New Playoff Format Suggestion Thread for 6v6

Competition StaffLeague AdminAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 09:48

Ok, i see in almost every thread about the playoffs people complaining so i want to consolidate ideas here. This season is set and we are not going to change the format.

We are putting together the new ruleset for the next league (which is starting very soon) and i want to hear your thoughts on how the playoffs seeding should be set up. After hearing you out i will formulate a plan and post it here for review.

Please remember that there will be less teams for the 6v6 then the 4v4, so before you say "take 10 teams in open" take team count into consideration.

what am i looking for? logical input on a fair setup for all teams. all leagues, NA and EU, run the same so do not try to seperate the two. my preference is a bracketed system with the top seeds getting the easy route by playing the lowest seed, but the purpose of this thread is to get feedback and adjust to what the community wants.

Seabee[TeamATi]

TWL Member

2006-02-07 10:36

I like the current format used. I know the # of playoffs spots is determined by total team count. I think a ratio of 1:6 would suffice. 24 teams=5 spots.

When will these Leagues be available to be joined?

Rhitty

Competition StaffLeague AdminAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 10:50

soon ;P

James_Carter

Retired AA Admin

2006-02-07 11:26

- not more then 12 teams in invites
- 3 teams each division advancing to playoffs
- #1 A division & #1 B division having a bye-week
- #2 A division facing #3 B division
- #3 A division facing #2 B division

- remaining 4 teams: team with highesst seed playing the team with lowest seed

- finals

- we have to this how this is going to work out, but i believe that the current playoff-system favours the underdogs too much and also gives the teams which "whore" urban a big advantage. Since each team doesn't need to publish the map they chose till 15 minutes before the match itselve, they have very big chances to win on their own map. Most likely it will often go to urban assault in the playoffs... so whoever is best on urban has good chances to win the playoff-match. So either have the teams deciding their own map at the beginning of the week (so the other team has time to prepare for it) or just have all teams playing the same maps.

inter:

(In case you have 4 groups split up in 2 conferences)

first playoff-round:

Have #1 from one group playing #2 from the other group in the same conference and visa versa.

semi-finals:

Team with highest seed from the remaining 4 teams playing the team with the lowest seed.

open:

(in case we have 2 big conferences again)

1st playoff-round:

- Have #1 from the one conference playing #4 from the other conference and visa versa (#2 playing #3)

semi-finals:

- team with highest seed playing team with lowest seed from the remaining 4 teams

playoff-maplist:

- stick to your own rules! The rules have been changed so much during this season, in the end noone really knows whats happening... and there not even matches scheduled yet for sunday. If for example the rules say that the teams can vote for playoff-maps in the open, then let them vote. IF the rules say playoff-maps will consist ONLY of REGULAR season maps, then do so and dont add another map for finals.
- to make it easier i would propose to completely forget the voting thingy. Set the maps at the beginning of the season from preseason till finals... maybe wait with playoff-maps till later, but reveal them AT LEAST 1 full week in advance of the first playoff-match (remember euros play 1 day earlier then americans).

It all depends on how many teams we will actually have signed up for the next season... maybe we just delete the intermediate league (if necessary) so we have enough teams in open.... thats all for now :-P

-Dante

TWL Member

2006-02-07 11:27

the worst part in current system now is imho the number of teams in playoffs. half the teams have no chance in the middle of the season already, and thats why so many quit(and also caus of the rule that you cant players from other invite intermediate teams, i mean teams die anyway but you rob the rest teams of chances to fill their rosters during the season, thats why 2 teams instead of one have problem finishing the season).
why not make 4 teams per division, it would take only one week more and playoffs are different kind of games who bring much more motivation even for lower teams. then have them play against other 4 from other division and do the rest the way it is now.

-FainT-

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 11:32

I like the bracket. 6 teams in each division like you have. The top 3 from each division make. And 1 wild card team.

Like this year. 1.oR 2.IoG 3.ENE 4.i9 5.jCp 6.Quietus 7. Slow Reaction.

#1 gets a bye.
#2 vs. #7
#3 vs. #6
#4 vs. #5

Then do the bracket from there. I think the wildcard would make it interesting every season. And being the #1 seed in the entire league gives you a huge advantage.

As for the finals and overtime, if urban is the finals map i'm assuming that it can't be chosen for overtime? Personally i think we need to finally solve the overtime deal. Its either mout mckenna, or urban assualt and not goin inbetween.
Post edited by -FainT- at 2/7/2006 11:35:05 AM

Orange Devil

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 11:51

The current playoff format (both the current one with an Urban Assault tourney for the win) and the old one aren't very good IMO.

