ENT Gaming

Hey everybody! Since we are halfway through the season I believe it is time to pick the old 'unvouch' topic. This time I am planning to discuss it without any headhunts or drama.

Here is my suggestion:

1. we unvouch ALL players with 5 games or less. There are 3 reasons for me:
A) inactive players lose their skill.
B) inactive players miss the 'evolution' of the game.
C) Most importantly: accounts get reset after 3 months and they can be picked up by someone else. If you think that is just 'theoretical': I went through the vouched accounts list and I remade the account "console" which is vouched. I think we are lucky I took over the account, because what if a ban-dodger takes over an account?
To prevent this, all accounts who are inactive or nearly inactive: out. If the inactive players want to play again they can ask for a re-vouch in the vouch section, after which the moderators will judge if he/she still is suitable.

2. The important part, the formula. This is my proposal:

One must satisfy two of the three conditions to not be unvouched:

A) Have played more than 25 games if one is vouched for 1 month or longer.
B) Not be in bottom 10 in the ELO-rankings.
C) Have 43% win-rate or higher.

If one does not satisfy at least two of the three conditions, one will be unvouched for:

1st time: 2 weeks
2nd time: 1 season
3rd time: permanently

To be clear what we are talking about, I will make a list of people who did not meet the conditions last season.
Last season:

A+B +C= Omatic- 859.53 (8/17) |
A+B= No one.
B+C = VigorousApathy
A+C = - Faith_Fanzine; 9/15 (37%) xmilena; 7/11 (38%) Stoneage; 7/11 (38%) tpy6ugyp; 5/10 (33%)

So last season 6 players would have been unvouched with this formula. Looking at the names I think this would not have been unreasonable.

At the time of writing, there will be more unvouches than there would have been last season if we would carry it out now. Beware there is still half a season to go, so the number of unvouches still can either increase or decrease. My prediction is that they will decrease, because 1. if more games are played and the season lasts longer, luck will be less of an influence and bad streaks will be compensated, and 2. people will have more games played, so condition A will be less of an influence.

So the people who would be unvouched at this moment on the basis of B+C are:
Faith_Fanzine; 2/8 (20%), scuds; 2/9 (18.18%), feor 28/39 (41.79%), lorddus 11/20 (35.48%), Rock.Steady 4/14 (22.22%), iightfyre 18/32 (36%), Johannaa 21/37 (36.21%)

Please note that the three players with most games in the bottom 10 will not be unvouched under the current circumstances, which confirms that there will be less unvouches at the end of the season. Most notable is that the number last, Martiny, will not be unvouched with 65/85 (43.33%).

I really don't want the kind of drama we had at the end of season 1, so if you do not agree with anything I proposed, please post here now and not at the end of the season. I am determined to get a good outcome, so I will take all constructive suggestions seriously. If you come here to flame or make inappropiate comments I will delete your comment and you can expect to be unvouched from the LIHL for a while. Stay on-topic and constructive.

Hope to hear from you.

I really like this idea and think it would be as fair as a unvouch system based on skills can get.

So my question(s) is:
a) Why not add a poll to this topic to see how many that likes it?
b) How often will this be checked, is it always in action? Or maybe after a new season start, set a date such as a month, until its in effect? Just so people have equal chances s a newly vouched person, to gain the 20 games required?

P.s. I think there is a small mistake, when you list some people with over 20 games under category A+B+C, since both Omatic and Faith have above over 20 games. Unless of course criteria A were meant to be 30 games.

Drahque wrote:I really like this idea and think it would be as fair as a unvouch system based on skills can get.

So my question(s) is:
a) Why not add a poll to this topic to see how many that likes it?
b) How often will this be checked, is it always in action? Or maybe after a new season start, set a date such as a month, until its in effect? Just so people have equal chances s a newly vouched person, to gain the 20 games required?

P.s. I think there is a small mistake, when you list some people with over 20 games under category A+B+C, since both Omatic and Faith have above over 20 games. Unless of course criteria A were meant to be 30 games.

a) Yeah, I am thinking of this, but first I want to hear what people have to say about this. I'm going for quality responses over quantity at the moment. Maybe I will add a poll later, if there are some differences that can't be solved (which is likely ).
b) My proposal is that it is only checked for the 'end-ranking' in the season and one must have been vouched for 1 month for the "25 games"-criterium.

At your PS: thanks for noting. My proposal is actually 25 and I have edited it now

First I want to say thanks for your hard work in this league (once again) - also to all other mods.

