General WNL Conversation Thread

Captain Lust said:

You're a low level team new to the competitive scene and lose your first 4 games. After that things start to click and you find your stride' winning the last 4 games of the season.

Another team joins for week 5 and wins all 4 games they play but without challenging high or anything. They get their wins against a similar level of opponent as the other team. Why should they be ranked above the other team? That has nothing to do with competition it's just a plain disadvantage for teams staying in the league, who have anything other than a positive round difference.

Click to expand...

Yet ordering through rounds won doesn't prevent that either. If the first team loses catastrophically in the initial 4 games and wins only very closely the last four games then the late joining team will ranked ahead of them anyway. The difference there being that the late joining team has to win far more convincingly than the first team, the standard for the same place on the league table has differed depending on when you joined.
Arguably, the first team has shown that they deserve to be ranked below the late joining team for losing as we have a better profile of their competitive record. We have a greater basis for placing the first team below the second team because the first team has lost four games, whilst it would be a negative rather than a positive assumption to assume that the second team will lose four games. Especially when we consider that their record doesn't give any indication that they will lose the four games. The late joining team hasn't gone through the 'teething' process at the start by losing several games and has chosen their opponents wisely and according to the rules, does that not show that they are the better team? 

Captain Lust said:

The other case is this, you're a middling team and you get about 1 win per 2 weeks, ending the season mid table with a round difference of roughly 0, having always been playing against roughly mid table opponents, sometimes a bit tougher, sometimes a bit easier.

Another team joins late and is of about the same standard but wins most of their early games against low level opponents as they climb up to the mid-table. This supercharges their round difference, despite not achieving any particularly remarkable feat.

Click to expand...

If the late joining team is winning against the low ranking teams, they deserve to be placed at the mid ranking level as they proved themselves to be better than the teams below them. This qualifies you as a mid ranking team. Indeed, you've proved your self by choosing your opponents well, beating them and doing so convincingly showing that you're clearly on a different level to the lower teams. That you shouldn't be considered a mid-tier team because you joined late and didn't lose any matches is absurd.

Thank you Captain Lust for making arguments that weren't centred on it 'not being fair', though I think that many of your proposed scenarios can still happen under the current system. Indeed, the scorn that you have for teams picking weaker teams seems to stem from the way that picking system works rather than necessarily due to round difference or rounds won.

In essence my response is that just because one team has lost 4 games, it doesn't mean that they should be assumed to be the better team, rather the assumption is that they've shown themselves to be the worse team.

Captain Lust said:

FFS makes me so mad when people don't understand the goddam system.

Click to expand...

Go drink some coffee.

BlackTide said:

Captain Lust said:

You're a low level team new to the competitive scene and lose your first 4 games. After that things start to click and you find your stride' winning the last 4 games of the season.

Another team joins for week 5 and wins all 4 games they play but without challenging high or anything. They get their wins against a similar level of opponent as the other team. Why should they be ranked above the other team? That has nothing to do with competition it's just a plain disadvantage for teams staying in the league, who have anything other than a positive round difference.

Click to expand...

Yet ordering through rounds won doesn't prevent that either. If the first team loses catastrophically in the initial 4 games and wins only very closely the last four games then the late joining team will ranked ahead of them anyway. The difference there being that the late joining team has to win far more convincingly than the first team, the standard for the same place on the league table has differed depending on when you joined.

Click to expand...

That also depends on how many rounds the 4 loss team has accumulated over those games. Either way, I think it's far more sensible to require a new team to do that than give an actively handicap an old team. In any case, the old team could presumably quit and rejoin rendering it irrelevant. So essentially until you win a game, your RD would always be 0. It's much fairer to just expect the new team to catch up. Remember that points are the primary sorting factor in the division.

BlackTide said:

Arguably, the first team has shown that they deserve to be ranked below the late joining team for losing as we have a better profile of their competitive record. We have a greater basis for placing the first team below the second team because the first team has lost four games, whilst it would be a negative rather than a positive assumption to assume that the second team will lose four games. Especially when we consider that their record doesn't give any indication that they will lose the four games. The late joining team hasn't gone through the 'teething' process at the start by losing several games and has chosen their opponents wisely and according to the rules, does that not show that they are the better team? 