Reasons are as follows:

In the old style (Let's call this the "Ninja-spy style") each team picked 1 map to play on, and the total number of rounds wun over these 2 maps decided the winner. In the event of a tie in rounds OT would be played.
This gives teams a very strong incentive to find out what map the other team would pick. This can be tried through spying on eachother through the serverbrowser, tracker, contacting teams the other team scrimmed with to gain info, and all kinds of other things that really don't have anything to do with the game itself.
However the value of knowing with a good amount of certainty which map(s) the opponent is very likely to choose reduces the time you need to spent on practicing other maps and free s up this time to better prepare your map + expected opponents maps, giving your team a significant advantage. Personally I don't like this at all, the playoffs (and the whole league for that matter) should be about teamwork, communication and ingame skills, not spying and intelligence gathering.

In the current style (Let's call this the "UA-Winter Tourney style") the positive thing is that this whole spying stuff has been mostly done away with.
It's still handy to know which map the other team will choose, but it will be VERY hard to win both maps. Considering now to win you need a 5-3 victory on both maps (that's a 10-6 round victory) and all a team needs to do to force the 3rd set on Urban is score 4 rounds on their own map (for a 12-4 total score).
So the best response for a team would be to follow the following few steps:
1. Identify the map where the difference between their team and the opponent is the most in their favour.
2. Practice this map enough to ensure winning at least 4 rounds.
3. Urban, Urban, Urban, Urban, Urban.

Why? Well let's look at the possible outcomes of the first 2 sets:
Score (in sets) Team A-B-Ties
Possibility 1: 1-1-0. This results in a tie and MIGHT have been a tie in the "Ninja-spy style" (depending on whether 1 team performed better then the other, in the "UA-Winter Tourney style" performing better in the first 2 sets doesn't matter). Result --> Goto UA
Possibility 2: 1-0-1 / 0-1-1. This results in one team having an advantage over the other. In the old system the team with the win would have wun. Now instead --> Goto UA
Possibility 3: 0-0-2. Both in the old system and here this would have been a tie. Result --> Goto UA
Possibility 4: 2-0-0 / 0-2-0. In both systems this result shows a clear victory. Considering the quality of the teams in the playoffs this possibility is definately the least likely. In the "UA-Winter Tourney" however, it is the ONLY way off avoiding Urban Assault.

So let's use game theory to determine the best response:
Team A knows which map it will choose in the playoffs Vs Team B.
Team A doesn't know which map Team B will choose.
Team A knows all it needs is 4 rounds to force Urban Assault, where they can still completely win the playoffs.
Result: Team A will pick 1 map and practice it enough to ensure 4 rounds, preferably 5. They will also try to become the best team on Urban Assault. Team B will do the same. This results in a nice little "Urban Assault Winter Tournament" instead of the Playoffs everyone was expecting.

So let's now take a look at the system TWL used in previous leagues:
Every round in the playoffs a new map was chosen and announced giving all teams equal time to prepare. The better team on this map advanced to the next round. The problem with this system was it only tested teams skills on 1 map, which biased the result a bit.

OK so that was the criticism, on to my suggestions:

Suggestion 1: "The random style"
Have a random generator pick 1 outdoor map from regular season and 1 indoor map from regular season for each playoff round (whether doubles can happen is up to TWL/players to decide in a vote or whatever). This mapchoice can be announced at the beginning of the week so teams can practice (my strong preference) or 15 mins before the match if you want to reduce practice and keep the uncertainty (don't like this much). Do this for each round. This system to me seems like the most fair and unbiased system for the playoffs as there's no telling which map will be important, so the team that prepared best on all maps during the regular season has a well-deserved advantage.

Suggestion 2: "Pick and don't spy"

Each team picks one map. The difference with the "Ninja-spy style" is that the map is announced at the beginning of the week (both maps at the same time obviously) so that the whole spying process is eliminated and each team has a fair chance to prepare. It still pays to prepare really well during regular season as the other team will obviously try to pick your weakest map relative to their strenght.

In conclusion:
"Random" > "Pick and don't spy" > "Ninja-spy" > "Previous Leagueplayoffs" > "UA-Winter Tourney"

Just my 2 cents.

