The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon
Leagues => Leagues General => Topic started by: TheKomodo on June 17, 2021, 10:03 AM
-
Please read all this, this type of League will benefit everyone, every type of player there is.
So at this point, it's awesome to see TFL become active again, and for a moment I almost thought about playing, then realized how much some of the schemes there frustrate and bore me, preventing me from actually taking part.
In TUS Allround, out of the 11 schemes i'd only ever pick 8 to play, i'd completely avoid Intermediate and Team17, and although i'd never pick Shopper i'd accept playing it, because of this, there's no point in me playing as it's considered avoiding.
In TUS Free League, out of the 20 schemes available, i'd only ever pick 10, i'd avoid 9, i'd accept playing opponents pick with 1. Yet again, there's no point me playing this as it would be avoiding.
How many people don't participate in Leagues because the selection of schemes do not support the schemes they actually enjoy playing?
Why do we have play like this? Wouldn't it be better if we are free to play whatever we enjoy playing?
Last year while WR and WL were merging to create a new League(which ultimately failed), M3ntal and I were discussing creating a League of our own which would solve this problem of people avoiding certain schemes. M3ntal came up with this idea:
There is no "Allround", "TEL", "Free League", "Classic League", "Rotated League".
Instead, every single scheme that is uploaded in the database will have it's own Standings page, and yes, that includes all variations of the scheme.
So now people can focus on only the schemes THEY like to play.
Now here's the best part of M3ntals idea which I absolutely loved.
Instead of having "Allround" and "Free" etc, the website will have it's own filters for showing collections of schemes.
So say you want to see who is the best at Kaos, you can select just Kaos. If you want to see who is the best at Kaos, Sheep Racer, BnG, Intermediate and Darts, you can select those 5 schemes and TUS will match all those individual schemes to show you an allround rating for those schemes you just selected.
People can choose to play only the schemes they enjoy, and choose to view an absolute all round for everything that exists, as well as a mixture of any and all schemes they wish to view together. This way each individual player can see how they stack up against every other player in those schemes they enjoy playing. This would be a huge incentive for any competitive player!
So you don't have to enjoy all the same schemes as everyone else, yet everyone can see how they stack up against everyone else in their preferred schemes!
There would be pre-curated filter sets for the most popular schemes so you wouldn’t have to, for example, manually select everyone’s variations on a rope race to get a general standing of rope race type schemes. There might even be an option to request your new scheme gets added to one of these filter sets when you upload it, and a moderator could approve that.
Quite frankly, it's the best idea i've ever heard for a League, however ultimately M3ntal became very busy in life again, and I started doing CWT stuff so we didn't bother.
Please, PLEASE, consider making this a reality with the new version of TUS you are working on MonkeyIsland, it's much better than the system we already have!
-
That's a good suggestion. But, in addition I would like to add something: The top 5 to 10 schemes that are being actively played could be accumulated into one league, ''Active Scheme League'' (ASL). Such league with its selection of scheme based on activity, would only last a season or so, until a new batch of active schemes are introduced to replace or stay in the next ASL. So the more people play Intermediate, Shopper, & Kaos e.g, these schemes would have big chance to be included in ASL.
Maybe it was suggested but I didn't get it. :o
-
That's a very good idea, Komito. Everyone enjoys playing their own preferences of schemes. This game has lots and lots of schemes and new schemes are always being created. The way the leagues are now, limit too much the number of schemes available to be played and people often refuse to play other schemes, sometimes you have to play a scheme you don't like to play... Anyway I think this would be a revolution in TUS and I wonder how the matchmaking system would work in this possible change. Would it work for each scheme? Would it warn if a scheme has more players attempting to play? It would be much better.
-
I'll go into a little bit more detail how this would work, so regarding how it would work for each scheme.
Schemes:
For example using the "Roper" scheme from "Rope/Classic/Allround" League schemes. Generally speaking changes such as changing Hotseat time, giving -/+ handicap for HP, changing the amount of health you receive when picking up a crate from like 10-25. These changes, at least in my opinion, are fine and don't change the actual scheme.
However if you use W2 Roper scheme the WR guys use, which has unrestricted rope(changes physics), and several different settings, or you use the ZaR Roper scheme, these are entirely different schemes with their own scheme page, so they will have their own standings page.
Big RR / Big ZaR RR / Tower Race would all have their own pages.
WxW / Fly Shopper / Surf Shopper would all have their own pages.
