A new way of looking at how to Qualify

[Hurricane]

i'd much rather have a team in TWL that rots in the offseason then a team that rots during twl. i say this is a pretty good idea but there should be some voting that would take place aswell.. disoblige has always been around for twl.. but paladen hasnt and if paladen wants to play twl and they are the longest squad in TW they shouldnt get the points because they havent played TWL before etc.. The thing that bugs me most about TWL is having squads that dissolve in the middle of TWL. captains... if you lose a player or two to another TWL squad dont dissolve recruit or just continue playing. sick of that bs

[Voth]

you're dumb if you think longevity has anything to do with being together since a final TWD reset. that means a squad gets rewarded for being created sometime after a TWL season, wow congratulations on being together for a couple of months, really impressive.

as for the last proposal to reward longevity, it's a joke as well. there's hardly any difference, you get 25 points for being around for less than 1 year, and for more than 2 years (for instance Disoblige with 7+ years falls in the 2+ years category) you get an amazing 50 points extra, which is just nothing at all. the only way to make that work, if you'd honestly want to reward longevity, is to give 50 points for every year a squad has been alive. now that would be a good idea.

So say Disoblige was really bad now, but just because they have been around for a long time and got like 450 bonus points for that, they edged out squads twice as good as them. Fair? I think not. Disoblige is a good squad and I respect it and you as a captain of it, but you are no different than the other squads that play TWL and rot off in the offseason, just to flare up for TWL again.

[Capital Knockers]

If mostly everyone liked the changes, they would be used for this TWL season. There is going to be a big TWL staff meeting next week to talk about this qualification system, the 4 spid rule, the rounds, etc based on the responses we got here.If it turns out that any of the changes only receive a mediocre response, then they wont be instated.

Can I come?

Thanks for the response and update Mirr. I really hope, even if new qualifications rules are put into place, that staff makes some sort of adjustment regarding how little time we have to qualify using a whole new system. If I had known about the AVE R thing from the start, I would of been captaining, and my squad would of been playing, entirely differently for the past month and a half. Yet, I don't want delays either - so whatever you guys decide, I'll just shut up and deal. :fear:

[Sirius]

Still hope either way TWL starts in Oct., would be a pity to wait any longer

[MirrorriM]

If mostly everyone liked the changes, they would be used for this TWL season. There is going to be a big TWL staff meeting next week to talk about this qualification system, the 4 spid rule, the rounds, etc based on the responses we got here.If it turns out that any of the changes only receive a mediocre response, then they wont be instated.

[Capital Knockers]

MirrorriM I think before we even continue this thread, we need to know if these changes we're talking about are being implemented this Season or not. Honestly, I like them, but I think it's too late to change things now. Adding another 2 squads to LD is one thing, we had the squads there, but overhauling the qualifications system this long after a reset, and this close to TWL just doesn't work. It's only going to cause delays, and people getting cranky if we change things now.

I don't think this system would be fair if started, without a reset. Like midoent was saying. Squads that played alot of newer squads earlier on, really don't have much time to make up that AVE R. I spent all day dding with my squad to get AVE R pts, loosing most of the games because we were just throwing different lines in all the time. We just wanted the AVE R. However this causes alot of stress. Not just because of the losses, but we've worked hard to get where we are, and we like our pts. But to get our AVE R anywhere near acceptable, we can only play the top 10 squads (who dont always want to play us), and really, we're better off loosing atm rather than winning. That way we can face more squads above us to raise our AVE R.

So I ask this. Whiskeyjack as an example (I know it's mine, I'm tired and it's the easiest example). We've come a long way from when we started yes? Do you people see guys flying on and off our roster daily? We're active, pretty friendly, and able to upset (and have) almost all the top squads if we have our main guys on. I'm sure people can see we can play and team at a twld level - and for the people that still don't think we're there yet, well give it another month and see. Point is, why should my squad have to goto hell and back to try and up a AVE R in less than a month, when I'm sure people can tell, if we're qualified R-wise come twl, we'd do fine.

Anyhow, long and short of it. It's too late to change qualification methods for this twl, it should of been done with the reset.

Just to backup my own point here. This topic was made near a week ago now. We're still in the discussion stage of figuring out changes. TWL is suppose to randomly hit us sometime in October. If we still haven't even figured out if these changes are for now or later, nor the complete nature of these changes - how can we expect to put them into action for October? It's going to mean delays, alot of stress for the staff and not to mention captains that might have to change how their squad plays games. Once again, considering we're still not 100% on whether these changes are for this season or next - the time captains have to KNOW what qualification system we're using is running short. In no way do I mean this personally, or offensively - but it would be highly un-professional to expect the community to adapt to these changes with so little time. I'm also pretty sure the last thing anyone wants is a whole host of delays because we're changing the system this late and far from the reset. In addition, what if we're ALL missing some major problem with this new system? We aren't leaving much time to test it.

