@Sigafoo if you could disallow teams like FROYO do what they did in ESEA Season 20 and literally BE ALLOWED TO RESCHEDULE MID PLAYOFF MATCH, that would be great. Either use a sub or play with 150 ping, it just makes 0 sense to reschedule a match in the middle of it between maps because one of your players is lagging.

this is a weirdly specific request

sounds like someone's fishing for a cheap win...

Ok well imagine you're winning/tied vs a team and you're going to map 3, why should either team have an extra day to recompose? Idk I just find it dumb that's a thing, either reschedule before or play the match from start to finish using a sub, which is why you have extra people rostered in the first place.

And yes it's a specific request because anyone can do it in any division, so remember that if you lost map 1 and want extra time you can just work around the system and get an extra day. It's a really shitty little thing that shouldn't even be allowed by admins in the first place. What if one of your players plays like garbage and is having an "off day" so you can just turn on your torrents and blame the lag instead to make sure your botling is playing properly and is warmed up for next game? Just really stupid, this shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Here are the results of the survey: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ojSThYcJ_GVYqsChGuf0t20et2N4V39x2nyzzk2EGNc/edit?usp=sharing

I have removed the names for the sake of anonymity

When I made the survey I reasoned that if people had anything to say they could post it on tftv but it would have been much better to provide an open ended feedback option. In the one open ended question someone cleverly used that answer to say:

Which is true, so keep that in mind. I purposefully tried to keep things as broad as possible to get a general idea of want people wanted and not what an ideal ruleset is by popular vote. Some of the most popular things don't work together very well because the questions lacked the context to create an if a then what b do you want situation. For instance, a lot of people like the classic esea ruleset but people also like two maps, obviously these don't work very well because you could have matches last longer than 2 hours in some fairly common cases. Basically, this survey isn't gospel but it is a lot of information.

Another flaw, for the single /double elim question I did not initially have the single for lower double for upper as an option though I did add it relatively quickly so that may be more popular than it appears to be.

Most of the responses to the survey were NA players, either because it was received as a poll for NA or because it was posted on TFTV and that's primarily who browses tftv.

The survey is still open and I'll add the results as I can throughout the week
I'm not an expert spreadsheeter so if you spot any errors please let me know so I can fix them

i like how theres one person who just put "ur mom" for the meme as their region

Thanks for putting this together, Botmode! I think it's great that you're giving everyone in the community a chance to voice their opinions (even if they're not from NA), as ultimately these kinds of decisions have rippling effects worldwide.

I also want to give props to Sigafoo as well. Derek, even though you've caught a lot of flak:
1) You've shown that you're willing to make adjustments based on community feedback, and
2) You're putting in a ton of hours into crafting an NA TF2 league which is super valuable for the future of the scene.

I actually have high hopes for RGL's first traditional 6v6 season. Overall the discussion seems to be pretty constructive thus far, and we're seeing meaningful changes. As a suggestion, it might be worth having some kind of v2 thread as we get closer to the start of the season, since it's getting difficult to parse out the change log and feedback.

Keep it up guys :)

Remember to take the RGL survey

If you want to be heard by the RGL admin team this is the best place to do it, we've had about 250 responses so far and more from the TFTV community would be great, we are going to release the data pretty soon so you should take it when you can.

Looks like a lot of people are either lying or overestimating there skill levels.

what is the reasoning for 40% of the people wanting to remove propaganda, im genuinely curious.

or the primary group of players that browse tftv and were willing to spend the time to take the survey were IM players

It would be interesting to see how the map pick/ban vs. weekly rotation preference was broken down by division. The results being around 80/20 isnt too surprising considering how horribly implemented it was in ESEA. I think if the map pool for a new league was 7 maps, with a pick/ban system 3 bans/3bans, always narrowing it down to a single map, most invite teams would prefer that. Having a map pool of 7 would make incrementally changing the map pool each season a lot easier(vote 1 out, vote 1 in, every season) as opposed to dropping gran, badlands, adding logjam prop cp_hospital, all over 1 offseason.

You could even have the map/pick ban system exclusively for the top division, especially if the survey results(15-20% prefer map/pick) was a strong majority of invite players.

Thoughts?

I think invite should definitively be an exception if the majority of the players feel that 7 maps would be best with a 3ban/3ban system. But also I believe these rules would have to also affect the division below invite in order to ease players into playing in that invite format. Maybe even certain parts of these rules could be implemented and trickled into lower divisions.

Interesting to see a few things:

ESEA ruleset was the most popular option with 40% picking it, however overall more people preferred a 30 minute alternative between the windiff or winlimit. ~57%
An overwhelming majority 82% want to go to map rotations again, with 2/3 wanting 2 maps/week. Seems the ETF2L/OZF schedule is most desired overall, with discussion to be had over winlimit 5 or windiff 5.
However, with NA players, it moves closer at a 55/45 split on 1 or 2 maps a week, and almost 50/50 on 30min or 2 halves.
The NA numbers have very slight differences between divisions, but it's all about the same. 55/45 for 2 maps in open, 60/40 in IM, 66/33 in invite. 51/44 for 30 min vs 2 halves in open, 45/53 in IM 50/46 in Invite.

