Season 10 Ending

[supersexyy]

Before we go randomly suggesting new systems- what are you trying to fix in the current system?

Or is this just for the sake of change?

[dweiler]

At Guennter and supersexyy
First of all, what Guennter is saying is just nonsense. A players with 52% can play 1000 games and have 520-480 stats = 40 score. Someone with 70% will have this already after 100 games. The winner of the season will be BOTH a very good player and active which seems to be a good set of qualities for the winner of a season.

In the current system playing a lot of games is not promoted. Most players are between 1100-900 Elo. So a player whose Elo is 1030 will reach this after 2 games and will play 50% for the rest of the season (with possibly a few swings). In other words, after 2 games he doesn't gain anything with playing anymore. With the scores he can keep going (as Guennter stated) and try to reach a better score. I don't see the bad in this unless you take it to the huge extreme like Guennter which isn't based on reality.

And yes, it's also to mix things up. I'm just kinda tired of the system 'putting players down'. The current balance system is aimed towards an equillibrium, it would work perfectly if all games were 50/50. Also the Elo system is very hierarchic. Obviously the randomized system doesn't work like that. So there will be more differences, you will play with different players, games will be different. It's not necessarily 'better' than balancing, but after 10 seasons of the same old system trying to get games to be 50% it's also fun to see a new system and see how this makes a difference in games, rankings and dynamic. But seeing how this league is always superconservative I guess there won't be a lot of players who like to change it a bit.

[supersexyy]

First of all a system shouldn't directly reward players for playing more games. The ELO system does encourage players to play more games as they have the potential to reach a higher elo.

And an average player skill wise should also be an average player rating wise don't you think? I think basing a league of # of games played is terrible.

[dweiler]

First of all a system shouldn't directly reward players for playing more games.

And the reason for this is? I think it SHOULD because a winner of a league should be both the best player and show it over a period of time. So not get 1500 Elo and then sit on it, but play until the end. And like I said, it takes BIG differences in amount of games played to make a less skilled player win. For example: take 65% and 55%.

After 200 games the 65% will have 130 wins and 70 losses
After 400 games the 55% will have 220 wins and 180 losses

= the 65% wins, double the games won't make the 55% win over someone with 10% more. But someone with 400 games and 55% will win over someone with 200 games and 55%, which seems very reasonable to me.

The amount of games will have SOME impact, but UNLESS we play a season of a year it won't lead to strange outcomes. And yes, when it is very close, the most active player will get the advantage. And to be honest, that seems better to me than the current system in which someone with 100 games 1400 Elo wins over someone with 500 games and 1390 ELo, even though the second one showed consistency over a way longer period of gaming and contributed more to the activity of the league.

[tastay]

Not enough players in the league for any ELO system to work

[supersexyy]

Reasons being Tastay?

[eldryan]

for an ELO system to work, it has to have enough players to create an equilibrium. if only 8 players are active, or something along these lines, the ELO will never be significant, as a "true elo" requires a thorough balance of many players with a variety of ELOs (basically the same reason 2v2 ELO is less well set-up, because the balance isn't really achieved). this is what tastay is talking about.

why does it matter the reason for establishing shuffle mode without even trying it in fun-week? or captain mode with manual shuffle? the suggestion of taking it directly into the whole season is just dumb....

[supersexyy]

So basically, instead of trying to establish a balanced system, you go the opposite way and create a greater imbalance. This suggestion really has nothing to do with the 'imbalance' of the elo system as on one hand you're complaining it takes too long to reach true elo whilst also arguing you reach true too quickly.

However if players want a system whereby activity is directly factored into your score then a poll might be good.

My only gripe is that it will reduce the competitiveness of the league.

[eldryan]

I don't complain about the current ELO system in this respect, nor do I agree with tastay, for the record.

Basically, the first week of the season is this to a large extent, nabo/others interested in this idea (you will see this soon). Has anyone ever said "wow! the first week elos are a much better reflection of skill than one month in!!"? You will find out, the answer is quite plain.