Click to expand...

Not at all. Both teams won all their games in Weeks 5-8 in my example against opponents of similar levels. There's nothing there to indicate either team is better or worse than the other one.

One of my motivations for using round wins as the sorter ahead of round difference was to deter drops. It's pretty damn outrageous to place a new team above anyone in my opinion. The only place it differs from that is in the pick, where new teams pick ahead. That was simply a blocker to prevent late joining teams from being picked if they might want to challenge a high level team for bonus points.

BlackTide said:

Captain Lust said:

The other case is this, you're a middling team and you get about 1 win per 2 weeks, ending the season mid table with a round difference of roughly 0, having always been playing against roughly mid table opponents, sometimes a bit tougher, sometimes a bit easier.

Another team joins late and is of about the same standard but wins most of their early games against low level opponents as they climb up to the mid-table. This supercharges their round difference, despite not achieving any particularly remarkable feat.

Click to expand...

If the late joining team is winning against the low ranking teams, they deserve to be placed at the mid ranking level as they proved themselves to be better than the teams below them. This qualifies you as a mid ranking team. Indeed, you've proved your self by choosing your opponents well, beating them and doing so convincingly showing that you're clearly on a different level to the lower teams. That you shouldn't be considered a mid-tier team because you joined late and didn't lose any matches is absurd.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said in the example. Let me dumb it down for you.

This is an example of some possible scores for two teams over 8 weeks that illustrate the point.


Here you can see a very possible scenario with both teams averaging out to the middle of the table, doing fairly mixed against medium skilled opponents. Though because Team B joined later, they have worked their way only up the league, starting with weaker opponents. Team A, on the other hand, had more of a pendulum swing at the start as teams were finding their places.

The result is that Team A has a round difference of 6 but Team B has a round difference of 24. This is the kind of problem that arises from round difference being used ahead of rounds won.

Rounds is a lot closer, 67 for Team A and 60 for Team B. Team B gets a boost from rounds, playing against low level opponents when they join the league and Team A has the advantage of having played for longer, even if they weren't able to take high numbers of rounds very often. At least it's more competitive than the usage of Round Difference.

It's not a very scientific example, granted but the same logic applies even if you get technical.

BlackTide said:

Thank you Captain Lust for making arguments that weren't centred on it 'not being fair', though I think that many of your proposed scenarios can still happen under the current system.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you're changed on this point as a result of the example above.

BlackTide said:

Indeed, the scorn that you have for teams picking weaker teams seems to stem from the way that picking system works rather than necessarily due to round difference or rounds won.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about here. I don't have scorn for teams picking weaker teams. The picking system is actually designed with the assumption that teams pick the weakest teams they are able to, unless they want to gain extra points. The autopick system is designed exactly that way.

The only other logical objective teams could have is to try and target specific teams to beat them and reduce their points, or do some weird playoff related stuff (never in my original system...) though I don't think either of those really damage the competitivity of the league... just sometimes teams overestimate their own abilities and perhaps get punished a little too hard for it. So it might temporarily skew the rankings.

BlackTide said:

In essence my response is that just because one team has lost 4 games, it doesn't mean that they should be assumed to be the better team, rather the assumption is that they've shown themselves to be the worse team.

Click to expand...

They're not assumed to be the better team. For practical purposes, as I've explained above, it's not fair or sensible to handicap them. No team should be held back from improving by their past results. Again, the primary sorting system is points - not rounds. Ideally, the league would go on enough for all teams to be sorted by points and this would no longer remain as an issue. 8 weeks should do a pretty good job of this and for other practical reasons it's best to keep the league short. Though I have consistently supported a playoff, to allow for potential issues with the ladder's accuracy over a relatively short number of weeks/rounds.

BlackTide said:

Captain Lust said:

FFS makes me so mad when people don't understand the goddam system.

Click to expand...

Go drink some coffee.

Click to expand...

Go learn some critical thinking. I thought you were a PPE applicant.