PS: PLEASE STOP THE URBAN TOURNEY OR I WILL CRY. Thank you.
Post edited by Orange Devil at 2/7/2006 12:16:42 PM

-rama

Dance Of Death

2006-02-07 11:56

wow i thought u only dominated SAW :o

btw, i agree with OD here

shaca

TWL Member

2006-02-07 11:57

Originally posted by: Orange Devil
Suggestion 1: "The random style"
Have a random generator pick 1 outdoor map from regular season and 1 indoor map from regular season for each playoff round (whether doubles can happen is up to TWL/players to decide in a vote or whatever). This mapchoice can be announced at the beginning of the week so teams can practice (my strong preference) or 15 mins before the match if you want to reduce practice and keep the uncertainty (don't like this much). Do this for each round. This system to me seems like the most fair and unbiased system for the playoffs as there's no telling which map will be important, so the team that prepared best on all maps during the regular season has a well-deserved advantage.

i like this one...

Post edited by shaca at 2/7/2006 11:59:05 AM

Paulo Paulino a.k.a. -hyphen]shaca
Portimão - Algarve - Portugal
http://www.hyphen-concept.com

Sutki

TWL Member

2006-02-07 12:06

Originally posted by: shaca
Originally posted by: Orange Devil
Suggestion 1: "The random style"
Have a random generator pick 1 outdoor map from regular season and 1 indoor map from regular season for each playoff round (whether doubles can happen is up to TWL/players to decide in a vote or whatever). This mapchoice can be announced at the beginning of the week so teams can practice (my strong preference) or 15 mins before the match if you want to reduce practice and keep the uncertainty (don't like this much). Do this for each round. This system to me seems like the most fair and unbiased system for the playoffs as there's no telling which map will be important, so the team that prepared best on all maps during the regular season has a well-deserved advantage.

i like this one...

Me too.

Rhitty

Competition StaffLeague AdminAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 13:06

Originally posted by: shaca
Originally posted by: Orange Devil
Suggestion 1: "The random style"
Have a random generator pick 1 outdoor map from regular season and 1 indoor map from regular season for each playoff round (whether doubles can happen is up to TWL/players to decide in a vote or whatever). This mapchoice can be announced at the beginning of the week so teams can practice (my strong preference) or 15 mins before the match if you want to reduce practice and keep the uncertainty (don't like this much). Do this for each round. This system to me seems like the most fair and unbiased system for the playoffs as there's no telling which map will be important, so the team that prepared best on all maps during the regular season has a well-deserved advantage.

i like this one...

so do i.

orange you are obviously pissed that you didnt see this before and i apologize, but believe me, i would not have made changes like this without consulting the community. i saw very few negative comments from my initial thread where i laid this all out.

the biggest problem i had with the old system was that it was just to stringent on giving both teams a chance. i am all about fairness and giving the team that has the best comm's and teamwork the win. not the team that is better at one map in specific. i really like this idea that you came up with and will take it into full consideration.

Maniac.

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 13:07

Originally posted by: -FainT-
I like the bracket. 6 teams in each division like you have. The top 3 from each division make. And 1 wild card team.

Like this year. 1.oR 2.IoG 3.ENE 4.i9 5.jCp 6.Quietus 7. Slow Reaction.

#1 gets a bye.
#2 vs. #7
#3 vs. #6
#4 vs. #5

Then do the bracket from there. I think the wildcard would make it interesting every season. And being the #1 seed in the entire league gives you a huge advantage.

As for the finals and overtime, if urban is the finals map i'm assuming that it can't be chosen for overtime? Personally i think we need to finally solve the overtime deal. Its either mout mckenna, or urban assualt and not goin inbetween.

IMO less teams should make the playoffs. What is this the NHL? 16/30 teams making the playoffs?

Also, let's keep bad maps like Urban Assault off the playoff maplist please.

---

Orange Devil

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 13:09

I completely agree with not making everything dependant on one map which is why I'm so very much against the current setup where in by far the most cases at least 8 rounds on Urban will be played to determine the winner. My problem is not with the map Urban Assault, as it's definately not one of the worst maps, but it's with the fact that 1 map decides so incredibly much.

The only way to prevent UA is by winning both maps at least 5-3. This would result in a matchwin in any other system as well. Any other eventuality results in UA as the deciding factor.

Night Haunter

AA ObserverNews StaffTeamWarfare News TeamAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 13:34

they have it as urban for the third set because
1. it is fast, no 7 minutes * 8 (it is the last set and teams have been playing for a while)

2. It is one of the most balanced maps in the game

3. You should have known urbanwould be played because in the beginning of the season everything was posted in the rules about how the first 2 sets were decided by the teams and the third was going to be urban no matter what.
Post edited by Night Haunter at 2/7/2006 1:35:21 PM

Rhitty

Competition StaffLeague AdminAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 13:35

the way i look at it is this. there are 2 sets before urban comes into play. it gives both teams an oppourtunity to win instead of just playing urban which could have very easily been a choice as the finals map.

