CriticalKat

Originally Posted by VexXxa

Originally Posted by Jaso

Just an observation but how is this at all encouraging new pvpers or any sort of "fun." From what I can tell from the fourms postings - your d8 teams either tried or did stack their second round draft picks for d6 with vet pvpers. You play 6v6 and can have 2 of your "league" vets on the team so at minimum your playing 3 vets and 3 new people in a match. Even with everyone plays all your doing is rotating 3 new people in with the same three vets. Even with the less weighting of points all your encouraging is team stacking and if I read the spirit of the league correctly that was not the intent....

IMHO you should not allow any "d8" players in "d6" matches and force an everyone plays rule. I mean if you want to have a ladder, have a ladder, if you want to encourage new pvpers with a league - do it right.

Just reading all the mess around who got what player and who makes the rules or decisions...it's enough to make anyone just want to zone pvp.

Originally Posted by Neuronia

I honestly don't know. Just trying to help out here, I thought the D6 and D8 were seperate as D6 teams often don't field a lot of D8ers either way.

I've been operating the standings as follows:

Total up wins.
In event of tie in wins, Kills scored for/Kills scored against. That's why POWT is currently at the top of the standings, while U2BG played tighter games.

If you guys all want, I can just combine both D6 and D8 standings, but my understanding was that D6 and D8 would be doing seperate playoffs; the standings don't seem to impact much either way as this seems to be a round-robin format overall. If it were a top to bottom playoff format, overall standing and performance would matter more.

Of course, if kills for and against shouldn't be used as a metric, then we can just sort people by the first letter of their team's name...which would be Post Op, Reach Around, Used to...Black on Black, dUmb, Eternal P A I N...so basically what we have now, with less drama and potential e-peen swagger/waving due to personal kill stats.

From a simply heuristic standpoint, it might be good to just go as is and see how it goes. Alternative scoring methods would be possible though. We could use the chess system which ranks people from a base 1600 points (but we're using a 1,000 point for a win system, which would have to be modified for that point scoring pool) and lower/raise the points according to the number of participants, assigning each a "K" value. I think we have 6 points, so a winning team would gain 6 and a losing team would lose 6 with 3 points for a draw. Even this isn't ideal as it doesn't recognize the flow of games and kill stats.

Of course, if kill stats aren't relevant...we go back to square one, deciding whether or not D6 and D8 should be amalgamated. History shows us that they aren't, however. Taking a league I'm familiar with, the NHL...teams are scored on the professional level while the AHL teams are scored on their own. You could make the argument that we're not getting paid to do this (Who knows, some teams might have sponsors) so the differentiation could be by skill, rather than age as tends to be in professional leagues. And if you go by skill...I don't think anyone is arguing that vince, peril and co. are quite good, but they seem to be unfarily punished by the overclocking of kills by other teams AND their alpha-numeric stance as well.

In the end, I'd prefer keeping the standings seperate for a number of reasons, but will go with whatever team leaders choose is the appropriate course of action. I'll disagree, of course, with that course of action if it goes contrary to my current scoring methods. I won't complain, per se, but I may go passive aggressive on the issue and use base editing tools as I did with the old Integrity base on test to write messages on base walls.

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Phillygirl

Why next Thursday instead of tonight? Just curious.

Originally Posted by Slax

When did this happen?

Originally Posted by Slax

dUmb votes for a spanking then let's move on.