A new way of looking at how to Qualify

[kthx]

What if we gave 50 points for each squad that was in last years TWL at all, 75 for semi-finalists, and 100 for the winners of last years TWL, that would promote longevity and not provide too much of a bonus against newer squads perhaps.. not one that 2-3 games won against a good squad couldn't provide.

[Jones]

What if we gave 50 points for each squad that was in last years TWL at all, 75 for semi-finalists, and 100 for the winners of last years TWL, that would promote longevity and not provide too much of a bonus against newer squads perhaps.. not one that 2-3 games won against a good squad couldn't provide.

... or just let them into twl again. Most squads that last are actually good or will be improving if not, then look at Disoblige for example who easily had a few players who still after months of inactivity played better than alot of the players from squads ranked in the top 8.

Once there are enough squads who get auto invites start inviting 14 or more squads again. The competitive aspect will surely not be decreased if any at all as long as the squad show enough players for each of their game in the last season, even if they do went 0-11 they can still learn alot and improve, however how many squads that lost everything have actually lasted more than one season? Zero. I am certain squads that have been competing in twl a long time already (Disoblige, Thunder etc etc) are all competitive enough. If not, then atleast they have atleast proven seasons past that they have enough people showing for every game.

The only real problem is people squadhopping, say a few starters want more twd activity they will leave the stable, competitive squad in a weaker state, which could result in a decreased skill-level but I'm sure it wouldn't lead to 0-11 or something.

Right now I can barely remember every squad from last season... but Stray/Thunder/Disoblige/Dice/Spastic/Penetrate/ in their respective leagues would not be such a blowout now would it?

[Mythrandir]

Mirrorrim,

Based on the 4 problems you listed:

1) We dislike squads getting into TWL by only playing newb squads
2) activity and longevity of a squad is important for TWL
3) TWL needs to be competitive
4) TWL should have fewer squads drop out during the season

you introduced the following point system:

One game - 1 point
One win - 3 points
One loss - -3 points
Win Streak - 2 points per win after 7(?) wins in a row
Ave. Rating - 2 points per average rating over 1000.
Longevity* - 15 points for every month played after final reset.

I do not really see how you have solved listed problem 1. In the rating system, there is a diminishing reward in playing the same 'newb' squad over and over again. In the proposed point system, a squad will gain 3 points from a win, regardless who their opponent was. That would stimulate squads to find weaker targets. On top of that, the win streak bonus would make it even worse - once a squad is in a winning streak it will make damn sure to keep it and take no risks with !challenging strong opponents.

The usage of Ave. Rating is interesting, how is this calculated? Is each interval a time-interval or per game played? What happens if a squad's average rating is below 1000, will it lose points or does nothing happen? As you have it now, I think the weight for ave rating is way too low. In general, your point attributions appear to be made up on the spot.

I agree that such a system would be more biased to selecting squads that are more active and not as fragile (item 2 & 4). On the other hand, it would be less competitive, as it will be a lot easier now for weaker squads to be selected simply by playing more games and picking on weaker squads.

[MirrorriM]

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.

[kthx]

Hey myth, bring back private basing.

But yeah, I disagree with you when you say that this will cause a drop in competition in TWL, top ranked squads are top ranked squads generally because they have smart captains, and smart captains will be able to follow this system pretty easily when it comes to finding games. Maybe you aren't factoring in that the current twd points will still be given on top of all of these extra points. So.. if you beat X squad right now, you still get the.. 25 rating change on the ladder, but then all these other variables are mixed into it.

[veetee]

The rating system should be introduced for next TWL, when the preliminar and corresponding TWD rating will be reset. Squads should be aware of the changes once the new TWD reset begins so they can adjust their policies to the system and hence maximise their efficiency.

[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.

[Funk]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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"