Participation Requirement for TWL

[Summa]

After considerable deliberation, I am going to inform you the there is a 99% certainty that there will be some form of participation requirement necessary for players to qualify for a TWL medal. The exact requirements are not currently set in stone; but in this thread I hope to provide you with the tentative details of the two options that are currently on the table. Myself, and TWL staff are open to alternatives if you have better ideas that you want to post here, but an alternative that will not be considered is "don't have one".

Option 1: In this circumstance players would either be required to have played a minimal amount (1 or 2 games with a minor kill/death/time req) or to have spectated multiple TWL games for their squad. By fulfilling this requirement in 1 league, they would be eligible for all medals that their squad earns in TWL.

Option 2: In this case, all players on a squad's TWL roster would receive all medals that the squad earned. However, there would be a TWD games played requirement for players to be eligible to be added to the TWL roster. This requirement would have to be fulfilled before you could be added to the TWL roster in the event that you switched squads during the TWL season. The TWD games played requirement would probably be in the range of 5-15 TWD games.

Option 3: Come up with a better one if you want. I am all ears.

[schope]

this is useless.

what about last 10/20 old medals ?

medals still wont make any difference

[Jones]

fuck you

[Jones]

ps

Participation and contribution to a squad is far more than just playing, or even speccing, in a league game. Perhaps you have a player who is quite active and contributes in practicing with the squad for months before the league but doesn’t get played when some ‘vet’ shows up out of the woodwork when league starts. Anyone trying to build a squad wants active players for months before the league starts, is this not worth ‘rewarding’? Or is this more about keeping the strangle hold that the group of ‘vets’ hold over the rest of the game? I suggest not doing anything that makes building a new squad difficult and this does just that. (Anyone can start a new squad and fill it with vets. But I can name no squads that have been able to build a league competitive team of new players.)

And exactly what ‘harm’ is done but giving out some rings? Surely ‘vets’ aren’t threatened by this. Surely no one thinks that in a few more years that anyone will care about any of this. This is a ‘solution looking for a problem’ if there ever was one. And of course there is the issue with fucking around with the history of the league and now having to add an “*” to any records. I don’t know who came up with this idea but it is one of the stupidest things I have seen done here in a long time (and as we all know THAT is saying something).

[Rab]

Option 4
You should only get a medal if you were present during your squad's games (i.e. you use !myfreq), because you have no way of measuring the contribution of players in spec you have to assume they're contributing enough to be recognised. Naturally this does mean a player can show up once and contribute nothing, it just eliminates players who didn't even attend a match. This should be league specific, i.e. you have to show up to a basing game to get the basing medal.

I think this solves 90% of the problem without pissing off 90% of the people who don't like the other options. I believe this to be a decent solution to the problem of "Participation Requirement for TWL".


---

Option 2 is an offered solution to a different problem:

TWL messing up TWD rosters
This needs more thought, but I'm currently thinking along these lines:
- TWL and TWD roster limits should match (such that everyone who contributes to qualification has a decent chance of playing TWL)
- Squads should register for TWL at the start of the qualification period (which should be no longer than 1 month)

[veetee]

Since there is no way i can't manage to post a new threat in these forums, I would like to highlight a far more important issue which was mentioned in the other threat, but no official response to a proposal has been given.

Can there be 10 squadrons for TWLB? We have 10 squads in TWLB:
Penetrate
Pandora
Revenge
Dice
Dudgeon
Raid
Sage
Sweet
Cobra
Spastic

It is likely that Sweet, Cobra and Spastic will have to fight for the last spot. All listed squads are capable of playing TWLB and even going for playoffs, so i think we shouldn't try to make TWLB somewhat more competitive by adding just 8 squads there so 2 bottom ones are crossed one - mainly due to activity issues. Furthermore, having 10/10/10 split would make things much easier. I know that the limits were announced, but I believe that the basing league would benefit from an increased activity from not-so-basing squads such as Sweet that would love to play in TWLB and give 100% in every game.

I am also fairly confident none of those squads would dissolve during the regular season, but dropping out of TWLB due to cutoff may hurt their integrity.

Please provide us with an official response to this matter.

Eric Clapton.

[Rab]

Due to inactivity the following squads will drop off the table next week:
- Dudgeon
- Sweet

Unless things change, we're set to have 8 eligible squads.

[veetee]

Only because it's christmas/new year break, so most of my players are travelling and will be back in the beginning of jan so that's when we will play.

[mtine]

Both options are sweet, thought there shud be a game limit for TWD on how many games us hud play for a squad be4 entering TWL. IE., u shud play 20 games be4 TWL starts to be eligible for a medal. Dis way, all those squadhoppers wud reconsider going to Dice 1 day be4 TWL starts and be loyal to a diff squad or just join Dice at the beginning of the qualifying period. Just a thought.

[Pressure]

It's tough to speculate which option would work, but I think the best bet would be a variation that blends the two.

