| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| New Mvp Rule | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 4 2014, 07:48 PM (2,743 Views) | |
| Squee913 | Jun 4 2014, 07:48 PM Post #1 |
|
It comes to the Staff's attention that many people in the past have misunderstood who should be sent to the MVP tournament. Some teams would send whoever they felt had the best chance of winning no matter if they really deserved it or not. Others would send whoever they liked the best instead of who really earned the spot. Remember, the MVP tournament is not supposed to be taken too seriously. It is a slap stick event intended to show off the seasons best performers in a silly event where anything can happen. IF you are in it to win it, you are doing it wrong. Now that we have actual stats, we have decided to enact a simple rule. Your highest damaging player automatically goes to the MVP. While who is an MVP is sometimes subjective, it is hard to argue that the highest damaging player is not MVP material. The MVP is not who you liked best or who you think will win. It should be the person that stepped onto the field week after week and performed best. The highest average damage is the simplest way to tell this. Some people may not be the biggest fan of this, but this is the only way to keep teams from violating the whole point of the MVP tournament. In addition it will help to ensure we see new face at the tournament instead of seeing the same people year after year because they are good 1 on 1 fighters. So, here is the list of everyone going to the MVP tournament: Androids: Cell Blades: Cyborg Tao Buus: Kid Buu Cold: Frieza Derp: Dodoria Dragonball Warriors: Nam ED: Mid Goku Ginyu Force: Recoome Gohans: Teen Gohan Majins: Majuub Muscle: The Rosh Nameks: Tambourine Rugrats: Goten Saiyans: Scouter vegeta SSJs: End Vegeta Vals: Fasha Edited by Squee913, Jun 6 2014, 11:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Jun 10 2014, 03:33 PM Post #51 |
![]()
|
Maybe I should have been a little clearer. With the stats I mentioned in my previous post, I specifically meant stats like (and especially) average damage, mainly because of it's chaotic and unfair nature as a scale of the team's quality. It's been stated before that tie-breakers are unfair, because of the fact that one game does not equal the overall power of the team. However, this is even less so if we would use average damage as a scale to decide who goes to the playoffs, or gets to a higher division. Why? Because up to a certain point, average damage reaches it's limit on what it can tell about the team. After the threshold, it only tells us these two things: - The team faced a lot of teams that have been tagging out a lot/transformed enough to regain health back/used potara's like Eternal Life and Dende's Healing. This does not tell us about the quality of the team we are looking at, but the life-regenerating performances of the teams they faced. - The team finished with a lot of strong moves. This one is fairly logical. You won't get the same amount of average damage if you take out the opponent with a small pinch, than if you were to take the opponent out with an ultimate. Now, the reason why I don't mind the way it's being measured in the MvP's, is because the characters are being compared to other players of the team, and in this case, the stats are pretty accurate. A character that does 60.000 points of damage, compared to a character that does 20.000 is quite certainly the better player. A team that does 216.000 points of damage compared to a team that does 230.000 points of damage is not very easy to read, because of the aformentioned points. To put it in a tl;dr version: let's say that this season the Nameks and the Valkyries were in the same division, and we had the same win/loss record (which is entirely possible with the amount of damage both teams present), with both of us at the risk of being eliminated from the playoffs, and things did have to go down to average damage. We would go to the playoffs because we did 10 times the damage of a badly hit Dynamic Mess 'Em Up Punch (10 points of damage to be exact). This, to me, is far less effective than a tie-breaker. Edited by Huzzahfortimelines, Jun 10 2014, 03:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Jun 10 2014, 03:43 PM Post #52 |
|
He rules
|
So, the example you're painting looks something like this: Hypothetical Kai Super Saiyans - 15/0 Ginyu Force - 14/1 Valkyries - 8/7 (Average Damage - 210,000) Namek - 8/7 (Average Damage - 200,090) How else would we decide who goes to the play-offs in this situation? If we don't use stats, what do we use? Highest damaging player? That's even more sketchy than the current method. Arrange alphabetically? I don't think many people would approve of that. What would you suggest? |
![]() |
|
| bluwolfie | Jun 10 2014, 03:58 PM Post #53 |
|
