Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarized Bear
ty, somehow I missed that lol
Only reason is they don't wanna play with a really good player...so the better players in the group also need him inside (let's say they have - 0,5% EV roi vs him, and +1,5-2,5% EV vs most of the other regs). Only the weaker, lazier players should fear then.
And not really much of an incentive also without CAP to vote someone in. Less recreationals/members that way.
So say you have 90 regs in a group. There are a few good players trying to get, so they are beating up on the 10 weakest regs of the group.
The 10 weakest, as you say, don't like this, so they will try to vote them in. But why do the other regs vote these new guys in who are fighting other regs already in the group (thus helping out the guys that aren't warring double, by freeing up extra slots in the que)?
Quote:
The best is a balanced system. All of the players, who deserve to be in, but as small as a group as possible. This way the group is big enough to controll the action, strong enough to be fearsome, and small enough so the weak players (fishes) per group member ratio will be good.
Wouldn't balance be better achieved by raising a criteria for getting in AND staying in? Not saying they need to be the same, but if there was a fairly objective criteria for getting in and a fairly objective criteria for staying in, and it was a certain level of difficulty, wouldn't the group naturally be maximally efficient (smallest size of best regs and no people upset over unfairness)?
Granted, it may be close to that already, I can't say specifically (hard to tell which specific examples are sour grapes and which are truly legitimate), but what do you think about my overall points here?
Note - Smallest size might mean 60 or 120, I don't know. It depends how good people are relative to one another. I think my point is, if Player John is already in the group, and Player Eric is better than him but not in the group, shouldn't Player Eric be able to get in without some obscene standards of Player John isn't going to be kicked out?
That sort of thing, more or less.
Would it even be terrible to have some statistical requirement that had people that had a bad 6 months out of the group until they improved and people that had a good 6 months in the group (random month examples there, but the point being that it is a sort of rankings formula that rewards the top xx players, and makes the next xx players have to work harder to replace some of those weaker top xx players)?