Update to the Playoffs

[deleted_user0]

He won one...
You really think 2 ro8 finishes should be worth as much pts as one first?

if you're talking to me? no, I don't. I already told CometK I thought that the points for 1st place and other places and side show tournaments were too close and should spaced further apart. I don't think they should be spaced so far apart as in your example though..

I'm not sure who you are referring to with 2 ro8 finishes but my point was that even though you use a different point award metric, the result is very close to the current result. You said the best of the best don't play. I'm pointing out that the best of the best pretty much do play, or they aren't playing in your example either, as the people in the play offs in your example are the same people or they are about the same level as the people who are currently set play the play offs.

As for kaiser, he did win a tournament, but it wasn't very stacked, it was maybe even the least stacked together with the KOTH one. He lost in one of the earlier rounds of the first tournament. And he still has a chance to make it to the playoffs anyway. I don't think there's much room for complaint.

[Kaiserklein]

There's room for complaints because:
- 2 players made it to the playoffs by lagging, taking the spot of legit players
- Treaty and DM are taken into account while they have literally nothing to do with sup playoffs
- BO1 isn't competitive
- Around half of the players participating in the playoffs are really not top 8

[Cometk]

what is the alternative to bo1? 10 hour tournaments?
and i don’t see that great of an issue with the top 8 not being the top 8. are we supposed to do what’s expected every single time? besides tit and kynesie, of the players currently in the playoffs, who do you have an issue with being there?

[InsectPoison]

what is the alternative to bo1? 10 hour tournaments?
and i don’t see that great of an issue with the top 8 not being the top 8. are we supposed to do what’s expected every single time? besides tit and kynesie, of the players currently in the playoffs, who do you have an issue with being there?

Probably dicktator cos he won treaty and deathmatch , not my opinion btw.

[Kaiserklein]

what is the alternative to bo1? 10 hour tournaments?

You can just make ro16 BO3.

and i don’t see that great of an issue with the top 8 not being the top 8. are we supposed to do what’s expected every single time? besides tit and kynesie, of the players currently in the playoffs, who do you have an issue with being there?

Well, why "besides tit and kynesie"? Would be a good start to apply the rules and kick laggers out of tourneys as a starter.
Besides them, I was mostly thinking about lukas (he's a good sup player but definitely not top 8), but looks like he's not anymore in the top 8. Though we'll have to see after the last sup cup, cause the standings will change. And then hazza and osmane are probably not 1v1 top 8, they got most of their points from the 2v2 tourney, but they're good players for sure.

[deleted_user0]

Why the are you even discussing point rules now?
Why not before the season started. Too late to make any changes lol.

Tit doesn't lag. Kynesie probably should fix his shit but because admins didn't DQ them now it's too late to complain. And saying top 8 players are not real top 8 is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Why do we even play football world cup any year?
Simply crown the team with the highest odds of winning according to betting sites and we have found the best team without playing any game.

[Goodspeed]

I'm not sure who you are referring to with 2 ro8 finishes but my point was that even though you use a different point award metric, the result is very close to the current result. You said the best of the best don't play. I'm pointing out that the best of the best pretty much do play, or they aren't playing in your example either, as the people in the play offs in your example are the same people or they are about the same level as the people who are currently set play the play offs.

It was less close when I posted that. Raphael wasn't in the top 8 either and there were some other differences, I don't remember exactly but my main point was that winning a sup event should get you a spot in the playoffs pretty much always, even if you don't play/win anything else.

As for kaiser, he did win a tournament, but it wasn't very stacked, it was maybe even the least stacked together with the KOTH one.

You can't award points based on how stacked something is because it's subjective. What you can do, I think I posted this here somewhere, is award points per game based on the strength of the opposing player, and calculate that based on their previous games throughout the season, but this would only work if you didn't include alt game modes (this would mess with players' win pct causing the system to under- or overrate them).

What would you propose? The disagreement is in the numbers, I'm curious what you think the right numbers are.

[Goodspeed]

Why the are you even discussing point rules now?
Why not before the season started. Too late to make any changes lol.

For next events.

[deleted_user0]

I'm not sure who you are referring to with 2 ro8 finishes but my point was that even though you use a different point award metric, the result is very close to the current result. You said the best of the best don't play. I'm pointing out that the best of the best pretty much do play, or they aren't playing in your example either, as the people in the play offs in your example are the same people or they are about the same level as the people who are currently set play the play offs.

It was less close when I posted that. Raphael wasn't in the top 8 either and there were some other differences, I don't remember exactly but my main point was that winning a sup event should get you a spot in the playoffs pretty much always, even if you don't play/win anything else.

