Quote from: MonkeyIsland on June 18, 2021, 11:33 AM
Someone should wear the crown after the end of the season.

Quote from: Komito on June 18, 2021, 12:07 PM
To be quite honest though, i'd be happy enough just to have every scheme available as it's own standings

I think the benefit of having single playoffs is that there's a greater degree of reward involved (coz king!  ). But to be honest, I didn't really find it that rewarding when I participated in HAL (Hysteria/Aerial) playoffs (especially when you also have to arrange games with people who cannot play at certain time), but that's probably because there wasn't enough of players to make it rewarding. Having scheme standings per season sounds like a good idea to me.

We already have scheme standings per season. E.g. Team17 standing of this season:

https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/allround-standings/aTeam17/

Oh yeah I've totally forgot about this. But the discoverability issue is still there, and it would be beneficial to include curated list of schemes playable in league-style as suggested before, so those really stand out just like individual leagues.

After thinking about this, I guess this is one of the reasons why Free league exists. Perhaps it would be enough to change Free league rules so that players are free to play whatever schemes they like without first/second picks (including the ones present in Allround league).

Quote from: Xrayez on June 18, 2021, 12:46 PM
I think the benefit of having single playoffs is that there's a greater degree of reward involved (coz king!  ). But to be honest, I didn't really find it that rewarding when I participated in HAL (Hysteria/Aerial) playoffs (especially when you also have to arrange games with people who cannot play at certain time), but that's probably because there wasn't enough of players to make it rewarding. Having scheme standings per season sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm not sure what happened with those Playoffs, although I remember HAL.

That's why only the most popular schemes would have Playoffs, to make it feel worthwhile.

After all, if there are only 4 people playing a scheme, what would be the point?

If 40 people are playing Big RR, Mole Shopper, or Hysteria, that's worth a final showdown!

Quote from: Xrayez on June 18, 2021, 01:27 PM
Oh yeah I've totally forgot about this. But the discoverability issue is still there, and it would be beneficial to include curated list of schemes playable in league-style as suggested before, so those really stand out just like individual leagues.

Yep, that's the idea of having the pre-curated lists, it's basically just pre-made selections of popular schemes. This way you can still show respect to the oldschool players by having curated selections of "Classic" schemes of the past. Yet still accommodate the new generation of players.

Win/Win for everyone!

Quote from: Xrayez on June 18, 2021, 01:27 PM
After thinking about this, I guess this is one of the reasons why Free league exists. Perhaps it would be enough to change Free league rules so that players are free to play whatever schemes they like without first/second picks (including the ones present in Allround league).

That's essentially what this idea is, plus the filters. A combination of 2 important aspects:

• Let people compete in any and only the schemes they choose.
• Custom and pre-curated selections of standings to compare yourself to other players.

I'm afraid that not many schemes would be popular enough for season playoffs. I'd personally be interested in participating maybe in 5 scheme ladders (out of all the Allround League schemes) but I'm not sure if I have the time for that. I might need to pick a few ladders and forget about the rest. I'd also still like to have some sort of all-around competition and I'm not sure how it could work along with single scheme ladders.

I see single scheme ladders as a replacement for Free League. People could compete in almost any scheme and see the all-time ranking of that scheme. If a scheme is popular enough, it could also have playoffs at the end of a season. Likewise each Allround League scheme could have season playoffs if they are popular enough (either completely separate ladders like TEL or a combination of games that were played in Allround League and "TEL").

I don't like the idea of making playoff criteria based on schemes' popularity within a season. It's too unpredictable. You play scheme X and then at the end of the season it drops out of top 8 schemes and you lose a ton of points in the allround standing. It also encourages to pick and play schemes that are currently in top 8 because why risk playing a scheme that might not affect your position in the allround standing?

Regarding Allround League, I agree that 11 schemes is a lot. Not to mention that players can focus on different schemes and then you are comparing the players like apples and oranges (one player has focused on schemes 1-6 and the other on schemes 6-11). I'd like to test an all-around league that has only 5 or 6 schemes.

