Thoughts on the substitute system?

Dantski · Post by **Dantski** » 14 Apr 2013, 21:46

What do people think about it? What matches were affected by it? Should it even exist or maybe just altered in the future?

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 14 Apr 2013, 21:55

The ratings system needs to be far better, team zak was the only one not to abuse the SYSTEM

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 14 Apr 2013, 22:10

For MWC there should be no sub system because it ruins the whole idea of a competition. For a tournament like this it is more about participation and activity than actual results so a sub system is good; however, my superior ratings should have been used and it would probably would have been best to only let people sub who are not on teams or who have been eliminated from the tournament.

wwo · Post by **wwo** » 15 Apr 2013, 01:29

First, subs shouldn't be used if you've got at least 6 team members present. Showing up with 3 and then using 4 subs is ridiculous. Subs should never make up more than ~ a third of the roster.

Only 5's and below should sub. If you waste an early round pick on someone who can't or won't show, you're essentially getting a high-pick slot instead of a high-pick player. If that's the case, then don't make teams and just formalize the kickball games that were happening anyway.

drunken_deer · Post by **drunken_deer** » 15 Apr 2013, 03:19

Asmo wrote:For MWC there should be no sub system because it ruins the whole idea of a competition. For a tournament like this it is more about participation and activity than actual results so a sub system is good; however, my superior ratings should have been used and it would probably would have been best to only let people sub who are not on teams or who have been eliminated from the tournament.

Its an insult that you have a superior rating, you are perhaps more over-rated than cruniac. At least cruniac is a stupid arrogant cunt who knows how to play myth.

Subs should have restrictions anyway. You shouldn't be able to add subs with a ranking over 5-6 for example. So I guess asmo will get to sub after all still. There should be less reward for failure of team mates to show up and draft players like GKG or Tirri and join the bandwagon.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 15 Apr 2013, 06:03

Sorry for unleashing your rage Drunken. I do apologize for destroying you on barrens thus leading to your benching on 'If I had a Trow' where I continued to dominate your team.

TROW BELT!

drunken_deer · Post by **drunken_deer** » 15 Apr 2013, 07:52

Asmo wrote:Sorry for unleashing your rage Drunken. I do apologize for destroying you on barrens thus leading to your benching on 'If I had a Trow' where I continued to dominate your team.

TROW BELT!

dude id destroy you any day, name a time on Sundays myth time and ill kick your ass.

edit; just for the record I was benched by zak because Vantobia did not play the game before and zaks reliance on tirri/homer. shame that your team got destroyed as well a fact you trying to hide. if it takes subs to beat our team then so be it. Really not that bitter at all about the games if anything im more pissed off at zak (matchwise) for not giving more units to Sasper, Vantobia and myself in all the games we played. As proven in game 5. Teams were still even so dont give me that bull about it doesnt count as crun and yourself were not there unless your inciting that Dant, milkman and browning are shit players.

so you killed my sole warlock in a Venice battle, big deal i had less units than every other player on both teams other than Sasper. Ironically a match that we won as well.

Aki · Post by **Aki** » 15 Apr 2013, 18:16

This sub system is bad since it relies on TO's subjective ratings. A better sub system would be to just allow any two subs irrespective of ball ratings (this is how MWC12 was done, right?).

I suggested this for MWC10:

Double roster limits and allow people to register on two teams.

If you are on two teams that play each other, you can only play for one team (predetermined at the start of the tournament).

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 15 Apr 2013, 18:19

Sub system for mwc is a bad idea as I said before, but your sugestion about allowing people to register on two teams is just awful aki. That is something that if implemented would honestly stop me from participating in mwc.

Honkey · Post by **Honkey** » 15 Apr 2013, 18:29

Pretty sure the sub/ draft system will need to be kept in all future tournaments. It's is going to be challenging to have enough players etc to run a tournament the old way. maybe I am wrong but that is just how I see it. However Mwc might be better of with let's say 4 man squads that draft out the rest of the team. Kind of a hybrid draft/ roster scenario. I just don't see it being very likely that even 8 teams form the old way.

Dantski · Post by **Dantski** » 15 Apr 2013, 20:54

My take on sub system is that given the number if people that signup and then don't show or barely show, we need to either have.

1. A sub system to stop games being massively lopsided and unfun for all (see previous winter tourney).

or

2. Keep roster sizes at 12 or more. A lot of people have called for smaller roster sizes and while in theory it makes sense and should get more teams, people like to play with their friends and people they know. A team like deer might have more than 9 people and restricting roster size will mean some active players won't end up playing. I think a big part of the use of subs this tourney has been because we only drafted 7 players for an 8 man roster. Now you could say "well you shoulda drafted active people numbnuts!", well how the hell do you know if people will be active in a weeks time? Also its not like in the last round of a draft you have a lot of choice on who you get.

Its mainly a problem of a shrinking community, and that will never be fixed sadly.

browning · Post by **browning** » 15 Apr 2013, 21:11

concerning the methodology of the system, not its reason for being:

averaging the scores (rounded to the closest integer) from 3 different raters would be an easy improvement over the current system

i think most of the dissension stems from players disagreeing on a sub's rating, but it was never about the highest rated players because people generally agree with their rating and see them as interchangeable

if the ratings were accurate in the mid to low range, players sharing any rating would also be seen as interchangeable, and the major point of contention would be resolved. with a 10 point system i don't think there should be great variance in skill among players sharing an accurate rating

oh, and lulz were had http://thegjol.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=242

par73 · Post by **par73** » 16 Apr 2013, 00:21

browning wrote:concerning the methodology of the system, not its reason for being:

averaging the scores (rounded to the closest integer) from 3 different raters would be an easy improvement over the current system

i think most of the dissension stems from players disagreeing on a sub's rating, but it was never about the highest rated players because people generally agree with their rating and see them as interchangeable

if the ratings were accurate in the mid to low range, players sharing any rating would also be seen as interchangeable, and the major point of contention would be resolved. with a 10 point system i don't think there should be great variance in skill among players sharing an accurate rating

oh, and lulz were had http://thegjol.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=242

Browning said everything I was going to say, but better.

