ENT Gaming

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:30 pm**

I don't like the direction that LIHL has is going towards, it seems like a power-game where we forget the reason we were playing in the first place. As far as I know, we're playing for fun through competition and challenges, where we make decisions that's best for the LEAGUE and not what 4 admins think is the best to do (Btw, I'm not blaming or pointing fingers any of these 4 admins for doing their job, trying to make the improve the League - it was a good thing - if only the community had been dragged into the discussion a bit earlier and could've helped by making the best solution to sort the problem).

I'd like to see a difference in how things are being run, where the decisions are being made through polls and the community is being dragged into the decision-making more / have more impact, instead of just one small part of the League making the a hidden conference or where ONE person makes the decision, even though 75 % of the admins disagree and 95 % of the community. But instead a community where suggestions is being taken serious and being listened to, instead of just ignored and things turning out like it did today, where Lihldiabloduck decided to go through with a decision made 3 weeks ago, in which afterwards, 3 out of 4 admins and 13 out of 15 players disagreed (even though he was in fact just going through with the decision that was made in the first place):

willie64 wrote:I hope its the right decision to unvouch bottem 5; Time will tell!

Diablo_ wrote:I'm also uncertain whether instantly unvouching bottom 5 is a good choice or not.

Gouus wrote:Interesting decision

archol wrote:Some players may have some bad days like me

Drahque wrote:I just think it would be lame/sad to unvouch people with 100+ games, that try hard to become better / improve and those also making progress - over people who's got under much lower win chance and much less experienced and active.

BeepBoopBeep wrote:iG0D bottom 5 that is hilarious

Diablo_ wrote:Drahque really has a legit point.

Diablo_ wrote:I highly doubt that it's best for the league to unvouch players like isuk shroom igod etc. who are (very) active and have at least above 40% winrate.

dark_magician wrote:I'd say, at least (at least at least) wait until the end of season 2 - though end of season 3 might be a better indicator - before re-evaluating... then you can at least see how players do over the course of 2 or 3 seasons. That's my opinion any way, hope that mods may reconsider.

dark_magician wrote:Just for the record, I'm quite happy to play with any of the 5 players with the lowest ELOs in the league. I certainly think they're skilled enough, though I have no opinion on those who have played minimal games.

Iznogood wrote:Makes no sense at all to kick the last 5..

Iznogood wrote:I guess I'm far from the only one who would rather team with !bot 5 than a player with less than 50 games played.. make that 100.
Players should be judged individually by their: Perforamnce, Activity, Manners and DC's (All of them combined.. not only by their elo!)

Krayyzie wrote::) gotta love a 15/18 loss streak @ end of league or something like that

Feor wrote:The unvouching is a risky movement, not sure of what number the channel could end up after unvouching bot5 + inactive, and possible that it might kill the interest of the unvouched players for staying in game ( or return for the semi-inactive)

Maybe a number reconsideration could be useful if you guys are certain for the bottom unvouching.

Furbolg. wrote:Revouch anyone who played season 2. Would rather have an active 600 elo guy than an inactive 1300 guy

Drahque wrote:If the problem is there is some people in this league who isn't skilled enough, there is so many better solutions.

DonaldtheDuckie wrote:The league needs active players to be functional.

Iznogood wrote:I can't really see how it's fair to unvouch the last 5 because the season just happends to end here.
- In that case you should just unvouch all players who have been in the !bot 5 through the entire season.

Iznogood wrote:Unvouching active players is just a loss for the league. It wont do anything good. Like I've stated before the majority of players in LIHL would rather team with someone experienced but has low elo compared with a dude who played 10 games in 2 months

iightfyre wrote:I happen to agree that lower win % is more of a reason to get unvouched than strictly the bottom 5 in elo.

Diablo_ wrote:I dislike this decison so much that I have to raise my opinion again. And I want to make it clear:
1) Our bottom 5 players DO have high enough skill to compete in this league. They win roughly 45 out of 100 games, are active and have lot's of experience, thus they know the style of the games and have shown to be able to do fine in most games.
2) IF all players in our league would have played more than 100 games, NO ONE of our current bottom 5 would be even close to the bottom 5.
3) Currently our league is small. Hardly any games are hosted as 4vs4 due to our low player pool. Unvouching 5 active and well playing players is NOT in the best interest of the league.

HateLose wrote:Well put! Although I haven't played in LIHL lately, I do have to agree with most of the lihl players (I'm usually against the majority too). Un-vouching the bottom 5 active players (more active than most lihl players) isn't a smart decision.

Krayyzie wrote::) thats not entirely true lihldiabloduck, for example some of us been around 1000 elo for whole season, and last week ran into a 15/18 games loss streak, just like the one u did @start of league, and obviously if it happens @ end of league it gives unvouch while u get away with the same loss streak?

