Should win on regular time give team 3 points in stead of current 2 point? Unofficial poll.

[ahonaattorii]

Hello amigos!

Now is the time that this have been heard in conversations around the parties. So from a tip of a friend i thought we can now do a little poll of the case. What do you think, is the current point counting system best? Or could it be better? 

I personally think that it is now too tempting to play safe and make sure both teams get at least that one point from getting to an overtime. Winning on regular time should be worth more than winning on overtime.

Hope you give your opinion to community.

Thanks folks.

BR, Kose

 

[tbnantti]

I don't really care which way points are counted as the better teams will still prevail and the worse teams won't. I don't really know if the assumption that "teams play it safe" is correct either. If it is an even match-up with teams battling for the same position, why would you want to give points to the opponent rather than deny them of points by winning in regular time? And if the skill gap is bigger (top vs bottom), the worse team would still try to salvage at least a point.

One solid argument for a 3p win is that there would be the same amount of points up for grabs in each game, regardless of whether or not it goes to OT. But as I said, I'm indifferent on the topic.

[Eki]

A win is a win. I think it would be wrong to cut off points for an OTW, especially when the game lasts 15min. 

[ahonaattorii]

13 minuuttia sitten, tbnantti kirjoitti:

I don't really care which way points are counted as the better teams will still prevail and the worse teams won't. I don't really know if the assumption that "teams play it safe" is correct either. If it is an even match-up with teams battling for the same position, why would you want to give points to the opponent rather than deny them of points by winning in regular time? And if the skill gap is bigger (top vs bottom), the worse team would still try to salvage at least a point.

One solid argument for a 3p win is that there would be the same amount of points up for grabs in each game, regardless of whether or not it goes to OT. But as I said, I'm indifferent on the topic.

The case is not really about that if win gives you just 2 points you would not want to win. The case is that if you would get 3 points of a win, you would want to win even more. I think no one denies this? Your example is ok, but even on that case there is often 3rd or 4th team that these two teams playing want to stay above on standings. Specially at the end of the season you will see this more.

I just think that winning some team 10-0 should be way more than one point more valuable than losing to some team on overtime.

@tbnantti here gives example that 3 point system is not always better... and guess it is true. Can some tell some examples why or when 2 point of win system is better than 3 point system? 

 

4 minuuttia sitten, Eki kirjoitti:

A win is a win. I think it would be wrong to cut off points for an OTW, especially when the game lasts 15min. 

And loss is a loss. Why do we give OT loser one point?

2 point of win / 0 point of loss would also be ok system  

[Lauri]

1 hour ago, Eki said:

A win is a win. I think it would be wrong to cut off points for an OTW, especially when the game lasts 15min. 

But adding a point to regular win isn't cutting off anything it only adds a point. 

[Jesus]

Not sure a 3 point system awards attacking. On the opposite I do believe the team that has the one goal lead plays even more defensive in order to protect those points.

There is a charm to that as well but not sure it leads to more goals.

OT is also in general less exciting since both teams already lost one point each. 

Think 2 point system is good since there is a playoff as well. Makes the group stage a bit tighter. 

[ahonaattorii]

1 tunti sitten, Jesus kirjoitti:

OT is also in general less exciting since both teams already lost one point each. 

Do we want more exciting OT or more exciting regular time? 

 

 

[MonkeyHeadAF]

In my opinion loss is a loss and should always be 0p.

[ICappeI]

40 minuter sedan, K__0__S__E säger:

Do we want more exciting OT or more exciting regular time? 

 

 

 

[ahonaattorii]

15 minuuttia sitten, ICappeI kirjoitti:

 

[Juizki]

With the game being as uncompetitive as it is, and having matches where even the most lopsided matches can be taken to overtime on such a regular basis, we should never have a 3-2-1-0 point system. Otherwise we'd have bunch of underdog teams stealing singular points from the top teams just by placing a bus in front of their net through out regulation and going for harpoon attacks. It could also result into a situation in which the better teams would have to go for all out attack to secure full 3 points after playing a very frustrating even game, just to get downed to 0 points due to last minute bounces and other cheesy plays.