Vantobia · Post by **Vantobia** » 17 Apr 2013, 01:33

It has prob been said already but anyhoo - I dont think players higher than something like a 5 or 6 rating should be able to sub for other teams. If you lose a player with a rating higher than this well thats too bad (after all you did decide to choose/draft them) and you should be disadvantaged for it. By all means make up the numbers so the games are balanced player wise, but do it with mid to lower rated players.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 17 Apr 2013, 01:35

Most of the substitution abuse happened at ranks 5-7 in my opinion. Players that were over-ranked were getting subbed by players that were under-ranked, drastically improving the skill level of some teams.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 18 Apr 2013, 13:13

I agree a lot with what Browning said. I think to get an accurate Player ranking we should go to a 1-10 system and have 3 people doing the rankings like he said. I think a good method to pick the people that will do the rankings would be to let the active community vote on and pick 3 of the most active and trusted to know and give accurate rankings Players. Do this by making up a list of 10-15 active Players let everyone vote whoever the top 3 people are they become the ranking committee. They could each post their individual rankings for each Player and then give people a week or so to comment on the rankings of any Players that didnt have a majority of the ranking committees agreement on. Example if a Player gets 3 different ranks from the ranking committee the rest of the community can give their opinion of which ranking is most accurate whichever rank gets the majority thats the rank. I dont think that this will be necessary for too many ranks though. Most Players will probably get the same rank from at least to of the ranking committee.

I think there should be no subs. Let each team have a roster of up to 10 Players. I think that is generous, personally I think it should be 8 Players per team. Part of picking a team should be reliability of the people on your team. Otherwise a team could pick a bunch of high ranked Players even if they are inactive to do as WWO "high-pick slot instead of a high-pick player". This really becomes a factor if there isnt a salary cap.

As I think about it. If there isnt a sub system or a salary cap there really isnt a need for rankings. Other than just for the hell of it.

Really though I think what would result in the most competitive and largest participation MWC would be to have a salary cap and no subs. More competitive because all the teams would be basically equal in overall Player rankings. No subs and salary cap means that when building a team a Captain would have to decide if they want to have fewer high ranked Players where reliability become a greater factor since they would already have a smaller roster to begin with. Or more Players of mid/low ranks to better assure that they have a enough Players at each match. With teams being more equal as far as total Player rankings go (salary cap) there would most likely be more people participating. Since there wouldnt be the Uber stacked teams with 10 Players all ranked above 8, any team would have a fair shot at winning. People wouldnt be as discourage from participating as they would be when there are a few stacked teams they know they have no chance against. Also there is a better chance that the top Players would be spread out over more teams. Otherwise with no salary cap and a large roster limit it ends up being all of the top Players concentrated in like 4 teams. With all of the rest of the teams having basically only mid/low ranked Players. When people know it is going to be like that a lot of the mid/low ranked Players dont bother participating. The majority of the Myth community is mid/low ranked Players so a large portion of the community is discouraged from participating.

I guess it comes down to what matters most. A large participation rate of the community or less participation with a relative few Players being able to make dream teams.

drunken_deer · Post by **drunken_deer** » 18 Apr 2013, 13:26

SamTheButcher wrote:I agree a lot with what Browning said. I think to get an accurate Player ranking we should go to a 1-10 system and have 3 people doing the rankings like he said. I think a good method to pick the people that will do the rankings would be to let the active community vote on and pick 3 of the most active and trusted to know and give accurate rankings Players. Do this by making up a list of 10-15 active Players let everyone vote whoever the top 3 people are they become the ranking committee. They could each post their individual rankings for each Player and then give people a week or so to comment on the rankings of any Players that didnt have a majority of the ranking committees agreement on. Example if a Player gets 3 different ranks from the ranking committee the rest of the community can give their opinion of which ranking is most accurate whichever rank gets the majority thats the rank. I dont think that this will be necessary for too many ranks though. Most Players will probably get the same rank from at least to of the ranking committee.

I think there should be no subs. Let each team have a roster of up to 10 Players. I think that is generous, personally I think it should be 8 Players per team. Part of picking a team should be reliability of the people on your team. Otherwise a team could pick a bunch of high ranked Players even if they are inactive to do as WWO "high-pick slot instead of a high-pick player". This really becomes a factor if there isnt a salary cap.

As I think about it. If there isnt a sub system or a salary cap there really isnt a need for rankings. Other than just for the hell of it.

Really though I think what would result in the most competitive and largest participation MWC would be to have a salary cap and no subs. More competitive because all the teams would be basically equal in overall Player rankings. No subs and salary cap means that when building a team a Captain would have to decide if they want to have fewer high ranked Players where reliability become a greater factor since they would already have a smaller roster to begin with. Or more Players of mid/low ranks to better assure that they have a enough Players at each match. With teams being more equal as far as total Player rankings go (salary cap) there would most likely be more people participating. Since there wouldnt be the Uber stacked teams with 10 Players all ranked above 8, any team would have a fair shot at winning. People wouldnt be as discourage from participating as they would be when there are a few stacked teams they know they have no chance against. Also there is a better chance that the top Players would be spread out over more teams. Otherwise with no salary cap and a large roster limit it ends up being all of the top Players concentrated in like 4 teams. With all of the rest of the teams having basically only mid/low ranked Players. When people know it is going to be like that a lot of the mid/low ranked Players dont bother participating. The majority of the Myth community is mid/low ranked Players so a large portion of the community is discouraged from participating.

I guess it comes down to what matters most. A large participation rate of the community or less participation with a relative few Players being able to make dream teams.

