Last edited: Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 6:59:29 AM

I didn't know Bolo was so tall :).

X been playing BM and it seems pretty smooth. As long as someone good hosts I should have a decent night I hope.

B

C'mon Tally! Im on Corset! Put me up there!

You should see his statue!

@ KBC
ROTFLMAO

Fun stuff sheep. Thx for posting screenies as I have been busy...

GG

B

Nice job by the brothers. Cellar to 2nd in 2 weeks.

Good to see fellow Locos. Wish I could have been there, I'm glad I didn't say I 'might' or anything. Didn't get home from crab pickin' till about midnight.

Question for the floor: What do you guys think of the 4pt match scoring system ?

I like it. It keeps teams interested by giving them the capability to jump up the ranks quickly, You're never really out of it until the last week or so.

My opinion was emailed to the captains.

B

I think it's perfect. I'd agree w/ ROGUE on keeping it interesting. Considering the luck factor involved in scrum I don't think the whole thing should be scored and tallied by actually game scores. As much as some people may argue, you really don't WIN on luck. You can walk away with a 5 point lead or a 10 point lead because of luck, but not a general win.

Point system is fine.
It's quite hard to win 2 games in a row.
This system nullifies the '10 points lead in game 1' fluke factor.
Brain sez 'wooot'.

I talked about this with the captains mail. The teams which win 4 games are teams which are playing un-even teams. Ie 4 vs 3 games. The Bandits have tied 5 times, the most of the bunch. Basically every team we've played we've tied. A straight slope on the PS Stats graph. Using the most points scheme of last season, we would be leaders. What has happened is 4 of the teams basically have the same point total. The Steel Corset have played more games with only three players. So they have the worse record. However, they would be with the tied bunch if they played full 4 on 4. The leaders, Black Sheep, also have tied a good many games. I could say we are all even teams, but I don't belive that. If you look at the scores for the last 2 weeks. You see break out games won by 10 points and close games won by one or two points. In the games averaging scheme. That is a tie and we get bunched up. I suggested going back to most points again next season. If your team really can dominate another in one game and loose by 1 or 2 the next. It is all wasted effort and goes unrecognised. No reward. I'd like to reward the team who can push around the other team. It gets lost in the current scheme. IMHO.

I second Hugo's point about the fluke factor. Last night's Corset game vs. The bandits was a blowout in game one. We were able to settle down & win game 2 by a couple of points. Under the old points scenario the effort in game 2 would have been for naught, but at least now we didn't have to walk away empty handed.

I vote to keep the new system.

MP

Well going back to something PREY brought up.... Games that end up with 4 vs. 3. These games can end up w/ a 10-15 opint lead, both games, so suddenly the team that has a full roster gets some huge game totals added to their scores. If that was the scoring system, I think that would be a huge disadvantage to the rest of the teams that play full games, play well, but come out with a low scoring game. Suddenly their way behind the team that got to play against a short 3 person team. With the scoring system that's in place now they don't get that same advantage over the rest of the league, just the two points.

I also second MajorPain's point.

Last, but not least, can ya update the score card Tally?

@LilAlienD Think you get the point. If a team plays another short. The current scoring gives them a big advantage over the rest of the teams. They were lucky enough to play a weaken'd team. The rest of us didn't. We all tie. They get a 2 point advantage. In a most points scoring total wins. We would not be bunched up. Having another team play a short team does not make a huge difference between teams using points. Further and most important. The bandits would be leading the league over the Sheep. : )

Just look at last season as a guide to this one. The difference between teams was significant enough that when one team played 3 vs 2. It really didn't matter in the end.

Last edited: Friday, July 16, 2004 at 4:12:58 AM

What's wrong with being bunched up? Look at the current points anybody could win. It's great. If teams are out of the race early interest will fade. At the end of the season you will end up playing more 4 vs. 3 games. It's all about keeping the interest. I even recommend that we have a loser bowl. Meaning the bottom two teams have a playoff game as well. Keeping the interest is the key and the current scoring system does just that.

