MWC Idea

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 03:28

So Grim recently stated in lobby he was considering doing a salary cap MWC. I'm sure you can all see the appeal to that. Games would be more competitive, more creative team formations, new players stepping up to important roles and failing/succeeding. I believe he stated there would be a cap of 3 players that are 4 balls to each team.

Then there is the other perspective, especially for those attempting to use their future MWC win as bragging rights. They want the most competitive finals match possible, and to play with whoever they want to play with. Whether its stacking or not is irrelevant, because thats how MWC has always been done and the finals is really all they care about in this tournament. If we don't do it in a way satisfactory to these players they will just boycott MWC.

So my proposal is a compromise and best of both worlds. Lets do a Salary Cap tournament, which will have more teams with a shot at the cup as well as closer matches between them. However to appeal to those in opposition, we will have a "Pro Bowl" game between the best players in the tournament. That or we will do an ALL STAR mini-tournament, with 4 teams, again of the best players in the tournament. INVITE ONLY. This way those players can still collect together to determine who is the best, and the shitty players who actually join MWC for fun can still enjoy themselves too.

Vantobia · Post by **Vantobia** » 08 Apr 2013, 03:33

I'd be in for option 1 or 2. There have been some great match ups this TWS due to the more balanced team distributions. Nice ideas.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 08 Apr 2013, 04:47

Regular MWC with the Weighted QR Pools so the "lesser" teams can still have fun/competitive matches for most of the tournament and yet we can still see top level play in the later rounds of the tournament.

All Star games have been attempted in the past and they are pretty much just a glorified rabble game. Have you ever heard anyone talk about how awesome their All-Star match victory was? NOPE

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 08 Apr 2013, 05:12

Asmo wrote:Regular MWC with the Weighted QR Pools so the "lesser" teams can still have fun/competitive matches for most of the tournament and yet we can still see top level play in the later rounds of the tournament.

This. Regular MWC but instead of teams that lose being out of the tourney, let them compete in a B pool/div or similar.

wwo · Post by **wwo** » 08 Apr 2013, 09:32

Just do 2 separate tourneys. No need to mix this shit up. Let the top 4 teams play a round-robin QR, then seed straight into the semis. Meanwhile all the other teams can play 3 weeks' worth of games to determine 5th place and avoid the humiliation of getting raped in DE1.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 08 Apr 2013, 18:01

According to the final standings of mwc last year this means that you would leave R3 and Tcox out of the round robin for the finals with the idea you are presenting. Knowning players on both of those teams I know there is NO WAY that they sign up for mwc if they aren't allowed to compete with the best.

So that leaves Deer and Age to play each other 3 weeks straight? I don't see how that is intriguing to any of the teams.

This is a tournament, you sign up to compete and do the best you can. If the only reason you are signing up is "to have fun" and could care less about the outcome then I don't see a problem just getting smashed one week and having good matches for most of the tournament assuming we use a Weighted QR Pool.

I know for me personally always being on the team that is the "Best of the rest" (meaning the teams that didn't have a realistic shot of winning the whole tournament) that the matches I most look forward to are against the top teams because I want to prove myself as one of the best as a competitive person.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 08 Apr 2013, 18:12

It is really amusing how biased Zak presented this as well.

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 08 Apr 2013, 18:38

Yeah I agree with Asmo. It's more important for any team to be on conceptually equal footing at the start of the tournament (i.e. could win in theory) than to avoid being dominated in their first game. i.e. just let it work the same way as MWC has in the past but add a losers pool coming out of the QR.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 19:03

GiantKillerGen wrote:It is really amusing how biased Zak presented this as well.

And I think its hilarious how much top teams will freak out if they aren't allowed to stack their roster.

Perhaps your mwc wins were less a result of the CAPTAIN FACTOR, and more STACK FACTOR?

par73 · Post by **par73** » 08 Apr 2013, 19:25

punkUser wrote:Yeah I agree with Asmo. It's more important for any team to be on conceptually equal footing at the start of the tournament (i.e. could win in theory) than to avoid being dominated in their first game. i.e. just let it work the same way as MWC has in the past but add a losers pool coming out of the QR.

Yet there have been over 15 team tournaments played in the nonequal format and only 2 with equal footing over the past 10 years.

"losers" pool coming out of QR is a good idea but you should probably rename it. Then again i don't really recall any teams being eliminated after the QRs in a long long time.

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:14

par73 wrote: Yet there have been over 15 team tournaments played in the nonequal format and only 2 with equal footing over the past 10 years.

What do you mean? I don't mean with no seeding or anything like that, I just mean each team should have a possibility to win it all if they win every game/match. Some teams will be expected to get annihilated in the first match, but let the tourney work that out rather than predictions.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:18

thisforumsucks wrote:And I think its hilarious how much top teams will freak out if they aren't allowed to stack their roster.

Who is freaking out? Doesn't look like anyone here in this thread or elsewhere. Personally, I don't really care too much either way, but I may opt out of participating with a salary cap. It gets to a certain point where I got other better things to do. You can't force people to play something that isn't fun for them. That certainly doesn't mean anyone is freaking out.

thisforumsucks wrote:Perhaps your mwc wins were less a result of the CAPTAIN FACTOR, and more STACK FACTOR?

Doesn't matter even if that was the case. I had fun winning them. U mirin?

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:29

GiantKillerGen wrote:
thisforumsucks wrote:And I think its hilarious how much top teams will freak out if they aren't allowed to stack their roster.
Who is freaking out? Doesn't look like anyone here in this thread or elsewhere. Personally, I don't really care too much either way, but I may opt out of participating with a salary cap. It gets to a certain point where I got other better things to do. You can't force people to play something that isn't fun for them. That certainly doesn't mean anyone is freaking out.

thisforumsucks wrote:Perhaps your mwc wins were less a result of the CAPTAIN FACTOR, and more STACK FACTOR?
Doesn't matter even if that was the case. I had fun winning them. U mirin?