Well its easy to pick who gets to vote. Pick the Winning captain of last Draft tourney (ratking), The winning cap of this draft tourney and lets just say Paris since he is the one who has been in charge of the ratings so far. You could always say that Ratking gets replaced by next years winning captain of the draft tourney so the three rating people are consistently active or reliable.

This would also be a very very good incentive to keep this draft tournament as a important prelude to myth world cup as it would enable captains from this tourney to be the ones rating and preparing for mwc.

If the Salary cap was implemented it would have to be lets say 1-5 points (or balls) (30 myth credits each) so your roster can be filled with a max of 10, 3 ball players. However the cap would have to adjust according to myth tourney population but this would be a perfect neutral number to start off with as if you go all guns blazing with heavy hitters the maximum player is 6, 5 ball players.

I really think this should be stickied cause I am amazed of how brilliant I worked it all out for a fair salary cap system but its probably already been done by someone else lol.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 18 Apr 2013, 14:10

Drunken I think your idea for choosing the ranking committee is a good one since those are all very active Players that have a good idea of Player rankings. I think though rankings should be 1-10 to get more accurate rankings. I think 48 points on a 1-10 scale would be a good amount to have a better chance at having more teams. The higher the number there would be less teams but bigger rosters. 48 points lets a team have 8 ranked 6 Players (a full team of above average Players) 8 Players 6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6. Other examples would be. 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7-----9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3. I think that would make every team fairly even. So that if a team did have mostly heavy hitters 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7 it would be balanced out by them having less Players in a match example vs 8 Players 6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6. If all Players showed up. Since though people do miss matches it may be beneficial to have a larger team with lower ranked Players like 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3. To have a better chance at more Players making a match. If as is common some Players from each team cant make a match you could have a match up like this (2 Players from each team that are no shows) 4 Players 10,8,7,7, vs 7 Players 8,7,6,5,5,4,3. Which would probably be a pretty even match up. I think this would help the overall participation rate. Since every team would have a pretty fair shot of winning any given match as long as the team put in the effort.

This is all based on if we want a higher participation rate for MWC.

Edit: A team should be able to field up to the maximum 48 point limit for each match. Not being limited to 8 Players per team. That would create a better balance for match ups like this: 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7,VS 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3. If all Players showed up to a match.

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 18 Apr 2013, 17:16

SamTheButcher wrote: I think there should be no subs. Let each team have a roster of up to 10 Players. I think that is generous, personally I think it should be 8 Players per team. Part of picking a team should be reliability of the people on your team. Otherwise a team could pick a bunch of high ranked Players even if they are inactive to do as WWO "high-pick slot instead of a high-pick player". This really becomes a factor if there isnt a salary cap.

Agreed with this. High level subs end up just turning tournaments into semi-organized rabble games. In TWS I believe there are still players who signed up but never showed up to a single game, so teams end up basically just drafting for each match from the lobby/forums... pretty silly.

Definitely think that reliability should be a factor in choosing teams, and if your players don't show up, sucks for you. Note that in this system though the TO has to make the fallback times really clear up front so that players can determine if they are likely to be able to make matches before signing up.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 18 Apr 2013, 18:26

how did this change from a substitute thread into a mwc-salary cap thread lol.

You say that this salary cap system would encourage participation but in reality it would just discourage people from adding players that are not super active and reliable thus leading to less participation or these people forming up forfeit teams.

I also have several other problems with the proposed salary cap ideas in this thread but i'll leave those for later.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 18 Apr 2013, 18:51

Asmo wrote:how did this change from a substitute thread into a mwc-salary cap thread lol.

You say that this salary cap system would encourage participation but in reality it would just discourage people from adding players that are not super active and reliable thus leading to less participation or these people forming up forfeit teams.

I also have several other problems with the proposed salary cap ideas in this thread but i'll leave those for later.

Asmo you basically gave the argument or reason against your statement yourself. If Players are so inactive and unreliable as to no one wanting them on their team then its no lose to the total number of participation anyway. And doing it at the exclusion of ACTIVE mid/lower ranked Players that see no point in participating when there are 3-4 majorly stacked teams that they know they dont have a chance against.

It would have to be part of team recruitment. If there is a returning Player or a normally inactive Player they would just have to assure their team that they would be reliable and then keep their word. Why would a team want to recruit an unreliable and inactive Player anyway? Other than to be able to use their high rank for better active subs. Which is really just gaming the system.

Edit: Maybe each team could be allowed 3 subs total for the whole tourney. That way there would be some sort of back up in case a Player just cant make it but few enough that it wouldnt be abused. A team would have to decide when the right times to use a sub would be.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 18 Apr 2013, 20:54

I would take and inactive player over some scrub any day and I have made several teams in the past off of these type of players that ended up doing fairly well(mwc05,06,2011). People DO want these players on their team and there is a reason you see old vets only coming back during the MWC time; however, they would not be wanted under the system that you are describing that forces small active rosters and excludes any player that can't make it to almost all the matches.

Other than to be able to use their high rank for better active subs. Which is really just gaming the system.

I don't know what recruiting and inactive player has to do with subbing, a sub system has been very new to myth and I don't see it being needed in a tournament like Myth world cup. It only created more problems than it did good last year.

The salary cap system you are proposing would exclude players like: hmp,mark,ol'dirtae,Crc,qwerty,truth,stormrider,akira,thalander,blonde,chron,jotun,cheezefist,captain,ludde,appy,
fire,zaramis,nitro,trixta,xel and probably several others.

Now tell me what players we will participate in the tournament at the exspense of these players?

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 18 Apr 2013, 21:27

Asmo wrote: The salary cap system you are proposing would exclude players like: hmp,mark,ol'dirtae,Crc,qwerty,truth,stormrider,akira,thalander,blonde,chron,jotun,cheezefist,captain,ludde,appy,
fire,zaramis,nitro,trixta,xel and probably several others.

Now tell me what players we will participate in the tournament at the exspense of these players?

Have these players said they would not play in a salary cap MWC, or that they would refuse to team with new people if their usual team didn't form?

