TSL Season 2 Improvements Currently In The Works

[Turban]

unfortunately I could not participate in too many matches this season due to the schedule being rather brutal with its late starting times—granted my general lack of interest towards the game also played a role.

I do agree that activity should not be rewarded as heavily as it was this season. there is definitely some room for improvement. however the overall reception of the league seems to be quite positive and I would like to both congratulate and thank you for your hard work.

as a suggestion perhaps there should be some sort of diminishing returns for players who are extremely active, or alternatively you could exclude the 2/4/6/8 best and worst matches (depending on the amount of games played) of a player and go by the average value to reward players who are performing on a consistent basis.

just my two cents, and keep up the good work everyone involved.

[Fork]

I dunno if this is a troll post or you're completely oblivious to the TSL rules

I thought it went off the average of all the games played, I guess i'm completely oblivious to the rules.

[Ravos]

cuz im rly active lol

Water u waring?

[Ricko]

Maybe it should go off 'a players 20 best recs'. It still gives incentive to play loads coz the more u play, the more likely u will get a decent rec. A Problem will always be players feeding other players for a massive rec.

I dunno if this is a troll post or you're completely oblivious to the TSL rules

[Crescent Seal]

???? tf do you even care

cuz im rly active lol

[Fork]

lol wot thats how it already is...ppl r saying that ur more likely to get top tier 20 game performances if ur given the chance to play more as opposed 2 an euro who struggles to show up on the given time slots

itr:

player A: plays 80 games
player B: plays 30 games

player A can rack up huge performances by facing scrubs at off peak times and just generally play reckless/aggro like ricko said...just needs a good 20/80 games to qualify

player B is barely active/struggles to show up at the given time slots and has to compete with player A etc....needs a good 20/30 games to qualify which is harder


Another solution = Allot points based on the quality of the games
example scenario:
ipad/ixador/MC/glyde/zidane vs ogron/afghan/henrysaari/******/faggot...if ogron gets 25-7 in this it should be weighed down as opposed to ogron getting 25-7 in this:
ogron/racka/zidane/trasher/beam vs iron/mythril/kentaro/24/mcvicar

Maybe have a cap of 40 games idk.

[Rasaq]

lol wot thats how it already is...ppl r saying that ur more likely to get top tier 20 game performances if ur given the chance to play more as opposed 2 an euro who struggles to show up on the given time slots

itr:

player A: plays 80 games
player B: plays 30 games

player A can rack up huge performances by facing scrubs at off peak times and just generally play reckless/aggro like ricko said...just needs a good 20/80 games to qualify

player B is barely active/struggles to show up at the given time slots and has to compete with player A etc....needs a good 20/30 games to qualify which is harder


Another solution = Allot points based on the quality of the games
example scenario:
ipad/ixador/MC/glyde/zidane vs ogron/afghan/henrysaari/******/faggot...if ogron gets 25-7 in this it should be weighed down as opposed to ogron getting 25-7 in this:
ogron/racka/zidane/trasher/beam vs iron/mythril/kentaro/24/mcvicar

???? tf do you even care

[Crescent Seal]

Maybe it should go off 'a players 20 best recs'. It still gives incentive to play loads coz the more u play, the more likely u will get a decent rec. A Problem will always be players feeding other players for a massive rec.

lol wot thats how it already is...ppl r saying that ur more likely to get top tier 20 game performances if ur given the chance to play more as opposed 2 an euro who struggles to show up on the given time slots

itr:

player A: plays 80 games
player B: plays 30 games

player A can rack up huge performances by facing scrubs at off peak times and just generally play reckless/aggro like ricko said...just needs a good 20/80 games to qualify

player B is barely active/struggles to show up at the given time slots and has to compete with player A etc....needs a good 20/30 games to qualify which is harder


Another solution = Allot points based on the quality of the games
example scenario:
ipad/ixador/MC/glyde/zidane vs ogron/afghan/henrysaari/******/faggot...if ogron gets 25-7 in this it should be weighed down as opposed to ogron getting 25-7 in this:
ogron/racka/zidane/trasher/beam vs iron/mythril/kentaro/24/mcvicar

[Fork]

Maybe it should go off 'a players 20 best recs'. It still gives incentive to play loads coz the more u play, the more likely u will get a decent rec. A Problem will always be players feeding other players for a massive rec.