I dunno, it seems like if numerous people decide not to participate in MWC (after not missing a MWC in years) because of a minor restriction placed on team rosters, thats freaking out.

You can have more weeks of games where you play shitty teams, or you can dilute the quality of the teams and have more matches that are competitive. I'd think a natural competitor like you would appreciate the challenge of forming a roster and winning under adversity such as this. However it seems that if you can't build a dream team every MWC you would rather not play at all. It seems like the recruitment process pre-mwc is the biggest factor in who goes to the finals. Maybe you could write us all an article about that?

And just so nobody is confused, the rough draft of what Grim is suggesting is this: 3-4 players that are equal to or greater than 4 balls, per team. Then you could undoubtedly have 3-4 players who are rated 3 balls.

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:32

While I love draft tourneys and seeing more competitive games (and not just tuning out of the first half of MWC), there's needs to be *a* venue where you produce the best of the best competition in the finals, i.e. the highest tier myth play of that year. MWC has always been that so instead of changing it to be more draft-like, why not just let it fill that niche and run other tourneys along-side? It may well be that TWS or some other draft tourney ends up being the more interesting to watch due to more even skill sets, but do both and let the audience decide that.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:38

What punkuser said. That is the reason I and many others come to play in MWC. I only play in MWC for the last 2 matches of the tournament for the highest tier matches on myth of the entire year. If it no longer can give me that, then it no longer serves any purpose for me. And I am almost looking for an excuse not to participate anyway because I have already done enough in MWC's and I may just want to do other things instead anyway.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:39

punkUser wrote:While I love draft tourneys and seeing more competitive games (and not just tuning out of the first half of MWC), there's needs to be *a* venue where you produce the best of the best competition in the finals, i.e. the highest tier myth play of that year. MWC has always been that so instead of changing it to be more draft-like, why not just let it fill that niche and run other tourneys along-side? It may well be that TWS or some other draft tourney ends up being the more interesting to watch due to more even skill sets, but do both and let the audience decide that.

A salary cap is not going to DRAMATICALLY reduce the quality of games in the finals. Even in 2011, where it was supposedly the best vs the best, it was a lopsided match with the losing team barely getting a couple of wins.

Also you will have even superior matches in the event of an all star mini-tournament, since you're also getting the good players who join shitty teams instead of the top 3. Are you guys suggesting that a top tier team needs 5-6 weeks of beating up on weaker teams to develop the team chemistry necessary to perform well in finals? These people have all been playing together for over a decade now.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:06

A salary cap is not going to DRAMATICALLY reduce the quality of games in the finals. Even in 2011, where it was supposedly the best vs the best, it was a lopsided match with the losing team barely getting a couple of wins.

It is going to dramatically reduce the quality of play. One of the main reasons I hosted a draft tournament at the time was because I thought that the game could be nearly as solid as top end mwc games in a draft style tournament and thus allowing more people to compete at the top level in myth 2, but that turned out to be very false.

There is so many holes to your argument. SP played 3 games in a row on the breech of elimination in the bottom bracket finals (without adren). You could argue that the bottom bracket finals were the best two teams.

Also in the type of tournament format you want it excludes sooo many players, If you make a roster with four 4 ball+ players and fill in the rest with 3 ballers then what about all the 2-3 ballers that weren't added to a roster? They create a team together and get smashed. So what is the difference?

Also you will have even superior matches in the event of an all star mini-tournament, since you're also getting the good players who join shitty teams instead of the top 3. Are you guys suggesting that a top tier team needs 5-6 weeks of beating up on weaker teams to develop the team chemistry necessary to perform well in finals? These people have all been playing together for over a decade now.

Again almost no one would care about some "All-Star mini-tournament" this is just some random idea you threw in to attempt to get what you want for the "real tournament" Myth World Cup.

As already stated, there wouldn't be 5-6 weeks of top teams beating up on weaker teams in a Weighted QR Pool format which has already been done before.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:36

Asmo wrote:
It is going to dramatically reduce the quality of play. One of the main reasons I hosted a draft tournament at the time was because I thought that the game could be nearly as solid as top end mwc games in a draft style tournament and thus allowing more people to compete at the top level in myth 2, but that turned out to be very false.

The teams in your draft tournament and the teams in a MWC salary cap are not comparable. The two winning teams were forced to field 2 ballers, and that won't happen with top teams in MWC.

Asmo wrote:There is so many holes to your argument. SP played 3 games in a row on the breech of elimination in the bottom bracket finals (without adren). You could argue that the bottom bracket finals were the best two teams.

And our MWC team only had 4 players in that match who could be considered 4 balls (shai, limp, sam, and MAYBE ska who was extremely rusty and inactive). I fail to see how thats a hole in my argument when our roster in that tournament was pretty much the epitome of the salary cap team.

Asmo wrote:Also in the type of tournament format you want it excludes sooo many players, If you make a roster with four 4 ball+ players and fill in the rest with 3 ballers then what about all the 2-3 ballers that weren't added to a roster? They create a team together and get smashed. So what is the difference?

You're really reaching with these statements. What 2 ballers are going to be excluded that wouldn't have already been excluded? Yes there will be a couple of shitty teams with 2 ballers that team together because they like each other and nobody else wants them. Just like there will be top tier teams full of 3-4 ballers with no 2 ballers on their team. This isn't even an issue of inclusion or exclusion.

Asmo wrote:Again almost no one would care about some "All-Star mini-tournament" this is just some random idea you threw in to attempt to get what you want for the "real tournament" Myth World Cup.

Wait so all players care about are the 2-3 good matches of the year, but they also wouldn't care about matches that are only comprised of good players? Thats a pretty major contradiction in your line of thinking. You're going to get teams that are actually more elite than the ones that would be in a MWC, because you're also including the top players from teams ranked 5-8 who "chose" not to join top teams. Also if both teams are incredibly stacked, performing well in this match is even more impressive than in the finals of MWC.