I don't really understand your argument. You claim that it's unfair due to a level of randomness in the damage dealt. Due to derpage or moves like dynamic mess em up punch. The problem is that this logic could be applied to the entire league as a whole, it's all fairly random. We have some limited control over the variables but it's more of a distant influence than anything else. To claim that the damage based system is too chaotic is like complaining that your entire team decided to derp during a playoff match or something else as important, the variables were out of your control so therefore it's not fair- So what? It's more fair this way than anything else that could be used, it sounds like you're suggesting we take a more subjective approach.. Which would be MORE chaotic. Regardless, as it stands there isn't any better way to do this. Unless someone came up with some better plan than cold hard stats I don't know how it could be any less "chaotic" than it already is. |
![]() |
|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Jun 10 2014, 04:09 PM Post #54 |
![]()
|
Actually, I was using the current stats as an example for this hypothetical situation. In that case, the difference would literally be 10 points of damage. As I said before, I would much rather see the return of the tie-breakers. Now, what should also be kept in mind is the fact that the Ginyu Force would also have to be 8/7, and the teams prior in the season are actually in an impossible cluster of wins and losses (Ginyu wins against Valkyries, Namek wins against Ginyu, Valkyries win against Namek). In that case, I would say that the best solution is a three-way tie breaker. The fastest way that could be done, is to have it take place as fast as possible, and peform the matches like this: First round: Ginyu vs Valkyries (4 vs 4) Second Round: loser first round vs Namek (4 vs 4) Now, I am aware of the fact that this way a team will have to fight twice. How would that be decided? We use a different kind of stat. You mentioned the highest damaging player in your comment, and I think that a varation of that can actually be used. What we could do, is count the rank of all the players of the team, and add them up. The team that has the least amount will only have to fight in the second round. For example, the Ginyu Force: Ginyu (40), Burter (32), Jeice (37), Guldo (77), Recoome (26). Combine them, and you get 212. If this is the lowest number of the three, they will be able to play in the second round. I'm not saying this method would be completely waterproof. A team may have a number of 211, and the other a number of 212, and the other team will feel jipped because they didn't get to be in the second round. However, with this method they will be able to get past that, by giving them the ability of being able to fight them in the second round, if they survive the first. And honestly, we would be getting the same kind of response with the method we currently have, if a team is close to another team by 10 points. Does this method require more effort? Yes, but I believe something like this would give teams that are incredibly close to one another a fighting chance, and it would only require one more DBZLeague episode. Also Viper, that Dynamic Mess 'Em Up Punch comment was merely a creative way of measuring 10 points of damage. That kind of randomness being called unfair is too nitpicky even for me.
Edited by Huzzahfortimelines, Jun 10 2014, 04:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ClawedRebel | Jun 10 2014, 04:10 PM Post #55 |
|
Slightly Godlike
|
And yet the tie-breaker is inherently unfair. We already use a tie-breaker system in the form of the main season matches, what more do you want? Actual tie-breaker matches at the end of a season? Where a team that's already won has to win again, just because you have something against numbers? The damage done by teams is only used when there is no other option. The only situation that ever happens in is in a multi-way tie. Besides which, how exactly is damage dealt by an entire team an unfair method of judging how a team has done? Especially whilst it not being unfair in determining how well a player's done? A player could have any number of different situations applied to them, including when they tag in, the terrain they fight on, their opponents... Whereas a team's stats are an overall idea of how the team's done. It's not definitive, but neither is player damage. Added to that - Squee makes a reasonable point. Win/Loss records are a stat we've been recording since the beginning of the League. Are you going to say we shouldn't be using those? Because I promise you, they're a lot less fair or accurate than average damage done. I really don't understand the complaint, or where you think it's going to lead in future that's so terrible. If you've got a single win over a team, and one of your victories that season came down to the last punch, how is that any different to going through because you did 10 more damage than another team? And... then the solution is to use more stats? That are inherently more awkward to use, less fair and more work? I... what? |
