Log in

View Full Version : Suggestion for SL9 playoffs


JWhatever
12-14-2013, 06:35 PM
Ascension:

'ey.

I'd really want to have playoffs in SL but the traditional double elim seems a bit silly with only 6 teams.

This is the format we used ages ago in national championship games of laser tag (laser tag was played with 3 teams, simplified it down to 2):

http://imageshack.us/a/img546/7634/re6c.png


Pretty self explanatory. The team with most points at the end of regular season gets highest seed and is placed at the top. Seed 1 gets automatically a spot in the finals. Seed 2 in semifinals and so on.
The team on top has home advantage.

Pros and cons of this.

Pros:
We get to have playoffs
Regular season actually counts for something. The better you play, the closer you get to be at finals.
Everyone still has a chance to win. It's just that the lowest seed has to play hard and win a lot.
Simple layout.


Cons:
We can only play 1 game at a time. On the flipside, if we play 2 rounds per week, we still have 3 weeks of playoffs, which is about the same it has always been. Mind you, teams with no games can have practice scrims on the Sundays they don't play on.


I was thinking of either having Bo5s in rounds A to C, Bo7 in semis and a fat Bo9 in finals. (to compensate that this isn't a double elim). A "lose twice to drop out" variant is also plausible but that is a right mess to try to explain. Can do that if someone wants me to.

-J

Creative2Caz
12-14-2013, 06:43 PM
+1 This seems like a good way to do it.

Fartface
12-14-2013, 06:52 PM
+1 to this. For double elim we'd have to do it with 4 teams and that'd be lame. And if we just have teams #1 and #2 play each other like we did for last apl, then all the lower ranked teams have absolutely no reason to show up the last few weeks of the season. This is the perfect middle ground; it provides incentive for all teams to finish the regular season but gives better chances according to performance.

blln4lyf
01-12-2014, 09:14 PM
If this is the route taken then this should be condensed into 2 weeks rather than 3. First 2 rounds would be Bo3 then winner vs Seed 3 would be Bo5, that would all happen week 1 of playoffs. Then the final 2 rounds would be the next week, I would suggest Bo5 in the semis and then Bo7 in the finals. The low rounds have always been Bo3, I don't think that should change esp. when its only 1 game at a time due to the set up and involving teams that wouldn't even make the playoffs if a standard 4 team double elimination strategy was employed based on the total number of teams.

BrazNomar
01-12-2014, 10:43 PM
ZroG's ok about this, looks like a much needed renewal.

Clam
01-13-2014, 01:53 AM
+1 chars <X vote

TwistedCookie
01-13-2014, 04:07 PM
I'd say we should go with J's thingy ..

Threevenge
01-14-2014, 01:30 AM
I would add that if we do this route that since ball wouldn't be playing the first couple of rounds I'd be willing to do commentary if slender is up for recording.

darknietzsche
01-14-2014, 03:22 AM
Ok, well this is just my opinion but I am pretty much against this style and rather do a single/double elimination playoff. Here is what I see are possible problems:

1)Time- The biggest issue here is J's one con. With only one match able be played at a time. This means that teams not immediately needed to play either have to show up at normal time or teams need to be super organized by showing up at an unknown time later. Even for a bo3 it can take between 20-60 mins a match with probably a median of 35 or so minutes for a bo3 to take place. Teams have been notoriously bad about achieving quick lineups and map picks. Think about if we were to have three matches the first week, that means the 3 seed needs to be ready sometime late afternoon. With 3 and 2 seeds being euro main teams we are pushing most of them requiring them to be here at 9 pm GMT just to even start their games. I think teams can coordinate better knowing that players may have to leave as games go later rather then hoping their teams show up.

2) Top seeds don't play week 1- This is a bad idea for the top teams imo. It is more of a disadvantage then advantage that I see from winning the regular season due to teams that normally like to play regularly being forced to spec unless teams scrim (which is still possible). However, scrims are also less rewarding then actual playoff matches

3) Reward is very light and only rewarding for bottom teams. Argument here is that the top teams are rewarded for regular season. IMO regular season mattered enough in double elimination before although not nearly as much as it does in this format.

4) This playoff format discourages especially for the bottom teams that they can't go 20 minutes without their best lineups during a grueling awful setup for them.

