Rules for Season 5

You just reiterated everything I said, but you lowered the points.

My suggestion was a win for the sched match (i'm nicknaming them Scheds from this point on) is 8 points. I figure this should be at least that high because of all the other games people will play during the week, 8 won't be a big deal compared to say...30 points you get for playing 10 matches throughout the week (example). So the win MUST be something that will make a difference.

Regular games are 3:1.

8 points for winning your sched.
-3 points for losing.
Completely skipping out on your matches should be -6 points, and the team you skipped out on is awarded 6. Just play the damn game.
(We could also let teams reschedule their matches if they cannot play on a specified day, as to not punish teams that did not intentionally dodge. Deadline to get in their match could be 3 days from the day it is scheduled).

Is that fair? I like these numbers.

Glitch wrote:
8 points for winning your sched.
-3 points for losing.
Completely skipping out on your matches should be -6 points, and the team you skipped out on is awarded 6. Just play the damn game.

Your way does not make it fun for a weaker team to play a stronger team so there would be no incentive to play other than risk losing 6pts.

It's like 'Hey I'm going to get punish for skipping out on this weekly scheduled match (-6pts), but if I play and get stomped, I'll only get punish less (losing -3pts) .' 'Yeah... let's just not sign up at all.'

We're trying to keep activity and some level of competitiveness.

My way, you get points for playing the scheduled match, win or lose, but skipping out would deduct points. You want people to actually try out these scheduled matches first instead of hating on them from the start.

There's a fine line between "pushing a tank" and moving forward for points. Moving to a worse spot to fight the tank is merely going for points. Such as moving toward hittables and such. Dark Carnival 4 there is no reason to go across the roof for a barn tank unless you just want those points. So you can be cheap and die at the button because you don't think you could kill it in the barn, yet the other team kills the barn tank and dies at button. One team kills tank and one runs tank.. fair? Not really, the one running is simply less skilled.

Scheduling games.... So we do this on the weekends? Cool... what if some teams are the LEAST available on the weekends? Seems fair..? Not really. Games can be scheduled, but should not always be something like Friday/Saturday. Give a Four Day timeframe perhaps? Thursday - Sunday or Wednesday - Saturday?

& I support Dave14810's last two posts. However the deathracing, I can see 2 push to a point while 1 is saving an incapped survivor, which is natural strategy, just not running and leaving them. So when the attack is about to be up (which is easy to predict), the two infront stop moving/regroup with the other two. Death racing going 2 & 2 is just a cheap way to get points on lower health.

Rain wrote:

Glitch wrote:
8 points for winning your sched.
-3 points for losing.
Completely skipping out on your matches should be -6 points, and the team you skipped out on is awarded 6. Just play the damn game.

Your way does not make it fun for a weaker team to play a stronger team so there would be no incentive to play other than risk losing 6pts.

It's like 'Hey I'm going to get punish for skipping out on this weekly scheduled match (-6pts), but if I play and get stomped, I'll only get punish less (losing -3pts) .' 'Yeah... let's just not sign up at all.'

We're trying to keep activity and some level of competitiveness.

My way, you get points for playing the scheduled match, win or lose, but skipping out would deduct points. You want people to actually try out these scheduled matches first instead of hating on them from the start.

Hahaha you're suggesting that the "weak teams" will ONLY ever play the "better" teams and take a for sure loss. That's not true. Every team will have to play ALL of the other teams, which means they will play teams weaker than them, AND better than them. That is what a competition is. If you're afraid of losing some points don't play competitively. We are not catering to holding peoples hands anymore. The matches you are free to play award for losses. Scheduled matches should not. This is where the better of the two teams pull ahead for a reason.

All teams will face against teams that are better than them, and everyone will play teams worse than they are. This way everyone has the equal chance of taking those lost points. It certainly is not meant to pick on the weaker teams.



And having to play ONE or TWO scheduled matches a week, when the entire rest of the time they can spend playing whoever as many times as they want, kind of trumps your argument entirely. If a team is going to shy away from a COMPETITION entirely because they might take a point deduction loss once a week, they probably shouldn't sign up at all for any sort of tournament.

l Zoey l wrote:There's a fine line between "pushing a tank" and moving forward for points. Moving to a worse spot to fight the tank is merely going for points. Such as moving toward hittables and such. Dark Carnival 4 there is no reason to go across the roof for a barn tank unless you just want those points. So you can be cheap and die at the button because you don't think you could kill it in the barn, yet the other team kills the barn tank and dies at button. One team kills tank and one runs tank.. fair? Not really, the one running is simply less skilled.