Quote from: Senator on June 18, 2021, 07:46 PM
I don't like the idea of making playoff criteria based on schemes' popularity within a season. It's too unpredictable. You play scheme X and then at the end of the season it drops out of top 8 schemes and you lose a ton of points in the allround standing.

When you mention "allround standing",  are you talking about one of the pre-curated filters? Or something else?

Remember the point of this system is to allow players to mix'n'match any schemes they wish to view as a collective standing, at any time they please, players could save their favourite lists.

The pre-curated lists could be anything the staff decide, which can be based on suitable categories such as racing, ground, strategic, artillery, oldschool, luck-based, skill-based, etc. Those are simply example lists, kind of like a "We think you may like these" sort of thing.

With the new system, it technically still shows the old system included in it's flexible database.

When I think about making playoffs based on popularity within a season, the fact that some schemes are unpredictable actually make it more fascinating, you may or may not have one of your favourite schemes make an appearance in the Playoffs.

---

Quote from: Senator on June 18, 2021, 07:46 PM
It also encourages to pick and play schemes that are currently in top 8 because why risk playing a scheme that might not affect your position in the allround standing?

That is what is so good about this! For those who only care about schemes which make Playoffs, those who only want to compete in what is popular, they are free to do so! Those who only want to play specific schemes regardless if they make Playoffs or not, are free to do so!

You, and everyone else, as a player, has complete control over deciding what is worth playing, it will implement a sort of 'survival-of-the-fittest' aspect of popular schemes.

This is why the system suits every playstyle.

I'd be happy to play schemes I love even if only 3-4 other players enjoy them. I'm very confident at least one scheme I love will make Playoffs this way, and if not, maybe next time!

Quote from: Senator on June 18, 2021, 07:46 PM
Regarding Allround League, I agree that 11 schemes is a lot. Not to mention that players can focus on different schemes and then you are comparing the players like apples and oranges (one player has focused on schemes 1-6 and the other on schemes 6-11). I'd like to test an all-around league that has only 5 or 6 schemes.

Yeah, that has been my problem with playing Singles ever since I started this game back in 1999, and the main reason i've always focused on Clanners as it's like you are part of an army, an army with soldiers who collectively can handle all schemes and it's great to support each other, you don't have to worry about enjoying all the schemes because you can find players who do!

Quote from: Komito on June 18, 2021, 08:34 PM
When you mention "allround standing",  are you talking about one of the pre-curated filters? Or something else?

I was talking about MI's idea:

QuoteAfter the season is done, TUS system checks for top 8 played schemes based on number of participants. For example if 2 players play 100 Team17 matches, the popularity number for Team17 would be 2 but if 10 people play 50 BnG matches, the popularity number would be 10.  So after picking up the top 8 popular schemes, the playoffs would be set based on those.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought he meant that we would make an allround standing using the 8 most popular schemes and then have allround playoffs with those schemes.

Quote from: Senator on June 18, 2021, 09:04 PM
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought he meant that we would make an allround standing using the 8 most popular schemes and then have allround playoffs with those schemes.

I misunderstoof as well, so thanks for showing me it was not a solo quest. 

So MonkeyIsland is suggesting a way how to create Playoffs from the system that was discussed here.

So the allround standings collection would always be available(either as a pre-curated set, or a custom set by any individual).

If I understood what MI proposed correctly for Playoffs, at the end of a Season, or simply every 2 months or something, the most popular 8 played schemes would be chosen as the Playoffs. I'm guessing those 8 schemes would also be under a pre-curated set as one of the earlier examples in the thread under "Most popular schemes". If Playoffs were created this way, participants could keep an eye on the "Most popular schemes" set as a sort of prediction what the Playoffs would look like for that 'Season'.

@MonkeyIsland - That sounds about right doesn't it? Please correct us if that's wrong.