Games against shorthanded teams are not a valid point of contention, because those games shouldn't really have happened that way, and it's the scrubs-in-question's responsibility to not hand over 4 points.

Prey we all wish to fight 4x4 games. I think all of us Psychoscrummer feel lameness at beating a team 4 x 3 :[
Alas nothing can be done, so it seems, to insure a full roster.

I remember the Amnesia - Dementia days,,, At the end we had 10 players in Dementia just to make sure we could have 5 playing all the time.

It's a team's effort, and moreover the captain's job to make sure to line up a full team.

(On a lighter note...)

And Prey... In the coming 3 weeks you will see why the Sheeps leads the league, and why the _Bandits aren't ;)

@Hugobrain I see tie games in your future. Baaaaa! : )

Why the point system changed baffles me.

Each weekly match I see as two rounds. Just like boxing, golf etc etc, scoring should be aggregate point total.

I see this as twiddling for the sake of twiddling. It wasn't broken in the first place.

Some people will always whine.

Psycho is Psycho and should return to the simple rules we started the league with IMHO.

Hugo, if a team busts its ass and wins a game by ten I say kudo's and why nulify the effort.

Pain, I understand your point but it seems one sided. I think the aggregate point total indicates the winner of the weekly match much more accurately.

My thoughts aren't generated out of the fact that the Bandits have a slew of ties btw. I really wasn't really paying attention at start up because I was out of pocket for the first half of the season. Woot I'm Baaaack.

Az

PS Geez Bolo ya took the time to post why not give your position on the floor as Tal requested :)..others would like to hear.

Last edited: Friday, July 16, 2004 at 5:00:20 AM

Like I said in the preseason post on this, the new system is a "lower resolution" measure of what happened. Many goals don't count. In the previous system every goal counts . It was essentially one game with 2 periods (like football has a first half and a second half to each game). The final added score is the most accurate measure of what happened. If it works for football, basketball, hockey and soccer, why not here? Why do we have to be like tennis?

The new sysem gives you only an approximation of what happened. It is like tennis in that a Set consists of 6 games, where the individual game scores don't matter. Statistically speaking this is fine, because 6 games are played, giving you many more games to see what happens. Two games to determine a Set seems way too low (and of course playing a full set of 6 games is not feasible). There are too many splits. They change of leaders shouldn't be any different, but the swings - or volatility - is greater (and therefore more exciting) the way it was last season.

-Rx

Ok here it goes.....

I totally agree with PREY that the current point system favors teams that play undermanned opponents. However, since this league was created with 7 people per team to field 4 players I think that tally is right when I say THIS SHOULDNT HAPPEN. Attendence is the biggest problem with this league. It is a losing situation for everyone. Fingers up to deadbeat teamates...

Scenerio:

Say the bandits and the sheep are tied at 20 points. Next game the sheep play an undermanned team and blow them out getting 4 points. Meanwhile the bandits play a full team and split the points. The current system DOES punish the undermanned team for getting their arse kicked BUT it also punishes the bandits as well. Most important it falsely rewards the sheep. End scenerio..

The sheep have had good attendance last season and this season and is one of the biggest reasons for their success. They had NO undermanned games last season or this season so far. If not for our undermanned match vs the corset we would be tied for 1st place...their attendence is one of the reasons they are a good team. They shouldnt be looked down upon for that.

HOWEVER.....i think that the current point system keeps things more interesting. If 1 team is TRULY superior they will win both games with OR without luck.

The problem is teams that are somewhat even. That was the point of the draft. We all know that scrum is 1/3 luck and that lucky spawns can win a game by a long shot. Which ever team that is fortunate enough to have the luck will win under the old system. That really honked me off last season because the games I actually fielded a full team almost always resulted in at least 1 game win. With our bad luck we rarely won a match.

