ENT Gaming

In the last weeks, we have seen a lot of unrest in lobbies because of !votebalance and especially the possibility to veto it. It is mainly used by just a small amount of the league, and often for tactical reasons like liking/not liking teams. Therefore we have decided to change the policy on this.

From now on, a passed !votebalance means votebalance game. There is no possibility to veto anymore, the amount of people writing !votebalance will determine whether the game is votebalanced.

Thks

Thanks for the clarification. I totally agree, vetoes have often been abused not only for tactical reasons but also just for the sake of the drama. If a clear majority demands votebalance, it should be that way.

If you really want to reduce the drama why not make the games directly balanced? I guess a majority voted for random teams but this seems not the case now.

VB is also used to change teams when u dislike urs. And that happens more often than the veto reason u writing.

So my view is either to make the league balanced games or random teams but right now it just looks like there is not a direction

FadingSuns wrote:If you really want to reduce the drama why not make the games directly balanced? I guess a majority voted for random teams but this seems not the case now.

VB is also used to change teams when u dislike urs. And that happens more often than the veto reason u writing.

So my view is either to make the league balanced games or random teams but right now it just looks like there is not a direction

Sounds ok to me too.

FadingSuns wrote:If you really want to reduce the drama why not make the games directly balanced? I guess a majority voted for random teams but this seems not the case now.

VB is also used to change teams when u dislike urs. And that happens more often than the veto reason u writing.

So my view is either to make the league balanced games or random teams but right now it just looks like there is not a direction

Our plan is indeed to change the set-up of the league, but we won't do that until next season. Probably we will switch back to balanced teams or random 15/15 again, we will discuss that internally.

random 15/15 i think was best of both worlds; it will also increase activity as the current system discourages high elo players from playing a lot

Balanced games as before would give back to elo his real meaning + challenge 15/15 .

MickeyTheMousie wrote:Iespecially the possibility to veto it. It is mainly used by just a small amount of the league, and often for tactical reasons like liking/not liking teams.

All your work in big honor Mickey, but sorry, this must be a joke? If you want to veto a votebalance, you basically have no option of doing so and you literally always end up as the idiot. Then you see one case here on the forum where Lord has the balls to leave the vb game and you think this happens all the time?
What happens most of the is this: People enter the lobby and a) either instant votebalance or b) votebalance when they see someone on their team they don't wanna play with. Let's say, those are 2-3 people per game. THen, the game never starts. The 2-3 players try to talk all others into vb (which is super annoying) and in the end some more people will vb just so that finally the game can start. This happens even in 16/14 games (which is not even the real elo, which only half of the people seem to understand) just because someone doesn't wanna play with one of his teammates. So the only thing that is abused here is the vb command and not vetoing it...

I also tend to think that high elo players always have a higher vote here. No offense, but it feels like it's always the high elo players that complain about the current elo system, basically one week after a season started. First, they complain that in averaged teams, top #1 and top #2 can never play together, so they want random teams. We get random teams, with a super flat elo function (where all the mods and uakf put work into it to realize this), and this is also not correct because they are losing all their hard earned elo now, lol. You can and will call me noob now, and say I am too new to this league and bla bla, I don't care. All I hear are complaints about the system, no matter what the system is and nobody has actual balls to play for one season as it was meant to be. Now I am drifting off, so I stop here. I don't care what the future system will be, as long as it causes less drama... (*dreaming*)

Best,
Jamo

All i hope is that, once the new system is selected, we can just keep it for an entire season.

I totally agree with Jamo's post. Ppl using VB on 16/14 games and other times, when they lose 20 but they like their team, they just dont VB.

So at the end, if something has been abused here, is the VB command.

But ok, lets wait till next season. (id say that the 15/15 random teams doesnt rlly work well, u can see a team with 4x700 elo playing vs 4top players). For me either stay as it is now (but making vb = 8 votes) or make balanced teams (yes, the n1 wont be able to play with n2, its a league, hell!.) should be the best solution.

There is nobody that ALWAYS use VB (on unbalanced situations). I have even seen 1007 keeping his team when he really likes it (and im not saying its not fair).

Also, with this new approach, game never starts until ppl has vote, what to do when owner enforce a VB by not starting? The veto made games start much faster than the current system.

In any case, i dont care the solution adoptet, but making half one thing (random teams) and half other (allow vb) is being in nowhere.

PS: i dont know if what im gona propose is technically posible but... Is it possible to enable the VB command when the elo different is high (like more than 13/17) and disable it when game is even? just to avoid the "i dont like my team lets vb?".

Cheers

Lord miles is not some sort of hero jamo, when the elo balance is 24/6 in his favour he will "veto" VB and when the game is opposite you bet your ass he or most anyone else.will try to get the VB passed.

Its been said before but owners who purposefully force VB before starting game should be called out for it and reported. But if a double majority of players wish for a VB regardless of the reason, one person should not be able to dictate the terms (look at the lobby.unhost procedure if game dont start within 5 mins, ppl will rather ask.unhost than swap in to avoid certain teams etc). Point being I'd rather 6 ppl agree to "abuse" VB than one person "abuse" the veto.

As for the system , we tried something new which is great IMO its good.to test different systems and see what happens. This one sucks cause of the constant need for VB and in the end it will definitely discourage high elo players to stay active.

Regarding ur last part, seems you just care about high elo players all time, but dont forget that there are always way more low elo players than high. So perhaps lets try find best solution for all.

of course i care about high elo players, it is a competitive league where most people should be aiming to win or be "high elo". If the high elo players are not favoured then overall quality of the league will go down as only the low skill players will play. So it benefits "low" elo players to have high elos playing.

iiStyLes wrote:of course i care about high elo players, it is a competitive league where most people should be aiming to win or be "high elo". If the high elo players are not favoured then overall quality of the league will go down as only the low skill players will play. So it benefits "low" elo players to have high elos playing.

I insist we should not favour anyone. There is not any need to do things in favour of high or low elo players. Just find the best solution for all overall. The low elo players need the high elo players as much as the high need the low. And im quite sure that making things that just favour one side will never be good for the league.