TTRR with milliseconds on/off would still count for the same scheme.
Hysteria with select worm is a completely different scheme(Selecsteria), and the other alternative versions I think DarkOne uploaded, would all have their own individual pages.
The actual changes allowed for the most popular schemes is something that would be up for debate or simply let us have faith in the TUS Staff to make the right decisions regarding this, which they usually always have. It's something I respect TUS Staff for, if they make a change you can appeal it, like what happened with the Anti-Lock BnG rule if you provide good reasoning.
Pre-Curated Filters:
The whole point of this League system is that no other League system will be required, ever again. It will also constantly favour the current popular schemes, and any time a new scheme is invented which people enjoy, such as 80hp, people can immediately start competing without having to go through the trial and error of TRL, Cups, Tournaments etc. You simply upload your scheme, and let people play it, if it's popular enough, the standings page will flourish.
NO MORE WAITING!
Each individual person registered on TUS can view the schemes they choose, and as mentioned before there will be pre-curated filters, for example:
- Racing Schemes - TTRR / Big RR / Big ZaR RR / Bungee Race / Jetpack Race / etc
- Strategic Schemes - Elite / Team17 / Intermediate / Abnormal / etc
- Artillery Schemes - Hysteria / BnG / Aerial / Selecsteria / Forts
- Top 10 - The 10 most played schemes
- Everything - All schemes on TUS database
- Rope Schemes - Roper / ZaR Roper / W2 Roper / TTRR / Tower Race / Big RR / etc
This is just an example of the pre-curated filters that can exist already, just to give players some popular grouping of schemes to see the standings.
Every scheme will have their own standings page, and as mentioned before, players can sit and mix'n'match any group of schemes they wish which will combine and show the standings for all of those together, you could have 3, 10, 30, 100, selected, it's entirely designed to give everyone both the optimal personal experience and optimal collective experience in competitive gameplay for the future of Worms Armageddon.
Playoffs:
It came to my attention we didn't discuss Playoffs.
We could either do away with Playoffs entirely or Playoffs could work in several different ways.
Every scheme could have their individual Playoffs, an alternative from mix'n'match style Playoffs, I like this idea personally although not sure how others would feel. Let me explain.
The tricky part would be how to organize Playoffs for a sort of allround collection of schemes if this is something many people look forward to. The thing to consider here is how much Worms Armageddon has evolved, is this style of Playoffs even suitable in modern times?
Which is why I think the better idea is Single Scheme Playoffs.
The benefit of single scheme Playoffs is you will still get to compete in all the schemes you enjoy if you play well enough against all the other players competing in those schemes, so you won't lose out on other schemes for Playoffs. It also means the actual PO will consist of people who specialize in those schemes and not just get trashed 3:0 because they reached Playoffs playing only one scheme. Personally I think this will make the overall skill level and intensity of these matches much higher and enjoyable.
-
[quotation from last Komito's post removed after Monkey Island's reply]
The more details I read, the more I like your idea. My question still remains: what about the matchmaking system?
I was thinking that TUS could have like a "Scheme Queues" board. This way you could see how many people are trying to find an opponent to a determined scheme. So, some schemes could find an opponent more easily than others. If the scheme you want to play is too underground and nobody is searching for a game using this scheme, maybe looking at other schemes queue the person finds a scheme he/she likes to play with more people searching for a game.
Or maybe the queues for matchmaking could be divided in groups of schemes: a queue for common schemes, queue for not-so-common schemes, queue for rarely-played schemes, queue for underground schemes (or new schemes).
-
Please do not quote the exact previous posts. It is redundant.
I like the idea. I like the idea of allowing to report on every scheme but we should have regulated schemes. There are more than 4000 schemes on TUS. Many may be duplicate or have very tiny changes. Allowing to report on every scheme just creates duplicated/unnecessary standings. Instead we should regulate those schemes. A group of people reviewing the schemes and mark them as "league playable". So ZAR roper would be qualified and it would be a separated scheme from W2 roper or the official roper. (all 3 can be played obviously) But 2 versions of TTRR will minimal changes should be marked as one.
I don't like combining any scheme selection and TUS has to calculate a custom standing for you. Why should you be able to select BoomRace with Hysteria to see a standing? What's the point? Standings is a way to show how the competition is going on. Now every player can find a custom standing where they shine. It reduces the quality of the competition. (Pre-Curated Filters sounds OK)
Back to the main idea: If we take this rout, I would like to suggest a better system based on your ideas:
We set a period like 2-3 months for the league season. Only one league. Then we let players to play their favorite schemes. After 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.
