ENT Gaming

The LIHL community have gotten a decent size now and I think it's time to focus quality over quantity.

So as it is right now you're a lihl member as soon an admin !approves the application.
My suggestion is to change that.. simply copy the trial period they use in ENT DotA League/rocker environment.
The trial period of 1 week in Dota League is probably more realistic.

So my suggestion is that new players will have 1-4 weeks to prove their worth before they're granted membership.

Sounds like a decent idea, the only problem is, we'd have to determine how/when a person has proven worthy to grant membership. And on top of that, we might even have to consider if all the previous 85-100 accepted players, is "worthy" or not. Especially, because if a person was accepted months ago, it doesn't mean he's still up-to-date / in routine with the current META. I mean, if a person hasn't played in a month, he's very likely to make a lot more mistakes than usual.

This could end up like a Driver's License, that you'd have to be checked once in a while. I mean, do we really want such a difficult system? At least, I Don't think the moderators like to be this 'objective' or at least as little subjective as possible. As we discussed in following topic:
- viewtopic.php?f=83&t=12752&start=10

[spoiler=Some noteworthy examples from the topic]

MickeyTheMousie wrote:If we only unvouch on the basis of the mods judgment this will lead to more subjectivity.

Diablo_ wrote:I still think deciding on a case to case basis would be best. Yes it includes subjectivity, but I believe our team of mods would be mature enough to make fair decisions. Also note that vouches and reports also looked at case by case, including quite a lot of subjectivity, so I don't think it would be a problem if unvouching would be handled the same way.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:For example, if we solely let the mods decide we have to wake for the moderators inactivity, wrong judgments, feelings of subjectivity, favouring, judgment on basis of not all games. I honestly cannot be 100% sure that everytime I judge someone to be not fit for the league, that he really is not. I don't want people to be subject to the judgments of some people who happen to be mod, but to objective criteria.

[/spoiler]

Another way to implement such a system to ensure that the current vouched players in Lihl is worthy to be in the League, is to use the suggestion that I came up with (in the topic above). It would at least avoid that moderators having to be as subjective:


Excuse me if I wen't on a sidetrack, or however that saying is on English. ^^,

Lol drahque............... I can't even be bothered to use a proper reply because your whole post is dumb.

supersexyy wrote:Lol drahque............... I can't even be bothered to use a proper reply because your whole post is dumb.

Will you stop the hate please?

Not as if it's enough being unvouched 3 days? I have been away for two days now, and I can't even make 1 reply on forums without being mocked? Is this first grade all over or what the heck is this supposed to be? Isn't a moderator supposed to RESPECT every players opinions and ways of thinking?

If you think I'm wrong, then please at least use some proper language and arguments, and explain it instead. It would at least be more helpful than your comments, such as the one you made a moment ago:

supersexyy wrote:Well there's a reason why drahque is bot 5 in lihl. Not much more to it.

I really find this offensive and personal .. Who are you to judge me like that?

Seriously, here I'm trying to suggest things to make the community a better place, and you, A MODERATOR, is bullying me for doing so? Wow. Just wow... !

Well it is a fact that you're a solid !bot player.

- Excuse me if I wen't on a sidetrack, or however that saying is on English. ^^,

Please go and open your own thread Drah..

Iznogood wrote:Well it is a fact that you're a solid !bot player.

What do that have to do with this case? This is a TOPIC about TRIAL PERIOD, not a topic about bottom players.

Also, he went as far as judging the reasoning's for me being there, saying that I'm a bad player just because I've been testing out new builds in public games. What the fuck?

Iznogood wrote:Please go and open your own thread Drah..

I was actually trying to help you're idea. But instead a moderator, decides to bully me for trying to SUPPORT/HELP you're idea? But okay, if you want me to open a "bully Drahque" topic, I'll do so.

Drahque wrote:Excuse me if I wen't on a sidetrack, or however that saying is on English. ^^,

You were the one starting going on a sidetrack.

Drahque wrote:Also, he went as far as judging the reasoning's for me being there, saying that I'm a bad player just because I've been testing out new builds in public games. What the fuck?

Please open your own thread for your complaints. Thx

I agree with Drahque that Supersexyy's and Iznogood's 2nd post are needless, if not offensive. I want to reply to this properly, and also to Drahque's response, because it does make sense to me, but since I am too tired now I will do that tomorrow.

Just wanted to state here there is no need for stating how useless someone's comment is, or what ranking he is.

Drahque wrote:Sounds like a decent idea, the only problem is, we'd have to determine how/when a person has proven worthy to grant membership.

What do you think the vouch system is?

Drahque wrote:This could end up like a Driver's License, that you'd have to be checked once in a while. I mean, do we really want such a difficult system? At least, I Don't think the moderators like to be this 'objective' or at least as little subjective as possible. As we discussed in following topic:
- viewtopic.php?f=83&t=12752&start=10

[spoiler=Some noteworthy examples from the topic]

MickeyTheMousie wrote:If we only unvouch on the basis of the mods judgment this will lead to more subjectivity.

