|
View results and standings here. |
On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it.
This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept!
|
United States7639 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:54 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it. This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept!
...Um. It IS the same system, but negative. There is no separate calculation system. And anti-team losses can get you + points, which is why people who had Shine on their anti gained points. You also can't only pick b-teamers, because b-teamers aren't worth anything, and you have to go over 13 points for anti.
Bisu lost you a point because he gained +1 for lineup, -1 for loss, and +1 for team win. That's +1 total. Turned negative, it's -1.
And yeah, that does make sense, because you ought to have considered the players' teams when putting them on anti (or main, for that matter). Bisu = SKT. By putting Bisu on anti, you are not only betting that Bisu will suck, but that SKT will also suck. Which is a pretty dumb bet, just saying~ ^_^
I don't get what's so hard to understand about the current system.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is calm not playing or something? i heard he changed races.
|
|
|
On December 12 2012 04:56 lex.licks.life wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://youtu.be/E7KuyjK5DmQ?t=20m3s If B.byoung was a marine.
That was Sick!!?!??!?!?! What's wrong with THAT Marine!!!!He was so IMBA!!!
|
On December 12 2012 03:59 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:54 xxpack09 wrote:On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it. This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept! ...Um. It IS the same system, but negative. There is no separate calculation system. And anti-team losses can get you + points, which is why people who had Shine on their anti gained points. You also can't only pick b-teamers, because b-teamers aren't worth anything, and you have to go over 13 points for anti. Bisu lost you a point because he gained +1 for lineup, -1 for loss, and +1 for team win. That's +1 total. Turned negative, it's -1. And yeah, that does make sense, because you ought to have considered the players' teams when putting them on anti (or main, for that matter). Bisu = SKT. By putting Bisu on anti, you are not only betting that Bisu will suck, but that SKT will also suck. Which is a pretty dumb bet, just saying~ ^_^ I don't get what's so hard to understand about the current system.
My point was that you should be rewarded rather than penalized for having starters on your anti roster. You get a +1 (which is essentially a -1 for anti) for every starter on your roster, whether it is regular or anti. That just doesn't make sense to me and requires little to no work/research because you can simply have EG-TL members on your roster + B teamers to guarantee as little lost points as possible. Sure, you can take a long shot and go for someone like Shine to actually gain points, but most people will just go the easy route and those will be the winners.
On the other hand, if having starters on your anti was rewarded, those that chose players who will rarely play will begin falling behind in points.
So if it was rewarded, Bisu would have netted you a +1 for anti rather than a -1, and if his team lost, then he would have netted you a +2. It's nothing huge, but it would make more sense than the exact same +/- point value for starting/losing/team winning, except reversed.
And I don't have Bisu, he's just been used as an example multiple times in this thread so I decided to continue the use of him as an example.
|
So sad TT dont have anyone good enough to trade for sOs..
|
On December 12 2012 04:56 lex.licks.life wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://youtu.be/E7KuyjK5DmQ?t=20m3s If B.byoung was a marine.
Seeing that again gave me chills
|
On December 12 2012 05:10 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:59 Kiett wrote:On December 12 2012 03:54 xxpack09 wrote:On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it. This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept! ...Um. It IS the same system, but negative. There is no separate calculation system. And anti-team losses can get you + points, which is why people who had Shine on their anti gained points. You also can't only pick b-teamers, because b-teamers aren't worth anything, and you have to go over 13 points for anti. Bisu lost you a point because he gained +1 for lineup, -1 for loss, and +1 for team win. That's +1 total. Turned negative, it's -1. And yeah, that does make sense, because you ought to have considered the players' teams when putting them on anti (or main, for that matter). Bisu = SKT. By putting Bisu on anti, you are not only betting that Bisu will suck, but that SKT will also suck. Which is a pretty dumb bet, just saying~ ^_^ I don't get what's so hard to understand about the current system. My point was that you should be rewarded rather than penalized for having starters on your anti roster. You get a +1 (which is essentially a -1 for anti) for every starter on your roster, whether it is regular or anti. That just doesn't make sense to me and requires little to no work/research because you can simply have EG-TL members on your roster + B teamers to guarantee as little lost points as possible. Sure, you can take a long shot and go for someone like Shine to actually gain points, but most people will just go the easy route and those will be the winners.
If you can simply have EGTL + B teamers on the anti, that only means that you believe EGTL players were way overrated/overpriced initially (which they arguably were).
Which EGTL players do you want that will make up the point requirement? Stephano is locked out of anti teams. HerO and Taeja will start this week, so you're still gambling on them losing just like you'd be gambling with any other starter. What's the difference?