Captain Lust said:

That also depends on how many rounds the 4 loss team has accumulated over those games. Either way, I think it's far more sensible to require a new team to do that than give an actively handicap an old team. In any case, the old team could presumably quit and rejoin rendering it irrelevant. So essentially until you win a game, your RD would always be 0. It's much fairer to just expect the new team to catch up. Remember that points are the primary sorting factor in the division.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I don’t think that old team is given a handicap when round difference is used, rather that they have disadvantaged themselves by losing games and rounds – as a result of their own skill and level of competition. Preventing teams from quitting and re-joining seems to be most obvious counter to that. And before you ask, I don’t think that it needs to be spelt out as what constitutes a re-joining clan, the admins are smart enough to detect where that would be the case. So again, the premise that it is fairer for the new team to catch up on round wins is a false one. I have already stated that the points system is an inevitable factor working against new teams and that is unavoidable. The handicap of using a round wins system is avoidable.

Captain Lust said:

Not at all. Both teams won all their games in Weeks 5-8 in my example against opponents of similar levels. There's nothing there to indicate either team is better or worse than the other one.

Click to expand...

There is a clear indication of whether one team is better or worse than the other. By virtue of the fact that one team has lost 4 games, they have clearly shown themselves to be competitively inferior to other teams and the evidence is there. The late joining team has shown itself to be superior to the teams that it has beaten and there is nothing to suggest that they wouldn’t have lost another 4 games like the first team. You’re basing it on the assumption that the late team would lose 4 games yet there is no supporting evidence for this. The more valid assumption, based on what has actually been seen of the team’s competitive, is that they wouldn’t lose the next four games. It is far better to assume based on some evidence rather than assuming simply because a completely different team flopped on four games.

Captain Lust said:

One of my motivations for using round wins as the sorter ahead of round difference was to deter drops. It's pretty damn outrageous to place a new team above anyone in my opinion. The only place it differs from that is in the pick, where new teams pick ahead. That was simply a blocker to prevent late joining teams from being picked if they might want to challenge a high level team for bonus points.

Click to expand...

The belief that teams would drop if round difference was used seems to be fairly unfounded. To the best of my recollection, I don’t believe that last time this system was used, that any teams dropped out for the reasons that you cite. The inconvenience involved in doing so, the effects it would have on morale, the way that the team is looked at in the eyes of the community and so on seem to have been efficient deterrents.

Captain Lust said:

Team A Score	Opponent Skill	Team B Score	Opponent Skill
12-4	low	-	-
3-13	high	-	-
11-5	low	12-4	low
9-7	medium	15-1	low
6-10	medium	9-7	medium
7-9	medium	10-6	medium
10-6	medium	5-11	medium
9-7	medium	9-7	medium

Here you can see a very possible scenario with both teams averaging out to the middle of the table, doing fairly mixed against medium skilled opponents. Though because Team B joined later, they have worked their way only up the league, starting with weaker opponents. Team A, on the other hand, had more of a pendulum swing at the start as teams were finding their places.

The result is that Team A has a round difference of 6 but Team B has a round difference of 24. This is the kind of problem that arises from round difference being used ahead of rounds won.

Rounds is a lot closer, 67 for Team A and 60 for Team B. Team B gets a boost from rounds, playing against low level opponents when they join the league and Team A has the advantage of having played for longer, even if they weren't able to take high numbers of rounds very often. At least it's more competitive than the usage of Round Difference.

Click to expand...

