[NA] Inhouse Announcement

[quote=IPodPulse][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]]I really have no idea what all the fuss is about...As an aside, Nick made an interesting comment about a way to balance this last night. You could try giving people a point value based on their rating. People who play together frequently and work well together (Moon and Taco or Nick and I, for example) would cost a small amount of extra points to place on the same team. Each captain would get the same amount of points to make their team (think like in a miniatures game such as Warhammer or the, now, dead D&D Minis game) and be able to pick based on that. The downside is, no matter what, that you end up labeling people. But at least then you'd have some real semblance of balance while still allowing people to pick the people they like playing with, to an extent.[/quote]' This seems like a cool idea, we can have the refs take a couple minutes to decide points and points of each player/duo and then we can work from their, this way people have to be picky with their points and be smart with who they pick, that duo they picked suddenly left the plat player open to the other captain who can afford him/her. I think this would make an interesting game.[/quote]

[quote=mastrer1000][quote=The_Nameless_Bard] As an aside, Nick made an interesting comment about a way to balance this last night. You could try giving people a point value based on their rating. People who play together frequently and work well together (Moon and Taco or Nick and I, for example) would cost a small amount of extra points to place on the same team. Each captain would get the same amount of points to make their team (think like in a miniatures game such as Warhammer or the, now, dead D&D Minis game) and be able to pick based on that. The downside is, no matter what, that you end up labeling people. But at least then you'd have some real semblance of balance while still allowing people to pick the people they like playing with, to an extent.[/quote] I am kinda bored, so I will attempt to create such a system. [s]I will edit this when I am done.[/s] 1. Every level is worth one point. 2. Every Division until diamond 1 is worth two points(broze 5=32 points, diamond 1= 80 points). If someone is unranked, but was ranked before, the last rank that that person had is taken. 3. Master and Challenger are each worth 5 points(85 and 90). 4. If someone is smurfing, the points for the highest rated account of that person are taken. If a smurf is not level 30 yet, one point for each level until 30 is substracted(if someone's main is silver 3, but that person is playing on a level 5 account, he is worth 46-25=21 points). 5. If two people who play well together(the referees decide when that's the case) are in the same team, the points of each person are multiplied by 1.1. If three people play well together, this becomes 1.2 and so on. Example calculation: Timmy is gold 3, So he is worth 30+26=56 points. Billy is plat 1, So he is worth 30+40=70 points. They play well together, so the referee Tom decides that they qualify for rule 5: 56*1,1= 61.6 points 70*1.1= 77 points edit: I am unsure about some values(mostly weather rule 4 makes someone worth too few points and if rule 5 is necessary).[/quote]