Iznogood wrote:When that's said I still think unvouching players with lower win rates/inactives is better for the league - and maybe keeping a stricter line through season 2 instead of unvouching a bunch at the very end.

Drahque wrote:I'm suggesting that a better way to judge people is their win ratio/chance, so what we need is a more narrowed solution, such as saying 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.

Now the leading factor will be win chance, but with this methods you'll more specifically get rid of the players who doesn't deserve to be in this league. Due 3 factors; activity, win potential and not being in the bottom of the league. So now the 19 players I mentioned, would be 'below' the more active players such as ig0d, Marlboro, ISUK and shr(o.o)m, due to A (activity) and B (win potential). Which is indeed two very important things.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:I like what Drahque is suggesting. Whether it is better or not than focusing on ELO is up for discussion, but at least it is an alternative that has something to do with the real world

- I'm referring to following topic: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=12752

HOW can all these suggestions and shout-outs just be ignored? Do we really want ONE admin to make a decision over all of these very respected Lihl members / players? And how many casual members have to disagree to counter one admins thoughts?

So I'd like to hear the the community thinks, do we like that one admin just ignores what so many people have been trying to prevent, and takes it in his own hands? And more importantly, how do we want the future to unfold?

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:35 pm**

Another example of someone taking a case in his own hands, if when HealByColor decided to unvouch another fellow admin, Dweller, even though it earlier had been decided that his actions were reasonable, those no actions should be taken. But a couple of weeks later, when Dweller unvouched one of his friends, he decides to unvouch him without confirmation, as EdgeOfChaos states here:
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=12299

P.S. I will repeat, I'm NOT blaming or pointing fingers at ANY admins. Only the fact that they might have too much power, or at least needs to drag the community more into the 'decision' making or hear what they have to say. (:

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:45 pm**

Alright I will post here, since the topic where Brave keeps pointing fingers to Duck isn't leading anywhere.

I will say I was the man who thought up the "bottom 5"-measure and this is also why I unsigned as a mod. There were 3 reasons I unsigned:

1. The most important reason is that I failed to have good contact with other mods. When I posted the announcement I was in full conviction that all mods either agreed or did not care. When the storm of protest arose it turned out mods did not agree at all. I won't say what happened in the mod-section, but iightfyre posted his opposing opinion here in the public forum, while he said nothing about it in the mod-section. I blame myself for not creating a culture where the other mods could (would/want to) voice their opinion. (This does not go for Duck, he was not a mod at the time)

2. I was out of sync with the community. I have heard 0 people who agreed with me, 13 (as I trust Drahque on his counting ability) that disagreed multiple times saying it would destroy the league.

3. The measure seemed to go through while apparently everyone except me disagreed. This showed me I had too much power.

The bad mod-communication, out of sync with the community and too much power led me to take the decision to stop.

I hope this makes clear the other mods have no blame in this (especially Duck not, since he was not a mod by then) and the decision was my responsibility.

Then: for the future, I have proposed this in another thread:

Unvouch no one this season and for next season take this measure proposed by 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.

Details can be adjusted.

What do you think?

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:58 pm**

MickeyTheMousie wrote:Alright I will post here, since the topic where Brave keeps pointing fingers to Duck isn't leading anywhere.

True, it doesn't help to point finger at anybody, but instead trying to find out the core of the problem, or change the way we handle things, so it won't happen in the future. (:

MickeyTheMousie wrote:The most important reason is that I failed to have good contact with other mods. When I posted the announcement I was in full conviction that all mods either agreed or did not care. When the storm of protest arose it turned out mods did not agree at all. I won't say what happened in the mod-section, but iightfyre posted his opposing opinion here in the public forum, while he said nothing about it in the mod-section. I blame myself for not creating a culture where the other mods could (would/want to) voice their opinion. (This does not go for Duck, he was not a mod at the time)

I see you've had a hard time doing your job as an admin/moderator, I mean, how are you supposed to make any decisions, if nobody stands-by the ones made in the first place?

And I'm glad that you could use my suggestion for something good, I hope we can move on and shape it into a good solution, to the main problem, about handling the least skilled players in the League.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:07 pm**

I was going to post here, but there aint no point

So not gonna spend time explaining anything more, 13 players and rest of moderators said theirs, only Duck left to agree with the rest of the community, but he´s to much into showing he has the powers of lihladmin.
13 Players players(almost all) went against the decision, All moderators who´s active in lihl believes it shouldnt go through due to different reasons, all written above or in the other threads about this...
Except one moderator

who has the power and likes to show it...