Now to the suggestion.
1) Sounds really good, we don't need very inactive players in this league (and as you said they can apply again)
2) I like the "formula" a lot and it also sounds very fair, I would like to see these criteria implemented. However, I don't see the reason for the listed unvouch times. If players don't meet the criteria they are most likely too bad players for this league and a 2 week "punishment" won't change anything as they won't suddenly play better as a result of it and it also isn't enough time to improve imo (especially not in pubs).
I would suggest to unvouch either for 1 month or 1 season and then they are free to apply again and the mods will check if they see improvements or not.

Diablo_ wrote:First I want to say thanks for your hard work in this league (once again) - also to all other mods.

Now to the suggestion.
1) Sounds really good, we don't need very inactive players in this league (and as you said they can apply again)
2) I like the "formula" a lot and it also sounds very fair, I would like to see these criteria implemented. However, I don't see the reason for the listed unvouch times. If players don't meet the criteria they are most likely too bad players for this league and a 2 week "punishment" won't change anything as they won't suddenly play better as a result of it and it also isn't enough time to improve imo (especially not in pubs).
I would suggest to unvouch either for 1 month or 1 season and then they are free to apply again and the mods will check if they see improvements or not.

Agreed. Also the skill threshold of win % could be discussed. Is 43 % the optimal? Set the threshold too high and might exclude too many members. Set it too low and there is less of a skill requirement for people in the league. Also having a higher win % as a requirement could be an incentive to play more, as people tend to break above 45 pct if they play a lot of games. So as this implementation could also make those with a skill, that by some could be seen as lacking, more active, 43 % is pretty low imo, I'd say minimum 45 %.

I think 43% is quite perfect. Since these criteria were first mentioned (by Drahque I believe) I always thought 42-43% would be ideal. 45% would catch way too many players imo.

How long is this season anyway? Is there any place to look the dates for start and end of a season?
I also like this proposal.

@frolin Around 3 months but there's no exact date.

For reference's sake, these are the bottom players' stats from last season.

| darkmagiangirl@useast.battle.net -- 1015.08 (1/0) |
| 0nslaught@useast.battle.net -- 1014.28 (46/44) |
| ultimate_amaya@useast.battle.net -- 1013.73 (9/8) |
| chickenmadness@useast.battle.net -- 1008.7 (1/1) |
| memphis.@useast.battle.net -- 996.8 (9/9) |
| pyc@useast.battle.net -- 993.33 (162/163) |
| boreldi@useast.battle.net -- 985.6 (1/2) |
| legionpro877@useast.battle.net -- 985.17 (75/76) |
| e40@useast.battle.net -- 983.98 (2/3) |
| diablo_@ -- 983.9 (0/1) |
| regularshowtime@useast.battle.net -- 982.96 (1/3) |
| diablo_@useast.battle.net -- 981.72 (156/155) |
| 2mad2care@useast.battle.net -- 980.06 (0/1) |
| fogey@useast.battle.net -- 978.84 (2/3) |
| damiensandow@useast.battle.net -- 976.92 (1/3) |
| rock.steady@useast.battle.net -- 976.44 (32/33) |
| murkemhanks@useast.battle.net -- 975.8 (90/94) |
| hifive@useast.battle.net -- 971.02 (3/5) |
| poubelle@useast.battle.net -- 970.83 (1/3) |
| slayers_boxer@useast.battle.net -- 967.88 (1/3) |
| patarinsky@useast.battle.net -- 962.27 (13/16) |
| faith_fanzine@useast.battle.net -- 961.48 (9/15) |
| frans@useast.battle.net -- 957.61 (3/6) |
| eldryanthewise@useast.battle.net -- 956.21 (125/131) |
| dpp_cwrle@useast.battle.net -- 955.34 (0/3) |
| vlaams@useast.battle.net -- 954.92 (0/3) |
| msvblader@useast.battle.net -- 952.47 (13/16) |
| fanatismo@useast.battle.net -- 948.16 (19/22) |
| xmilena@useast.battle.net -- 947.84 (7/11) |
| supermagne-@useast.battle.net -- 947.2 (3/8) |
| vigorousapathy@useast.battle.net -- 944.35 (54/61) |
| merc@useast.battle.net -- 941.57 (2/4) |
| wyatt@useast.battle.net -- 941.41 (2/6) |
| johannaa@useast.battle.net -- 938.47 (0/4) |
| jack77pd@useast.battle.net -- 937.55 (1/5) |
| stoneage@useast.battle.net -- 936.73 (7/11) |
| psyclone@useast.battle.net -- 934.6 (48/51) |
| tpy6agyp@useast.battle.net -- 923.98 (5/10) |
| cariux@useast.battle.net -- 908.46 (20/27) |
| 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) |

