That would be done in the spreadsheet I think as you have all results there. But you would need access to edit the spreadsheet.

I can do that latter. Will see at the end of the tournament. Your point system is interesting, but for example you count a ratio won points/games played, without taking into account for the different number of point you can get in 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3. We could easily deal with it.

Well, I think it would be interesting if the league had a more precise way to measure players. It could be useful when choosing rosters. It might also be interesting as a competition within the competition.

Maybe a more accurate measure of points would be like this:

3v3: Worth 5 points/game for the team, 5/3 point/game for the player.
2v2: Worth 4 points/game for the team, 4/2 points/game for the player.
1v1: Worth 3 points/game.

So, for example, my +/-:

2v2: 5-1 record, +16/2
3v3: 4-2 record (soon), +10/3
Total +/-: +11.33
+/- per game: +11.33/12

I didn't play any 1v1s, which are worth 3 points in this +/- calculation. How about Wazz's (since his team games are somewhat similar to mine):

1v1: 4-2, +6
2v2: 4-2, +8/2
3v3: 4-1, +15/3
Total +/-: +15
+/- per game: 15/17

Does going 6-0 in a 1v1 tournament distort the numbers much?

Latnox
1v1: 6-0, +18
2v2: 3-3, +0
Total +/-: +18
+/- per game: 18/12 = +1.5

Gnuffone
1v1: 6-0, +18
2v2: 4-2, +8/2
3v3: 2-3, -5/3
Total +/-: +20.33
+/-per game: 20.33/17

It does a little. Going 6-0 in a 1v1 makes a mediocre or bad performance in team games somewhat meaningless, despite the reality that team games count more in the final clan rankings. So maybe adding team games as 4 points (2v2) and 5 points (3v3) instead of 4/2 and 5/3 would be better...

A comparison of the above players with team games not being divided by total number of players:

Mine (from last page)
2v2: 5-1
3v3: 4-2
+/-: +26
+/- per Game: 26/12 = +2.17

Wazz
1v1: 4-2, +6
2v2: 4-2, +8
3v3: 4-1, +15
Total +/-: +29
+/- per game: 29/17 = +1.71

Latnox
1v1: 6-0, +18
2v2: 3-3, +0
Total +/-: +18
+/- per game: 18/12 = +1.5

Gnuffone
1v1: 6-0, +18
2v2: 4-2, +8
3v3: 2-3, -5
Total +/-: +21
+/-per game: 21/17 = +1.24

+/- is from NBA stats. http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

Baseball has a useful stat: Wins above replacement (WAR). http://espn.go.com/mlb/war/leaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement

Ultimately, I think it would be interesting if CL could come up with a stat similar to the NBA's Plus-Minus or baseball's WAR. Winning percentage doesn't tell as much as a Plus-Minus or WAR stat would.

Edited 1/30/2016 11:33:48

Does going undefeated in or playing multiple 3v3s skew the stats too much?

Timinator
1v1: 2-4, -6
2v2: 4-1, +12
3v3: 5-0, +25
3v3: 4-1, +20
Total +/-: +51
+/- per game: 51/21 = +2.43

It doesn't seem so from Timinator's games.

Brisk
1v1: 5-1, +12
3v3: 5-0, +25
3v3: 4-1, +20
Total +/-: +57
+/- per game: 57/16 = +3.56

But Brisk is a god compared to everyone else.

So, these two ways of measuring +/- skew in favor of 1v1s or 3v3s. Is there a better way? Or should going undefeated in 1v1s or 3v3s deserve such a skew?

Edited 1/30/2016 11:33:21

The ONE/XS situation needs to be discussed. Should XS be in Group B? Or should ONE be grated this spot?

Let's start with a little history. This situation is nearly identical to the Lynx/101st situation in Clan League 4/5. 100% of 101st players that played in Season 4 became Lynx members between Season 4 and Season 5. However, the council ruled that Lynx was a new clan, and must start from the bottom group, while 101st retained the spot in Group A, even though none of them had helped to earn it.

My thinking is that Lolowut and Chris made a huge mistake in the Lynx situation, and set the precedent there. However, let's be honest here. ONE deserves the right to be in Group B, not XS. I mean, technically, yes, rule-wise, XS gains the spot in B. However, I believe this is a case where the rules must be changed. ONE earned the spot in Group B, not XS. Mistakes were made in the past. I see this as a chance for Lolowut and Chris to make up for their decision to put Lynx at the bottom. Lynx knows how ONE feels, and can relate. Let's look at the aftermath of the Lynx decision. 101st gets beat up in Groups A and B, as expected. Lynx dominates in Groups C and B, as expected. It was a waste of both of our times. Lynx had a better team the two previous seasons, and could have competed much better in Group A. 101st would have been better off playing clans of their own skill level.

So here's my proposal for an amendment to the earlier rule. The earlier rule basically said that if the old clan (XS) plays the next season, the "new" clan (ONE) must start from the bottom. This rule was demonstrated in the council's decision to put 101st in Group A, and Lynx in the lowest group at that time. I propose to change this rule so that if a new clan had scored 75% or more of the points for the old clan in the previous season, the new clan gets the old clan's spot, while the old clan starts from the bottom. This is the fairest way to do it. In this situation, ONE earned over 95% of XS's points, therefore giving ONE the right to choose what happens to that Group B spot between the two.

