Thanks again for voting for me as your head of the rules committee for the Amateur League. All in all, I think things ran pretty smoothly in the Spring League and only a few minor tweaks are going to be needed for the upcoming Summer League.
I will have a draft version of the SML09 rules for your review in a few days. Before I post that, however, I would like to get your preliminary feedback regarding what changes you guys would like to see.
Right now, the biggest changes I have on the to-do list are:
-Updating the tiebreaker procedure to include head-to-head goals per game and remove batting average. -Inserting a rule about "walk-in" scores after the host has changed in a game. -Including the purpelchicken rule.
The new tiebreaker procedures would look something like this:
In the event of a tie when determining positions, playoff seeding, or wildcard berths between two teams within a division, the following tiebreaker procedures will be used in order:
Head-to-head regular season record Head-to-head goals per game Average team goals scored per game in common games A one game playoff scheduled by the League A coin toss (If a one game playoff cannot be scheduled)
In the event of a tie when determining playoff seeding between two teams from different divisions, the following tiebreaker procedures will be used in order:
Average team goals scored per game A one game playoff scheduled by the League A coin toss (If a one game playoff cannot be scheduled)
In the event of a tie when determining wild card berths between two teams from different divisions, the following tiebreaker procedures will be used in order:
Average team goals scored per game. A one game playoff scheduled by the League A coin toss (If a one game playoff cannot be scheduled)
The new walk-in rule will be something like this:
If the game connects to a new host, and gives an explicit message saying so, at any time before a team has scored five goals, the game is to be immediately halted. The teams are to then run a new network test. Once a smooth connection is established and agreed upon, the game is to be restarted. Any goals scored before a new host was established still count. Once a new game has begun, the teams are to walk in goals to make the score equal to what it was before the game established a new host. Once the score has been adjusted, the following round begins as normal. If a new host is established after the game-winning goal is scored, the game will only be replayed if it is formally disputed and the dispute is approved.
Other things to consider: -Neutral Host: Should it be mandatory for the last round(s) of the playoffs? -Tiebreakers: Should any other tiebreaker procedures be included? -Any other points of interest?
Finally, in you are interested in being on the Rules Committee, send me a message on RT.
I think everyone knows my main issue by now, and my stand on it, but since this is a new thread, I'll go over it again. Neutral host required for the last few rounds of playoffs. At least final four, preferably elite eight. AFAIK, Zeg, Highland, Hockeypunk and a few others easily pull over everyone, or nearly everyone, in Amateur. With just those three, there's nine total games, three apiece, to make the elite eight much fairer. As of right now neutral host is only if both teams agree, which leads to teams who know they pull host over another team refusing neutral for just that reason, also, it's pretty much undeniable that neutral host makes a fairer game. Sure, people can bitch about people connecting better or worse, but that would be a part of Grifball even if we had dedicated servers provided by Bungie.
Sorry - but I don't believe there is going to be a thing such as neutral host. I've hosted numerous games on SNGB for that purpose and one team or another connects way better to me than their opponents. So - you take away the factor of having one team or another have host - but in my hosting situation - it doesn't matter since so many people connect to me way that even having their own host it becomes unfair. Since we cannot set up a 47K port LAN I think it's fair to say that for playoffs - a trial game should be run - if host is so significant as to upset the play of the other team - then they should have the option of rescheduling with a supposed "neutral host". Just my 2 pence
I can agree with this, at least for the championship. I think it is a fair compromise at that point. Not sure about best of 3 for Final 4 (time purposes for my only reason).
To be honest, I'm not a fan of neutral host either. And this is coming from a guy not on a host pulling team (we may get it every so often but it's not reliable). And as Highland said, it's not really neutral as some people connect to hosts differently. Personally, I have a few people I would prefer to pull host as it helps me out as well. And if you do your research you would eventually find you own host to leech off of. It's not perfect, nor while it solve anything. I'm just afraid that people will being to fight over who's going to be the designated host puller and such. And even then, host will always be different from game to game.
Just my opinion, but I don't like neutral host and wouldn't really care to play it at all.
Just to see what some reactions are, I figured I'd toss this out there. Last year the Spring League was roughly on the same pace as it is currently, with the start of Summer coming in early-mid July, and of course the end took so long that Fall league was skipped, thus giving me two questions.