-FainT-

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 13:36

Can we just say mout is the overtime map for forever and be done with it?
Post edited by -FainT- at 2/7/2006 1:36:49 PM

Orange Devil

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 13:39

Originally posted by: Rhitty
the way i look at it is this. there are 2 sets before urban comes into play. it gives both teams an oppourtunity to win instead of just playing urban which could have very easily been a choice as the finals map.

The thing is that those 2 other sets have a very low probability of being both wun by 1 team because of the following reasons:

1. To win both sets you need a minimum of 10 rounds wun out of 16.
2. You can't prepare 1 set because you don't know the map until 15mins prior.
3. The other team is highly likely to choose one of your weaker maps relative to their strenght on the map.

This proves there is not a 50%-50% chance of going to urban. I can't provide accurate percentages, but I would guess the chances of going to urban for at least 8 rounds are over 90%.
Post edited by Orange Devil at 2/7/2006 1:42:03 PM

[oR.scarface]

TWL Member

2006-02-07 14:14

Originally posted by: Maniac.
Originally posted by: -FainT-
I like the bracket. 6 teams in each division like you have. The top 3 from each division make. And 1 wild card team.

Like this year. 1.oR 2.IoG 3.ENE 4.i9 5.jCp 6.Quietus 7. Slow Reaction.

#1 gets a bye.
#2 vs. #7
#3 vs. #6
#4 vs. #5

Then do the bracket from there. I think the wildcard would make it interesting every season. And being the #1 seed in the entire league gives you a huge advantage.

As for the finals and overtime, if urban is the finals map i'm assuming that it can't be chosen for overtime? Personally i think we need to finally solve the overtime deal. Its either mout mckenna, or urban assualt and not goin inbetween.

IMO less teams should make the playoffs. What is this the NHL? 16/30 teams making the playoffs?quote]

There is now way to describe how right this last statment is. What is the point of a regular season if all these teams are going to get in. They should just have maybe 2 or 3 teams that make it from each conference. Defenitely not more than 3. By limiting the amount of teams that make the playoffs, the regular season is more exciting. Who cares if the playoffs are shorter.

dansik

Redefining E-Maturity

2006-02-07 15:02

my suggestion is to make it a 4v4 playoff.

dansik

Redefining E-Maturity

2006-02-07 15:14

my other suggestion is to make the maps known beofre the night, this is the playoffs, now more than ever is the time you should get to prepare.

JCMatador

who saved AA Teamwarfare Vet

2006-02-07 15:32

If you want to limit the amount of drops, you need to give teams a reasonable chance to make the playoffs. If teams are out of playoff contention by the halfway mark, then there will be a ton of teams dropping. This means it is better to have "too many" playoff teams than only the absolute top teams.

What this does is means more teams will stay around longer as anything can happen in the playoffs and you will build a better, more meaningful group of teams for future leagues.

To those that say you should make the playoffs smaller and more "meaningful"...well, hogwash. The leagues are about building a community and having the top teams in each league play an extra round of playoffs will not kill them.

Thanks for listening to our petition to move AA back to the top of the forum list. Hooah!

PS. I so look forward to the next Rhitty work disaster story!

[oR.scarface]

TWL Member

2006-02-07 15:57

Originally posted by: JCMatador
If you want to limit the amount of drops, you need to give teams a reasonable chance to make the playoffs. If teams are out of playoff contention by the halfway mark, then there will be a ton of teams dropping. This means it is better to have "too many" playoff teams than only the absolute top teams.

What this does is means more teams will stay around longer as anything can happen in the playoffs and you will build a better, more meaningful group of teams for future leagues.

To those that say you should make the playoffs smaller and more "meaningful"...well, hogwash. The leagues are about building a community and having the top teams in each league play an extra round of playoffs will not kill them.

I disagree. I see a lot of teams that quit the leagues now with the format where most teams get in. Teams quitting is never going to change.

JCMatador

who saved AA Teamwarfare Vet

2006-02-07 16:35

True, just like people will always die. However, that doesn't mean that you simply ignore the issue and refuse to take steps to migitate the problem.

It is just one more tool in a range of things to help ensure a fun and successful league (and future ones).

Thanks for listening to our petition to move AA back to the top of the forum list. Hooah!

PS. I so look forward to the next Rhitty work disaster story!

