MKCentral Universal Ruleset Suggestion Thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Arti

\<(")/
Staff member
Moderator
MKU Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
Your 3.4 suggestion is indeed somewhat of a loophole, we'll also probably discuss about it, but I can't really think of a realistic scenario where both teams suddenly at the same time don't have enough players to finish the match.

I couldn't really either, but you never know what'll happen in the community.

4.1 is already technically dealt with like your first proposition, as anyone using hacks in MKU is banned from mkc. Because it is a mkc decision and not a MKU one, it's not in the ruleset.

This was more related to spectating the room cheating rather than actual hacking.

We already tested neutral starts in one of mkc Agility tournaments (I believe it was the 4th?). Overall feedback is that it didn't make that great of a difference, as with the 8 tracks pool, variety was enough for teams to find the "track pick advantage" by just getting a track they practiced more.

It's not really a matter of practicing the track more, but more so a matter of the track being extremely beneficial for the spots that you're starting in. Like even at the lower level, picking rWS when you're all starting in the front is extremely beneficial regardless if you've practiced it a lot.

We also tested the track ban system in Agility 3, and once again, most people (to my knowledge) thought it was a fun gimmick but it shouldn't become a stable of the competition.

Ah my bad, didn't realize that. I don't think I was integrated into the community much around then.

Lastly, as MK8d laptrolling is way less punishing for runners, and the teams that gave it a try didn't really meet that big of a success, we don't really think laptrolling is (on the current way of playing the game) breaking competition as a whole, and therefore should be banned

I'm assuming you meant should not be banned but that makes sense I suppose.

Thanks for the feedback.
 

Dragmirejr

Member
Site Supporter
Founding Member
Hello MKU, long time no see!

I've just been doing some thinking lately, and here are some of my thoughts coming from that!

What is everyones opinions on stage bans in 2020? How many tracks are considered front running track/catch up tracks etc and how would it affect the balance and having the bettter team win. Traditionally the community has used like 5 tracks or so as catchups, so I think a stage ban rule most likely would help better teams more than weaker teams, which I personally like. This would bring more track diversity, and add another factor for casting so I think it could be an interesting idea to bring back if it isn't unbalanced or lame.

My second idea (for now) is to implement a point cutoff for races in wars that are BO3/BO5. The only thing that matters is who get's the win, so why not end the war if a team has won early? This would be great for streaming/youtube I think, but as everything else the groundwork has to be in the rules. I'll have a pic below to explain how many points a team needs to win a war early.

Hopefully some of this is usefull, and if not, at least brings some discussion to the table!

EDIT: For Bo3/Bo5 matches, I really think there should be a referee for every game. This is so penalties can be dealt with instantly, and that if we decide to go with the point cutoffs we'd play one extra race if a penalty needs to be looked into. This would also make it so every penalty would have to be asked for within every game, and when the next game starts you approve of the previous one. In short, viewers and players would know the results of the wars instantly by dealing with penalties instantly.

98450cb599fc007f34e43bf732a4e19f.png
 

Jazzy

8va ~ Going the octave higher
Staff member
Administrator
Amplify Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
My second idea (for now) is to implement a point cutoff for races in wars that are BO3/BO5. The only thing that matters is who get's the win, so why not end the war if a team has won early? This would be great for streaming/youtube I think, but as everything else the groundwork has to be in the rules. I'll have a pic below to explain how many points a team needs to win a war early.

This is an interesting suggestion, although I lean in disfavor of it since it skews statistics such as player averages, or any extra statistics based on races played or scoring differentials we may add to the site later on.
 

ApG77

Member
I think his suggestion only regards play-offs (aka BO3) and play-offs do not count for indivs

And regarding the point cutoff Dragmire suggested, it would have to be 472 / 451 / 430 (etc) because if your team goes 471 after 11 races and gets top 6'd the overall score is a tie because you get 21 points when you get top 6'd. Thus it must be 472. 451 after 10 because it's +82, which is the minimal score to 100% win

Also if staff ever considers implementing this, play-offs start time rule will have to be changed
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

8va ~ Going the octave higher
Staff member
Administrator
Amplify Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
I think his suggestion only regards play-offs (aka BO3) and play-offs do not count for indivs
Even if this is correct for now, I envision more statistics available than there currently are, for all tournaments and not just MKU. My concern is that a rule like this would not be perfectly compatible with any additional stats we add to the site down the road. Not saying there isn't a way to make it work, but it has to be thought out properly
 

Dragmirejr

Member
Site Supporter
Founding Member
Aaaah how could I forget 1 point on each tier?!?!

Anyways, could just multiply indivs, (indivs/amount of races*12)
 

Félix

Member
Founding Member
Hello,

Here are my few annual suggestions I would bring for the ruleset.
Most of them are just about changing few words (to adapt the new changes, even from MK8u) or placement modifications. There are still new ideas. I indicate in bold, and sometimes in red, the changes for purposes of a better lecture.

______________________
SECTION I
______________________

Current Rule:
1.1.1.d. All registered teams must have at least 2 and no more than 3 official team representatives, where at least one of the representatives must be a leader of the team. Staff must be informed about a team’s representatives before the start of any MKU competition.

i. The Discord ID of all team representatives must be provided to staff in order to add them to the respective chats on the MKU Discord server.

ii. Teams and their representatives are strongly encouraged to organize all their matches in their respective Discord chats. Failure to do so may result in staff ruling any chat logs and evidence provided in case of rules issues as invalid.


Suggested Rule:
1.1.1d. All registered teams must have at least 2 and no more than 3 official team representatives, where at least one of the representatives must be a leader or a manager of the team.

i. The Discord ID of all team representatives must be provided to a team’s division administrator before the start of the season.

Move rule 1.1.d.ii to rule 3.1.1.e. (It isn’t relevant with Team Registrations)

______________________

Current Rule:
1.2.b.ii. Players found to be alting will be referred to MKCentral Staff and permanently banned from all MKCentral competitions.

Suggested Rule:
1.2.b.ii. Players found to be alting will be referred to MKCentral Staff and is subject to be permanently banned from all MKCentral competitions.

Reason: It is not true anymore that players who alt are permanently banned, with the new MKCentral ban reform.

______________________

Current Rule:
1.2.c Players are allowed to play for the team they are registered with and that team only.

i. If a player is caught playing for a team they are not officially registered for, the team will have that player’s score subtracted or receive a default penalty of -120 for the respective match at staff's discretion.

Suggested Rule:
1.2.c Players are allowed to play for the team they are registered with and that team only.

i. If a player is caught playing (or is caught Alting) for a team they are not officially registered for, the team will forfeit lose the respective match(es) (?).

Reason: With the current rule, a team could possibly still win a match no matter which option is chosen. I think it is pretty unprofessional, given that in mostly any leagues, playing with an invalid player in your roster would result in an automatic loss. Also, the current rule removes a choice that could lead to potential (unconscious) bias and drama when one option would make a team win, and the other one would make the opponents win. It should be mostly unwanted, and we should dodge it as it is easy to.