My suggestion about awarding accolades to the top 10% remains valid though.

[Diablo_]

If anything, the rewards should be expended to top 3 or max top 5 imo. Top 10% are too many ppl, making the rewards nothing special anymore and honestly, someone with 1180 Elo (as currently # 8 (=10%) has) doesn't deserve a reward imo

Maybe something like:
#1 3 months ingame spoof + 3 months forum title (LIHL Champion or w/e) + money reward if there still is one
#2 2 months ingame spoof
#3 1 month ingame spoof

[supersexyy]

Sorry, 'you' was a collective 'you'. But yes I'm agreeing with your points in a way. The first few weeks of the standard season is pretty much this suggestion.

[dweiler]

I'm just feeling like I can't talk with you guys because you are unwilling to look at this from another standpoint than 'balance'. Since when is 'balance' a key element in competition? I would rather say balance kills competition because however good you are, the system will try to make it 50% for all. So please step out of this thinking that every game has to be balanced. Why play in a league at all if you can't handle the fact that some teams are stronger than others? If you suck at the game, you don't have to be protected every game by getting the strongest ally and if you are the best player you don't have to be nerved by getting the lame players all the time.

And I'm not saying 'balancing' is the devil or whatever, I've played this league for 10 seasons and it's definitely A WAY to play. But it's not the ONLY way. There are advantages and disadvantages (I tried to show ONE way of looking at balancing as not being perfect). I'm just suggesting after using balance for 10 seasons in a row, let's try ANOTHER FAIR way of playing, by randomizing. It will mix things up a bit and it will be interesting if games aren't balanced but randomized.

[nabo.]

Wont award top 10% when the league is small. We currently only reward 1st place, but for the sake of competition perhaps can extend to top 3 as diablo stated. We could make a point award system in which people can accumulate certain points for certain rewards.

-------------------------------
In my opinion, autobalance is only needed in pub since there arent really any minimum standards to join and play pub games. For lihl, players must go through a vouch process and trial time. So, based on this, everyone is assumed to be capable to play in the league by league's standards.

In a competitive league, not all teams are equal nor do they balance players. Point is, there are always better and worse teams.

The randomness of you playing with a certain player or players should be same for everyone throughout the season since there are no set teams imo. Some seem to be arguing that certain games will be kind of "stacked" or unfair, but if everyone plays enough games, chances of playing equal unequal teams will be consistent. If you play only few games per season, we should not need to speak for that person. Assuming most people have a consistent win/loss rate during the season, currently, one plays with a certain player more often than others due to how autobal works and who are active. I have seen players refusing to sign simply because they can predict who their teammates will be based on the signing pool. I agree that those who play more should potentially be rewarded for their activity some way. Remember, players gotta win for higher score.

Eld mentioned why just suggest going with this idea for a whole season instead of a fun week. Reason is because a week wont be enough for players to see how their score is different from the current system. A season is only 3 months. Its not that long.

I am not saying current system is really bad or that the randomized team +/-1 score is necessarily better. But, i do think a change of how the rating works could spice more motivation.

[supersexyy]

You've posted reasons why you want the change and I've posted reasons why I believe the change will not be an improvement. Isn't that the point of a forum??

You are of course welcome to make a poll as previously suggested.

[SLSGuennter]

At Guennter and supersexyy
First of all, what Guennter is saying is just nonsense. A players with 52% can play 1000 games and have 520-480 stats = 40 score. Someone with 70% will have this already after 100 games. The winner of the season will be BOTH a very good player and active which seems to be a good set of qualities for the winner of a season.

Well, sry but this wouldnt happen.
Considering only players with 200+ games, we actually have beep with 58%wins and ilocos + fiji with around 55%wins, all others are below this.
Since this winpercentages are so close, a higher amount of games would have BIG influence on the score.
So if a 54% winning player plays 1000games, then (just an example) beep would have to play minimum 500games to equal his score.