Wildcards for CCL

Just throwing something to think about in here:

The current way to determine the wildcards (highest in rank) favours races, which are rather high-performing and I think this is not ideal. I would suggest one of the following:

a) give some of the wild cards to the second best team of the low tier-teams -> this will hopefully motivate more players to play those teams (there would still be some wildcards left, not sure what to do with them)

b) randomly select 8 races of which the second best team get's a slot for the cup

last edited by Arne
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@arne said in Wildcards for CCL:

b) randomly select 8 races of which the second best team get's a slot for the cup

I quite like this. It's one for discussion, certainly.

Or see which 8 races are least represented in CCL play and make it those 8, to promote diversity.

It may be also worth thinking about, whether the list of races, which gets two slots are published at the beginning of each season - just to make it more transparent and to avoid potential trust issues (especially the random thing may cause some frustration, if it is done at the end of a season).

@voodoomike said in Wildcards for CCL:

Or see which 8 races are least represented in CCL play and make it those 8, to promote diversity.

This sounds also good. Captain obvious would say then, that it would be the least played teams of last season.

last edited by Arne
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Yes, if it were done then it would be promulgated at the start of season Y whether we use the "least played in Season X" or "random" option.

Community Manager

That's a cool suggestion. The main argument against it would probably be that we want consistency in the rules. The vast majority of players don't read the rules, and tweaking them each season isn't gonna help.

But I understand that most Champion Ladder coaches play there to find a low-concession environment, not to qualify for the cup. The actual competitors read the rules.

last edited by Netheos

Overall, I think the best way would be the one VM suggested, because I would love to have a bit more race diversity in the ladder. At least when I play games there, I mainly face just a small pool of races and that gets quite boring.

However, the question would also be how big of an impact such a change would do, if it would just motivates a handfull of players to play a different race, then the change wouldn't be worth it (looking here at Netheos' argument). Furthermore you could run into problems, that the second best teams of halfling or ogres are teams with just a few games in total - that wouldn't be fair to the coaches who play good performing races and put a lot of time into a season (saying this without looking at the data from last/this season).

Remark: If it doesn't motivate enough players, the random solution would be overall better, since you can expect, that not all races from the list are the ones which are rarely played -> the few people who get motivated, may start playing these races. (but then again the question, whether it would be worth it, if it doesn't change much)

last edited by Arne

I like ideas along these lines. Since the main goal is to provide incentive for playing the races that are underrepresented I like VM's idea the best. Ideally it would be determined by some metric on the current season right when teams are selected, but I guess I could understand that might cause issues if players didn't know what races would be selected until the selection was done. So doing it based on the previous season could work as well. Or even random, because blood bowl.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

In my opinion this would seem too much like an attempt at balancing something that is inherently unbalanced.

With the top 24 teams of each races going through we already are saying that it is worthwhile to play each race to try to qualify for the competition.

Obviously we can't help it if the tier 1 teams are going to be played more since no matter what they will have a higher chance at winning the competition.

However if we begin "randomizing" or even preselecting non tier 1 teams to make it to the playoffs, we may end up undermining the competition.

Let's take a for example, the 24 top races and then 8 wildcards. What do we select as wildcards? Let's say we have a 2nd Ogre team. If you take the example of this year's qualifier (CCCIX) the Ogre team. They had around 8 wins and played around 12 games total. Do we take another ogre race who has played less? With perhaps a far less better record?
Let's take for a moment that even if we did take those teams.. the top races within the tournament are going to benefit even more as they will have a much better chance at these matchups and the new wildcard teams will have an even more difficult time in winning.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for bringing in more variety but we have to be very careful about how we do it.

Even on a logistics scale this could be an even greater nightmare. Currently we email all of the competitors to join the official Cabalvision Champions competition discord channel so that they may have an easier time to schedule their games. As of writing this we only have about 20 of the 32 teams signed in. Even already we are beginning to see some miscommunications and these are the folks that should have known that they are in the Cup.

@arne said in Wildcards for CCL:

This sounds also good. Captain obvious would say then, that it would be the least played teams of last season.

Yes, based on the previous season's demographics, though I'd say based on the number of matches played by each roster rather than number of teams made of each roster.