 

If we want to encourage teams to be active and play as aggressively through out the game as they would in the first period, we'd have to consider 2-0 point system in which the winner gets 2 points and loser gets 0 despite whether the game is decided in regulation or OT. Anyhow, there would be certain faults with this system as well.

[tbnantti]

31 minutes ago, Juizki said:

With the game being as uncompetitive as it is, and having matches where even the most lopsided matches can be taken to overtime on such a regular basis, we should never have a 3-2-1-0 point system. Otherwise we'd have bunch of underdog teams stealing singular points from the top teams just by placing a bus in front of their net through out regulation and going for harpoon attacks. It could also result into a situation in which the better teams would have to go for all out attack to secure full 3 points after playing a very frustrating even game, just to get downed to 0 points due to last minute bounces and other cheesy plays.

 

If we want to encourage teams to be active and play as aggressively through out the game as they would in the first period, we'd have to consider 2-0 point system in which the winner gets 2 points and loser gets 0 despite whether the game is decided in regulation or OT. Anyhow, there would be certain faults with this system as well.

Best post in this thread right here.

[ahonaattorii]

36 minuuttia sitten, Juizki kirjoitti:

With the game being as uncompetitive as it is, and having matches where even the most lopsided matches can be taken to overtime on such a regular basis, we should never have a 3-2-1-0 point system. Otherwise we'd have bunch of underdog teams stealing singular points from the top teams just by placing a bus in front of their net through out regulation and going for harpoon attacks. It could also result into a situation in which the better teams would have to go for all out attack to secure full 3 points after playing a very frustrating even game, just to get downed to 0 points due to last minute bounces and other cheesy plays.

 

If we want to encourage teams to be active and play as aggressively through out the game as they would in the first period, we'd have to consider 2-0 point system in which the winner gets 2 points and loser gets 0 despite whether the game is decided in regulation or OT. Anyhow, there would be certain faults with this system as well.

Thanks for your post! Maybe i am just too tired, but i just don`t get it... what would make this underdog team want that one OT point more on 3-2-1-0 system than 2-1-0 system? I would think that underdog has more reasons to try to fight from that single point on 2-1-0 system, because on this system single point is relatively more valuable.

[Juizki]

11 hours ago, K__0__S__E said:

Thanks for your post! Maybe i am just too tired, but i just don`t get it... what would make this underdog team want that one OT point more on 3-2-1-0 system than 2-1-0 system? I would think that underdog has more reasons to try to fight from that single point on 2-1-0 system, because on this system single point is relatively more valuable.

I assume you mean the "stealing singular points" part? I don't mean underdogs would be stealing points as in gaining that 1 point for going to OT, but that they'd steal points from the odds on favorite teams' point totals (the better team would lose 1 point just because they got dragged to OT). Imagine one of the top elite teams, for example, who have to face these "park the bus" plays on quite a regular basis and how much it would affect their point totals during one season. Of course this applies to every team that's better on paper than their opponents, but it would hit most dramatically on the best ones.

[ahonaattorii]

On 23.4.2020 at 13.25, Juizki kirjoitti:

I assume you mean the "stealing singular points" part? I don't mean underdogs would be stealing points as in gaining that 1 point for going to OT, but that they'd steal points from the odds on favorite teams' point totals (the better team would lose 1 point just because they got dragged to OT). Imagine one of the top elite teams, for example, who have to face these "park the bus" plays on quite a regular basis and how much it would affect their point totals during one season. Of course this applies to every team that's better on paper than their opponents, but it would hit most dramatically on the best ones.

Aah ok, now i get it. 

I my self don`t see it as bad thing. I mean if top teams lose few points more. Recent seasons there has been about two teams that lose something like 2-4 points on a whole season. To me that actually seems kind of stupid/boring. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by K__0__S__E

[ahonaattorii]

I my self am surprised of how tight this poll. I don`t think NG will do any changes with these results so we have to wait for more people to realize whats wrong with current system.