The cool thing about this idea is that it allows any scheme to become popular. It's like schemes compete to be in playoffs. If in a season, WxW is played less but Darts becomes popular, Dart would be chosen to be in playoffs. If someone creates a new scheme and they are worried the scheme is not getting enough attention. Now they have a chance to play it in league and try to raise the popularity of the scheme to be in playoffs.
So far so good but there will be flaws. Will this system kill some oldschool schemes? TTRR requires lots of practice. Can TTRR hold popularity? Does this system drop TTRR?
-
I like the idea. I like the idea of allowing to report on every scheme but we should have regulated schemes. There are more than 4000 schemes on TUS. Many may be duplicate or have very tiny changes. Allowing to report on every scheme just creates duplicated/unnecessary standings. Instead we should regulate those schemes. A group of people reviewing the schemes and mark them as "league playable". So ZAR roper would be qualified and it would be a separated scheme from W2 roper or the official roper. (all 3 can be played obviously) But 2 versions of TTRR will minimal changes should be marked as one.
4000, wow... I thought there were maybe 400 or something.
I'm more than happy to offer my services to trawl through checking schemes, even better if there were a team of competitive players happy to test schemes like this, sift through them all.
I don't like combining any scheme selection and TUS has to calculate a custom standing for you. Why should you be able to select BoomRace with Hysteria to see a standing? What's the point? Standings is a way to show how the competition is going on. Now every player can find a custom standing where they shine. It reduces the quality of the competition. (Pre-Curated Filters sounds OK)
The idea has to work as previously said with the custom filters and letting people use what schemes they want, or it isn't worth it, the whole point is to work exactly as mentioned above. I do think an acceptable compromise is trawling through all the schemes to narrow them down to make sure there aren't pointless copies like you said, everything else should remain as explained though.
I've answered your question "Why should you be able to select BoomRace with Hysteria to see a standing? What's the point?" already, although i'm happy to answer it again:
This game and it's playerbase have evolved to the point it's not simple to find 2 players who enjoy exactly the same schemes and only those schemes, even the Intermediate players in NNN have at some point or another dabbled in other schemes even if the main thing they want to play is Intermediate.
If you ask me, the current system is a joke and has been since day one, nothing has managed to cater to everyones individual tastes, forever people have had to accept what the popular people wanted.
This game is often compared to real life olympics, each "scheme" is compared to each "event". In real life, every individual event has professionals who specialize in that thing, often you have people who specialize in several different events, although never have I seen any athlete who trains and wins medals in all of them.
The entire point of the system exactly as I described it is to enable a League which caters to absolutely everyone. I'm very surprised you think it reduces the quality of the competition because the opposite is true from another perspective.
People can avoid the schemes they don't want to play, they can happily search for specific schemes in TUS without being laballed a noob, a coward, or far worse. The quality of competition will be much higher because you should be able to compete against the current best players for each individual scheme who is currently active.
Personally I think the current way the system works is not, nor has ever been a true reflection of all round skill because people always have and always will manipulate their games, for example when I started playing singles in TUS 75% of my games were BnG and I reached #1 for the Playoffs spot for that Season, and then pulled out because I didn't want to play Playoffs all that was interesting to me was BnG, since then i've realized it doesn't fit to play a single scheme in that system and ruins the allround standings.
Another example, while I think Random00 is a great allround player, in my eyes he is nowhere near as good as his standings made him look, he completely manipulated the system to reach the ridiculous rank he had, carefully paying attention to who was online when picking his matches, making sure to pick his opponents weakest schemes where he would gain the most points. After I beat him in BnG i'd never see him again for a rematch. There were plenty players who could beat him in every scheme yet he always found a way to play at optimal times picking optimal schemes to get the most points. There is nothing wrong with that, i'm just giving an example of how allround never is or never will be truly accurate for the simple fact that not everyone wants to play all the schemes.
Another example, for clanners, a lot of people will agree CF done the same thing in Clanners. In an ideal system everyone would play everyone at everything, however there just isn't the time, the playerbase or incentive for that.
Also, every player finding a custom standing where they shine is not as easy as you may think. If they want to create their own scheme nobody else plays just to be the best at that, let them! The most popular schemes will always have the highest skill for competition, therefor making it just as hard to reach the top in the popular schemes. The custom filters is a way to see how you stack up against everyone else in a mix'n'match of different schemes.
