Billy44205

@MartindalexC Very little will be changed for sure as long as this ECL is still under way. You just have to be more patient. Give them at least one offseason before you start the revolution, man.

Lot of hyperbole going on in the last bunch of posts. Kenu's reasoning behind the WO after 80% GP thing is wrong imo (if I'm a team that spent so many man hours entering the stats of 2 losses against the quitting team, I'd rather the points others had be cancelled than my hard work be aknowledged) but Janbo's argument is valid. In the grand scheme of things it's not that big of a deal anyway and the rules were even worse (50% threshold) before so meh... Now as far as punishing the entire team for its manager's actions... It may look/be unfair but it is supposed to be a deterrent. I am not siding for or against this very very harsh ruling, but I think the goal is to make you all realize that you should know better than to choose idiot managers to play for, and managers should know that their action have a real impact on their whole team. @MartindalexC To tell you the truth this website is not a democracy. It's more like a business, if you don't like it don't use it type of thing. Ofc the guys in charge listen to people to a certain extent but you won't force them to. @janbonator The team is disqualified alright, but wpuld the players have been able to join other clubs if that happened before the trade deadline?

I will never understand why giving WO's for the remaining games of a team that quits is ever a better option than voiding all its games, at least from the point of view of tournament users. Side note, I have read about some old-ish DBK drama in the chatbox and I was wondering, what about disciplinary action on that case?

It's not worse than the concept of divisions where you crown the best, but also the best of the worst. You're allowed to disagree with the entire "giving bad teams incentive to play" in the name of elitist considerations such as "make the ECL playoffs mean more" but I think the guys in charge have to look at both ends of their spectrum of players. Also, the ranking teams thing for divisions. By the way, if I know anything about anything, the playoff format for this current tournament is NOT applicable to a potential division-based system (rather, it is a necessary step towards divisions). The next tournament and playoffs will be wildly different. Note to @MartindalexC : Before 1991 the NHL had 24 teams with 16 making the playoffs. Let's just say ECL mimmicks NHL in the 80's, when the real scores were looking like videogame scores, too. Everything makes sense!

@MartindalexC You don't know what has been defined in terms of playoffs, and you didn't read the brief summary @Kenu wrote in the chatbox on that topic the other day. I love convoluted, boring meta-tournament stuff though so let's talk... First, how are wildcard spots given? Since you're so hung up on fairness I reckon you don't just compare team records across different groups since the teams haven't even played against the same opponents (even if groups are supposedly even-ish). So you want the potential WC teams to play against each other, and that takes time that all previously qualified teams will spend waiting so that's not good either imo. Also, why does your percentage of playoff teams have to mimic the NHL? What's the reasoning behind it, other than "looks like the NHL"? What about how the NHL was with 24 teams? Copying the real thing for no reason is not good either. With that said, the big issue with your proposal is that it does not lend itself to devising divisions for the next tournament. That's the biggest no-no. Here is what I had devised with this mysterious "NHLGamer staff" group and what @Kenu had presented in the chatbox back when 60 teams were supposed to play, and I'm going to adapt it to the 52-team format: The first 8 teams from each group make the main playoffs. After the first round of these playoffs, the 16 winners go on to decide the winner of ECL ofc, and the losing 16 run parallel playoffs. This allows to know the top 16 teams in future Div1, then team 17 (and maybe 18) because in a 3-division system with 52 teams you'll have 17 or 18 teams per division. Let's say 17 teams in Div1, 17 in Div2, 18 in Div3 for now. The remaining 15 guys in the parallel playoffs will go to Div2. The bottom-20 teams in group stage will also have "bottom playoffs" where 12 teams (the 9th-11th teams from each group) will get a 1st round bye. Not ideal but imo there's no way around it and at least only 12 teams will have to wait there. Anyway, the top-2 teams out of these playoffs will go to Div2. The remaining 18 will go to Div3. I do agree about splitting the playoff trees by "conferences" of 2 groups, meaning that the first half of the playoff tree is only groups A-B and the other one is only C-D, and they face off in the final. The reason for that is that I didn't find a way to spread every group in every playoff tree. Why is what I describe better? Because it lends itself to devising divisions obviously, but also because it gives bottom teams incentive to play ECL till the end. Also it's easier to understand imo, but that might just be because I came up with it myself... I'm not saying my playoff structure is what will ultimately be retained, but it does what it needs to do while yours doesn't so at the very least your structure will not be retained in its current state, no matter what. I enjoyed writing this wall of text of boring explanations. Thanks for the challenge Connor

@gzell60 In the first tournament there will always be top teams that will wreck bottom teams in group stage, no matter what seeding you come up with. Without divisions it's just a cold hard fact. I am well aware of CH tournaments and not to give anything away because I don't even know what Kenu and the boyzzz will ultimately implement, but measures will certainly be taken in tournament design to mitigate the "bad team quitting" phenomenon, with divisions obviously in the future but even in this tournament. My take is seeding is an extra layer of sugar on top of the icing on the cake that is ECL.

Why? Can you accurately explain to me why that would happen?

And then what? How will you assess the quality of the lists you may receive? How will you justify using them in any way? I know it doesn't matter for this topic as seeding accuracy really doesn't matter much, but in principle I am against trusting people with personal judgment calls. They are all the less trustworthy now as a good third of the PS4 community was not on Playstation before this year.

Jimi and I think someone else had already suggested using the 6v6 leaderboard for seeding, then using randomizer. It's not worse than devising seeding based on who you think is better than who.

