The ECL Division System thead

[Billy44205]

Hi nerds!

Now that the first ECL tournament is behind us, it may be time to think hard about what to do next. I am of course talking about the DIVISION SYSTEM. Now I am not going to describe the system I came up with since I already did and no one cared. Instead I will present some leads as to how to approach these divisions, along with pros and cons I can see. I think it’s going to be a pretty long read, guys…

***

Introduction: Why do we want divisions?

(Skip this part if you already know why you want divisions)

As you know, many teams want to play ECL, like 45+ clubs and at the start of ECL season 1 there were like 60 teams that signed up. This is too many teams to make one big league so we have to segment this lot into smaller parts, and there are 2 ways to go about it:

·         Groups: Skill evenly distributed between every group so good teams will face bad teams, common playoffs for everyone.

·         Divisions: Divisions regroup teams of equal skill so good teams will never face bad teams, playoffs for each division

The main thing people have complained about in the past was lopsided, 9-0 type of games, because no one likes to take a massive beating, and even on the winning side the game tends to be less than interesting so everyone is left wondering “why did I play this?” and a division system addresses that point. It also adds benefits to the weaker teams that have no hope for common playoffs since they can have their own playoffs, and from there you can build promotion/relegation mechanics to give more people a taste of the real thrill of ECL.

Now divisions are not the best thing ever, mainly because the impact of ranking teams (which you have to do for both groups and divisions, mind you) has a lot more impact than in a group based tournament. There may be a lot of butt hurt people complaining about how they belong in division 1 when they’ve been placed in division 2. If you’re an asshole you may even complain about how you’re in division 1, just missed the playoffs, and there are division 2 teams playing more ECL than you even though they’re worse than you.

My take on the matter is that if you’re going to complain about those things you’re a baby. I think a division system is what most people would rather have. The only thing is how to define those divisions? As previously said, how you rank teams has an enormous impact in a division system. The mechanism by which clubs are placed into groups is of crucial importance. Without further ado, let’s look at some leads for this division mechanism and what they stand for.

***

1 – People choose their division.

This is the easiest to implement. Basically the staff defines the number of divisions and then teams choose what division to register into. Pros are that there is no butt hurt as people play in the division they want. Cons are that there is the risk everyone may want to play in the same division and you can’t control the sizes of the divisions, or a bad team can’t be forced out of division 1 which sort of defeats the purpose of divisions. Also, no promotion/relegation and all that stuff. I think this only works if people are responsible individuals and not babies, so I think it is terribly impractical for this community.

 

2 – Team-oriented automatic system

Teams are placed in divisions according to their results in the previous season. Pros are that it is based on previous merits, and it promotes long lasting teams. Cons are that in promoting long lasting teams it doesn’t account for new teams, like if you made a new team with the best player from every division 1 team, you don’t really know what to do with it or by default you put it in the bottom division where they will smash everyone and they’ll have the worst time playing ECL. Basically it probably can’t work on its own and you’ll have to compromise it with features from another type of system to account for real life.

 

3 – Individual-oriented automatic system

 This time teams are placed into divisions based on the average skill level of its players. Pros are that it makes for the most accurate placing of teams into divisions since the goal is to have equally skilled teams in the same divisions. Cons are that it relies on putting values on individual players and that can be VERY touchy (and ridiculous, cf. the “fantasy overalls” discussion in FINSeRe’s last interview article) and it does nothing to protect teams. Basically it is only as viable as the mechanism to define player values (skill or achievement etc.) so like the team-oriented system it needs something more to actually work.

 

4 – Hybrid automatic system(s)

Let’s face it, options 2 and 3 kind of suck on their own. But if you mix them up you may end up with something that works well. For instance you can use system 3 and use a team-oriented method to assign player values. Or you can use system 2 and when the system faces its limits you implement features from system 3. I can’t really talk about these hybrid systems without going into boring details but the system I had come up with is a hybrid more or less described HERE and the guys in charge didn't exactly like it for various (WRONG! Probably...) reasons.