1) What is the probability Fall League will be skipped over again?
2) Would it be possible to expand Summer League and skip what would be a rushed Fall League or no Fall League?
The best way I could think of an expansion would we something such as:
Amateur: Play each other team in your division 3 times instead of 2. This also gives you a solid tie-breaker for divisional ties.
Pro: Like Amateur, each team plays the rest of their division one more time (Also, would end the tie breaking line at Head-to-Head Record) and add a Rivalry game where teams such as SB/Beer, SI/Quo, CAG/BB would take place. Team's without rivalries would simply have another out of division game.
i think it was also due in part to the large number of teams, and the resulting long playoffs. if the same circumstances occur this year, then perhaps learning from the past and making some modifications, such as the ones you have suggested, would help to prevent a repeat of last year.
the only problem i see with Amateur teams playing each opponent 3 times is a likely increase in forfeits when more teams realize during the season that they are out of playoff contention.
People talk about connection on a neutral host as though it's more of a factor then that it is in a normal game. Connection exists, and has the same effect, in a normal host game. Say my team is playing TFOmen, and Gladiator Kush pulls host. I'm going +40 that game, at least. If there was a Zeg neutral host for that game, then I'd play like a normal player again. Host, by its very definition is unfair. Neutral host doesn't claim perfect fairness, but it is one step closer to it.
Hawk is correct. Even with dedicated servers, like the ones EA uses, players that connect better to the host (or server, as it were) are favoured. A neutral host is as close as any online game gets to fair.
In the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, I'll reply here.
Regarding Amateur, one reason why we should aim to have both a Summer League and a Fall League is so that new teams can sign up and play. If a group of newbies discover grifball.com on August 1st, they are much more likely to stick around if they are told that the next league will begin in September, rather than December.
In reply to TheOneHawk, #12: In reply to LBCountry, #13:
But my point is that when there is a server then the choice is taking out of the equation but with neutral host there's the possibility of actually fixing it to your advantage. It's not something I expect everyone to do, or even admit. But the fact is, this falls into the realm of "lagging out" before 5 scores or asking for multiple network tests to affect host.
All I'm saying is I'd rather leave much of it to chance and take the possibilty of influencing the outcome of the game.
I'm here to have fun. Championship or no championship, I just don't see the outright benefit to neutral host being required.
And if you want to be continue the arguement of being competitive, then I have two solutions for you. 1) Try to qualify for Pro next season. 2) Research and practice the host pulling abilities of your opponent much like how real sports teams will scout.
Of course, and I wouldn't think of the main host pullers (Highland, Zeg) as anything but trustworthy. I'm just worried more so about the teams that will play.
Possible scene: Bad Captain: They want Zeg to be host puller, even though that's fair, we play better with Highland's host. Lackey, just "lag out" constantly and then maybe we get to use Highland. Lackey #1: Yes, boss.
All I'm trying to say is I don't like when you open a game to more chances to bend the rules. I don't like blindly trusting other teams (sorry, I like most everyone but I'm still very wary). Hell, I would love it if players were locked in a roster for the season after they play a game. And I'm not talking about the rule in place, I wish we were able to have grifball.com not allow people to be kicked off or leave.
Bad teams that need to cheat probably won't make the elite 8, imo. Green Army, HLC, SB!! Teams like that don't need to cheat to win, or at least don't think they do. I can see that kind of problem with earlier playoffs, but most of those teams will probably be culled by the top end.
But then shouldn't it be up to the teams that make it to decide that.
Through 4 seasons and 3 playoff runs, HLC has yet to play a SNGB or neutral host game. And it's not because we think we'll have a better shot at winning. It's because it changes the game that some of us have played for over a year now.
Forcing teams to play neutral host? What's next? Enforcing a rule that we have to have a designated runner?
(That last part was an exaggeration, in case you didn't catch it.)
I would also much rather have a fall league then an extended summer, but what if it were to be canceled again due to a lack of time, that's what I was more concerned with, not canceling Fall simply for an extended Summer. Also, What about the people who discover grifball on November 1st. I saw where you were going with that argument, but it wasn't a strong one.
More seasons = More chances for newbies to jump into the league.
AFAIK, we're perfectly on schedule to have a summer league and a fall league this season. Having the committees helps get things done in time so we won't have a repeat of '08.