No offence to Ghetto Firebirds at all.. Great team and specially @Jeresti rox!!! But still, i must mention that look at the Elite standings now... it looks like some lame ass football standings. GF is ahead of teams that have won 50% more than GF. GF is just above playoff line, with one win more than league bottom Almost Famous.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by K__0__S__E

[KepakkoFIN]

With 3-2-1-0 point system Elite standings doesn't look that different. Everyone just has bit more points and some spots has changed.

 

6. Kova 8-2-2-9 32pts
7. FBK 7-2-3-10 28pts
8. Roots 7-2-3-8 28pts
9. BPH 5-5-2-10 27pts
10. GFB 5-1-10-6 27pts
11. Gotham 6-1-5-10 25pts
12. Luleå 6-1-5-10 25pts
13. SJ 5-4-2-11 25pts
14. Checkmate 1-7-2-10 19pts
15. Pompa 5-1-0-12 17pts
16. AF 4-1-2-15 16pts

(There can some mistakes)

[ahonaattorii]

10 minuuttia sitten, KepakkoFIN kirjoitti:

With 3-2-1-0 point system Elite standings doesn't look that different. Everyone just has bit more points and some spots has changed.

 

6. Kova 8-2-2-9 32pts
7. FBK 7-2-3-10 28pts
8. Roots 7-2-3-8 28pts
9. BPH 5-5-2-10 27pts
10. GFB 5-1-10-6 27pts
11. Gotham 6-1-5-10 25pts
12. Luleå 6-1-5-10 25pts
13. SJ 5-4-2-11 25pts
14. Checkmate 1-7-2-10 19pts
15. Pompa 5-1-0-12 17pts
16. AF 4-1-2-15 16pts

(There can some mistakes)

Yeah thats true... i checked AF and Ghetto games and there was 1 point bigger difference. But when there is 50% more points for win i think difference is relatively smaller. 

GFB have only one OT win, if i remember it right. That means that on that part you have not gained any edge.

Still to me that standings looks a bit better. At least those top teams would have lost some points. It so fking stupid that on this point of season some team have lost only ONE POINT :DDD With European point system they would have lost 6 points. On my eye that would tell a bit more that the difference between these teams is not quite sooooooo huge.

But to me this is more about ideological stuff than something that you can see from standings. The difference between Hockey Dudes and Football ladies is that hockey Dudes are alla about scoring, kicking ass of opponent and they fight all in for the win. Football ladies are more "lets hope that we don`t lose this one" and everyone have fun...and omg do everything so opponent cant score... then those ladies throw high fives after a nice 0-0 tie.

Edited May 6, 2020 by K__0__S__E

[FlyerKungen]

I'm glad it's Elite teams, players & captains who can decide how things work in Elite. At least with this current meta & gameplay, you just need to play one season in Elite & you will understand why three point system wouldn't work. But you can use that in Pro, Lite & Neo, I don't mind.  

As Eki said, games are too short & as Juizki said, game is not competitive enough to support 3p system at least in Elite. And tbh, the difference is quite huuuuuuuge! 3p system is not a saviour which reveals that Elite is really more even league, it would only take points away from unlucky teams, which didn't manage to score before game went to overtime. We all know how this game works. Better idea is to cut 4 teams away from Elite, if you wanna make it look more even.

2p system is not perfect, but 3p system is not solution. If people thinks Ghetto is full of criminals because of OT fights, then we should probably talk about giving 0 points from OT losses in future, but idk if Elite players want that. I don't know if I would support that either. Probably not. We just need EA to make better game, not new point system.

Peace.

[ahonaattorii]

27 minuuttia sitten, FlyerKungen kirjoitti:

I'm glad it's Elite teams, players & captains who can decide how things work in Elite. At least with this current meta & gameplay, you just need to play one season in Elite & you will understand why three point system wouldn't work. But you can use that in Pro, Lite & Neo, I don't mind.  

As Eki said, games are too short & as Juizki said, game is not competitive enough to support 3p system at least in Elite. And tbh, the difference is quite huuuuuuuge! 3p system is not a saviour which reveals that Elite is really more even league, it would only take points away from unlucky teams, which didn't manage to score before game went to overtime. We all know how this game works. Better idea is to cut 4 teams away from Elite, if you wanna make it look more even.