 

5 – Placing by committee

A committee of people from this community is appointed (elected?) and after registrations for ECL are over they are in charge of placing teams in divisions. I straight up HATE this. I hate giving a bunch of people with all their biases all that power of decision. It is however something that can be done and I guess you can mix it up with system 1 so that if things go South when people decide for themselves the committee will decide for them. Appointing that committee will be a pain in the ass and no matter what I can already see people complaining all day about their decisions, questioning their integrity or knowledge of this player or that team etc.

***

So these are some of the division mechanisms that can be used for the next ECL tournaments. Should emphasis be on players’ choice? Team performance? Player performance? Or should the guys in charge handle the division making and you don’t care what criteria are used? Are there other leads as to how to make divisions that do not fit any of the cases I presented? Is anyone of the more brainy nerds out there willing to propose a division system for us to evaluate?

[debi_85]

Or maybe we just simple drop puck to ice and play like we usedto? Why you have to try to be "something"?

[Daigle_]

long and fair enough, thanks

[Sammy_Lx]

I dont want to be a asshole but in ps4 there is so meny shitty teams. Its not fun to win games 7-0 or more. I hope that we can play same level teams. My team is shitty too

[Sandstrom]

It's an interesting discussion but the thing is that it is the completely wrong time to have this discussion.

We just ended a season and are heading into the next one. If we are going to make up a new group system we will have a huuuge wait before we can start and nobody wants that.

Just start a new season asap with the same old group system and take this discussion during that season and perhaps we will change after that!

Edited March 16, 2016 by Sandstrom

[Billy44205]

Thanks for the real talk.

The truth is no one will talk about this matter during tournaments. It is never a good time to talk about it. As a result divisions will probably never happen, which I guess is well deserved for this community. But on the bright side, if no time is a good time... Then it means now is as good a time as any to talk about divisions! Yay!

Also, even if next ECL is group-based it doesn't force you to retain your thoughts on divisions until next ECL actually begins, does it? By the way, I predict next ECL will not start before mid-April regardless of the format of the tournament. So much for "ASAP"... Anyway, you may as well post your thoughts on divisions in this thread now, which I opened because someone asked me.

 

On an unrelated note... To the guys who liked the "simple puck drop to ice and play" comment by @debi_85 let me ask you this: If you really only need what basically amounts to the definition of EASHL or even drop in games, why do you play tournaments to begin with?

[cHIIMEERa]

We are with you Billy, keep pitching!

Edited March 16, 2016 by cHIIMEERa

[gzell60]

18 hours ago, debi_85 said:

Or maybe we just simple drop puck to ice and play like we usedto? Why you have to try to be "something"?

Smh. Just stop posting with that attitude, seriously.

@Billy44205

Excellent read. I don't see ideas 1 and 5, due to the reasons you already mentioned. And I'd like you to go into detail about 4, as I can't really imagine it right now.

3 sounds interesting, however there is no way we can achieve it when the whole community is responsible for that. The only way to do this in my opinion is to create a player value depending on his stats, where multiple factors contribute (e.g. not only points per game, but also the amount of penalties, faceoff percentage, hits, and maybe even a team internal value rating). On top, this should only be done with the 'starting six', or the best six players in a team, as I imagine a lot of teams have players within their roster who played almost no games last season and would drag down the whole team.

I still like the idea of 2, and it's important to keep the amount of divisions down to 2 or maybe 3 so it doesn't take forever for new teams to reach the top division (which is important due to the relatively high number of split-ups in the NHL community).

Again, please elaborate on 4, as I feel like a mix of the two could end up being a great deal!

And yes, we certainly won't start the next season asap. There will be a break, and we should use these weeks to take a few more steps.

Edited March 17, 2016 by gzell60

[Bjono]

Plz start new one quick:)

How is all up to admins imo. If you others don't want to run it just accept it. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bjono

[Billy44205]

Ok, so I will give 2 examples of a mix between team and individual considerations.