As for kaiser, he did win a tournament, but it wasn't very stacked, it was maybe even the least stacked together with the KOTH one.

You can't award points based on how stacked something is because it's subjective. What you can do, I think I posted this here somewhere, is award points per game based on the strength of the opposing player, and calculate that based on their previous games throughout the season, but this would only work if you didn't include alt game modes (this would mess with players' win pct causing the system to under- or overrate them).

What would you propose? The disagreement is in the numbers, I'm curious what you think the right numbers are.

I dont agree that winning one should guarantee a spot in the playoffs. And stacked is not that subjective. I mean we dont have a super accurate way perhaps, but u could get somewhere with an total and or average elo.

I personally think something like
10-7-4-2 for 1-8 would be good. And add or deduct points based on size.

The thing you and others seem to miss is that this format AIMS to reward participation and consistency.

So if someone reaches the semis 3x in a row, he should go to the playoffs over someone who played once and then didnt play anymore. And if someone wins once, but then plays more but doesnt win anything, its arguable to say he deserves a spot more than the 3x semi finalist. It works like this in football and many other sports as well.

I think this is fine. You can make something that only rewards winners. Thats fine too. But its something else

[Kaiserklein]

Why the are you even discussing point rules now?
Why not before the season started. Too late to make any changes lol.

For the next event. Since the admins apparently keep disagreeing with the complaints, I'm afraid the rules don't improve for the next event. Plus it's not too late to change the rules for the playoffs, after all they already changed the amount of players from 6 to 8.

Tit doesn't lag. Kynesie probably should fix his shit but because admins didn't DQ them now it's too late to complain.

Tit lags. Lordraphael complained several times about the lag in the koth finals I think. And there has been many tourney series where tit was blatantly lagging.
"now it's too late" yeah, when we keep saying that instead of acting, at the end of the day it gets really late. Could have been done way earlier, can still be done. It's even written in the rules that lag is a ground for disqualification.
But yeah it's really getting too late, because we never get an answer from esoc regarding that. Why? Because the staff doesn't know what to do. They disagree, because apparently some people there don't think kynesie's lag is obvious enough to motivate a disqualification... So we just keep waiting, until one day maybe they decide what they do with kynesie, and yeah then it will be too late because we will be in the playoffs already.

And saying top 8 players are not real top 8 is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Why do we even play football world cup any year? Simply crown the team with the highest odds of winning according to betting sites and we have found the best team without playing any game.

Not saying it should always be the exact same top 8. Was just pointing out that some people get points from stuff that has not much to do with 1v1 sup, so it just fucks up the "top 8" and makes it not very representative.

[Aykin Haraka]

speed test

[deleted_user0]

so why do you lag? must be that "oh shit i'm losing... what now? lagswitch"!

[Aykin Haraka]

i have this today

[zoom]

The scoring system makes it so that the events you consider to be less competitive do not reward the players as much as they do in the larger supremacy tournaments. You should read my earlier response and you should review the point system chart.

They still reward enough to make you be a part of the playoffs... Which are exclusively sup? For example I earned 9 points from winning a sup cup (I know a lot of high level players couldn't participate in it, but still) while winning DM or blitz tourney still grants you 7 points...
Tbh we're just lucky that dick and lukas are also really good at sup. Like I said earlier, with these rules, you could have a pure treaty/DM player reach the playoffs. How would we do then? :S

The 1st place 7 points are equivalent to a Ro4 finish in a larger tournament and the 2nd place 5 points are equivalent to a Ro8 finish. You could have a pure treaty/DM player make the playoffs but in practice we won’t see that.

If you’re looking to influence how the format for Season 2 will work, what you’ve said and what others have posted as well will certainly be taken into consideration for how we run the next event.

ESOC's been making some questionable decisions lately. Still, I'm looking forward to the play-offs.

Such as?

Hosting one tournament per year. That's the worst one by far.

[zoom]

speed test

Ping Kynesie, did we?

[Aykin Haraka]

what?

[momuuu]

The only flaw I personally see is that DM/Treaty/Team games matter for a mostly 1v1 tournament. In theory it isn't a problem, but I personally feel like most people are by far the most interested in 1v1 sup and the playoffs will also be 1v1 sup. For me personally it's stupid that gamemodes I don't care about (DM, Treaty, Team games) will end up being very relevant in the only competitive thing there is right now. I'd have preferred just having 8 1v1 sup cups I think. But hey, surely there are people out there that think it should only be treaty, or only team games, or only DM, and there's probably also people out there that like any mix of the game modes, so in that sense it's pure bias.