Asmo wrote:As already stated, there wouldn't be 5-6 weeks of top teams beating up on weaker teams in a Weighted QR Pool format which has already been done before.

Again, what point is there for the lesser teams to compete? You guys want to talk about people quitting if they can't be on the best team they can possibly be on, but the opposite of that is true as well. People realize that their team has absolutely no chance of winning unless they're on the top 2-3 teams, so them entering MWC is really a formality and a waste of time. You might as well just eliminate them in the QRs, because DE is meaningless for these teams.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:38

thisforumsucks wrote:
Asmo wrote: 3. I care what GKG thinks of me? No, or I would have been sucking up to him or any other person for that matter for years to try and get on a top team.
Can't remember the last time you and GKG disagreed on a subject, but thats probably just coincidence

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:55

The teams in your draft tournament and the teams in a MWC salary cap are not comparable. The two winning teams were forced to field 2 ballers, and that won't happen with top teams in MWC

hmmmm, very interesting. Please do point out these 2 ballers that the two winning teams were forced to field. According to you that would make you the 2 baller of Team GKG

Giant Killer General 10
Ghengis Kahn 10
Gekko 9
Cruniac 8
Homer 7
Slate 8
Zak 7

Ratking 7
Tirri 10
Dantski 8
Cave 8
Flatline 7
Blonde 7
Cremisi 6
Bagrada 6
Drunken 6

You guys want to talk about people quitting if they can't be on the best team they can possibly be on

I NEVER talked about people quitting if they can't be on the best team. I talked about people not wanting to participate if they didn't have the opportunity to compete with the best.

After readying responses like this where it is clear you didn't comprehend what I typed, I'm done arguing in this thread with you. Until you can present half decent arguments instead of your toddler responses then it's not worth my time.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 23:04

Asmo wrote:Other than that I'm done arguing in this thread with you. Until you can present half decent arguments instead of your toddler responses then it's not worth my time.

Wait, so you deliberately leave out players from both teams to make an argument, and I'm the one with toddler responses? Is this just your way of saying that you don't have any rational arguments left for this discussion?

Here is a list of 2 ballers you left out, and will never see on a top team in a MWC salary cap tournament:

Team GKG:
LN, Falcon, Scratch

Team Ratking:
Sei Lah, Sormiron, Switch, Raven

Asmo wrote:
The teams in your draft tournament and the teams in a MWC salary cap are not comparable. The two winning teams were forced to field 2 ballers, and that won't happen with top teams in MWC
hmmmm, very interesting. Please do point out these 2 ballers that the two winning teams were forced to field. According to you that would make you the 2 baller of Team GKG

Giant Killer General 10
Ghengis Kahn 10
Gekko 9
Cruniac 8
Homer 7
Slate 8
Zak 7

Ratking 7
Tirri 10
Dantski 8
Cave 8
Flatline 7
Blonde 7
Cremisi 6
Bagrada 6
Drunken 6

You're really doing a great job representing those against the salary cap.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 08 Apr 2013, 23:13

Wait, so you deliberately leave out players from both teams to make an argument, and I'm the one with toddler responses? Is this just your way of saying that you don't have any rational arguments left for this discussion?

You said,

forced to field 2 ballers

.

They aren't forced to field those 2 ballers if they have 7+ other options on their roster are they? Man this can not be real. You can't really be this stupid.

Yep, done. Time and time again you prove to be a fool.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 23:21

Asmo wrote:
Wait, so you deliberately leave out players from both teams to make an argument, and I'm the one with toddler responses? Is this just your way of saying that you don't have any rational arguments left for this discussion?

You said,
forced to field 2 ballers
.

They aren't forced to field those 2 ballers if they have 7+ other options on their roster are they? Man this can not be real. You can't really be this stupid.

Yep, done. Time and time again you prove to be a fool.

Congratulations on picking your battles. You've avoided discussing I've said prior and instead want to focus on this NEW AND IMPORTANT issue of me saying GKG and Ratking were forced to field 2 ballers.

Yes if you're on a team roster, the captain has an obligation to let you play regardless of how bad you are. Now he can make that just a few games a tournament, but I have never heard of a case where a player showed up to play and was NEVER allowed to play in ANY games. Furthermore, with special cases, one of your other players may have to leave early or miss a match. In that case GKG was forced to replace that player with one of his 2 ballers.

It is extremely UNLIKELY that you will EVER see that in a top tier MWC match with a salary cap, because the teams will grab active 3 ball roleplayers that won't miss matches. They would also prefer to play with 6 people, than let a 2 baller into the match.

So, yeah, go ahead and stop talking because every one of your "arguments" has been shown to clearly been misleading and false. Tell yourself that "Zak is a fool who uses infantile arguments" if it helps you sleep at night.

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 08 Apr 2013, 23:28

The reason I avoided responding to a lot of the stuff is because I already answered much of it. It just appears you aren't capable of comprehending it.

If you can't comprehend the stuff I already typed then i'm not going to continue wasting my time by responding to you.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 08 Apr 2013, 23:45

Asmo wrote:The reason I avoided responding to a lot of the stuff is because I already answered much of it. It just appears you aren't capable of comprehending it.

If you can't comprehend the stuff I already typed then i'm not going to continue wasting my time by responding to you.

A lot of your statements were contradictory, completely false, or irrelevant to the discussion. When I pointed that out you chose to stop talking as opposed to telling me why I'm wrong. I answered all the questions you posed, then asked a few of my own, which you avoided answering because you don't have an answer that makes your argument look better.

Instead you chose to go after me based on a sub-topic of this discussion, the draft tournament. Which is supposed to be some example of why a salary cap wouldn't work. Instead I pointed out the major differences in the two tournaments, and you sought to discredit me based on ONE statement I made. Once again I make you look bad by showing you the one statement you used to discredit me was in fact, true.