The first example is what I had originally come up with. It starts with giving players on a team a common score at the end of the previous tournament according to their team achievements, and let’s call that the final score of a player/team. Then at the beginning of the next ECL when teams are formed you can calculate the average of the final scores of its members and let’s call this new team score the initial score of the new team. Now you can order the teams by initial score, cut that ordered list into equal parts and you have your divisions. So it is individual-based in the sense that teams are ranked according to the players in them, but the player scoring is team-oriented since players are only scored as well as their teams. That’s a system 3 with a bit of 2.

The second example is a twist on the previous example based on the various reservations Kenu and the boyzzz had about it. The scoring is the same, but this time a team’s initial score is its previous final score. If new teams are formed or there is too big a roster turnover in an old team you can resort to the individual scoring thing to determine where this team should go between all your already ranked old teams. By the way the “too big a roster turnover” definition is TBD but what they talked about was either when too few players are the same as the old team or when the player scores give an average that is too far from the old team final score, either way there’s a threshold to set and then maths. By the way that’s a system 2 with a bit of 3… with another bif of 2.

Math nerds may notice that if no player changes clubs and if the same teams compete from season to season the 2 systems are exactly equal. The real difference between the 2 examples shows itself when real life happens where the second one puts a stronger focus on teams, and for in principle it eases some processes such as good teams adding one good player from a bad team without fearing to be bumped down a division because of it. It is however an even heavier system than the first example which is already quite complex, and I personally I am not sold on the fact that those issues they saw at the limits of the first system can happen in real life. And I should add that the guys in charge, they were not too fond of the heavy mathematical nature of these systems so there’s that...

Also, I’m only describing the core mechanics here, but there needs to be a few small features added to those things, like how to handle brand new players, how to handle people/teams taking a break from tournaments etc. For now I think we should focus on the big picture.

[Daigle_]

better call Ashton on this one

[Beeoo]

it would be really interesting if there is more divisions like div 1, 2, 3. About 16-20 teams each divisions. Best 6 goes straight to playoffs and between 7-10 will have pittyplayoffs where 7 vs 10 and 8vs9. Best of two serie. Pittyplayoffs winners goes to real playoffs. If there is like 3 divisions, seasons dont last so long.

Division games would be really nice where you can relegate and promote. It should be relegate/promoting playoffs. Example: Div.1 regular season the worst ranked team will play against div.2 winner best of seven serie.

[janbonator]

Great job as always Billy! It was a pleasure reading your well-thought-of analysis of the possible division systems. Personally I find it impossible to run another tournament in time without implementing a division system. This, however, depends of course on how long it takes to make the necessary improvements on the site, including the possible division system. In any case we'll do our best to start the next tournament as soon as possible. Please continue to share your thoughts on the matter!

[debi_85]

Theres no point to try play ower 2 tournaments in Year/or but divisions. It will lose the willing on winning for sure and winners will be forgotten faster or how i should sayit, but i think you will understand it. 1or2 tournaments in year is totally fine. it will give you the best what game can give you and your team. I hope ADMINS dont chanse this thing to much, because newcomers want it different and we have useto play like we have and its totally fine in that way. If you ask "topteams" im pretty sure they want to play ECL like it has been past years (ehl) and some one sayed "itS frustrating to play against lower teams & win 7-0" well i dont think so. i think its just a good experience to "lower" teams to play against good opponents in tournament . i think better teams need lower teams and lower betters its only make it better. But i dont totally say that division idea is bad, but im pretty sure it will be hard maybe if you but elite & div it maybe would work.

ps. this i kind of answer to "beeoo" and all in community

Peace! 

Edited March 18, 2016 by debi_85

[Kenu]

4 hours ago, janbonator said:

Great job as always Billy! It was a pleasure reading your well-thought-of analysis of the possible division systems. Personally I find it impossible to run another tournament in time without implementing a division system. This, however, depends of course on how long it takes to make the necessary improvements on the site, including the possible division system. In any case we'll do our best to start the next tournament as soon as possible. Please continue to share your thoughts on the matter!

Couldn't have said it better. Thank you @Billy44205 (and all other serious posters in this thread)! Well done - really appreciate the effort! Please keep discussing and voicing your opinions.

