This new rule

{Delta} wrote:

Due to the success of this season, and the amount of active teams, we had added a 6th spot to the playoffs. However, this 6th spot is a "wild card" of sorts. You still need the 10 required games to be playoff eligible. However, the best winning % of a team within 10 points of the 5th place team. Points are still important, but winning is too. This allows for teams that cannot play as often to have a chance to make every game count. During the last few weeks of a season though, the team in that 6th spot by virtue of this rule cannot just sit on their record. If challenged they will be forced to play or lose the 3 points for a declined challenge if there is obvious battle dodging.

This new rule is so bad. First off, I would love to know whose support delta had on this, because both Kratos and Mike thought this rule was dumb. "Points are still important but winning is too" Makes no sense.... you get points by winning. The team with more points has won more. The point system in place was designed to promote activity. Every ruling we've made has been directed at helping teams who play more, because the game is dead.

In season 5, TDH was in 6th place on the ladder, and we were asked to play ARC, who was 6-22, -13 points, and dead last place for the 6th spot, just because they had played so many darn matches in a season starved for battles. Now you're spitting on that by making a rule to help "teams that cannot play as often." This is a competitive ladder based on a points system. If a team can't compete based on the points system, then they can't compete.

This rule looks so biased and heavily favored on helping RoR. It's good that they are here having fun on swbf2 and playing matches, but they really have no place in the playoffs if they can't compete in the regular season like everybody else.

I don't mind the rule. THOUGH, I think the BFC's emphasis should ALWAYS be on activity considering the game is what... seven years old now? The rule isn't that bad, as the clan needs to be within 10 points of 5th place(which is 2.5 wins within). It's still weird to pick a sixth team differently then the other five. It's obvious the motive behind the rule is to cater to the EU clans and less active clans and give them a fighting chance(a handicap per say)... which is something we haven't done EVER before because we've never had such an active season before.

I think because we're having such a super-active season, it's making us take it for granted a little and stray away from having a system that encouraged that activity which make ladders successful. Which I don't think we should do seeing as how successful of season we're having thus far. The rule is fine though because it still requires the clan to be active enough to be within 2.5 wins of the fifth place clan.

That's why I left the "within 10 points" line in.

Ok, but my issue is in the fact that delta makes random new rules in the middle of the season that further his own objectives. Last season MNC wanted to implement a rule about limiting matches a clan can play in a week because they weren't active, and Delta thought it was stupid.

This season he suggested making that a new rule because R was so much more active than other people and getting far ahead in points. Now he's making this rule that can help a team who is behind get into the playoffs anyway for some reason.

I'm alright with this if Delta can promise me right now that this rule will not change. Because I see it changing in the future to a higher margin because there's a team that hasn't made the cut but delta wants to push them into the playoffs.

Either make it 5 seeds, or make it 6 with these weird conditions, but these conditions better not change based on how certain teams are doing.

I wasn't the one who wanted a 6th seed initially. That would be Kratos - don't be accusatory without knowing the facts. What clan am I REALLY catering to so badly anyways by making it slightly different than the top 5 seeds? First of all...within 10 points of 5th place might end up only being one clan, its an awful tight window. Its to avoid a 15-10 team from beating out a likely more deserving 10-0 team. How could that be wrong if we are adding a 6th seed (which wasn't my idea)?

Last season you ALL said MNC's rule was dumb, let's not get all "I hate Delta because he's biased" because I was simply doing what the community wanted. Get your facts straight wow.

I didn't say that MNC's idea was good, just pointed out how hypocritical you are for suggesting implementing it this year because it helps you now. And I'm not blaming you for making a sixth seed, I'm complaining about the weird stipulations on it.

I completely disagree about the 10-0 team being more deserving than the 15-10 team, because the 10-0 team was probably a lot more selective about their matches. There's not many great players this season and any team can beat any other team by waiting for a stronger lineup to be available.

Reguardless, the 10 point window means it's not a big deal, quit getting hyper defensive and answer what I was really asking. I want to know now that that isn't going to change. A point system where having more points makes you the higher seed is completely objective. A wild card 6th seed based on random rules can go wrong. I want to know now that these random stipulations you are going with now will stay the same and won't ever be changed based on how anybody is doing.

Not going to change...10 point window. Print screen it.

That's all I wanted. You can't have a points ladder with playoff spots handed out that aren't based on points. As long as the points aspect of it is set in stone no worries.

Alright, makes sense then. I understand your concern.

Shit just got reasonable.