______________________

Current Rule:
1.2.d. Players may only play in MKU competitions with the Switch FC they signed up with on MKCentral.

i. If a player is caught playing with a Switch FC they are not registered with, the team will have that player’s score subtracted or receive a default penalty of -120 for the respective match at staff's discretion.

ii. Players wishing to change their Switch FC must provide picture or video proof that the new Switch FC belongs to the same player and DM a member of MKCentral Staff on Discord.

Suggested Rule:
1.2d. Players may only play in MKU competitions with the Switch FC they signed up with on MKCentral.

i. If a player is caught playing with a Switch FC they are not registered with, the team will receive a default penalty of -20 for the respective match, and will have a 24 hours deadline to prove the staff that the right player has played. Failure to bring proofs in the deadline will result in the match being forfeited for the respective team.

ii. Players wishing to change their Switch FC must provide picture or video proof that the new Switch FC belongs to the same player and DM a member of MKCentral Staff on Discord (a picture of profile page with gametime and both friend codes appearing).

Reason: Losing 120 points for an invalid friend code when it can be proven that the right player has played sucks. That's why I suggest to reduce the penalty to -10 pts as long as a team is cooperative enough to show that the right player has played. There could be different acceptable proofs (video footages with voice call for example).

______________________

Current Rule:
1.4.1. In MKU Conference
a.
Transfers during a MKU Conference season are prohibited by default.

1.4.2. - Outside of Competition
a.
Players are free to transfer to any team during the off-season.

Suggested Rule:
1.4.1. During a MKU season
a.
Transfers during a MKU season season are prohibited by default.
[Also remove the hyphen in the title of 1.4.2 just below]

Reason: Getting rid of the unwanted vocabulary now that there are no "MKU Tournaments" anymore.

______________________

SECTION II

______________________

- Rename the Section for MKU Format (instead of MKU Competitions)
- Change Section 2.4 to Section 2.1 (the Section II starts with 2.4, there are no 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3)
______________________

Current Rule:

2.4.1.d. In the case of a tie between two or more teams within a conference, there will be a set of checks to determine the higher placing team (Tiebreakers):
1. W-D-L Record
2. Most amount of wins vs tied opponents
3. Conference Record
4. +/- between tied opponents
5. Overall +/-

i. If two teams are tied for a wild card spot in a division, the tiebreaker order is as follows:
1. W-D-L Record
2. Most amount of wins vs tied opponents
3. +/- between tied opponents
4. Overall +/-

i. If three or more teams are tied for a wild card spot in a division, the tiebreaker order is as follows:
1. W-D-L Record
2. Head-to-head series wins between the 3+ tied teams
3. Average +/- in head-to-head series
4. Overall +/-

Suggested Modifications: Rebuild the entire rule, as there are many contradictions and unfairness.
Here is an example of a contradiction:
- What happens if two teams are tied within a conference, but also in the wild card standing (for example, 2nd and 3rd place of a conference has a tied record, so they would both be in the wild card)?
Here is an example of unfairness:
- If three or more teams are tied for a wild card spot in a division, say two teams in Conference A, and one team in Conference B, it is unfair for the Conference B team (with point 2 of the tiebreaker), as it has played less matches than the two others against the tied teams. (2 matches for the team in Conference B, versus 3 matches for the two teams in Conference A).

______________________

Current Rule:
2.4.e. Teams are responsible for being stable and reliable throughout the season and are strongly encouraged to sign up only if they can guarantee that they will be able to play all 10 matches without difficulty.

i. Not playing (aka forfeiting) matches during MKU Conference will have the following consequences:

- 1st forfeit: Warning by the division admin
- 2nd forfeit: Risk not being considered for participation in a future season
- 3rd forfeit: Disqualification and immediate replacement by a substitute team if possible

ii. In the case of a team dropping out of the season, all parts of the season in which they forfeited a match will be turned into forfeits. Ex. A team forfeits a match in inter-conference matches and drops out during 2nd conference matches, all inter-conference and 2nd conference matches will be scored as forfeits, whilst all 1st conference matches will remain unchanged.

iii. Teams which drop out of a MKU Conference season of their own volition will be warned and may not be considered for participation in a future season.

iv. Teams which drop out more than once, either due to being disqualified after forfeiting too many matches (see i.) or of their own volition (see ii.), will be permanently banned from participating in any MKU competitions.

v. If a team drops out, every match played in the current section of the season (1st conference matches, inter-divisional play, or 2nd conference matches) onwards will count as a forfeit.

Suggested Rule:
2.1.e. Teams are responsible for being stable and reliable throughout the season and are strongly encouraged to sign up only if they can guarantee that they will be able to play all 10 matches without difficulty.

i. Not playing (aka forfeiting) matches during MKU Conference will have the following consequences:

- 1st forfeit: Warning by the division admin
- 2nd forfeit: Risk not being considered for participation in a future season
- 3rd forfeit: Disqualification
and immediate replacement by a substitute team if possible
[MOVE RULE 2.1.e.i. to 3.1.1.a.iii] (see later)

ii. If a team drops out during the season, every match played in the current section of the season (1st conference matches, inter-divisional play, or 2nd conference matches) onwards will count as a forfeit.

iii. Teams which drop out during the season of their own volition will be warned and may not be considered for participation in a future season.

iv. Teams which drop out more than once, either due to being disqualified after forfeiting too many matches (see i.) or of their own volition (see ii.), will be permanently banned from participating in any MKU competitions.

Reason: Rule ii and v are repetitive, and the current ii part is unclear. If we also want to add the fact that all matches from a given section are being forfeited if a given team got a forfeit in a previous section (which was given by the current ii), then we should add it in complement to the current v (that I moved in ii in the suggested form). (Hopefully I am clear, feel free to hit me up if not).

______________________

Current Rule:
2.4.2.a. The playoff bracket will start with first place of each conference playing against a wild card in the division.

2.4.2.b. The playoffs will be a 4-team best-of-3 single-elimination bracket.

2.4.2.c. Teams’ rosters will be locked during playoffs; no new players or transfers may be added after Week 5.

Suggested Rule:
2.1.2.a. The playoffs will be a 4-team best-of-3 single-elimination bracket. The bracket will start with Seed 1 playing against Seed 4, and Seed 2 playing against Seed 3:

i. Seed 1 and Seed 2 are given to first places in the two Conferences, Seed 1 being given to the team with the best record between these two teams. If both teams have the same record, the team who won the direct match between these two teams will be given to Seed 1. In case of a tie match, the team with the greatest +/- during the season will be given Seed 1.

ii. Seed 3 and Seed 4 are given to the best two wild-card teams in the divisions, Seed 3 being given to the team with the best record between these two teams. In case of both teams having the same record, see Rule 2.1.1.d. (tiebreakers within wildcard).

[...]

2.4.2.c. Teams’ rosters will be locked during playoffs; no new players or transfers may be added after Week 5.

Reason: Mix a and b to get a new wording and clearer explanations about how playoffs are working. Rule 2.4.2.c. should be removed, as it is already discussed in Section 1.4.