So, I'd like to hear some staff feedback on this. Oh, and if Mirr or someone has already pointed out whether or not the changes are being talked about this season or next... please someone tell me to shut up and stop making myself look like a fool. Not that I don't look that way already! :P

[DankNuggets]

i think as a twl rule you should have to merge squads together. squads that don't necessarily get along but would create comical situations living in such close quarters. very sitcom-y.

yeah and for twdd you can loan a player to a team that doesn't have enough, just like in rec soccer!

"hey want to dd?"

"naw we only got 3 on "

"no problem, you can have one of ours!"

"we'd rather play 3 v 4 :P"

[Jeenyuss]

i think as a twl rule you should have to merge squads together. squads that don't necessarily get along but would create comical situations living in such close quarters. very sitcom-y.

[Capital Knockers]

MirrorriM I think before we even continue this thread, we need to know if these changes we're talking about are being implemented this Season or not. Honestly, I like them, but I think it's too late to change things now. Adding another 2 squads to LD is one thing, we had the squads there, but overhauling the qualifications system this long after a reset, and this close to TWL just doesn't work. It's only going to cause delays, and people getting cranky if we change things now.

I don't think this system would be fair if started, without a reset. Like midoent was saying. Squads that played alot of newer squads earlier on, really don't have much time to make up that AVE R. I spent all day dding with my squad to get AVE R pts, loosing most of the games because we were just throwing different lines in all the time. We just wanted the AVE R. However this causes alot of stress. Not just because of the losses, but we've worked hard to get where we are, and we like our pts. But to get our AVE R anywhere near acceptable, we can only play the top 10 squads (who dont always want to play us), and really, we're better off loosing atm rather than winning. That way we can face more squads above us to raise our AVE R.

So I ask this. Whiskeyjack as an example (I know it's mine, I'm tired and it's the easiest example). We've come a long way from when we started yes? Do you people see guys flying on and off our roster daily? We're active, pretty friendly, and able to upset (and have) almost all the top squads if we have our main guys on. I'm sure people can see we can play and team at a twld level - and for the people that still don't think we're there yet, well give it another month and see. Point is, why should my squad have to goto hell and back to try and up a AVE R in less than a month, when I'm sure people can tell, if we're qualified R-wise come twl, we'd do fine.

Anyhow, long and short of it. It's too late to change qualification methods for this twl, it should of been done with the reset.

[midoent]

I dont agree with w:l system for obvious reasons (speaking on behalf of brainwave) We started off twd season way slow but practiced and got pretty good, almost always play vs top 5 squads and manage to hold top 3. Obviously our skill level is higher now since we get more wins than losses. However, I don't see how our skill level 3 months ago affects us NOW. If you ask me, use only last month of qualification for counting win:loss points. maybe make a multiplier so there is a bigger weight. Also, average rating should also be considered only for the last month but thats hard to calculate.

[MirrorriM]

Mirrorrim, I hope you did not take my comments too personally; I know from first hand experience how hard it is to get it right.

First and foremost, I think the main criterion for qualification is the skill of a squad. In a perfect world, a squad's skill would correlate with what is now known as rating. Let's just assume for a second that we're in a perfect world. Also note that skill is a continuous value.
There is also a second criterion: you want the squad to fully participate through the entire TWL. This is not a continuous value, it is either yes or no. In your point system you've made this property continuous, which can be justified.

The issue I have with your proposal that you assign points for two different criteria and then add them together - like adding apples & oranges.

I would try to tackle both issues separately. You are of the opinion that a squad's TWD rating is not a good indicator of true skill, and I'm with you on that. But if you were to measure skill only, it makes no sense to look at the number of games played and award points for that. Using AVE rating is interesting, but it potentially screws up new squads who improve as they proceed through the TWD season. I like the idea of surprise qualifications, but it would be very frustrating to the squads who were just a few points away from the top 10 (as a compromise you could have the #9-#12 fight for the two bottom TWL spots).

And with regards to measuring stability. Personally I would suggest a threshold rather than a sliding scale: if a squad is below that threshold, it simply doesn't qualify regardless of rating. My reasoning for this is that it doesn't really matter how active or stable a squad is, you just want it to be stable enough to last through one TWL season. I don't see why a hyperactive squad is more qualified to play TWL than a regular squad.
For defining such a threshold, I would look at the properties of stable squads vs unstable squads. One such requirement could be that the squad has to have participated in TWD for the entire duration of the qualification season, at a minimum rate of X games per week.