After reading what you guys are saying, I can come around to the point of having a fall league. In fact, it's a total 180. Especially when it comes just down to playing more games. We all like that.
And I want more noobies to show up. I plan on getting on my recruitment train as soon as I start school again.
I'd rather not have a neutral host, personally. Everyone on my team has played just, regular ol' grifball. I think if you start changing who you connect to (someone outside of the 2 teams), it would in turn change the way you've been playing since you started. I find that having 1 person on 1 team or the other having host is kind of a "tradition." Because no matter what way you look at it, someone is going to connect better to the host compared to somebody else, regardless if their neutral or not. It's the nature of the beast, which in a way, isn't much different than connecting to someone you're playing with, it is? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I've never had to deal with a neutral host before, but that's just what I'd take out of it.
I'm enjoying the conversations we're getting into. If you have something on your mind in regards to the rules, put it out there to discuss. That's how things change or get clarified. No hurt in putting it out for other people to comment on, or CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize.
As someone who -has- played on neutral host, the game was -exactly- the same, except we didn't have to deal with one player on the other team being much, much harder to kill. Connection happens in neutral host, AND it happens in normal host, but no matter what, host will have an advantage. Connection is exactly the same issue in neutral as non, so it's not a valid point, neutral doesn't change that at -all-. Neutral just removes one player who is definitely going to be connecting well, no matter what.
I agree here. There will always, neutral host or no, be people connecting better than others. But, the difference lies in how large the advantage is. If one person pulls host, they have an obvious and undeniable advantage over everyone on the court. And being on a team with someone generally means you are accustomed to their host, and understand how it works and how things tend to play out. But with neutral, no one player has that ridiculous advantage that the host does. I can stand still with the bomb, wait for someone to sword lunge, and react afterwards and stiffarm them. But only on host. That is completely game changing and, in my opinion, an unfair advantage. With neutral, someone may connect better to a host, or a team may have played on the neutral puller's host more than another, but the advantage is significantly lessened.
I think that if a team is willing to do that, they would find a way to cheat on the current rule set, regardless on neutral host. And how is clearing one's cache or turning off my computer to pull any different from trying to get the neutral I want? My point is, people like that will always be around, and will always abuse the system. But this gives them much less of an advantage when their attempts to get a leg up succeed.
I have an idea, probably bad, probably going to get shot down, but I'll put it out there anyways.
If a team, in amateur, in the playoffs, requests neutral host from the other team, the other team cannot refuse, HOWEVER, the team that requests has to do all the work arranging it, and the other team gets to choose the host. At elite eight/Final four, whatever, it becomes a host both can agree on, and required.
I dont think you should HAVE to do a neutral host. Its just like with regular sports. Teams work hard all season to get to the playoffs, to get the best overall seed possible, so if you continue to move on and face the lower seeds, your team should always get the oppurtunity to at least host the game. I mean, we dnt even have a host puller with a great connection. But we can pull off of host and hopefully the shennaniganz equal out. I dnt know, i see a lot more discussion on this one subject.
As someone who -has- played on neutral host, the game was -exactly- the same, except we didn't have to deal with one player on the other team being much, much harder to kill. Connection happens in neutral host, AND it happens in normal host, but no matter what, host will have an advantage. Connection is exactly the same issue in neutral as non, so it's not a valid point, neutral doesn't change that at -all-. Neutral just removes one player who is definitely going to be connecting well, no matter what.
This is what is most convincing to me. Neutral Host isn't a magical fix-all that turns our games into LAN games, but it is a step in the right direction.
My biggest concern is the conflict that will inevitably arise if we require neutral host for the final four and the finals--teams disagreeing on who will be the host-puller. What if one team refuses to play with Zeg, and the other refuses to play with Highlnd? The last thing I would want is for those people with powerful connections who are nice enough to volunteer their time to be dragged into some petty dispute because one or both teams want to maximize every edge they can get.
I think that if we require neutral host, we should also require a three-game series in that round with at least two host-pullers in the three games.
I don't know how MooCow feels about making next season's final four games a best-of-three series, but what I propose is to have both the final four and the finals be a best-of-three series with required neutral host, with at least two different hosts per series.
What do you guys think? Is that too much to ask of the teams or the host pullers?
I think that idea is the best one proposed so far, but I wish there was some kind of incentive for people to do neutral host during the earlier playoffs.