[oR.scarface]

TWL Member

2006-02-07 16:47

Originally posted by: JCMatador
True, just like people will always die. However, that doesn't mean that you simply ignore the issue and refuse to take steps to migitate the problem.

It is just one more tool in a range of things to help ensure a fun and successful league (and future ones).

How is it a tool in helping the problem. Do you honestly think that a team is going to feel better about themselves and not break up if they make the playoffs in a 4 out of 6 style and then get beat down in the first round?

JCMatador

who saved AA Teamwarfare Vet

2006-02-07 17:11

I think others need to chime in here instead you and I having an on-going debate. With that said, I do think it is human nature to take competition less seriously when you know that you have no chance to make the playoffs.

I say this as a guy who has been a competitive athlete my entire life (35 years) across all kinds of sports and all kinds of teams. If you as a player and you as a team have no chance to make the playoffs, there is a significantly higher chance that you will not bother take the league or the games seriously.

Just look at the open league to see how much fun and hard work was put into trying to be one of the teams to make the playoffs. So many teams had a shot at it and it made for an exciting and motivating time for all.

This same logic is the reason why so many professional leagues have increased the number of playoff teams over the years; it simply makes good sense even though, for the most part, the lower ranked teams rarely make it past the first round of playoffs.

Thanks for listening to our petition to move AA back to the top of the forum list. Hooah!

PS. I so look forward to the next Rhitty work disaster story!

[oR.scarface]

TWL Member

2006-02-07 17:28

I dont consider it playoffs when over 50 percent of the teams competeting makes it.

r@ttl3r

Competition ManagerNorth AmericanGame OperationsAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 17:59

Personal Opinion:

We probably should look at increasing the number of Open League playoff teams if we continue to see a similar number of teams playing. However, that number should stay at near the 1/6 ratio that someone else mentioned in this thread.

I understand where your coming from JC but the biggest problem we have with playoff contention is due to the fact that we cannot get like skilled teams into our leagues with any consistency. This is largly due to the continous cycle of teams breaking up/merging/reforming. If we could get all of the Invite Caliber teams into Invites then everyone would be in contention longer. The same is true for the Intermediates and Open. I would much rather work harder to try to solve that riddle than to substantially open up the number of playoff positions. All that does is allow teams with .500 records or below the chance to get into the playoffs. As Scarface said, Im not sure making the playoffs as a 500 team only to get to face the top seeded team in the 1st round is a real incentive to not fold. We should put forth the effort to try harder to make sure that teams who cant win more than 2-3 matches in an Inter or Invite league dont get placed there. Then they have the incentive they need to stay and play because they get to play with like skilled opponents every week.

Having said all that, I am very optimistic that our next league will have a much better team placement because we have this season as a fresh example of most teams capabilities. I do believe that you will see more teams in contention for playoffs much deeper into the upcoming season due to the fact that the leagues will be better balanced skill wise.
Post edited by r@ttl3r at 2/7/2006 6:03:34 PM

r@ttl3r
TeamWarfare Competition Manager
Email: rattler@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_aa

^loser

Mostly Harmless

2006-02-07 18:03

I think a modified version of the world cup would be interesting. The idea would be to have a much quicker running league to minimize the damage of teams leaving early. What you'd do is split the teams into as many 4 teams divisions as needed. Each team plays the other 3 teams in their division twice (instead of once as in the world cup). The top 2 teams in each division move to the playoffs, and the bottom 2 teams are out. The season would finish with an elimination round (1 loss and you're out).

The primary advantage of running a league like this would be allowing several leagues run per year, rather than 2 (as it has been in the past). 6 weeks of regular season (group stage), probably a 3-4 week playoff... and then start the next season. If you miss the start of the league or your team reforms, no biggie there's another league just around the corner.

chunladesh

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 18:11

The number of playoff teams is around where it should be right now. Perhaps a slight increase, but anything more than an additional team per division would be silly. It is always nice to make the playoffs, and it does give some teams an incentive to play out a season, but honestly, if you're going to make playoffs a big pool of teams, it won't seem like playoffs anymore. Making the playoffs is a good feeling because you know you're part of the best in your league, expanding the number would just make that feeling diminish, making it less special. Anyways, I would rather miss the playoffs and concentrate on other things (CAL, ladders, etc) than make the playoffs and get reamed first round by a #1 seed.

