|
On July 28 2013 23:08 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:43 KazeHydra wrote:On July 28 2013 21:39 ggrrg wrote:On July 28 2013 21:26 Sentenal wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 ggrrg wrote:
I don't see what the problem is with having two sB teams with two different rosters playing in the league. Just make them play eachother in the first or second week and you can be pretty sure that nobody would want to throw games so early and won't be able to do so later... It isn't nearly as simple as "who wins head to head" between them. Last season the top 3 teams were all 6-2, and the 4th and 5th place teams were 5-3. With standings that insanely close, it makes individual sets tons more important, since it actually matters if you win 5-0 rather than 3-2 or something. I still don't understand how there is any potential for throwing if the two teams play in the first two weeks. Or do you think they will intentionally go for a 3-2 score in week 1? Any rigged results in the beginning of the season are about as likely to end up screwing up both teams as they are to help them, especially if the season ends up being as close as it has been last time. As Sent said, it's not only about head to head. With 2 teams, you have more control over who else makes the playoffs. Throwing or even taking a 3-2 win instead of a 5-0 to control who makes the 4th spot can be done. Of course, nobody is saying they will do this, but the potential is there, and there will be unwanted suspicion if any curious results occur. But this would not benefit any of the sB teams! That's not a fair concern because every other team can potentially do the same. Also, there has to be a certain situation occuring at the end of the season in order for playoff manipulations to be possible at all. sB with 2 teams might be more likely to end up being able to control such a situation than a particular other team, but certainly not as likely as any of the other teams.
I don't know how you can say any one team has the same potential amount of manipulation power as 2 teams.
|
In the situation I outlined, the throwing benefits the non-throwing team. So if SB A throws, SB B benefits, and so forth.
Collusion can indeed occur between any two teams, but is more likely between teams that are blatantly allied. See players/teams of the same nation in events like WCG. Sure random guy from Chile could collude with random guy from China, but it's far far more likely for two guys from Korea to collude to stack their brackets (I note Korea because this has indisputably occurred in the past). I don't think we should encourage such behavior.
|
If sB wants a second team in the league they could always branch out and rebrand the second team in the case of a team being unable to field 2 separated squads, so I sincerely don't see why not allow them to have a Team A and Team B in the league.
As long each of those fulfill DRTL requirements, they are good to go. If they end up in a situation where one of the teams could suspiciously throw up games in order to help the other team, all I can see as a result is that sB image will go down the drain, together with the involved players reputation.
And as a final note, Team A and Team B should be completely independent, which means no player swapping at any point in this league, under any circunstances.
|
On July 28 2013 23:19 KazeHydra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:08 ggrrg wrote:On July 28 2013 22:43 KazeHydra wrote:On July 28 2013 21:39 ggrrg wrote:On July 28 2013 21:26 Sentenal wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 ggrrg wrote:
I don't see what the problem is with having two sB teams with two different rosters playing in the league. Just make them play eachother in the first or second week and you can be pretty sure that nobody would want to throw games so early and won't be able to do so later... It isn't nearly as simple as "who wins head to head" between them. Last season the top 3 teams were all 6-2, and the 4th and 5th place teams were 5-3. With standings that insanely close, it makes individual sets tons more important, since it actually matters if you win 5-0 rather than 3-2 or something. I still don't understand how there is any potential for throwing if the two teams play in the first two weeks. Or do you think they will intentionally go for a 3-2 score in week 1? Any rigged results in the beginning of the season are about as likely to end up screwing up both teams as they are to help them, especially if the season ends up being as close as it has been last time. As Sent said, it's not only about head to head. With 2 teams, you have more control over who else makes the playoffs. Throwing or even taking a 3-2 win instead of a 5-0 to control who makes the 4th spot can be done. Of course, nobody is saying they will do this, but the potential is there, and there will be unwanted suspicion if any curious results occur. But this would not benefit any of the sB teams! That's not a fair concern because every other team can potentially do the same. Also, there has to be a certain situation occuring at the end of the season in order for playoff manipulations to be possible at all. sB with 2 teams might be more likely to end up being able to control such a situation than a particular other team, but certainly not as likely as any of the other teams. I don't know how you can say any one team has the same potential amount of manipulation power as 2 teams.
Because I assume that any team playing in the league would want to make the playoffs. This means that in order for one of the sb teams to profit from the other sb team throwing, one of the teams must already be certainly in the playoffs while the other is certainly out of the playoffs contender.
1. This assumes that one of the teams is willing to throw just so the other team possibly has an easier playoff opponent.
2. Considering how close last season was, we can expect that certainty of one team's fate will be achieved very late in the season (if not even after the last week). At the same time, any other team in the league also has a chance at having a secured playoff spot before the last week of games, and thus also might have the possibility to throw their final game in order to secure themselves an easier playoff opponent.