Now you are avoiding the conversation altogether, because you've been completely raped.

dac · Post by **dac** » 09 Apr 2013, 00:38

quit using a tournament that's supposed to involve everybody as an excuse to play 2 or 3 games with picked teams. you can do that other times, except people only show up at times for mwc. why do they show up? to beat up on lower teams and feel good about their myth skills, or if they're on one of the contending teams (usually 1/4 of the total teams) then they might get that ring.

otherwise, it's a huge waste of time for the lower/mid level teams and they only play cuz they dont take it serious, hence the origination of the care argument etc.

two solutions: mid teams stop playing so gkg & the like can get to the point and just play against the other stacked teams with a shot at winning, or everybody feels good participating in some other format. but dont call that other format mwc, because it's not what it is.

the only reason mwc rings have any meaning is because of the rabble.

wwo · Post by **wwo** » 09 Apr 2013, 00:41

The best thing to do is limit roster size to 9; proceed as usual.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 00:44

dac wrote: or everybody feels good participating in some other format. but dont call that other format mwc, because it's not what it is.

the only reason mwc rings have any meaning is because of the rabble.

Does your ring really hold less meaning if you skip the qualifying round, early DE, and go straight to the semi-finals? Thats basically the idea behind the mini-tournament

Its been a long time since a 4-5 trow team was upset and eliminated by a 2-3 trow team

Chohan · Post by **Chohan** » 09 Apr 2013, 01:45

thisforumsucks wrote:
dac wrote: or everybody feels good participating in some other format. but dont call that other format mwc, because it's not what it is.

the only reason mwc rings have any meaning is because of the rabble.
Does your ring really hold less meaning if you skip the qualifying round, early DE, and go straight to the semi-finals? Thats basically the idea behind the mini-tournament

Its been a long time since a 4-5 trow team was upset and eliminated by a 2-3 trow team

It's about beating them into submission and reminding them of your greatness.

Aki · Post by **Aki** » 09 Apr 2013, 03:08

Weighted pools + send the lowest seeds directly into the bottom bracket to eliminate a weekend of mostly shitty matches.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 09 Apr 2013, 04:22

I can't quite follow this argument it is way too disorganized. Right now I see 2 points against a salary cap that have been left largely unanswered:

#1) I think we all agree that with a salary cap we are still going to end up with 4 good teams and the rest shitty teams pretty much. Top teams will just decide not to take 2 ballers, because they would rather play with a lean roster than have a liability on the team anyway. This leaves a few teams of 2-3 ballers just the same as always. Some good players that can't be allowed on a top team will just decide not to play. So what else exactly is a salary cap trying to accomplish if it can't create more even teams? Is the argument that it is lopsided even amongst the top 2-3 teams?

#2) None of the previous top 3 teams of probably any previous mwc would qualify under this format, so there can be no doubt that the quality of the rosters and matches would go down significantly. NC had 6 arguable 4 ballers on its roster last year (their weakest roster ever), not just 3. NC/tcox is always stacked. Bullz / SP were stacked. There can be no argument that the quality of the top 3 teams will definitely be decreased under a salary cap system. Yet, per point #1, we aren't going to see much of an increase in top-contending teams. You might see a 4th cup-contending team, 1 more than usual, under a salary cap system. Even that isn't guaranteed though, that assumes we don't lose too many good players.

So all I really see here is no increase in the number of top teams, a decrease in the quality of rosters / matches, and loss of participation overall.

Like Asmo said, I think the mid-high teams would rather compete with the top teams even if they don't have a shot. Those matches are still worthwhile too, and an upset is technically possible.

I am not sure what the low-end teams would want to do. I would be curious what some of them think. Do they want to compete with everyone else, or just have a separate division so they can get more matches in, and have better quality matches too. How the separate division is created can be argued later assuming that is something the low-end teams want.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 06:01

Let me focus each aspect of the argument into single posts, to keep it more organized.

GiantKillerGen wrote:
#1) I think we all agree that with a salary cap we are still going to end up with 4 good teams and the rest shitty teams pretty much. Top teams will just decide not to take 2 ballers, because they would rather play with a lean roster than have a liability on the team anyway. This leaves a few teams of 2-3 ballers just the same as always.

At least you can see that nobody is saying 2 ballers should be on top teams. We don't know how many teams will be entering, or how many 3-4 ballers they will be. So nobody can say how spread out the skilled players and unskilled players will be. However with a roster cap and a salary cap in place, players that want to play but can't get on a good team will play on "weaker" and "weaker" teams. This means overall the tournament will be more competitive. There is a higher likelihood of a 3 trow team upsetting a 4 trow team, and a 2 trow team upsetting a 3 trow team. I know some people talk about tournaments where "any team can win, and any team can lose" as a bad thing, but it makes for more exciting matches. If it felt like even just 4-5 teams could win the cup, I think it would be a huge step in the right direction.

GiantKillerGen wrote:Some good players that can't be allowed on a top team will just decide not to play. So what else exactly is a salary cap trying to accomplish if it can't create more even teams? Is the argument that it is lopsided even amongst the top 2-3 teams?

Thats true, some good players may choose not to participate. However we already have average and bad players not participating for the opposite reason. Is there any obligation to cater to those who threaten to not participate if they don't get their way? This salary cap will create more even teams, because there is a certain amount of lopsidedness when it comes to player skill on the top teams.

GiantKillerGen wrote:#2) None of the previous top 3 teams of probably any previous mwc would qualify under this format, so there can be no doubt that the quality of the rosters and matches would go down significantly. NC had 6 arguable 4 ballers on its roster last year (their weakest roster ever), not just 3. NC/tcox is always stacked. Bullz / SP were stacked. There can be no argument that the quality of the top 3 teams will definitely be decreased under a salary cap system.

Lets look at these statements in more detail, particularly 2012.