So a player can compare how they stack up against other players in specific rope schemes they enjoy, while ignoring others they don't, or they might want to see how they stack up in just 3-4 schemes. The fact that there are individual standings for every scheme make sure people don't have to play schemes they don't like, the most popular schemes will have the best standings pages and feel the competition the most, making them more rewarding and satisfying for players to achieve being the best at.
Back to the main idea: If we take this rout, I would like to suggest a better system based on your ideas:
We set a period like 2-3 months for the league season. Only one league. Then we let players to play their favorite schemes. After 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.
The cool thing about this idea is that it allows any scheme to become popular. It's like schemes compete to be in playoffs. If in a season, WxW is played less but Darts becomes popular, Dart would be chosen to be in playoffs. If someone creates a new scheme and they are worried the scheme is not getting enough attention. Now they have a chance to play it in league and try to raise the popularity of the scheme to be in playoffs.
So far so good but there will be flaws. Will this system kill some oldschool schemes? TTRR requires lots of practice. Can TTRR hold popularity? Does this system drop TTRR?
The idea already presented let's people play their favourite schemes anyway, not only that, your idea is limited and restricted. It has a time limit, it has an unnecessary point system, it makes things more complex.
Personally speaking, i'd rather just keep things the way they are if M3ntals idea is not adopted.
I would always rather let people play what they want, when they want, for as long as they want, regardless if it's 1 game per year or 100,000.
The suggested system means new schemes can be setup and activated almost instantly without waiting, without trials, just load it into TUS database and go.
A scheme can become incredibly popular within weeks, or it can slowly build up over time, so I personally don't like your idea sorry.
The only problem is, I never realized there are 4000 schemes lol, however i'm prepared to spend 1-2 months sifting through schemes to sort these out if it revolutionizes the way we compete in this game.
Also, about oldschool schemes, if those are killed in favour of new schemes, so be it, let it happen.
Those schemes had their glory, it's time to adapt and let the current generation dictate the current popular schemes and competition.
-
Wow. 4000 schemes! lol
Yeah there are also the "joke schemes" haha
For me Monkey Island's proposal seems better than what we have now, even though I would always prefer a system with more variety of schemes and freedom
I don't see severe flaws, since the popularity of the schemes always change with time. Now people are playing Kaos more than Super Sheep Race that has 5 pages of maps in WMDB. You have just to accept the reality. Those famous schemes that will not appear in playoffs anymore may still be played in the leagues, in Cups and in Tournaments. They will never die.
-
My idea doesn't have any conflict with the original idea. It is only about the playoffs. To have playoffs, you need to make the league season-based. In each season, players play whatever scheme they want like the proposed idea. The playoffs picks most popular schemes out of those. That's it.
-
My idea doesn't have any conflict with the original idea. It is only about the playoffs. To have playoffs, you need to make the league season-based. In each season, players play whatever scheme they want like the proposed idea. The playoffs picks most popular schemes out of those. That's it.
Ah!
Yes! I see what you mean, sorry!
I've misread a few words in your paragraph, i've read it again.
We set a period like 2-3 months for the league season. Only one league. Then we let players to play their favorite schemes. After 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.
The cool thing about this idea is that it allows any scheme to become popular. It's like schemes compete to be in playoffs. If in a season, WxW is played less but Darts becomes popular, Dart would be chosen to be in playoffs. If someone creates a new scheme and they are worried the scheme is not getting enough attention. Now they have a chance to play it in league and try to raise the popularity of the scheme to be in playoffs.
So far so good but there will be flaws. Will this system kill some oldschool schemes? TTRR requires lots of practice. Can TTRR hold popularity? Does this system drop TTRR?
Your idea makes sense now, I have questions:
What would the requirement be for reaching Playoffs?
Do you have to play the schemes you didn't actually compete in?
What if you played 4/8 of those schemes and had a great season, made the playoffs, although you refuse to play the other 4 schemes, does this mean you forfeit the Playoffs?
This is why I prefer the idea of having single scheme playoffs, even if it's only the Top 8 schemes involved, so long as you don't have to play the schemes you don't enjoy, i'm happy with that tbh.
