UnFreeZe league

[adminless]

ok pass for that sent now. btw I've been thinking that as I've seen that this finally ended up working pretty good probably in a effort to avoid controversies in the event of a (more than probable on such a small league) disputed finish as well as overall give the team that ultimately comes as UnFreeZe champion more credibility doing a final four (i.e. semis, first vs fourth and second vs third) after the regular season rather than just a final (with no in-game spectators allowed on that phase as it was brought before and played at best of five). I don't know what your/the people's thoughts are on that so let me know. in my opinion it would be lot more exciting and probably more fair overall and at the end of the day it shouldn't be any more significant amount of effort, just two more fights (let's say from 10 to 14 of May of 2021 and then the grand final), no big deal.

[Liza]

Ok, I will ask team captains. May be some of them could answer here.

[fau]

To be honest, I don't fully understand how scoring system works so hard to say. But it would be better to decide it asap, before it's known who would benefit from it (3rd/4th team). There may be various 3-way tie scenarios, what do you plan to do then? Also 1 penalty point being equivalent for whole match sounds a bit drastic.

[adminless]

I currently give three points to 2:0 victories and two points to 2:1 victories on the scoreboard in a effort to make some difference, as well as to make it more exciting, in a league this short particularly played just at best of three. anyways, once the thing is over we can evaluate how the scoring system did and if it reflected the reality or if instead it needs revision. so ties should be resolved by points, score, wins then direct match result though as I said in a league this short to avoid controversies, as well as just mare luck (i.e. you may decide a legue/position for a particular 10:9 game you lost or won on last minute), my opinion is that the best option is to settle that on a four teams playoff next round rather than just a final. additionally this should ensure that every match will matter which should ensure that there's no "fixed" fights and/or that someone just win a tittle against a opponent that haven't had anything left at play (and hence wasn't as motivated). again on long regular leagues it shouldn't be a deal but on a small league one match can change it all. in my opinion is the best option for everybody, but do as you prefer/decide of course, I'm just saying.

as for the penalization is of one point, so in particular at the time of writing the three points of the Sbornaya equals to two 2:1 victories worth 2 points each, four points in total minus one of the penalization which finally makes a total of 3 points. is currently ranked on top of oKo with three points due a 2:0 win because it has two wins instead of one. so the penalty amounted for half of the victory on that case (if they would have won 2:0 it would be a third then). that's a good example why I gave various points to the victories instead of just one.

[Liza]

Next week the following matches are scheduled:
OKO vs Russians on April 21 at 21.30 CEST;
ILM vs Plumse, Ouunp, Danger, Jutuli, Puff, Saltypeanut on April 22 at 21.30 CEST.

Team community A (Fau's) have a rest.

Map picks are coming.

OKO vs Russians on April 21 at 21.30 CEST
Maps: Q3dm7, overkill, Q3dm6 (in this order).

[Liza]

so ties should be resolved by points, score, wins then direct match result

I believed we have clarified it before in the following 2 posts. But now I am not sure.

something you didn't explicitly specified (or at least I failed to notice) is how you want to score this, I'd suggest scoring 2:0 wins with 2 points and 2:1 wins with 1 point. loses are zero points in any of both cases obviously. additionally I'd suggest to tone down a bit some of the activity/participation requirements (i.e. that all the players must play every match whenever possible) as I believe that it can be difficult to implement/enforce, non convenient, lead to tensions and ultimately go against the competition. I'd suggest rewrite that to something like all the teams are encouraged to fairly engage all its members across the completion rather than a per match basis

You are right, I did not mention it. I guess that the easiest and transparent way is to treat a win as a win (no matter 2-0 or 2-1). If in the end 2 or more teams have the same number of wins, we look at their round difference (2-0 gives +2, 2-1 gives +1, 1-2 gives - 1 etc) . If it is the same, we look at personal matches result. If they are the same, we look at round difference in their personal matches. After that we calculate score difference, which is supposed to give final answer. I will rewrite it later in a more understand able way.

in my opinion it was a cool way to incentive that people learn various maps (not just their home map) as well as make the second map more exciting/competitive. probably reviewing it now, may be a 2:3 points ratio for 2:1 against 2:0 wins would be some more fair. anyways if you just want to give the winner by wins alone that's also noted on the scoreboard so I guess that just for fun I'll also note the points there under that scoring system and we'll see how it turns out.

