Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

[dweiler]

I don't know if those stats are exactly from 23.59 1 july, but at least they can be used as an impression:

| skillerinstinct@useast.battle.net -- 905.49 (16/21) |
| solaner@useast.battle.net -- 902.28 (40/48) |
| posh@useast.battle.net -- 889.43 (15/22) |
| valheru@useast.battle.net -- 881.47 (18/24) |
| ygg-lag@useast.battle.net -- 878.07 (153/163) |
| litecp@useast.battle.net -- 869.36 (95/107) |
| vigorousapathy@europe.battle.net -- 860.26 (15/24) |
| omatic-@useast.battle.net -- 859.53 (8/17) |
| ig0d@useast.battle.net -- 830.73 (169/187) |
| drahque@useast.battle.net -- 830.07 (78/84) |
| marlboro_@useast.battle.net -- 828.6 (137/165) |
| boulettenbernd@useast.battle.net -- 815.83 (28/39) |
| dj.fm@useast.battle.net -- 812.79 (72/88) |
| braveheart_wins@useast.battle.net -- 772.11 (78/88) |
| shr[o.o]m@useast.battle.net -- 708.11 (99/118) |
| isuk@useast.battle.net -- 639.62 (83/106) |

As far as I can see ISuk, BoulettenBernd, omatic- and vigorousapathy are below the 45%.

[Drahque]

Here is some stats that I posted on "Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:13 pm":

I can mention at least 19 people who deserve to be unvouched more than Igod, Marlboro, ISUK and Shr00m:
- Boreldi; 1/2 (33%)
- e40; 2/3 (40%)
- Regularshowtime; 1/3 (25%)
- 2mad2care; 0/1 (0%)
- Poubelle; 1/3 (25%)
- Fogey; 0/2 (0%)
- Slayers_Boxer; 1/3 (33%)
- Faith_Fanzine; 9/15 (37%)
- Frans; 3/6 (33%)
- dpp_cwrle; 0/3 (0%)
- vlaams; 0/3 (0%)
- xmilena; 7/11 (38%)
- supermagne-; 3/8 (27%)
- Wyatt; 2/6 (25%)
- Johaannaa; 0/4 (0%)
- Jack; 1/5 (12%)
- Stoneage; 7/11 (38%)
- tpy6ugyp; 5/10 (33%)
- Omatic-; 8/17 (32%)

Why should we call any of these players more 'skilled' than these players whom is claimed to be the worst players in the league due to their 'low' Elo:
- ig0d; 163/182 (47.25 %)
- Marlboro_; 134/163 (45.12 %)
- Shr(O.O)m; 99/116 (46.05 %)
- ISUK; 81/100 (44.75 %)

According to this list, we can see that 45 % win-ratio seems like a good mark, at least it makes players like ig0d, shr00m and marlboro less "judged" on their elo alone.

[supersexyy]

45% looks about right

[Drahque]

if anyone disobey 2 or more of following 3 things, they will be unvouched:
A) Must have at least 20 games played if you've been vouched for over a month.
B) Must have a win chance of above 42 (or somewhere between 42 and 47) % win chance/ratio.
C) Must have an Elo above 800.

So whats the news on this? Still working on the details, or is there anything to help with?
- @MickeyTheMousie

Maybe a vote or something to clarify how 'harsh' this system should be and how often it's going to be applied / checked?

[dweiler]

So whats the news on this? Still working on the details, or is there anything to help with?
- @MickeyTheMousie

Maybe a vote or something to clarify how 'harsh' this system should be and how often it's going to be applied / checked?

We are gonna monitor the exact figures for this season.

Currently the plans are like this:

If you don't meet 2 out of those 3 you will be unvouched:
1. 45% or higher winrate
2. 30 games played or more
3. In bottom 10 ELO ranking

First unvouch will last 2 weeks
2nd " " 1 season
3rd " " 1 season
4th " " permanent unvouch

All feedback is welcome so tell me if you think things aren't right.

[DonaldtheDuckie]

So whats the news on this? Still working on the details, or is there anything to help with?
- @MickeyTheMousie

Maybe a vote or something to clarify how 'harsh' this system should be and how often it's going to be applied / checked?

We are gonna monitor the exact figures for this season.

Currently the plans are like this:

If you don't meet 2 out of those 3 you will be unvouched:
1. 45% or higher winrate
2. 30 games played or more
3. In bottom 10 ELO ranking

First unvouch will last 2 weeks
2nd " " 1 season
3rd " " 1 season
4th " " permanent unvouch

All feedback is welcome so tell me if you think things aren't right.

I'm quite certain that what you mean to write under 3. in bottom 10 elo ranking is, NOT in bottom 10 elo ranking. Cause the way you write it, being in the bottom 10 would be 1 of the 3 actions needed to not be unvouched

Anyhow, I think the % should be 47 pct. 45 is way too little a demand. Even people failing hugely can still get almost 50 pct cause of their allies carrying them.

[Drahque]

Anyhow, I think the % should be 47 pct. 45 is way too little a demand. Even people failing hugely can still get almost 50 pct cause of their allies carrying them.

If you're implying that 2 people can carry someone who's failing super hard and still when, it's like saying that 2 on enemy team is failing harder than that person then. Otherwise they wouldn't win. ^^,

And 50 % would mean that half league could be unvouched, lol. . The reason to 45 % is that's how much a league usually variates. Like, the top players (like BA_fail) reached 55,6 % win chance last season. This means, that if top players have +5 % win chance, then bottom players should have -5 % in order for it to fit. This means, everyone below 45 % win chance (100+ games) isn't fit for the league. Then, if you put it to 47 %, it means people like ig0d would be unvouched, whom we all know is more than fit fot this League! Oh, and even people with 1k+ elo can go below 50 %, like last season 3 people with like 1060 elo had more losses than wins, this is another reason to not make it 50 %. Hope I'm not being confusing. xD',

Based on the reasons above, is why 45 % is about the right win ratio needed. If you do some calculations on last season win ratio, you'll notice that 43 % is just too low, and 47 % is slightly too high, so 45 % is as close to perfect as we can get. (=

[DonaldtheDuckie]

Based on the reasons above, is why 45 % is about the right win ratio needed. If you do some calculations on last season win ratio, you'll notice that 43 % is just too low, and 47 % is slightly too high, so 45 % is as close to perfect as we can get. (=

45 close to perfect? Look up perfect in the dictionary, then see if it says the nr 45. It may say 42 with a reference to hitchhikers, but thats not the point here. Please argue according to the laws of reason. Superlatives are subjective, the threshold will be objective, but put according to where they are seen to be most effective.

If you do the calculations you wont see any such thing as 47 percent being too high. It is just more demanding.