I don’t see what the injustice is. Remove the results from weeks 1 and 2 from team A, where their biggest loss was, and you get a very similar picture. Team A ends up on a ratio of 52:46 with a 6 round difference after winning 4 games and losing 2 compared to Team B who still stand on a 60:36 ratio after 5 wins and 1 loss. Team A has clearly benefitted from being in the tournament for longer, despite losing more games and getting fewer rounds won per game than the other team. If team B had joined at the beginning of the tournament there’s a strong chance that they would have outranked team A. The better team, in my eyes, has been ranked below the worse team if round wins were counted. Though you might try to draw attention to the fact that team A played more medium levelled games even after removing week 1 and week 2 results, they both won the same number of medium games.
Early joining teams still hold the inherent advantage of being able to WIN more games than late joining teams, with late joining teams still having to play catch up. Playing by rounds won, means that this lead is even further exacerbated as early joining teams can still pick up rounds won despite losses, that late joining teams could not. I think that round difference is a fair trade off between the advantage that early teams hold and allowing the good results of late joining teams still to show and result in a decant table ranking. Captain Lust’s example just shows how joining early already hugely advantages a team in terms of points and how joining late did not in fact give an advantage to the team. If team A had joined at the same time as team B, the round difference ratio would still be the same and team B would still be ranked higher therefore no advantage can be gained by delaying your entry. It is still far more profitable to stay in and try to win more rounds.

Captain Lust said:

I don't know what you're talking about here. I don't have scorn for teams picking weaker teams. The picking system is actually designed with the assumption that teams pick the weakest teams they are able to, unless they want to gain extra points. The autopick system is designed exactly that way.

Click to expand...

I am referring to the way in which you decry how late joining teams have played low ranking teams in order to get to the mid table quickly or with a solid round difference score. Yet, high ranking teams can have their scores and round wins boosted by being constantly picked by low ranking teams. A team could reach the top by only playing low-tier teams, I don’t want to insult my friends at Castellan but that’s exactly how we managed to reach the top last week and will probably reclaim it this week – despite not having beaten AE or IG in training matches, whom we rank over.
Though you may try to put forward the argument that teams will seek to gain the most points by beating the weakest teams, this will not always be the case, as the Castellan case points out. Seeing as you want to bring PPE into this, a feature in Economic study is the rise of divorce of ownership and control where firms turn from having the sole aim of profit maximisation to wanting to operate at output maximisation levels, satisficing levels of output and so on. In essence, teams pick other teams for reasons beyond what they judge to their skill level, be it to increase their likelihood of being streamed, the prestige of beating a top team, for a joke, for a challenge or because their pick had been randomised. That is why I thought you might hold the system in scorn.

Captain Lust said:

They're not assumed to be the better team. For practical purposes, as I've explained above, it's not fair or sensible to handicap them. No team should be held back from improving by their past results. Again, the primary sorting system is points - not rounds. Ideally, the league would go on enough for all teams to be sorted by points and this would no longer remain as an issue. 8 weeks should do a pretty good job of this and for other practical reasons it's best to keep the league short. Though I have consistently supported a playoff, to allow for potential issues with the ladder's accuracy over a relatively short number of weeks/rounds.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what you are assuming. The assumption that you’re making is that some teams might be better off joining the tournament later to defer early losses, let the analysis of the scenario you’ve put forward completely debunks that, rather that there is no gain to be had by doing so. Judge teams by what we have seen of their record and relative strength, not by assuming that they too would flop like the other teams on their level. As you have correctly pointed out, the points system means precisely that teams are help back because of their past results and it’s only logical that it happens in order to correctly judge the level of competition.

Captain Lust said:

Go learn some critical thinking. I thought you were a PPE applicant.

Click to expand...

Go pick up your copy of Think You Can Think? again. I thought you got to the interview stage.

I agree with Lust more than with Tide.

I value a match played and lost higher than a match not played at all.

Alene said:

I agree with Lust more than with Tide.

I value a match played and lost higher than a match not played at all.

Click to expand...

So do I, which is why I think that both the rounds won and the rounds lost should be factored in to your league placings, the whole match rather than only half of what constitutes a match. But it's a semantics point and I understand what you mean, I guess we just disagree 

Captain Lust said:

Go learn some critical thinking. I thought you were a PPE applicant.

Click to expand...

BlackTide said:

Go pick up your copy of Think You Can Think? again. I thought you got to the interview stage.

Click to expand...

Such cringeworthy bant haha

Just wondering what everyone's thinking about the ban on Relax.

Surkan said:

Just wondering what everyone's thinking about the ban on Relax.

Click to expand...

I don't know the details but the rule was there for everyone to see. It's a good rule in my opinion. People don't want to play in an environment where everyone is being constantly hostile in chat. Relax has gotten in trouble for the same thing in the past.

