Genher, there's a handful of people trying to move up to 60's and a handful of people trying to move up to 100's, it doesn't seem worrying to me. At any one time you wouldn't expect there to be that many people moving up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluenowhere
I would've happily bet on akis and unnBW doing it 9 or less days if they had started when these new rules were introduced.
Yeah but I disagree, i'm pretty sure they were playing significantly less than 320 games per day even though they were playing when you got in by votes which was all about volume and very little to do with your ev results; now that it's a volume + ev requirement it's even less likely they would have put in that much volume over that short of a time.
People keep throwing out "oh 200 games per day is easy, 300 games per day is doable", can anyone point to an example of someone playing that kind of volume vs 100% regs and getting good results? Maybe there are a few people who managed 200 games per day with good EV results but i'm pretty sure it's really uncommon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluenowhere
I think he only 2 that made 6k games with good ev were the two aforementioned people, who got in very quickly. That worked well to highlight inefficiencies of the system and it was duly changed. Of course with hindsight you cold prevent that happening, but its pointless discussing things with hindsight. When noqqx crushed 60s and didn't get in via the old way, we changed to votes to try to avoid things like that. When akis and unnBW crushed and took too many games to get in, we changed the system again. Also they have had nearly 5 months to play 3.2k games with a fairly average ev to get in, neither a large number of games nor a good ev, from the general feelings of forums I think most expected significantly more than 1 person to have actually managed that.
I don't think it makes sense to say they've had "nearly 5 months", most people currently shooting $60's haven't been shooting for 5 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluenowhere
ofc they can run bad, but if they truly deserve to be in that wouldn't matter. I mean if they just did some work on their games and became 1-2% players instead of 0% they could run disgustingly bad and still make it in 3.2k games
Speaking as someone who's currently a "2% player" vs regs (altho ofc it's very possible i've been running good in card distribution) i've had to work ridiculously hard on my game, it wasn't as easy as you make it sound. Maybe a very few people can get those kinds of results without studying too much, I don't know, but by definition the majority can't. I don't think that someone has to have 1-2% true ROI after rake vs 100% regs to "truly deserve to be in". IMO someone who has -1% true ROI deserves to be in.
Btw now that we've got a significant number of people who've got samples vs 100% regs i think it's important not to get carried away by the few cases of people getting really sick results (like torgoth getting 2.8% over ~4k games at $200's). Major props to the people who get those kinds of results but they are almost certainly both 1) really really good and 2) running good, i don't mean to take away from their skills with the 2nd point, i still am sure they're beating the regs for significantly more than the rake, it's just to say that we shouldn't say "well if someone can't beat 100% regs for 1-2% roi they don't REALLY deserve to be in." Someone who 1) is pretty good and 2) runs bad should still be able to get in, even if it takes a while (assuming that they're better than the weaker portion of the division).
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the new rules, but let's not act like getting in is super-easy now or that anyone who doesn't get in in 3.2k games doesn't deserve to be in, or that grinding out 3.2k games with 0% ev vs only regs in 2 weeks is the norm, or that before these new rules the division was doing a good job of letting deserving people in.
Last edited by 307th; 06-18-2014 at 10:16 AM.