ENT Gaming

I think a process could be created where people want unvouches they should pm lihl moderators then a case can be open on lihl staff forum. Make sure you add the proper information so drama is cut down on forums and game play.

maybe the old way is better, it was i think automatic unvouch for less than 800 elo.

we can make it automatic unvouch if less than 800 elo and in bottom 2 consecutive seasons.
that would also make the league more competitive.

HealByColor wrote:I think a process could be created where people want unvouches they should pm lihl moderators then a case can be open on lihl staff forum. Make sure you add the proper information so drama is cut down on forums and game play.

I like that idea. Less drama for sure. Just make sure that you provide enough evidence why the xy should be unvouched. (in form of replays, screenshots)
Don't just pm the lihl mods: he is noob tk, deserves to be unvouched..

Having unvouches discussed privately among staff does not promote transparency. In fact, people will claim bias and complain about the loss of their democratic vote within LIHL.

Just like the vouching process itself, the unvouch process should be accessible for all. Drama is, like always, just a matter of attitude. We tried to take actions in the past, in order to avoid having people to change their attitude but that didn't work out. Perhaps we can try keeping the system the same for now but people try to change instead?

pewpew lasergun wrote:maybe the old way is better, it was i think automatic unvouch for less than 800 elo.

we can make it automatic unvouch if less than 800 elo and in bottom 2 consecutive seasons.
that would also make the league more competitive.

I think the elo is not important in the league (unless you lose solely to blame an individual player) I think it's bad disqualify someone from the league because it has less than 800 elo

as suggested hbc is perfect

This was more of a suggestion. I think unvouches should be done at end of season

aRt)Y wrote:Having unvouches discussed privately among staff does not promote transparency. In fact, people will claim bias and complain about the loss of their democratic vote within LIHL.

Just like the vouching process itself, the unvouch process should be accessible for all. Drama is, like always, just a matter of attitude. We tried to take actions in the past, in order to avoid having people to change their attitude but that didn't work out. Perhaps we can try keeping the system the same for now but people try to change instead?

actually I think we could do it paralell. Having an open topic and a closed one for mods. (So we give the members a chance to share their opinions and we have another more structured topic)
People changing in future is an illusion. Flamers gonna flame that wont change for sure.

Claiming ELO doesn't matter in this league is so fundamentaly wrong it's hard to put it into words. What's the purpose of ELO then? You keep saying that and i don't think u even grasp the concept. If u told me that a player with 1.1k elo is automatically better than a player with 1k elo i'd call you out but if someone is consistently fallinng behind it does say something. Not trying too make this personal towards anyone, just think about what you are saying before spewing slogans.

There's 2 aspects to the 'elo doesn't matter' argument.
1. The 'randomness' of the game. Sure immo and towers have a big impact on the game but this impact is reduced with a large number of games.
2. Reaching 'true' elo. Anyone with a low number of games will not have the sample size to properly indicate their elo. Furthermore those with a low number of games may not be able to reach their true elo eg a true elo 600 elo player with 20 games will not have enough games to reach that figure.

The two above points can both be solved with a large number of games to #1 reduce the impact of randomness and #2 increased sample size to reach true elo.
So if you have 100+ games and you're complaining about your elo you don't have much of a base for your claims.
Those under 50 games are more so affected and less likely to have an accurate elo.

That being said it's quite funny that each season the good players regularly end up on the top (somehow the 'randomness' has no effect on these players, odd hey?) And the bottom players claim their elo is down to 'randomness'. Classic.

TL:DR If you have 50+ games in the season and a low elo then you suck.

Not to change topic but have to agree with super sexy here you would have a greater grasp on true Elo with more games played. I think Elo is more then just a single player stats some people just work better with others and have better communication. You could have two equally skilled players with a large gap in Elo based off team work skills and communication.

supersexyy wrote:There's 2 aspects to the 'elo doesn't matter' argument.
1. The 'randomness' of the game. Sure immo and towers have a big impact on the game but this impact is reduced with a large number of games.
2. Reaching 'true' elo. Anyone with a low number of games will not have the sample size to properly indicate their elo. Furthermore those with a low number of games may not be able to reach their true elo eg a true elo 600 elo player with 20 games will not have enough games to reach that figure.