2p system is not perfect, but 3p system is not solution. If people thinks Ghetto is full of criminals because of OT fights, then we should probably talk about giving 0 points from OT losses in future, but idk if Elite players want that. I don't know if I would support that either. Probably not. We just need EA to make better game, not new point system.

Peace.

Can you please tell me. Why are you guys sooooo afraid of losing those single points every now and then? It is not the end of the world. And because game really is only 12 minutes long, it is "easy" to play that delaying game. Do we really want to courage teams to do it this much that we give them half points of what team would get from 10-0 win?

I also think that difference could be huge. And from viewer(customer???) point os view, i don`t think that would be a bad thing. And if we want to take this sport to a more "serious" direction, we should watch things more from viewers point of view.

 

E: And i took a quick look. There is also elite players who have voted for European point counting system. So i would not be so sure what would the result of vote be, if elite captains would vote for this.

Edited May 6, 2020 by K__0__S__E

[PleeMaker]

8 minuuttia sitten, K__0__S__E kirjoitti:

Can you please tell me. Why are you guys sooooo afraid of losing those single points every now and then? It is not the end of the world. And because game really is only 12 minutes long, it is "easy" to play that delaying game. Do we really want to courage teams to do it this much that we give them half points of what team would get from 10-0 win?

I also think that difference could be huge. And from viewer(customer???) point os view, i don`t think that would be a bad thing. And if we want to take this sport to a more "serious" direction, we should watch things more from viewers point of view.

 

E: And i took a quick look. There is also elite players who have voted for European point counting system. So i would not be so sure what would the result of vote be, if elite captains would vote for this.

Well those single points would probably decide regular season winner, I don’t think it should be like that.

[ahonaattorii]

2 minuuttia sitten, PleeMaker kirjoitti:

Well those single points would probably decide regular season winner, I don’t think it should be like that.

You don`t get nothing of winning regular season. But i get it if price money is only motivation to play and your team is among those 2-3 teams that can win with this system.

[Juizki]

25 minutes ago, K__0__S__E said:

Can you please tell me. Why are you guys sooooo afraid of losing those single points every now and then? It is not the end of the world. And because game really is only 12 minutes long, it is "easy" to play that delaying game. Do we really want to courage teams to do it this much that we give them half points of what team would get from 10-0 win?

I also think that difference could be huge. And from viewer(customer???) point os view, i don`t think that would be a bad thing. And if we want to take this sport to a more "serious" direction, we should watch things more from viewers point of view.

 

E: And i took a quick look. There is also elite players who have voted for European point counting system. So i would not be so sure what would the result of vote be, if elite captains would vote for this.

What @PleeMaker said. Also, if you take a look at @KepakkoFIN's list it also opens up a debate on how and why certain teams go to OT and why some of those teams win majority of their overtimes meanwhile others lose. I hadn't thought about Checkmate's potential 3-points system record, but looking at that list we'd truly be in a horrible spot right now, only because we couldn't smash the puck into the net before OT. Yet we've come through 7 times out of 9 when the next goal decides the game. I have an explanation of my own for the reason why, it's up to you to figure out what's your opinion on it.

 

Quote

You don`t get nothing of winning regular season. But i get it if price money is only motivation to play and your team is among those 2-3 teams that can win with this system.

As long as we're talking about winning regular season, only the top teams matter because they are the only ones competing for that regular season win. And if you say it doesn't matter, you might want to take a look at the prize pool in Elite, especially the difference in cash between finals runner-up and semifinals losers, and think would you rather face seed 4 or seed 2-3 in the second round. Assuming that the odds on favorites win their first round series.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Juizki

[Lauri]

7 minutes ago, K__0__S__E said:

You don`t get nothing of winning regular season. But i get it if price money is only motivation to play and your team is among those 2-3 teams that can win with this system.

Currently seeding #1 after regular season is such a huge bonus for those 3 teams racing for it

[ahonaattorii]

3 minuuttia sitten, Lauri kirjoitti:

Currently seeding #1 after regular season is such a huge bonus for those 3 teams racing for it

Yeah it is. But who outside of those 3 teams thinks that this is a good thing? Not majority of viewers or players is my guess.