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:09 pm**

Diablo_ wrote:3) Currently our league is small. Hardly any games are hosted as 4vs4 due to our low player pool. Unvouching 5 active and well playing players is NOT in the best interest of the league.

More like people just prefer to play 2v2 now. Sure there will never be any 4v4 if there's always few 2v2 or 3v3's at the same time.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:17 pm**

I am not sure what channel you are playing in Drahque but I 've been here since the first days and I can tell you that all player suggestions have been taken serisously, polls and discussions have been made again and again everytime there were ideas and suggestions thrown around with a couple of proper arguments and no raging.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:22 pm**

lets do a poll and see how people think

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:32 pm**

An extra idea/suggestion for the unvouch. A whole season ( 2months unvouched ) is way too long.
Maybe make the unvouch temporary for 1-2 weeks instead.

In addition to taking the win% along with total number of games and ELO into account for the unvouch candidates.

It is not easy to run the channel and not all the players have to agree on every detail of how the channel is working, as long as there is an agreement and proper communication between those in charge, that leads to a steady path.

If there is / was a miscommunication between the mods / admins as dweller stated then that should be resolved firstly and as soon as possible.

Then we can go back into discussing our suggestions and complaints, when the people in charge of the channel can discuss and implement when found proper our ideas.

Braveheart feel free to start a poll, but please make sure you give your best on the way you promote ( marketing is everywhere ) all sides.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:39 pm**

MickeyTheMousie wrote: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.

I could live with that. for B) I would suggest 43-45% win rate.

Other than that I would be happy to see the latest bottom 5 being vouched again, and starting with the automatically unvouching at the end of this season, so everyone knows how it will be handled from the start on, and not suddenly getting surprised in the last 3 weeks.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:15 pm**

MickeyTheMousie wrote: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.

In this sort of situation, imo numbers alone only paint a part of the picture - 'part' can be open to interpretation.
Probably a good indicator to trigger further evaluation though, if the player maintains a lowish win % and ELO over a longer period of time... or seasons.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:40 pm**

Yeah, I was thinking of this too. However, if someone is for example in the bottom 10 players and less than 45% he is one of the weakest of the seasons.

But it can happen someone has a bad streak and gets below those. That's why I thought it may be good to use progressive unvouches. So for example:

If you do not meet 2 of those requirements at the end of the season:
1st time you will be unvouched for 2 weeks
2nd time for 1 month
3rd time and on for 1 season

In this way a the penalty is not too harsh if you were 'accidently' one of the weakest players of the season. Once it gets structural the penalties become more severe because you show multiple times you are not fit for the league.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:31 pm**

Diablo_ wrote:I could live with that. for B) I would suggest 43-45% win rate.

Aye, I've been thinking quite a bit about this win ratio as well, I'd agree that around 45 % is the best, since it would 'vary' the league evenly out from the top players to the bottom. I mean, for example BA_Fail had around 55 % win chance last game, so if the best players have +5 % win chance, the bottom players should had lowest -5 % win chance, in order for the league to be as steady as possible.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:If you do not meet 2 of those requirements at the end of the season:
1st time you will be unvouched for 2 weeks
2nd time for 1 month
3rd time and on for 1 season

I like this idea, the only question that I've been wondering about, is when / how often / when do we check, if people follow the criterias? Every day? week? month or season?

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:40 pm**

A quick way to check that would be check the first season and see how many players were under 45% win ratio, if the number of players is to big, the % is probably to big because the goal cant be to get to many players out of league, after all the more good players the better? The Win/Loss ratio werent posted in rank I think or else I could look into that myself, feel free to post if this info is anywhere

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:47 pm**

1. Let me start by saying that the lack of communication among the mods is greatly because of me. I have been dealing with RL issues for the past few months and when I first logged back into ENT forums I was lost with all of the topics that have pilled up over time. I tried to post on the most prevalent topics just to get my voice out there so I am sorry if this caused further confusion.

2. We, as mods, are actively working on a better solution to the "unvouching" process and are deliberating and debating the course of action that we should take with the league.

3. I do believe that the community has always had it's voice heard on such topics. (ie - the draw rules, DC penalty, unvouching) - we have always used polls and listened to the community - I hope that you can see this @draque

4. I hope that the future of the LIHL goes back to its roots. Remember that this league was created to have FUN AND FAIR games. That should be our ultimate goal. Winning is nice, but it isn't everything.

I would like to see a community which puts less emphasis on winning and more emphasis on having fun. But that is in the hands of you all. Most forum complaints are about ELO and wins / losses and cheating and the such which leads me to believe that the majority of players are more focused on winning than enjoying the game. If this is true.. it's a sad sad day for me

ENT Gaming

Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)

Re: Future of LIHL (an open discussion)