______________________

SECTION III

______________________

Current Rule:
3.1.1.a. MKU Conference matches take place on Sundays at 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM ET by default.

i. In the case of Oceanic/Asian teams playing, consult the division admin / table for default times.

a. A team is qualified as Oceanic/Asian if at least 50% of their members live in an Oceanic/Asian country.

ii. Should teams fail to honor the scheduled time of the match, they will automatically forfeit the match.

Suggested Rule:
a. MKU Conference matches take place on Sundays at 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM ET by default.

i. Oceanic/Asian teams can request their own default times to the staff before the signup deadline.

a. A team is qualified as Oceanic/Asian if at least 50% of their members live in an Oceanic/Asian country.

ii. Should teams fail to honor the scheduled time of the match, they will automatically forfeit the match. [Move current 2.4.e.i here]:
Not playing matches during the season will have the following consequences:

- 1st forfeit: Warning by the division admin
- 2nd forfeit: Risk not being considered for participation in a future season
- 3rd forfeit: Disqualification and immediate replacement by a substitute team if possible [consider removing that part ?]

Reason: The wording feels weird in Rule 3.1.1.a.i. (consult the division admin / table for default times). Also, current rule 3.1.1.a.ii is similar to current rule 2.4.e.i, which is why I suggest to mix them.

______________________

Current Rule:
3.1.1.c. Should a scheduled match coincide with a country’s national or religious holiday or a large event which will affect a team’s ability to play at default time, the team is to contact their division admin and their opponents at least two weeks ahead of time and then to agree on a different time for the match to be played before the season ends.

i. An event is considered large enough to qualify if a minimum of 4 members from one team or at least 10 members from the community are attending the event.

Suggested Rule
:
3.1.1.c. Should a scheduled match coincide with a country’s national or religious holiday or a large community event which will affect a team’s ability to play at default time, the team is to contact their division admin and their opponents at least two weeks ahead of time. Both teams are required to agree on a different time for the match to be played before the season ends.

i. A community event is considered large enough to qualify if a minimum of 4 members from one team or at least 10 members from the community are attending the event.

Reason: I think staff discretion should be used to determine if a community event is "big enough". The way it is worded, I could require a reschedule only by meeting my friends on a match day.

______________________

Current Rule:
d. Teams who are unable to play a particular match at default time and who are unable to agree on a different match time on the same weekend as suggested in rule b., may request a reschedule to a later date, but before the end of the next week.

i. Teams may only request to reschedule two matches per season. The only exception being if rule 3.1.1 c. applies (where the opponent is required to reschedule).

a. A reschedule is defined as a match that is played outside of the default time. Playing earlier or later on the same day will also count as your reschedule for the season

ii. Teams willing to request a reschedule must inform their opponents and their division admin by Saturday 3PM ET.

iii. A match for which a reschedule was requested will initially be scored as a forfeit. If the match is played at the rescheduled time, the result will replace this forfeit.

iv. If a team’s opponents do not agree on rescheduling the match, the match will remain scheduled at the default time.

v. Players who have transferred to a different team during the season may not participate in rescheduled matches of their new team that were originally scheduled during a week in which the respective player was still registered for their former team.

Suggested Rule:

d. Teams who are unable to play a particular match at default time and who are unable to agree on a different match time on the same weekend as suggested in rule b., may request a reschedule to a later date, but before the end of the next week.

i. Teams may only request to reschedule two matches per season. The only exception being if rule 3.1.1 c. applies (where the opponent is required to reschedule). A reschedule is defined as a match that is played outside of the current week.

ii. If a team’s opponents do not agree on rescheduling the match, the match will remain scheduled at the default time.

iii. Teams willing to use a reschedule must inform their opponents and their division admin by Saturday 3PM ET of the current week's match. In case both teams agree to reschedule, both teams are responsible to find a time before the end of the next week's match. Should both teams fail to agree on a new time before Friday 3PM ET of the next week, the new default time for that match will be on the next day (Saturday), at 3 PM ET.

iii. A match for which a reschedule was requested will initially be scored as a forfeit. If the match is played at the rescheduled time, the result will replace this forfeit.

v. Players who have transferred to a different team during the season may not participate in rescheduled matches of their new team that were originally scheduled during a week in which the respective player was still registered for their former team.

Reasons: - Playing a match without delaying the league (that is, on the same week), should not count as a reschedule. If it still does, a modification should still be done to mix current Rule 3.1.1.b. and current Rule 3.1.1.d.
- A team should not be able to agree on a reschedule on next week, just to not play the match on the next week and get the forfeit win.
- Current Rule 3.1.1.d.v. does not make sense anymore, as transfers are declined.

______________________
Current Rule:
d. Players are allowed to pick any of the 48 tracks total available in the game, as well as random.

i. Tracks which have already been played during the match may not be picked again for the remainder of the match. If a player fails to honor this rule and their selection is chosen, that player’s team will receive a -20 point penalty. This penalty applies even if the room crashes during the race the repeat was selected.

ii. No penalties will be given if the player whose selection was chosen picked random.

Suggested Rule:
d. Players are allowed to pick any of the 48 tracks total available in the game, as well as random.

i. Tracks which have already been played during the match may not be picked again for the remainder of the match. If a player picks a track that has been already played, and their selection is chosen, that player’s team will receive a -20 point penalty. This penalty applies even if the room crashes during the race the repeat was selected.

ii. No penalties will be given if the player whose selection was chosen picked random.

Reason: Edited the wording, since the player isn't actually "failing to honor a rule" by picking a track that is already played until it is actually picked. Also, the new wording includes the case described in last sentence, which means it can be removed.

______________________

Current Rule:
3.3.1.a. The host team must provide a host friend code to the opponent at least 15 minutes before the scheduled time.

i. The opposing team must have at least 1 player add the host FC at least 10 minutes before the scheduled time, every player adding the host on a team at least 10 minutes before the match has to get added by the host within 5 minutes before the scheduled time.

Suggested Rule:
3.3.1.a. The home team must provide a host friend code to the opponent at least 15 minutes before the scheduled time.

i. The away team must have at least 1 player add the host FC at least 10 minutes before the scheduled time, every player adding the host on a team at least 10 minutes before the match has to get added by the host within 5 minutes before the scheduled time.

Reason: Editing the wording would help fitting with Rule 3.2.e.

______________________

Current Rule:
b. The host must open the room no earlier than the scheduled starting time of the match and no later than 5 minutes past the scheduled starting time.

i. It is recommended for the host to have their friend settings set to "best friends only" to prevent random players from joining, as well as setting every player in the match as a "best friend."

ii. In the case of a player from neither team joins the room, the host must close the room immediately. The hosting team will not have to wait 30 seconds before joining.

Suggested Rule:
b. The host must open the room no earlier than the scheduled starting time of the match and no later than 5 minutes past the scheduled starting time.

i. It is recommended for the host to have their friend settings set to "best friends only" to prevent random players from joining, as well as setting every player in the match as a "best friend."

ii. In the case of a player from neither team joins the room, the host must close the room immediately. The hosting team will not have to wait 30 seconds before joining (see rule 3.3.1.g).