With the current point system if the luck stays even or switches sides the teams often split the points.....my stance is that if the teams are supposed to be somewhat even in the first place then why would you not expect there to be so many split games?? Makes sense to me...

My suggestion would be to keep a running total of team goals for the whole season. The luck would be evenly distributed over the course of all the games. At any point in the season it is easy to see who is ahead. The problem is that if there are ANY undermanned games then the point system will mean nothing.

Attendence (and no lag) is key to success. After captaining 2 seasons I know this is most important. Skill isnt anything compared to reliability.

B

Here's my problem with adding the total score together to determine a winner. I will use the team battlemode league as an example. When one team dominated the first round they would resort to wasting time by playing defense only. The trailing team had very little chance of making a comeback. Hence, the second round would often become a big old waste of time.

I thnk you will see the same thing happen in scrum if we go back to the old rules. Earlier this season we blew out our opps by more than 10 goals in the first round. We lost the second by 10 goals. If we were under the old scoring system our team may, almost assuredly, have spent a lot of time driving around the map as far away from the goal as possible. This would have made the second round meaningless. The object of the 2nd round would have gone from win at all costs to just don't let them beat us by 10 or more.

Once again, the current system allows a team to regroup in the second round from a pummeling or lots of free goals by their opps.

Am I off base? Let me and others know because a lot of us were not in the league last season. Being a man down is a bummer, but it is the captain's responsibility to ensure that a full roster is available. I will help find tanks for any team that is having trouble with attendance.

Another question: Is there a point in the season in which you cannot pick up new players? If not I think there should be. We had an issue with that last season in TBM. At the end of the season we had a team pick up a ringer under the guise of an alias. Said person should have gone to the weakest team which was having attendance issues. Although, I know there are far less idiots in this league and may not be a problem here.

I need another player.

Any suggestions?

B

Pick up willow. He's shown interest and I'm sure he'll gladly accept.

Last edited: Friday, July 16, 2004 at 3:15:38 PM

Does an undermanned team have any shot at winning anything anyway? I guess it's the difference between adding a single win to a team's record or 4 points. Perhaps , to minimize the "penalty" that teams that play 4 on 4 suffer , each half of a game should count for a single point, and ties a half. This would make all-out victories worth one point under the old system and four under the new worth only 2. Also, Rogue makes a very valid point, despite the tennis-ness of it [Az's argument well-taken]. By keeping the rounds equally valued, there is no incentive for the team winning round one to run around like putzes and waste time.
I dunno, just ideas.
The only guiding principle I go by is that simplicity is key, but it also has to make sense.
Bo: Is anyone asking in? I have no idea. You've got 5 days to run something by myself and the captains.

A couple of points:

I've played in almost all of the sheep games, and have only played an undermanned team once. We won both games. We played that team again at full strength and won both games again. However, our attendance does help us not be undermanned, which is a good advantage. That being said, attendance is part of team makeup, and SHOULD affect whether you win or lose. There is no way around that, and there shouldn't be a way around it.

Suggestions:
There is another way to score, though it may not be popular: Scoring Differential: This would mean that there are no wins or losses, only who has the higher point differential betweens goals scored and goals allowed. Example:

Game 1: Corset 12, Bandits 5 Game 2: Bandits 6, Corset 5.
This would give the Corset a score of "6", or, their total differential. It rewards them for kicking butt in game 1.
This rewards DOMINANT victories, and therefore the dominant teams. It would also keep games interesting until the end, as opposed to when a game is 11-2 and is basically over. Both teams have to keep trying to score and trying to defend. The matches would be competitive until the last second.

Any thoughts?

Not all points are goals allowed. Half are FB's and lucky positionings

B

Did someone need a player?! I can sub in if needed (or wanted). If not I will wait for next season. I rarely miss league matches...only for things like vacations and death.

Bolo makes a good non-point :).
There is merit to goal differential, in a BCS sorta way, and it would keep the team that won round one coming back for more - in theory.

