The TWD season has begun!

[Crescent Seal]

wud like 2 request an increase in !borrow for bds from 3 to 4

[Rasaq]

I miss this game. Can't get it working on my woman's laptop.

[Fork]

Also cloth who was rank 1 at 1500 points played 1 jd, I don't know if he won or lost but his points dropped dramatically to 600 . It seems like Mario kart where ur in first position and then bam ur suddenly last before becoming in first position a few secs later. Seems too unstable.

[Dreamwin]

Maybe it is more aimed towards to the 7*s, 6*s and 5*s of TWD. Anyway, the ratings make no sense for me personally.

I had 3-1 record with 2.2 K : D against top squads like envy/evil and I was among the very last in the ratings, whereas there is someone on the first page well ahead of me with 1-6 record and 0.6 K : D

Ultimately, I think the ratings were put in place in order to increase incentive to play, which is fine. Personally, I can tell you that I dont have any respect for the ratings as they are, though.

[Ricko]

I have to agree - look at the top 5 wbs on the twd website right now....4 of the 5 are paladen's active players, yet paladen are 17-33 in twdd - surely that poor win record means they have neg stats or quite frankly, aren't the top 5 performers.

I think the current system weighs too heavily on activity right now (sure, you want to promote TWD activity, but not to the point it completely skews showing who the best players are in each ship). Seems paladen wbs are only there because they've played twice as much as any other squad.

Not bashing Paladen btw, it was the first stats I looked at when I loaded the TWD site.

[Crescent Seal]

yeah the ratings make 0 sense

[veetee]

One question to rating calcuation. Why doing terribly and going something like 3-10 still grants you positive rating?
That way I can do terribly every round and still make it to the top by playing a lot, because I can't go below 0 and I can keep confidence up high.

Simply don't understand that rating. Terrible performance should result in negative rating, so you can actually climb or fall down, without the need to use that confidence coef.

How could you calucate it instead:
+ KO first player
+ Higher Kills than deaths
+ Won a round (team effort)
- First out in a game
- Early dying out (like really fast)
- negative K/D
- teamkills (in jav)
+/- average rating of both team's players

It would be fairly easy then and probably more valuable, as it would actually reflect something. Right now I am #1 with 1410 rating only because i played much, but I lost like 9 out of 10 jds i played and went like 3-10 in many rounds. All you would need to do is assign weights to certain factors making up the rating.

Now I think the rating system is just too abstract, so no one cares about it.

[Crescent Seal]

please leaf me or squadrin sweet a msg in da chat box

http://twd.trenchwars.org/squads/11864/profile

[Banks]

Ok thank you for explaining it

[qan]

I wasn't sure where to put this exactly, so I put it here.
Apologies if I am an idiot and if this question has been gone over multiple times: why do ratings of subbed in players not counted and are N/A? Subbing players in may change the game incredibly, (such as subbing out Fork because he is dookie for Eren who is a much better player than Fork, and he changes the game and wins it for his team going 8-1!) If say, that happens. Why doesn't Eren get rated for his efforts?
Please explain this to me. Ty

There are a few reasons. #1 is it's a bit of a pain dealing with all the special cases. At the moment if you get a rating for a round it counts as if you played the full round, so if you played only 5% of the round, that would get folded into your overall rating (and therefore could be easily gamed). Ratings also have a lot to do with the total # stars on one team vs the other, so this throws a monkey wrench in that machine, increasing the complexity of implementation quite a lot.

Another reason: someone might sub in for another player, but the game is going horribly and the squad is just trying to do anything it can to salvage it. The person getting subbed in may do worse than they would normally because of this. I don't have the data on it so I can't say if that's actually the case, but it's possible.

We'd considered requiring people to play some % of the match, such as 70% or the like. But in the end just decided to void any subs, because it would be the most clear for those playing to understand... After all, the system is already a bit difficult to grasp.

Not exactly happy with it, but it is what it is. Let us know if it looks like it's being abused.

[Banks]

I wasn't sure where to put this exactly, so I put it here.
Apologies if I am an idiot and if this question has been gone over multiple times: why do ratings of subbed in players not counted and are N/A? Subbing players in may change the game incredibly, (such as subbing out Fork because he is dookie for Eren who is a much better player than Fork, and he changes the game and wins it for his team going 8-1!) If say, that happens. Why doesn't Eren get rated for his efforts?
Please explain this to me. Ty

[olde]

Qan is the fkn man! You the real MVP!

[Turban]

seems good, hopefully it works out.

thanks.

[qan]

cud sum1 vs tl;dr version

• Ladder reset
• Personal ratings officially live, top 5 on front page
• Season is 4 months
• Winning squad is top of ladder at end of season, no playoffs
• Medals for top squads and players in every league
• There is no bullet #6
• At end of season if squad doesn't play it will be removed from ladder
• 4 caps now allowed
• !borrow will change to rated system soon
• France did 9/11
• Borrow max 1 in dd/jd, 2 in bd
• Squads must both agree on person to be borrowed
• Can't borrow from enemy squad
• Cres is a 2 on the Kinsey scale
• When borrowing, 66% of normal ladder change for squad will occur

Don't say I never did anything for you!

[Banks]

Aye good shit Attacks way to keep up the great work!