Diablo_ wrote: I don't see the reason for the listed unvouch times. If players don't meet the criteria they are most likely too bad players for this league and a 2 week "punishment" won't change anything as they won't suddenly play better as a result of it and it also isn't enough time to improve imo (especially not in pubs).
I would suggest to unvouch either for 1 month or 1 season and then they are free to apply again and the mods will check if they see improvements or not.

The reason I added this is actually a left-over from the 'bottom 5 discussion'. It was there suggested that people can have bad streaks and are therefore on the wrong side of the restrictions. I thought there might be a slight chance one just has a really bad season, but is actually skilled enough. Therefore it could be good to make the punishment not too harsh for a first-time unvouched to take the 'bad luck'-factor into account - and make it possible for first-time unvouched to re-apply after 2 weeks. If one gets more than one unvouch, it is certain that it is really his skill-level, and therefore the unvouch times should be longer. However, I reckon it could be a rudimentary left-over, since the unvouch method is now more sophisticated and does not allow 'accidental' unvouches anymore. Let me know what you think of this explanation.

DonaldtheDuckie wrote:Is 43 % the optimal? Set the threshold too high and might exclude too many members. Set it too low and there is less of a skill requirement for people in the league. Also having a higher win % as a requirement could be an incentive to play more, as people tend to break above 45 pct if they play a lot of games. So as this implementation could also make those with a skill, that by some could be seen as lacking, more active, 43 % is pretty low imo, I'd say minimum 45 %.

I agree the numbers can vary. At the moment I think the number of unvouches will be too high if we hold on to the 45%. Looking at last season, it would have caught 3 players extra - and none of those players are likely to be unvouched this season, so it seems like they did not lack the skills. Also, this season is shorter, so the difference in the number of unvouches between 43% and 45% will probably be higher. Remember the goal is of this measure is not to make the league more demanding, but to unvouch players who cannot handle the level of play in the league. Also, earlier attempts (including by me - most notably my suggestion of ELO-decay) to implement measures to stimulate activity have been denied because it would discourage casual gamers to join our league. And apparently, we should want casual gamers

supersexyy wrote:@frolin Around 3 months but there's no exact date.

Really? The information section says 2 months:

LIHL is divided into six cycles (aka seasons) per year. The first season ends on February 1st, the second ends on April 1st, the third ends on June 1st, the fourth ends on August 1st, the fifth ends on October 1st, and the sixth ensd on December 1st.

But I think 3 monthly cycles are better anyway - 2 months are just too short. Need to adjust that in the information section, though (well the months are not right, so need to do that anyway)

MickeyTheMousie wrote:
I agree the numbers can vary. At the moment I think the number of unvouches will be too high if we hold on to the 45%. Looking at last season, it would have caught 3 players extra - and none of those players are likely to be unvouched this season, so it seems like they did not lack the skills. Also, this season is shorter, so the difference in the number of unvouches between 43% and 45% will probably be higher. Remember the goal is of this measure is not to make the league more demanding, but to unvouch players who cannot handle the level of play in the league. Also, earlier attempts (including by me - most notably my suggestion of ELO-decay) to implement measures to stimulate activity have been denied because it would discourage casual gamers to join our league. And apparently, we should want casual gamers

You make legitimate points. I stand by my impression of 45 % being a better threshold as I think the ones whose skill is questionable if it is good enough to be in lihl or not, are those players who would benefit the most by having an incentive to play more and thus eventually getting over 45 %, just look martiny for an example )

no idea why u want to craft another wheel/use crutches. just unvouch inactives, if they really want to play, vouch them again. if you believe someone does not belong in terms of skills, please post a replays and explanations. like we always did.

You're forgetting this is a skill based league. 'Wanting to play' is only half way to getting vouched.
Most likely the unvouch system will take into account 3 factors

1) # of games - may take into account games played last season (Thoughts on this?)
2) win % - self explanatory - around the 43-45% mark
3) ELO - Also self explanatory - the more towards the bottom you are the more likely you will be unvouched.