NC violates the rule yes, but we would have been fine with a salary cap. Shaister(4), Adrenaline(4), ska(3-4), sam(4), August(3), zaknafein(3). Limp(4) never showed up until the end of the tournament, Nemesis (4) never showed up at all. I don't think Sevendust(3) did either. Blade(3) showed up for one or two matches, and captain(3-4) was a little better about showing up but not much. So all those players easily could have been cut to make our team salary cap friendly. I could easily have been replaced by a different 3 baller, and NC could have picked up another 4 baller, or at least 1-2 more 3 ballers, depending on ska's ranking. You can say we had 6 players ranked 4 balls, but if they didn't show up and would have been cut if asked to, is that a fair thing to say? Those players we cut would have made little to no difference in the overall result of the tournament, assuming the core players show to every match.

My Team had Grim(3-4), Arze(4), ducky (3-4), karma(4), dantski(4), kryptos(3-4), gekko(4), enculator(3), tirri(4), dante(3), rabican(3-4), chickenwire(4). I'm sure the draft tournament would have ranked a lot of the people that are questionable, as 4s. If these players were asked to restrict it to 4 players ranked 4 balls, and the rest 3 ballers, it would ideally have looked like this: karma, enculator, dante, rabican, kryptos, ducky, tirri, chickenwire. Is that still a stacked team? Then ducky, arze, grim, gekko, and dantski could easily supplement the rosters of the other 2-4 competitive teams.

I can't remember who SP had on it so correct me if I'm wrong. Paris(4), GKG(4), GK(4), EW(4), PK(3-4), Homer(3-4), Browning(4), Cruniac(3-4), Hadiez(3-4). So yeah I can see how you would be afraid of an inflated ranking system fucking with your team, because so many of your roleplayers have become 4 balls, or are constantly on the verge of 4. I feel I rated cruniac, homer, and PK, lower than they really are, but at the start of that tournament I feel like thats what most people thought of them. Lets say that your roster kept GKG, Paris, GK, and EW, and Hadiez. Then you found people slightly less skilled to fit that 3 ball role, and cruniac, browning, homer, and PK all found more teams to join.

All in all thats Nemesis, sevendust, captain, blade, Limp, Arze, grim, gekko, dantski, cruniac, browning, homer, and hadiez all looking for a team. You could make 2 teams out of those players, or make teams ranked 4-6 contenders for the trophy. Do you see how big a difference that makes to the entire tournament? All 3 top teams will have no problems finding capable 3 ballers to fill the gaps in their roster, and the other teams are going to see a huge boost in playing ability.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 06:44

GiantKillerGen wrote:Yet, per point #1, we aren't going to see much of an increase in top-contending teams. You might see a 4th cup-contending team, 1 more than usual, under a salary cap system. Even that isn't guaranteed though, that assumes we don't lose too many good players.

Players quit because of lots of reasons. I've only seen a couple of people so outspoken against a salary cap that they won't participate in MWC at all. I think there are far more people that choose to not participate because of the lopsidedness of the top tier teams. Saying that bad players don't matter equates to saying that skilled players are more important to the community than bad players. I say they're equal and that we shouldn't give in to demands of people threatening to take their blocks and go home. So before you call me a hypocrite, let me just clarify that I don't want to give in to the demands of either perspective in that regard, and am advocating the salary cap because it will increase the competitiveness of the top 6 teams.

GiantKillerGen wrote:So all I really see here is no increase in the number of top teams, a decrease in the quality of rosters / matches, and loss of participation overall.

I think my previous post shows just how this could create an increase in top teams and result in more quality matches throughout the year. The top 3 teams are still going to be the favorites to win, but they have a legitimate threat from the asmos, duckys, dantskis, and ratkings of MWC. Overall loss of participation and overall decrease in matches is not something we can predict, there are too many factors involved. We can only know how this will affect MWC based on what each individual says about it, or by actually trying it. I don't believe that individual players "represent" a faction of the community.

GiantKillerGen wrote:Like Asmo said, I think the mid-high teams would rather compete with the top teams even if they don't have a shot. Those matches are still worthwhile too, and an upset is technically possible.

My idea still has mid-high teams competing with the top teams.If I'm right, this will improve the games between those teams, and increase the likelihood of an upset.

If you are referring to my mini-tournament idea, then also recognize that there are good players on those teams who would be included in the rosters of that tournament.

GiantKillerGen wrote:I am not sure what the low-end teams would want to do. I would be curious what some of them think. Do they want to compete with everyone else, or just have a separate division so they can get more matches in, and have better quality matches too. How the separate division is created can be argued later assuming that is something the low-end teams want.

Mayhaps each team captain can be given a vote of how they would like the tournament to be run.

My guess is that a lot of people will want to participate in MWC the regular way, but feel there is something being done to prevent a monopoly on skill. I have never heard a player from a shitty team sigh and say "man I wish I could play in MWC, but only against shitty players", so I personally don't believe any of them are interested in a separate division.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 09 Apr 2013, 07:49

Agree to disagree then I guess. It sounds like you are suggesting that the previous 2 draft tournaments have had more top-contending teams and more good quality matches since that format most approximates the salary cap system, which I just completely disagree with.

Oh and rest assured, there would NOT be enough good 3 ballers to go around. Essentially since the difference between 4 and 5 balls doesn't matter since they are in the same category, and no team with 4+ ballers will care about 2 ballers, the only thing that matters is the difference between 3 balls and 4 balls. So almost everything depends on how these 3-4 ballers will be rated, will it be a 3 or a 4. Such a massive spectrum within that range by the way. There will be more 4+ ballers than there will be good 3 ballers. Everything will rely on what good 3 ballers a team gets. It is the difference between players like THOR (very low 3), and Asmo (high 3). Basically a player like Asmo would become more valuable than a player like me even because the difference he can make on a team against other 3 ballers is immense.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 08:45

GiantKillerGen wrote:Agree to disagree then I guess. It sounds like you are suggesting that the previous 2 draft tournaments have had more top-contending teams and more good quality matches since that format most approximates the salary cap system, which I just completely disagree with.

I said earlier there are LARGE differences between those tournaments and MWC. MWC always has more players, and thus a larger amount of skilled players. Care is also higher and players will perform better in general. You can't cite that as an example of why the salary cap would fail, or say that the teams will look similar at all.

