SuperLeague Changes - Pre-Vote Discussion

[john4p]

Originally Posted by DH

Can I make a suggestion

Perhaps the bonus point should be based off how many consecutive rounds have been played by each member?

12 rounds per year, 12 points maximum can be got, miss a round, back to 1 bonus point and start climbing again.

Just a thought and I am in no real position to make any suggestions at all.

Would be a good way to bind people to the league. Maybe we shouldn't drop it to 1 if you miss one round, just not increase it. And every season starts fresh at 1. We can add this to the bonus points poll and make the poll multi-select.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Oh, and get rid of the podium bonus on purely fixed points. lol.

I'm like a yo-yo, I know.

It'll lead to boredom at the top if 2nd place gets 19 points. Not much incentive to try to beat the 1st when you're in 2nd then. The podium places must remain something special.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

With that in mind, from the options as they are, I will probably vote for 75/25 and no bonus points.

That system should work well. The 25%-part basically are the bonus points.

[DH]

Originally Posted by john4p

Would be a good way to bind people to the league. Maybe we shouldn't drop it to 1 if you miss one round, just not increase it. And every season starts fresh at 1. We can add this to the bonus points poll and make the poll multi-select.

Wow! I really wasn't expecting a reply, but thanks for considering

I wish you guys luck in sorting this out, it's got my head

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by john4p

It'll lead to boredom at the top if 2nd place gets 19 points. No real need to try to beat the 1st when you're in 2nd then. The podium places must remain something special.

True. But it's also true of being in 9th and 10th. There's only one point apart. If a player can make it to 2nd place on the score board I'm not sure they need that much more motivation compared to someone in 10th place. This is why I prefer the score multiplier method. It will encourage everyone equally. And I did include a small podium bonus. But it keeps the championship points close. And I see that as the more important part than motivating someone in 2nd place on the scoreboard.

[john4p]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

True. But it's also true of being in 9th and 10th. There's only one point apart. If a player can make it to 2nd place on the score board I'm not sure they need that much more motivation compared to someone in 10th place.

No one cares much whether he's 9th or 10th in the end. Being 1st or 2nd is very different. I think Formula 1 would be a lot less exciting if Hamilton gets 25 points for a win but Vettel 24 points for 2nd place (okay, F1 isn't all that exciting anymore anyway ).

Originally Posted by Biscuit

This is why I prefer the score multiplier method. It will encourage everyone equally. And I did include a small podium bonus. But it keeps the championship points close. And I see that as the more important part than motivating someone in 2nd place on the scoreboard.

Experience has shown us that proportional scoring doesn't work well. The reason is that the scoring systems in games often just don't have the linearity in growth that would be necessary for a "score based on score" to be fair.

Let me quote the late Andrew Lines regarding this matter who once said:

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.

[lifeschool]

Looks like I missed most of the fireworks already. We posted various suggestions threads over the years, and even one this year, but its amazing how the opinions start to flow then options are on the table.

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

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 achieving a huge score.

If the mods get ideas of improving what we have come up with, I think we should go back to the private forum and put those on the table. Nothing is cast in stone at this point, and we should be open to input at this stage. So I have made a note on this and maybe we can sort something out.

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?

As Mike says, the idea is that its not so hard to beat a few players, and the odds of beating 4 players is 1 in 4. But if 25 players are playing, then theoretically you would have a 1 in 25 chance of winning, especially with Liv, Lines, ED and Rexsu back

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).

I'm not sure. I mean all the players above 16 would get 1 point. But if there were 26 players, it would mean the lower 10 would all get 1 point. At least with the 75/25 system there could be more of an even spread beyond 16th place, with three or two points and then one point, line we see now. In this way, the system would stretch to accommodate high turn-out rounds. But another side of me is thinking the 16 place system is simpler, and fixes the gaps between players.

[lifeschool]

Originally Posted by ED-209

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

League points bonuses are on offer. Option 1 means no bonus system would be used.

With Option 2, the bonus points would be given for every new player. So if 1 person plays they get 21 points. 2 people play, 1st would get 22, 2nd would get 19 (using the top 16 system). It gives the illusion of more points, but in practice, as everyone would go up by the same number of points, the only gain would be in terms of round-to-round attendance variance rather than extending a points gap between players. It is hoped that this might encourage more players to join more rounds, and perhaps even play the whole season.

Option 3 is similar, only it would award bonus points only when the player count hits 12. We usually have at least 10-12 players in a round, so this means the regulars arnt rewarded. But if we have more that the usual suspects playing, then everybody gets an extra point or two. For example, if we had 20 players in a round, everyone would get 9 bonus points. The gaps per player would remain the same, but rather than rewarding overall season attendance, it rewards extra players and newbies. It is hoped this might encourage players to recommend friends, and this would be a way to gain extra league points, even if you are stuck or done with a particular game.