I have played to protect a lead when the last 30 seconds clock starts chiming. Beyond that, I haven't done it or noticed it being done. I have only seen teams continue to try and compete. It is an interesting point.
The scoring differential and most points are the same. A win 22 to 16 differs by 6, but is still a win. In comparison to other teams, it could be a good strength metric to other opponents. A strength ranking, but not a reward system to giving them wins over the rest of the league. I would not suggest changing this seasons scoring. I would like to have it considered, to going back to the old scoring method for future seasons. The most points of two half's wins.

We can finish the season. I'll say what I've said to the captains email. The sheeps lead, is beyond the pack from catching. The only team which can mess with thier record is the Bandits. We play them 2 more times. I would like to keep our player rotation as fair as possible. If we must be spoilers for the rest of the league to benifit. We can play our best team scorers & defenders. We will likely tie both games. We will gain no headway in doing so. Some other team will win. I have great confidence we can outscore our opponents in the remaining three games. We have been doing that. Given the flow, we will likely tie the remaining 3 games.

My goal has always been to have fun and compete. If the rest of my team feels the same, we will give everyone our best effort regardless of our record. Hope everyone in the league feels the same and not give up because they our out of the running.

Nothing will change this season, I only wanted to have the convo. Ill update the board soon.

Wait? Can't catch them? Is there no playoffs? I've been unable to locate the rules so I'm in the dark on this. I thought the top four teams had a playoff. I guess I was thinking of TBM league. We can still catch them though. We play them once still and the Brotherhood has been playing very well as of late. Watch your wool Sheep!

Check my math please.

BTW: 3 weeks left and 12 possible points to be won.
The first place team only has 18 points.
The last place team is only trailing by 8 points.
If the Black Sheep stumble next week, 3 teams have a mathematical chance to overtake them.
nothing is finished.

Last edited: Friday, July 16, 2004 at 8:33:12 PM

@ All : really, either system is fine by me.
@ All For the record: the 4x3 Corset-Sheep game was actually 4x4 since we added a Gold Bot, which scored 3 points in the 2 games. 3 points is a lot! I say not too bad, eh.
@ Bolo: good points, re. Pros and cons.
@ Rogue: good point, re. Winning team wasting time to keep lead from game 1. I saw that happen. It's also known as 'wussing'.
@ Rors: cool idea. Re. Your point system.
@ All: I vote yes, yes, yes to any of the 3 above point system. All good.
@ All: Say you play 4vs3 in [b[any[/b] point system. You still win big time

Read this : What is broken is attendance, regardless of point system

@ Ho: you got the word. We listen. Hammer it, my man.

I love the current system. It allows for fairness and balances out against the 'slaughterings' which mostly occur due to one team being sufficiently player-deficient (whether through lag, confusion or unattendance). For instance, in last weeks game, lag got progressively worse for me (I was even begging for a bot to take my place) and others too started to feel it creeping in on them. Game 1 we tied 7-7 but game 2 we got slaughtered as it was, in effect 3 playing against 2.

As others have also pointed out, under the previous system, it encouraged defence over offence for game 2 by the winners of the first game, and yes there is always the element of wussing out involved - protecting the goal difference. However, if goal difference is only a secondary aim (for settling ties) then I believe that there is still sufficient incentive to play to the full and win both matches and not play to hold your advantage.

I would however say that it might be worthwhile keeping a running total of score-difference in games as a second metric and which could be used at the end of the season to help settle any tie-scores on the current system.

Whether you award 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw (for each game) or 1/2 for a draw and 1 for a win makes absolutely no difference, however, with many sporting events, its 0 for a loss, 1 for a tie and 3 for a win. Granted there is still little difference as ties are very rare, but it does make ties slightly less valuable. Perhaps a better way than that would be to simple keep the existing 0,1 or 2pts per game scoring, but award an extra point if a team wins both matches.

