Got something you want to change?
Got something something you want to add?
or som advice that can do EQL better?
What is bad/good with EQL?

like nqr, i want those awards to come back...
Closest game in each div, and best key player, best team etc..

The points system should be 3 points for a win, whether it's 2-0 or 2-1, and 1 point for a 1-2 defeat. Clans on equal points can then be separated by map difference, frag difference, whatever.

agreed.

Justify please. Imo a 2-0 win is a much more tougher win to gain than a 2-1 win and shouldn't the team winning with 2-0 be rewarded for pulling that off?

They are rewarded with a better map difference. I can't think of any other sport that has a system like this. In football you get 3 points for a win whether you win 2-0 or 9-0.

yeah i agree with vm also.

Well is there any sport that has a league structure where no game can end in a tie? Is there any sport with a league structure where clans only face eachother once? Is there any sport where there are no home and away games? (ie, always the same basic audience available for both teams). My point is that QW is like no real life sport and i really think that a 2-0 win is something extra special. Taking down for example tVS on both DM3 and then on their homemap (i think?) DM2 is imo such a nice effort that it really makes sense to reward the team with one more point than if they would've lost DM2 and won E1M2.

Agree with Ã…ke_Vader!

Any sort of bonus point system is really, really, really, really bad. Even using map wins to decide ties is very dodgy. Match wins should count far above everything else.

Elitserien (Swedish Hockey League)
* win during ordinary time gives 3 points
* win in overtime gives 2 points
* tied game or loss in overtime gives 1 point
* loss after ordinary time gives 0 points

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitserien

Argh. I wrote the post above.

Season 1 sucked. No reason to do playoffs etc.

Season 2 looks good so far:
2-0 = 3p is a good thing.
It is also good that weeks are only guidelines.

Awarding 3 points for a 2-0 and 2 points for a 2-1 punishes teams that win 2-1. A match win is still a match win and a 2-1 should be as valid as a 2-0.

If you are going to take into account the map score then I think you should also take into account the frags on each map. I mean what if it was 2-0 but both maps were very close? A 2-1 could equally be a close defeat on one map and 2 big wins. To me, the one of those 2 wins that deserves the most rewards is the 2-1 because of the manner of victory.

However, I still think it should be 3 points for any win. Here's why (this is quite an extreme example, you'll have to think a little creatively to see how it applies to real situations).

Imagine a situation where you have a division with 12 clans.

Clan A and Clan B have played 10 games each and have won all of them, and the only game they have not played is the game against each other.

Clan A has won 10 games 2-0. Clan B has won 10 games 2-1.

Under a 3-1-0 system (3 points for 2-0 and 2-1):
Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20
Clan B: 30 points, map difference +10
If the final game is not played clan A are rewarded for not losing maps and will finish above their opponents.
The key thing is that both teams have been rewarded for WINNING THEIR GAMES and that both have a chance of winning the division in the final game.

Under a 3-2-1-0 system (3 points for 2-0, 2 points for 2-1):
Clan A: 30 points, map difference +20
Clan B: 20 points, map difference +10
So here we could have a situation where Clan B beats Clan A in the final match and still finishes lower. Is it fair that Clan B has managed to go an entire season without losing, but still hasn't won the division? Certainly not.
It is ridiculous to have a system that allows the possibility of a clan playing and winning of their matches, only to finish lower than a team that has won fewer matches.

The key point is that the points system should focus on matches rather than maps.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is why EQL should adopt a 3-1-0 points system from season 3.

I agree, most frags, most wins and such awards should be nice
on the now discussed topic about points, whatever...

It dosen't really matter if it's close games. It handle about who wins the 2 maps who earn the points. So i still agree with Ã…ke Vader.

OK, ignore my point about close games, that was an example anyway. Now address the point I make in the rest of my post. I've trimmed it down so you can read it.

As you say it's about who wins the 2 maps, and rewarding those. Well fine, you can do that with 3-1-0. But you shouldn't punish those that lose 1 map in the course of winning 2-1. See my previous post for why.

Well Gaz. We could also have a scenario where clan A wins all their games with a 2-0 mapscore and clan B lose ALL their games in a very narrow way (199-200). Then this final game comes up with clan A and clan B where clan B is the winner - but they still can't win the division. :cry:

You're bringing up the most extreme example here. I don't think it will be that decisive in the long run.

This is only my opinion though and we will of course discuss possible changes until next season.

Well of course not - that makes sense. If they have lost all of their games then they don't deserve to win the division!

I was going to make a similar extreme case example but with another conclusion. IMHO the team ("A" that won all theire matches but one with 2-0 is clearly better then the team ("B" that won all theire matches with 2-1. A team that only play well on two maps (in a TB3 only div) should not be able to win theire div.

agreed with term
why team which lost 1/3 of maps in group deserved a division win more then a team that lost only 2 of all. point system is fair. work hard not to lose ur point.

I just think it's unfair to overly focus on map wins/losses. Competitive 4on4 has always been focused on match wins and rewarding a team equally for a win whether it is 2-0 or 2-1.

ice hockey is a good example. winner at overtime got 2 points instead of 3. if u able to win both, home and opoonent's maps, u should be rewarded. bout close game - bad example, there is luck in every shpere of game and life

I mentioned close games specifically BECAUSE it was a bad example.

Who says that a 2-0 win can't be to do with luck? But you reward all 2-0 victories the same way anyway. If you are going to justify 3 points for 2-0, 2 points for 2-1 by saying that you must reward teams who don't lose a map, then I am saying surely you should be thinking of rewarding teams who win maps by large margins. After all, they conceded less frags than their opponents!

YES. I know that that idea is flawed. But so is the 3-2-1-0 system - why do you think it was dropped by NQR after a couple of seasons? And why do you think that Smackdown has always used 3-1-0?

dunno what system nqr used, i play qw half a year after 5-year-idle %)
just a point of view, i think 3-2-1-0 is good, thats all =)

hm, i say that just make it so that it always a fixed amount of points in all game, and that is devided among the teams... so if there is 2 and 0 points for a 2-0 win, then there cant be 2 and 1 points for 2-1 win

NQR used 3-1-0 from NQR4 or NQR5 (I don't recall exactly).

NQR1 was a ladder so it had a strange point system, NQR2-4 (or 3) used 3-2-1-0 but most didn't think it was good.

Suggestion: I think we should have list of recently played matches in specific division on division's page. Similiar to list which is on the frontpage.

Even a date after match that has been played in your div-page would help a lot to spot new games. Now I have to memorize which games were here last time I visited and which weren't...

Sounds like a good idea