Rule changes for 2024

[Lafungo]

Once again, I'm opening a topic to discuss potential rule changes for CDM. I would have liked to open it earlier (as was the case last year), but I spent several months in the lead up to JSMKC in regular contact with Kasmo to iron out the ruleset there. As you'll understand, I wanted a break after the event and decided to give myself the month of May as time off before broaching the subject of CDM rules at the beginning of June. I've summarized the points that I want to discuss in a few key questions, and I'm hoping that people will participate promptly.

To avoid issues from previous years, I am setting a firm deadline for responses to be taken into account for the 2024 ruleset. The deadline for feedback/opinions is July 31. Nevertheless, please respond to this topic as early as you can. I will then make adjustments to the 2023 ruleset as needed and post the full 2024 ruleset as soon as possible in August.

Below are the points I would like to discuss for this year, based on my own observations and feedback I received from other participants. They are ordered from most to least important/impactful.

Question 1: What group stage format should we use?
This is the big question for this year, and there are two high-level options: Swiss (as has been used for the last few years) or Round Robin (as was used until 2013, and is used at the NTSC championships). Below are some considerations for both.

Swiss:
The main appeal is that most matches played are between opponents of similar level, which is a huge benefit. The format is also quite easy to extend, in that we can add players up until the last minute with essentially no impact on the running of the tournament.
However, there are some pretty significant drawbacks, mainly with regards to logistics. One major drawback is the time spent between rounds: because the next round of match pairings depends on the results from the previous round, all players must wait for the slowest match to finish. Then, the scorekeeper needs to finalize all results for that round, generate the next round's pairings, and announce them to all players. From my observations over the last few years, this equates to around 10-15 minutes on average of downtime between the end of a typical match and the start of the next round, which adds up to over two hours' worth of accumulated time over the course of a day.
Another important consideration is the scorekeeper. Patrick has been the sole person handling this task for years now, and has had to sacrifice the majority of his participations as a player in order to run these single-group formats (initially Belgian and now Swiss). As long as we continue to run such a format, having someone (presumably still Patrick) sacrifice their week for scorekeeping will remain a necessity.

Round Robin:
The main appeal is that the format is simple and straightforward, both for players and logistically. In addition, with proper preparation it's possible to speed through the group stage with minimal downtime between matches. This was demonstrated at JSMKC, where match cards were given to each player that listed the order of matches they were to play, and they could then chain matches without having to consult any member of staff. This means that the scorekeeper does not need to do anything during the group stage itself, and thus is free to participate as a player as well. Finally, the distribution of players into groups means that everyone gets to play against opponents of all levels, which has been a point of contention that has been voiced by a number of players over the years.
The major downside of this format is the limited number of meaningful matches, i.e. matches between players of similar skill level. This means that a player's ranking may realistically depend on only a small percentage of their matches, with the rest being "automatic" wins or losses. Furthermore, there can be a concern with regards to the balance of the groups, which depends on an accurate assessment of participants' skill prior to the start of competition. This effect becomes more prominent as the number of groups increases. An additional consideration is that in order to prepare the groups properly with match cards, the groups themselves must be determined in advance so that the match cards can be made. This means that there needs to be a cutoff point after which new registrations aren't accepted, which also means that registrations on the morning of a given mode wouldn't be possible.

If we were to go with Round Robin, we would also need to decide on the number of groups. I think that the only sensible approach would be to vary the number of groups between 1 and 4 depending on the number of participants, but the difficulty is in deciding on cutoff points. An example proposal would be something like this:
- 1 group for up to 24 participants, and no barrages
- 2 groups for 25 to 40 participants
- 3 groups for 41 to 47 participants
- 4 groups for 48 to 64 participants
The reason for having such a small (example) window for 3 groups is that an added layer of complexity would be needed for the progression to KO stage. For 1, 2, and 4 groups, a systematic progression can be used where each player is placed in KO stage based only on their rank within their group and which group they were in. For 3 groups, such an approach is not possible, so we would need to decide on a method for establishing the progression. The base solution (as proposed by Narnet last year) would be to order players first by their rank within their group, then by comparing their records to the other players with the same rank in other groups (so first comparing WDL score, then point differential).