So, I thought points are used only "just for fun" to assess the points system for future tournaments.
I believe, the following should apply (decreasing priority)
wins--> round difference (2-0 gives +2, 2-1 gives +1, 1-2 gives - 1 etc) taking into account penalty points --> personal matches result -->round difference in their personal matches--> score difference

There is no need to stimulate teams to win 2-0. For winners it is all the same. But loosing 1-2 gives some positive emotions to the players, while loosing 0-2 gives only negative. In the end we want players to have fun.

Semifinals might give some incentive for teams that lost twice (and have low chances to get to final). But there are time issues. If all 5 captains agree for additional stage, then we play it. If someone is against it, I think we should use the approved scheme.

[adminless]

I don't think so I believe when it came to the scoring/format many things remained undiscussed/unclear probably not just with me but with anybody else, so no I don't see it so clear either. as said I'll note them (the points) on the scoreboard and you can overturn them later if you feel like it for any random reason, that's not my problem besides I highly doubt there's gonna be any major difference anyways. however I see two core issues with what you're writing, first you pretty much ignore any penalization altogether (i.e. a team could be penalized for pretty much anything, quitting/insulting/ruining/exploiting the game, anything, on any match that as long they somehow win and is not that bad they'll could end up champions) which is unquestionably wrong (penalizations should have a direct tangible consequence at any single given time not a casual one depending on the circumstances otherwise they make no sense) and second as said, it's very different winning 2:0 than is winning 2:1 on this. on a long 20+ weeks league or so the difference will probably cancel out (i.e. various of the 2:1 wins will end up being 1:2 losses) so it shouldn't probably be necessary to differentiate them there. on a small league is as it's a good way to break the ties and have a more clear winner and precisely avoid these kind of disputes and make it exciting till the last match as well as, yes, it's necessary to stimulate players to learn away maps if not they just learn one, two, three maps and giveaway the second map/anything else which is almost as bad as the penalization thing. bottom line the merely win thing was appropriate for the initial two three teams groups but for a league like this is clearly way too simplistic and probably inappropriate so this time you can call it if you feel like it to avoid yet even more disputes but if by any chance happens to be another instance that (or a variation of that depending on the circumstances/how it works out of course) is what will stick.

[Liza]

bottom line the merely win thing was appropriate for the initial two three teams groups but for a league like this is clearly way too simplistic and probably inappropriate so this time you can call it if you feel like it to avoid yet even more disputes but if by any chance happens to be another instance that (or a variation of that depending on the circumstances/how it works out of course) is what will stick.

Ok. If I understand that right, we can use below indicators:
wins--> round difference (2-0 gives +2, 2-1 gives +1, 1-2 gives - 1 etc) taking into account penalty points --> personal matches result -->round difference in their personal matches--> score difference
These indicators are what I described to some ILM and Russians when they asked. So, to make everything consistent, I suggest to use that.


P.S. I do not see much differences between the approaches. There is only one extreme case when 3 wins 2-0 is better than 4 wins 2-1 (9 points > 8 points). That does not mean anything since both teams go to the final. So in case of a tie for 2nd place there could be only situations when teams have equal number of wins (3 wins 2-1 still is better than 2 wins 2-0 in terms of points). And in such case round difference is similar to points (with the difference that 0-2 and 1-2 is the same in terms of points but not in terms of round difference).

P.S.S. As for penalizations, I agree that penalties could be applied to any of the indicators (including wins). Penalty for Russia will go as -1 to round difference indicator.

[adminless]