Do you have any guarantee they will play in MWC if there is no salary cap implemented?

Are you still pulling shit out of your ass?

Ratking · Post by **Ratking** » 18 Apr 2013, 21:31

I think the system has its uses and is good in general. That said, it's worth looking into improving it

Ratking · Post by **Ratking** » 18 Apr 2013, 21:35

The salary cap system will not help mwc.

Penlord · Post by **Penlord** » 18 Apr 2013, 22:32

NOTICE THERE IS NO NEED TO READ BELOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE EVERYTHING SHORTENED, SKIP BEYOND "END NOTICE" FOR CONCISION
Subs would be a better system than the recommended "generous amount of players per team" for the same reason that the sub-system was created. That is, to circumvent the problems browning and others discussed.

In reality, nothing further need be changed or abolished. I hold that this tournament is functioning smoothly and that the best option from here forward would be to make additional rules regarding subs, that is, to make them feel more exclusive. I'm not positive if subs have these rules already or not, but it would seem ridiculously silly in my opinion that a sub plays against, let's say, team Ratking in one round then after that round is up, one of Ratking's players signs off and that same sub plays FOR team Ratking.

Reason being is that you never know who is actually a prick and would purposefully not play seriously just to bring down someone they don't like. This is clearly not the most serious concern for the myth community because people who do such things are generally kept from any official participation, but, it is still an example of some additional politics which may be added to perfect the system as it progresses.

Generally what is being done already is best -- discussion. Follow that with practice and editing as you go along to make sure this system is one which fits the current Myth community.
END NOTICE
Summary:

gj every1

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 18 Apr 2013, 23:03

thisforumsucks wrote:
Asmo wrote: The salary cap system you are proposing would exclude players like: hmp,mark,ol'dirtae,Crc,qwerty,truth,stormrider,akira,thalander,blonde,chron,jotun,cheezefist,captain,ludde,appy,
fire,zaramis,nitro,trixta,xel and probably several others.

Now tell me what players we will participate in the tournament at the exspense of these players?
Have these players said they would not play in a salary cap MWC, or that they would refuse to team with new people if their usual team didn't form?

Do you have any guarantee they will play in MWC if there is no salary cap implemented?

Are you still pulling shit out of your ass?

It doesn't have to do with if they would or would not play in a salary cap MWC, it has to do with most of these type of players only ever signed up because someone else pressures them into doing so. What team captain is going to pressure an inactive player into signing up on your team when you only have a certain # of points for your roster and a limited # of player slots?

Of course I have no guarantee, but these are all players who have played in mwc recently and I would have to say most of them were signed up because of a team captain that has known them for a long time and was able to talk them into signing up knowing that they can't make a complete commitment.

Pulling this out of my ass? I have made more mwc teams with a wider variety of players than almost anyone left on myth other than maybe one handful of players. Go ahead and knock yourself out and add this salary cap. Just don't come bitching and crying when teams are forfeiting each week in a 8 team tournament.

Edit: SamButcher you speak of all these "players" who refuse to sign up because the top two teams are stacked yet you can't name these players that would actually sign up if mwc were salary cap based. Seems to me it's just wishful thinking for you.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 18 Apr 2013, 23:22

Asmo wrote: It doesn't have to do with if they would or would not play in a salary cap MWC, it has to do with most of these type of players only ever signed up because someone else pressures them into doing so. What team captain is going to pressure an inactive player into signing up on your team when you only have a certain # of points for your roster and a limited # of player slots?

A team captain that realizes all the active players have been snatched up by people with care, will realize he has to supplement his roster with inactive players. Inactive players are a gamble but it can pay off. The last 2 NP formations were riddled with inactive players, and you never knew if you'd have more than 4 people in your match. That didn't stop them from taking 2nd and 3rd place, when the teams placing above them were full of active players.

Not to mention the recent 3rd place Zak's Kids got in TWS, with the least active roster in the tournament.

Asmo wrote:Of course I have no guarantee,

But you talk like you do.

Asmo wrote: but these are all players who have played in mwc recently

So its likely that several of them will play again this year.

Asmo wrote: and I would have to say most of them were signed up because of a team captain that has known them for a long time and was able to talk them into signing up knowing that they can't make a complete commitment.

Really? Did you talk to each one of these players and ask them the reason they played in MWC the last couple of years? The majority of them told you that they had be to dragged out of retirement by their captain?

Asmo wrote:Pulling this out of my ass? I have made more mwc teams with a wider variety of players than almost anyone left on myth other than maybe one handful of players.

One handful of players is quite a few captains considering the activity level of myth.

Asmo wrote: Go ahead and knock yourself out and add this salary cap. Just don't come bitching and crying when teams are forfeiting each week in a 8 team tournament.

There will always be teams available for those who want to play. None of those players are going to have to join team DEER to get on a team. They might have to accept they won't be on a top 5 team, if a salary cap is enforced. If that is enough to make them not play in MWC, its their loss.

If anything, we will have more team captains trying to get a hold of good players, so they can fill out their roster, because we'll have more competitive teams being formed. Nobody on the top 3 teams last mwc cared if their inactive players showed up, because they already had 7 people showing per match.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 18 Apr 2013, 23:52

A team captain that realizes all the active players have been snatched up by people with care, will realize he has to supplement his roster with inactive players. Inactive players are a gamble but it can pay off. The last 2 NP formations were riddled with inactive players, and you never knew if you'd have more than 4 people in your match. That didn't stop them from taking 2nd and 3rd place, when the teams placing above them were full of active players.

Not to mention the recent 3rd place Zak's Kids got in TWS, with the least active roster in the tournament.

It can work in a normal MWC format, like the examples I gave of the teams I formed in 05/06/11

You are kidding youself if you think your team was inactive in any form. I have seen every player on your roster on myth 2 several times before an after this TWS tournament.

But you talk like you do.