There is only a maximum of 6 times to try hosts for a tournament game via drop in, because you only have 6 potential hosts who are the 6 players of the home team. So here's a pro tip: you start fake games with your ECL opponent where you only play like 2 minutes, trying out the connection. When you agree on the best captain, you start the real tournament game with that person has captain. It takes a bit of time to do but if it can mitigate unplayable lag you'll all do it. That would work... if the captain lag thing is not random. Are some hosts systematically better than others? Anyone know?

I don't think it will be resolved on EA's side in 2 weeks but I still voted Yes because I think people should know about the tournament structure and rules long enough before the start of ECL. Not sure how long is "long enough" but there are not many days left before November 16th so... Also, if the schedule is available a week or so before tournament start it allows teams to plan ahead for the first games and that's a good thing too. So yeah captain lag or not I don't think postponing for like a week is a bad thing.

I get it. Who didn't love Pulverapa's EHL group drawing streams back when he was TGMA? lol Much more dramatic than using some randomizer program on the internet.

For the first tournament I'm pretty sure he means how to make 4 (with that many clubs there are gonna be 4 groups, trust me guys I'm a psychic) equal-ish groups with as many good and bad teams on each of them. The idea is that you take a ranking system that is available to you, you take the first 16 teams and put them in a hat, then you take the next 16 and put them in another hat and then you take the rest and put them in the last hat. The groups for the tournament are then 4 teams from each hat, which the innocent hands of Kenu and Lurkins will draw. The ranking used doesn't need to be terribly accurate to do the job and the 6v6 standings are the best ranking available in my opinion so it should do. So between the good-ish accuracy of the game standings and luck of the draw, let's just assume it sort of evens out (or not! that's how randomness works lol). The real divisions will begin the tournament after that, based on the results of this incoming one and the ranking system someone (I want to say me but I have still yet to convince the guys in charge that my systems are the best...) will have devised. Hopefully that clears the misunderstandings. At least I think we can all agree that ranking teams based on people's opinions is crap.

Yeah I forgot user ID on the website. When I think about it, it's the best thing to use.

The problem I have with using player names for "real life" and "simulation" purposes are of 2 kinds: - Privacy: I don't want to give away my real name to just anyone. - Confusion: Several guys use the same player name. Not only that, people also change player names for maximum confusion. I don't know if you can change PSN ID's but I reckon it's like gamertags and it happens far less often than changing player names in NHL. So those are my arguments against use of player names and real names. Even though it might feel better for some to use player names, I am convinced that using PSN's works better. Besides, on the topic of real life, simulation and taking things seriouslye, e-sports pros on LoL and such, taking things seriously to the point of it being their job, and they don't have a problem using online nicknames. Just sayin'... Anyway that's my opinion, I'm not gonna change it and I reckon no one is gonna change their minds about it no matter what. But I like discussing things. And it's not like it's a big deal either, I'll just write a fake name on your website just like on CH and it'll be fine just like on CH.

I did complain lol. Also one more thing I'm gonna complain about even though I don't really care, I think using player names in all those things is stupid. It's better to use gamertags and PSN ID's. It's one of the things I always found stupid on CH, and I think it's one less table to record in your database maybe? I dunno...

Ok I see your point. It was a wrong assumption on my part. Looks like I won't be reporting games anytime soon anyway so that doesn't change anything for me and I reckon some people will share your enthusiasm about more advanced stats (am I right, @MartindalexC ?? ).

Maybe, I mean I hope so. If I can stay with the club I'm currently on that would be nice.

It does look really cool. Now, have you decided what stats are gonna be recorded? I suppose this is only a concept and you included all the game stats but we're not gonna record stuff like time of penalties taken for instance.

The overhead camera angle is different when I go in offline practice mode and when I play EASHL. The online overhead is noticeably closer. Is that the same for everyone ? Is there a way to play online with a camera angle as far from the ice as the offline overhead camera? Am I crazy??

@milesizdead are you sure about your stuff? That's like, totally NOT what I understood. But then again I don't understand anything... I was always under the impression that data would only go through an EA server in the UK for us Euros and the problem was that instead of going there it went to one of the other 2 EA servers for NHL, which are in the USA. All this IP business is confusing me to no end.

Weren't there 2 American servers for NHL? Like, one in California and one in the East (or... Dallas maybe, that's not East but with EA sports any fucked up thing is possible) ? Shouldn't there be 2 IP's to block? Also @Jnmxxx I didn't understand, in the end do you have less lag now or more? I'm in the same situation as you, I can block a domain name but I still ping it and I have no idea how to do more than that. And it didn't seem to do a damn thing to help my connection. I have got the C in every game I played with this club I'm trying out with, it sucked balls and consequently so did I.

I did the parental domain name block thing on my router, was still able to ping the server and as expected it didn't help with anything. I just got out of a 1.5" delay game. Dunno what all this WRT stuff means so I can't do that and I suppose I'm screwed until EA fixes their things.

When I trace route the 2 IP addresses the "bad" server according to Ozzyng has a twice smaller ping than the other one. What's going on there? I used my laptop to do that, mind you, but still it's weird.

Where are the EA servers? Are the same servers used for XB1 and PS4? All I got is this: http://www.ip-tracker.org/locator/ip-lookup.php?ip=easo.ea.com Supposedly the USA West server but i dunno. That was a pretty useless post. You're welcome, everyone.