The two above points can both be solved with a large number of games to #1 reduce the impact of randomness and #2 increased sample size to reach true elo.
So if you have 100+ games and you're complaining about your elo you don't have much of a base for your claims.
Those under 50 games are more so affected and less likely to have an accurate elo.

That being said it's quite funny that each season the good players regularly end up on the top (somehow the 'randomness' has no effect on these players, odd hey?) And the bottom players claim their elo is down to 'randomness'. Classic.

TL:DR If you have 50+ games in the season and a low elo then you suck.

Exactly. What you mention here is something that happenns alot in basketball where a player can be "in the zone" and go 10/10 in the first quarter or something, but over the course of the game that will balance itself to his average. And the other way around ofcouse, u can go 0/10 first quarter and the same applies. morale of the story, if u lose 80% of your games you are the problem not the victim, especially when the system in play is ELO which makes it so if u are low ELO u win more and lose less. Dissmissing it as "ELO doesn't matter" defeats the purpose of the entire ranking system. There's a reason the bottom 1/2 in sports leagues all around the world are demoted in the end of each season.

bugatti_veyron wrote:Exactly. What you mention here is something that happenns alot in basketball where a player can be "in the zone" and go 10/10 in the first quarter or something, but over the course of the game that will balance itself to his average. And the other way around ofcouse, u can go 0/10 first quarter and the same applies. morale of the story, if u lose 80% of your games you are the problem not the victim, especially when the system in play is ELO which makes it so if u are low ELO u win more and lose less. Dissmissing it as "ELO doesn't matter" defeats the purpose of the entire ranking system. There's a reason the bottom 1/2 in sports leagues all around the world are demoted in the end of each season.

The difference is, that players in LIHL could have 700 Elo, but still 45% wins and another player has 900 elo with 20% wins. Depending on how many games they played. Imo an "800-Elo-unvouch" or a "last-position-unvouch" aint fair due to this.
In the sports leagues you are talking about, all teams/players have the same amount of games!

supersexyy wrote: "the good players regularly end up on the top"

--- So BA is a noob for example?

You have got all the stats you need (google spreadsheet) to filter for your criteria. However, finding fitting criteria will be difficult as each season is unique - as already described in this topic.

Perhaps you could look at the worst avg. spots; but even for that are many arguments not to use it.

elo doesn't equate to skill.

over time if signatures were constant in respect to time and games assorted with an even distribution of teams, that would be possible. but with the pre-game dodging and elowhoring that goes on, on top of new vouches and people with incorrect ELOs (few games played at different rate then rest of league) making weird teams with low ELO achilles carrying higher ELO teammates it generally doesn't balance.

better to use a combination of criteria. you can see my recommendation in mod section. something like
games played + w/l % + ELO + bottom rank, with thresholds for each.

as far as reporting to mods to have moderators ninja unvouching people without any defense or other opinions;it can seem a bit lacking in due process.

HealByColor wrote:I think a process could be created where people want unvouches they should pm lihl moderators then a case can be open on lihl staff forum. Make sure you add the proper information so drama is cut down on forums and game play.

Staying on topic,

We will do both: discuss through pub thread and discuss through staff-only thread.

It seems the main reason to suggest is due to possible drama.

If the pub thread becomes a mess, we can just lock it and post our findings and decisions after staff discussion.

Alternatively, players are free to PM a lihl mod and he can bring the topic to discussion for staff only. Note though, pub discussions can provide the mods relevant info.

aRt)Y wrote:Having unvouches discussed privately among staff does not promote transparency. In fact, people will claim bias and complain about the loss of their democratic vote within LIHL.

Just like the vouching process itself, the unvouch process should be accessible for all. Drama is, like always, just a matter of attitude. We tried to take actions in the past, in order to avoid having people to change their attitude but that didn't work out. Perhaps we can try keeping the system the same for now but people try to change instead?