Question 2: Should BM/MR group stage matches change to 6 rounds instead of 4?

The main argument for change here is that matches between players of similar skill can feel like little more than a coin flip over only 4 rounds, and it's not uncommon for the outcome of a match to be determined by a single lightning or a couple rogue greens. Given that a significant chunk of time during group stage is spent waiting between matches rather than playing said matches, the time cost of lengthening all these matches should be relatively small. That said, there is still a time cost involved and it's worth considering whether it would be worthwhile. It would also constitute a change for an aspect of the championship that hasn't been touched in over 20 years.

Another thing to consider is how we would decide the courses to play on for each match, in particular for BM. A couple options that come to mind are to either have all matches start on Map 1, or have the starting map be randomized. If randomized, I would suggest that we do it the same way as cup selection in GP, so for example in the first four rounds of matches each map would be selected as the starting map exactly once.

Question 3: What policy should we adopt for missed zooms in TT KO stage?

At JSMKC, we had a couple instances of players being granted a retry after missing their zoomstart due to external noise interference and complaining to staff upon completion of their attempt. The responses from different people regarding these incidents made it clear that we need a concrete policy for handling these situations, as they are not currently covered by the existing ruleset. Here are a few options based on different people's responses:
- in case of noise interfering with a zoomstart, the player should immediately raise their hand to signal a staff member and not attempt to drive the course at all. The staff member then decides whether the player is granted a retry or not. If not, they are given a 9'59"99 for that track.
- in case of noise interfering with a zoomstart, the player should complete their attempt, then signal a staff member without looking at any other player's results. The staff member then decides whether the player is granted a retry or not. If not, the player keeps the time set in their attempt.
- players are not allowed to retry in case of external noise interference.

Question 4: Should a bracket reset impact the point allocation for the players in the final?

The idea behind a potential "yes" answer to this question is fairly straightforward: there is a significant difference between a player winning gold without losing any matches in the KO stage, and a player winning gold despite having lost a match (whether it's from a bracket reset or from earlier in the upper bracket).
Conversely, a potential "no" answer indicates that what really matters is getting gold or silver, and not the path taken to reach that result.

In case of answering "yes", a decision would also be needed for how exactly to change the point allocation. One potential example would be as follows:
- no bracket reset: 2000 points for gold, 1600 points for silver.
- bracket reset: 1900 points for gold, 1700 points for silver.

[Lafungo]

Here are my personal responses to the above questions:

Question 1: What group stage format should we use?

Round Robin.
I think that the logistical advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantage of fewer meaningful matches. The use of match cards at JSMKC was a great success, and I think it demonstrated clearly just how efficient Round Robin can be, which also means that we can accommodate larger groups. Another important point is that it will (finally) allow Patrick to participate as a player again without having to worry about scorekeeping.

Question 2: Should BM/MR group stage matches change to 6 rounds instead of 4?

6 rounds.
I think this will help make the outcome of meaningful matches be and feel more skill-based and less luck-based. I don't think that the added time will cause any scheduling issues.

Question 3: What policy should we adopt for missed zooms in TT KO stage?

The option of having the player immediately raise their hand without playing the attempt is the option I like the least. I think that it puts undue pressure on the staff member involved to grant a retry, as the alternative is a forfeit for that track.
As for the other two options, I would prefer the one in which a retry is possible but the staff member involved can still deny it without having to hand the player a forfeit. I think this achieves a better balance in terms of policy. That said, I would be OK with the option of not allowing players to retry at all due to noise interference, because that way everyone knows what's up and there's no room for discussion (although there can still easily be salt and controversy from missed zooms due to noise).

Question 4: Should a bracket reset impact the point allocation for the players in the final?