[kess]

that's why you play the 3-4pm games you silly billy

Yo let me troll a bit. ixador quoted the 8-9 hours =)

[Crescent Seal]

There is no denying that a high activity rate translates into a finals spot as long as you are semi-decent at this game.

The solution to maybe counter this and make it more inclusive would be playoffs. It would allow less active players to still have a shot at making it to the finals and it would further weed out the super active nerds who perhaps shouldn't be playing in the finals.

[Major Crisis]

Is there a way to change the system so it's not based on your 20 best rounds? Activity based incentives or not, I can't help but feel if someone played 70 rounds and negged badly for 50 of those and mvped the other 20 that they shouldn't be rewarded with an all-star spot. I mean this is an extreme case, but it's still relevant.

If you are a super-active player and know that you're going to easily surpass the 20 games required you can just play with a reckless play-style that's either going to get you MVP or out 3-10 in 3 minutes, but because you're playing 70-80 rounds you know statistically you'll get at least 20 good scores in there but you played crap and cost your team games in the other 50 matches, when really it should be based on being consistently good.

I agree, consistency should be paid off, not just activity.

[Major Crisis]

I honestly think you're delusional. Tons of players played 40-50-60 games and failed to qualify.

You don't seem to understand diminishing returns at all.

I had over $500+ value over my last 40 games in jav if you count the best 20 games. I had like 14 of the top 100 scores in TSLJ, including a bunch of games like 21-6, 18-7, 16-5, 16-9, 18-8, etc.

I would have qualified in 42-43 games in jav (I'm counting my last 40 instead of first 40 in jav because I improved dramatically practicing a ship I ordinarily don't play. I averaged like 11.5 KPG over that span.)

I had over $540+ value over my first 40 games in WB, and would have qualified in 30. Ditto base.

Maybe you should focus less on complaining about me and more on actually being good at this game. Plenty of veterans qualified in under 30 games in all three leagues.

The last and first games were the most jokish of all. IF you look at my scores in jav, they end up higher in the end as well. Much more people were throwing games and so on cuz they know they were either never gonna make finals or they were sure already.

Apparently you are too much butthurt. I know I would never make/made finals. But dont you think its kinda a joke that you as 6* jav is listed 3rd out of nowhere (With all due respect, cuz yea u improved). I am just saying that someone with 20 games and played 2 bad games, will be outvalued by you because you have played more games. Is it reasonable to have someone lower on the list just because he played a bunch less?

Maybe javelin and warbird arent the best leagues to complain about with 20 best games. If you look at your, thix, zidane and mcvicar ratings (yes you guys are the best in these ships) people would need like 50+ avg to beat you. If you play only about 30 games its impossible. Basing seems to depend on luck as well to get a high value (cuz of bad teams). You cant argue that when you play 60-70 games, you can easily get a higher best 20 games than someone with 20-30 games played. Like I said, its good to promote activity but this is too much in my opinion.

[Ricko]

yeah maybe bonus points for average kills or K ratio might help?

[kentaro]

Impose a bonus/penalty for overall K : D on top of the top 20. but then again might incentivize reccing even more than it was before

Is there a way to change the system so it's not based on your 20 best rounds? Activity based incentives or not, I can't help but feel if someone played 70 rounds and negged badly for 50 of those and mvped the other 20 that they shouldn't be rewarded with an all-star spot. I mean this is an extreme case, but it's still relevant.

If you are a super-active player and know that you're going to easily surpass the 20 games required you can just play with a reckless play-style that's either going to get you MVP or out 3-10 in 3 minutes, but because you're playing 70-80 rounds you know statistically you'll get at least 20 good scores in there but you played crap and cost your team games in the other 50 matches, when really it should be based on being consistently good.