interested to know why you didn't decide to follow the global whitelist

We want to be nimble and the global whitelist seems to be the opposite of that. Being bogged down in bureaucracy is not a good way to make balance decisions, IMO.

Given that the ESEA whitelist is 25% smaller than the global whitelist and seems be working out fine. We decided to go with the whitelist players are use to and build off of that.

https://cdn.frankerfacez.com/emoticon/204164/4

(It's ESEA S31 + Solemn Vow, have fun NA)

big if true tbh

what percentage of the prize pool is coming from signups and what percentage out of your pocket?

As someone that has been super pessimistic about RGL things in past, I'm really hopeful this works out. This game needs a great league.

Since we're focused on sustainability, the money would be supported by the player base and sponsors. I might put in my own money into the business to help with the bounty starting prize, maybe to cover the gaps of the discount that we're giving for the start of this season or potentially push it over the edge if we're close to a round number (e.g. $8,800 -> $9000).

Anti player poaching rule, private stream delay, and alias/logo restrictions. All of these are restrictions of the freedom of people on personal levels. Some people have repeat alias's in lower levels and they have been using it for a long time. You just want these people to change their alias because an invite player has it too. Some people change alias. If I stream I damn well think it's up to me how much delay I use. Anti player poaching rule seems nice until you realize that there are so many other factors that go into wether or not you want to commit to a team. I feel like skill level within the same division shouldn't be large enough to be an issue if you are already doing the team balancing and division restrictions you mentioned earlier. Team logos again are up to a team to do. It's their team not yours let them have the logo they like. As long as its not inappropriate it shouldn't be up to you imo

Otherwise I liked pretty much everything else. Look forward to playing.

Dunk masters :3

I think it would be good to have the same name-changing rules as etf2l

2.8 You can have your ETF2L name changed up to 4 times

Name changes on ETF2L can only be done by administrators. If you want your name changed, contact an admin in ETF2L Support Chat. You can change your name a total of 4 times. There are no exceptions.

The point system is supposed to benefit teams that are consistent across all matches, and in a sense it does work this way: it helps stable teams with existing synergy. Yet the rule punishes newly formed teams and move-up teams, who may suffer early losses, only to recuperate them as they improve over the course of the season.

I played in the first season of RGL Highlander in Invite, and my team (IRENE) went 9-1 in the regular season, ending with 23.7 points. Our opponents (KND) went 8-2 but had more rounds, so they entered playoffs with 24 points. As a result, they were given first seed, and my team second seed, which annoyed some of my teammates. We ended up winning in the grand finals, however, so the point system really did nothing but cause us frustration. Additionally, the same situation occurred in the Advanced and Open divisions that season: the first seed team coming into playoffs had more “points” but less wins overall than the second seed team, but the first seed team ended up losing out to the second seed team anyway.

The rules document makes the argument that that the point system incentivizes the losing team to try and win as many rounds as possible. But in my experience, the losing team in a match is already incentivized to try as hard as possible to get rounds. ESEA bases its Invite playoff seeding on the following criteria, in order: Wins, Head-to-Head, Rounds For, and Rounds Against. So, even if a team is playing a match against the top team in the division, they are still motivated to get as many rounds as possible, because those extra rounds are likely to help that team in the playoffs race.

I understand that the point system is supposed to discourage teams from parking the bus, which is a plus, but overall I don’t see how it is superior to a system where wins matter the most.

All that aside, I’m optimistic about most other things mentioned, and I appreciate the effort that sigafoo made to contact representatives from all the S31 Invite teams to discuss the league and get feedback. S1 hype c:

Remember these are ONLY rules for Invite. Given that you're currently playing in ESEA-O, none of the rules you listed would affect you.

---- Here are the rules and explanations this person mentioned

:thinking:

Just to be clear Skye, the point system that is proposed here is NOT the same one used in Season 1 or 2 of HL. This is the new system that we used in NR Sixes and Prolander Season 6.

The old system was a pure percentage base, whereas now the losing team is capped at how many points it can be earned.

Comparing the two systems on Koth scores

Score   | Old          |   New
4 - 0   | 3 - 0        | 3 - 0
4 - 1   | 2.4 - .6     | 2.67 - .33
4 - 2   | 2 - 1        | 2.34 - .66
4 - 3   | 1.6 - 1.4    | 2 - 1

In the new system, the points would be
(9-1) Irene - 24.6 points
(8-2) KND - 24 points

Irene dropped the majority of rounds in 3 of their wins, compared to KND which only dropped rounds in 1 of theirs, which is why these are so close, but still Irene would be ontop in this new point system.

That's good to know! I didn't play in RGL S2 or S3 so I had no idea the system had been changed.

No worries, we didn't make a big deal out of the change. Your criticism was one that we heard before and at RGL we do try to pivot/change when it makes sense. And this was turning into a bigger issue. We then used the Main div from Season 2 of HL, because of how crazy close it was and used different point models to see what would work and came out the other side with this one looking the best.

I'm excited to see how it works with two matches a week and with 5cp in general.