GiantKillerGen wrote:Oh and rest assured, there would NOT be enough good 3 ballers to go around. Essentially since the difference between 4 and 5 balls doesn't matter since they are in the same category, and no team with 4+ ballers will care about 2 ballers, the only thing that matters is the difference between 3 balls and 4 balls. So almost everything depends on how these 3-4 ballers will be rated, will it be a 3 or a 4. Such a massive spectrum within that range by the way. There will be more 4+ ballers than there will be good 3 ballers. Everything will rely on what good 3 ballers a team gets. It is the difference between players like THOR (very low 3), and Asmo (high 3). Basically a player like Asmo would become more valuable than a player like me even because the difference he can make on a team against other 3 ballers is immense.

How much is going around? Lets say that the top 3 teams have all the high 3 ball players, would that be good enough for you? Maybe we should rate players out of 10 to accomodate for the difference between a 6 and a 7. You don't want low 3s on your team anyways, nor would you be forced to add them. I'm sure you can find 3-4 players rated 3, to play adequately on the team with your 4 players ranked 4-5. Its not like players are getting drafted, where a team gets stuck with a shitty 3 baller like thor. If you add thor to your team thats your fault. The recruitment factor is a part of MWC and has had a very large impact on who wins the tournament, the salary cap will not change that. Teams that choose wisely will be more likely to win.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:01

I disagree that there is a large difference. last mwc had 10 teams, this one has 8. sure there will be a slight increase in players, nothing too substantial. Care is higher? Nah, not too much really. I am quite surprised actually at how much some of the teams from this tourney care. Players will perform better? I don't see why they would magically play better. So yea, I just disagree in general on all of those points.

I wouldn't care about "maximizing" the rating of players on my team in an attempt to stack as much as possible. There are plenty of 4 ballers that I wouldn't want on my team. I am not suggesting I would get stuck with a player that I didn't want. I care about the flexibility of having the team that I want. And there are not enough good 3 ballers to even supply the top 3 teams. I can think of just maybe like 4 of them or so that I would want. That is of course unless they take all these 3-4 ballers (players that would usually be considered 4 balls under normal circumstances really) and they were just made 3 balls instead. But that sounds like just manipulating ratings to get around the whole purpose of the salary cap to begin with anyway. So at that point why not just remove it entirely.

CheezeFist · Post by **CheezeFist** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:02

I think some players, like myself, deserve a negative rating. Then when I get drafted my team gets extra points to equal all of my own teams units I will kill.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:39

I'm not advocating either way cause the both have valid reasons. Caps and other limitations would most likely end up having more competitive and even matches. Also though part of the fun for a lot of Players is making an MWC "dream team". I wanted to make a suggestion though on a system with a points cap and other limitations that could work.

1) Rank Players from 1-10 to have more precise Player rankings.
2) Add a points cap. Not sure what it should be.
3) Limit the number of Players ranked 8-10 a team can have. For example 3.
4) No subs.

3-4 would help encourage teams not to have just a few high ranked Players on their team with no mid/low ranked Players. This would spread out the top ranked Players among different teams and also help prevent mid/low ranked Players from being excluded or forced all onto one team. First of all a team couldnt have more than 3 8-10 ranked Players to begin with and without subs a team would be less likely to only field a team of for example 6 high ranked Players. Since not everyone can make every match. For example if Team A spent all of their points on just 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7 (48 points) VS Team B with 9 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3 (48 points). If each team were 3 Players short for a match (no subs) it may be like this. Team A) 3 Players 10,8,7 VS Team B) 6 Players 8,6,6,5,4,3. This could actually be a fairly even and competitive match. With team B having less heavy hitters but a 2-1 Player advantage.

Someone could argue that a situation like this could occur in the earlier rounds but less likely in the later rounds where more Players are likely to make the matches. So it would be less even with team B not befitting from a 2-1 Player advantage. It being Team A) 6 Players 10,9,8,7,7,7 VS Team B) 8 Players 8,7,6,6,5,5,4,3. This is where Player reliability and care factor would become a greater consideration when building a team. Since having 2 Players ranked 5 and 4 that are reliable (make it to matches and practice) that want to learn and listen to their captain and better Players, may be better than having 1 Player ranked 9 but for whatever reason cant make it to many matches or practice. Ideally by the later matches and finals team B will be stronger than earlier rounds. This coming from first picking reliable Players with a high care factor to start with. Then by the later rounds hopefully befitting from the Captains and higher ranked members helping/teaching the lower ranks. An improvement in team cohesion from playing/practicing together and a higher care factor because of the possibility of being able to win. So at the later rounds by picking the right team members and good coaching from better Players on the team, a 2 Player advantage for team B may be enough to make for a competitive match with team A.

A system like this would most likely make for more competitive matches and a better chance for any team to win. It would put more emphasis on Player reliability and care factor some additional considerations when team building. It would spread out the heavy hitters and encourage them to help/teach some of the lower ranked Players increasing the over Myth skill level. Possibly encouraging more people to participate in MWC since more people will see they have a chance at being on a winning team. (When there are a couple or few teams stacked with heavy hitters. I am sure there are a lot of Players that dont bother competing since they know they dont have much of a chance.) All of this possibly making the MWC experience more fun for more people.

As far as building "dream teams" for the highest level of competition. There could be a mini "all star" tourney. Players could be decided by MWC tournament stats like the Players with the highest damage or kill ratios etc getting a spot . Or by vote or a combination. I think having 4 teams with each team playing each of the other 3 with the top 2 teams going to a finals would work good for strong competition, high care factor and bragging rights.

Edit: Using Players with top ratios and MVP's from different rounds being eligible to be on the "all star" teams would likely increase Player care factor in matches also.

