TWD 2.0 begins Sun, March 18th

[qan]

We went back and forth about 0 points or +5 and ended up going with +5. 0 is likely better. If most agree we'll go with that for the next season. The point is to not punish activity, but perhaps rewarding it regardless of outcome is problematic.

The intention is that you shouldn't be able to win by not playing games. Under the old system it was feasible to win a small number of games and simply refuse challenges, particularly near the end of a season. While that's a viable strategy, it's not much of a benefit to the zone overall. Negative points meanwhile sometimes caused squads to dissolve and reform to start with a fresh 1000 rating.

You shouldn't be able to win by simply losing games, either. And, indeed, it's not possible to simply lose most games, but play hundreds of games more than other squads, and still come out on top. There are too few squads to which you can spread out the winning points in such a way that one of those squads would not easily overcome the "strategic loss" squad.

[Ricko]

The old points system wasn't even broken - defeating a squad who were 60 pts ahead of you and knowing that the amount of points you'd get and the amount they'd lose would push you above them was huge in making every game matter, for both sides.

The points system didn't need changing - you're trying to fix the wrong things. If paladen end up on 600 pts every twd season as they have done for 15 years then that's their issue for being bad, not a zone issue. That has nothing to do with the points system being flawed but the fundamental issue instilled within Paladen that they do the same things 1000 times over and expect different results, despite numerous top players trying to give them advice or temporarily joining them.

TWD AND TWL ARE MEANT TO BE AS COMPETITIVE AS POSSIBLE.

[Dierienow]

Then why would borrowing ever be allowed?

[Ricko]

Borrowing has nothing to do with this and is a good feature, it doesn't necessarily kill off people trying to play competitively if they are borrowing a player for a match. Moot comment.

[Dierienow]

But clearly there was a decline before the change was implemented, as claimed by Qan and proven by your signature. Not moot.

[Tiny]

Borrowing = good
points for losing = bad
Come on guy

[Ricko]

and proven by your signature. Not moot.

Not even sure what this is attempting to implicate

[Geio]

Not even sure what this is attempting to implicate

What is this dude even trying to say I dont get his point anyways Ricko is spot on with this.

[Dierienow]

I guess what I am trying to say is the days of competitive play in TW are probably numbered. What does it matter if it's not a perfect system.. it's flawed already because you can just grab the player you want by asking some guy to sit out behind the scenes. Fairness is a process.. you don't get a competitive game by being able to switch out players.. if people don't show it's a forfeit/loss. The points for losing is bad but it's really just a part of it.. so what's the big deal. The fact that the guy you might shit talk who's on a different name might actually be someone with power over the game is retarded - it should be completely automated and unbiased. Talk about competitive integrity in this game in 2018 is incredible.. no wonder this game is dead.


Also the point system isn't as bad as you think in a game with 16 active players. It's to encourage people to play more based on the idea that, yes, someone can accumulate points if they play a lot but if you're better you'll accumulate them faster. Maybe the points gained should be based on a number of factors rather than a flat 5, that way if you're skilled you don't have to play half as much as Jessup, maybe 1/4 or 1/8. Based on factors such as an internal ELO rating, number of times squads have faced off, etc., so that active players have an advantage but not a security.

[skyforger]

Solid post, Dierienow!

[Dierienow]

Thanks SkyForger. Most modern games have some way to reward highly active players. Wealth in MMO's is almost directly correlated with play time. For many years League gave points just for playing, now they changed it so to get points you need to play well on a variety of characters. Most modern games have some built-in method of generating revenue also but SS is in its own galaxy clearly.

That's why I would support earning some points even for losing, with the points based on a squad's internal MMR with zero-sum mechanism. That way you can still track who is a stronger team, but it's not the basis for who wins the league. Simply adding a minimum # of games played doesn't generate activity beyond a certain point.