This completely defeats the purpose of a double elimination bracket. The point of having a double elimination system is that you must lose two matches, where each match is played with identical rulesets, circumstances, etc. In the system described above, the team coming into grand finals from the loser's side does not even have the opportunity to play the winner's side team on an even playing field.
The only other competitive esport I follow is Super Smash Bros. Melee, but I can still draw examples from the game. It is very common to have Player A beat Player B in winners finals, then Player B returns to grand finals with adjustments and adaptations and double eliminates Player A. It is also common that Player B wins the first match of grand finals, then Player A makes their own adjustments/adaptations and defeats Player B in the bracket reset. With the above system, you are essentially removing the value of having the second opportunity that comes with a double elimination bracket, since you come into grand finals with a massive disadvantage, and, even in the case where the loser's team wins, you've removed the opportunity for the winner's team to make their own changes.

I don't see the problem with a standard Bo3 stock double elimination grand finals. It's the only fair system.

What made you decide a 9:00 est default match time? Whats the actual map pool, as in what versions? What rules that apply to invite also apply to the other divisons?

It's already painfully clear that everyone moving to this league is gonna be a mistake.

taking all bets on how many seasons we get through before this style of administration turns into controversy about admin favoritism? If this is coming from some belief that froyo is only good because b4nny is able to poach every good player, what about situations where neither of the teams in question are Froyotech? I remember a few seasons ago, when froyo black disintegrated and then killed the svift na roster in order to keep going. would those roster transactions have still been allowed, or would we have lost both teams? who knows, it's pure speculation, but it'd be better to have concrete rules in place. i can't believe i'm using esea as a positive example, but having a specific transaction limit ensures that players understand what will happen as a result of their decisions.

Either way, it seems weird to give league admins more power over who gets to play with who than the players and team leaders themselves. When yomps left ascent to play with froyo, would that have been allowed? if not, would yomps (and other players in this situation) have kept playing with ascent, or just quit playing altogether?

this feels like another misstep aimed at lowering the skill of the top teams because it's better to have more people "winning," (or at least coming close to it) regardless of whether the story behind that happening is compelling or not. I want a league that will promote the highest level of competition possible, but between froyo previously getting banned from playing in another division of this league for being too good, and this questionable administration decision before the season even starts, I can't say I'm too confident in rgl's ability to provide that. the only reason to think this will work out is because prizepools.

Somethingsomething ESL, FaceIT, Riot, Eleague, etc. *cough*

All leagues or orgs where they control the servers, who has access to it (playing and observing) and additionally provide coverage. I doubt they [RGL] will make an STV exclusive if they can't cover the game, but the Grand Finals (when covered) will be exclusive to their own producers & casters.

that's good news. all the details about points and player transfers and shit should be hashed out but none of it matters if the league is taking a big loss every season

Sometimes a perfect fair system has to take a backseat to not playing a 7 hour long grand final

Mr popo and John mitler are fucked now.

can the cow shoot gun be used?

The idea of changing the Grand Finals for a double elim bracket was actually not one that I had. In the meetings where we had 6 different leaders from various ESEA-Invite teams, the only real division which this rule will be put into place. Since outside of Invite (or Advance), it's unlikely that the other divisions will be small enough for Double Elim.

The point was brought up of changing the structure of the Grand Finals so that the match actually has weight. Since right the first Bo3 only allows one team to win. So there was a discussion about what other e-sports do. For instance, Dota 2 also does double elim, without having a 2 bo3 finals. In the International or Majors the Grand Finals is just a Bo5 match up.

We bounced around ideas and ultimately came out the other side with this one.

I'm personally not sold on it 100% yet, but I'm very intrigued by the idea of having a Grand Finals where everything is on the line. Where the UB team does come in with clear advantages.

We'll see and talk with teams who this actually affects after the season and go on from there.

Default time is current 9:30 for Tuesdays and Thursdays. We wanted to have Open start a little earlier so we could help the viewership on the broadcasts for the Invite matches. Since having a good portion of your player base playing at the same time as your match is not a great idea.

Don't forget teams can reschedule to change the match time to 930 if they want, we're not stopping that.

Can default match time be 1030?

None of these are analogous. Riot owns the IP and games themselves and can do whatever they want with it. Esl, faceit, eleague etc are all constantly rotating and all have the opportunity to do what they like, whereas in this situation RGL is literally creating a monopoly on content (this is actually illegal in the US because it violates anti monopoly laws, but that's a whole other thing) and they can artificially rase or lower their perceived value at a whim. On top of that it totally fucks anyone who wants to get into casting something because it could become impossible to view STVs unless you get the sigafoo blessing. Like I don't even play the game any more, or actively work on tftv stuff I only do LANS, but this idea that STVs can be held hostage in this community is pure bullshit and everyone should understand that.

This is a rule that we've had in place since 2017 and has yet to cause any major issue. We've yet to step in and stop a mid-season transaction from going through.

And we lay out cases of where we step in. It's not as if we're just saying here's a rule. We list the rule and then give context and examples of how we would enforce it if we are made to. The thing you need to remember is this isn't going to be just admin makes a ruling. If we were concerned, we talk with teams, leaders, players, get context to understand the situation and create a conversation so we can come to the best decision.

The example you gave of one team that was going to die joining with another team to keep alive. I don't see why that would be an issue.

You have to remember this rule only affects roster -> roster of Mains. This does not stop a sub from being picked up for a main on another team. This does not stop offseason transactions. This does not stop new players from being picked up.