at all.

Originally Posted by linesmachine

...However, I am interested in anything that might keep new blood coming into the comp. Not just to keep it alive but to encourage people to join and gain from the enjoyment I've had over the years.

Exactly.


Like Graham I do not want to have a big impact on voting. But

The fixed system proposed would be a backward step. It puts all the emphasis on beating the person in front of you rather then improving your own score.

The Bonus points for competitors method would be critical for a fixed points system in my view. And could also increase participation. (I would propose something different to what has been presented)

75/25 Fixed/proportional would go some way to addressing some concerns without doing anything to drastic.

Team scoring changes could alleviate some of the pressure from rounds with a small turnout, whilst encouraging others to compete (depending on system chosen)

I Just want people to think about what they are trying to achieve. If you have a better idea it is not too late.

[rexsu]

Why not give a penalty on whoever won for the next round or give an advantage to others players?
I take as examples some sports like the WTCC, a race is done in two rounds, the one who won the first must start last for the second round. In WRC the leader of the championship opens the first days. In F1 there is the DRS to overtake, etc.

We could find penalties, example: the one who won the last round will be able to play only 2 weeks out of 3 (the first two) for the next round.
We can find other ways depending on the game, a time penalty, fewer lives, etc.
What do you think ?

The championship would be tighter and give more chances to other players to win a round or the championship.

[vagrant]

Originally Posted by mihcael

The fixed system proposed would be a backward step. It puts all the emphasis on beating the person in front of you rather then improving your own score.

The way I see it is that emphasis on the beating the person in front of you is better than no emphasis at all: I think proportional scoring can set seemingly impossible tasks for some players and cause them to give up on a round entirely, rather then focusing on a lesser target that still has decent reward.
Fixed points means there is always even spread of points available, regardless of skill level, available time to play, massive scores at the top etc.
Improving your own score is still important, in order to improve/defend your current position

Originally Posted by rexsu

Why not give a penalty on whoever won for the next round or give an advantage to others players?

Too many variables, difficult to enforce I think.

Originally Posted by john4p

League points. There are two suggestions for this, one by lifeschool and one by Harry. Everyone would get the same amount of bonus points - based on number of participants for a round. Personally I don't see the necessity for this but maybe some people would feel better when they get 22 instead of 2 points (while the winner gets 40 instead of 20). It'd destroy some of our statistics though.

I like the idea of bonus points as extra incentive to participate, but I'm not fond of changing league points either.
Perhaps the 'bonus points' could accumulate for each player, and be spent on round voting instead?

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by rexsu

Why not give a penalty on whoever won for the next round or give an advantage to others players?...
We could find penalties, example: the one who won the last round will be able to play only 2 weeks out of 3 (the first two) for the next round.
We can find other ways depending on the game, a time penalty, fewer lives, etc.
What do you think ?

The championship would be tighter and give more chances to other players to win a round or the championship.

I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of handicap even though it does fly in the face of extra points being awarded for score %.

I wouldn't want it to be seen as a punishment but more just to spice things up a bit.

Originally Posted by ED-209

The way I see it is that emphasis on the beating the person in front of you is better than no emphasis at all:

I think more of the situation where you might need to double your score to gain a position, but improving you score a bit may get you an extra point.

[Graham Humphrey]

Originally Posted by john4p

Yes, because if someone has e.g. 20,000,000 points in 1st place due to a ridiculous end of game-bonus and all of the other players have scores from 50k-500k then the one with 500k gets about the same points as the one with 50k even though the one's 500k-score is 10 times higher than the other. This can lead to frustration/de-motivation.

Sorry but I think this is a bit silly. This scenario has never happened and I can't think of a game where it would (in any case, the second place player would get 10 points as a minimum, as I understand it). The closest was Rick Dangerous 2 which did have a daft bonus (there may be others of course) even then it wasn't quite as drastic as this example and as Mike says, that's the game's ridiculousness ahead of anything else.

Originally Posted by ED-209

The way I see it is that emphasis on the beating the person in front of you is better than no emphasis at all: I think proportional scoring can set seemingly impossible tasks for some players and cause them to give up on a round entirely, rather then focusing on a lesser target that still has decent reward.
Fixed points means there is always even spread of points available, regardless of skill level, available time to play, massive scores at the top etc.
Improving your own score is still important, in order to improve/defend your current position

But surely that's how it is now? At the moment, you can improve your score, not catch the person just above you but still score a small number of extra league points (depending on position) so there's that reward there. Whereas in a fixed system, in the same scenario, yes you'd improve the gap over the player immediately below but you wouldn't get anything extra for that effort.

I accept this system does have its faults, but then I think they all do in some aspect and it's worth highlighting the positive side. I honestly don't think it really puts people off and Predseda pointed out in a private thread over at Lemon that as a casual player, he doesn't put any stock in how many points he gets for his score. In fact the team competition interests him more. I wonder how many of our less superhuman players (i.e. most of us) have a similar point of view. After all, Lemon 64 has used the same system for, what, about 15 years, and nobody (as far as I know) has had a major problem with it.

At the end of the day, though, as has already been pointed out, the top players will always be the top players and whatever system you used, the actual leaderboard and the gap between players wouldn't change much, except a bit of shuffling about lower down.