Scheduling games.... So we do this on the weekends? Cool... what if some teams are the LEAST available on the weekends? Seems fair..? Not really. Games can be scheduled, but should not always be something like Friday/Saturday. Give a Four Day timeframe perhaps? Thursday - Sunday or Wednesday - Saturday?

& I support Dave14810's last two posts. However the deathracing, I can see 2 push to a point while 1 is saving an incapped survivor, which is natural strategy, just not running and leaving them. So when the attack is about to be up (which is easy to predict), the two infront stop moving/regroup with the other two. Death racing going 2 & 2 is just a cheap way to get points on lower health.

I suggested letting matches be rescheduled for up to 3 days before/after the day of the match. (ie if the match is scheduled for saturday, you can arrange for it to be played thursday, friday or saturday OR Saturday, Sunday or Monday). If you can't get one game in over 3 days then I have no sympathy.

We also already established that you cannot push over the rooftops of DC4 if a tank spawns before it.
And you pretty much stated everything that has already been said about pushing into crescendos, etc, being for running only, so I have no comment.
I think we need to leave the 'pushing' argument alone to die. Your argument itself just proves that you cannot realistically determine what is pushing FAIRLY and what isn't. People know the difference between full-out deathracing, and pushing. If a team deathraces, they will be punished. But if they push too hard and you get upset about it, I don't really care and I don't think we can establish rules based around that.

I clearly know the difference considering I never push unfairly/cheaply & see other teams do so. Everyone who likes cheap points to get a small lead argues for pushing tanks too far/deathracing. There are common spots to kill tanks and strategies that work to prevent "pussy tanks", but no one wants to play with skill, they just want to get cheap points it seems. & DC4 was merely an example, there are plenty of others, but I don't care enough to point them all out and talk to someone who isn't even an admin/has no final say.

I agree with one thing though, you can't stop teams from being cheap and running then arguing.

I may not be an "admin" but I'm sure I have a fair bit of influence over most because I actually know what I am talking about. ◕‿◕

lol, chill :3

EVERYONE is important. We are reading these posts and considering opinions. "Admin" is just a title for us 5 people who will make the final decision. No, we weren't elected. We did exactly what previous admins did: step up to the plate and set up a league. Because of that, I want the community to help us decide. "Admin" really doesn't mean much right now, especially at this stage of creating the league.

So I Zoey I, what do you suggest we do about running on tanks, then? I really don't know much of a feasible proposition, other than listing a bunch of rules. I will teach my team not to do it, and I would hope other teams would follow suit. It's usually pretty clear when people are deathracing. And they will be punished if we decide they did, as Vorym pointed out.

The only "rule" you can make it just to let teams dispute it. Video evidence is the way to determine it & if there is no evidence, then call the game no contest and neither teams are rewarded points.

Teams who aren't cheap won't do it and will use their skill in the game to win, and those who are desperate to win will be the ones to abuse running the tanks/deathracing anyways. & Everyone knows there are respectable teams who will fight the tank even if it means wiping and play every game fairly. If a survivor team cannot kill a tank, then they deserve to wipe.

However, if indeed there is evidence that a team is guilty, I think they should lose all points for that chapter. Or at least all points gained after the tank spawned. The deathracing/tank running was not a big issue last season, so I feel this is a fair punishment. Being shady should cost you.

Oh & fyi: I'm not going to read everyone's posts for details, I merely skim. If I mention something previously mentioned, I clearly didn't read it & don't care for every book-report posted. If you find my post to be too long, I'm only aiming for "JibJabJessie" to read it anyways.


Oh & with "dodging" (lawl - harassing someone to play you is pathetic), if there is a rule requiring teams to play teams, then there should be a rule limiting the amount of times two teams can play each other in a week as well. (This may be mentioned already, but my opinion being stated anyway).

Jessie... please state that if infected cannot ladder block than neither can survivors...

-__- i swear...

l Zoey l wrote:The only "rule" you can make it just to let teams dispute it. Video evidence is the way to determine it & if there is no evidence, then call the game no contest and neither teams are rewarded points.

Teams who aren't cheap won't do it and will use their skill in the game to win, and those who are desperate to win will be the ones to abuse running the tanks/deathracing anyways. & Everyone knows there are respectable teams who will fight the tank even if it means wiping and play every game fairly. If a survivor team cannot kill a tank, then they deserve to wipe.

