uzo fuck off back to south america

your input is not needed

I actually rated VC an 80, when everyone else rated him 70-75. LOVE YOU VINCE

Infinite kept a squad together for 3 seasons.

ps: rejects could run the line up they had as champions - sol and still have 90 left over ;)


cage
dave
leak
nos
vc
danny
champ
sov

1110

sign em up boys

add me to that lineup. I am 90. we got this

if unb signed up im assuming he'd be a 65 - so you can add him to the list


and sol played 1.5 games with a total of 15 kills for rejects last year

Only person they'd be missing would be fax - so one starter gone off of the returning champs - which you could supplement with sov/vc med combo

just some food for thought

I appreciate you testing the system, Jordan, and in the future, please post potential solutions to problems that you find. I'd encourage you to look at other potential squads as well. I appreciate all of the opinions and hope they keep coming so that we can implement the best system possible. I assure you that I'm the last person that will attempt to compromise the system or take advantage of an unfair situation, but it's best to eliminate that possibility. It will be impossible to completely balance the league, but we can limit the strength of those top squads and empower those at the bottom while attempting to maximize playerbase.

As it stands now, we are attempting to find a solution to over/underrated players. The ratings are being updated by the raters to be more specific: rather than using multiples of 5 (80, 85, 90). We're hoping that this will result in more accurate ratings and reduce the number of over/underrated players.

Any ideas/opinions regarding the cap, costs, or ratings are encouraged to be shared, and will be regarded equally. Everyone should (re)read the original post to see why the system is the way it is.

We are not a draft league. We do not want to force players to play with those that they don't want to, but we do want to limit the best players from playing together en masse and even the playing field as much as we can while making sure we try to include as many people. Two possible options that we saw while creating this system to further balance: Increasing the cost of the mid tier and upper-mid tier players to be closer to the top players. Doing this resulted in two scenarios: 1) one top player, 2 (upper)mid, and the rest from the lowest ranked players. 2) 2 or 3 top players, and the rest from the lowest ranked players. By lowest ranked, I'm referring to the bottom 25-30 players. We saw this as a bad idea, though the most fair, because we projected it would push just as many people away as a draft league would. The second possible option that we saw: Further increase the cost of the top players to prevent them from being able to play with their mid tier players. The same result occurs. Generally, mid tier players are the most difficult to determine cost because of their varying performances. It's a balancing act finding the appropriate score for each bracket, and 10-20 points here or there can mean a difference.

It's important to remember that there will be flaws with any system that we implement. It is not possible to see everything that may happen when being tested, so any input and further testing is appreciated.

When all of the raters update their ratings, the ratings will be finalized. From there, we can determine if the salary cap or a bracket cost seems too high or low. I believe the cap and costs are close to where they need to be, but not perfect and could use more feedback. I encourage anyone is interested in testing squads to consider what changing the cost of a specific bracket or the salary cap might do.

unborn would at least be a 110 I'd say. 80-84. Maybe even getting an 85 which would be 140.

Also, to give ideas for anyone who wants to do further testing: When testing the system, we played around with 110-120 for the 80-85 bracket. And 140-160 for the 85-89 bracket. Also entertained the idea of 215 for top 6-10, and 250 for top 5. Think about what those changes might do, do some more testing, because while the Admin staff has been putting in quite a bit of time on this, we're only a few people with other things going on. Thanks for your input :)

I'm sure you guys have.

But putting the most notorious squad stacker as the salary cap manager can't be the wisest decision. And no way unb is worth more than leak.

At 85, Unborn would be worth the same. 80-84 rating would still cost more than 65.

Looking forward to your suggestions, Jordan.

More notorious than Khaos? Damn. Also, I'd say Chris/Sov are the major threats on that squad, particularly Sov. Without them, it's a very mid-tier squad who barely made the playoffs without them (Rejects season 1) and that was with Fax, I believe

Yeah how many squads have khaos sov and champion run?

Unb is better than distirkt? or more impactful than apollo?


I've made many suggestions and none were listened to

Me and Khaos ran SFO

Sov is just our minion

To reiterate your suggestions:

You thought this was a good idea: 1020 cap with no limits (100, 90, 80, GOOD). To use Rejects, they could've kept every top player and the best of the mid-tier. The difference between a 90 player and 100 player can be HUGE. There wouldn't be enough difference in cost to encourage not getting a top player.

After I read that first idea and you put Sov, Sol, Fax, Champ on my team and said it looks fair, it seemed like you wanted the same squads to exist for this season.

2) Your tier limit system, which is just under this topic, is good in theory, except that the teams you created as samples were unrealistic and would never form in reality. Almost all of the inactive players on one team, some teams had only one or no medics. And you grouped together players in the same groups (100, 90, 80, GOOD) that had no business being together and were not equals. When creating realistic teams with this system, it would've forced many of the top/upper mid-tier to not be able to get on a squad when squads met their limit for that tier (because a top/mid-tier player would only join 3-4 of the captains, not all 6). This is why we said that it would be pushing people away.

The truth is that every system will have it's flaws, but it's a matter of finding the best one we can. The system that is in place now offers the most flexibility to the players, and limits the strength of the top squads. We can adjust the costs of brackets easily and most players seemed to be grouped together well (some outliers). Any other opinions/suggestions/ideas, keep them coming.

You should read my uslmail I think it will fix all of the problems with this current cap/rating system

Also my teams under my cap were not unrealistic at all - save for maybe one person per team not playing with the others very much

Yeah, going to create it and see what it looks like.

Dear USL, I need my rating reduced so I can play with who ever I want.

Thank you.

Go suck an egg ER

ER, you could pay off the raters to adjust their rating.

And then Fausto will rate you 100 across the board.