[quote=GrandmasterD][quote=TheRealCefor]I thought this was going to be about 'in-house' and here I find nothing but girl talk. Please!! I wanna know more about 'in-house'[/quote] Oh. Em. Gee. You are literally the most funny person on this planet; thank you for this very, very entertaining and clever comment. [quote=IceCreamy]I really have no idea what all the fuss is about...[/quote] In that case you just do not read. [quote=IceCreamy]1) it's just a game, if you don't think this idea is a good one then just skip a week of inhouses, big deal. 2) insulting each other really isn't going to help anyone, Maintained made a good step saying sorry for his comments but then the rest is just laughing at him for it? 3) I personally think this is a great idea, and tbh not so much different from the current system where everyone just randomly joins a team and 1 person (the host) tries to balance the teams.[/quote] [list=1] [*] NA has about 5 full inhouse games a month, not 24 like EUW. Also, why bother testing when no one has given an actual sound reasoning on why this would remotely work with all the information given? This is the entire reason I wanted a proper discussion. [*] No one ever insulted one another in this thread. Also, yes, I laughed at it, because there's no way in hell I could ever take that seriously. [*] You think everything is great, and people in general should just be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just for trying; news flash: That's not how this world works. Also, that system is entirely different. [/list] [quote=IceCreamy]Last, but certainly not least, don't take your real life shit and throw it over our heads... we don't care and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion about the game itself.[/quote] I fail to see any “real life shit”, but if you say so Mr. Mo[s]m[/s] derator. Also, I find you flat out saying “We don't care” fairly rude. [quote=IceCreamy]tl;dr Everyone behave, it's ok to disagree but not ok to insult others.[/quote] So what you're saying is that it is okay to have a discussion? One we never had? Oh wow, thank you so much. Regardless, thank you for taking some time from your busy schedule reminding us that it is okay to do the thing we were already doing – for those not paying attention, that'd be disagreeing – and not okay tot do the thing we were not doing – insulting others. That is super helpful. While we're at it, let's make a list of these things – please do tell if any of them isn't correct: [list] [*] It's ok to post gifs but not ok to post pornographic gifs. [*] It's ok to post announcements but not ok to have a discussion about it. [*] It's ok to make completely off-topic jokes but not ok to make fun of others who make those jokes. [/list] Sorry about the last one, the latter thing actually happened. Do please contact me in case you have more to add to the last. Also, thank you for your... I will be honest, I have no idea what you do around here, except trying to be nice and enforce something, two things which do not go together. [quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=IceCreamy]I really have no idea what all the fuss is about... 1) it's just a game, if you don't think this idea is a good one then just skip a week of inhouses, big deal. 2) insulting each other really isn't going to help anyone, Maintained made a good step saying sorry for his comments but then the rest is just laughing at him for it? 3) I personally think this is a great idea, and tbh not so much different from the current system where everyone just randomly joins a team and 1 person (the host) tries to balance the teams. Last, but certainly not least, don't take your real life shit and throw it over our heads... we don't care and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion about the game itself.[/quote] As an aside, Nick made an interesting comment about a way to balance this last night. You could try giving people a point value based on their rating. People who play together frequently and work well together (Moon and Taco or Nick and I, for example) would cost a small amount of extra points to place on the same team. Each captain would get the same amount of points to make their team (think like in a miniatures game such as Warhammer or the, now, dead D&D Minis game) and be able to pick based on that. The downside is, no matter what, that you end up labeling people. But at least then you'd have some real semblance of balance while still allowing people to pick the people they like playing with, to an extent.[/quote] I've got to say, I haven't yet posted that idea on here for two major reasons. One, it seems extremely time-consuming and depending on the player pool at the time, it might be just straight-up impossible. Two, it definitely needs fine-tuning for aforementioned reasons. However, I did state that there needs to be an inherent balance system that keeps the games from becoming less balanced than a bipolar girlfriend with violent tendencies. Now, hold your horses Emikadon, I know you want to say something, but your idea isn't to incorporate a balance system; it is to incorporate that same balance system we are already using. I do understand the confusion.[/quote]

[quote=GrandmasterD][quote=mastrer1000][quote=The_Nameless_Bard] As an aside, Nick made an interesting comment about a way to balance this last night. You could try giving people a point value based on their rating. People who play together frequently and work well together (Moon and Taco or Nick and I, for example) would cost a small amount of extra points to place on the same team. Each captain would get the same amount of points to make their team (think like in a miniatures game such as Warhammer or the, now, dead D&D Minis game) and be able to pick based on that. The downside is, no matter what, that you end up labeling people. But at least then you'd have some real semblance of balance while still allowing people to pick the people they like playing with, to an extent.[/quote] I am kinda bored, so I will attempt to create such a system. [s]I will edit this when I am done.[/s] 1. Every level is worth one point. 2. Every Division until diamond 1 is worth two point(broze 5=32 points, diamond 1= 80 points) 3. Master and Challenger are each worth 5 points(85 and 90). 4. If someone is smurfing, the points for the highest rated account of that person are taken. If a smurf is not level 30 yet, one point for each level until 30 is substracted(if someone's main is silver 3, but that person is playing on a level 5 account, he is worth 46-25=21 points). 5. If two people who play well together(the referees decide when that's the case) are in the same team, the points of each person are multiplied by 1.1. If three people play well together, this becomes 1.2 and so on. Example calculation: Timmy is gold 3, So he is worth 30+26=56 points. Billy is plat 1, So he is worth 30+40=70 points. They play well together, so the referee Tom decides that they qualify for rule 5: 56*1,1= 61.6 points 70*1.1= 77 points[/quote] Seems pretty interesting and well thought-out so far, but we'd have to figure out how to determine how big everyone's pool is going to be; the biggest problem with the whole Warhammer 40k comparison is that those armies don't actually have a fixed size, and we do; that is, five players. Even so, at least we're getting somewhere with this. You have been awarded [color=#FF01F7]1 MOBAFire Internet Point[/color].[/quote]