Yes That's correct. If we implement this system, there will be a page that predicts the playoffs schemes based on the current season popularity. It helps players to see what the current popular schemes are.

@Senator,
It is only about how we handle playoffs. It has nothing to do with standings. There will be pre-curated filters that show "allround" standings or "default" standings.

This is a raw idea at the moment. Sounds very promising but I think it needs work. Overall I'm up for it.
The schemes are a lot. Allowing players to play *any* scheme they want: Do you think it's possible we end up with so many different schemes getting played but only few players for each? Does it divide the games too much? There are quite a few team17 schemes:

https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/search/team17/

Every single one of them can't be allowed to be played. I think regulating schemes is the most important part.

When you say that the 8 most popular schemes will be chosen as the playoffs, do you mean 8 separate single scheme playoffs or 1 all-around playoff that consists of 8 schemes? I thought you meant the latter.

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on June 19, 2021, 06:43 AM
Allowing players to play *any* scheme they want: Do you think it's possible we end up with so many different schemes getting played but only few players for each?

People should post a request about a new scheme and have 5 interested players or so. If the scheme is too different from an existing scheme, then it can be added. I believe most of those T17 variants would go under regular T17.

Yes I meant the latter. The schemes for playoffs of each season will be based the 8 most popular schemes of that season.

Regarding the Team17 example, most variations are different in crate probability. Yet there are so many players with different tastes.

Take this example, if I take deadcode's Team17 scheme and add one homing missile to it. Am I allowed to report the new scheme separately? While deadcode plays with his Team17 version, mine would be a different scheme. don't you think managing all these variations would be a disaster?

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on June 19, 2021, 09:28 AM
Yes I meant the latter. The schemes for playoffs of each season will be based the 8 most popular schemes of that season.

Then it does have to do with standings or am I missing something? We don't know which schemes will give you points for top 8 schemes standings until the season is over. A scheme can drop out of top 8 at the very end and a player who had a lot of points from that scheme can lose a lot of points and drop out of playoffs as well.

A few other points:
- let's say TTRR is in top 8 schemes. Why would I accept a TTRR game vs Sbaffo as if it was a mutual pick when I'm most likely going to lose and it will affect my chances of getting in the top 8 schemes playoffs? If we are going to have all-around playoffs, people should be allowed to look for games the old way "top 8 schemes any1" so that both players can pick 1 scheme.
- top 8 schemes can be some weird mix like only strategic schemes + roping schemes and no artillery schemes at all. Allround League and previous all-around leagues have tried to cover most of the relevant skill sets needed in WA (while including only schemes that are popular enough). What's the point of winning top 8 schemes season? The point is no longer showing the best all-around player of WA because not all relevant skill sets are tested.
- a player can get in the top 8 schemes playoffs and then have to play a scheme he has never played before. Players who get in Allround League playoffs usually have played all the schemes at some point so there are no such free wins even though a TTRR game between a good roper and a default player can look like a free win.

@Team17 examples

I believe all those T17 schemes with different crate probabilities, Deadcode's T17 scheme and Deadcode's T17 scheme added with 1 missile would still be reported as regular Team17. If you make more drastic changes and have those 5 interested players or so, then the scheme would get its own standing and also a different name because it's no longer T17.

Another approach is to add only schemes that have already shown to be "league-worthy" (in cups and such) but were not added to Free League because Free League had too many schemes.

I'm sorry I think I threw you off.  I mean the 8 most popular schemes must be the pick selection of playoffs. The calculations for the standings stays untouched regardless of the popular schemes.

So it's possible that you get in the playoffs by playing totally different schemes than you will be playing in the playoffs? Is your "top 8 schemes" rating every scheme rating on TUS counted together (11+18 schemes in Allround League and Free League)?