![]() |
|
| ViperKang | Jun 10 2014, 04:14 PM Post #56 |
![]()
|
It is very true that sometimes stats are not a clear indicator of the strength of a team. Super Saiyans went 13-2 this season and are not even in the top 5 most damaging teams. But that's why tie breakers are our default. You get one shot to beat a team. And if you miss that one shot then they rightfully earn a spot above you if you both have been doing fairly evenly. Because this game IS random so we need to work with the system. In your example of Vals and Nameks, if it was just you both and Vals went ahead cause they beat Namek that is the fairest outcome working within the system. Now I can't say if there could be a persuasive argument to stop a decision based on highest damage for a scenario where the difference is only a few points of higher damage BUT as of right now it is, again, the fairest we can do within the system until someone brings up a better way. So even if it's by 1 point of overall damage, highest average team damage over the season is by and large our best decision maker after seasonal tie breakers based on who beat who. |
![]() |
|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Jun 10 2014, 04:17 PM Post #57 |
![]()
|
I agree with you, that tie-breakers are the fairest way to do things, but I already described that in my previous post. I would like to point to that one in case you didn't see it, I presented an alternative for the current average damage triple-tiebreaker. |
![]() |
|
| ViperKang | Jun 10 2014, 04:21 PM Post #58 |
![]()
|
Huzzah your 3 way tie breaker is exactly WHY we use highest average damage. Because it is inherently unfair to the extreme. In your example both Vals and Namek have to potentially fight twice. And Ginyu gets the advantage of only having to fight once. And let's say Ginyu had done far less overall damage than either team. How unfair that Ginyu might knock one of the statistically better teams out of the playoffs by sheer chance. I mean sure they might legit beat the team they face but the team they face may also derp and basically hand Ginyu force a win. But with highest average damage the teams who are statistically stronger go through and Ginyu Force would just have to work harder next season. |
![]() |
|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Jun 10 2014, 04:29 PM Post #59 |
![]()
|
The same could be argued on the other side of the spectrum. Again, let's say that Ginyu did 10 points more than Namek, and were in a three-way tie with the Valkyries. However, Namek actually won against Ginyu in their division match, but because they did the least amount of damage they don't get to go to the playoffs, all because Captain Ginyu's punch hit a little bit harder at the end of one certain match. Again, I'm not saying my plan was waterproof, but in terms of fairness, I believe it to be a lot better. If you really wanted to make it as fair as possible, you could make both matches a 2 out of 3 game, but I am not aware of how much time TGN would give for those extra potential 6 matches. Edited by Huzzahfortimelines, Jun 10 2014, 04:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Burnarator | Jun 10 2014, 04:32 PM Post #60 |
![]()
General Forum Administrator
|
You're forgetting the whole point of that stat. We are measuring how much damage that character did in a match compared to the fact that they only have 40K hp. That's why for the longest time, Tambourine was such a monster. He had some really good games and took out 2-3 people before he eventually was taken down. How is that a reflection on the other team, and not a reflection on how good that build was when nobody was expecting it? This doesn't make sense in the slightest.
So... you're saying that chip damage is worse than burst damage? I... I don't... Damage done measures how much that character did before they died or before the match ended. Like I stated earlier.
So instead of measuring how well a team did this season on something that we have readily available, you'd rather have a mini-tournament to determine who goes where. Which not only makes more work on Squee, but also makes it unfair due to the fact that each of those teams need to beat the other team for a second time. Squee has stated that he will never use this style of tiebreaker. So. Good luck trying to convince him to do this.
you do realize the ranking system is directly correlated to how much damage they did, right? so you'd be switching an extremely accurate number for another number that is based on that extremely accurate number. I... what? Edited by Burnarator, Jun 10 2014, 04:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · News and Announcements · Next Topic » |




That kind of randomness being called unfair is too nitpicky even for me.


7:36 PM Jul 10