However, if indeed there is evidence that a team is guilty, I think they should lose all points for that chapter. Or at least all points gained after the tank spawned. The deathracing/tank running was not a big issue last season, so I feel this is a fair punishment. Being shady should cost you.

Oh & fyi: I'm not going to read everyone's posts for details, I merely skim. If I mention something previously mentioned, I clearly didn't read it & don't care for every book-report posted. If you find my post to be too long, I'm only aiming for "JibJabJessie" to read it anyways.


Oh & with "dodging" (lawl - harassing someone to play you is pathetic), if there is a rule requiring teams to play teams, then there should be a rule limiting the amount of times two teams can play each other in a week as well. (This may be mentioned already, but my opinion being stated anyway).

Of course teams may dispute it Thinking of adding rules to clarify deathracing situations, but again I feel like the rules won't be taken the right way. They'll cry about it, yadda-yadda-yadda. I'd rather us handle the ambiguity with the proof of video and we'll decide what to do about it. Tonight, I plan on getting together with the admins and talking about this, along with how to do the regular season. We're taking all of what you guys have said into consideration. I'd love to give you guys a report afterwards if it commences.

Dodging is probably our main concern right now for us to decide upon what format to use for the regular season. I agree - it is a lawlfest to insult one team to play them. I recommend teams NOT to do it because it might be counter-productive.

S u g a r wrote:Jessie... please state that if infected cannot ladder block than neither can survivors...

-__- i swear...

lol, wasn't aware that was an issue to ladder block infected ladders - it shall be done. Just no ladder blocking preventing either SI or survivors from physically using the ladder. I think it's ok to have your spitter spit on a ladder to keep them from using it to give more time for your infected. I don't think it's okay to hang on the ladder and prevent either party from climbing up physically.

JibJabJessie wrote:

dave14810 wrote:What would you think about making it mandatory to take all health on finales, especially on Carnie. The game is basically over if the 1st team has at least a 400 pt lead when the 2nd team goes which is veeeerrrry boring.

I thought we DID do this in Season 4 Confogl League, no? It's by default, so unless both teams agree to SPO, you may take those extra health items. Or do you mean either way you choose to play, you MUST take the extra health? In that case, I agree it's boring, but that's the way SPO people like playing. I will get some people's opinions and get back to you.

Yeah sorry thats what I meant, even SPO games would require taking all health on the finale. I initially was thinking it for finales with the extra tank, namely carnie, swamp and dead center but there are so many finales that require camping in some undesirable locations to spawn tanks that maybe it could apply to them all except maybe Parish. It was just a thought.

JibJabJessie wrote:

l Zoey l wrote:


Oh & with "dodging" (lawl - harassing someone to play you is pathetic), if there is a rule requiring teams to play teams, then there should be a rule limiting the amount of times two teams can play each other in a week as well. (This may be mentioned already, but my opinion being stated anyway).

Dodging is probably our main concern right now for us to decide upon what format to use for the regular season. I agree - it is a lawlfest to insult one team to play them. I recommend teams NOT to do it because it might be counter-productive.

Main concern? lawlz. To qualify for the finals, each team that makes it to the top 5 (since that is your finals team count) has to have played each of the other top 5 teams atleast 4 times (since this is 2 months long). If someone aggravates a team to play them more than that or is butthurt that a team won't play them more than that, then they seriously need to worry about things in life other than the videogame. XD

Dave (or anyone), MK informed me about this site having a ranking system for the ladder. What if we used this in place of your RPI system, the bracket system, and 1:3 point system? We would still report W/L records, who played who, and require teams to play each other twice or so. The rank is what determines your place in the playoffs, though. This looks complicated to do a ranking system, but in theory it would remain for teams to play better teams to earn a higher ranking. One of us admins will be in charge of the math.

Ladder Play

a. The ladder rates teams based on an ELO rating system. This is the system they use in professional Chess.

i. Basically, the higher the team you beat is ranked, the more your rating will improve if you beat them.

ii. Likewise, if you get beat by a team who is rated much lower than you, your rating will plummet.

iii. Each match, the most your rating can go up or down is 50 points.

iv. All teams and player start off with a rating of 1000.


And for a mathematical formula if you own Excel, here is an example I found on the internet of the ELO system:

Everyone starts with a base rating of 1500 points.