Also, another problem that I think needs to be addressed is the first roster cap/cutoff. How is it to be assumed that a 1-League squad needs 20 players? If it's a basing squad, at most it needs 20, sure. But no 1-league WB/Jav squad needs 20 players. Maybe 14-16 would suffice for a 1-league Jav or WB squad. The second/third roster cap (25/30) are reasonable, though.

[Ephemeral]

Option 3 – This is a bad idea, just leave it as it has always been

Can you at least tell us who is pushing this idea so hard? Or what exactly it will ‘fix’? With so many other things that could, or should, be improved why anyone is spending time on this?
eph

[Rab]

Dunno Eph but I had a feeling if medals didn't exist then Dice wouldn't either, so it can only be a good thing.

[Reaver]

Option 3 – This is a bad idea, just leave it as it has always been

Can you at least tell us who is pushing this idea so hard? Or what exactly it will ‘fix’? With so many other things that could, or should, be improved why anyone is spending time on this?
eph

At what point does it make sense to ignore this just because other things could or should be fixed? Perhaps you should bring up those other things instead of trying to derail something else from being fixed. Things are only fixed when a problem is recognized. I'd be willing to wager that this has never been brought up before now and therefore has never been fixed. Before anybody wants to throw out the argument that this shouldn't be done because of past titles, stop. So we previously screwed up and gave out titles to people who never even showed up for a TWL match, we don't need to continue to do so. The problem that's trying to be fixed is to only give credit where credit is due.

At a minimum players need to be there for the games, and they need to !myfreq and the ref (or bot) needs to record that they were there for the match. This is at a minimum, it's such a watered down way of trying to only give credit where credit is due, but it's a step in the right direction at least...

A middle road, which is far more fair, is that not only to players need to show up to earn credit, but they need to play at least one match. Even if that means the (C) subs a player in for a few seconds then subs them out, they technically played in the match.

A middle-aggressive road, which is what I would do but would most definitely butt-hurt people who honestly wouldn't ever legitimately earn a TWL title is: The player has to play a full game in the respective division and show up for the remaining games to get a title.

[Ephemeral]

At what point does it make sense to ignore this just because other things could or should be fixed? Perhaps you should bring up those other things instead of trying to derail something else from being fixed. Things are only fixed when a problem is recognized. I'd be willing to wager that this has never been brought up before now and therefore has never been fixed. Before anybody wants to throw out the argument that this shouldn't be done because of past titles, stop. So we previously screwed up and gave out titles to people who never even showed up for a TWL match, we don't need to continue to do so. The problem that's trying to be fixed is to only give credit where credit is due.

At a minimum players need to be there for the games, and they need to !myfreq and the ref (or bot) needs to record that they were there for the match. This is at a minimum, it's such a watered down way of trying to only give credit where credit is due, but it's a step in the right direction at least...

A middle road, which is far more fair, is that not only to players need to show up to earn credit, but they need to play at least one match. Even if that means the (C) subs a player in for a few seconds then subs them out, they technically played in the match.

A middle-aggressive road, which is what I would do but would most definitely butt-hurt people who honestly wouldn't ever legitimately earn a TWL title is: The player has to play a full game in the respective division and show up for the remaining games to get a title.

The point where ‘ league leadership’ thinks the best approach is to simply take suggestions in the complete absence of any comprehensive multi-year plan with well defined priorities.

For God’s sake we are fixing little ring icons? Really? How much time has been spent on this already? For icons!?! Look, I was on Cripples the very first season, we won the TWL basing tourney and nobody got any icons or recognition. I still get laid and make a good income.

And I have brought up other possible solutions for years, including the absolute dumbass way the rules are laid out. Even to the point of doing a complete rewrite of those rules and communicating it for consideration. Yet every year the bitching and multiple rematch games happen due to rule shortcomings. So your position is that fixing icons is more important and higher priority than this?
eph

[Reaver]

The point where ‘ league leadership’ thinks the best approach is to simply take suggestions in the complete absence of any comprehensive multi-year plan with well defined priorities.


For God’s sake we are fixing little ring icons? Really? How much time has been spent on this already? For icons!?! Look, I was on Cripples the very first season, we won the TWL basing tourney and nobody got any icons or recognition. I still get laid and make a good income.

Hundreds of Millions of people have played World of Warcraft and billions of hours have been wasted trying to get virtual armor with purple titles, it's ridiculous amirite? Sure we can spend a little time talking about who gets credit for winning the most important part of Trench Wars. I think the fact that so many people have logged into the forums to post and ironically claim "who cares?" is a testament that they do care (not pointed at you Eph, mostly pointed at the 5+ posts in the other thread of "who cares").

And I have brought up other possible solutions for years, including the absolute dumbass way the rules are laid out. Even to the point of doing a complete rewrite of those rules and communicating it for consideration. Yet every year the bitching and multiple rematch games happen due to rule shortcomings. So your position is that fixing icons is more important and higher priority than this?
eph

Nobody is stopping you from bringing that stuff up, I'll tell you right now that I'm not staff and haven't been for at least 4 years, and I'm the driving force behind this discussion about medals. I just haven't let up on it because it's absolutely retarded that we hand them out for people throwing up pom pom's and high fives. I agree something should be done about so many rematch games