______________________

Current Rule:
3.4.a. The results of all MKU matches have to be posted by the winning team in the respective MKU section on the forums by the official deadline. In MKU the deadline is 11:59 pm EST on Sunday.

i. Failure to provide results by the deadline will result in a forfeit for the team that was supposed to post the thread.

ii. If there is no proof for the exact result, but the evidence is presented supporting the outcome of the war, the war may be scored as a forfeit.

iii. The winning team must post a table for results, which contains team scores and player individual scores as well as an in game picture of the results.

iv. If one or more player(s) from one team didn’t use his alias with which he is registered, then a team representative for the given team must post registered player names on the thread (ex: TT3 = Gumer)

v. The results thread should be named after one of the following:
[Week](home team tag) (home team score) – (away team score) (away team tag)
[Week] (home team full name) (home team score) – (away team score) (away team full name)
Failure to do so will result in the following:
1st Offense - Warning
2+ offenses - Flag every offense

Suggested Rule:
3.4.a. The results of all MKU matches have to be posted by the winning team in the respective MKU section on the forums by 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.

i. In case of a tie match, the home team have to post the results in the respective MKU section on the forums.

ii. An acceptable result thread contains team scores and player individual scores as well as an in game picture of the results.

iii. Failure to provide an acceptable result thread by the deadline could [?] result in a forfeit for the team that was supposed to post the thread.

iii. If there is no proof for the exact result, but the evidence is presented supporting the outcome of the war, the war may be scored as a forfeit.

iv. If one or more player(s) from one team didn’t use his alias with which he is registered, then a team representative for the given team must post registered player names on the thread (ex: TT3 = Gumer)

iv. The results thread should be named after one of the following:
[Week] (home team tag) (home team score) – (away team score) (away team tag)
[Week] (home team full name) (home team score) – (away team score) (away team full name)
Failure to do so will result in the following:
1st Offense - Warning
2+ offenses - Flag every offense [Use the same alignment iv.]

Reasons: Tied matches weren't handled here. Also, last season, a forfeit was given for a team that hasn't posted the thread in time. Was it too harsh? Should there be a warning?

______________________

Current Rule:

3.4.b. If matches remain incomplete due to a team, not having enough players left to finish, that team will forfeit the match by default.

i. Should both teams be unable to finish, the war may be scored as a 0-0 tie.

ii. Exceptions can be made and the presented races may be counted as the final result at staff’s discretion.

Suggested Rule:

3.4.b. If a match remains incomplete due to a team not having enough players left to finish, that team will forfeit the match by default.

i. Should both teams be unable to finish, the war will be scored as a 0-0 double forfeit.

ii. Exceptions can be made and the presented races may be counted as the final result at staff’s discretion.

Reason: It was mentioned later 0-0 double forfeit. 0-0 tie would therefore make no sense.

______________________

Remove Current Rule 3.4.c., as it inteferes with Current Rule 3.4.a.

______________________

Current Rule:
3.4.e. If neither team has 6 players going into match time, it will be scored as a 0-0 double forfeit if no reschedule is played.

Suggested Rule:
3.4.e. If neither team has 6 players going into match time, it will be scored as a 0-0 double forfeit if no reschedule is played.

Reason: There cannot be a reschedule if we are going into match time, as it has to be notified before Saturday 3PM ET anyway.

______________________

SECTION IV

______________________

Current Rule:
4.1.b. If a team member is found to be spectating the room to obtain an advantage, the offending team will receive an automatic loss.
i. Substantial and foolproof evidence must be needed for a case to be considered.
ii. Examples of "Substantial and foolproof evidence" include but are not limited to: Multiple instances of the track roulette countdown starting much quicker than usual, more than 6 (or +1 of the number of subs used by a team in a match) players from the same team on the Users You've Played With screen.

Suggested Modifications: I think staff should include grey areas such as players disconnecting (and joining back to spectate the room), or players being substituted mid games. It seems quite common in the community for a disconnected player to call items on the race when he disconnected from a race and once he joins back as spectating.

______________________

SECTION V
______________________

Remove the whole Rules in the Section, as conduct cases seems to be considered by MKCentral Staff (unless I am wrong?). In this case, one single rule should be used to write that MKCentral Staff has the right to ban a player from playing in MKU if one fails to conduct himself appropriately.

______________________

Thank you for reading
 

Rookie

Member
Staff member
Administrator
Media Staff
Founding Member
Alright, first thing

Playoffs

a. The playoff bracket will start with the stronger conference winner playing against the weaker wild card team and the weaker conference winner playing against the stronger wild card team.

This is unclear, because it should be stating the team with the best record I think. But I think what the rule is supposed to be should be changed entirely, and want to explain why here. Pretty much, playoff teams with the best record last season complained when playing against what they considered to be the 3 seed, so the rule got changed. So I get why the rule was changed, but I think it's personally awful and should be changed back to how it was before Season 13 for all future seasons.

First reason, what the stronger conference winner actually is, is not defined, because if there is a tie between two teams in opposite conferences, they aren't in the wild card standings. There is no set tiebreaker between the 2 teams that's been re-established. What happens if one won the H2H but the other team has the better conference record, or differential? What happens if in the one match they play, they tied? In the former format, every playoff spot was clearly defined because there are pre-existing conference standings. As of now there's no set way to officially compare conference winners.

For the more legitimate reasons though, I want to explain things that I don't think this format can update to. First I want to talk about the Custom Server League on MKWii.

I don't know what the format has been more recently, but in the past a lot of members (particularly in this community) were highly critical of the way the playoffs in that league ran (MKU didn't have playoffs at the time for that reason too). This was because they had playoffs without conference play. So pretty much, in the regular season, a round robin is played, and as a result, the team who wins the round robin would be listed as their division champion. Except they wouldn't be, because an arbitrary 3 team playoff would be played.

You see, sometimes 2 teams in the same NFL division both make the playoffs, but the team that won the division in the regular season is still the division champion. In the playoffs, these teams are competing for a greater achievement than a divisional championship. This falls flat on its face when a team already wins the regular season, and then a playoff is brought up to determine the actual division champion. It renders winning a division meaningless.

There was at least incentive to get 1st place in the regular season, because you got a bye and waited on the 2-3 seeds to play first. But the big problem was pushed somewhere else: getting 2nd place rather than 3rd in the division gave you no benefit whatsoever, b/c regardless of the order you'll still play against the same team. If you remove this problem for the team in 2nd by just making the finals between the top 2, the problem gets shifted to the first team. Pretty much in this format, there was 0 business in running playoffs to begin with.

While not as terrible, MKU is currently making a pretty similar mistake with the 1-4 seeded format rather than the placement format for the playoffs. You see, when you make a seeding, you're making a projection of the results. So what happens is if everything "goes to plan", something that is actually way more common in the top level divisions, you create a system where winning a conference effectively becomes meaningless, just like winning the regular season was meaningless in the old CSL.