Because I have had experience in creating teams of inactive players.

Really? Did you talk to each one of these players and ask them the reason they played in MWC the last couple of years? The majority of them told you that they had be to dragged out of retirement by their captain?

Each one? No. A majority, Yes.

One handful of players is quite a few captains considering the activity level of myth.

Grim,NC,Tcox 3 not many.

Anyways done with the thread, no point in arguing with someone who isn't making the decisions for the tournament. Grim is going to do what he is going to do regardless.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 01:07

Asmo wrote:I would take and inactive player over some scrub any day and I have made several teams in the past off of these type of players that ended up doing fairly well(mwc05,06,2011). People DO want these players on their team and there is a reason you see old vets only coming back during the MWC time; however, they would not be wanted under the system that you are describing that forces small active rosters and excluded any player that can't make it to almost all the matches.

Other than to be able to use their high rank for better active subs. Which is really just gaming the system.
I don't know what recruiting and inactive player has to do with subbing, a sub system has been very new to myth and I don't see it being needed in a tournament like Myth world cup. It only created more problems than it did good last year.

The salary cap system you are proposing would exclude players like: hmp,mark,ol'dirtae,Crc,qwerty,truth,stormrider,akira,thalander,blonde,chron,jotun,cheezefist,captain,ludde,appy,
fire,zaramis,nitro,trixta,xel and probably several others.

Now tell me what players we will participate in the tournament at the exspense of these players?

Asmo you are kind of confusing me. First you say you would take an inactive Player over a scrub any day. So you would prefer a higher ranked but less reliable inactive Player over a lower ranked more reliable active Player (or even 2 Players depending on their ranks). And you say people do want these these inactive Players on their team but they wouldnt be wanted in a salary cap system because they wouldnt necessarily be able to make it to many matches. Ok then you say you dont think their should be subs. How does that work? If there are inactive and you cant have subs for them what happens when they dont show up to a match? Your team is short Players. Doesnt that alone make those inactive Players less desirable? It has nothing to do with a salary cap. That would be more of an issue from there being no subs which you agree their shouldnt be.

The other alternative without subs and without a salary cap is to let teams have as many Players as they want. So there could be a team of 12 or 20 Players half or more inactive so that way at any given match you have a nearly full roster? Is that what you are saying? How is that going to help produce more teams and participation? Especially when you have a limited number of Players.

Also you are saying that some captains drag inactive Players out of retirement to put them on their teams but, these same Players aren't reliable or active enough to count on. So if these Players are only going to play a couple matches anyway whats the point? If these Players are going to play more then there isnt an issue anyway.

Go ahead and knock yourself out and add this salary cap. Just don't come bitching and crying when teams are forfeiting each week in a 8 team tournament.

Why would teams be forfeiting under a salary cap and no subs system? It would actually be less likely to happen. Here is why. First of all when building a team, Player reliability would be a big factor. So most teams would already have reliable Players who would be likely to make it to matches. So forfeitures from unreliable Players not making matches is less likely to happen. Second since all of the teams would be generally even on a points scale and have a fair chance of winning a given match (if they put in the effort). Examples:6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7-VS-9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 Or 4 Players 10,8,7,7, vs 7 Players 8,7,6,5,5,4,3 if some Players from each team dont show. Pretty fair match ups. So teams forfeiting because they know they dont have a chance of winning a match is less likely to happen.

I dont know many of the people you mentioned would be excluded under a salary cap system but why would they be excluded? Only reason I could see is that no one really expects them to play much anyway. So whats the lose? Just being able to say they are on your team or having them for 1 match or 2? Or like I said so you can have a 20 Player team and hope that 8 show for any given match? Isnt that pretty much just a rabble team then? But if those Players were asked to come back and knew about the salary cap and no subs system and therefore knew they would need to be reliable and that they were being counted on. With it being more important for them to make it to matches maybe they would make it to more.

If subs are used then teams could basically just get some inactive but high ranked Players to sign up and not even make any matches. Basically just reserving the team a bunch of high ranked sub slots. There is no competition in that.

A system like this would spread out the higher ranked Players over more teams. So instead of having 12 Players ranked 7+ on one team. Those same Players could be spread out over 4+ teams mixed with a few mid/low ranked Players. Thats going to create more teams, more evenly matched teams, therefore better competition and a better MWC.

Also last year there were only 10 teams. And basically 5 or less were even considered to have a chance at winning. So in reality if was basically a 5 team tourney. With a salary cap and no subs there could easily be 20 teams and any one of those teams having a fair shot at winning. It would some down to how much effort any of those teams put into winning. I think 20 evenly matched teams would make for a better MWC than 10 totally uneven teams with only 5 even having a chance at winning and 2-3 of those teams heavy favorites.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 01:25

About Players not participating because they know they have no chance of winning when they see some totally stacked teams full of high ranked Players. Why do yo think a lot 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 tournies dont get a whole lot of Players? Because a lot of Players know from the start they dont have a chance at winning. Like the last 1v1 tourny most people knew it was going to be 1 of maybe 5-6 Players that would win. Pretty much it was just some of the very active Players with most of them just Playing for the hell of it. Plus the fact that they didnt have to put much effort into being in the tourny not like the amount of effort that goes into building an MWC team. Then when you add in the fact that you know your team cant win all of that effort becomes pointless. So people dont participate.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 19 Apr 2013, 02:27

Asmo you are kind of confusing me. First you say you would take an inactive Player over a scrub any day. So you would prefer a higher ranked but less reliable inactive Player over a lower ranked more reliable active Player (or even 2 Players depending on their ranks). And you say people do want these these inactive Players on their team but they wouldnt be wanted in a salary cap system because they wouldnt necessarily be able to make it to many matches. Ok then you say you dont think their should be subs. How does that work?