If you win...
Points gained = 16 + (ratings difference / 25)

If you lose...
Points lost = 16 - (ratings difference / 25)

For example:
Player A has a rating of 1800, Player B has a rating of 1500.
Ratings difference from A to B is -300. Ratings difference from B to A is +300. So...

Player A wins...
16 + (-300 / 25) = 4 points gained by Player A
16 - (300 / 25) = 4 points lost by Player B

Player A loses...
16 - (-300 / 25) = 28 points lost by Player A
16 + (300 / 25) = 28 points gained by Player B
This example doesn't exactly match the ELO system on this site, but it's just to give you guys a sense of how it's calculated.

MK would rather do it like they did the XP thing on Gamebattles, but even GB changed their ranking system to the ELO one. I don't know the formula for their XP system.

l Zoey l wrote:
Main concern? lawlz. To qualify for the finals, each team that makes it to the top 5 (since that is your finals team count) has to have played each of the other top 5 teams atleast 4 times (since this is 2 months long). If someone aggravates a team to play them more than that or is butthurt that a team won't play them more than that, then they seriously need to worry about things in life other than the videogame. XD

Yes, I was thinking about 4 times per team BUT that might be too high if we have a turn out of maybe 15 teams. For example, my team is required to play 14 other teams x4 which is a total of 56 games required. Divide that by 2 and that's roughly 28 games per month, or a game a day (give or take). That seems to be a lot for most teams. I think 2 is more of the magic number (total of 28 games required).

Oh, and also wanted to add that if you don't meet your marker to play each team at least twice, then you WILL NOT QUALIFY. So "dodging" for whatever reason is bad for either party. We will determine who is in fact the "dodger" and fix any loopholes with that so that the team with the passion to play doesn't get disqualified simply because one team refuses to play them.

^^^Yeah I think thats a good idea, I wasn't aware of that ranking system. It would encourage weaker teams to play stronger teams for sure, I'm not sure if it would help with dodging since some teams might be afraid to lose points, but maybe not. It would at least give a smaller benefit to teams continually playing the weaker teams. Another positive would be if a team joins halfway through, they still would have the possibility of making the playoffs by the nature of the system.

I think it looks a good system but you would just have to weight its benefits against possible effects on activity. Teams might not play as much if they know they are going to lose points for losing. At this point in time activity is as important as competitiveness. This would be my main concern. You would also need to either limit disbanding or ban it since that was common when this sort of system was used on say the cg ladder.

I wouldn't mind keeping track of the calculations if this system goes ahead.

JibJabJessie wrote:

Yes, I was thinking about 4 times per team BUT that might be too high if we have a turn out of maybe 15 teams. For example, my team is required to play 14 other teams x4 which is a total of 56 games required. Divide that by 2 and that's roughly 28 games per month, or a game a day (give or take). That seems to be a lot for most teams. I think 2 is more of the magic number (total of 28 games required).

Oh, and also wanted to add that if you don't meet your marker to play each team at least twice, then you WILL NOT QUALIFY. So "dodging" for whatever reason is bad for either party. We will determine who is in fact the "dodger" and fix any loopholes with that so that the team with the passion to play doesn't get disqualified simply because one team refuses to play them.

If each of the TOP FIVE have to have played the other TOP FIVE at least 4 times in 2 months..., that's 16 games each team has to have.. The team that aren't going to make it there shouldn't be required to play anyone if they don't want to. (they still won't make it if 2 weaks are trying to boost)

Or everybody has to have played everybody twice or something? O.o

dave14810 wrote:^^^Yeah I think thats a good idea, I wasn't aware of that ranking system. It would encourage weaker teams to play stronger teams for sure, I'm not sure if it would help with dodging since some teams might be afraid to lose points, but maybe not. It would at least give a smaller benefit to teams continually playing the weaker teams. Another positive would be if a team joins halfway through, they still would have the possibility of making the playoffs by the nature of the system.

I think it looks a good system but you would just have to weight its benefits against possible effects on activity. Teams might not play as much if they know they are going to lose points for losing. At this point in time activity is as important as competitiveness. This would be my main concern. You would also need to either limit disbanding or ban it since that was common when this sort of system was used on say the cg ladder.

I wouldn't mind keeping track of the calculations if this system goes ahead.

There goes that medium with the damn activity being an issue, lol. MK brought up an idea (and I think Vorym did, too), to have like a mini tourney for those teams that didn't make it to the playoffs and have them fight for a prize of 400 MSPs. They still get a chance of SOMETHING even if they don't stand against the better teams.