no, I'd rather prefer to refer that people to the scoreboard here and the scoring system I described leaving it open for further discussion/appellation afterwards if necessary (i.e. if it goes horribly wrong) which is what I has been meaning all this time in a light/casual manner not that it was all clear and set/discussed in just one message when it clearly wasn't. I know I calculated most combinations and foreseen most situations already beforehand, it's not like I randomly came up with that out of nowhere, again I leave it open for revision and discussion as I can sure be wrong at some point, we'll see, but I can tell you it should be something like that more or less and penalizations should be applied to the most determining factor, otherwise they clearly make no sense/serve no purpose as I said. I mean, the winning strategy with your original format pretty much can be summed up as, pick a random map nobody played here, totally neglect the second map and instead use it to undermine the competition/rival with no end, penalization, you say? ok who cares, what are you gonna do? what a joke, I laugh on you then lure you out of balance after have used the previous useless map to mess up your head to a random tie-breaker to camp ra with no end and beat you there, we're the champions my friend. hey not that it happened but as surfaced previously, what is not explicitly disallowed/handled in a competition is implicitly allowed and thus it can happen/set a trend, therefor the score system should clearly take in consideration that kind of situations and properly adapt to prevent them. anyways, that being said as you can see is arguably (as I had already predicted/foreseen) thus that's why I suggested the final four format for the next round (no in-game spectators, best of five, 1vs4 and 2vs3 where btw there's a difference between being second and first) as in my opinion at the end of the day that's best way to rank this few teams (again on a 10+ teams 2 legs league all this would be much less of a issue as probably most of that stuff will simply cancel each out over the course of the competition, here is not the case) and there should be no possible discussion/dispute there.

[PacMan]

no, I'd rather prefer to refer that people to the scoreboard here and the scoring system I described leaving it open for further discussion/appellation afterwards if necessary (i.e. if it goes horribly wrong) which is what I has been meaning all this time in a light/casual manner not that it was all clear and set/discussed in just one message when it clearly wasn't. I know I calculated most combinations and foreseen most situations already beforehand, it's not like I randomly came up with that out of nowhere, again I leave it open for revision and discussion as I can sure be wrong at some point, we'll see, but I can tell you it should be something like that more or less and penalizations should be applied to the most determining factor, otherwise they clearly make no sense/serve no purpose as I said. I mean, the winning strategy with your original format pretty much can be summed up as, pick a random map nobody played here, totally neglect the second map and instead use it to undermine the competition/rival with no end, penalization, you say? ok who cares, what are you gonna do? what a joke, I laugh on you then lure you out of balance after have used the previous useless map to mess up your head to a random tie-breaker to camp ra with no end and beat you there, we're the champions my friend. hey not that it happened but as surfaced previously, what is not explicitly disallowed/handled in a competition is implicitly allowed and thus it can happen/set a trend, therefor the score system should clearly take in consideration that kind of situations and properly adapt to prevent them. anyways, that being said as you can see is arguably (as I had already predicted/foreseen) thus that's why I suggested the final four format for the next round (no in-game spectators, best of five, 1vs4 and 2vs3 where btw there's a difference between being second and first) as in my opinion at the end of the day that's best way to rank this few teams (again on a 10+ teams 2 legs league all this would be much less of a issue as probably most of that stuff will simply cancel each out over the course of the competition, here is not the case) and there should be no possible discussion/dispute there.

The score board is nice and clear except one thing like fau said I still don't see scoring understood by all lol

Can you have a similar chart on the score board showing what points you get eg

1-0 = 1point
2-0= 2point
Penalty point for error = -1
Penalty points mid game player swap = -2

Or whatever it is



Something like that , or are there too many combinations? I didn't think there was would make my noob brain get it more

[adminless]

sure that can be a good suggestion. added now. let me know if that's more clear now.

[PacMan]

sure that can be a good suggestion. added now. let me know if that's more clear now.

Excellent less brain power needed to work out what's going on

Thanks

[Liza]

Next week the following matches are scheduled:
OKO vs Russians on April 21 at 21.30 CEST;
ILM vs Plumse, Ouunp, Danger, Jutuli, Puff, Saltypeanut on April 22 at 21.30 CEST.

Team community A (Fau's) have a rest.

Map picks are coming.

OKO vs Russians on April 21 at 21.30 CEST
Maps: Q3dm7, overkill, Q3dm6 (in this order).

ILM vs Plumse's team on April 22 at 21.30 CEST
Maps:
Hub3tourney1
Q3dm8
Pro-q3tourney2

[adminless]

ok, sounds good, thank you for your great efforts in scheduling/organizing the fights, good job.

[Liza]

I received 4 replies from team captains that they will accept the semifinals introduction (and saw some team chats).
Overall, I would say that reactions are neutral.
Advantages: Some players appreciate more matches + more incentive for teams with 2 losses.
Disadvantages:
Such system will depreciate group matches (as most teams will qualify anyway)
The longer we play, the more time concerns for some players could arise.

Bottom line. Make a decision somehow.