-
As I recall, the only reason why I started playing TUS long time ago was Hysteria scheme. And for a good chunk of time, I've been picking Hysteria all the time. I did not like most of the schemes that people picked (other than those which share artillery aspects like BnG), and I was kind of forced to play those in the past. The absolute worst experience for me was to play TTRR. Unlike other schemes, most people who pick TTRR are extremely proficient in it.
So yeah, I confirm that nowadays, one of the reasons why I wouldn't want to play TUS is exactly because I'd also need to play other schemes I don't like. The only reason why I've become better at other schemes is because I had to play them, but I wouldn't say I like them, though what you hate initially tends to transform into what you like, but that's more like Stockholm syndrome rather than love, when you try to understand and justify why people find those schemes enjoyable in the first place. :D
What if you played 4/8 of those schemes and had a great season, made the playoffs, although you refuse to play the other 4 schemes, does this mean you forfeit the Playoffs?
Yeah, sounds like I'd have to actually learn to play new schemes if I've never played them before. If that's the case, that does take a lot of dedication and willingness watching replays to learn new schemes. I'm not necessarily against MI's idea, but you have to be aware of the fact that people nowadays can't even concentrate watching a YouTube video for longer than 5 minutes, or even shorter (see TikTok videos). :P
-
So yeah, I confirm that nowadays, one of the reasons why I wouldn't want to play TUS is exactly because I'd also need to play other schemes I don't like. The only reason why I've become better at other schemes is because I had to play them
That's actually an interesting side effect, when people get good at things they don't enjoy, simply because they had to do those things in order to do the things they do enjoy as well.
It's kinda like, having a job and working most of your week, so you can enjoy a little day or 2 doing the things you do actually like.
Although, most people are in that situation anyway, so they end up having chunks of their spare time spent playing schemes they don't enjoy just to enjoy the thrill of competing in the things they do enjoy.
Yeah, sounds like I'd have to actually learn to play new schemes if I've never played them before. If that's the case, that does take a lot of dedication and willingness watching replays to learn new schemes. I'm not necessarily against MI's idea, but you have to be aware of the fact that people nowadays can't even concentrate watching a YouTube video for longer than 5 minutes, or even shorter (see TikTok videos). :P
Don't get me wrong, if a League was like 3 schemes, and I enjoyed 2 of them, i'd practise the third because it's manageable to focus on 3 schemes and compete at the highest level.
Now we have 11 schemes, seriously, who tf has time, or more importantly, the passion to actually master all 11 of those?
So yeah, for those few select and rare individuals who want to play 20-30 schemes, with this system, they can! Those who want to play just 1 scheme, they can!
TikTok though :D
The way things are going with image and beauty being the most important thing to social media addicts, not to mention their lack of attention span, in the next 10-20 years kids are gonna be like:
(https://i.imgur.com/oNAXkw4.jpg)
-
Yeah, I'm talking from the standpoint of the newer generation of gamers, because they're basically the one who can proliferate TUS leagues, especially when TUS has to compete with modern games with great matchmaking capabilities. That said, TUS league in and of itself should accept the trends governed by modern society, even if TUS does not like to play those games as wanted by modern society, because that's their pick as well, so to speak. ;)
It's more or less socio/philosophical question, but that's probably the only realistic way to keep TUS alive (by making compromises). But all in all, I like the general idea behind this proposal.
-
What if you played 4/8 of those schemes and had a great season, made the playoffs, although you refuse to play the other 4 schemes, does this mean you forfeit the Playoffs?
This is why I prefer the idea of having single scheme playoffs, even if it's only the Top 8 schemes involved, so long as you don't have to play the schemes you don't enjoy, i'm happy with that tbh.
This is up for debate. In my opinion playoffs is the summary of the season. Someone should wear the crown after the end of the season. We could run specific scheme playoffs. Maybe only when that scheme has enough games played but that is very different from marking one player as the champion of the season.
-
What if you played 4/8 of those schemes and had a great season, made the playoffs, although you refuse to play the other 4 schemes, does this mean you forfeit the Playoffs?
This is why I prefer the idea of having single scheme playoffs, even if it's only the Top 8 schemes involved, so long as you don't have to play the schemes you don't enjoy, i'm happy with that tbh.
This is up for debate. In my opinion playoffs is the summary of the season. Someone should wear the crown after the end of the season. We could run specific scheme playoffs. Maybe only when that scheme has enough games played but that is very different from marking one player as the champion of the season.
How about both?
