Bump these teams to SuperTitan please!!!

[CombatEX]

(02-19-2013 09:09 AM)Mr.Banger Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:59 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:46 AM)Mr.Banger Wrote:  Where are y'all coming from that the masters skill level is barely lower than the STs?

Did you read? In my example I stated that there could be a large gap between ST and Master. I said that even if the gap is large between ST and Master, there is also a large gap within Master. Since we have a gap anyway, is it not better to utilize all our leagues available instead of just having one league for 2 teams? Let's say this:

*SNIP*

Even then there is still a large skill range in Master but it's less drastic since we are now utilizing the ST league to a greater extent.

Of course if you're really so set on not promoting anyone else to ST then we can just demote the bottom half of Masters to Gifted instead.

I never said I was set on not promoting anyone else to ST. I'm just wondering why there's all these complaints when it's clearly possible to get to ST...

I was replying to your statement that we're all saying there is a small gap between Master and ST which I just said wasn't the case... That was the point, addressing the statement you made which I quoted above, not saying that you didn't want anyone else promoted.

That part about not wanting anyone else promoted was added on the end as a separate thought. I said that in general if you (as in the general 'you' and not 'you' in particular) don't want promotion because you (again, this is the general 'you') feels there is a large gap between ST and Master, then this is a reason we should have promotions regardless (there is also a large gap in skill within Master).

Also I think you are missing the point entirely Mr.Banger. This isn't about people whining because they want to be promoted to ST despite not being good enough (well maybe it is for some people, but people like myself and GG couldn't care less about our 2v2 league). Rather, this is about league distribution and whether we should really have a league with only 2 teams. If you read the rest of my post (maybe you did, but if so you ignored the important part and only responded to what was most trivial), then you would see what I was trying to say. It is NOT about personal desires to be promoted, but rather about the grand scheme of leagues and distribution.

Points are absolutely WORTHLESS in determining skill. Sorry to be frank, but it's true. So, how then do we judge skill? In 1v1 we have the Top 200 for those of us high enough. However for the rest as well as EVERYONE in 2v2, the only way to judge relative ability is through leagues. However, there is a huge skill range amongst Masters players (even worse for those in leagues beneath). The fact that we are not utilizing ST league (2 teams only in an entire league) means that it's even harder to judge skill. Even in 1v1 there are issues especially in Fluffy and Clever (80% of all players), but also in Gifted which still has 15%. In 2v2 it's absolutely dreadful at the moment since we don't have a top 200 for the most competitive teams and for all intensive purposes don't even have a Super-Titan league. Instead we have 2 teams who may be better (are in ST) and then a few hundred teams in Master with no way to rank each other. If we at least had 10 or so teams in ST things would be slightly better. Ideally we'd just want a top 200 and then no one would care about ST anymore, but until then, why not fix the distribution?

[amoffett11]

(02-19-2013 10:40 AM)Coolio Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:38 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:  Thanks for stepping in Coolio

I've been trying to since page 12.

Ya, I started typing a comment on page 12, was watching wheel of fortune as I typed, took 20 minutes, and when it was done it was on page 14. It's very easy on a forum for things to escalate a bit when multiple people are posting at once and constantly responding to older posts and not keeping up with the new ones, as what happened here.

[GreatGonzales]

Quote:If thats the case, then I admit to not understanding your argument. One question, not being aggresive, howd you know the threshold is wrong?

Fair - I am making some assumptions, which I feel are reasonable assumptions. The most important being: that the 1v1 ST league, which has been successful, is the model that the 2v2 ST league should follow. How do I "know" that the 2v2 ST promotion threshold is wrong? This is why: 1. Because 7 months is long enough for the elite in a population to emerge, and 2. Because the 1v1 ST league was vibrant (like, at least 20 or so?) after a mere 2 months. If my assumption is correct, then clearly something is wrong with the 2v2 ST league. The most likely explanation for this is an overly restricting promotion threshold. Consider for example that there were no STs at all for many months. It's been 7 months and we STILL do not have a vibrant ST league. Is this because 2v2 matches take longer than 1v1? No, because there are not orders of magnitude difference between the two. More likely, OML did not properly plan for the future of the 2v2 league, and so they made more difficult than is ideal to enter the ST league. Nothing suggests, also, that we will see a significant number of 2v2 ST players any time soon. If we were to graph this, it's very clearly way behind 1v1.