I'd be interested to see a follow up poll pitting those specifics against each other, as in which format of 30min (windiff or winlimit) theyd prefer. See if we get a clearer answer between the two as everyone who voted ESEA 2 halves would have to pick one.

i think halftime is crucial, have definitely won/lost games because of a momentum swing/adjustment made during half time.sometimes you just get fucking rolled 3-0 in 10 minutes and gotta wake up at half time and try to claw back into it, and removing that would be pretty lame. i think there needs to be a time limit to ready up at half though, have had like 20 minute half times which is a majorrrrrr cooler and really lame.

ban system is bad for regular season imo, use those 8 weeks to see who is the most well rounded, experiment on a new map, etc. and when playoffs come go into the pick/ban system.

alternatively, go with the ban system but teams get a limited number of bans on each map. so if theres 16 matches, you can only ban viaduct 12 times (or whatever number works). Makes bans more strategic,and teams cant just eliminate several maps from the pool for the entire season.

you can look at the results per division by changing the sheet at the bottom of the page
among invite players pick/ban was more popular but not more popular than a weekly rotation 61.7% weekly 38.3% pick/ban

https://i.imgur.com/AQGaVOq.png
It don't add up

On the flip side of this, playing ozf I've had a couple matches where we've lost the first map, but are able to readjust and turn around to win the second (or vice-versa). It's not quite the same thing, as it ends up a 'tie', each having won one map, but you don't miss out on the half-time thing completely with 2 maps/match.

this might just be me but im not really a fan of being able to tie maps, it seems like a really indecisive way to end a match and doesn't really come up with the answer of who's the better team

Though this is totally true, I also think there's something to be said about analyzing your and the other team's play and readjusting in the second half and adapt on that specific map. If a team is able to come back from being rolled 3-0 on the first half it definitely shows that they were able to properly adapt their playstyle and showed themselves to be the better team. Losing one map and winning the next is one thing but bringing it back on an even playing field simply due to halftime adjustments is so much harder and I think the esea two halves system rightfully rewards teams like froyo who are able to do this.
On another note I feel like in a competitive game it's kind of lame to have the possibility of ties with one team winning map one and another winning map. I guess maybe it would be nice to be able to say "yeah we took one map off them" versus the sad "we were up on them on halftime and then choked and lost", but at the end of the day I definitely think it's worth it to have a definitive winner.

what are proportions

What I found from a caster stand point at least, is it added some intrigue to the season as you DIDNT get that answer mid season. Teams would look even, and then you truly got the answer of who was better in playoffs. Sort of how trading maps in ESEA works right now

I just want everyone to finish the rest of the season and think abt how ur season wouldve went if the games ended @ 30 minutes bcus they were 2-1/1-0, it really would just be a huge change and MANY more teams would opt to just "park the bus" having that in mind

But at the same time you can't use those halftime scores and assume that is how they'd have played out under global ruleset. It is difficult to account for the adjustment period that would happen. I also disagree with you saying it'd be a huge change since the majority of NATF2 scrims with 30 minute time limit. It'd be a change yes, but not a huge one. There isn't enough easily accesible data for either region(s). RGB is coming up so we'll get to see how many of these games end up competitive or have buses parked everywhere.

Just an FYI a lower time limit makes people 'park the bus' more, not less.

If shorter timelimits do indeed increase the tendency of teams to park the bus, wouldn't the better option be to remove the timelimit entirely and just have matches be decided by straight winlimit/windiff?

I'd enjoy watching the "park the bus until their players have to go to work tomorrow morning" meta, but I don't think froyotech needs more buffs.

https://twitter.com/kaidus_/status/1131779306718453764

If there's no timelimit, what incentive would froyo or Se7en or a similar team have to park the bus? The main point of parking the bus is running down the clock so the opponent has less time to stage a comeback later in the match, but if there's no timer, that has no effect.

Of course, with no match timer, a team could continually try and sac players in to try and get picks or a pop, but the round timer prevents that from going on endlessly, and the round timer could be shortened to prevent a team from making several unsuccessful attempts before they're forced to push.

Ultimately, though, the main reason parking the bus is a problem is because there's little incentive for either team to push in that scenario. If a team is down and stuck on last, their best bet is to turtle and either wipe the oncoming push so they have a much better chance of pushing all the way to middle, or run out the round timer for the reset and a new midfight; if a team is up and on the cusp of last, their best bet is to not push and take as much time off the clock as possible before pushing to prevent a comeback later on. The only way to break this equilibrium is to make it less beneficial for one team; either prevent the winning team from wasting as much time (shorter round timer/longer or no match timer) or reduce the amount of time the losing team can spare (longer or no round timer/shorter match timer). Having a winlimit/windiff gives a little more incentive for the winning team to push, but it's not much if they still win when the timer runs out.

teams who are ahead would wait for the PERFECT push so that there would be no way they could possibly blow their lead