There are two more possibilities for a sb team to profit from the other sb team throwing.
1. They play against eachother late in the season and the one team throws so the other team gets to the playoffs or has a better chance of reaching the playoffs. This can be easily eliminated by making SB1 and SB2 play in the first week of the season.
2.
- SB1 is already certainly in or out while SB2 is very close to reaching the playoffs.
- There is the possibility of a 3-way tie with SB2 being on of the teams (say teams A and B).
2.1. if tiebreaker is head-to-head:
If team B and SB2 have already played all of their games and they are tied but B has won against SB2 and would thus advance SB1 might want to throw their game against A (if SB2>A and B<A), in order to achieve a three-way tie in which SB2 gets another chance.
However, this requires the knowledge that SB2 and B already won. If they had lost, letting A win would put them ahead of B and SB2. And with B>SB2, SB2 would be out no matter if 1 or 2 of the tied teams advance.
This problem can be prevented by letting SB1 play before the other teams SB2 and B in the last week.
2.2 if tiebreaker is map score
Theoretically, there is a miniscule chance of similar 3-way tie situation occuring, where all teams have tied map score. With the same reasoning as above, SB1 might want to throw. However, yet again knowledge of the other results is needed. The solution would be again letting SB1 play before SB2 and B.
On July 28 2013 23:24 EchOne wrote:
In the situation I outlined, the throwing benefits the non-throwing team. So if SB A throws, SB B benefits, and so forth.
Collusion can indeed occur between any two teams, but is more likely between teams that are blatantly allied. See players/teams of the same nation in events like WCG. Sure random guy from Chile could collude with random guy from China, but it's far far more likely for two guys from Korea to collude to stack their brackets (I note Korea because this has indisputably occurred in the past). I don't think we should encourage such behavior.
I understand what you are talking about and I remember the example you gave 
However, this would only be an indirect benefit to SB B, since they have to be already qualified for the playoffs for this situation to matter. And as outlined in my reasoning above, theoretically any other team that has a guaranteed spot in the playoffs can potentially throw their final game in order to get an easier playoff opponent/remove a nasty opponent.
On July 28 2013 23:34 fabiano wrote:
[...]
And as a final note, Team A and Team B should be completely independent, which means no player swapping at any point in this league, under any circunstances.
I agree that this should be a requirement.
|
Just let them have and if anyone even smells anything fishy just burn em.
|
On July 29 2013 00:25 tonight wrote:
Just let them have and if anyone even smells anything fishy just burn em.
But it's a bird causing all this commotion...
|
|
|
The possibility of a 3-way map tie, even if miniscule, should not be discounted because it is not impossible. It has happened and it can happen again.
The solution of artificially enforcing an order to games played ("letting SB1 play before SB2 and B.") is difficult to work because the league invariably has postponements all the time. Last season we had postponements of up to 3 weeks later. Shit was ridiculous and we can't rely on any one series playing out all its games before another. It simply won't happen.
The likely scenario is that the series are played piecemeal, game by game, with SB1 and SB2 sharing information and results as the games get played.
Sure any team can throw for their own benefit or try to collude with others. This doesn't eliminate the fact that related or allied teams are more likely to collude, and that a benefit exists, even if indirect.
|
On July 29 2013 01:23 EchOne wrote:
The possibility of a 3-way map tie, even if miniscule, should not be discounted because it is not impossible. It has happened and it can happen again.
Hmmm, looking through the results of the previous DRTLs I can't find an instance of a 3-way map-score tie. There were several 2-way map ties. However, throwing can only be beneficial in a 3-way situation.
The solution of artificially enforcing an order to games played ("letting SB1 play before SB2 and B.") is difficult to work because the league invariably has postponements all the time. Last season we had postponements of up to 3 weeks later. Shit was ridiculous and we can't rely on any one series playing out all its games before another. It simply won't happen.
I understand that scheduling problems can arise. However, the chances of this rescheduling being needed are extremely low to begin with. The chances for all games of the first match needed to have been played are even lower, so the rescheduling restrictions are smaller. Even after assuming that people would be willing to do shit like rigging games, the chances of a situation occuring where this is possible are basically non-existent. And the price of having to postpone some games a week or two longer even if this highly unlikely situation arises is, in my opinion, very low compared to the gain of having significantly more players exposed to the league.
Sure any team can throw for their own benefit or try to collude with others. This doesn't eliminate the fact that related or allied teams are more likely to collude, and that a benefit exists, even if indirect.