It's IMPOSSIBLE to make up an anti-team from B-teamers and non-starters. You can only get lucky one week or two by having the player out of the lineup, but it's not some kind of safe/perfect strategy that you can employ.
The current system does reward the player for choosing people who will lose, because you're pretty much forced to pick players who will play (or risk even more by picking up an S Class player and two nobodies).
|
On December 12 2012 07:17 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:10 Dosey wrote:On December 12 2012 03:59 Kiett wrote:On December 12 2012 03:54 xxpack09 wrote:On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it. This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept! ...Um. It IS the same system, but negative. There is no separate calculation system. And anti-team losses can get you + points, which is why people who had Shine on their anti gained points. You also can't only pick b-teamers, because b-teamers aren't worth anything, and you have to go over 13 points for anti. Bisu lost you a point because he gained +1 for lineup, -1 for loss, and +1 for team win. That's +1 total. Turned negative, it's -1. And yeah, that does make sense, because you ought to have considered the players' teams when putting them on anti (or main, for that matter). Bisu = SKT. By putting Bisu on anti, you are not only betting that Bisu will suck, but that SKT will also suck. Which is a pretty dumb bet, just saying~ ^_^ I don't get what's so hard to understand about the current system. My point was that you should be rewarded rather than penalized for having starters on your anti roster. You get a +1 (which is essentially a -1 for anti) for every starter on your roster, whether it is regular or anti. That just doesn't make sense to me and requires little to no work/research because you can simply have EG-TL members on your roster + B teamers to guarantee as little lost points as possible. Sure, you can take a long shot and go for someone like Shine to actually gain points, but most people will just go the easy route and those will be the winners. If you can simply have EGTL + B teamers on the anti, that only means that you believe EGTL players were way overrated/overpriced initially (which they arguably were). Which EGTL players do you want that will make up the point requirement? Stephano is locked out of anti teams. HerO and Taeja will start this week, so you're still gambling on them losing just like you'd be gambling with any other starter. What's the difference? It's IMPOSSIBLE to make up an anti-team from B-teamers and non-starters. You can only get lucky one week or two by having the player out of the lineup, but it's not some kind of safe/perfect strategy that you can employ. The current system does reward the player for choosing people who will lose, because you're pretty much forced to pick players who will play (or risk even more by picking up an S Class player and two nobodies).
Stephano was only locked out for week one IIRC, he's on the trade list for anti right now and is still valued at 6. There are also plenty of other overpriced players other than EG-TL, they are just an easy example.
But that's beside the point, I'm content with my anti, I just believe you should earn an extra point if your anti player starts instead of getting penalized when he starts (and potentially penalized when your anti doesn't start). The fact that you are penalized and the point distribution stays exactly the same as regular just feels like laziness on the development side of things to me. Giving points for starters in anti would add a little extra depth to the game and reward those who actually research their players and play them accordingly rather than those who are just selecting as many super weak/non-players available (which is possible).
|
The system could use a bit of work for sure, the staff only had like one day to get everything ready for the first round. I imagine we'll see some changes. Stephano should be removed from being able to be put on your anti this round for example because It's pretty much confirmed that he won't be in Korea until Round 2. I'm trading Stats for him since It's possible to do so, getting someone who isn't going to play for 6 points is pretty amazing.
|
United States7639 Posts
On December 12 2012 07:53 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 07:17 Talin wrote:On December 12 2012 05:10 Dosey wrote:On December 12 2012 03:59 Kiett wrote:On December 12 2012 03:54 xxpack09 wrote:On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it. This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept! ...Um. It IS the same system, but negative. There is no separate calculation system. And anti-team losses can get you + points, which is why people who had Shine on their anti gained points. You also can't only pick b-teamers, because b-teamers aren't worth anything, and you have to go over 13 points for anti. Bisu lost you a point because he gained +1 for lineup, -1 for loss, and +1 for team win. That's +1 total. Turned negative, it's -1. And yeah, that does make sense, because you ought to have considered the players' teams when putting them on anti (or main, for that matter). Bisu = SKT. By putting Bisu on anti, you are not only betting that Bisu will suck, but that SKT will also suck. Which is a pretty dumb bet, just saying~ ^_^ I don't get what's so hard to understand about the current system. My point was that you should be rewarded rather than penalized for having starters on your anti roster. You get a +1 (which is essentially a -1 for anti) for every starter on your roster, whether it is regular or anti. That just doesn't make sense to me and requires little to no work/research because you can simply have EG-TL members on your roster + B teamers to guarantee as little lost points as possible. Sure, you can take a long shot and go for someone like Shine to actually gain points, but most people will just go the easy route and those will be the winners. If you can simply have EGTL + B teamers on the anti, that only means that you believe EGTL players were way overrated/overpriced initially (which they arguably were). Which EGTL players do you want that will make up the point requirement? Stephano is locked out of anti teams. HerO and Taeja will start this week, so you're still gambling on them losing just like you'd be gambling with any other starter. What's the difference? It's IMPOSSIBLE to make up an anti-team from B-teamers and non-starters. You can only get lucky one week or two by having the player out of the lineup, but it's not some kind of safe/perfect strategy that you can employ. The current system does reward the player for choosing people who will lose, because you're pretty much forced to pick players who will play (or risk even more by picking up an S Class player and two nobodies). Stephano was only locked out for week one IIRC, he's on the trade list for anti right now and is still valued at 6. There are also plenty of other overpriced players other than EG-TL, they are just an easy example. But that's beside the point, I'm content with my anti, I just believe you should earn an extra point if your anti player starts instead of getting penalized when he starts (and potentially penalized when your anti doesn't start). The fact that you are penalized and the point distribution stays exactly the same as regular just feels like laziness on the development side of things to me. Giving points for starters in anti would add a little extra depth to the game and reward those who actually research their players and play them accordingly rather than those who are just selecting as many super weak/non-players available (which is possible).