Have a system such as:
1) Top 5 highest damage ratios
2) Top 5 Kill ratios
3) Top 5 over all Kills. Remove them from Top 5 Kill ratios for eligibility so no overlap
4) Top 5 over all Damage. Remove them from Top 5 Damage ratios for eligibility so no overlap
5) Top 5 voted MVP's not included in 1, 2,3,4.
6) Top ? Matches attended. This would encourage more people to show up to matches.

Adjust, add, subtract more ways to be eligible to have enough Players to field 4 full teams. 32 Players

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:55

GiantKillerGen wrote:I disagree that there is a large difference. last mwc had 10 teams, this one has 8. sure there will be a slight increase in players, nothing too substantial.

3-4 ballers players signed up for last MWC that didn't sign up for TWS3:

grim, ducky, karma, kryptos, dante, mark, hmp, muse, ksiaze, headhunter, akira, ramirez, stormrider, truth, generalx, qwerty, gamer, crc, cave, blade, shaister, ska, august, captain, nemesis, sevendust, rodekill, jotun, toxyn, monty, blonde, khan, chron, pogue, hadiez, aki.

Thats 36 players, JUST AMONG THE 3-4 BALLERS. That is a considerable difference. Most draft teams have 3-4 players of that skill level. Distributing these players to the top 8 teams of our tournament would make them all 4-5 trow teams.

Disagree all you want, but 36 competent/good players are a substantial difference to the makeup of a tournament and its level of competitiveness.

GiantKillerGen wrote:Care is higher? Nah, not too much really. I am quite surprised actually at how much some of the teams from this tourney care. Players will perform better? I don't see why they would magically play better. So yea, I just disagree in general on all of those points

There is undeniably higher care in MWC than there is in TWS. This translates to people playing more, practicing more, stratting more, and trying harder. The higher level of concentration refines the skill of players used to mopping up scrubs during the off-season. There are several 4 ballers in this tournament making mistakes they would almost never make in MWC.

GiantKillerGen wrote:I wouldn't care about "maximizing" the rating of players on my team in an attempt to stack as much as possible. There are plenty of 4 ballers that I wouldn't want on my team. I am not suggesting I would get stuck with a player that I didn't want. I care about the flexibility of having the team that I want. And there are not enough good 3 ballers to even supply the top 3 teams. I can think of just maybe like 4 of them or so that I would want. That is of course unless they take all these 3-4 ballers (players that would usually be considered 4 balls under normal circumstances really) and they were just made 3 balls instead. But that sounds like just manipulating ratings to get around the whole purpose of the salary cap to begin with anyway. So at that point why not just remove it entirely.

[/quote][/quote]

You aren't suggesting that you would get stuck with a player you didn't want, but are also saying that there aren't enough 3-4 ballers to support the top 3 teams? So after you, EW, Paris, and ghengis khan, you can only think of FOUR people rated 3 balls you consider worthy of the top 3 teams, in that list I just posted and in this draft tournament. I find that hard to believe.

You dont need to deflate ball rankings to make people 3 balls, to come up with TWELVE people who would be reliable, active, and 3 balls. Thats all you would need for the top 3 teams. I'll list 12 right now, assuming the top 3 keep their core players.

NC:
Shaister
Adrenaline
Sam
Limp
Add these 4:
Genx
Gamer
Truth
Aki

My Team:
Tirri
Chickenwire
Rabican
Gekko
Add these 4:
Zak
Hadiez
Dante
Enculator

SP:
GKG
Paris
EW
GK
Add these 4:
Khan
Pogue
Akira
Kryptos

I chose players who are on the lower end of 3 balls for the most part, so as to avoid confusion about who is actually 3 and who is actually 4. Most of these 3 ballers have tournament finals experience, or have led a team themselves. Thats not a huge dropoff in skill. Really at worst if you get unlucky with player ratings, you're just replacing players that were on the verge of 4, with players at average 3 baller skill level.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 15:15

SamTheButcher wrote:
1) Rank Players from 1-10 to have more precise Player rankings.
2) Add a points cap. Not sure what it should be.
3) Limit the number of Players ranked 8-10 a team can have. For example 3.
4) No subs.

This is the most controversial part of the salary cap idea and the main reason GKG says he doesn't want it. Who is ranking the players? How do you rank people precisely? Will there be checks and balances in place to prevent biased rankings?

I would go with:
Maybe 1 players ranked 9 or greater allowed.
3 players ranked 8 or under allowed
5 players ranked 7 or under, allowed

SamTheButcher wrote: All Star Draftees
Have a system such as:
1) Top 5 highest damage ratios
2) Top 5 Kill ratios
3) Top 5 over all Kills. Remove them from Top 5 Kill ratios for eligibility so no overlap
4) Top 5 over all Damage. Remove them from Top 5 Damage ratios for eligibility so no overlap
5) Top 5 voted MVP's not included in 1, 2,3,4.
6) Top ? Matches attended. This would encourage more people to show up to matches.

Sounds complicated and could cause drama when a shitty player gets good stats from a match that wasn't very close. I think the better way would be to appoint 4 captains, and let them draft the top 40-50 players. That or let them just form whatever teams they want, that was the idea of the mini tournament after all.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 09 Apr 2013, 16:17

As far as rankings one method could be. Have a few people give rankings like was done for TWS. Then let people comment on the rankings and make adjustments until there is a pretty good consensus on the rankings. The Top ranked Players (which would be most important) are pretty well known so there wouldnt be much difficulty there. The lower ranks may have 1-2 point variation from different people but those wouldnt be as important anyway.

The numbers of higher ranked Players with each team could be anything that a majority could agree on. I think most important is not allowing subs. That will encourage teams to maybe use their points for more mid/lower ranked Players than just a few high ranks. To better assure they have more Players for a match. The total points cap would also help for this.

What you listed is basically the same I had. 1 Player ranked 9-10 + 3 at 8 under is very close to 3 ranked 8-10. The rest would work themselves out with the total points cap and no subs. So I think we are pretty much on the same page. Close enough that things could be tweaked.