Woah woah woah, back up. I wasn't part of the decision-making for Lynx. Honestly, I would much rather a format to where starting from the bottom wouldn't make ONE wait 1 year+ to get to A. Since we're making a ruleset for next season, I'm sure we'll address ONE/XS's situation. I'm not saying your solution is bad, but technically Master could create a second branch right now and claim Blitz's spot given that ruleset. There really is no easy answer for that situation. Neither is Lynx a perfect parallel to the ONE/XS situation.

Miyagi was running the league when Lynx/101st situation came up. I think Apollo and me were on the panel then, so it was a group vote. We voted for 101st to retain the spot (despite it sucking from a competative stance) because giving it to Lynx would have been a judgement call and then we'd have all sorts of those. Where do you cut it off when players move? You create a VERY slippery slope. What if in your situation JSA, someone who carried the clan (and got %75 of their points because the clan did not do that well) left. Does that player take the CL slot with him/her even though the rest of the clan remains? I worry that people will simply hijack CL slots this way (1 is a bit extreme, but you could easily have a few people leave and take %75 of the points with them).

So in this case, my vote would be for XS to retain the spot rather than risk an even worse situation next time.

Once we get a CLOT going, this situation would never come up again. Everyone has a chance to compete for the title immediately, not in 3 seasons. So IMO, this will only be an issue in CL8, then it will rectify in CL9.

why do we Need a fixed number? it's obvious! ONE belongs in Group B and XS starts from scratch unless they don't participate at all. We don't Need another presedence where we (or you) make the wrong decision, just to make sure this Situation doesn't occure again. It will happen again and then we will have to make once more the right decision.

The only reason to let XS Play on B would be that the Group Bs got a save spot for Relegation and Group A gets probably less competition in 2 seasons. Simple as that.

are all people who played for XS in CL7 no longer in XS?

If we get the CLOT ready for CL 9, there will be no case of this again. We'd be competing on CLOT ladders for each template and then the playoffs for the title would be between the top scoring clans. There would be no divisions at all, so it would not matter then.

Edited 2/1/2016 16:57:07

kinda dislike that upcoming change of the format.

What don't you like?

The current system will leave a clan like VS outside B, which is probably where they belong for a couple years.

So good players in clans that are newer simply leave to a clan in A/B so they can compete right away.

Edited 2/1/2016 17:11:12

^^^ So if the issue is judgment calls, why not come up with a better divisioning mechanism (or some consistent set of rules) instead of relying on pure promotion/relegation?

A simple one:

- if over 80% of a clan's CL players move to another clan between iterations, then the clans switch spots

As anyone in D1/D2 could tell you, P/R is hyperinefficient for a league like this, especially when it runs so slowly. You have to deviate from the format at some level, and if you avoid that too long, CL's not going to last.

OK, I just looked and zero of the people who competed for XS are in XS now. So my vote in the panel will be to give the spot to ONE.

That is not the same situation we had in Lynx/101st. Most of the players who played in CL under 101st went to Lynx, but not all.

We gave the CPU spot to BIA a while ago because almost all their clan remaining went there. I think a couple went to XCD, but CPU no longer existed so it was a bit different scenario.

Edited 2/1/2016 17:14:48

Lolowut, perhaps you weren't part of the decision making for making Lynx start at the bottom. But you did push for Lynx to start at the bottom and 101st to be Group A. I can link you the old thread if you'd like.

Sure, Lynx/101st isn't a parallel situation to XS/ONE. With 101st/Lynx, both clans thought Lynx should be A and 101st should start at the bottom. With XS/ONE, both want to be in Group B, and have the other start at the bottom.

Chris brings up a good point with the 75%. I mean, 2 players could hijack a clan this way. So let's bring this number up to 90% or something instead? I believe we need a set number for consistency in the future, but that number can definitely be up for debate. I really don't want to see XS in Group B where they will be butchered, and ONE be in Group D/E where they destroy the competition. ONE has earned the right to play in Group B; XS has not.

That is not the same situation we had in Lynx/101st. Most of the players who played in CL under 101st went to Lynx, but not all.

That's a false statement. The 7 players to play in Clan League 4 for 101st were JSA, GreenTea, Unreality, Grizzlis, Dom365, Taisho, and Kantos. All became Lynxes as soon as Lynx was formed. So no, you cannot use that argument to justify making Lynx start at the bottom.

Edited 2/1/2016 17:19:22

you could combine % of points and % of participants to avoid hijacks from 2 players.

Look like HHH want to delay the max possible this season. :/ Not very cool. Still hope he will beat Apex in the 2v2 Guiroma ;)

The King of Kings has a busy schedule, do not to disturb him in his quest for greatness.

-The ex second wife.

Is HHH fine ?

He has been on WL, he's just not taking turns. Anyone know why?

Well, if he can come on the game he can say us if something wrong... For me he just play with vacation mode and delay the CL.