As someone who is at risk of demotion, I think the tiebreaks should be applied as normal. We all signed up knowing the rules and if the tiebreaks are good enough to determine first in Group A they are good enough to determine 9th in Group C.

The group was extremely strong, very well played to everyone in Group C.

): i was waiting for a triple promotion... like there was in last season...

I agree with graemes. The tie-break rules bring stability and fairness, allowing players to know where they stand and the implications of any ties even before they happen. Also remember to check for any boot losses, as a 0.5 point deduction for a boot could totally change an otherwise unbreakable tie.

Gotta say, I'm having a difficult time trying to completely cut ties with this league. Hope you don't mind my inputs Bjarke. :P

^ Agreed. Sorry to whoever loses that tiebreaker, but I don't see why a 6-way tie should be given any special consideration over a 2- or 3-way tie just because it's uncommon. I'm surprised this was even suggested.

Random question to think about in case it comes up in the future - with the 0.5 penalty for boots, let's say there's a group where:

Player A finishes 3-6, but boots twice
Player B finishes 2-7, but defeated Player A

Which player ranks higher?

Is it Player A because 2-6 is still better than 2-7?
Or is it Player B because now that they're tied on wins/points, he owns the head-to-head tiebreaker?

Gotta say, I'm having a difficult time trying to completely cut ties with this league

As the resident expert on tie-breakers, I reckon it's a good thing you're having a difficult time huddyj! :P

But yeah, I too agree with graemes and Bonsai. It'd be awful to be involved in that scenario, and shows that the players are good enough to tie with each other!

Great question Bonsai, I'll do some thinking on that one.

Maybe someone can do a group by group update incorporating the -0.5 points for boot losses, and we can do some 'live' case studies to see what might happen. I unfortunately don't have the time to work on that at the moment.

@Bonsai

To me player B must rank higher. The -.5 is applied before tiebreakers are even considered.
Player B wins the only tiebreak consideration

Well, I'm doing my best to win that last game so there is no tiebreaker, but I also agree that we should keep the tiebreaker rules we had at the start of this round, that was what we expected when we agreed to stay on another time.

Well, considering that super-promotions were not on the table before people started quitting I don't think it's any more out of the blue not to relegate someone.

So though we all know what the tie-breaking system is, the promotions and relegations weren't set before, so it's not consistent or inconsistent to make up for missing players by reducing a relegation rather than introducing a super-promotion.

Anyway I don't really have a strong feeling either way.

Possible solution to tiebreakers - all promote or relegate (or stay) in the same time. The outcome (some divisions will have more of 10 or less of 10 players) may differ, but that way no one will suffer from wrong judgements.

Probably the best thing is that super-promotions can only occur if there is clean situation, otherwise, promotion from upper league should occur.

Quick question:

Do you mind if I start queuing for Season 9 here, in the wait list if I have to, or do I have to wait till you make a forum post for Season 9?


(If this is at all irrelevant to the post, by all means delete it)

Do you mind if I start queuing for Season 9 here, in the wait list if I have to, or do I have to wait till you make a forum post for Season 9?

Sure everyone is welcome to join up for next season at any time. ´So I will put you on the list - Welcome to the league. I have posted a list with new players on page 2.

In regard with the -0.5 from boots I would agree with brexit in that tiebreakers are considered afterwards. But I intent to change the rules on booting for the next season, as I do not want to have to look all games to count boots. Also players winning some games and getting booted in others is more disruptive to their league than players loosing some and getting booted in others, so it does not make sense to me that only the latter can be kicked from the league. Right now you could win 3 games and get booted in 6 and not end up with a negative score.
I will post a new thread for next season before to long, but before that I will go though the rules of the league and see if I want to change something. If anybody have suggestions I will be happy to take them into consideration.
In regard to the possible 6-way tier I will follow the majority and use the tiebreakers as they are (and look for boots).

a boot counts as loose and -0,5 doesn't it? So the player who wins 3 games and gets booted in 6 has a score of 0:6 or did i get something wrong?

My point is that in this case the player would be very disruptive for the standings in his group, but it would not be possible to kick him, as he would not have a negative score although booting 6 games. I think it should be.
In regards to the score I would say it was 3-6 still, but he just have 0 points. He would for example win the tiebreaker against a player having lost all games in the same group.

I will post a new thread for next season before to long, but before that I will go though the rules of the league and see if I want to change something. If anybody have suggestions I will be happy to take them into consideration.

- Master Bjarke


I think, considering that booting is quite disruptive, that you should do one of three things...

A) Make boots count more, so that people would be less inclined to just get booted purposefully.

B) Make the game length longer, but longer games tend to stall easier...

or C) Make it so that there is an upper limit to being booted, and those who get booted past that amount should be removed due to excess boots.

But then again, you make the rules, and this is just my two cents, so good luck with modifying the boot point system.

Edited 1/10/2017 20:38:54

I feel like you should only look at boots when there is a tiebreaker. For example: Say 3 people are 4-5. Player A went 1-1. Player B went 1-1 with a boot win, and player C went 1-1 having a boot loss. C would take last of the tiebreak group for having a boot. A beat B so would take the top spot. Just an idea. That might be what we already have, I'm not too sure.

Kevin did indeed insure there wasn't a 6-way tie xD

Also, I am going to have to drop the league as well unfortunately

It was a well played game by ink splatoon, could have gone either way, well played

Last game in group F finished.