Conferences were introduced b/c it created different schedules and justified a playoff format working. You still can win your conference, but you aren't already beating your entire division - just your conference. The fact that there is an equal on the other side of the division who also won their conference means you cannot claim to have already outplayed your full division. Playoffs are justified.

But the problem is that our current seeding system, if things go to plan, sets up the following projected bracket, EVERY season for every division, with this more likely to happen than not:

A1 vs A2 | B1 vs B2

And the problem here is that if the 1st round is just going to prioritize this specific setup over all else, winning your conference becomes meaningless. This is because whether or not you beat that team out for the 1 seed or lost to them and got the 2, you get to rematch with them regardless. As long as you made it in, (which will happen if things go to seed), none of the 2 regular season matchups matter.

If the 4 seed were to lose 2-1 in the semis, consider that in a single season they played the 1st seed 5 times, while playing the 2nd and 3rd seed just once each. It's kind of stupid for that to happen. Teams like playing varied competition.

The old format for us straight up prevented this scenario from happening (A1 vs A2) and I think it's better for that, since it gives direct advantages to the team who won the conference. You could argue that winning the conference makes a team more likely to win vs the team who finished 2nd, but again, it has the same CSL problem. Why should A2 immediately get a chance to dethrone A1 after just coming off a conference loss to them? It makes almost zero sense. And if you switch up the division layout by seed to justify it, you just create imbalanced conferences.

Yes, A2 and B2 get into the playoffs a lot without winning their conference. But they get a significant disadvantage compared to the conference winner by being put against the other conference winner. If you put them up against their own though, you might as well just say we don't care about regular season results. Make them earn the rematch by beating a harder opponent. Then you can justify having A1 vs A2 in the finals, because A2 had to go through a harder road to get there than A1. A1 still got the benefit from winning their conference even in this rematch.

I think a common counter argument is going to be the following: why would you want a tournament where the projected first round before the season starts is 1v3, 2v4? Well, it's not intuitive, but I think it actually makes more sense. This becomes more apparent when you look at the 3 seed schedule vs the 4 seed schedule.

Every team plays each other team once, but the 2nd conference games make the difference.

Both are the 2nd seed in their conference, but look at the conference schedules:

- Top Seed (4 plays 1, 3 plays 2 - easier for the 3 seed to win)
- Mid Seed (4 plays 5, 3 plays 6 - easier for the 3 seed to win)
- Low Seed (4 plays 8, 3 plays 7 - easier for the 4 seed to win, but this is the least important matchup to compare since there's the most amount of projected difference between the teams in the matchups)

So the 3 seed just straight up has a regular season advantage over the 4th seed to begin with. What this means is that while 1v3, 2v4 would technically give 3 the harder semis matchup, they also have the higher chance of winning their conference due to the schedule, which would pair them with the 4 seed in round 1 as a massive reward for beating the 2 seed). This incentivizes the regular season more for EVERY projected playoff team.

1 Seed: Winning the conference likely means they get the 3 seed instead of the 2 seed round 1.
2 Seed: Winning the conference likely means they get the 4 seed instead of the 1 seed round 1.
3 Seed: Winning the conference likely means they get the 4 seed instead of the 1 seed round 1.
4 Seed: Winning the conference likely means they get the 3 seed instead of 2 seed round 1.

What we have currently does NOT compare, because almost regardless of outcome, the matchups are going to be the same unless a team upsets their way into the playoffs. Why even care about the regular season at that point for teams who are likely making the playoffs by the time week 3 is over?

D1 this season looks like it will (luckily) avoid this problem. Was it because the format is good? No. It happened because of conference imbalance. wf and HD are almost certainly going to both finish as top 3 seeds, and it's likely because iF and Soul are locks to finish bottom 2 whereas the other conference has 4 teams with a chance to win their conference going into the final week. So D1 is going to likely going to have the better case scenario: A1 vs B2, B1 vs A2. Cool. The 30-40% chance came through this time, and we'll have the same playoffs as we would've with the Season 12 format. Want to know how you get this desired scenario 100% of the time though? The actual Season 12 format.

It's worth noting also that when there are "upsets" (by seeding), a lot of the time it's due to conference imbalance and preseason unknowns (as an example, RK should have been seeded higher this season). What this means is that when there is imbalance, the team with the best record often is the one who plays in the worst conference. Again, D1 is looking to show this to be likely.

Last season in D1, wf was technically the top overall seed by S13's standards. They were 9-1, with a H2H win over the other 9-1 team in best +/-. But the 2nd place team in that conference went 4-6. What this means is that yes, they were slightly ahead by S13 standards, but the other 9-1 team won their conference because they beat an 8-2 team twice. The other team played in the harder conference.

So is the wording "stronger conference champion" the one who has best record or tiebreakers, or is it the champion of the stronger conference? Because those are different things. It would make a lot of sense that a team goes 9-1 when none of their conference opponents go above .500. The current format will reward the team with the easier conference every time. This will be something that affects every division also.

Another note, like how it's easier for the 3 seed to win a conference than the 4 seed, the 1 seed has an easier time winning a conference than the 2 seed. To give them what is considered the easiest opponent in semifinals feels practically like overkill, and is simply rewarding the team who was given the easier conference schedule (which tends to be random).

Is a team the true 1 seed if they're expected to have easier opponents in the regular season? Does their record make them better?

D1 has been wild this season, especially this week. It could appear that it's very likely that I wrote this because the new format made it appear that we would have to play wf in the semis again. But again, we had to play them last season in the semis because of the old format and I didn't make a post about it then. We went 8-2, and played them round 1. But that was fine to me, because we didn't earn the conference win over Re. We controlled our destiny on Week 5, and came up just short. So Re got to play a 4-6 team (a very good one in fairness) and we had to play a 9-1 one. We had an opportunity to change the script though. The important takeaway is that our Week 5 match with Requiem was actually impactful. It wouldn't have been that way with the current format, because we would've just had to play each other Week 6 anyways. It would've been a waste. Because of D1's luck this season, our match with wf next weekend has meaning because we both would rather play B2. This would stay consistent with the S12 format.

So in summary, I think we should go back to the old playoff format. Not only do I think it makes more sense but it'll result in significantly less conference rematches in the semis and I think the tournament is better off giving you new matchups without sacrificing fair play whatsoever.

updated - included details about this season's D1 being lucky to get a good scenario
 
Last edited:

Javi01

Member
Founding Member
Hello everyone!
I hope you have a nice summer. Well, I'm doing this post because I feel bored playing mario kart and I was thinking during months about a renewed tournament that is MKU.

At the beginning of the year I was so excited if there was a new MKU in 2021 but I got disappointed when I realized it was the same format as many seasons in 2020, nothing new is poor, it means like old school and monotony makes people tired. In that I thought how the new format will be with a comparison and explanation.


Teams per div
Now:
8
New: 16
Why: Since the community has grown, 8 teams per div is so much short and there are no exciting wars for this reason. With this there would be wars that are not the same opponent than arranged friendly wars, it means there would be different opponents, this way there would be more variety of games.

