NSL: Scoring System

[klifsnider]

It's not possible for more than 2 teams to be tied for top, there just aren't enough matches and it's an odd number of matches.

I think it is possible, if teams forfeit. But I'll have more time to think about it later.
Of course nobody is stopping you from doing the math before I can :^).

[JessieK]

It's not possible for more than 2 teams to be tied for top, there just aren't enough matches and it's an odd number of matches.

I think it is possible, if teams forfeit. But I'll have more time to think about it later.
Of course nobody is stopping you from doing the math before I can :^).

Oh that's true I am going on the assumption that every team plays each of there games, though if they forfeit there games it counts as a win for the team they are against right? So I still think it's impossible to get a 3 way tie.

I suppose the easy fix would be a "If there IS a three way tie we will use points to decide which two teams will play off" added to the rules. I just can't think of a situation where 3/6 teams could have exactly the same scores.

Another fix would be to use a round robin system so, Wins = 2 points, Loses = 1 point, and a forfeit = 0 points, so a forfeit is actually punished more than turning up and just losing, but I don't know I am spit balling ideas at this point.

[Sebek]

Teams A, B, C win all matches against D, E, F
Team A wins against B
Team B wins against C
Team C wins against A

There is your tie with 3 teams (5 matches per team). All three have one match lost and 4 wins.

[JessieK]

Teams A, B, C win all matches against D, E, F
Team A wins against B
Team B wins against C
Team C wins against A

There is your tie with 3 teams (5 matches per team). All three have one match lost and 4 wins.

Okay so we should decide that tie with points as it includes more teams, BUT I still think playoffs are fair better than arguing about whether we want the difference between points or the total amount of points, it just seems more interesting than having something decided by a score system that will leave no one truly happy with the final results.

I agree the playoff system has a flaw given THAT set of scores COULD happen, but its very unlikely and can be resolved as we hit it, rather than the point system which is boring no matter how you look at it.

[Swan]

As representative of The Real 29th I thought I ought to quickly share my view. I agree with Unas, Sebek and Kasos as to the usefulness of the scoring system they proposed. I believe it will better represent a good skirmish team who use team work and strategy to achieve as higher score possible for their team whilst simultaneously working hard to limit the score of the enemy team. That is what I believe is the objective of skirmish matches and not simply to rack up huge points with no regard to what the enemy is scoring. I think that is more interesting and I think that incorporates elements of offense and defense, knowing when to go all out and push forward, knowing when to hold back for a while, when to try to group up the whole team for a push etc. The current score system does represent that and I certainly am not saying it is not adequate; however I do believe the system Unas described represents those elements and rewards teams who truly work together as a team.

I think after what Sebek posted about the possible three way tie it is more relevant. I have read what others have posted and I am certain there will be no consensus on the issue. Perhaps for the sake of the league it is best to leave as is but either way there is going to be a proportion of the teams who are not happy, or rather just a bit frustrated.

As a side note my team would actually lose out with the alternative score system (and probably would lose out over the course of most of our matches and would be lower down the score table), so please don't think this is for some personal gain, just seems the fairest and most accurate representation of the match results.

[JessieK]

I just feel like what sebek said can happen on the system we have now anyway and someone just wins because points...that just seems so dull to me, sure what I am saying isn't the most effective way to run, the best way for it to be run is what you guys all say and if this was for money or anything other than fun I'd agree with you.

But isn't a finals match to settle a draw just far more exciting than "Oh hey we full capped 2 more times than you VS team X and that means we win the whole tournament even though you won just as many games against exactly the same teams"

Just seems for a tournament like this fun should outrank pure effectiveness. Sure it could lead to a sticky situation where we have to revert back to points if a very very slim set of circumstances take place, but that should be a risk we are willing to take in the name of more games which tends to equal more stakes which tends to make the whole tournament far more interesting and fun for everyone involved.

[Unas]

Joe, you're forgetting that my suggested system temporarily makes the score of team BOT even stronger compared to the 29th teams than it was before. I think you can toss the theory you had about '29th only acts for their own good' or whatever it was out the window.
I'd be bothered by this suggestion, but it has been like this ever since I joined the 29th, although the original reasons why large parts of the community hates us are neither known to me, nor do they apply to any of its current leaders. Nowadays, and I am not speaking for every member of the clan I am leading, I dont really care about it anymore.

If I wanted to be edgy, I could say that you're willing to suppress fairness and good gameplay, so that your own teams score wouldn't look as bad (which by the way you can easily change in your next 4 matches).

This is beside the point though. We can hardly continue a meaningful league if teams drop out because of a change in score system.
When I came up with this topic, I didnt think it would blow up that much, especially since quite frankly: I dont think it'll make much difference in the end, since I am quite sure that the strongest team (which by the way I dont think mine is), will not lose any games, unless it comes to forfeiting or that team missing a couple of their strongest players for a certain match.

What Jessie suggested about decider matches seems like a decent solution. Even in case of a threeway tie, which I think is even less likely than a tie in the first place, we could decide it with the following method:
Team A - Team B
Winner - Team C
If original winner > Team C, they win the league.
If Team C> original winner, they play the original loser, and in case of victory win the league. In case of defeat, it has to start over, but that is even more unlikely.
We could decide how to play it out exactly if it comes to that and maybe play these matches in a shorter period of time.

The only problem I have with this solution is that it takes the spice out of matches that you have secured either within the actual match by achieving a deciding lead over the other team before the match ends or by playing an opponent which you know can hardly stand up to your own team. If you have nothing to play for and are just running down the clock, it is not very exciting to play anymore.
I'd be happy to do it this way though, I guess.

[Kwetty]

The moment you registered a team for this event implied that you agreed with the current ruleset, which is well explained, and therefore you cannot expect a drastic change of those rules in mid-season(one exception being the CTF score multiplier).
There are some decent suggestions tho and I'm sure a compromise can be found that everyone will agree with, but for the next season.

see you guys in a month