[NA] Inhouse Announcement

[quote=GrandmasterD][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.[/quote] Yeah, I get that, but how does this plan really make any difference then? Like, this way it just seems like we're going to spend even more time on trying to get a game going, which seems rather counter-productive. [quote=Maintained]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.[/quote] I kind of equate this to designing a house, but first you let your 8-year old son do it because they love building things with LEGO. You are just adding a step to the process that eventually doesn't really do anything. Additionally, I still can't help but feel that letting leaders choose their bestest buddies kind of contradicts the idea of having community games, but that might just be me. [quote=Maintained]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] Definitely won't be time to discuss that for today's inhouse, but I can see that idea eventually work. Perhaps it's not 100% practical, but it hybridises the system we have now and your proposed idea well, or so I'd like to think.[/quote]

[quote=BarbJ]Same thing I posted in the Ref Forum: "Utility is the ultimate goal of the inhouses. We want everyone to have as much fun as possible. Whatever option we pick, if we believe it will lead to the maximum amount of happiness, we can proceed. If that options turns out to produce less happiness than anticipated, we have to be willing to accept the flaws and attempt to change them for the better. Too often it happens where people are hesitant to makes changes in fear of negative outcomes. If the anticipated consequences are not met, things can be changed again to attempt to reach a better end. All ideas have advantages and disadvantages that can be debated back and forth. Pick one, try it, evaluate the results. If the results have improved over the current, good job, you've won the internet. If it's worse or the same, make more changes (or put it back "first" and then try again, however you need to justify it)." [quote=mastrer1000]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.[/quote] This is already what happens when the Refs balance, this just makes it more concrete by assigning numbers to it. There's also an argument to be made regarding "ELO =/= Skill," that's been discussed at length before. Someone in a given tier isn't necessarily as good as someone else at the same tier (though they are understood to be essentially equally). This also relates very closely to what role they end up playing, which champions are banned, etc. These other variables outside of what tier concretely says are the purpose of the Refs. Game balance is difficult. It takes experience to know how the players interact, how one's actions influence another's. This phronetic experience is why the Refs are selected manually, rather than auto promoted. Math is good, but not perfect for practical applications systemically. As I said before though, the goal here is happiness. Try something new, concrete numbers, team captains, whatever it is. Just evaluate the results and there should be no problems.[/quote]

[quote=utopus]Reposted here, from the referee subforum [quote=utopus] #3. I'm thinking about some sort of points system where captains start out with a small points handicap/penalty cased on on their own ranking. Picking Low ELO players would gain you points, and high ELO players would cost points. What are your thoughts on this? I enabled commenting from anyone who has the link, so you guys can also document your thoughts there. Some # tweaking may need to happen but this is just a start. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17Z5Wh0sZvkSx9hdBVbcVFytItYJOoSYienPwD7J4YUQ/edit?usp=sharing[/quote] It eliminates any high school drama about low ranking players being picked last, and will allow the skill differential between both players to be accounted for by giving the lower ELO player a "headstart" in picking. EDIT: If you're a ref and want to try playing around with the numbers a bit PM me your email address and i'll give you editing perms for this sheet[/quote]

[quote=Maintained]Hello everyone. Fresh start from now to discuss about captains. Please read the first post again and (re)present your ideas.[/quote]

[quote=mastrer1000][quote=utopus]Reposted here, from the referee subforum [quote=utopus] #3. I'm thinking about some sort of points system where captains start out with a small points handicap/penalty cased on on their own ranking. Picking Low ELO players would gain you points, and high ELO players would cost points. What are your thoughts on this? I enabled commenting from anyone who has the link, so you guys can also document your thoughts there. Some # tweaking may need to happen but this is just a start. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17Z5Wh0sZvkSx9hdBVbcVFytItYJOoSYienPwD7J4YUQ/edit?usp=sharing[/quote] It eliminates any high school drama about low ranking players being picked last, and will allow the skill differential between both players to be accounted for by giving the lower ELO player a "headstart" in picking.[/quote] noob question: what does STDEV and standardize do? Also why are the point differences from division to division below the one that gives 0 higher than the differences from the ones above it? edit: I really like the generally idea though(at least the part that I can understand without knowing the above), it seems to solve most of the issues that my idea had(stuff liek how to rate unranked players that are clearly better than fresh lvl 30s and how many points each captain should have)[/quote]

[quote=utopus]It was my attempt at standardizing the point values based on the ELOs of the current players in the inhouse. For example, if the average MMR of the inhouse players was Gold 3 instead of silver 2, it'll scale the point values accordingly, so that the average Gold 3 player would be worth ~0 points, and players lower than that (silver 1 e.g.) would be worth a higher amount of points. Higher ELO players would 'cost' less points as well, since the skill differential between them and the average is less. Obviously some numbers can be changed around, and I could probably pick a more accurate distribution, but I just wanted to try SOMETHING like this. I'd like to add that determining adjusted point values of players will take about 10 seconds - you will eventually just have to type "B4, or G1, P3" or whatever a player's ELO is and the adjusted point values will be automatically calculated, so if we follow through with the adjusted point values thing, calculation time will be a non-issue[/quote]

[quote=mastrer1000][quote=utopus]It was my attempt at standardizing the point values based on the ELOs of the current players in the inhouse. For example, if the average MMR of the inhouse players was Gold 3 instead of silver 2, it'll scale the point values accordingly, so that the average Gold 3 player would be worth ~0 points, and players lower than that (silver 1 e.g.) would be worth a higher amount of points. Higher ELO players would 'cost' less points as well, since the skill differential between them and the average is less. Obviously some numbers can be changed around, and I could probably pick a more accurate distribution, but I just wanted to try SOMETHING like this. I'd like to add that determining adjusted point values of players will take about 10 seconds - you will eventually just have to type "B4, or G1, P3" or whatever a player's ELO is and the adjusted point values will be automatically calculated, so if we follow through with the adjusted point values thing, calculation time will be a non-issue[/quote] I get that, all I wanted to know(besides the noob questtion part) was why the the cost difference frrom one division to another isn't always the same(I mean the difference between players/captains above and below the average value, not the difference between the captain table and the player point table).[/quote]

[quote=utopus]The starting point values for captains being lower was put in place because I thought that the starting values is to only really give low ELO captains a head start if they are pitted against a high ELO captain. If the starting point values matched the player point values, it'd totally bone me if I was a captain. I'd have to recruit 2 bronze players just to break even, and then recruit a third bronze player if I wanted to recruit someone else that costs points. Having such a large penalty would totally dictate the player drafting phase. Having small starting point values for captains means that low ELO captains have a small handicap against high ELO players, and is basically just a preventative measure to make sure that low ELO captains have the first bite at the high ELO skill pool.[/quote]