On J's points about pros/cons and their comparison to double elimination:
Pros:
1) Double/Single elimination and this ascension idea are both valid playoffs formats where all 6 teams play
2) Regular season- like I said before I believe regular season still matters as server choice and map picks are key for some matches. I will definitely say regular season is more important (see important not necessarily a good connotation) for teams in the ascension format.
3)Anyone can win in single/double elimination. IMO they have a far greater chance (<games)
4)Double/single elimination are relatively straight forward playoff formats as well. Albeit 8 teams would be simpler then 6, but still doable especially with challonge.

Cons
1) J's one con is my biggest concern- time and ability for players to show up at a randomly structured time slots. I believe it would be highly unreasonable to require teams to show up at normal time unless they had matches.

Again, I reiterated myself a bit here, but these are my opinions, not to be taken out of context or an attack on anyone. In the end, I am fine with either method or a completely different method. I am concerned that this was not determined much earlier in the season. I think that every objective pros and cons need to be consider to give us the best experience possible.

Mr Nice
01-14-2014, 10:13 AM
Yes the time is a problem. The fact that i havent made any desicion is that i got voting results from one clan about 2 weeks ago and then i got the rest on sunday last week and monday. I couldnt do any good desicion based on one clans vote. And the time is a problem yes. I myself dont want any game to start at 9 pm gmt or something like that since its too late for the EUs. And the bo3 suggestion isnt fair, it doesnt give the teams that are going to play the first round a chanse that all the others get. If we are going to use this suggestion which i was planning to do since most of the teams wants it, it has to be done correctly. I assume that all those who voted yes was aware of the time problem but i wont cut down on time if it means that the lower seed who will play the first rounds wont get the same playing conditions except if thoose teams are allright with it and say so.

blln4lyf
01-14-2014, 02:25 PM
Yes the time is a problem. The fact that i havent made any desicion is that i got voting results from one clan about 2 weeks ago and then i got the rest on sunday last week and monday. I couldnt do any good desicion based on one clans vote. And the time is a problem yes. I myself dont want any game to start at 9 pm gmt or something like that since its too late for the EUs. And the bo3 suggestion isnt fair, it doesnt give the teams that are going to play the first round a chanse that all the others get. If we are going to use this suggestion which i was planning to do since most of the teams wants it, it has to be done correctly. I assume that all those who voted yes was aware of the time problem but i wont cut down on time if it means that the lower seed who will play the first rounds wont get the same playing conditions except if thoose teams are allright with it and say so.

The earlier rounds have always been BO3, it is completely fair the lower the round the lower the amount of games per round. There's a reason the finals are always BO7 while no other round is, and no one has ever considered that unfair in the past.

Regardless as the #1 seed {ball} still voted for the standard double elimination style. I completely agree with DN's post and personally think this style may work for a real life event where everyone is there all day, not a computer game where u can log off because you have to wait 2 hours to play.

Slender
01-14-2014, 02:49 PM
I would add that if we do this route that since ball wouldn't be playing the first couple of rounds I'd be willing to do commentary if slender is up for recording.

I could do so no problem, though I don't know if Vanishing is going to do so as well. Just get this sorted out and please let me know.

darknietzsche
01-14-2014, 04:13 PM
ball'n is correct. Bo3 are always used in early rounds with bo5 semis/finals for loser brackets and a bo7 finals.

As I iterated in my post above those are the primary issues involved. The only way something like this can be successful imo is that teams and players are available and punctual throughout the entire playoffs. Otherwise lower seeded teams will lose no matter what and higher seeded teams get no playoff experience before being forced to play.

JWhatever
01-14-2014, 05:50 PM
In a double elim every team plays at least 4 games before they are knocked out. The bo5 in the first rounds would compensate for that.
Having more than 2 bo5 per day is off limits due to eurotimes, that's why I suggested this to last 3 weeks. The more games you play, luck becomes smaller factor in the outcome.

Could have an all-stars match on the first week for the top 3 teams (assuming this was 3 weeks long) but that isn't even remotely the same thing as playing and prepping up with your own team.

Double elim works perfectly fine aswell, the table just looks a bit silly. Perhaps this should be considered for <6 team postseasons, ie APL.