[quote=Latest Legend]I probably shouldn't be here throwing more wood on the fire, so here I am! It took me a while but I think I have found the motivation for this experiment: [quote=maintained]The idea behind it was that in certain teams people wouldn't talk to each other so there was little entertainment, especially when things down to go downhill and the team is behind. So the logic behind this really is to try to make it a fun experience for everyone, but a result on paper is usually different from the outcome. What we were planning to do is after the teams were made, we would make a poll and see if people are satisfied with the result. If not we scrap the whole thing and balance it out ourselves.[/quote]Is that correct? Would the opposition mind explaining why they think this shouldn't be implemented, preferably in a condensed manner? "Condensed" including the definition that it's not made using the line by line football communicator technique. Not that I don't love the technique, but I think it would be better to start with a general standpoint.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]my issue with it: by itself there is no way games made with this system alone will always be balanced unless there are checks on the captains that require them to make it so. I'm sure Timmy would love to play with his friends John and Fred, so he picks them and no one really argues because they want their friends. Let's assume the highest rated of the three of them is Silver V. Timmy, John, and Fred will pretty much get totally shrekt if the enemy team has GMD, Utopus, and OTG on it. Sure, they'll have each other to talk to, but it won't be any fun for them since they'll just get stomped. As as aside, they won't learn anything from it either, besides that a team of people rated well above them will wipe the floor with their asses. This kind of a system doesn't particularly encourage a learning environment without implementing a new balancing system to go with it, and until now we haven't even discussed that.[/quote]

[quote=Wayne3100]I'm not going to get involved in this discussion as I have almost no experience with NA Inhouses and feel like my personal opinion is completely irrelevant in this matter anyway, but I just want to point out that the fact that no one was directly insulted does not mean IceCreamy doesn't have a reason to ask you guys to behave (yes, I'm mainly looking at you, GMD). I completely agree you guys have a right to be able to talk about this change, but right now it seems like some of your frustration is being taken out on others who are trying to have their say, which isn't adding anything to the discussion you want to have and is (therefore) helping absolutely no one. For the record, that ends here. If I see any more posts filled with that level of sarcasm/disrespect, I will remove them immediately (regardless of any other valid points which may be included in the rest of those posts).[/quote]

[quote=GrandmasterD][quote=Wayne3100]I'm not going to get involved in this discussion as I have almost no experience with NA Inhouses and feel like my personal opinion is completely irrelevant in this matter anyway, but I just want to point out that the fact that no one was directly insulted does not mean IceCreamy doesn't have a reason to ask you guys to behave (yes, I'm mainly looking at you, GMD).[/quote] Wow. Are you for real or are you just trying to get back at me because I didn't send you flowers on Valentine's Day?! That's low! >:/ [quote=Wayne3100]I completely agree you guys have a right to be able to talk about this change, but right now it seems like some of your frustration is being taken out on others who are trying to have their say, which isn't adding anything to the discussion you want to have and is (therefore) helping absolutely no one.[/quote] Well, my problem was that there wasn't any discussion to begin with and people just trying to move along, like our objections do not matter. [quote=Wayne3100]For the record, that ends here. If I see any more posts filled with that level of sarcasm/disrespect, I will remove them immediately (regardless of any other valid points which may be included in the rest of those posts).[/quote] You forgot the gif. [img=http://i.imgur.com/BW5xHFg.gif][/quote]

[quote=Latest Legend]Opposition: [quote=The_Nameless_Bard]my issue with it: by itself there is no way games made with this system alone will always be balanced unless there are checks on the captains that require them to make it so. I'm sure Timmy would love to play with his friends John and Fred, so he picks them and no one really argues because they want their friends. Let's assume the highest rated of the three of them is Silver V. Timmy, John, and Fred will pretty much get totally shrekt if the enemy team has GMD, Utopus, and OTG on it. Sure, they'll have each other to talk to, but it won't be any fun for them since they'll just get stomped. As as aside, they won't learn anything from it either, besides that a team of people rated well above them will wipe the floor with their asses. This kind of a system doesn't particularly encourage a learning environment without implementing a new balancing system to go with it, and until now we haven't even discussed that.[/quote] Any reaction on that Maintained? (Or anyone else backing the Referee's plan)[/quote]

[quote=Maintained][quote=Latest Legend] Any reaction on that Maintained? (Or anyone else backing the Referee's plan)[/quote] We are going to avoid that by holding a poll after the teams are picked to make sure if people want to go through with their teams or not. A caution will also be given informing the weaker team that they are lower in terms of elo/mmr etc. If they still want to go through with it.. It's freedom of choice. But if one (maybe two) person from that team dislikes his position, we will trade one person (preferably the one with higher elo) with him in order to balance things out as much as possible. And if there is still a disagreement then we just go back to balancing things out ourselves. I'm trying to make this as comfortable as possible for the participants, which is why we've done polls last week and plan on doing a feedback construction this week. And about the points thing, I don't know if there is going to be enough time for us to discuss for today's Inhouse since we still don't have a reliable method (but then again the current captains method isn't that reliable either). I look forward to discussing it with the other referees after this Inhouse, and hopefully before the next Inhouses begin.[/quote]