Originally Posted by mihcael

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

Yes. If a score in a game is broken, then the system can accommodate this. For example, if by pure luck I score 1 billion points in a pinball game, this was a fluke, I dont think that my score should affect everybodies points in the table, and no way I should be able to reduce 2nd place down to just 10 or 11 points because of this fluke. If I beat you at Tennis by 50 points, it only counts as one win. If I beat you by 60 laps at racing, it still counts as one win, and in some games with leeching areas, large scoring bosses, or bonus end-game options, sometimes finding a huge score is not hard. I know we try to make allowances for bonus lives and end-game scenarios, but sometimes its not possible to predict these in advance, and here it would be good to have a safety net to help stop runaway leaders hogging the top end of the points.

Originally Posted by ED-209

[league points]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 this is often the goal of players just to leapfrog others and climb the table. Really, if you get a high score, you will do this anyway. The gap to the next players with the current system can be as wide as half a million points, or close as 10 points, and sometimes you get the same points, sometimes you still get one point less. With a fixed system, the gap to the next player could be as small as 1 point, and scoring that will give you the position. This means you dont draw level on the same points for the same score, you get ahead on points if you gain the position. The only time players would get equal points would be in cases where they score the same points (Lotus etc) and share a position / score with others.

[john4p]

Originally Posted by lifeschool

As Mike says, the idea is that its not so hard to beat a few players, and the odds of beating 4 players is 1 in 4. But if 25 players are playing, then theoretically you would have a 1 in 25 chance of winning, especially with Liv, Lines, ED and Rexsu back

Yeah, but like you said yourself right in the next post:

It gives the illusion of more points...

That's what I meant. You only get more points than the ones that miss that round (and for these it would be even harder now to keep up). You don't get more bonus points for beating 24 players than the last one gets for losing against 24 players.

[Biscuit]

Thanks to Loki’s post on Lemon I took a step back and looked again at this from the perspective of - what are our objectives and how do we achieve them?

My objectives would be:

1. Top players have something to strive for and reasonable reward for getting a podium place.
2. Lower players should get good points for participation and encouragement to keep posting scores.

I’ve run a bunch of numbers in a spreadsheet based on the current round Monster Business and the Rick Dangerous II round earlier this year.

My earlier suggestion for a heavily score based system won’t make the difference. While it’s fair in one sense - it’s not going to achieve the objectives. It was a surprise to me that it didn’t create better points, but hey. Gotta move on.

So I’d like to propose a new system for you to evaluate. It’s still quite simple and based on what we have now but I’ll explain the pros at the end.

The top five positions receive fixed scores.
1st = 20 points
2nd = 17 points
3rd = 15 points
4th = 13 points
5th = 12 points

For everyone below this you get 5 points for participation and a potential extra 7 points based on your score as a proportion of the 5th place score.

That means everyone from 5th and below can potentially score 12 points. But in order to win the league or push ahead you will have to reach those top 4 positions and get the extra points. Due to the closer points available for 5th place and lower it gives more opportunity to get back into contention for the league championship.

Setting the score multiplier using 5th place helps to strip out very high scores and making it a true battle between those below the top four spots, with attainable achievements for improving their scores.

Below I’ve posted how the points would look for those two rounds. I’ve compared them to the CURRENT scoring system and using a FIXED point system for the top 16 players as proposed. Which is probably the best alternative at this time.

You can see that on the SCORE 20 TIER system the difference between points received has been reduced. The top players get extra and the lower ones get noticeable rewards and remain competitive. The only players on the Monster Business score board to receive less points than other systems are in 4th and 6th place. On the Rick Dangerous score board, which has a tougher scoring curve, only players in 6th, 7th, and 8th, get less than in other systems. However everybody below those positions get the same or considerably more.

I think this system has potential.

[john4p]

Excellent idea. Really like this! Best of both worlds.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by john4p

Excellent idea. Really like this! Best of both worlds.

Cheers. It's been spinning round my brain all afternoon.

[john4p]

With a minimum of 5 points everyone will have the feeling of getting somewhere while at the top the competitive spirit is not diminished in any way.

[rexsu]

Originally Posted by ED-209

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.

I may be a sadomachist, but anything that can slowdown the superplayers is a good thing in my opinion.
For example the rule 2 weeks instead of 3 can work for all rounds.
It would be fun to see his score evolve in the 3rd week, how many places we lose

I don't care much about statistics of top players, for me it's necessary to focus on players who have more difficulties, we must motivate them to play regularly or to excel.

An idea (wacky?), why not make a lottery for each round.
At the end of a round, you give some points (5 ?) to a player who is not on the podium
Easy with a site like this: http://www.dcode.fr/random-selection

[john4p]

Originally Posted by rexsu

I may be a sadomachist, but anything that can slowdown the superplayers is a good thing in my opinion.
For example the rule 2 weeks instead of 3 can work for all rounds.
It would be fun to see his score evolve in the 3rd week, how many places we lose

Ah, only the first two weeks can he submit a score. Yes, that'd work.