I would say though that the community generally prefers 1v1 games, as that's what most people tend to play, definitely the most balanced tournament mode and by far the most enjoyable to watch (DM games seem like short TR games, TR booming is terrible for the viewing experience and sup team games are a bit chaotic). Also, I believe twitch viewer counts are always highest if its 1v1. So that's the only bit of objectivity there is to this case. Might be pretty relevant though.

[princeofcarthage]

I think what you all are missing is the fact that playoffs initially were meant to be a combination of 6 game modes played. However math didn't turn out as expected and we thought the rules and the format might become too complicated for players to remember thus increasing confusion during streams, and hard to keep track for us aswell. So it was scrapped in the end a simple playoff was kept.

We also flirted with the idea of round robin and hence had selected top 6, but again we ran into organizational problems and some things which went against the basics upon which weekend tours are played.

Hence in the end, we decided to go for single elimination playoffs, and hence players increased from 6 - 8.

I hope this clears up few things.

Regarding complaints, I believe we have always listened to community and acted upon it where possible. We are always looking for suggestions to improve the concept and format and like I already said, suggestions will be taken into consideration for next season.

It is not possible to please everyone and we have to make as unbiased descions as possible.

Also speaking in terms of format weekend tours is different than regular seasonal, so it probably doesn't suits every taste but it doesn't neccessarily mean its a bad thing.

I hope you enjoy sup cup 3 and playoffs.
Beef,

[momuuu]

Well, if playoffs had features all game modes I personally think that would've been even worse. I just don't think theres a serious playerbase or viewerbase that would enjoy these combination events. Dicktator, lukas and comet are the only ones that come to mind that play sup/TR a reasonable amount and are at least decent at both gamemodes. It just turns out most people focus on one of the gamemodes. The only serious overlap is between sup team and sup 1v1.

[Goodspeed]

And stacked is not that subjective. I mean we dont have a super accurate way perhaps, but u could get somewhere with an total and or average elo.

Imo you should decide player strength not based on ELO but based on past performance in that season (or combined with the one before). I don't necessarily mind reducing points based on how stacked the event is.

I personally think something like
10-7-4-2 for 1-8 would be good. And add or deduct points based on size.

That sounds fine too. What about the alt events?

The thing you and others seem to miss is that this format AIMS to reward participation and consistency.

I'm not missing that, and it's still true with my point proposal. One first is 20 points, but 3 3rd/4th is 18 too. I think that's proportionate. I should say though that I would combine it with removing the "only the best 3 results count" rule so that people are not discouraged from participating more than 3 times. The necessity of this rule shows that there is a problem with the point distribution currently. I'm assuming you are also proposing to remove that rule. Otherwise my system is actually rewarding participation more than yours.

So if someone reaches the semis 3x in a row, he should go to the playoffs over someone who played once and then didnt play anymore. And if someone wins once, but then plays more but doesnt win anything, its arguable to say he deserves a spot more than the 3x semi finalist. It works like this in football and many other sports as well.

Football is not RTS. I'm comparing our system with Starcraft 2's WCS system, which awards relatively more points to the winner.
Again I think 3 semis should be worth about as much as 1 first, and my proposal reflects that. Actually yours and mine are not that different, except mine awards relatively much less for 5th-8th finishes. This is mostly because I think 5th-8th finishes are disproportionately easy to achieve in small tournaments like these.

I think this is fine. You can make something that only rewards winners. Thats fine too. But its something else

I don't think my proposal does that. Do you even realize that yours is barely different?
Mine: 20, 12, 6, 2
Yours: 20, 14, 8, 4

[princeofcarthage]

Yes weekend tours were meant to reward a player overall good in all modes of aoe 3 rather than a single mode. If you can't accept this basic fact. Agreed its not what you want to see but that doesn't make it worse/bad.

[deleted_user0]

And stacked is not that subjective. I mean we dont have a super accurate way perhaps, but u could get somewhere with an total and or average elo.

Imo you should decide player strength not based on ELO but based on past performance in that season (or combined with the one before). I don't necessarily mind reducing points based on how stacked the event is.

I personally think something like
10-7-4-2 for 1-8 would be good. And add or deduct points based on size.

That sounds fine too. What about the alt events?

The thing you and others seem to miss is that this format AIMS to reward participation and consistency.

I'm not missing that, and it's still true with my point proposal. One first is 20 points, but 3 3rd/4th is 18 too. I think that's proportionate. I should say though that I would combine it with removing the "only the best 3 results count" rule so that people are not discouraged from participating more than 3 times. The necessity of this rule shows that there is a problem with the point distribution currently. I'm assuming you are also proposing to remove that rule. Otherwise my system is actually rewarding participation more than yours.