Simple, a roster size is more than seven players. If you have a 10 person roster and you know about 5 can show each week then you can take risk on the other 5 slots because a chance that 1 or 2 of those given inactive players are going to show is pretty high and six people is plenty to play well and use strats.

regarding the rest of the paragraph I'm pretty sure most of those people that are less active don't show because of a busy irl schedule, not simply because they don't want to show.

Also you are saying that some captains drag inactive Players out of retirement to put them on their teams but, these same Players aren't reliable or active enough to count on. So if these Players are only going to play a couple matches anyway whats the point?

because if you have several of these players than with their powers combined they create captain planet. translation = I rather have 1 of 3 of inactive players show every week and take up more roster spots than have 1 active player that I would not trust with units.

I dont know many of the people you mentioned would be excluded under a salary cap system but why would they be excluded? Only reason I could see is that no one really expects them to play much anyway

In normal mwc format they could be a good addition if they show and if they don't o well you have another player in their place.

In the salary cap format if you use points on a high rated inactive player and they don't show then you are screwed. So why would a captain that wants to win the tournament take that risk?

20 with the salary cap? by all means go for it, but I HIGHLY doubt you are going to get 20 teams, where are all these new players going to come from? The few extra players that aren't on the top two teams isn't going to equal 10 extra teams.

I just completely disagree with you and zak. This salary cap is not going to make the participation in Mwc any higher. The way to increase participation and the # of teams is by more active players stepping up and leading teams and then going out there and grabbing older players and/or newer players that would have not participated in mwc without someone encouraging them to do so.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 03:07

I dont think there is much more I could add except when you say there are Players you wouldnt trust with units so just wouldnt put them on your team. But if it is about having a few lower ranked Players ranked 5 or less there are two things to remember. 1) You dont have to pick them. Have a smaller roster with higher ranked reliable Players. 2) Even if you did choose to have some lower ranked Players to have a larger roster size. The other teams will be making the same choices so you wouldnt be at a disadvantage by having the lower ranked Players on your team.

Teams would be more like this Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7-VS-Team B) 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 (like I said before let a team use all of their Players in a match) so even though team B has some lower ranked Players. They have 3 extra Players to even it out. You could decide what sort of combination would work best for your team. So lower ranked Players arent a disadvantage to a team as they would be without a points cap. Where a full team of 7's-10's is VS a team with some 4's or 5's. 8v8 where the 4's and 5's become a major disadvantage.

drunken_deer · Post by **drunken_deer** » 19 Apr 2013, 12:47

SamTheButcher wrote:I dont think there is much more I could add except when you say there are Players you wouldnt trust with units so just wouldnt put them on your team. But if it is about having a few lower ranked Players ranked 5 or less there are two things to remember. 1) You dont have to pick them. Have a smaller roster with higher ranked reliable Players. 2) Even if you did choose to have some lower ranked Players to have a larger roster size. The other teams will be making the same choices so you wouldnt be at a disadvantage by having the lower ranked Players on your team.

Teams would be more like this Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7-VS-Team B) 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 (like I said before let a team use all of their Players in a match) so even though team B has some lower ranked Players. They have 3 extra Players to even it out. You could decide what sort of combination would work best for your team. So lower ranked Players arent a disadvantage to a team as they would be without a points cap. Where a full team of 7's-10's is VS a team with some 4's or 5's. 8v8 where the 4's and 5's become a major disadvantage.

if you go way back to my previous post. You should really make the salary around a 5 point margin (5 balls) it is entirely un-neccecary to have a larger 1-10 scale since it will just create a lot of un-used funds ect. This is why I said that 30 points per team. MWC is rated by the balls you got (pun intended

) not by points as well. It would also mean a larger chunk of the community ends up on the 3 ball area and about 9 players around the 4-5 ball mark if done properly by the 3 raters.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 15:03

Drunken it could be done that way but there wont be as precise ratings. What is a 3 baller on a 10 point scale? How would it convert?
9-10 = 5 Balls
7-8 = 4 Balls
5-6 = 3 Balls
3-4 = 2 Balls
1-2 = 1 Ball
?

30 Points I think would be too high. Team A could be 5,5,4,4,4,4,4 That is 7 Players and on a 10 point scale that team could be 10,10,8,8,8,8,8. If another team B has more Players but lower ranks 4,4,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,2. Which on a 10 point scale that could be 7,7,5,5,5,5,5,5,3,3. So on a 10 point scale the total points could be 60 vs 50 pretty big difference. There can be a pretty good difference in the skill level of 2 Players ranked 3 Balls. The difference can be even greater between a 2 Ball and a 3 Ball. It could be a 3 vs 6 on a 10 point scale.

Also team B has 10 Players because of the 16 Player limit the most Player team B could have in a game is 9 thats only a 2 Player advantage. I dont think enough to balance out the Player Rankings. Because in a game Team A is playing with a total ranking of 30 while team B (at the most) is 28. I think what makes things most even is for their to be equal points possible per team in a match. That is easier to do on a 10 point scale. Since in theory 2 Players each ranked 4 should be a pretty even fight (or equal team value) VS one Player ranked 8. And I think that is generally true. With a 5 point scale it is less accurate because two 3 Ballers vs 1 5 Baller could either be. Two ranked 5 Players vs one Ranked 10, basically even, or it could be two ranked 6 vs one ranked 9 not so even.

For example someone like GKG (Im using him cause he is a good example) 9-10 ranked (idk for sure) would probably be a pretty even fight vs two 5 ranked or a 4 and 5 ranked Players. Even if in a 2v1 2 team FFA type fight the 2 Players had a slight advantage just cause its 2v1. If you change that to being a part of a big 2 tm game I think the advantage swings to GKGs favor because of his fighting skill but also his game awareness an experience.

That is basically how I think a good balanced system would work. A team can trade 2 lower ranked Players for 1 higher ranked Player and it is basically even. Except each offer their own differences, benefits and weaknesses. Two 3's for one 6 etc.