If you know which players are weak and/or unlikely to play, that means you already did your research lol. I don't understand why you think it takes more research to put say, Fantasy on an anti-team as opposed to putting Juni. Research is what comes before, starter/non-starter is the decision that comes after. If someone put 2 EG-TL players and another rather weak player on their anti-team, that means they already did their analysis of the players' values, team depth and availability, and chose those players based on their assessment of the situation.
|
On December 12 2012 07:59 Dodgin wrote:
The system could use a bit of work for sure, the staff only had like one day to get everything ready for the first round. I imagine we'll see some changes. Stephano should be removed from being able to be put on your anti this round for example because It's pretty much confirmed that he won't be in Korea until Round 2. I'm trading Stats for him since It's possible to do so, getting someone who isn't going to play for 6 points is pretty amazing.
Yeah, I'll probably do the same. Just waiting to see the matchups before I decide on whether I should trade Jaehoon or Jangbi.
On December 12 2012 08:01 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 07:53 Dosey wrote:On December 12 2012 07:17 Talin wrote:On December 12 2012 05:10 Dosey wrote:On December 12 2012 03:59 Kiett wrote:On December 12 2012 03:54 xxpack09 wrote:On December 12 2012 02:47 Dosey wrote:On December 11 2012 17:34 sickoota wrote:
I know it's my fault for not reading the rules but I am so screwed on my anti-team, I thought it meant pick big name players who you expect not to perform up to par rather than b-teamers who you expect never to get played. I think the former way of doing things might actually be more interesting, maybe for next season? Yeah I thought you could gain points when your anti team lost as well. IMO, the points should be set up that if they appear in the lineup and LOSE the points should be +2 for you (+1 for lineup +1 for loss). As it stands point distribution is exactly equal to regular team, which is kind of odd. The fact that Bisu gets you a -1 after losing his match but his team still winning just doesn't make sense to me. People should be rewarded for having starters on their anti, that would counter people just choosing EG-TL players and B teamers and require much more thought into it. This, tbh, is just confusing. It's much easier to just have anti-team points be the same as main team points but with a negative sign slapped in front. Creating an entirely separate system for anti-team would just make things MORE confusing and make even MORE people fuck up their anti-team. I don't see how this is such a confusing concept! ...Um. It IS the same system, but negative. There is no separate calculation system. And anti-team losses can get you + points, which is why people who had Shine on their anti gained points. You also can't only pick b-teamers, because b-teamers aren't worth anything, and you have to go over 13 points for anti. Bisu lost you a point because he gained +1 for lineup, -1 for loss, and +1 for team win. That's +1 total. Turned negative, it's -1. And yeah, that does make sense, because you ought to have considered the players' teams when putting them on anti (or main, for that matter). Bisu = SKT. By putting Bisu on anti, you are not only betting that Bisu will suck, but that SKT will also suck. Which is a pretty dumb bet, just saying~ ^_^ I don't get what's so hard to understand about the current system. My point was that you should be rewarded rather than penalized for having starters on your anti roster. You get a +1 (which is essentially a -1 for anti) for every starter on your roster, whether it is regular or anti. That just doesn't make sense to me and requires little to no work/research because you can simply have EG-TL members on your roster + B teamers to guarantee as little lost points as possible. Sure, you can take a long shot and go for someone like Shine to actually gain points, but most people will just go the easy route and those will be the winners. If you can simply have EGTL + B teamers on the anti, that only means that you believe EGTL players were way overrated/overpriced initially (which they arguably were). Which EGTL players do you want that will make up the point requirement? Stephano is locked out of anti teams. HerO and Taeja will start this week, so you're still gambling on them losing just like you'd be gambling with any other starter. What's the difference? It's IMPOSSIBLE to make up an anti-team from B-teamers and non-starters. You can only get lucky one week or two by having the player out of the lineup, but it's not some kind of safe/perfect strategy that you can employ. The current system does reward the player for choosing people who will lose, because you're pretty much forced to pick players who will play (or risk even more by picking up an S Class player and two nobodies). Stephano was only locked out for week one IIRC, he's on