Regardless of what you pick, be sure to be CLEAR about the server picking rules and such. I've yet to see playoffs where **** doesn't hit the fan. Just saying "top seed picks" can be understood as either the seed you got from preseason or as which team is "on the top box".

On a side note, why aren't the games played on Saturdays? I bet staying up late on Saturdays is a lot less rough for euros than the night before a work/schoolday.

-J

darknietzsche
01-14-2014, 08:58 PM
It is possible to have top seeds to play something among themselves, but I still rather get right into playoffs myself and not take a break from serious competition.

I agree having bo5 eliminates any chance having more then 2 matches a week.

Saturdays I would expect US players would have a hard time showing. The early afternoons and evenings are often times for social activities. Yes, US players can be available nights on Saturdays but that is early morning for euros which again is unreasonable.

Knipchip
01-15-2014, 01:17 PM
Pros:
We get to have playoffs

That's a con.

TwistedCookie
01-15-2014, 08:59 PM
I doubt my team or anyother team could show up this late and it might take longer to finish those matches so for EU's is quiet impossible.
In addition people already got used to play at 7pm gmt/2pm est and some just wont be able to play at 8.30 or so.

Mr Nice
01-16-2014, 01:11 PM
ok well if everybody wants to be happy about this we can do bo3 til semifinals and then decide if we have bo5 in the semis and bo7 in the finals. we can try manage this in 2 weeks then starting from this sunday.

Cracker
01-16-2014, 01:25 PM
ok well if everybody wants to be happy about this we can do bo3 til semifinals and then decide if we have bo5 in the semis and bo7 in the finals. we can try manage this in 2 weeks then starting from this sunday.

Meaning the 3rd match is the first Sunday? Last week we had 2 bo3's and we ended around 8.45/9pm GMT. So making the first rounds bo3's doesn't take away this problem. An EU team can't start a match this late with work/school in the morning for most.

blln4lyf
01-16-2014, 02:46 PM
Let's just do double elimination to avoid all these timing issues and to avoid teams sitting out for weeks for winning as they would rather play than sit out.

Double elimin, top 2 teams get a bye in round one, then turns into semifinal in winners bracket, with a losers bracket on the other side. Otherwise these playoffs could be dragged on for a month plus based on how awkward the timing will be.

TwistedCookie
01-16-2014, 04:59 PM
Why not just make it 3 weeks and thats it ?
This 2 week idea is making it way too hard to manage.

Fartface
01-16-2014, 09:23 PM
Don't think any team should be able to be knocked out by only one bo3. Let's either do double elim or spread this ascension idea out over 3 weeks with J's original suggestion of bo5s.

I agree with Cookie. If we spread it over 3 weeks, we can have 2 bo5s the first week, and the 4th place seed (arr?) will just have to wait for the 1st bo5 to end. Then the 3rd bo5 and the bo7 semis week 2, with the 2nd place seed (vlix or bbq?) will wait for the bo5 to end. Then the bo9 finals the last week. This way we will only have 2 teams have to wait out one bo5, which wont take forever, if those 2 teams can agree to do so in advance.

Of course if people on ball don't want to wait 3 weeks, double elim would be the solution.

blln4lyf
01-17-2014, 12:17 AM
Don't think any team should be able to be knocked out by only one bo3. Let's either do double elim or spread this ascension idea out over 3 weeks with J's original suggestion of bo5s.

I agree with Cookie. If we spread it over 3 weeks, we can have 2 bo5s the first week, and the 4th place seed (arr?) will just have to wait for the 1st bo5 to end. Then the 3rd bo5 and the bo7 semis week 2, with the 2nd place seed (vlix or bbq?) will wait for the bo5 to end. Then the bo9 finals the last week. This way we will only have 2 teams have to wait out one bo5, which wont take forever, if those 2 teams can agree to do so in advance.

Of course if people on ball don't want to wait 3 weeks, double elim would be the solution.

Honestly, I would of rather finished last in the regular season than first based on the ascension idea. Brackets are the standard for a reason, there is no reason to change what isn't broke. I understand experimenting with new ideas but that can be done in the regular season, why mess with a time tested playoff setup?

sunshineduck
01-17-2014, 04:21 AM
so what ur saying is that rewarding teams that do well by having them play less games is not actually a reward

huh

lakospeter91
01-17-2014, 05:55 AM
Members of {arr} voted for ascension with a 100% in a vote that's been running for a month on our private forum.