The total number of points though need to be low enough so that the team with more but lower ranked Players can still be able to field a team equal to the total allowed points in any game. Or at least have an equal number of points possible as their opponent maybe in the case of 2 Teams both with a lot of lower ranked Players.

Example:
Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7-VS-Team--B) 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 Both of these teams are fielding the max total allowable points. 48 in this case.

Thats harder to do with a 5 point scale but still do-able.

dac · Post by **dac** » 19 Apr 2013, 15:12

the problem is that even the ball system is grossly oversimplifying things. people get different ball ratings based on different parts of their game, not necessarily complete package.

arzenic is highly rated due to superb role playing ability and game awareness, but he's not really a prototypical heavy hitter. dantski is very similar.
ska and ratking both get bonuses for capping abilities that relateively speaking dwarf their bc abilities.
adren gets a boost due to his bc ability but people always rate him down for game awareness in team situations.
ducky gets a boost for capping but his bc ability is not on par with the rest of his ballmates.
some people even get high ratings due to past performance that has not been matched in years.

so the numbers cannot normalize over everybody, therefore no ratings system will ever be fair or balanced.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 15:31

dac wrote:the problem is that even the ball system is grossly oversimplifying things. people get different ball ratings based on different parts of their game, not necessarily complete package.

arzenic is highly rated due to superb role playing ability and game awareness, but he's not really a prototypical heavy hitter. dantski is very similar.
ska and ratking both get bonuses for capping abilities that relateively speaking dwarf their bc abilities.
adren gets a boost due to his bc ability but people always rate him down for game awareness in team situations.
ducky gets a boost for capping but his bc ability is not on par with the rest of his ballmates.
some people even get high ratings due to past performance that has not been matched in years.

so the numbers cannot normalize over everybody, therefore no ratings system will ever be fair or balanced.

What you are saying is true but there should be some type of limits and rankings. Players do have different skills strengths and weaknesses. So when rankings are done instead of it being just a Player ranking think of it as a value ranking. Each of those skills you listed all have their place in a 2 team tournament setting and thats what this is about.

I'm just guessing at rankings dont want to insult anyone.

For example: If giving rankings to RatKing and Adrenaline and their strengths and weaknesses are considered. It could be fair to give them both an 8 as a "team value" ranking. Saying Adrens BC ability is a 9 but awareness in a team setting is a 7. 9+7=16/2 =8 Ratking 7 BC ability. 9 for team ability. 9+7=16/2=8. The same "value ranking".

Besides thats really only necessary for a few Players. Which with the right people setting the rankings shouldnt be an issue.

falcon · Post by **falcon** » 19 Apr 2013, 15:34

Sam butcher, asmo, zak and vantobia discussing myth future and penlord giving conclusions. Fucking Gold

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 15:50

Ive been thinking about the point that Asmo has made concerning a salary cap. I think I may have a solution that addresses his concerns and still keeps things fair.

Instead of a total "salary cap" have a maximum "Player points" per game. Then allow teams to have up to 10 Players (negotiable) but only be allowed to field up to 48 Player points in a game.

This keeps thing fair in games as each team would have the same total Player points in any game. This keeps everything the same as I have described.

Example:

Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7-VS-Team--B) 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 Both of these teams are fielding the max total allowable points. 48 in this case. Which is fair.

It also allows for teams to have less active Players on their team. Such as Players out of retirement that would like to play in at least a few matches.

A sub system isnt necessary. As a team could have 10 Players which should guarantee enough show for any given game.

A team would have a pool of Players to pull from and only be limited to the 48 Player points limit per game. Basically every team would all have an equal chance to win any game.

Also with this system and the pool of Players. Teams have the option of how many and which to field for a game. Like some maps it may be better to have less Players but higher ranks and other maps more Players of lower ranks. Depending on the units the trades the map terrain etc. A team could move Players in and out during a match depending on a particular game/map in that match. They just have to stay within the 48 point limit.

I think that this would work good.

Myrk · Post by **Myrk** » 19 Apr 2013, 19:31

The salary cap thing is kind of stupid considering how inaccurate the player ratings are, but hey I'm only rated an 8 so it would work out great for me.

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 19 Apr 2013, 19:58

Myrk wrote:The salary cap thing is kind of stupid considering how inaccurate the player ratings are, but hey I'm only rated an 8 so it would work out great for me.

Yeah I really don't see the need to throw arbitrary randomness into MWC with anything based on "someone's ratings". Isn't that what the premier tournament is supposed to determine to start with? Just let it do that; no salary cap and no subs.

falcon · Post by **falcon** » 19 Apr 2013, 20:09

Funny how 1 or 2 years back everybody was crying for the sub system to fill the gulf of less player activity when teams started to show up with 2-5 players when games were 6v6 or 7v7. Myth in 2013 is so active that the antagonists of substitutes are coming out in the open.
Also sub-system = less teams.

Aki · Post by **Aki** » 19 Apr 2013, 20:11

dac wrote:adren gets a boost due to his bc ability but people always rate him down for game awareness in team situations.
ducky gets a boost for capping but his bc ability is not on par with the rest of his ballmates.

Good point, bad example. Ducky's bc skills are on par with his capping skills (he beat adren in a 1v1 tournament (lol)).

falcon · Post by **falcon** » 19 Apr 2013, 20:19

Bilboshaggins aka ducky aka bone, a good cap and a video maker! May he RIP.

adrenaline · Post by **adrenaline** » 19 Apr 2013, 21:03

Aki wrote:
dac wrote:adren gets a boost due to his bc ability but people always rate him down for game awareness in team situations.
ducky gets a boost for capping but his bc ability is not on par with the rest of his ballmates.
Good point, bad example. Ducky's bc skills are on par with his capping skills (he beat adren in a 1v1 tournament (lol)).