As far as choosing people for the "all star" I think it would be good to include some people with top ratios. It would be ratios that were totaled from all of the matches they were in with a set minimum number of matches required. That would go a long way to prevent a shitty Player getting good stats, since they would have to perform consistently over a number of matches. Therefore not being shitty Players. I think it is important to guarantee a few spots that Players can EARN in some way and then leave the rest up to captains.

Chohan · Post by **Chohan** » 09 Apr 2013, 18:39

thisforumsucks wrote:3-4 ballers players signed up for last MWC that didn't sign up for TWS3:

grim, ducky, karma, kryptos, dante, mark, hmp, muse, ksiaze, headhunter, akira, ramirez, stormrider, truth, generalx, qwerty, gamer, crc, cave, blade, shaister, ska, august, captain, nemesis, sevendust, rodekill, jotun, toxyn, monty, blonde, khan, chron, pogue, hadiez, aki.

Mark, Hmp, Muse, Akira, Stormrider, Truth, Generalx, Qwerty, Gamer, Crc, Cave, Captain, Nemesis, Sevendust, Rodekill, Jotun, Toxyn, Monty, Hadiez.

>Listing a bunch of people that never showed up

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 09 Apr 2013, 19:33

What Crun said. You are just pulling stuff out of your ass at this point to fit your argument. You are also assuming quite heavily that I was going to make a similar team as last year, when I was actually trying to start a new team this year.

So agree to disagree I guess. In any case, the only thing that really matters for me personally in all of this is that it would no longer be fun for me with a salary cap. And to that end, there is absolutely no argument.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:26

Chohan wrote:
thisforumsucks wrote:3-4 ballers players signed up for last MWC that didn't sign up for TWS3:

grim, ducky, karma, kryptos, dante, mark, hmp, muse, ksiaze, headhunter, akira, ramirez, stormrider, truth, generalx, qwerty, gamer, crc, cave, blade, shaister, ska, august, captain, nemesis, sevendust, rodekill, jotun, toxyn, monty, blonde, khan, chron, pogue, hadiez, aki.
Mark, Hmp, Muse, Akira, Stormrider, Truth, Generalx, Qwerty, Gamer, Crc, Cave, Captain, Nemesis, Sevendust, Rodekill, Jotun, Toxyn, Monty, Hadiez.

>Listing a bunch of people that never showed up

Pretty sure I saw muse, storm, genx, qwerty, cave, akira, gamer, captain, jotun, monty, toxyn, all showed up to a at least one match and there are films to prove it. I'm pretty sure the same could be said of mark, sevendust, hadiez, and truth to a lesser degree.

I mean FOR FUCKS SAKE SP played a match in 2012 against tcox with this roster:

gamer, ramirez, akira, cave, genx, flatline, storm, rosaecrucis

GiantKillerGen wrote:What Crun said. You are just pulling stuff out of your ass at this point to fit your argument. You are also assuming quite heavily that I was going to make a similar team as last year, when I was actually trying to start a new team this year.

I'm pulling stuff out of my ass? Go watch some films of 2012. My argument doesn't rely at all on you remaking SP, however it does rely on you not needing to stack your team.

GiantKillerGen wrote:So agree to disagree I guess. In any case, the only thing that really matters for me personally in all of this is that it would no longer be fun for me with a salary cap. And to that end, there is absolutely no argument.

Agreed, we can't argue about what is fun or not fun. Nor can we make MWC fun for everyone. However my idea compromises with both perspectives and that has not been addressed properly besides "nobody would care about a mini-tournament".

Asmodian · Post by **Asmodian** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:42

Cruniac's list is even being generous. I could add another 5 players to that list.

Edit: Now you are trying to argue that they showed up to 1 match? Yeah seems like a good idea to spend some of your salary points on a player that is going to show up to 1 or 2 matches. So much for the salary cap system being balanced...

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:45

"Lost to Grim’s team 1-4, will play Rode’s team next. MVP – Mark - impressed me with his overall awareness and solid play." -Gamer, on R3 in the QR1

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:49

Asmo wrote:Cruniac's list is even being generous. I could add another 5 players to that list.

Edit: Now you are trying to argue that they showed up to 1 match? Yeah seems like a good idea to spend some of your salary points on a player that is going to show up to 1 or 2 matches.

I'm not saying a top team should pick a player who won't show up until elimination rounds, nor that they would have to, in order to have a good team. However if they show up for the toughest matches of the tournament, you have to acknowledge they have value on a team. Furthermore a lot of these guys showed up to more than 2 matches.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:52

Asmo wrote:Cruniac's list is even being generous. I could add another 5 players to that list.

And you disingenuous little shit, you know for a fact that toxyn, rodekill, and monty showed up for multiple matches, you were there fucking captain.

How does that GKG cock taste

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:56

Asmo wrote:So much for the salary cap system being balanced...

Players that can't be relied on to show up, until later in the tournament (example is limp) are a risk a team would be taking. If they don't want to risk getting eliminated in DE2 they should make a team with active players. The way I see it going, is the teams that eventually place 5th and 6th will have the most inactive 4 ballers on their team, due to having less recruiting options before the tournament started. As I said before, this won't be ruining the top 3.

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 09 Apr 2013, 21:00

and how does that NC cock taste zak? Or tirri cock?

For the record Asmo and I got into a heated argument right after our match. So that is pretty inaccurate. Or maybe every time someone happens to agree with someone else on the forum that is against your argument, we should just go around telling them to stop sucking each other's dick. Now stop being retarded.

The only time anyone can argue that I stacked a team was for mwc11 with the bullz, but NC had that coming. We tied them in the QR anyway so it couldn't have been that stacked. You certainly can't say that SP was stacked, we got fucking swept for god sakes, and then won the BB finals after that by the skin of our teeth. I left NC in 2010 for the very reason of not stacking the team. The team I am trying to make now is arguably a weaker roster than SP even. Bottomline is if the salary cap fucks the team roster I was trying to put together, then there is much less incentive for me to play.

How should MWC go this year?