As for UA being 90% sure being played:
That may be true, but so what? 10 out of 16 rounds isn't much more than 8 out of 14. And the teams that have made the playoffs have had the regular season preparing for every map that can be chosen, so it's not like they'll go in totally under-prepared. Yes, the map you choose will probably be a map you're better/more prepared for, but that's what home-field advantage is about. Look at the NBA playoff system: Better seed starts off at home, other team is guaranteed games at their home-court, but do the series all go to 7 games? No. In fact, most don't. Now, while I do agree with OD that it'll probably end up being >50% going to overtime on UA, 90% is a pretty high guess. Better teams will perform better no matter what the map. Just because it is playoffs doesn't mean the skill levels are across the board. They are more equal, but still different enough to make a difference.
__________________________

i9.chunladesh
"Redefining Excellence"
TeamIceNine.com
#i9 @ GameSurge

|Sponsors|::|Holdouts.com|::|ZenuTech.com|

JCMatador

who saved AA Teamwarfare Vet

2006-02-07 18:26

FYI, I am not necessarily in favor of more teams making the playoffs...but I am definitely against decreasing them as some had suggested.

Thanks for listening to our petition to move AA back to the top of the forum list. Hooah!

PS. I so look forward to the next Rhitty work disaster story!

Screwtape

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-07 20:50

A 1:6 ratio... 12 teams in the invite... 2 teams go to playoffs? I think in the NFL it's like 50% go... (is that right... 32 teams, 16 go to playoffs?). I think that's pretty close to what we should go for. Like 6 teams out of a 12 team invite, 10 teams out of a 20 team inter (or 12 teams from 24 inter) and like 24 teams from a 48 team open. Like JC said: better to have too many then too few. It would also be cool to see the top teams get a bye while the "wildcards" battled it out.

Rules: Okay, here's the deal. No one can read your mind. No one knows the 'spirit' behind the rules or the intention, or at least the masses don't. All we know is what is typed out. In another thread you said to someone something to the effect of "you are a rules stickler and that doesn't fly with me." Well, i think to the VAST majority NOT being a rule stickler (as in one who does not stick to the letter of the rules) doesn't fly. I know it certainly doesn't fly with me. It's like you get bitched at if you don't read the rules, but if you do read the rules and try to get them enforced you also get bitched at so what gives? There was the other thread about no-shows and who goes to playoffs, etc. and a League Admin posted a "clarification." Most people consider a "clarification" in week 10 a "change" and don't like it. So whatever you decide to do the rules need to be laid out and carved into stone at the beginning of the season, and then no further alterations need to be made and they (the letter of the rule, not any implied "spirit") need to be strictly upheld. If your sentence starts with "although this was not specifically mentioned in the rules..." then it doesn't matter how it ends, if it's not specifically mentioned in the rules then it's not a rule. To me, if I were magically running the show, admins lose the right to add stuff after the season has started. If you didn't "clarify" appropriately initially then it's that way until next season. The rules need to be written in a very technical, almost legal, style that, altough it may be difficult for kiddies to read, leaves absolutely no room for interpretation or misinterpretation. Furthermore, once the rules are written they need to be upheld. If the rules say "a team that forfiets gets removed" then guess what should happen if a team forfeits? If there is going to be a post about "if you have extenuating circumstances then..." then that needs to be in the rules. Basically, once the rules are written the legislative part of it is done, and the admins should only be focusing on enforcing the rules, not clarifying, revising, or adding/subtracting anything. All that being said I think people understand (i do) that this is the first season Rhitty has had the reigns and was bound to have bumps in the road and unexpected situations arise, so all the above was given in the spirit of improving the quality and decreasing the complaining next season.

Playoff specific suggestion: Man, it's too complicated. Just pick some maps (random or rhitty pix or w/e) at the beginning of the season and post them. Each round of the playoffs you play 1 map, 1 OT round if necessary, that's it. Basically just like a normal match. The current system of playing up to 4 matches is cumbersome and overkill (plug). Also, in the current system, if Team A wins set 1, team B shoud HAVE to win set 2 or be eliminated. Only if both teams win a set should set 3 be played, and regardless set 3 should be the final set, as having set 3 on UA and then a possible set 4 on UA seems like extra baggage.

Magic^

TWL Member

2006-02-07 21:02

I like the setup of the playoffs, makes things different and more interesting.

[oR.scarface]

TWL Member

2006-02-07 21:03

Originally posted by: Screwtape
A 1:6 ratio... 12 teams in the invite... 2 teams go to playoffs? I think in the NFL it's like 50% go... (is that right... 32 teams, 16 go to playoffs?). I think that's pretty close to what we should go for. Like 6 teams out of a 12 team invite, 10 teams out of a 20 team inter (or 12 teams from 24 inter) and like 24 teams from a 48 team open. Like JC said: better to have too many then too few. It would also be cool to see the top teams get a bye while the "wildcards" battled it out.