It was 3 am my time... i was high as a kite and dead tired... also playing on dac's laggy west coast host (which was great for ducky). And that was 4(?) Years ago... his "bc" skill is not and never was on par with mine, but troll harder. He does have great game awareness and stuff though... i'll give him that.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 19 Apr 2013, 21:11

It is perhaps the greatest travesty in myth that some people still think ducky was a good captain. Never in my life have I seen mwc teams with such talent underperform consistently for multiple years as any top team ducky has captained. His only rival in horrible capping being raz. He has singlehandedly ruined what otherwise would have been good quality top mwc matches year after years after year, and it is a real shame.

Just because you captain good players, does not make you a good captain. It has been said so many times for so many years, but I suppose people will never change their mind about some things no matter what. That perception will always be there. And this is why a good portion of myth TA's, rankings, ratings, etc. are retarded.

Myrk · Post by **Myrk** » 19 Apr 2013, 21:52

what are you talking about gkg, that tbc vs nc desert game in sudden death where he got no pus or archers was pure genius.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 19 Apr 2013, 23:15

Why I think there needs to be a Points cap (not a total team points cap)

If it is left unlimited with no rankings and teams building any team they want MWC will as it did last year and other years basically come down to a 4 team tournament. Look at last year there were only 10 teams and pretty much everyone knew it would be one of 4-5 teams that would win. With that being the case why not skip all the early rounds and just go straight into the semi-finals? Might as well. This year with no limits on teams there could be even less teams participating. There were 8 teams for TWS this year. A big part of the most active competitive Players. There were that many because of the way teams were chosen and higher and lower ranked Players were mixed together. If it werent for that and if TWS would have been unlimited like MWC most of the top Players would have grouped together on 3-4 teams while the rest of the Players would have either formed considerably weaker teams or not bother to play at all. Either way it would have been just a 4 team tournament. Thats what will happen to MWC this year with out any sort of points cap. It happened last year. I think people over the years have learned that for MWC there are going to be a few super strong teams that the tournament will come down to. Its a smaller community, Players know who the top Players are so when they see them all on 3-4 teams they dont have any illusion that they are going to beat any of them. So if Players arent going to be a part of any of those teams there really is no point in Playing. Other than maybe trying to beat some of the other weaker teams but who cares about that anyway?

When there used to be a lot more active Players. Players didnt know each other as well as they do now. So some casual Players could form up a team with their friends and since they really didnt know such a huge % of the other Players they wouldnt know just how much better some of the other teams were. So they figured that they may have a chance to win and signed up. Now with such a small community and most Players knowing most other Players. One look at some of the teams and everyone knows from the start which teams it will come down to.

If thats what the most active/vocal Players want is no limits and to be able to make totally stacked teams thats fine. But you could fit all of those top Players on 4-5 teams. So like I said if MWC is done that way you might as well take the 4 top teams and just start them in the semi-finals. Who knows there might only be 4-5 team participate anyway.

I think MWC should be something that tries to get the whole Myth community involved. Not just one group of top Players. Thats why I think there needs to be a system that would spread out the top Players plus make all teams fairly even. Which would bring more competition and undoubtedly more Players since anyone that signed up would know that their team or any other team had basically an equal chance to win when MWC started.

dac · Post by **dac** » 20 Apr 2013, 00:04

yeah, ducky did caer light stampede and dodged the straight up bc fights at every chance. he knows he cant bc with adren.

the example is fine. gkg's rant about ducky brings up another good point - a lot of times people see a player as better or worse at something than he really is. you'd need ratings in different areas for all this shit and there's no way to normalize against average for any of these things.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 20 Apr 2013, 00:14

Here is a system that I think would work it is sort of based of games like Magic other card games like it and some of the figurine games. Which those are/were played on competitive levels but it was obvious that you cant just let Players build or use any army they could put together because it would just be a matter of who could acquire the most powerful cards/figurines. They would become a super exclusive to a few people who could get the best cards/figurines with everyone else presenting no competition and therefor low participation. So they limited Player to a certain number of points for a game/match to keep it fair for everyone and that making it more competitive. That type of things is done is so many competitions. From racing to fighting to professional sport etc. Its done that way because it is necessary to insure a certain level of equality between competitors so more competition and ultimately more participation.

Here is the system:

1) 10 Player limit per team. (negotiable): This give teams enough Players to assure they have enough at a match, but is low enough to help make sure there are more teams.

2) Players are given a points rating from 1-10: How rankings are given see below.

3) 48 Player points maximum per game.

4) No subs.

Player rankings would be given by the average or majority rank given by 3 active, trusted Players who are voted on by the community. I think starting out the vote with active accomplished and well know Players like Ratking, Genghis, GKG, Paris, Adren, Asmo, Limp, Zak etc. Then the community voting on and picking 3 of them to give Player rankings. The 3 of them each give a ranking to each Player. The Players final ranking being whatever the majority ranking of the 3 is. If all 3 give a different rank then they discuss it and settle on a final rank. I think that this would give a fair and accurate Player ranking.

Each team can pick whoever they want for their team only limit being the 10 Player limit. Then during a match each team can only field a max of 48 Player points. This makes all of the teams pretty much equal and is fair for everyone giving every team a chance to win.

Match ups would/could look like these:
Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7 (48 points) -VS-Team B) 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 (48 points)
or
Team C)6 Players 9,9,8,8,7,7 (48 Points) -VS Team D) 7 Players 8,8,7,7,7,6,5, (48 points)

So basically all teams are equal and fair.

A team could field more than 8 players as long as they stay within 48 Points and there was room in the game like this.
Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7 (48 points) -VS-Team B) 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 (48 points) 6vs9 but still even points.

A system like this makes all teams basically equal. Since a team can have 10 Players there is no need for subs (therefore no sub abuse). This allows for teams to have less active Players on their team without wasting any points. Teams can basically still have whoever they want on their team. With the inherent equality of teams with no super stacked teams every team has a chance to win. The semi-finals wont be decided before the QR's even start. This would be incentive for more people to participate. It would also be a lot more competitive throughout the whole MWC tournament unlike it has been in the last few years.