So if someone reaches the semis 3x in a row, he should go to the playoffs over someone who played once and then didnt play anymore. And if someone wins once, but then plays more but doesnt win anything, its arguable to say he deserves a spot more than the 3x semi finalist. It works like this in football and many other sports as well.

Football is not RTS. I'm comparing our system with Starcraft 2's WCS system, which awards relatively more points to the winner.
Again I think 3 semis should be worth about as much as 1 first, and my proposal reflects that. Actually yours and mine are not that different, except mine awards relatively much less for 5th-8th finishes. This is mostly because I think 5th-8th finishes are disproportionately easy to achieve in small tournaments like these.

I think this is fine. You can make something that only rewards winners. Thats fine too. But its something else

I don't think my proposal does that. Do you even realize that yours is barely different?
Mine: 20, 12, 6, 2
Yours: 20, 14, 8, 4

i'm not proposing to remove it. But i'm fine with removing it.

I know that ours are barely different. but yours and what's currently happening isn't that different either. we're talking about small differences here. And i think the fact that your system awards 2 points less to lower ranked spots is a big thing. I do agree that top8 is relatively easy to achieve, so perhaps 2 or 3 points should be fairer. but the +2 points for 2nd and 3/4th do matter.

[Cometk]

I personally think something like
10-7-4-2 for 1-8 would be good. And add or deduct points based on size.

That sounds fine too. What about the alt events?

what exactly might you consider to be alt events? i think we agree that, for example, the mono-civ cup, while being a modified sup format, is clearly a competitive gamemode worthy of being scored fully. besides dm/trt obviously, would you discount something like the formats you proposed earlier in this thread, such as a colonial-age-start tournament or a tournament played on fast speed?

The thing you and others seem to miss is that this format AIMS to reward participation and consistency.

I'm not missing that, and it's still true with my point proposal. One first is 20 points, but 3 3rd/4th is 18 too. I think that's proportionate. I should say though that I would combine it with removing the "only the best 3 results count" rule so that people are not discouraged from participating more than 3 times. The necessity of this rule shows that there is a problem with the point distribution currently. I'm assuming you are also proposing to remove that rule. Otherwise my system is actually rewarding participation more than yours.

i think that, with the current point system, the "only-best-3" does NOT discourage players from competing in more than 3 events. for example, kaiser got knocked out early in the first sup cup, so to make up for that he would need to participate in more than 3 tournaments to get a playoffs score he's satisfied with. the "only-best-3" rule is to ensure that players DON'T have to play in EVERY tournament to remain competitive for the season, but need to play enough to give a reasonable sample size. but if the scoring were to be drastically changed to become more top-loaded, then i suppose the circumstances are different.

So if someone reaches the semis 3x in a row, he should go to the playoffs over someone who played once and then didnt play anymore. And if someone wins once, but then plays more but doesnt win anything, its arguable to say he deserves a spot more than the 3x semi finalist. It works like this in football and many other sports as well.

Football is not RTS. I'm comparing our system with Starcraft 2's WCS system, which awards relatively more points to the winner.

can you link me to the format for how that's run?

[Goodspeed]

I personally think something like
10-7-4-2 for 1-8 would be good. And add or deduct points based on size.

That sounds fine too. What about the alt events?

what exactly might you consider to be alt events? i think we agree that, for example, the mono-civ cup, while being a modified sup format, is clearly a competitive gamemode worthy of being scored fully. besides dm/trt obviously, would you discount something like the formats you proposed earlier in this thread, such as a colonial-age-start tournament or a tournament played on fast speed?

I would count special rules events fully, as these are still sup events with special rules that everyone had equal opportunity to prepare for. I would discount (rather count 50%) DM, Treaty, and sup 2v2 (which means your team still gets 100%).

I think that, with the current point system, the "only-best-3" does NOT discourage players from competing in more than 3 events. for example, kaiser got knocked out early in the first sup cup, so to make up for that he would need to participate in more than 3 tournaments to get a playoffs score he's satisfied with. the "only-best-3" rule is to ensure that players DON'T have to play in EVERY tournament to remain competitive for the season, but need to play enough to give a reasonable sample size. but if the scoring were to be drastically changed to become more top-loaded, then i suppose the circumstances are different.

Right. With more points for 1st through 4th, you don't necessarily need this anymore and can encourage participation without risking that people have to participate in many events even though they already got a few very good results.

can you link me to the format for how that's run?

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcra ... s-released

WCS is run per region, and consists of 3-4 large events per region and some lesser ones that don't give as many pts. The top X players per region are then qualified for the global finals at Blizzcon.
Because there are much less events, a major event victory all but guarantees a spot in the global finals.

[Hazza54321]

Replace me with tedere tbh