Loss Loss = 0pts
Loss Draw = 1pt
Draw Draw = 2pts
Draw Win = 3pts
Win Win = 5pts

-Z-

I have to agree with Z. In pool leagues for example there are 3 or 4 rounds a night. If the winning team wins all 3 rounds if only 3 rounds they get 1 round bonus for a total of 4 points for that night. Say there are four games in a round,at the end of the round we add up the wins, if there is a tie we add points,1 point per ball made or 10 points for a win. Now I know I'm not in leagues Yet but I think you should give 1 point for the win, then at end of match you add total points from both games,team with highest point total should get 1 bonus point. Now I know this is more work but I think it would be nice to also keep track of each person score, to use for player standings.Then at end of season the person who gets the most points gets like a skin that says MVP or TOP SCORING PLAYER or a tropy that says some thing along those lines.Just a idea. Well hope I get in to this season, if not there is all ways next season. Good luck all. B)

Last edited: Saturday, July 17, 2004 at 7:17:35 AM

Notes on FBs:
While there are some fb's that are bogus, they are much less than people think. I was telling some others about the "planned" fb which I use alot (as do several others). I will usually get them at least once per match or so, and they are not luck or coincidence. They are planned.

There are also the "Spawning" fb's, which can also be planned. This is also the famous cliff diving technique that many employ. Some dive to regen their tanks. Others dive for better positioning, etc.. This is the loophole that Sluggy tried to fix with his diver script (with mixed reaction).

If, however, players feel that fb's are a major issue, perhaps a general script can be written (I am not a programmer, so I don't know the technicalities). Can there be a script that says "If goal is placed at X position, then flag/scrum must be placed at minimum XX distance away? Or at the opposite side of the field? Is that a possiblity, and would it appease the issue? I think it would.

PS: Someone mentioned that it is over. Not even close. We are 3 points ahead of the Cerebros and 4 points ahead of 2 other teams. Like Tally mentioned, if we lose 2 games next week, we could be tied for 2-4 place. There are still six games to play.

If, however, we were to have employed the 3 point win/ 1 point for tie system, the league would be as such:
Sheep: 27 points
Cerebros 22 points (typo in scoreboard)
Destructive 21 points
Fleas 20 points
Bandits: 18 points
Corset: 14 points

The difference? Cerebros 1 win and 2 ties back (Instead of 1 &1); Destructive, still 2 wins back; Fleas 2 wins and 1 tie back (instead of 2 wins only) etc. In other words, they would need one more game to catch up. Just thought I would point that out.

Last edited: Saturday, July 17, 2004 at 7:39:26 PM

Aye, the higher possible point total means greater pad for the team with the best record, makes sense.

Just because I was interested. Standings if points were used for wins and losses to date. The ' * ' are games played short. Teams are abbr. As trying to get spacing to work is unknown to me. It seems you can only have one space between symbols. Dots were added to get the columns to some what line up. Sht is Short games. I can say we would not be bunched up! So to summarize.

The order win-loss-tie:

Black Sheep: 6-1
CereBros Locos: 3-4
Bandits: 4-2-1
Destructive: 3-4
Killer Flea's: 2-5
Steel Corset: 3-3-1

Last edited: Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 2:15:37 AM

This is all VERY interesting.....BUT I will field 3 or even 2 players next week. Which reserve do I get?

Edit: PREY to line up spacing use a fixed width font like courier new. The [(tt)] tags [/(tt)] are also good for adding in things you want spaced...here it is again:

B

Last edited: Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 2:53:56 AM

@Prey
These are the scores if we added up both games? Good homework. Now, can you do the scoreboard if point differential was the only method (i.e., no wins and losses)? :-). Hehehe. (Actually, I would be interested to know)

And does anyone know about the script change for flag placement?

Crazy Prey. Shows how dominant the black sheep are, and how the rest of us generally suck :). Did someone say point differential?
Bolo, whatcha got there?

Would we have played the same if we were going for total points and not individual wins?

Welcome lonewolf!!

B

Probably not aye?

B gets lonewolf, and there was much celebration throughout the land.