Divisions
Now:
Numbers of divisions depend on how many teams join mku.
New: There will be 10 divisions doesn't matter how many teams are, although teams per div could vary but at least 12 teams if we are not enough
Why: I based this on the numbers of divisions of FUT (EA FIFA) which it has 10 divs and I want mku is an adventure mode where they can compete to win the title.

Format
Now:
2 conferences, 4 teams each, you play twice against the same conference and once against the other conference. The 1st of each conference + 2 wild cards qualify to playoffs. Semifinals and finals are bo3. 10 wars in regular season + playoffs
New: If 16 teams, round robin just 1 leg, 4 qualify to playoffs, also bo3. 15 wars regular season + playoffs
Why: There are many teams but only the best could play the final phase and there are no groups because if we split teams in 2 groups there could be a team that gets 1st easily and the other 1st wins the group but it is very competed, this generates unbalance and this is why I want an overall table.

Promotions and relegations
Now:
There are not because staff make mistakes at seedings and it could vary like 1 team could promote up to 3 divs because staff seeded a team too low.
New: Promotions: Div 2 and lower, semifinal winners promote and the semifinal loser who got a better spot in regular season plays against the loser with a higher spot of the relegation playoff.
Relegations: Last of div relegates, from 15th to 12th play like a playoff to not relegate, the loser with a lower spot relegates and the other loser plays against the semifinal loser of the lower division. Also if someone drops and they warred their wars are nullified, it means like they never participated this season.

Why: This way we could see who deserves that division and there could be less mistakes than other times, but you should make more statistics and allow more people to play off-season tournaments to see their level.

MKU Time
Now:
Standard times are 20 and 21 CE(S)T, 2 wars per day
New: More flexible times, 3 wars per day
Why: It could happen that Asia/Oceania people can't play mku at that time. I know if a high percentage of the roster are from there the schedule is adapted to them but it could happen that Japanese in American clans or even an Australian in an European clan couldn't play mku unless they wake up early or no sleep, this is really unfair and we should be open to them.
Also if we have to play playoffs we should be ready if there is a 3rd match, that is why 3 wars per day.


That is the end of the comparison, now I'm doing a summary of this and a last new thing.

Program of the season:
Week 1-5: 3 wars
Week 6-7: Playoffs for title (also for promotion or relegation)
Week 8: Divs all stars. This is new and that is to define who is the best of the div since indivs are not accurate so in this event the best 12 can participate, if any of those 12 can not play that, it would be the one below it.

To sum up I want mku is more exciting and difficult to win and it's an adventure that no one would quit.

I hope you read the post.

Thanks for reading.
 

Teeples

Member
Site Supporter
Founding Member
Hello everyone!
I hope you have a nice summer. Well, I'm doing this post because I feel bored playing mario kart and I was thinking during months about a renewed tournament that is MKU.

At the beginning of the year I was so excited if there was a new MKU in 2021 but I got disappointed when I realized it was the same format as many seasons in 2020, nothing new is poor, it means like old school and monotony makes people tired. In that I thought how the new format will be with a comparison and explanation.


Teams per div
Now:
8
New: 16
Why: Since the community has grown, 8 teams per div is so much short and there are no exciting wars for this reason. With this there would be wars that are not the same opponent than arranged friendly wars, it means there would be different opponents, this way there would be more variety of games.

Divisions
Now:
Numbers of divisions depend on how many teams join mku.
New: There will be 10 divisions doesn't matter how many teams are, although teams per div could vary but at least 12 teams if we are not enough
Why: I based this on the numbers of divisions of FUT (EA FIFA) which it has 10 divs and I want mku is an adventure mode where they can compete to win the title.

Format
Now:
2 conferences, 4 teams each, you play twice against the same conference and once against the other conference. The 1st of each conference + 2 wild cards qualify to playoffs. Semifinals and finals are bo3. 10 wars in regular season + playoffs
New: If 16 teams, round robin just 1 leg, 4 qualify to playoffs, also bo3. 15 wars regular season + playoffs
Why: There are many teams but only the best could play the final phase and there are no groups because if we split teams in 2 groups there could be a team that gets 1st easily and the other 1st wins the group but it is very competed, this generates unbalance and this is why I want an overall table.

Promotions and relegations
Now:
There are not because staff make mistakes at seedings and it could vary like 1 team could promote up to 3 divs because staff seeded a team too low.
New: Promotions: Div 2 and lower, semifinal winners promote and the semifinal loser who got a better spot in regular season plays against the loser with a higher spot of the relegation playoff.
Relegations: Last of div relegates, from 15th to 12th play like a playoff to not relegate, the loser with a lower spot relegates and the other loser plays against the semifinal loser of the lower division. Also if someone drops and they warred their wars are nullified, it means like they never participated this season.

Why: This way we could see who deserves that division and there could be less mistakes than other times, but you should make more statistics and allow more people to play off-season tournaments to see their level.

MKU Time
Now:
Standard times are 20 and 21 CE(S)T, 2 wars per day
New: More flexible times, 3 wars per day
Why: It could happen that Asia/Oceania people can't play mku at that time. I know if a high percentage of the roster are from there the schedule is adapted to them but it could happen that Japanese in American clans or even an Australian in an European clan couldn't play mku unless they wake up early or no sleep, this is really unfair and we should be open to them.
Also if we have to play playoffs we should be ready if there is a 3rd match, that is why 3 wars per day.


That is the end of the comparison, now I'm doing a summary of this and a last new thing.

Program of the season:
Week 1-5: 3 wars
Week 6-7: Playoffs for title (also for promotion or relegation)
Week 8: Divs all stars. This is new and that is to define who is the best of the div since indivs are not accurate so in this event the best 12 can participate, if any of those 12 can not play that, it would be the one below it.

To sum up I want mku is more exciting and difficult to win and it's an adventure that no one would quit.

I hope you read the post.

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for your suggestion. Trying to spice things up is something we have been talking about actually. I'm not sure if we'd change the entire league though for the first season if we try something new. Time constraint is also a factor as it was heavily encouraged that our seasons were shortened so it might be difficult to have something really grand if we can't make the seasons more weeks than we have at the moment.
 

ApG77

Member
Hello, I'd like to suggest something for MKU. It regards how brackets are made so unfortunately it can't be applied to the brackets of this first half since they are already made. Though it's applicable for week 6.

With the current system, the huge majority of teams are not getting the seed they deserve. There are two problems with this:
A) they don't host as much matches as they should : some host more, some less.
B) it unbalances the bracket strength because some branches are much better than others and I can demonstrate the utter existence of these problems, by only basing myself on the 2 first divisions. Since this season we're dealing with 10 entire divisions, this means that mathematically, there is the possible existence of 5 times more problems of this nature.