Rules: Okay, here's the deal. No one can read your mind. No one knows the 'spirit' behind the rules or the intention, or at least the masses don't. All we know is what is typed out. In another thread you said to someone something to the effect of "you are a rules stickler and that doesn't fly with me." Well, i think to the VAST majority NOT being a rule stickler (as in one who does not stick to the letter of the rules) doesn't fly. I know it certainly doesn't fly with me. It's like you get bitched at if you don't read the rules, but if you do read the rules and try to get them enforced you also get bitched at so what gives? There was the other thread about no-shows and who goes to playoffs, etc. and a League Admin posted a "clarification." Most people consider a "clarification" in week 10 a "change" and don't like it. So whatever you decide to do the rules need to be laid out and carved into stone at the beginning of the season, and then no further alterations need to be made and they (the letter of the rule, not any implied "spirit") need to be strictly upheld. If your sentence starts with "although this was not specifically mentioned in the rules..." then it doesn't matter how it ends, if it's not specifically mentioned in the rules then it's not a rule. To me, if I were magically running the show, admins lose the right to add stuff after the season has started. If you didn't "clarify" appropriately initially then it's that way until next season. The rules need to be written in a very technical, almost legal, style that, altough it may be difficult for kiddies to read, leaves absolutely no room for interpretation or misinterpretation. Furthermore, once the rules are written they need to be upheld. If the rules say "a team that forfiets gets removed" then guess what should happen if a team forfeits? If there is going to be a post about "if you have extenuating circumstances then..." then that needs to be in the rules. Basically, once the rules are written the legislative part of it is done, and the admins should only be focusing on enforcing the rules, not clarifying, revising, or adding/subtracting anything. All that being said I think people understand (i do) that this is the first season Rhitty has had the reigns and was bound to have bumps in the road and unexpected situations arise, so all the above was given in the spirit of improving the quality and decreasing the complaining next season.

Playoff specific suggestion: Man, it's too complicated. Just pick some maps (random or rhitty pix or w/e) at the beginning of the season and post them. Each round of the playoffs you play 1 map, 1 OT round if necessary, that's it. Basically just like a normal match. The current system of playing up to 4 matches is cumbersome and overkill (plug). Also, in the current system, if Team A wins set 1, team B shoud HAVE to win set 2 or be eliminated. Only if both teams win a set should set 3 be played, and regardless set 3 should be the final set, as having set 3 on UA and then a possible set 4 on UA seems like extra baggage.

I never said 2 teams. I said 2-3 teams per conference making it a grand total of 4 or 6. Also the NFL has 12 teams out of 32 that make it which is not 50 percent but more around 35 percent, which is just about right.

Horacula

Lead WriterTeamWarfare News TeamAmerica's Army

2006-02-07 21:55

Originally posted by: -FainT-
Can we just say mout is the overtime map for forever and be done with it?

I have to agree with Faint here.
While I share everyones passion and excitement for this game, playoff selection and map choice is rather cumbersome. Selection is up to admins but I will tackle map choice.
How many maps to play, when do we switch, ok now are we down or up? Do we play set 3 or not?

I will attempt to make an argument for Mout. Purely based off of competitive play. I number crunched the invite league wins/loss ratio of all the maps they played this past league and tossed out the no shows that occurred.
If we are looking for close matches in whom both teams have a chance to win no matter what side it is then we should look no further than 3 maps.
Rounds won (minus) lost = how close teams played one another.
Mout = the closest rounds won/lost in week 4 approximately 9 rounds separated the total winning rounds from losing rounds.
Weapons cache SE= approximately 14 rounds
Insurgent Camp = approximately 15 rounds
Conversely:
Mountain Ambush = approximately 50 rounds
Sandstorm (to my surprise) = approximately 30 rounds
I understand that teams pub rounds or ditch them when one team reaches 7 but this only proves Mout's worth even more as teams do not do this because the matches are so close.
IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR FAIR OT MAPS OR BALANCED COMPETITION MAPS LET THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
Higher seed should always have side choice its the reward for steady winning play thru out the season.
Mout is the only non defense map of the three which I believe makes it an ideal choice but we all know this already but the numbers show it to be true.

*Disclaimer, my math is not great but it is pretty accurate and I was drinking a bit.