Would be interesting to see some log extracts... certainly remember him being fair inflammatory in the match.

I won't say whether I think it was right or wrong that he got banned, since I'm not sure of the exact reasons but I respect the judgement of the WNL team and credit to them for being able to enforce their own rules and not get intimidated by the prospect of a backlash.

Relaks got banned is that all? I'd like to see logs. Why he got banned? If its because of insults like your said in the match then you should do same for Heroes&Inquisition. Because i'm sure they insulted in Russian language and if you are talking about "zatknis,cyka,blyad" i typed these things like 4-5 times you can ban me too. Probably some1 wants to pick IR this week.

Captain Lust said:

I don't know the details but the rule was there for everyone to see. It's a good rule in my opinion. People don't want to play in an environment where everyone is being constantly hostile in chat. Relax has gotten in trouble for the same thing in the past.

Click to expand...

13:52 - meimei321: i dont like him at all, but i was one of the guys who was he talking to yesterday
13:52 - meimei321: yes
13:53 - meimei321: i dont think he deserved it either
13:53 - meimei321: if you guys are going to talk about it with admins you can say that we dont hold any grudge agaisnt him
13:53 - meimei321: dont feel insulted or anything and think that his ban isnt deserved

meimei321 = russkiy_bogatir

They don't get this as an insult. All you need is humor

careful rayden or your wish may come true

m1tchell23 said:

careful rayden or your wish may come true

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that just mean peopls follow teh roolz? DDDD

ban me too pls i called grifon a noob durink matcz and corpse kicked it's very bad omg

sotamursu123 said:

ban me too pls i called grifon a noob durink matcz and corpse kicked it's very bad omg

Click to expand...

14:14 - [IR] Hardcorejp2001: so u will probably ban sota,majesty,rayden,trebron too ?
14:14 - [IR] Hardcorejp2001: cuz they are too good :3 ?
14:14 - [IR] Hardcorejp2001: ok
14:14 - Folms: i'll ban you in a second if you wont shut up

This is how admin deals with Clanleader...

Based on all the assumptions, Relax 39150, is suspended from participating in any matches or WNL related activities during Week 6.

Click to expand...

Will we at least get any further information other than you saying you assume that Relax was insulting anyone?

(Btw you should probably keep in mind that English words were not the only things exchanged during the match IR-Heroes&Inquisition,
banning Relax alone because he used English as medium for the banter between us and them seems a bit unfair)

You want evidence? Fine, be my guest. Being a good person I am, I kindly highlighted any Russian text as well as everything Relax says.

So here we are at the begging of the match where Relax is sitting in spec because of his ping problems.
So from this extract we can see that Relax clearly wasn't provocated in anyway. However, according to his defense he has. At this point Relax is being ignored, like what we usually do to trolls. Moving on.

Here is the funny thing though. Everybody kind of just carries on doing their own thing when Relax begins to complain about the server and that escalates real fast.
Nobody even spoke to Relax, he is just some sort of ghost begging for attention with pure insults.

Let's move on further into the match.
Nobody has even mentioned Relax and he is just coming out with these words at random.

There are more logs that justify our decision, but I think what I posted is enough and I don't want to devote any more of my precious time to something that is so obvious. Next time if you're going to come out with a defense bare in mind that we actually know what happened and your pathetic excuses just going to work in our favor.

Oh so kind Sir Folms I dare not ask but considering your extraordinary kindness I humbly request that you show us the full logs of the match
and not those mere pieces of what actually happened.
There was smacktalking coming from both sides (admittedly from ours aswell) in the ACTUAL game chat, not only spectator.
All I could see in your logs is Relax saying "raep" 2 times.
Furthermore I previously mentioned all of what was said during the match was pure banter, if you asked Heroes and Inq they would confirm this.
(As seen in chatlogs posted above)
Might be just me but how could people who were not part of the banter (like you) judge what was insulting for any of the participating teams and what was clearly
no serious insult.
All we see is you interpretating smacktalking and then deciding to ban a member of one side.