Why the A) problem exists: In division 2, Premier Bracket, The Real Panas was given seed 1 in the bracket, thus they host every single match as long as they win. But they don't deserve this seed whatsoever. Why? They are a 2-0-1 team that lost to a team that's in consolation bracket (Kartnita Asada). However, since Trp got the seed 1, who got seed 2 and 3? This is actually when we face our problem. Indeed, Sweatyzard X and Yoshi Family Galaxy respectively were given this seed. Thing is they are the only 3-0-0 teams in the entire division. So they should be the top 2 seeds, right ? But they are not. If both teams win their round 1, they face each other in round 2, so too early, thus one of them is sent too early in losers, and automatically we face the B) problem. If teams aren't given the right seed, some to many parts of the bracket are not balanced so it's not fun.

A true example of B) is what the D1 Premier Bracket looks like. Indeed, the first two quarters (so first half) of the bracket for R1 match-ups are much superior than the last half of the bracket on paper. This means it's unbalanced, but more importantly, one team among xi, HD, WF1 and SX is automatically finishing either 7th or 8th, which is completely dumb and problematic, since these teams have always been fighting for the crown in the previous seasons, even though sometimes they were underperforming, like HD's 6th place last season.

Now here is another huge problem. The bottom 8 of each div is auto excluded from the top 8 for the rest of the half season, this means they can't place above any of them anymore. This HARD punishes teams who couldn't pull their top line-up on W1, for example ARC1 who had to play the entire group matches without their top 2, same with StR missing 2 among their top 5 players, in addition to the vast amount of teams throughout the rest of d1 and d2-10 who faced the exact same problem and some even complained in public of W1 deciding everything, etc.

So I will propose 2 things to fix the best way possible all the unfairness generated by the new format, both rewarding the top seeds (after W1), and while not hard punishing the bottom seeds.

A) After groups, you FREEZE the 1-4 AND the 9-12 seeds. (1st and 3rd group finishers) You don't swap their seeds or anything as you did this season, you keep them as they are, so they host the right amount of matches at the right times. Depending on the divisions, if you go with the traditionnal seeded bracket (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5), you have W1 rematches everywhere, and sometimes you have nothing at all. D1 premier bracket would have rematches for R1 everywere, while D2 premier bracket would have 0 bracket rematches (y'all can check by yourselves that it's real) Now, how do you seed the 2nd and 4th group finishers? It's simple. We go with traditionnal seeded bracket first. In a rare case, it works perfectly fine. In most cases, it doesn't.
If top 2 and bottom 2 are concerned by R1 rematches, you swap seeds 7 and 8. Thus, 1v7 and 2v8. If they aren't concerned, keep it 1v8 and 2v7. If seeds 3-6 are concerned by rematch issues, make it 3v5 and 4v6. If they aren't, keep it traditionnal, so 3v6 and 4v5.

B) this is a solution to the "huge problem" I mentionned, in which "bottom 8 is auto excluded" Make your bracket 16 teams. All teams of the division start in the same bracket. However, top 8 starts in winners bracket, bottom 8 in losers bracket. This means: Top 8 seeds can't demote ever, and bottom 8 seeds can fight for top 8 still and win the entire thing even, with a miracle. (btw you keep the extra matches after teams lost in the losers bracket)
This is a MUCH MORE fair solution, everyone ends with the right placement. You're gonna tell me: it makes the season too long. But it DOES fit (4 weeks for half a season, 8 total). On W3, LR3 LR4 LR5 are played at 20/21/22CEST. Even though it adds another week with 3 matches alongside first week, on paper, teams in LR3 rarely make it to the LR5, so unlike W1 it is not problematic to have 3 matches on that week3.

Here is a d1 bracket sample if you apply:
my first proposition only: https://challonge.com/y81dg2o2
both of my 2 propositions: https://challonge.com/sbo9n4sg
(Challonge is dumb so in LR1, the wrong teams appear on the top of their match-ups)
Finally, Soul and pv were tied (same W-D-L record, same +/-, and not in same group, I seeded Soul above pv on those samples)
A rule should exist regarding this scenario too, something like... the best result from a group match between the tied teams.

Peace~
 

Blaze

LFGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
@ApG77 I dont necessarily think your suggestion is bad, but i see some flaws and heres why;

With the current system, the huge majority of teams are not getting the seed they deserve. There are two problems with this:
A) they don't host as much matches as they should : some host more, some less.

This isn't a bad point really, but I think you are overemphasizing how much hosting really helps. Sure you can get a good advantage for race 1, but by the end of the war those starting placements are essentially meaningless. >99% of the time when a team wins, its because they played better - not because they get an automatic +20 on the other team by having someone start in first.

B) it unbalances the bracket strength because some branches are much better than others and I can demonstrate the utter existence of these problems, by only basing myself on the 2 first divisions. Since this season we're dealing with 10 entire divisions, this means that mathematically, there is the possible existence of 5 times more problems of this nature.

Why the A) problem exists: In division 2, Premier Bracket, The Real Panas was given seed 1 in the bracket, thus they host every single match as long as they win. But they don't deserve this seed whatsoever. Why? They are a 2-0-1 team that lost to a team that's in consolation bracket (Kartnita Asada). However, since Trp got the seed 1, who got seed 2 and 3? This is actually when we face our problem. Indeed, Sweatyzard X and Yoshi Family Galaxy respectively were given this seed. Thing is they are the only 3-0-0 teams in the entire division. So they should be the top 2 seeds, right ? But they are not. If both teams win their round 1, they face each other in round 2, so too early, thus one of them is sent too early in losers, and automatically we face the B) problem. If teams aren't given the right seed, some to many parts of the bracket are not balanced so it's not fun.


First off - trp is not seeded "higher" than YF and Sz are. All teams were put into "tiers" with their own skill levels, and then the tiers were each randomized on their own in each division. Being the #1 seed in group A is not equivalent to being the #1 seed in the entire division. Sure you're a top 4, but that's just how it was randomized.

Regardless, it's pretty unfair to say that trp did not "deserve this seed whatsoever". 2-0-1 was still enough to win their division, especially considering that their only loss was a 2 point margin. They were still consistent enough within their own group to earn a 1 seed (I say "a" because there are four 1 seeds). It's sort of like how MKWorlds worked where the top 2 seeds of each group make the final tournament, in which a #1 seed plays a #2 seed from a different group to avoid a rematch. It makes sense that you wouldn't want the only 3-0 teams to match up in the semifinals, but seedings after a group stage can be arbitrary at times, which doesn't really help anybody.

A true example of B) is what the D1 Premier Bracket looks like. Indeed, the first two quarters (so first half) of the bracket for R1 match-ups are much superior than the last half of the bracket on paper. This means it's unbalanced, but more importantly, one team among xi, HD, WF1 and SX is automatically finishing either 7th or 8th, which is completely dumb and problematic, since these teams have always been fighting for the crown in the previous seasons, even though sometimes they were underperforming, like HD's 6th place last season.

And sometimes it'll end up like this. I don't speak entirely for HD on this, but we don't aim for 4th 5th or 6th, we aim for 1st. Sure, I'd rather not be in a situation where the 7th place match is harder than the 5th place match, but that's not really a priority on my concerns list. I feel like others may be able to relate to this as well.