[Billy44205]

@debi_85

I'm cool with people who are on the side of I like groups better don't change anything. At least you have an opinion and you say it. With that said...

1 ) I don't think it's just newcomers who want divisions. It has been talked about since the old CH.net website in like 2013 or so, and on PS3 you guys have had an EHL divided between elite and the other one. Also, I don't agree with the fact that old timers are a bigger deal than newcomers.

2 ) I don't think you can speak for the bad teams and players if you are not one of them. I have seen enough bad teams quit tournaments because it wasn't fun getting killed all the time. Also, sure you may learn more from losing to good teams than beating bad teams but improving the level of teams is not what we're going for here. It's more about giving a more consistently entertaining gaming experience for the most players.

3 ) Divisions seem so obviously better than regular tournaments to me, I didn't think I would need to defend them more than what I had initially written. It's one thing to say "we don't have time for divisions next ECL", it's another entirely when you say "I like groups better".

4 ) I think there are too many people who are stuck in the old CH mindset, and lack ambition and vision for the future of this community. Why is 3 tournaments a year worse than 2? Why can't we play league-type tournaments and Cup-type tournaments in parallel? You know, mixing things up to keep interest high. Are creativity and drive to improve only reserved for when you play NHL videogames, guys?

Edited March 19, 2016 by Billy44205

[gzell60]

I heavily agree on 2), it's important to create an entertaining tournament for everyone, whether it's the usual top 20 teams or a group of 8 people who bought the game 3 weeks ago. The only way to create this environment are divisions.

One more thing, even if it may sound too ambitious to be true: They are also the only way to keep EASHL populated until after April/May each year, imo. EA is not doing anything to support that mode, and a growing community with easy ways for newcomers to engage could enhance the longevity of that game mode in general.

After the tournament ended, we already received a bunch of new registrations, and there are still more 6s teams out there which we should try to get involved (no matter how bad they may be at the moment).

Edited March 19, 2016 by gzell60

[Billy44205]

I came up with another mechanism for a type 3 system: teams keep their ranking as long as their managing trio remains the same. For instance, if a team finishes in division 1, even if almost all their players are changed, if the 3 managers are still on the team that team is in division 1 the next season. So basically a team is its 3 managers and the rest of the supporting cast does not matter when placing the team in one of the divisions. Now you can add rules to transfer ownership of a team to other players from a season to the next (like owner can only transfer his position to a previous assistant, assistant can only be a player on the team the previous season etc.). This is a team-based system that does not require individual-oriented features. Keep in mind though that as a system protects teams more and more it also weakens the accuracy of team placement in division according to skill.

At this point I sort of wish NHLGamer staff would choose an option (or do the mental work to come up with their own system) and run with it, presenting the finished product to the community. Speaking of dictatorship, the division system also makes for a whole new range of punishments for infractions such as preventing individuals from joining a division 1 team for a season or whatever. So for the little Trump's and Putin's out there, that's something to look forward to, I guess...

[Sandstrom]

I still stand by my next comment that it's too late to make up a new division system and that we should just start a new season asap with the old system.

BUT to give some feedback on your thoughts I would like to continue on your thoughts, Billy44205.

In your original post you covered how to divide teams into different divisions. But I would like to take one step back and ask; how should the system look and work?
I'm not against a division system but I think that there are some flaws that needs to be covered. My major isue is that teams in lower divisions won't get as inspired to play as they were before. Many "lower" teams will simply end up stop playing.

Therefore, I think that IF we decide to implement a division system it would be best to divide it into ONE top division (division 1) and SEVERAL second divisions (division 2.1 2.2 2.3 and so on). This will make the top teams compete against each other as some of you guys want AND it will prevent "lower teams" to be placed at the bottom of a multi-divisioned system and loose the inspiration and will to play.

How many teams from each division that are moved up/down after each season is a later issue though.

[Sammy_Lx]

Debi_85

 and some one sayed "itS frustrating to play against lower teams & win 7-0" well i dont think so. i think its just a good experience to "lower" teams to play against good opponents in tournament . i think better teams need lower teams and lower betters its only make it better.