Quote from: Senator on June 19, 2021, 10:37 AM
- let's say TTRR is in top 8 schemes. Why would I accept a TTRR game vs Sbaffo as if it was a mutual pick when I'm most likely going to lose and it will affect my chances of getting in the top 8 schemes playoffs? If we are going to have all-around playoffs, people should be allowed to look for games the old way "top 8 schemes any1" so that both players can pick 1 scheme.

This same issue is in the original idea. If I look for TUS TTRR in this single scheme ladder system and get randomly matched with Sbaffo, the game should affect my TTRR rating only, not my allround rating or my top 8 schemes rating. If I were to play with Sbaffo a TTRR game that affects my allround rating, I would want to have my own scheme pick so that I can get compensation for the TTRR loss. If I played with Sbaffo just 1 game for the allround ladder, it would be some middle-ground pick such as Roper. Another example: I'd like participate in Jetpack Race ladder and learn the scheme but playing Jetpack Race would make my Racing schemes rating worse than it would be if I focused on the racing schemes that I already know. I think single scheme ladders and allround ladders should be kept separated like Classic League and TEL were.

I took such a long time making this post that Senator posted again, although this post answers that anyway.

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on June 19, 2021, 06:43 AM
I think regulating schemes is the most important part.

I agree, this is the big issue that needs a healthy solution, one that accommodates the base idea yet also doesn't end up having unnecessary alternatives to schemes.

Question: Would there be a limit on the total# of schemes available, let's say, the system would support a maximum of 250 schemes? Would that number be higher or lower?

Quote from: Senator on June 19, 2021, 10:37 AM
Then it does have to do with standings or am I missing something? We don't know which schemes will give you points for top 8 schemes standings until the season is over. A scheme can drop out of top 8 at the very end and a player who had a lot of points from that scheme can lose a lot of points and drop out of playoffs as well.

Yes, this is one reason why i'd prefer individual scheme playoffs for the top 8 popular schemes.

Overall there are a few reasons why I think it's better

I'd like to address each of these points individually.

Quote from: Senator on June 19, 2021, 10:37 AM
A few other points:
- let's say TTRR is in top 8 schemes. Why would I accept a TTRR game vs Sbaffo as if it was a mutual pick when I'm most likely going to lose and it will affect my chances of getting in the top 8 schemes playoffs? If we are going to have all-around playoffs, people should be allowed to look for games the old way "top 8 schemes any1" so that both players can pick 1 scheme.

First off, I share that feeling. On top of not wanting to pick a specific scheme vs a specific person out of fear of losing, for me personally if I enjoy the scheme i'll play anyone, if I don't like the scheme i'll simply never play it, unless over time feelings change.

Now, personally I don't want Allround Playoffs the way MonkeyIsland suggests, however one solution to that problem could be to lock in the PO schemes halfway through the current season.

Quote from: Senator on June 19, 2021, 10:37 AM
- top 8 schemes can be some weird mix like only strategic schemes + roping schemes and no artillery schemes at all. Allround League and previous all-around leagues have tried to cover most of the relevant skill sets needed in WA (while including only schemes that are popular enough). What's the point of winning top 8 schemes season? The point is no longer showing the best all-around player of WA because not all relevant skill sets are tested.

So, i'm completely happy with the top 8 schemes that get picked for the Playoffs being the 8 most popular for that specific Season. Although that would be if it were individually based, as in 8 separate Playoffs for 8 separate schemes.

Personally speaking, I don't believe any League has ever shown who the best all-round player of WA is for several reasons:

• There has never been a complete selection of schemes in any one League, ever. Only the most popular ones.
• Even for the most popular schemes, every League has had it's flaws/loopholes:


• In the earlier days of WACL/cl2k there was DoN - Double or Nothing:


• This means if you were good enough at one scheme, you would never lose, accumulating 50:0 records.
• Players can avoid each other:


• This could be natural or planned avoidance.
• Players can manipulate the system knowing they can lose to the top 1-10 players, however beat everyone else pretty easily
• Players can avoid certain schemes:


• You can ask in #AG "TUS Elite anyone?" and play only this scheme.
• Avoiding the schemes your opponent is good at, knowing they will play anyway giving you a better chance to win.
• Players are free to analyze games to discover which scheme they gain the most points in:


• This can be manipulated to achieve incredibly high points overall, while avoiding many of the best players in each scheme.
• Players don't have to master every allround scheme as it was always a Bo3 or Bo5 format:


• As long as you master 3 schemes, just make sure you play and win enough games during the season to get first pick.
• Standings would look different if everyone plays everyone the same number of games.