[linesmachine]

Originally Posted by ED-209

The way I see it is that emphasis on the beating the person in front of you is better than no emphasis at all: I think proportional scoring can set seemingly impossible tasks for some players and cause them to give up on a round entirely, rather then focusing on a lesser target that still has decent reward.
Fixed points means there is always even spread of points available, regardless of skill level, available time to play, massive scores at the top etc.
Improving your own score is still important, in order to improve/defend your current position

I'm totally with Ed on this element.

Proportional scoring is a de-motivational force that currently even makes me withdraw from rounds, so I feel it in practice. God knows how disengaging it must feel to a newbie or a part time gamer who just wants to drop in an chance their arm.

I think a reversion to fixed scoring is akin to reformation of the modern church in Europe.
. It ensures the future of the competition.

[john4p]

Originally Posted by mihcael

The logic is simple, as the number of competitors increase, so does the competition.

But if everyone gets the same amount of bonus points there's no reward in this for the winner. Last place gets the same bonus.
But I now understand Harry's reasoning. By giving bonus points if there are more players than we award points for in a fixed system the last places don't all share 1 point but will have different league points. That makes sense. So for the suggested 16-players-fixed points that means the points have to be increased if there are more than 16 players participating.

Originally Posted by ED-209

I like the idea of bonus points as extra incentive to participate, but I'm not fond of changing league points either.
Perhaps the 'bonus points' could accumulate for each player, and be spent on round voting instead?

The 75/25-system would already quasi incorporate the bonus points (the current 50/50-system does as well, but a bit too much in my opinion). I don't feel the need to add more except for a fixed system for n players if there are more than n players.

Originally Posted by ED-209

Too many variables, difficult to enforce I think.

I agree. Also victories acquired by artificial rubberbanding feel quite hollow. In the end it'll decrease the fun for everyone.

Originally Posted by mihcael

This is not true at all.

The number of league points scored over the years would be skewed.

Originally Posted by mihcael

What you are saying is that the game is broken so fix the comp scoring.

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

Sorry but I think this is a bit silly. This scenario has never happened and I can't think of a game where it would (in any case, the second place player would get 10 points as a minimum, as I understand it). The closest was Rick Dangerous 2 which did have a daft bonus (there may be others of course) even then it wasn't quite as drastic as this example and as Mike says, that's the game's ridiculousness ahead of anything else.

Yes, it was a bit exaggerated. But point is, for the current system to be fair the scoring of games should be so elaborate that a score of 100k truly reflects that the player played twice as good as someone with a score of 50k. But we all know that's not the case for most games.

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

But surely that's how it is now? At the moment, you can improve your score, not catch the person just above you but still score a small number of extra league points (depending on position) so there's that reward there.

You'd think so in theory. But practice showed that often your league points didn't change even if you pass another player. And if 1st place has a runaway score than you can sometimes even double your score without having any effect on the league points.

Originally Posted by mihcael

That was the intention, and it seems to work mostly.

It works for the one in 1st place. Always. But it can lead to frustration for the rest of the table.

Still it's a good idea to give extra incentive to the 1st player to further increase his score so maybe the 75/25-system would be a good middle ground that both reduces frustration for the middle and bottom parts of the table while still reward further improving your score even if you're ahead.

Originally Posted by BippyM

The issue is one or two players usually dominate, so the scoring would be irrelevant anyway.

Yes it won't change who will be champion in the end but for everyone else but the top five players the current system can feel too punishing.

Originally Posted by BippyM

It's very difficult to make a scoring system that works effectively with the number of entries each time varying. Maybe have rounds to start with the top 10 or so going into the actual game competition to score points.

We want to encourage as many players to take part and enjoy the games as possible. You're right it wasn't easy to find a good system for varying numbers of entries but all of the suggested systems work well for that (in the case of the fixed system we might think about adding Harry's modification)!

[vagrant]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

I honestly don't think it really puts people off and Predseda pointed out in a private thread over at Lemon that as a casual player, he doesn't put any stock in how many points he gets for his score. In fact the team competition interests him more. I wonder how many of our less superhuman players (i.e. most of us) have a similar point of view.

It's really the "less superhuman" players that I'm thinking of though.. the immortal beings at the top tend be competitive regardless of the points system (except when they take a hiatus of course).

I know the current system was put in place for a more 'even spread', and as you say there is no truly perfect system, but the negatives outweigh the positives with proportional imo. Results can be all over the place depending on which game is being played etc.
I'll also add that none of the superhuman players want to be extremely far ahead.. in any given situation. I'm sure John & Rexsu would agree. Perhaps another important question is which scoring system would this be least likely to happen.

[vagrant]

Originally Posted by linesmachine

I think a reversion to fixed scoring is akin to reformation of the modern church in Europe.
. It ensures the future of the competition.

Haha lines, that is gold

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by john4p

But if everyone gets the same amount of bonus points there's no reward in this for the winner. Last place gets the same bonus....

The difference would be from round to round.

Originally Posted by john4p

The number of league points scored over the years would be skewed.

30% more points are on offer since changing from a fixed system. Nobody really noticed that.