As already mentioned, it would be required for sb1 to be certainly through while sb2 is certainly out, so a throw would make any sense. I wouldn't say that this is more likely than the requirement of having any other team simply having secured a playoff spot. (Obvisouly, in both cases the throwing team also has to meet the exact opponent(s) that would allow for a throw to make sense). Also, I don't think it's fair to punish a team simply because they could be in a situation in which theoretically any other team could end up, too, simply because they might have a higher chance of being in that situation (which is even disputable if that is the case).
Also:
On July 28 2013 22:51 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 21:39 ggrrg wrote:On July 28 2013 21:26 Sentenal wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 ggrrg wrote:
I don't see what the problem is with having two sB teams with two different rosters playing in the league. Just make them play eachother in the first or second week and you can be pretty sure that nobody would want to throw games so early and won't be able to do so later... It isn't nearly as simple as "who wins head to head" between them. Last season the top 3 teams were all 6-2, and the 4th and 5th place teams were 5-3. With standings that insanely close, it makes individual sets tons more important, since it actually matters if you win 5-0 rather than 3-2 or something. I still don't understand how there is any potential for throwing if the two teams play in the first two weeks. Or do you think they will intentionally go for a 3-2 score in week 1? Any rigged results in the beginning of the season are about as likely to end up screwing up both teams as they are to help them, especially if the season ends up being as close as it has been last time. As Sentenal mentioned, last season we essentially had 3 teams all vying for the last playoff spot in the last 1-2 weeks, complicated by postponements and such. The spot was essentially sealed by one team taking walkovers against a second team, the second team being unmotivated to play out the games since they were out of playoff contention.If we enter a similar situation with 2 allied teams we can easily have, say, SB2 throwing a series against a playoff contender (let's say contender A) under the logic that SB1 will have an easier time against A than against contender B or C. This will easily put B and C out of contention, completely screwing over all their hard work up till that point.
Apparently, the problem you are talking about has occured in the past with teams that were not affiliated. Obviously having allied teams is not a requirement for this problem to occur.
|
No one said its a requirement, they've been saying it makes existing problems worst and ergo, should be avoided.
|
On July 29 2013 03:09 Dazed_Spy wrote:
No one said its a requirement, they've been saying it makes existing problems worst and ergo, should be avoided.
It makes a problem, which might or might not occur, worse...
If anything the chance of having a walkover would be lower, since sb will probably rather make their players play, then bail on the league. Not to mention that with rescheduling (albeit being difficult) the problem could be removed completely.
On top of that, it requires the assumption that a team is willing to throw games just for the sake of having maybe a marginally worse opponent in the playoffs.
I still think that the concerns are barely relevant, especially when the alternative means that 5-6 players won't be able to participate in the league or 10-12 players will be less exposed to it. I think this would be a big loss for a league where players are such a rare commodity.
|
I think birdie' s intentions are noble, but there is a reason that no sports competition and league have 2 teams with same manager. Therefore i must say i am against this. Maybe if there is an example of a situation where this have been done, i might change my position. But not the team A team B, that is pretty common, usually that indicates a relative overall rank difference.
DEM BIRDS
I still think that the concerns are barely relevant, especially when the alternative means that 5-6 players won't be able to participate in the league or 10-12 players will be less exposed to it. I think this would be a big loss for a league where players are such a rare commodity.
So? why not sell/give away some of your players... thats what teams do all the time when they have too many...
Also you could consider lending players to other teams for a season. That is done too.
|
On July 29 2013 03:50 pebble444 wrote:
I think birdie' s intentions are noble, but there is a reason that no sports competition and league have 2 teams with same manager. Therefore i must say i am against this. Maybe if there is an example of a situation where this have been done, i might change my position. But not the team A team B, that is pretty common, usually that indicates a relative overall rank difference.
To be honest, I have no idea how birdie wants to split the team.
But since you asked for examples:
http://leaguepedia.com/wiki/OLYMPUS_Champions_Spring_2013
MVP Blue & Ozone in the same group
http://leaguepedia.com/wiki/HOT6iX_Champions_Summer_2013
Xenics Storm and Blast in the same group
http://leaguepedia.com/wiki/Azubu_The_Champions_Summer_2012
CLG Europe and Prime in the same group
Show nested quote +I still think that the concerns are barely relevant, especially when the alternative means that 5-6 players won't be able to participate in the league or 10-12 players will be less exposed to it. I think this would be a big loss for a league where players are such a rare commodity. So? why not sell/give away some of your players... thats what teams do all the time when they have too many... Also you could consider lending players to other teams for a season. That is done too.
You offering money? :p
But honestly, I can't imagine, how you do that.
"Hey buddy, you're kinda nice but we don't like you that much so go play with the other guys."
|
HOW DARE YOU REFERENCE LEAGUE OF LEGENDS MATERIAL IN THIS BROOD WARS FORUM? SHAME UPON THY!