And disbanding is a possible issue to consider. Maybe allow teams to change up to 4 player slots and not allow teams to disband fully? I'm not sure how this would work.

Also, we should have an added rule about the required "playing every team twice." Each team has to be the "Home" team and the "Away" team. The home team decides SPO or all-health and the map and the away team decides what side to choose first, or something along those lines.

And in regards to making all-health on finales mandatory, we asked a few SPO teams what they thought and they gave us grumpy cat faces :/ I don't think we'll pass that one.

l Zoey l wrote:
If each of the TOP FIVE have to have played the other TOP FIVE at least 4 times in 2 months..., that's 16 games each team has to have.. The team that aren't going to make it there shouldn't be required to play anyone if they don't want to. (they still won't make it if 2 weaks are trying to boost)

Or everybody has to have played everybody twice or something? O.o

Oooops! Sorry for misunderstanding your logic. I think it would be easier if all teams must play other teams twice to make it to the playoffs if that's their intent. We will be looking closely at those top 5 to see if they've made their quota at least with the other teams in the playoffs. We may disregard those quotas unfulfilled from teams who didn't make it to the playoffs. It's a little hard for us to determine who the top 5 are until late into the game. Again, I'm not eyeballing who's the best right now. So in short, the second option you listed will more likely to be passed. And if we do this ranking thing listed previously, that should fix the boosting a bit.

Here's an ELO calculator that MLG uses: http://www.lutanho.net/pgn/calc_elo.html
I was told they use a k value of 32. As long as k is the same positive integer, I don't think it matters.

I don't know if links work on this site... so please let me know if you can't see it.

And I recommend keeping ranks hidden until later into the season. A ranking system will be weird at first because everyone will be equal. It's only until late into the season that teams' true rank will come up. The more data the better, and the beginning data will look ugly.

It seems a pretty easy calculation so it wouldn't be a problem to do. On a different topic it might be an idea to send a quick msg to the team captains about any rule additions/changes etc. such as the no pushing the barn roof with tank up, not allowing to start crescendo events while a tank is in play, Lag outs overall must not exceed 30 minutes, body-blocking any ladder as survivors or SI with the intent to prevent the party from going up or down the ladder etc.
It might help with some possible initial "issues" in games where someone says "Oh I didnt know it was a rule" but if the leaders are made aware of changes there are no excuses.
Also one of the 1st "Other Miscellaneous Rules", says "All health is allowed, unless both parties agree to starter pills only (SPO)." However near the bottom the home team decides what the health rule is so that might need to the edited.

dave14810 wrote:It seems a pretty easy calculation so it wouldn't be a problem to do. On a different topic it might be an idea to send a quick msg to the team captains about any rule additions/changes etc. such as the no pushing the barn roof with tank up, not allowing to start crescendo events while a tank is in play, Lag outs overall must not exceed 30 minutes, body-blocking any ladder as survivors or SI with the intent to prevent the party from going up or down the ladder etc.
It might help with some possible initial "issues" in games where someone says "Oh I didnt know it was a rule" but if the leaders are made aware of changes there are no excuses.
Also one of the 1st "Other Miscellaneous Rules", says "All health is allowed, unless both parties agree to starter pills only (SPO)." However near the bottom the home team decides what the health rule is so that might need to the edited.

Right. I believe we'll be doing a podcast on the 20th and I will send out the messages as well.

I will fix the wording tomorrow, thanks

Ay Jessie, Sugar asked me to post here because she'd forget.
I asked Sugar if you guys would be open to allowing a bigger roster size, but keeping the same prizes. So 5 prizes would still be awarded so you guys aren't having to pay out anything extra, but we'd be able to make 6 person teams. I don't see why it'd be an issue for you guys in any way. Just wondering your feedback.

There were a couple others asking this, too. I will increase the roster size to 6, then let other team leaders know this. You all have to figure out who's not getting a prize though :3 (not that everyone cares about one).

Thanks for the inquiry.

Glitch wrote:Ay Jessie, Sugar asked me to post here because she'd forget.
I asked Sugar if you guys would be open to allowing a bigger roster size, but keeping the same prizes. So 5 prizes would still be awarded so you guys aren't having to pay out anything extra, but we'd be able to make 6 person teams. I don't see why it'd be an issue for you guys in any way. Just wondering your feedback.

Good idea Vorym, Good to see harrison back as well