For single scheme playoffs, you could have it so they need to meet a certain requirement. Have a minimum of say 10/20/30/40 players or something, and a minimum collective average amount of games played shared between all the players active for that scheme, if there are enough players for that scheme, the scheme can have PO, otherwise, nothing happens.
To be quite honest though, i'd be happy enough just to have every scheme available as it's own standings, and being able to view, mix'n'match custom filter standings pages. Single scheme playoffs would be a cherry on top but i'm willing to let that slide personally lol.
-
Someone should wear the crown after the end of the season.
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! :D). 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).
-
I think the benefit of having single playoffs is that there's a greater degree of reward involved (coz king! :D). 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!
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!
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.
-
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.
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. 8)
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!
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!
-
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:
After 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.
-
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. :P
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.
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?
-
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)?
- 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.
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?
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.
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.
- 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/XwiyJMa.png)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/XPXAWQE.png)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/1MnFjd0.png)
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?
- 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.
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!
-
I don't have much experience in competitions, but as a scheme maker I could help selecting schemes I think are well thought or well made for competitions, including schemes that are not yet uploaded in TUS, but exist.
-
I've not read the whole post and I apologise for this. Without any background reading can I throw an idea for playoffs as this seems like the thing that hasn't been determined yet.
Each scheme ladder leader could be put into an 'allround style' playoffs and if a ladder leader in Kaos or darts or whatever and they didn't want to take part in the 'allround style' playoffs they could opt out knowing they are still 1st in their scheme ladder. However, all the league ladder leaders would then go into a mini tournament of those schemes? Dibz for example might be the ladder leader of loads of rope variations and that would make a smaller pool of players? Or you give it to 1st and 2nd in that scheme variation? It could almost be like a mini cup?
-
Yes, that has been discussed Tom, it's the most important question to see what people would prefer for playoffs in a league like this.
The idea of 'allround' will always feel forced and restricted to me.
I personally believe individual scheme playoffs for the most popular schemes of each season is the best idea, whoever wins the most out of all those, if they even enjoy them, can be considered the best variety player for that season.
I'm not against 'allround', although won't deny I think it's a waste of time with unrealistic statistics.
-
- 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 guess we shouldn't worry about this too much. It may look like a risk to play a single match against a scheme specialist for the all-around ladder but it will be ok in the long run when everyone gets more games in different schemes.
In the current system you have to play all the schemes (at least when you type "TUS anyone") because your opponent can pick a scheme. In this new system you could decide not to play certain schemes at all. How are you going to make sure that the players who qualify for all-around playoffs are those who play most of the supported schemes (or scheme types)? Could this be more of an issue than it was before? One way to handle this is to have scheme classes in one of the pre-curated filters but is that something people are willing to test?
-
In the current system you have to play all the schemes (at least when you type "TUS anyone") because your opponent can pick a scheme. In this new system you could decide not to play certain schemes at all. How are you going to make sure that the players who qualify for all-around playoffs are those who play most of the supported schemes (or scheme types)?
Well, this is why i'd prefer individual scheme playoffs, I don't even see allround as important, however saying that it still shows those stats.
First off, let's change the word allround to what it really is - popular.
In the grand scheme of things, ask yourself, 'Do we really need any kind of "popular" system?'
With the new system in place, you can compare yourself as an popular player against other popular players by selecting whichever schemes you want.
So for example someone can pick:
BnG / Darts / Hysteria / Big RR / Elite / Intermediate / Team17 / Roper / Jetpack Race / Golf
Then it would show statistics for all those schemes combined, you could add or remove any of those schemes at your own will.
If you are playing all the most popular schemes, then you can compete in those individual scheme playoffs, if you win them all, you can consider yourself the best popular player of that current moment for what is popular.
Actually it's better this way, if there are 8 popular schemes, and you compete in all 8, it's better than only choosing 3 out of 8-11 available schemes in the old system.
If I had the highest ranking and therefor first pick in PO matches, I could beat most people in BnG/Hysteria/Big RR/Roper when i'm in shape, but if I were to play all 11 schemes that currently exist right now, my chances of winning become dramatically lower.
Do you see my point why individual scheme playoffs would be better, and actually show who the better popular scheme players are?
-
I'm so lost here lol
We are going to need a guidebook for new players
-
I'm so lost here lol
We are going to need a guidebook for new players
start writing ;)
-
I would like a new league format where I can play only the schemes I like and that defeats in this scheme would not interfere with statistics of other leagues.
-
A separate league for every scheme would be the best option from the start IMO (discussed multiple times)