the trade list for anti right now and is still valued at 6. There are also plenty of other overpriced players other than EG-TL, they are just an easy example. But that's beside the point, I'm content with my anti, I just believe you should earn an extra point if your anti player starts instead of getting penalized when he starts (and potentially penalized when your anti doesn't start). The fact that you are penalized and the point distribution stays exactly the same as regular just feels like laziness on the development side of things to me. Giving points for starters in anti would add a little extra depth to the game and reward those who actually research their players and play them accordingly rather than those who are just selecting as many super weak/non-players available (which is possible). If you know which players are weak and/or unlikely to play, that means you already did your research lol. I don't understand why you think it takes more research to put say, Fantasy on an anti-team as opposed to putting Juni. Research is what comes before, starter/non-starter is the decision that comes after. If someone put 2 EG-TL players and another rather weak player on their anti-team, that means they already did their analysis of the players' values, team depth and availability, and chose those players based on their assessment of the situation.
It would require more research to have to look into each matchup every week and decide on whether or not you should trade out a certain player because he's not starting and go for those extra points with a starter that is likely to lose.
Example:
Say by default you get -2 off the bat for an anti not starting and then you get another -1 if the team wins. It would require you to always be aware of who is on your anti and adjust accordingly. Yes, you get the -1 for trade tax while adjusting, but you could net out +3 if the points values are adjusted properly. (+1 for starting, +2 for loss, +1 for team loss) So it becomes more in depth because you can either choose to keep your useless anti that will always net you a -2 (and potentially -3) or go for the points and get a +3 if you played it right (even more if they make an ace appearance). Even a push would be a win in that situation and you will always come out ahead of the person who chose the useless player. But, make the wrong read and you lose even more points than the person who decided to stay (at -4 points, -2 for win, -1 for trade tax, and -1 for team win) Edit: I screwed up my own math. You'd net out -3 because you're earning +1 for a starter. So it'd almost always be beneficial to trade out and take the risk. Which is even better because it creates more action.
Then again, that would all probably be a bit too in-depth. A majority of participants are PL rookies and/or casual watchers.
I'd just be happy if they fixed it so that you weren't penalized for having a starter on your anti.
|
Is there a thread for us to complain about our anti-team? Because SkyHigh being mobile with Thors was not something I predicted...
|
Apparently, Zenio will no longer stay at home on his own...
Choi Jung Min @LiquidZenio I will stay at seoul EG house from today i want to do really hard 9:05 AM - 11 Dec 12 · Details
Considering what he said when he once left the oGs house (he didn't like living in a team house), I guess he's really serious now in practicing hard for Proleague. Good stuff.
|
On December 12 2012 05:02 TheMilkyOne wrote:That was Sick!!?!??!?!?! What's wrong with THAT Marine!!!!He was so IMBA!!!
Queens do 4x2 to ground by default, Bbyong had 3 armor upgrade for marines and Soulkey had no range upgrade so queens did 1 damage.
|
On December 11 2012 22:10 DyEnasTy wrote:
I have Baby on anti, should I trade (only 4 options: Flash, RorO, Effort and Rain) or stay put?
On paper, Effort might be a good idea, but I wouldn't bet against CJ just yet. I wouldn't swap for any of the other three - they're all Aces on very strong teams.
|
On December 12 2012 09:58 khaydarin9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 22:10 DyEnasTy wrote:
I have Baby on anti, should I trade (only 4 options: Flash, RorO, Effort and Rain) or stay put? On paper, Effort might be a good idea, but I wouldn't bet against CJ just yet. I wouldn't swap for any of the other three - they're all Aces on very strong teams.
Tbh herO as CJ ace should be a pretty safe bet for now.
|
unlike most people i get the anti team scoring. However i don't quite understand how trades work with anti team. How is the negative trade value applied? Does it just go the other way? Like you have to go from a 16 trade value point player to a 17?
|
On December 12 2012 12:00 Akamu wrote:
unlike most people i get the anti team scoring. However i don't quite understand how trades work with anti team. How is the negative trade value applied? Does it just go the other way? Like you have to go from a 16 trade value point player to a 17?
Yep, you gotta trade for a higher cost player
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