Originally Posted by rexsu

I don't care much about statistics of top players, for me it's necessary to focus on players who have more difficulties, we must motivate them to play regularly or to excel.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by rexsu

An idea (wacky?), why not make a lottery for each round.
At the end of a round, you give some points (5 ?) to a player who is not on the podium
Easy with a site like this: http://www.dcode.fr/random-selection

No loot boxes for our SuperLeague. Never!

[lifeschool]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

To clarify. I still like my idea best. Just as I wrote.

If there are people who support your idea then we can move forward, but in all the confusion over possible systems, nobody is agreeing on any points so far.

I can see the merit of a scaling fixed points system, where it depends on how many play as to the fixed points on offer, but this is not simple!

edit: I just notice on your Rick Dangerous example, there is only 4 points between the lowest 1K score and my 37k score. With a fixed system each player over 16 would get 1 point, so the gap would be 10 points.

[lifeschool]

Originally Posted by john4p

That's what I meant. You only get more points than the ones that miss that round (and for these it would be even harder now to keep up). You don't get more bonus points for beating 24 players than the last one gets for losing against 24 players.

You are right, and this is why it would only make a difference round to round, as in some rounds the points would be lower. If a player is consistent and they get the similar position every round, then there would be not much relative change. But it might encourage players to join in with high scoring rounds, and increase the players even more - as its better to get 25 points than 1 point, on paper.

But for the reasons you point out, I think giving one point per player is too risky and unpredictable, and I am more happy thinking about a => 12 or => 16 bonus system, which only rewards participation after a certain level. If my original 1 bonus point idea is totally bad, then I am happy to remove it from the options list for the vote.

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Thanks to Loki’s post on Lemon I took a step back and looked again at this from the perspective of - what are our objectives and how do we achieve them?

My objectives would be:

1. Top players have something to strive for and reasonable reward for getting a podium place.
2. Lower players should get good points for participation and encouragement to keep posting scores.

It seems most of us roughly agree on principle. Implementation is obviously more difficult.

I don't like your system at all. Would be better to have a 15 -1 system.

Get 25% of 1st place score just by turning up?

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by mihcael

I don't like your system at all.

Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by mihcael

Would be better to have a 15 -1 system.

Get 25% of 1st place score just by turning up?

I used 20 points for direct comparison with the other score systems. That required a 5 point minimum which is designed to keep the championship points closer together and give lower scorers a fighting chance of making up the gap to the leaders later on in the league. I think it’s a simpler and more impactful alternative to the bonus points idea. It also gives new players that boost and incentive to play.

However, if the idea of giving 25% of 1st place for taking part doesn’t appeal to you. It can be restructured like this...

1st = 15
2nd = 13
3rd = 11
4th = 9
5th = 8
6th and below = 1 + (up to 7 points based on 5th place score)

It should yield very similar results. It may actually make things more competitive because lower points narrow the gap between 1st and last marginally further.

[vagrant]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

You can see that on the SCORE 20 TIER system the difference between points received has been reduced.

I think this system has potential.

Originally Posted by john4p

Excellent idea. Really like this! Best of both worlds.

Agreed! I think this is the best alternative method yet, well done coming up with that Biscuit
I especially like the way it incorporates the bonus points idea.

Alhough fixed 16 will still get my primary vote
Because it is will always provide the simplest, cleanest, fairest spread of points. Yes, the issue of players outside the top 16 all on 1 point is there, but I think this only matters if there is huge abnormal burst in player count. In most cases (if not all) would mean just a little extra dedication to break into the top 16.

However, Biscuit's score 20 system gets my secondary vote for sure.. and on that note - will we be able to cast a secondary vote when it is time?

Originally Posted by mihcael

I don't like your system at all. Would be better to have a 15 -1 system.

I really dislike the idea of changing points awarded for first place.

[mihcael]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by ED-209

...
but I think this only matters if there is huge abnormal burst in player count. In most cases (if not all) would mean just a little extra dedication to break into the top 16.
...
will we be able to cast a secondary vote when it is time?
....

Its not that abnormal, I see rounds with less then about 15 as failed rounds. Want to get it back up into the 20's every round.

The options for the vote will obviously be re-assessed before voting, based on these discussions.

[vagrant]

Originally Posted by mihcael

Its not that abnormal, I see rounds with less then about 15 as failed rounds. Want to get it back up into the 20's every round.

By abnormal I mean well beyond 20. Five or so players on 1 point I don't think is so bad.

Observation: It's only relevant if having to make the top 16 for additional points actually does, or at least is likely to put new players off taking part.
Does everyone here believe it would? I myself am not so sure

If the common belief is yes I'll most certainly vote for Biscuit's idea