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. At the end of each cycle, the player with the highest ELO score will receive a prize of $50, and we will post other awards (highest K/D, most insane, etc.) on the forum.
After playing LIHL for a while now, I feel the ELO system is wrong when taken as a measure to determine the ranking. I feel this for two reasons:
1. It does not take the amount of games in consideration. Because the games are A-Bal all games will be +- 15 ELO win/loss. Therefore, someone with 3-2, will have the same ELO as someone with 23-22. Since the competition is fierce, I feel like the amount of games should be awarded. I can take myself as an example: i have 13-8, and have the same ELO as MurkemHanks who has 33-28. It would be more fair if he is ranked higher in my opinion.
2. Not playing while you are on top is encouraged with this ELO system: because of A-Bals, teams are divided equally, and because legion td is a non-micro game which is largely based on luck (your rolls) in the top, you can easily lose ELO while there is nothing you can do about it. People with high ELO will be aware of this and will tend to sit it out until something changes, and not extend your lead, because the odds are always against you. As an example (and I don't know if this is true) Eldryanthewise has 7-2 and 1076 now, and will probably do better if he does not play at all anymore now, than if he starts playing again, for he can lose his ELO easily. If he goes from 7-2 to 27-22 (which are better stats in my opion) for example he will still be ranked at this elo (or even 5 ELO lower, like Feor is with this stats) and have gained no advantage whatsoever by playing 40 games. In other words, if you are bad and have 6 lucky games in the beginning you can easily become rank 3 or 4, whilst your real ranking would be 40th if you kept on playing. This doesn't seem right to me.
In my opinion, playing should be more encouraged for two reasons: 1. I think it will give a boost to the amount of games that are played, which will add a dimension to the gaming experience. 2. It benefits people dedicated to the game and willing to play, instead of people stopping after a few (lucky) games.
I am no elo expert, but my suggestion would be to give more ELO to wins and less to losses. I think that a 1 elo difference might already work to stimulate playing. However, this is just a rough guess and I will support any other good way to promote playing.
I do enjoy the LIHL and I will keep enjoying it with this ELO system, it is just a thought
I would like to hear some thoughts about this.
EDIT: To add to my objection nr.2: when you look at the LIHL ranking you can see that almost all players are within 900-1100 ELO. This shows the margins between the players are very narrow and that a lucky streak can easily be abused.