DeadAccount

TWL Member

2006-02-08 08:54

Originally posted by: Maniac.
Originally posted by: -FainT-
I like the bracket. 6 teams in each division like you have. The top 3 from each division make. And 1 wild card team.

Like this year. 1.oR 2.IoG 3.ENE 4.i9 5.jCp 6.Quietus 7. Slow Reaction.

#1 gets a bye.
#2 vs. #7
#3 vs. #6
#4 vs. #5

Then do the bracket from there. I think the wildcard would make it interesting every season. And being the #1 seed in the entire league gives you a huge advantage.

As for the finals and overtime, if urban is the finals map i'm assuming that it can't be chosen for overtime? Personally i think we need to finally solve the overtime deal. Its either mout mckenna, or urban assualt and not goin inbetween.

IMO less teams should make the playoffs. What is this the NHL? 16/30 teams making the playoffs?

Also, let's keep bad maps like Urban Assault off the playoff maplist please.

And watch how fast team's drop out of the league(s) after 2-3 weeks. And then you'll have ff to contend with. If anything, keep it the way it is. It's kinda hard to plan out a playoff format when you have no idea as to how many teams are even playing yet. I would suggest bringing this idea up AFTER the Teams are Selected. Then lock down the league so nobody else can join. From that point, you can have this Same discussion and finalize it after 1 week of discussion's, finally starting the league(s) a week later. But like I said earlier, this is pointless until we know how many teams are in the Open, Inters and Invites.
Post edited by -=]FC[=-Dead Zombie at 2/8/2006 8:55:53 AM

Seabee[TeamATi]

TWL Member

2006-02-08 09:32

My 1:6 ratio for playoffs was meant for Open league only. Inters and Invites would be different, since they have signifigantly fewer teams.

Kapeket!!

TeamWarFare Vet

2006-02-08 10:39

Originally posted by: -FainT-
Can we just say mout is the overtime map for forever and be done with it?

Kapeket!!

TeamWarFare Vet

2006-02-08 10:50

Regardless of league, the biggest thing that must be addressed is no show and its value.. to any formula.

I am not a pimp for CAL and support TWL far more than anything our clan as done at CAL but makeup matches are a must. No ifs on this one issue.

It can be done with teams of a similar record in another conference even. Who cares. As long as it occurs.

The basic "concept" of who gets in and why needs to be rephrased and posted. Posted because it isn't now. It is far short of clear on what determines eligible teams.

This is not the BCS, nor should it be. CAL admins cannot even explain what RPI "really" is so please steer clear of that. Keep it as simple as possible. But in the case of a division where some fantastic teams are ruled out because they lost a match early in the season to another great team, we need wildcards of some sort. Even if its only one. Even in the world of sports on every level, wildcards exist for a reason.. rewarding teams who suffered a minor setback early on and the biggest reason... fan support. Its good for any league. =)

The amount of teams that proceed is about right for Open League since you have even teams moving on and as Seabee stated, that worked out to about 1:6 ratio. Add one more round to the playoffs, throw in a bye for the top seeded team and that sort of addresses that issue.

The actual format needs to be very clear this time around:

Top 4 + 1 Wildcard advance:
- Top seed gets the bye in each division
- All of this is seeded based on the following:

Won/Lost Record
Head-to-head competition (meaning you vs. them)
Common opponent record
Rounds won/lost

Since we would do makeup matches, the only variable for percentages would be OT rounds added.

Thanks for addressing this Rhitty. It really is a mess and I think everyone here realizes it. =)
Post edited by Kapeket!! at 2/8/2006 10:53:47 AM

DeadAccount

TWL Member

2006-02-08 11:49

I say let all teams make the playoffs LOL .

Then use the brackets like college Basketball does. basically have the regular season be played for positioning to determine your seed.

But all this would depend on each conference (only 2 conferences) having 16 teams each. call it a stupid idea, but it would almost guarantee everybody sticks it out thru the year, and has a shot at winning.
Post edited by -=]FC[=-Dead Zombie at 2/8/2006 11:50:09 AM

-FainT-

TeamWarfare Vet

2006-02-08 12:22

- 1-6 visitor, 7-12. I think that matches should use the home teams server the entire time.

-Overtime. One map, i really think it should be mckenna, you could make an argument for urban but mout has been one of the longest maps in AA. We should keep it as the ot maps, and any new maps such as urban that are similar to it are great match maps. There isn't an outdoor map that is balanced.

- Stricter rules for teams/players that break up and drop from invites. If an entire team disbands and drops from invities there should be a 1 season wait for any league play?