No.
I think that what should matter in terms of points is whether you got gold or silver, and not the path you took to reach that result. I also think that it would be very tricky to establish some kind of corresponding notion for TT, which would lead to an awkward outcome no matter what.

[bl44t]

1: Round Robin
2: I dont generally play these but I would say 6 if logistically feasible
3: Option 2 - in case of noise interfering with a zoomstart, the player should complete their attempt, then signal a staff member without looking at any other player's results. The staff member then decides whether the player is granted a retry or not. If not, the player keeps the time set in their attempt.
but only in the KO stage.
4: Yes

[Moll]

Question 1: What group stage format should we use?

Round Robin.
I don't think the Belgian and Swiss systems have ever worked quite how they were envisioned and just lead to more confusion than anything else with people with no idea where they stand. I liked the old round robin formats of CDM of old, playing a good mix of players and getting to chat with new people over a fun match.

Question 2: Should BM/MR group stage matches change to 6 rounds instead of 4?

I'd rather 5 and just get rid of draws tbh, draws always seem anticlimactic, would rather a decisive result.

Question 3: What policy should we adopt for missed zooms in TT KO stage?

I don't think any retry should be given for noise. Its a cdm there will always be a lot of noise going on. I'd rather see more thought put into isolating people that are playing from people that are not, maybe a marked zone when people not participating or eliminated must stay out of. The only reason for a retry I would accept would be if someone is physically interfered with (someone bashing into them trying to go past), but that should really never happen if a proper play zone is enforced.

Question 4: Should a bracket reset impact the point allocation for the players in the final?

Not really something that will involve me, will leave that one to the players likely to make finals to decide.

Question Moll: Can it be made clear if match score is important or not, it seems to be different every year and I never have any clue if a 4-0 win is better than a 3-1 or just the same

[Lafungo]

Question Moll: Can it be made clear if match score is important or not, it seems to be different every year and I never have any clue if a 4-0 win is better than a 3-1 or just the same

In case of Swiss: point differential is the second tiebreaker, when two or more players are tied on both WDL and Buchholz scores. Tied Buchholz scores are infrequent, so point differential will only impact a small number of players.
In case of Round Robin: point differential is the first tiebreaker, when two or more players end up with the same WDL score. WDL ties are common, so point differential will impact most players.

I'll be sure to make it clear one way or the other during rule announcements at CDM.

[Flo233]

Q1 Round Robin

Q2 4 round match is ok 6 could make matches way too long (for GS)

Q3  No reclamation from players , restart allowed only by staff if dusturbing noise is noticed by them.

Q4  Seems logical to deacrease winner points in case of deafeat, but points adjustement should goes the player that beat him/her (that will not always be the silver medalist). So for me it could just be better to give a bonus to the winner without loss.

Question Is it possible to discuss of the tiebreaker in GP ?

[Lafungo]

Message from Sumner.

The only one I really want to get an answer in for is option 3 (restarts in TT)
You can not let the person finish then complain, by the time I was entering lap 5 at JSMK I already had looked at Onwas time while my race was still running.
Only option for this I think is the person telling people to start needs to just wait and check the start goes well then moves to the next person, once they move to the next person you can not get a restart

[Lafungo]

Question Is it possible to discuss of the tiebreaker in GP ?

Go ahead. What do you suggest?

[KVD]

Question 1: What group stage format should we use?

"Round Robin.
I don't think the Belgian and Swiss systems have ever worked quite how they were envisioned and just lead to more confusion than anything else with people with no idea where they stand. I liked the old round robin formats of CDM of old, playing a good mix of players and getting to chat with new people over a fun match."

I shamelessly copy/pasted Moll's reply on question 1 as it sums up exactly how I feel. No more calculations or models running in the background when things can be kept simple. Very similar outcomes and way more pragmatic. Also it worked incredibly well at JSMKC, best GS experience I have ever had with the match cards.


Question 2: Should BM/MR group stage matches change to 6 rounds instead of 4?