So. The wrong way to think about this is that we are arguing for 2v2 teams who don't deserve to be entered into the highest league. Rather, we are arguing that the ST league has always been too restricting, and if it was in line with 1v1's level of skill discernment, we would have a significantly larger number of 2v2 STs. That is to say - there are several teams who should already be ST, according to 1v1 standards. If you disagree with this, you must defend the notion that the 2v2 promotion threshold which allows only 2 teams to be promoted is the ideal, as opposed to the 1v1 standard - because we have already established that there are clear differences between the two. Remove the idea that because the promotion threshold has always been a certain way, then it must be ideal, from your vocabulary. In the beginning OML made at attempt to set up a fair and utilitarian 2v2 league system, but we know more now and it can and should be improved.

[worldfamous]

(02-19-2013 08:02 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:  Terenceshiu/awpertunity, hands down best master pair out there(from the pairs we played).

---

(02-19-2013 06:23 AM)myninja527 Wrote:  Honestly,

I think that these teams:

Terenceshiu/Awpertunity
Terenceshiu/poweewee
Burnodrod/Mastercaster
Sir3/p1noyboypj


are leaps and bounds better than the other ones listed, and deserving of the super titan rating. We go about 50/50 with the other teams on that list, and The ninjas aren't quite at that supertitan level.

I believe that Burnodrod/Mastercaster might be the best team playing the game.

We honestly havent played them before. They just got several of the games we started, if I recall, yall beat us once on CCM.

Just finished this one. Not positive but I think we're 3-2 vs them now.
outwitters://viewgame?id=ag5vdXR3aXR0ZXJzZ2FtZXIRCxIIR2FtZVJvb20Y06rUAgw

[GreatGonzales]

Quote:What I am saying is that ST is not a league, it's a distinction. It's an award. OML sat down and said " X is the threshold for being a ST", anyone who reaches X will receive the distinction of SuperTitan. It's not as ST is a league all it's own, and the two ST only play each other, and masters only play master. You're all playing each other anyways. I'm sure OML set the level they did knowing it was very hard to get to, and want to award those who reach it accordingly. The fact that the there is a difference between the percentage of 1v1 STs and the number of 2v2 STs I think is based on the fact that its much harder to improve as a duo than it is to improve on your own. It's harder to reach that top echelon level. Its hard. It should be hard. But its not impossible. What I'm arguing is that I don't think there should be a shortcut.

Amoffett, you are still arguing from the false assumption that we are arguing for a fast track to the ST league. Rather, we are trying to correct a flaw that has always existed with the ST promotion threshold. I don't know what else to say, I've said it all already. It's still a distinction to be 2v2 ST - just as much as it is to be 1v1 ST.

[amoffett11]

(02-19-2013 11:13 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  

Quote:What I am saying is that ST is not a league, it's a distinction. It's an award. OML sat down and said " X is the threshold for being a ST", anyone who reaches X will receive the distinction of SuperTitan. It's not as ST is a league all it's own, and the two ST only play each other, and masters only play master. You're all playing each other anyways. I'm sure OML set the level they did knowing it was very hard to get to, and want to award those who reach it accordingly. The fact that the there is a difference between the percentage of 1v1 STs and the number of 2v2 STs I think is based on the fact that its much harder to improve as a duo than it is to improve on your own. It's harder to reach that top echelon level. Its hard. It should be hard. But its not impossible. What I'm arguing is that I don't think there should be a shortcut.

Amoffett, you are still arguing from the false assumption that we are arguing for a fast track to the ST league. Rather, we are correcting a flaw that has always existed. I don't know what else to say, I've said it all already. It's still a distinction to be 2v2 ST - just as much as it is to be 1v1 ST.

I'm pretty sure it's not a false assumption. Lowering the threshold makes it easier to be a supertitan. It would take less time and less skill than it does currently. That's what a fast track is.

[GreatGonzales]

Quote:I'm pretty sure it's not a false assumption. Lowering the threshold makes it easier to be a supertitan. It would take less time and less skill than it does currently. That's what a fast track is.