The following is my own opinion, not {arr}'s: I would prefer bo3 matches, because I think two bo5's in a row are a bit too much. So I would go for 1st and 2nd matches on week 1, 3rd and 4th on week 2 and final on week 3. All matches except for the final would be bo3.

Aki1024
01-17-2014, 08:18 AM
So playing more games is a reward? Reverse ascension! Assume all games up to the last match went in the favor of the higher seed. Play the final round game (seed 1 vs 2). Then play the game before the final game (seed 2 vs 3). If the result of this game changes who would have played in a previously played game, replay that game with the winning team.

Example games (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuvNJ7Y5nFnpdFZKNnp3MWhEMkNWdndnYU1FVFpFd Hc&usp=sharing)
Left column of game order is longest possible with this system at 16 games. Second column is shortest. Third column is a mix.

Pros: Even after winning the final game, Top seed may get a chance to play more games. If they ever play another seed, it is the final game for them again, as their other game doesn't count since they wouldn't have played it.
An ascension bracket can only see a single team rise from their spot to the end. Reverse ascension allows the possibility of witnessing this exciting action 4 times!

I see a complaint coming from this that only one game is being played at a time. This can be fixed to some degree by playing multiple games at the same time. Alas, if E1v2 and C3v4 are played at the same time, either D2v3 or D2v4 is lost since the C game was played early and decided the opposite position. (if C3v4-3, then D2v4 never could happen).

Mr Nice
01-17-2014, 10:34 AM
Ok well since the majority wants this we will do this, in 3 weeks time.

TwistedCookie
01-17-2014, 01:56 PM
Wait, so we play this upcoming sunday??

darknietzsche
01-17-2014, 02:57 PM
Evel, I suggest you make a decision based on what you believe is best and go with it. The biggest issue now is teams have no idea what is going on. You need to immediately at your earliest convenience update the standings so teams know where they are seeded. Post the playoffs thread with format because it seemed we had cleared this up but teams are still posting one way or the other. Also post whether we are playing or not. It has been done several times in the past to take a break between regular season and playoffs (not saying we should) but teams may be under the impression that there are no games this weekend, and telling them <24 hours in advance is bad. People are going to be mad one way or the other, but just go forward and put your foot in the ground and determine what we will be doing.

Mr Nice
01-17-2014, 05:29 PM
I will postpone the playoffs one week since there seems to be alot of confusion how this work and in some clans there havent been much discussion between the clan cptns and the clan members about this sunday. I made it clear several weeks ago that my decision would be based upon the votes from the players in this SL. I think since this is a new idea the majority of the players in this SL should decide about this witch they have done and they have said they want to try this. Nobody knows if this is the best idea since we have never tested, because it is a new idea so i dont know if this is going to work good either do i, but the only thing i know is that the majority of the players in this SL wants it.
I am sorry that {ball} dont think they can show up if this is 3 weeks long or if this playoffs is postponed but i cant do much about it, i wish i could but i cant because there are 5 more clans that have their opinion, each of one thoose and in each of these clans there are about 15 members signed up for this SL that have their thoughts about this. And you brought it up DN that it has been breaks between the regular season and the playoffs before and it was so in SL 8.

sunshineduck
01-17-2014, 05:55 PM
well there have been breaks in every sl but every team gets to play right after the 1 week break

this does seem pretty excessively lol if ball now has to have 3 weeks without real matches before having to play a final

also of course the not-r1 teams aren't going to care if ball has to take 2 weeks off u rly should weight opinions

blln4lyf
01-17-2014, 07:22 PM
So basically now ball has to wait 4 weeks total between games, with vlix and BBQ waiting 3 weeks between games.

I think most play this game because they enjoy it, and would rather not wait basically a month to play a game during the league but I guess I'm in the minority here..

Cracker
01-17-2014, 07:26 PM
Why postpone it? I'm sure the 3 clans that have to play the first Sunday already counted on it.

darknietzsche
01-17-2014, 07:33 PM
Wait, so we play this upcoming sunday??

^ This does not seem like expecting to play this weekend. Not saying skipping a week is a good idea in the ascension idea. I am going to hate not playing two weeks in a row. Assuming teams know what is going on is a terrible idea.