I'd only vote for moving this to 6 if we have 1 or 2 rounds of GS less. My feeling is that for longer GS matches the stakes will feel higher and therefore the associated mental drain with GS will be even bigger for players that have ambitions to go deep into the bracket. So my provisional answer is to keep it at 4.


Question 3: What policy should we adopt for missed zooms in TT KO stage?

"I don't think any retry should be given for noise. Its a cdm there will always be a lot of noise going on. I'd rather see more thought put into isolating people that are playing from people that are not, maybe a marked zone when people not participating or eliminated must stay out of. The only reason for a retry I would accept would be if someone is physically interfered with (someone bashing into them trying to go past), but that should really never happen if a proper play zone is enforced."

Copy/pasted Moll again. No retries, such a precedent would open up a can of worms which we saw a glimpse of at JSMKC. Neo was right to be pissed (imo).


Question 4: Should a bracket reset impact the point allocation for the players in the final?

Since I brought forward this suggestion I am going to answer this with a yes. Conceptually, I do not think a player should get the maximum score possible when they lost a match at any point in the bracket. Flo Chollet's bonus for perfect performance also works, but it would essentially be the same thing. As long as it is not completely out of whack with TT in any case. I do not feel super strong about this, just an interesting small thing to nerd about.

- no bracket reset: 2000 points for gold, 1600 points for silver.
- bracket reset: 1900 points for gold, 1700 points for silver.

This already works for me. Or 1950 vs 1650 for bracket reset.

[Antistar]

Question 1: What group stage format should we use?

Definitely Round Robin, because Swiss/Belgian system has ALWAYS proved to be unfair to many players every year and there was never a proper solution to fix it. With that "classic" format, at least everyone understands how points are calculated and why they are ranked above/beyond someone specific.

I don't like the idea of 3 groups AT ALL, it's an absolute pain in the ass to decide who will face each other in the final phase afterwards, and I prefer to have 4 groups with "not enough" matches to play thand 3 groups. I assume the 40-player limit for 2 groups is based on the fact 19-game groups are doable, which looks A LOT to me, especially in GP, and I really think we should set a 16-game limit per group (and, hypothetically, consider to extend this to more matches in MR if this mode is the only one where this could happen).

If it turns out we have, for example, 38 players attending BM and/or GP, I'd prefer a situation where we play "only" 8 or 9 matches, maybe we could make every groupstage match being played twice, with both players being 1P and 2P once each other, like many sports groupstages using a home/away system?

This last point sounds like a brand new idea because I don't remember having heard about it before, but I don't think it's totally dumb, and maybe we could discuss it.

Question 2: Should BM/MR group stage matches change to 6 rounds instead of 4?

Hell no. Please. Especially if we have longer group stages because of a (positive) switch to Round Robin system.

Plus, I don't like that "coin flip" argument. Yes, bad RNG has a bigger influence on a shorter match. But you have a lot of matches to play in group stage, and not all of them will make you suffer from wrong RNG. Some others can turn to your good advantage, and most of the time, in the end, things are pretty balanced. I don't say they are entirely, because perfect balance just doesn't exist, but I think that after ~16 games, anyone has experienced a significant amount of good and bad luck.

The only moment where short matches are a bit like a coin flip are barrages: they're close to sudden death oppositions, and that's the way they are meant to be. Otherwise they don't make much sense.

Moll makes an interesting point about the draws though, but I think they are part of what makes a group stage in any kind of sports/competition. I can't see how and why getting rid of them would make ours better.

Question 3: What policy should we adopt for missed zooms in TT KO stage?

None of the propositions can be correct as long as there are no "referees" (or not enough) to check what the remaining players are doing. Let me explain.

As I've been through this twice with very different scenarios (2017 QF where nobody gave a fuck and I was eliminated, and 2024 JSMKC where I was listened to and allowed to restart, which made me driver a worse time in the end, but still OK to qualify), I have faced the same situation: there was nobody to clearly witness anything and tell if my request was right or wrong. That was a simple trust issue: I could have clearly lied since nobody was there to check if I was really disturbed or not (and it's not even possible to use the livestream as some kind of "VAR" because it would be impossible to hear the other TV noises from that point of view).