Sure, it may seem unusual that one of those 4 teams will end up in the 7th/8th place matchup, but you can't deny that the other 4 teams in the group have played phenomenally to be in their positions. mw has shocked many people by sneaking into 1st place in their group, and sometimes that is something you cannot fully predict. I've known mw was capable of being a D1 team by seeing how they've been playing vs us the past couple months, but would I have bet money on them winning their group before the season started? Probably not. Just because a team has historically been great doesn't mean that other teams can't be on the come up and do the same. Look at the rest of the top half of the bracket - BRE, wf moon, and mainclan are all pretty big threats too. The top 8 is tighter in skill than it has been in a very long time imho.

Now here is another huge problem. The bottom 8 of each div is auto excluded from the top 8 for the rest of the half season, this means they can't place above any of them anymore. This HARD punishes teams who couldn't pull their top line-up on W1, for example ARC1 who had to play the entire group matches without their top 2, same with StR missing 2 among their top 5 players, in addition to the vast amount of teams throughout the rest of d1 and d2-10 who faced the exact same problem and some even complained in public of W1 deciding everything, etc.

At first I completely disagreed with this statement, but you do bring up a fair point. Not everybody is available every week, and whether you finish in the top 8 or bottom 8 can greatly depend just a couple players being missing. However, I personally think that teams really shouldn't rely on needing their 6 best players available for each week or else it makes the matchups incredibly unfair. Yes it sucks to have your best player missing, but if you can't get the results you were hoping for just because one player was missing, do you really deserve that spot? I don't know if that can really be blamed on the tournament format, as you could say the same thing about regular MKU playoffs (losing against a team because some players were missing in the same week)

Luckily these seasons are very short, so it's not like the world is over if you're missing a lot of players in one day. Just gotta count on doing well in the Consolation bracket to get that shot for next season.

A) After groups, you FREEZE the 1-4 AND the 9-12 seeds. (1st and 3rd group finishers) You don't swap their seeds or anything as you did this season, you keep them as they are, so they host the right amount of matches at the right times. Depending on the divisions, if you go with the traditionnal seeded bracket (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5), you have W1 rematches everywhere, and sometimes you have nothing at all. D1 premier bracket would have rematches for R1 everywere, while D2 premier bracket would have 0 bracket rematches (y'all can check by yourselves that it's real) Now, how do you seed the 2nd and 4th group finishers? It's simple. We go with traditionnal seeded bracket first. In a rare case, it works perfectly fine. In most cases, it doesn't.
If top 2 and bottom 2 are concerned by R1 rematches, you swap seeds 7 and 8. Thus, 1v7 and 2v8. If they aren't concerned, keep it 1v8 and 2v7. If seeds 3-6 are concerned by rematch issues, make it 3v5 and 4v6. If they aren't, keep it traditionnal, so 3v6 and 4v5.

The whole point of the "tiers", especially this time around, was *likely* because (by likely i mean at least from my experience of being MKU staff when MKU was like 1/10 of the size it is now) it is so hard to seed every single team sometimes. It's much easier to seed teams as groups. This isn't because MKU staff is lazy or whatever, but, as I mentioned earlier, because seedings can be so arbitrary (especially when there has not been a season for over 2 months). The results of this tournament will likely help the seedings more for the next tournament in a few weeks, so I imagine this problem of stronger teams on paper (I don't like straight up saying stronger teams because this can be very opinionated) will likely become less common. Having to switch to 1v7 and 2v8 just seems like it will make arrangement more complicated than it needs to be.

B) this is a solution to the "huge problem" I mentionned, in which "bottom 8 is auto excluded" Make your bracket 16 teams. All teams of the division start in the same bracket. However, top 8 starts in winners bracket, bottom 8 in losers bracket. This means: Top 8 seeds can't demote ever, and bottom 8 seeds can fight for top 8 still and win the entire thing even, with a miracle. (btw you keep the extra matches after teams lost in the losers bracket)
This is a MUCH MORE fair solution, everyone ends with the right placement. You're gonna tell me: it makes the season too long. But it DOES fit (4 weeks for half a season, 8 total). On W3, LR3 LR4 LR5 are played at 20/21/22CEST. Even though it adds another week with 3 matches alongside first week, on paper, teams in LR3 rarely make it to the LR5, so unlike W1 it is not problematic to have 3 matches on that week3.

I genuinely like this idea, but the only thing I'd be worried about is that what if one of the top 8 teams has a bad day and goes from a top 4 seed to a bottom 4 seed after 2 matches, despite going 3-0 in the group stage? Because this would be possible, it really only tells us that the group stage is meaningless. Sure, a top seed is nice, but in divisions where all the teams have strong upset potential this doesn't really do a lot. A full bracket like this for redemption would be nice, but what's the point in having a group stage if all you are really fighting for is just a seed when you'll be in the final tournament anyways?
 

ApG77

Member
First off - trp is not seeded "higher" than YF and Sz are. All teams were put into "tiers" with their own skill levels, and then the tiers were each randomized on their own in each division. Being the #1 seed in group A is not equivalent to being the #1 seed in the entire division. Sure you're a top 4, but that's just how it was randomized.

Regardless, it's pretty unfair to say that trp did not "deserve this seed whatsoever". 2-0-1 was still enough to win their division, especially considering that their only loss was a 2 point margin. They were still consistent enough within their own group to earn a 1 seed (I say "a" because there are four 1 seeds). It's sort of like how MKWorlds worked where the top 2 seeds of each group make the final tournament, in which a #1 seed plays a #2 seed from a different group to avoid a rematch. It makes sense that you wouldn't want the only 3-0 teams to match up in the semifinals, but seedings after a group stage can be arbitrary at times, which doesn't really help anybody.
I'm aware these teams were at first tiered, but I was talking about post-W1 seeds in the bracket.
And sometimes it'll end up like this. I don't speak entirely for HD on this, but we don't aim for 4th 5th or 6th, we aim for 1st.
It's exactly what I said, everybody is supposed to fight for first place.
The whole point of the "tiers", especially this time around, was *likely* because (by likely i mean at least from my experience of being MKU staff when MKU was like 1/10 of the size it is now) it is so hard to seed every single team sometimes. It's much easier to seed teams as groups.
Again, I'm talking about post-W1 seeds (bracket ones). Thus I'm completely fine with how groups are currently made for the W1 matches.
I genuinely like this idea, but the only thing I'd be worried about is that what if one of the top 8 teams has a bad day and goes from a top 4 seed to a bottom 4 seed
It's possible but pretty rare. It's like best regular season team in past seasons getting 0-2'd and -100'd each match in semis. Also in the 16 teams bracket I brought up, top 8 seeds are guaranteed finishing in the top 12 so they avoid demotion for sure. In addition to that, they could still fight for 9th place on the 3rd week in a worst case scenario
And for that reason group stage is still a useful part of the format since finishing in the top half gives you an advantage vs the bottom half in the bracket (check the link if needed)

All in all, I respect your opinions but I utterly believe fairness is the main goal in a tournament, especially when we're talking about MKU, aka the tournament with most entrants in the community.
Also to me, fairness isn't maximized yet hence why I made my 2 suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Top