 

Haha good experience to lower teams get their ass raped over and over. In last ehl we have teams how 

Dosent win eny  of their matches and had like 32-250 you call that a good experience??. They even dont face good teams on Eashl cos they dont want to losee 7-0 or more. If my team face in one night 3-4 shitty teams we dont play or face them. Its higher risk that these teams drop out on ecl and then we are fucked.

[Billy44205]

@Sandstrom Valuable feedback.

I don't agree that the bottom teams would be discouraged by being placed in the lowest division. I am fully aware that there needs to be at least (and probably at most too) 3 divisions so that you can be out of division 1 while not being in the bottom division because of egos, but the bottom-level teams do not have such egos usually. From my experience of EHL tournaments those teams are discouraged when they lose all the time, too heavily too often, and if group stage takes a long time it's an aggravating factor.

I guess I'd like feedback from actual members of low-end teams. For what it's worth, it is those guys who originally brought up the idea of multiple divisions to avoid un-fun beatings at the hands of NOS / PoF and the likes. But to tell the truth, I'd be more worried about the middle of the pack teams that have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they're not in the top third of the community. Those guys will be the ones complaining the most imo, but open enough relegation/promotion spots and I think the pill will be easier to swallow even for them.

In the end the biggest thing to take from your post imo is that you can do groups within a division system. It may be useful if too many teams apply for ECL, I think.

[cHIIMEERa]

"I'd be more worried about the middle of the pack teams that have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they're not in the top third of the community."

Well they do get the chance to prove the community that they belong in the top tier. And it shouldnt be a problem anyway since they belong in the top div according to themselves. Iv got a question. When youre speaking about div 1. how many teams are you suggesting should be in it? @Billy44205 i personally doubt that the top 1/3 of the 53 teams registered for the last tournament is good enough for the highest divison. If you're looking to avoid beatings that is.

 

[Billy44205]

@cHIIMEERa

I'm mostly looking to avoid enormous beatings for the lowest level of teams that might be more inclined to leave the tournament because there is no upside, no silver lining, nothing to play for, nothing for them. The way I see things, even the lowest teams in the first division have something to play for despite taking beatings at the hands of NOS and such: they fight to stay in their division. And after all, so what if a team loses all its division 1 games? It will win most of its games in division 2 the next season to make up for it.

If avoiding enormous beatings was the only thing divisions achieved, we'd be better off implementing some sort of mercy rule where if you lead by 6 goals the game is over, or something. Divisions do more than that, while not doing as much in terms of stopping blowouts, I'll give you that. But it's ok as that was never the end goal.

We can also have different sizes for each division but I wouldn't go there as it probably involves personal judgment and I'd like to avoid that like the plague. So to answer your question, I had every division at about the same size of 1/3 of the teams registered to a tournament, potential beatings be damned.

[cHIIMEERa]

32 minutes ago, Billy44205 said:

@cHIIMEERa

I'm mostly looking to avoid enormous beatings for the lowest level of teams that might be more inclined to leave the tournament because there is no upside, no silver lining, nothing to play for, nothing for them. The way I see things, even the lowest teams in the first division have something to play for despite taking beatings at the hands of NOS and such: they fight to stay in their division. And after all, so what if a team loses all its division 1 games? It will win most of its games in division 2 the next season to make up for it.

If avoiding enormous beatings was the only thing divisions achieved, we'd be better off implementing some sort of mercy rule where if you lead by 6 goals the game is over, or something. Divisions do more than that, while not doing as much in terms of stopping blowouts, I'll give you that. But it's ok as that was never the end goal.

We can also have different sizes for each division but I wouldn't go there as it probably involves personal judgment and I'd like to avoid that like the plague. So to answer your question, I had every division at about the same size of 1/3 of the teams registered to a tournament, potential beatings be damned.

imagine the top 12 teams playing in a div 1 tho. No one would be safe. Everyone would be fighting for survival. Even the best teams. Now that would be something.

[Sammy_Lx]

If dudes make new teams let us know what is your last team and what is your ranking in group stage. Its make it easyer but you in division.