To be honest, I could go on for hours about why the systems we've used have always shown unrealistic standings and are so easy to manipulate. An example of unrealistic standings is the fact I done it myself by always picking BnG due to the fact i'd refuse to play schemes I didn't like or simply hand out free wins by either just telling them to report their pick, or by playing deliberately self-destructive to make the game faster.

Yet I still topped the "Allround" standings for my first Season while literally throwing games when opponents picked strategic schemes like Team17 and Elite, Shopper or TTRR cuz I didn't enjoy those, and still made it to the Playoffs with a 81% win ratio, which I didn't even bother playing:



Now, you might think, "But his overall rating there sucks", yet at the end of ERA 1 for TUS, I finished 50th out of 1543 players and look much better than the truth if you dug deep enough:



This might sound like a brag, however it's not, it's to point out how easy it is to manipulate the allround standings. I managed that pretty much all because of BnG, i'm pretty sure at least 75% of my total games were BnG as half my opponents would pick BnG just to try and end my winning streak.

The point is, if you were good enough at one scheme you could do this if you outright refused to play certain schemes, if you were good enough at several schemes although carefully pick your games you could do this.

Interesting fact, Random00 only once achieved #1 in a Season once.

It must sound like I hate Random00 or something, he's actually a really nice guy lol, and obviously he's one of the greatest allround players there is. Yet, do you honestly believe he would have achieved this if he played the very best players more often:



What i'm saying is, Senator, in the entire history of this game, we've never truly showed an accurate depiction of who the best allround players are. Only ever a very rough estimate based on people picking and choosing to play other people based on their own agenda, there were even lots of people who won many games against good players yet never reported their wins.

Now, most of this is just my opinion, for other people the system is good enough, they are just happy to compete against other skilled players, and that's great, TUS has been the best League that ever existed in WA in my opinion.

The reason i've went into such weird details is to try and show why "allround" isn't really as big a deal as people make it out to be these days, i'd say there are at least about 100 league worthy schemes that we could be playing. However NOBODY is going to master all of those and play some playoffs which is like Bo99 lol.

So yeah, I support single scheme Playoffs so the most popular 8 schemes each Season have their own Playoffs, survival of the fittest, you could still show a collection of results for all those playoffs as some sort of allround thing if you want I guess?

Quote from: Senator on June 19, 2021, 10:37 AM
- a player can get in the top 8 schemes playoffs and then have to play a scheme he has never played before. Players who get in Allround League playoffs usually have played all the schemes at some point so there are no such free wins even though a TTRR game between a good roper and a default player can look like a free win.

I definitely agree with this, and yet another reason why I support single scheme Playoffs.

Quote from: Senator on June 19, 2021, 10:37 AM
Another approach is to add only schemes that have already shown to be "league-worthy" (in cups and such) but were not added to Free League because Free League had too many schemes.

This is the biggest issue we face, how do we manage this so it doesn't get out of control?

I am more than happy to offer my time and tedious persistence to help filter through all schemes we have and find those which are League worthy, although i'd refuse to do it alone, a team of people representing all types of players would be great.

I'd be happy to have a few hundred different standings to be honest, the question is how much work would that be for MonkeyIsland to code and how much would it cost to run the server?

I'd be more than happy to try out new schemes competitively knowing they do not affect my other custom standings collections/lists.

It would be nice to have that free will for once to try out new things and not have it f**k up all your previous hard work!