Dude. The point is that the threshold is too high, so we should correct it. I already explained why complaining that we are lessening the distinction of being ST is not valid; unless you respond to that...I don't know what to say.

[CombatEX]

(02-19-2013 09:13 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:50 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:36 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:32 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:  They couldve but the most likely explanation is that they are still higher if they havent lost many games since. And if those masters are higher, theyll get promoted soon enough

I don't see how that is more likely at all. You have no data to back it up.

At any rate, addressing your 12-1 comment:

You may be right. However, I don't think it should take a 12-1 rating to be in ST. Currently my team is at a 6-1 ratio. Perhaps that means we shouldn't be in the same league as you, but then I want all the Master teams with a 3-1 ratio or worse to be demoted to Gifted. You see what I'm saying? Why should there be a league just for 2 teams? Even if there is a pretty large gap, 12-1 to 6-1, there is also a huge gap in masters, 6-1 to something like 3-1 or worse. If we have to have a huge gap no matter what we should at least distribute it more evenly instead of having such a huge range in Master and barely utilizing one of our leagues, ST, by only have 2 teams. Well. If you insist on only keeping 2 teams in ST then I think we should shift our focus to getting a lot of the Master teams demoted to gifted. Okay? Okay. Why promote teams when we can demote them? Sounds good! =D

Why do I believe it's more likely? Because for them to get promoted means they went on a streak of some sort an surpassed the threshold differentiating themselves. There's absolutely no way any masters is higher unless they went on a big losing streak (nope, not from what Ive seen in our league) and will thus be demoted to Masters, if those Masters are higher than G/K w/o them going on a losing streak than those masters deserve to be promoted and will be promoted. It's logic and the most likely scenario or else they would've been demoted or another promoted. Of course, I don't know their record, I'm sure they can provide it though.
Addressing your 6-1, you're probably close, I'm in no ways saying that isn't good enough, all I said was its probably not higher than ours/theirs. Where do you get the fact that some masters are 3-1, facts, or logical assumptions like I made?

Szei, answer please

Because it's been many months since they were promoted. People get worse and people get better. Especially when we have something like 2v2 where only recently more people have begun devoting more time towards it. When you have something new, the competition at the top is volatile. Just look at Starcraft and the GSL in particular. There are still some players from the beginning who remain competitive today, but many of the top players at the inception of the GSL fell off quickly once more people started competing at a serious level in Starcraft 2. There were plenty of players who broke into Code S and even had deep runs through the tournament only to find themselves in Code A or Code B the next season and then drop out entirely. The point is, Gurleyman and Krogoth may not stack up as well as some of the new competition even if they were far better than the competition a few months ago.

Furthermore, Gurleyman and Krogoth wouldn't have to go on a big losing streak. Again, it's been a few months. If Gurleyman and Krogoth have been on a gradual decline during this time, there hidden-rating could have fallen drastically and just not have reached demotion threshold yet. In the meantime many Masters could have passed them. Again, not saying this is the case for sure, but just that it is by no means unlikely. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "at all" in bold. But I do stand by what I said before. Unless you have a breakdown of Gurleyman and Krogoth's win/loss over the past few months as well as that of some top Master teams like worldfamous and diemfdie, I do not see why you should assume what you did above. EDIT: Oh I forgot to include a smug smiley like you did

Oh, and you're right that we can't just assume there are Masters with 3-1 ratios. So why did I say that then? Well, it's highly unlikely that the average Master team has above a 3-1 w/l unless there is something seriously wrong with the match-making. If this is the case, then it would mean many Masters are matched up with Gifted and below a majority of the time (and that would beg the question, should they even be in Masters if they are mostly playing Gifted?). So, this is why I feel it's reasonable to say that there are plenty of Masters with 3-1 and worse ratios UNLESS matchmaking is beyond broken.

[GreatGonzales]

I think now is a good time to share this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/

Lets try to stay civil. I'm as guilty as anyone. Getting frustrated. But if we all take a break and come back, it'll be more productive.

[Necrocat219]

(02-19-2013 11:34 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  I think now is a good time to share this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/

XD Comedy gold