I've been out of the loop for way too long to make concrete suggestions, but this is my take on how to go about it.

I'm not taking it personally, I am speaking bluntly. It is hard for me to improve a system if someone suggests that the numbers are wrong, but doesnt give the numbers they think would be right.

I dont see what youre talking about when you say that I assigned points based on whether or not a squad finishes all of TWL. This system breaks down what we think is the best possible way to measure skill and stability. If we want these requirements, then why is it wrong to add them together? I see your point in that one cant add 3.25 with "Yes squad is stable" to equal a number. However, that isnt the case here. I think you need to explain better why skill and stability are mutually exclusive.

Skill is not only based on just # games played or Ave R-there is also games won and lost. I think that is a pretty good assessment of skill. Again, it would be great to have an example of how this could potentially harm a newer squad using the points system.

Your threshold idea is interesting. But what if 15 squads are above it? Are you suggesting I then, based on skill, cut out 3 (for LD) or 7(LB/LJ) squads? The suggestion about making sure a squad is around for a certain period of months has been brought up before and is a nice idea. Playing X number of games a week is nice also, but then we have to look at the logistics. I would have to look through every week since June when TWD was reset, look at 26 different squads, skim through every single one of their played games for every division they want to qualify, and make sure they met that requirement. Simply not gonna happen unless some coding is done which I highly doubt will happen. It's not a perfect fit, but that's why 50 games is the new min. games requirement. It makes squads work together more and last longer. You could say they are just huperactive and not worthy, but I think most players will get a feel for working together if they can last 50 games and still be ranked high enough to compete.

I'd still like to see some numbers showing how this system is bad instead of theory-based arguments, however

[Mythrandir]

That's why Ave R is so important. Sure, if a squad wants 3 points a win they can play a newb squad--but that comes at a price, namely, Ave R.

On the other hand, sure a newb squad can play a squad with a really high Ave R, but what are the chances they actually win it?

We gotta look at all aspects, not just what is obvious at first glance. Ave R is 2 points per every point above 1000. If you have 950 rating, you get no Ave R bonus.

If you think the system is weak and "made up on the spot" and that Ave R needs to be increased, by all means, please give me your point values! I would like some examples to prove your point, or else I cant improve anything.

Mirrorrim, I hope you did not take my comments too personally; I know from first hand experience how hard it is to get it right.

First and foremost, I think the main criterion for qualification is the skill of a squad. In a perfect world, a squad's skill would correlate with what is now known as rating. Let's just assume for a second that we're in a perfect world. Also note that skill is a continuous value.
There is also a second criterion: you want the squad to fully participate through the entire TWL. This is not a continuous value, it is either yes or no. In your point system you've made this property continuous, which can be justified.

The issue I have with your proposal that you assign points for two different criteria and then add them together - like adding apples & oranges.

I would try to tackle both issues separately. You are of the opinion that a squad's TWD rating is not a good indicator of true skill, and I'm with you on that. But if you were to measure skill only, it makes no sense to look at the number of games played and award points for that. Using AVE rating is interesting, but it potentially screws up new squads who improve as they proceed through the TWD season. I like the idea of surprise qualifications, but it would be very frustrating to the squads who were just a few points away from the top 10 (as a compromise you could have the #9-#12 fight for the two bottom TWL spots).

And with regards to measuring stability. Personally I would suggest a threshold rather than a sliding scale: if a squad is below that threshold, it simply doesn't qualify regardless of rating. My reasoning for this is that it doesn't really matter how active or stable a squad is, you just want it to be stable enough to last through one TWL season. I don't see why a hyperactive squad is more qualified to play TWL than a regular squad.
For defining such a threshold, I would look at the properties of stable squads vs unstable squads. One such requirement could be that the squad has to have participated in TWD for the entire duration of the qualification season, at a minimum rate of X games per week.

I've been out of the loop for way too long to make concrete suggestions, but this is my take on how to go about it.

[kthx]

the average rating thing can only get you so far, even if you duel 50 average rating 1500 squads when you are 1000 rating and get a 1500 average rating, you still lose 150 points, and lose all the points for losing all those matches as well. For good squads playing bad squads happens.. and the best thing is the more games you play the less that playing a bad squad occasionally matters.

[Funk]

Just make it harder to get points when someones rating is under 1000 of your own.

[Sirius]

Mythrandir is right. Why do you think current system is a reflection of how Blizzard uses ladders on battle.net, which is a hugely popular competitive playing recorder? It would be the worst way to have people just play weak squads for the same point amount as strong ones...to the point where the ave will make little to no difference at all.