I'm not seeing any cfc effort at all for these last game(s)


cfc, I want to be perfectly clear, so that there's no confusion.  if these last game(s) aren't finished -> mm doesn't just win and we move on. you'd still be considered kicked out and disqualified from the next playoffs.

here was my idea from that 'New plan for leagues' thread

Quote from: franz on April 13, 2012, 12:54 AM
TEL is suffering from too many consecutive seasons, so I have an idea that will likely help TEL and other TRL schemes.

Multiple TRL's.  Split up the schemes by popularity, so you have different tiers.  One tier could be Elite/Hysteria, so those two schemes would alternate back and forth in their own tier.  All the other schemes could be their own tier, or you could split up even more by popularity (like another TRL tier could be TTRR/Team17 just looking at the Season Info page activity).  What this does is keep schemes more fresh by not repeating 2 times in a row or more, and it let's schemes not have to take forever to show up in TRL again since they'll be in their own tier.

so TEL can still shut down in a few days. but when the current TRL:Hysteria season ends in 5 weeks, we could start this idea starting with Elite in the rotation, then alternate it with Hysteria the following season, and then back and forth continuously.  I think this is a nice compromise  

also we lowered the TEL/TRL minimum games from 50 down to 30. would you still recommend even lower nino? 20?

I think the win% requirement should be removed too, because each win is not the same, so +50% win percentage shouldn't really be necessary

Quote from: franz on April 12, 2012, 03:09 AM
i'll let other mods handle this. no rules bng is my vote

Reminder: FINAL deadline - TUESDAY, April 24th
almost 8 week(s) in now -> less than 1 week(s) left for FINAL


artic/franz,

Quote from: ArtiC on April 11, 2012, 12:25 AM
or tuesday 23:15gmt (i am in university before) sound good, anyway i prefer weekend coz i can play warmed :<

artic if you still want to try tomorrow Tuesday 23:15gmt, I'll be on.


cfc/mm, cfc you risk getting kicked out unless final games get played. good luck arranging, next Tuesday is the last day

Quote from: Peja on April 15, 2012, 10:57 PM
the fact people giving heated responses cant be a factor to stop a debate. some people keep trying to cut down a conversation about how to improfe the league. finnaly we talk about something useful and related to our league. thats nice, so let people talk, share ideas. it isnt essential something will be changed after this. but its essential to do this discussions, cause otherwise we stagnate.

that's fair, feel free to continue refining these Scheme Classes. I didn't want all discussions to stop completely.

My point was that even if an agreement or compromise happens, we don't even know if this overall idea is even better or worse, marginally or drastically.

Quote from: franz on April 14, 2012, 02:41 AM
And even if these 'Scheme Classes' do ever get decided upon, they would likely continue to be controversial because we've already seen many heated responses arguing against them --> and all this for what?  Would it really drastically change what we're seeing now?  Would it really be worth the trouble?

again, these arguments about which 'Schemes' belong to which 'Classes' will likely never end. even if an executive decision was made by MI, whatever possible benefit these 'Scheme Classes' bring can't possibly be worth all this trouble.

phanton


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgQeQPxTpg&t=1m44s

this is the danger of having different bng codes of conduct, no one ever exactly knows how each side wants to play, so they should just be left at the door --> play straight up. no confusion, no tiptoe-ing

now describe how Scheme Classes would solve everything?

I'm guessing t17 and hysteria wouldn't be grouped together, so what's stopping phanton from still playing t17's and hysteria's for two Scheme Classes?  In fact, wouldn't this help phanton more compared to some others who'd get their favorite schemes bundled?

I personally think phanton is a good allrounder and deserves a spot for his effort. it's not like there a tons of people getting ripped off of playoff spots --> he is simply one of the better players in all recent seasons. and all with the help of playing hysteria and t17, two schemes people have been arguing are like flipping a coin. (oh and all the other schemes he still has good win percentages in). he's good.

(all this is moot for phanton this season anyway, he's currently serving his playoff ban until next season when he can qualify again)

Who exactly is getting robbed from the standings anyway, due to lack of 'Scheme Classes'?  Your criticism of the current system makes it sound like lots of players are not reaching their 'true' place in the rankings, but when I look at final standings for each season, each player deserves to be there over the rest for one reason or another (if you disagree, we can discuss a specific player or just someone's stats if you like).

And who is getting into playoffs with only 2 schemes Peja?  I'm not sure if any of these accusations are even true or just made up to help an argument.  I'm sure others would like to hear as well.  I know I'm curious now.

If that wasn't the goal, to single people out, that's fine, but I get the feeling this discussion is just turning into idealistic theory of 'The Truly Perfect System.' And even if these 'Scheme Classes' do ever get decided upon, they would likely continue to be controversial because we've already seen many heated responses arguing against them --> and all this for what?  Would it really drastically change what we're seeing now?  Would it really be worth the trouble?

Quote from: DarkOne on April 13, 2012, 11:38 PM
No, K-factor won't have any effect on the mentioned problem - it'll just raise the rating, both overall and seasonal proportionally. Well, it might help somewhat for one season, but the seasonal rating will just catch up and you'd have to change your K-factor every couple of seasons and will give a massive rating inflation.

Rating calculations usually involve a logarithm. It determines your chance of winning (or rather, how many points you'd statistically win in a game against player B).
For example, in chess, your projected winning percentage against someone with 400 points lower than you is 1.0 (ie, you win all the games)
The best way to suppress noob bashing and activity playing too big a role (while maintaining the current system) is just to make the rating range (of 400 in the example) smaller: that way, you won't score any points against someone with 300 points less, rather than against someone with 400 points less.
You'll also gain your seasonal points faster, because the upper limit is also smaller (you win the same amount of points against someone rated 300 points as you would in the old system against somebody with 400 points higher).

But there's a trade-off if this happens: ratings will fluctuate more than they used to and ratings will become less reliable than they are now.

Setting a roof on your total amount of games also has a trade-off, though: avoiding.

we're probably thinking of two different things, I'd honestly have to look at the formula again to refresh my memory, but that's up to MI if he wants to share.  I'm just going off of my memory of this from a few years back when I helped Veg with XTC's rating system, and I remember something very specific to what I described. still, all this may not even be necessary, but if so, at least our ideas are out there.

it's okay to speak your mind d1, but the passive aggressive 'I think you should leave and take a break from TUS' was probably not your best commentary. you should be more direct next time if you have something to say, because I also felt a little irk'ed by your choice of words.

I think this is the point. I'm hearing a lot of complaints that people realize ROPER is one of the most repetitive schemes and on top of that people still complain about crates --> this adds the extra strategy of having 2 worms just like in a clanner, and also changes how people deal with impossible crates if worms are on different parts of the map. Besides, it's not even a new concept, this was often how it was done in Worms2 even back in the day when people played 1on1.

it is the player's responsibility to have enough time to finish a game. this is the understanding when you light up before a game begins.

if during the game you have a distraction or you have an emergency, you can ask your opponent nicely if they will accept finishing the game next time, but it's up to your opponent --> they can choose how they're feeling and how nicely you ask could play a factor. this time, it looks like you apparently have done this before so your opponent got angry and reported. still, impossible seems like a nice guy and it may be possible that you two can figure out a solution with respect.

if you want to replay this game, you have a week to play impossible.  just don't expect this to be voided because you had to go. next time be a little more respectful and ask nicely if your opponent will not report, and maybe there will be a better result

HHC nice words, you bring interesting ideas. you're definitely bigger picture than I think anyone is so far, so I applaud you for that.


"It's pretty hard to think for 2 though" --> not quite sure what meant here though, on my 2worms ROPER idea ;p