ENT Gaming

As Eldryan wishes to have a poll about it, i'll make one.

The initial topic can be found here:
viewtopic.php?f=83&t=30971

To sum up my thoughts:

• ELO fluctuates a lot in LIHL due to the nature of this game (luck, rng etc), so also older players will sometimes be 100 ELO above their "real" ELO and sometimes 100 below, or even more. That's not much different than the starting ELO of new players being sometimes off.
• The balance isn't heavily disturbed. If a new player has 1000 ELO but should have 800 for example, the ELO balance will just slightly be off, like 15/15 instead of 17/13 or maybe 18/12, no big deal imo.
• Even if the ELO for new players is too high it will only be so for a few games and probably balances out in the long term (ie, every player will have new guys on their team as often as on the enemy team, in the long run).
• Who says that all new players are at the skill level of 800 ELO? New players will regularly play better than 800 ELO, thus making it imbalanced aswell (actually only a few new players drop to 800 ELO).
• We will most likely not have an automatic system for this and most likely not even us LIHL Moderators will be able to set the initial ELO to 800 and to increase their ELO after a certain amount of game. Instead this will probably be handled by Forum Moderators or ENT Admins which might delay this whole process quite some (LIHL Mod needs to check when a player reaches X games, PMs another Mod/Admin who then adjusts the ELO).
• This delay will also result in weird situations, like a player should receive 200 ELO but plays 5 more games until his ELO is being increased which then again leads to more imbalances.
• Last but not least new seasons (everyone starting with 1000 ELO) have a 10 times bigger impact on imbalances than the few new players who might or might not be worse than their starting ELO.

TL;DR: I vote for no because the imbalances created by new vouches are almost meaningless and this system can't guarantee any improvement and just results in more work and new problems.

I don't think they should be 800 elo. I would think 900 is more reasonable. If you could please alter your post, I would be obliged.

Furthermore, after they are vouched they should then gain a scaled amount based off what ELO they have reached, in lieu of a flat 200 point boost - as was discussed in the previous thread. The reduction would only be during their trial period, and the addition would be after - so the moderators wouldn't have to check anything actually.

And if you are struggling to figure out a system to process the ELO changes, I can easily assist you by creating one that does work promptly. If you can remove this from the OP concerning the poll, as it is purely speculative, that would be much more informative for those concerned by this.

And yes thank you, @diablo_ for making this poll. I would like the best for LIHL and the players in it, and think this is a great opportunity to address some of the issues in our current vouch process.

I voted no.
1. There aren't that many new vouches per season and if they start at 900 elo its not really a big difference at all.
2. Seems like a complicated and unnecessary system fixing a 'problem' that hardly even exists.

To summarize my vote on this: I voted yes, because I and the large majority of LIHL realize that players joining the league aren't the league average (1000). 900 is not remotely inaccurate concerning their correct placement, and this doesn't hurt them in any way because of the ELO boost that fixes their ELO. On the contrary, this helps new players avoid the flaming they would normally receive for performing unlike a 1000 ELO player typically does. Furthermore, it would place them with the highest ELO players to help guide them in their entrance to LIHL. Lastly, this prevents both farming of new vouches to boost ELO and uneven teams every single time a new player is vouched, unbalancing the ELO bracket continually and making any current system ineffective due to their 1000 ELO level and with 900 ELO level experience.

In terms of Diablo's final point, "Last but not least new seasons (everyone starting with 1000 ELO) have a 10 times bigger impact on imbalances than the few new players who might or might not be worse than their starting ELO.", using current weaknesses in the system to justify keeping this one is obviously flawed argument, and I would recommend everyone not be afraid to improve our current system because of perceived flaws that are unrelated.

In terms of Supersexyy's point, the standard deviation in LIHL is about 80 ELO, and anyone outside of that is Bot 10 or Top 10 - a 900 ELO vs 1000 ELO change is significant. The system isn't complicated - it takes 5 seconds per player, and at almost all times a FM or Ent Admin is online regardless who can implement the procedure. It is neither time consuming nor bothered by excessive complications.

On a seperate note - as this is about players whose elo isn't indicative of their skill level thus warping the elo system - A bigger 'problem' is that in the new season all players start at 1000 elo regardless of their skill level/performance in previous seasons.

If you're bored and want to fix something it should be this.

supersexyy wrote:On a seperate note - as this is about players whose elo isn't indicative of their skill level thus warping the elo system - A bigger 'problem' is that in the new season all players start at 1000 elo regardless of their skill level/performance in previous seasons.

If you're bored and want to fix something it should be this.

That is part of the joy of new season - finding out where everyone belongs. The only "fix" would be to not reset ELOs.

I also believe fixing both is better then just one (although I don't perceive this to be an issue).

And part of the joy with new players is finding out where they belong.

supersexyy wrote:And part of the joy with new players is finding out where they belong.

Yes, and when they are vouched they can do that. But while still on trial vouch and unfamiliar with LIHL and "noobs" to LIHL-play, almost unfailingly they will have a far harder time entering the league then staying in it - this is the reason trial vouch was started in the first place. Finding an accurate appraisal of their ELO during the first two weeks of their trial is far less difficult then deciding if they are 1000 ELO level upon entering LIHL, creating a far more balanced approach. After they are vouched, and their ELO boost redresses any lost ELO, they will have a relatively unaffected rating of their games with the benefit of a smoother introduction to their trial.

@supersexyy Could you please edit the poll name, for accuracy's sake.

Changed the numbers. While it will be more accurate with 900 ELO it will put its impact pretty much to zero.

Diablo_ wrote:Changed the numbers. While it will be more accurate with 900 ELO it will put its impact pretty much to zero.

900 is a huge impact...100/2 is 50 ELO difference in 2v2, which is as much as +5 more...

Never heard someone gain 100 ELO, then say "basically same teams as I had -100."

please dont wait for end season to unvouch baddies.
this is after all a skilled players membership.

everyone is not a beep or trance, but many dont even know the basic builds after so many games.
dont look just at elo, maybe we can have a section to comment on new vouch progress.

if you feel someone should be unvouched because they don't improve and from start are too bad please feel free to pm us with your thought
- goes out to everyone

most new vouch hired this season needed this lower elo.
this change isnt really necessary, but if not complicated to implement there is no harm in it ^^

mushr0om-------------------- 929.05 -----------0 /5 --------------- 0% win
ship_ ------------------------- 837.44 ---------- 3/14 ---------- 17.65%
tinyfrog---------------------- 941.06 ---------- 12/17 ---------- 41.38%
wolfwarrior------------------ 958.27 ---------- 12/15 ---------- 44.44%
nell93------------------------ 972.87 ------------- 1/3 -------------- 25%
nygaard---------------------- 985.17 ------------- 0/1 --------------- 0%
cutelittleshoe---------------- 971.18 ------------ 7/ 9---------- 43.75%
hutzu------------------------- 938.88 ---------- 11/17 ---------- 39.29%

Keep in mind for pew's stats, those are stats with many playing less then 10 games, and most of those w/l rates have them at lower then 900.

Also, @diablo_ , most people only have the smallest idea what they are voting on... because they entire original post is dedicated to demeaning the proposition, and not even the correct one....

Well, that's why I wanted to let you make the poll as it's your idea/suggestion and only you know how exactly you want it to look like. But as you wanted me to make it you'll have to live with it now