In the end, it IS Lmaster's decision, but if it comes to where there's only 6 teams, excluding Birdie's possible divided roster, then I don't see why we would need a 7th team to make things annoying to generate a schedule with a bye + 12-14 weeks. ~.~;;
|
On July 29 2013 04:35 SynC[gm] wrote:
HOW DARE YOU REFERENCE LEAGUE OF LEGENDS MATERIAL IN THIS BROOD WARS FORUM? SHAME UPON THY!
In the end, it IS Lmaster's decision, but if it comes to where there's only 6 teams, excluding Birdie's possible divided roster, then I don't see why we would need a 7th team to make things annoying to generate a schedule with a bye + 12-14 weeks. ~.~;;
That's probably the best argument against two sb rosters.
On a side note, I am quite surprised myself that all those boring LoL tournaments would happen to support my argument :p
|
On July 28 2013 23:34 fabiano wrote:
If sB wants a second team in the league they could always branch out and rebrand the second team in the case of a team being unable to field 2 separated squads, so I sincerely don't see why not allow them to have a Team A and Team B in the league.
As long each of those fulfill DRTL requirements, they are good to go. If they end up in a situation where one of the teams could suspiciously throw up games in order to help the other team, all I can see as a result is that sB image will go down the drain, together with the involved players reputation.
And as a final note, Team A and Team B should be completely independent, which means no player swapping at any point in this league, under any circunstances.
Agreed. I don't see what the big fuss is about, as long as the players are ok with their team splitting. As long as the team without Birdie on it have a assigned captain, it should work. My main concern is whether SB have the depth. With Birdie, Arca, TheMarine, LCC and icedraco getting fielded pretty much all the time, I wonder if they really have the depth for 2 active teams. But if Birdie could fill those gaps by recruiting mainly outside of the free agency, then why not? I'm for (pretty much) anything that leads to more players in the league. This should also decrease the overall team skill level, as atleast 4 of those players are C- max.
|
On July 29 2013 04:47 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:34 fabiano wrote:
If sB wants a second team in the league they could always branch out and rebrand the second team in the case of a team being unable to field 2 separated squads, so I sincerely don't see why not allow them to have a Team A and Team B in the league.
As long each of those fulfill DRTL requirements, they are good to go. If they end up in a situation where one of the teams could suspiciously throw up games in order to help the other team, all I can see as a result is that sB image will go down the drain, together with the involved players reputation.
And as a final note, Team A and Team B should be completely independent, which means no player swapping at any point in this league, under any circunstances. Agreed. I don't see what the big fuss is about, as long as the players are ok with their team splitting. As long as the team without Birdie on it have a assigned captain, it should work. My main concern is whether SB have the depth. With Birdie, Arca, TheMarine, LCC and icedraco getting fielded pretty much all the time, I wonder if they really have the depth for 2 active teams. But if Birdie could fill those gaps by recruiting mainly outside of the free agency, then why not? I'm for (pretty much) anything that leads to more players in the league. This should also decrease the overall team skill level, as atleast 4 of those players are C- max.
I've got 9 players already. I'm well aware that a lot of the players I've recruited are not as high level as some of the veterans on the team, but that's yet another reason to have two teams. If there's one team, there's always the temptation for me to only play my best players (usually doesn't happen but it's still there). The purpose of the league is to get low level players motivated to play and practice more, so splitting into two teams means that there's much more playtime for the players involved.
The two teams would have separate rosters and a separate captain.
|
On July 29 2013 04:35 SynC[gm] wrote:
HOW DARE YOU REFERENCE LEAGUE OF LEGENDS MATERIAL IN THIS BROOD WARS FORUM? SHAME UPON THY!
In the end, it IS Lmaster's decision, but if it comes to where there's only 6 teams, excluding Birdie's possible divided roster, then I don't see why we would need a 7th team to make things annoying to generate a schedule with a bye + 12-14 weeks. ~.~;;
12-14 week schedule with byes with 7 teams...? Birdie, plz stop this madness.
|
On July 29 2013 05:09 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 04:35 SynC[gm] wrote:
HOW DARE YOU REFERENCE LEAGUE OF LEGENDS MATERIAL IN THIS BROOD WARS FORUM? SHAME UPON THY!
In the end, it IS Lmaster's decision, but if it comes to where there's only 6 teams, excluding Birdie's possible divided roster, then I don't see why we would need a 7th team to make things annoying to generate a schedule with a bye + 12-14 weeks. ~.~;; 12-14 week schedule with byes with 7 teams...? Birdie, plz stop this madness.
I'm thinking 12 weeks with 6 teams is most likely. 6 is a good number imo, and keep everything nice and even with no byes or disadvantage playoff situations from one team having harder schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