Diablo_ wrote:I still think deciding on a case to case basis would be best. Yes it includes subjectivity, but I believe our team of mods would be mature enough to make fair decisions. Also note that vouches and reports also looked at case by case, including quite a lot of subjectivity, so I don't think it would be a problem if unvouching would be handled the same way.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:For example, if we solely let the mods decide we have to wake for the moderators inactivity, wrong judgments, feelings of subjectivity, favouring, judgment on basis of not all games. I honestly cannot be 100% sure that everytime I judge someone to be not fit for the league, that he really is not. I don't want people to be subject to the judgments of some people who happen to be mod, but to objective criteria.

[/spoiler]

Another way to implement such a system to ensure that the current vouched players in Lihl is worthy to be in the League, is to use the suggestion that I came up with (in the topic above). It would at least avoid that moderators having to be as subjective:

Code: Select all

If anyone disobey 2 or more of following 3 things, they can/will be unvouched:
A) Must have at least 30 games played if you've been vouched for over a month.
B) Must have a win chance of above 45  % win chance/ratio.
C) Must not be in the bottom 10 of the League.

Excuse me if I wen't on a sidetrack, or however that saying is on English. ^^,

Completely irrelevant. The suggestion is targeted at providing a transition between pub and LIHL.

Whether players stay in the league once already vouched and accepted is a different topic.

Iznogood wrote:

Drahque wrote:Excuse me if I wen't on a sidetrack, or however that saying is on English. ^^,

You were the one starting going on a sidetrack.
So please open your own thread for your complaints. Thx

It wasn't a sidetrack, it was an example to keep in mind, when implementing your idea.

Everytime we implement something new, we should take previous experience with us, and in this case, I thought it would be an idea to do something similar by making sure it wouldn't force moderators to be subjective. I were actually supporting moderators decision in not being subjective, and giving an example of how to objective instead. So that we could use the system, for the same purpose. Let me give an example:



Turn above into following:

In order for a trial to be accepted as a member, he have 'obey' following things:
A) At least have played X games ...
B) Haven't DC'ed more than Y games ...
C) Haven't misshealed more than Z times ...
D) Show interest in the League ...

Bla bla bla, I hope you understand my point now. All I was trying to do, was using history to get the best out of the future. But if that's how you thank someone for trying to help you with your suggestion, by bullying him, I don't really feel like trying anymore. Sorry for sharing my ideas, and sorry to Supersexxy for not thinking exactly as him. Excuse me for not being neurotypical.

I wasn't suggesting creating a driver's license or unvouching 85-100 players.
If Drah likes this idea.. he should go open a thread instead of spamming mine with sidetracks

Drah - I did in fact open a thread regarding "Trial period for new players"

not a thread concerning the players already vouched

If you want to make your own suggestion make your own thread, stop derailing threads.

For the record I can see both the positives and negatives of this suggestion.

Positives:
1. New players may concentrate more/play more games to properly be accepted in the league
2. Gives moderators a clear time frame to see if they do not make the cut
3. May give more lee-way with new players

Negatives:
1. Often takes at least a few weeks to get used to the gameplay of the league
2. Good players may face a bad run, bad players may face a good run

Iznogood wrote:I wasn't suggesting creating a driver's license or unvouching 85-100 players.
If Drah likes this idea.. he should go open a thread instead of spamming mine with sidetracks

I was only using a driver's license as a metaphor to understand, that if we should judge that a person is ready for a league, shouldn't we do it more than once then? Like, just because a person can drive a car today, it doesn't mean he can tomorrow. The same goes for gaming, the more a player stays away, the more rusty he become. So what I really meant was, that if your idea is to ensure "focus quality over quantity", then we'd have to implement something more consistent. That's really all I was trying to say. The idea of my metaphor was only to make it easier to understand the concept, but I can see it really just confused you instead. Another time, just ask me what I means by it, instead of jumping to your own conclusions.

supersexyy wrote:If you want to make your own suggestion make your own thread, stop derailing threads.

I'm not derailing the thread, I was ON topic, and actually spend quite a bit time thinking about this idea. But then a problem popped up in my head, that Mickey earlier mentioned that moderators doesn't like to be subjective. So therefore, I shared an idea on how to avoid this becoming subjective. And in this meaning, that it's subjective for a moderator to tell when a player "has proven their worth before they're granted membership".

supersexyy wrote:
Negatives:
1. Often takes at least a few weeks to get used to the gameplay of the league
2. Good players may face a bad run, bad players may face a good run

Well I would hope the mods would spend some time checking out their performance in game/replays
looking at their individual skills and not their teams/elo only

Iznogood wrote:Drah - I did in fact open a thread regarding "Trial period for new players"

not a thread concerning the players already vouched

@Drahque I'll refrain from deleting all off topic posts. Keep it on topic from now on.

Iznogood wrote:Well I would hope the mods would spend some time checking out their performance in game/replays
looking at their individual skills and not their teams/elo only

If I saw your game massing defilers and clockwerks I would have unvouched you if you were in the Trial Period.
The dilemma is that it takes a good 20-30 games to see a player's real skill. And after those 20-30 games they have often increased in skill out of unvouch range.