In 2017, for absolutely no reason, there was suddenly nobody to take care of telling the players they could start, so it was hard to make sure nobody would start at the same time. We had nobody to check and decide in that kind of situation, so I got eliminated without any possibility to have my situation "checked", and felt I was knocked out for extremely unfair reasons.
In 2024, I was asked to start by mistake at the same moment as Karel at the opposite of the venue, but the lack of sound made me hear it and miss my zoomstart. My request was examinated after the race and I was allowed to restart, but the person who decided had not seen me missing my zoomstart, then could not know why I did and if I had been actually disturbed.

None of those situations are correct. Fortunately enough, in 2024, both of my tries were good enough to qualify, but what if I had failed in one of those cases?

According to me, restarting after a zoom start should only be allowed if a designated referee witnesses something that went wrong. The main problem is, can we find enough people willing to take care of that? I think that would require one person for two TVs (focusing on more than 2 at the same time is pretty hard), so 8 referees for top 16 and 4 for top 8 for example. Things tend to be easier to judge when there are 6 players remaining or less.

Oh, and by the way, I totally agree with Sumner here (once the referee has seen if your start was performed in optimal conditions, it's your official and final attempt).

Only option for this I think is the person telling people to start needs to just wait and check the start goes well then moves to the next person, once they move to the next person you can not get a restart

Question 4: Should a bracket reset impact the point allocation for the players in the final?

No. That could imply a player winning 3 modes after having lost a life first in every one of them might be unable to win the championship in the end. It's absolutely unfair if we consider we have switched to the double elimination system to give players more chances to win. Such a decision would minimize the comeback performances overall and I can't see this making any sense.

I haven't considered how that could have changed things in the 2020s overall rankings and don't feel the need to check it, because I really don't like the idea and honestly, I don't really understand why this was brought to the light (yes, I've read Karel's post, but I think that's a matter of personal taste there, I just don't like it).

[KVD]

Just for the sake of argument, I think you overestimate the impact of the proposed point 4 rule change. The idea is to make it a small difference. It would reward someone that did a perfect bracket. And if someone wins 3 modes you can be damn sure they win the overall, whether it was completely with resets or without 

You raise an interesting point about the group sizes though. Maybe this should decide the number of rounds for BM and MR to be played. 4 if the groups are big, 6 if the groups are small. The group size of course simply depends on the participation nr for each mode. I could live with such a system and it might even be a good idea.

[Flo233]

Question Is it possible to discuss of the tiebreaker in GP ?

Go ahead. What do you suggest?

First tiebreaker should be scored points over difference between scored and conceded points (especially in a round robin) because conceded points can change a lot in function of who you play on the differents cup.
For me use conceded points is the same the thing than taking in counts loss ballons in BM 

[Antistar]

The idea is to make it a small difference. It would reward someone that did a perfect bracket.

OK, now I see your point much better, and why not then.

[KVD]

Question Is it possible to discuss of the tiebreaker in GP ?

Go ahead. What do you suggest?

First tiebreaker should be scored points over difference between scored and conceded points (especially in a round robin) because conceded points can change a lot in function of who you play on the differents cup.
For me use conceded points is the same the thing than taking in counts loss ballons in BM

+1 on that sentiment. It also disincentivizes top players from trolling the living daylights out of people that are already struggling to rank in.

[Flo233]

. Flo Chollet's bonus for perfect performance also works, but it would essentially be the same thing. 

- no bracket reset: 2000 points for gold, 1600 points for silver.
- bracket reset: 1900 points for gold, 1700 points for silver.

This already works for me. Or 1950 vs 1650 for bracket reset.

I see a difference that is important to me.
In the exemple above silver medalist is rewarded. For me if someone deserved more points it's the player who beat the winner.
For exemple for the GP 2021 I would add the points taken from the gold medalist to Karel and not Geo.