Seems justified to me.
Hell, I would get rid of people that continuously type like this;
i'd raep u liek evrytiem omk
omk skareded of meh
zatknis na hui omk i'd raep u izi
regardless of if it's offensive or not.

Folms said:

Next time if you're going to come out with a defense bare in mind that we actually know what happened and your pathetic excuses just going to work in our favor.

Click to expand...

HAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA
You kidding = ?


Just point out the banreason agian, I might be to stupid to get it....
1.Complaining about the Server isnt a bad thing at all.( The WNL_GER_Servers are laggy for some players, specialy these days)
2.Dunno since when telling someone to shut up is a banreason.
3.And this " I rape you ez ....", is this your first matz ? This is clearly meant as a joke, you might not know it, but we are saying these things in KURWA all day long, and I as far as I heard the INQ_Team wasnt mad about it at all.. no one was angry about it.

The only person making this a big thing is you. Dunno why you hate reLachs, and it actually doesnt matter, but pls, point out the MAINreason for the ban, cause the things you just wrote are ..........
I dont want to discuss about it, you are an admin, dunno why, but you are. The thing is, I wanna understand why you ban ma LovErReLACHs.

You know dat friends are making fun of eachother ?
No one is making it a big deal except you..... if Inq_ would be angry about it, I would understand the ban(atleast then there is a reason for a ban)
Its like, if kids play "Wreslting", they are hitting eatchother, for fun, and some randomdude appears and hits on of the kids back, cause he doesnt know about "Wrestling"(fun)


(sry for bad english, I was laughing all the time, so dunno if even 1 word is spelled right)
where is dat in your logs ?
I guess its not meant as an insult, but its the same ****.... do not skip anything in ya logs pls

I'm going to try and respond to the following to the best of my abilities considering it is written so poorly.

Majesty said:

Just point out the banreason agian, I might be to stupid to get it....
1.Complaining about the Server isnt a bad thing at all.( The WNL_GER_Servers are laggy for some players, specialy these days)

Click to expand...

Oh we are bringing the server again. Let me explain for the a millionth time to why the match was played on Germany rather than France. As far as I was told, the IR and INQ decided to play a match on a French server, however due to some miss-communication Inquisition booked a German server. Now IR made no complaints whatsoever during the course of the week to why on earth is Inquisition booking the wrong server. However, 10mins before the match they begin to complain. I am sorry but last minute complaints are not gonna cut it with me. So the decision was to play on a booked server.

Majesty said:

2.Dunno since when telling someone to shut up is a banreason.

Click to expand...

Well let me apologise that I got a little bit annoyed after being accused that I make AE win and I am a product of AE propaganda. What does AE have to do with anything at all in this case? Don't you have something else to brag about and complain. It's just below the stupidity level I am used to dealing with.

Majesty said:

3.And this " I rape you ez ....", is this your first matz ? This is clearly meant as a joke, you might not know it, but we are saying these things in KURWA all day long, and I as far as I heard the INQ_Team wasnt mad about it at all.. no one was angry about it.

Click to expand...

Oh I never knew that threats to rape somebody's mum is a joke. My bad, let's laugh about it. Yeah maybe that's how you communicate in KURWA but in civilised land we respect each other. You sign up for the tournament which asks you to pay respect, which could be difficult when you're in KURWA but you don't have a choice as seeing you agree with the rules when joining a team.

The rest I lost track in.

"I rape you ez " ?´=  raping someones mum ? dafu q

And now you are making fun of me ? dafuq,
Calling me uncivilised is your way of dealing with this ? xd

And you missunderstood me in the first thing. You pointed out the he complained about the server, cause of his high ping, what is ok. Dunno why you start talking about dat booking now ....
ANd do not skip the rest of ma message.. cause you, accidentally, missed some things in that logs you posted.
IF you wanna play big boy with strange bans, why not make a youtube video, like he did:
Ask him for advice, he might be able to help you to get some attention.
+Looking forward for a ban

take a guess, who taught us to say that russian stuff...

k this ban is fkin retarded lol DDDDDDDD

ban me too i say zatknis nahuy to those guys every time i see them DDDDDDDD