TwistedCookie
01-17-2014, 07:40 PM
^ This does not seem like expecting to play this weekend. Not saying skipping a week is a good idea in the ascension idea. I am going to hate not playing two weeks in a row. Assuming teams know what is going on is a terrible idea.

I'd say we, BBQ ball vlix could showup regularly and just scrim between ourselves.
What you say?

Fartface
01-17-2014, 08:53 PM
Sheesh. Every team has gotten used to showing up each Sunday, there's really no need to take a gap week. And like DN said, Evel you just have to make a choice and make a thread about it. Let's get started this Sunday without any confusion please.

Edit: Evel already made the thread: http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9276
If we start this Sunday, vlix and bbq will have 1 week without games, and ball will have 2. Cookie's idea is good; we can all three do scrims next Sunday, and then the 2nd sunday I'm sure ball can either scrim clans who have been knocked out, or vlix until we're ready to do the semis. Sorry balln, it's understandable that you don't want to go 2 weeks without playing, but you can't argue that ascension isn't a competitive advantage for your team, so just doing scrims should be just fine yeah?

blln4lyf
01-18-2014, 04:01 AM
^ This does not seem like expecting to play this weekend. Not saying skipping a week is a good idea in the ascension idea. I am going to hate not playing two weeks in a row. Assuming teams know what is going on is a terrible idea.

I get what your saying but that team wouldn't play anyway. If they set it up for this weekend and teams didnt show it's no harm no foul. At this point I'm considering asking Zrog to switch seeds with us with the exception that we keep home feild throughout lol

Threevenge
01-18-2014, 07:52 AM
Guys, at this point I don't care what format we do, I need to know now if we're playing this weekend or not. With my schedule I can't change things around last minute and this is getting pretty close.

Mr Nice
01-18-2014, 11:53 AM
threevenge you are in {ball} which is 1st seed, you wont be playing any league game this sunday. Zrog is up for it but neither <X or arr is.

BrazNomar
01-19-2014, 02:20 AM
Well, we've all left it for quite a late discussion - I myself gave up a post earlier, right after Fart's 1st one. Anyway, DN's points are pretty accurate, and the fact that top teams play less stands out more for me. In this format, a victory would definitely feel rewarding for ZroG, but probably not that much for them.

I'd really be fine with elimination or the new format, though. Somehow, it felt like anything new would be welcome.

Dougie
01-19-2014, 10:59 AM
Thought I'd throw this suggestion into the mix as an alteration to J's original playoff concept. The basic premise remains, where the bottom two teams battle it out each round to avoid elimination, but instead of just having the bottom teams playing, the teams above also play and can switch positions dependent on their results:

Round 1 - (bo3)
1st seed v 2nd seed (loser is new 2nd seed)
3rd seed v 4th seed (loser is new 4th seed)
5th seed v 6th seed (loser eliminated)

Round 2 (bo3)
2nd seed v 3rd seed (loser is new 3rd seed)
4th seed v bottom seed (loser is eliminated)

Round 3 (bo5)
1st seed v 2nd seed (loser is new 2nd seed)
3rd seed v bottom seed (loser is eliminated)

Round 4 (bo5)
2nd seed v bottom seed (loser is eliminated)

Round 5 (final bo7)
1st seed v bottom seed

Obviously the draw back is that the top seed could end up playing the same team 3 times! But at least they're getting games.

Kafka
01-19-2014, 02:41 PM
Thought I'd throw this suggestion into the mix

+1 to this, seems fair and allows higher seeds to play throughout the playoffs

Fartface
01-19-2014, 04:12 PM
Interesting idea in theory Dougie but I don't think it would work in practice. It requires teams to show up erratically in a schedule that can only be predicted 1 week in advance; plus, a lot of people have enough trouble just navigating the map veto system let alone something complicated like this.

Nadespam
01-20-2014, 09:29 PM
Since there's six teams, why not copy the NFL playoff format?

Round 1
6v3
5v4

Round 2
1vlowest remaining seed
2vhigher winning seed

Round 3
Championship

Still gives an advantage based on regular season, but only one round, and can easily be condensed into two weeks, maybe

Week 1
Round 1 Bo5
Round 2 Bo5

Week 2
Round 3 Bo7