@netheos said in Wildcards for CCL:

That's a cool suggestion. The main argument against it would probably be that we want consistency in the rules. The vast majority of players don't read the rules, and tweaking them each season isn't gonna help.

Make the rule be "Each roster will have one slot in the final tournament, and the remaining slots will be given to the second highest ranked teams of a list of rosters that will be posted at the start of each season" and voila, the rules are consistent even if you change the method by which you decide that list each season.

@arne said in Wildcards for CCL:

Furthermore you could run into problems, that the second best teams of halfling or ogres are teams with just a few games in total - that wouldn't be fair to the coaches who play good performing races and put a lot of time into a season (saying this without looking at the data from last/this season).

Well, the "few games in total" is related to the formula issues we discussed on that other thread. In general you won't see the second highest ranked team of any roster be a team with very few games played. Once the formula is fixed that simply won't be an issue.

@arne said in Wildcards for CCL:

Remark: If it doesn't motivate enough players, the random solution would be overall better, since you can expect, that not all races from the list are the ones which are rarely played -> the few people who get motivated, may start playing these races. (but then again the question, whether it would be worth it, if it doesn't change much)

I don't see your logic here - how is random ever going to be pragmatically "better" than directed? If it motivates the competitive (those who want to qualify to win the season) to play an underrepresented roster then awesome... if it doesn't then we literally don't care which rosters go on that list, so we might as well stick to using it to forward diversity on some level even if its not having much effect. For non-competitive coaches which rosters go on that list is always irrelevant.

The only way using the underrepresented rosters for the list would not be the logically most beneficial method is if always filled those slots with the worst performing teams that never won the tournament AND it wasn't helping with the demographics. In that scenario the better method would be to fill the slots with the rosters with the highest win rates in order to make the end tournament more intense/interesting.

@vgpurist said in Wildcards for CCL:

Even on a logistics scale this could be an even greater nightmare. Currently we email all of the competitors to join the official Cabalvision Champions competition discord channel so that they may have an easier time to schedule their games. As of writing this we only have about 20 of the 32 teams signed in. Even already we are beginning to see some miscommunications and these are the folks that should have known that they are in the Cup.

I don't see how it would be a greater logistics nightmare than it normally is. You contact the people who qualify and hopefully they respond. People who care about which rosters are getting two slots this season will check the forum to see the list... those who don't, won't.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@voodoomike said in Wildcards for CCL:

I don't see how it would be a greater logistics nightmare than it normally is. You contact the people who qualify and hopefully they respond. People who care about which rosters are getting two slots this season will check the forum to see the list... those who don't, won't.

I said this because the participants may not even know that they had qualified since they are probably not going to be on top of the leaderboards.

I will say that you may be correct that if we stay consistent with the message that we will choose at the beginning of the season which races we are taking a 2nd race of then perhaps this may be a non issue. I am a bit pessimistic since we had emailed the participants directly to do something specifically and only about 2/3 of the coaches followed it.

@voodoomike said in Wildcards for CCL:

I don't see your logic here - how is random ever going to be pragmatically "better" than directed? If it motivates the competitive (those who want to qualify to win the season) to play an underrepresented roster then awesome... if it doesn't then we literally don't care which rosters go on that list, so we might as well stick to using it to forward diversity on some level even if its not having much effect. For non-competitive coaches which rosters go on that list is always irrelevant.

I was just comparing the cases we discussed here and the premise I used was a very similar one to the one of VGPurist: A team, which qualifies for the cup should have accomplished something during the season and should have an active coach, who knows that he is in the cup. With the lower-tier-teams being really unattractive to coaches, the main question would be, whether there are enough coaches who are willing to play them and whether the wildcard-system would increase such numbers. If the numbers are too low, we run into the risk of teams qualifying for the cup, which played just a few matches for shits and giggles -> they may also have the coaches, who don't read their emails and know about their qualification.

With the least-played-team-approach, we would need to find 2 of such coaches for every low-tier-team, with a random approach, we would most likely just need to find them for a few. But I agree, that a random approach would not be the best situation in that case. A better non-random solution (in the case, that not enough coaches get motivated by the wildcard-system) would be to make a mix out of it, e.g.: 1 low-tier-team, 2 mid-tier-teams, 5 high-tier-teams and change the teams for each season.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.