Winner Stays On IHs

[MOTHER]

Seeing as we are experiencing a nice spike in activity, I propose the following as either a weekly IH event ("Winner Stays On Sundays @ AoS) or as a way of fairly governing IH lobbies that have more than 13-15 players (i.e not enough for 2 IHs running at the same time).

 

Winner Stays On Rules:

 

When 2 teams play, the 5 players from the winning team get to play the next round of IH. The losing players are all replaced with the players who were on stand by.

 

No player can play team captain for 2 IH's in a row.

 

In the case that we are short on players (14 players in the lobby for example), the player(s) with the best KDA from the losing team gets to stay on.

 

Winner Stays On is a social custom that probably originated in pubs with pool tables. I learned it from my experiences in the Fighting Game Community. I think AoS IH lobbies would benefit from adopting/adapting it, as it is more fair and welcoming to new and varied players. As an added bonus, it will give you incentive to player better.

 

Discuss.

[BlackXioN]

While this is cool at one point we had about 19 people online, seems unfair for people who been waiting to play that the same (7-8 people) get to play again, usually if we have people waiting, especially if they spec'd the previous game, we try and let them play.

[MOTHER]

That's one reason why rules exist. It helps avoid awkward situations such as deciding who should give up their spot for the waiting players.

 

Currently what's happening in IHs is that the T1 players are usually guaranteed spots on every inhouse during draft, unless they relinquish it voluntarily. WSO rules are blind to these biases, and divides players into winners or losers only regardless of their skill, and then apply themselves accordingly.

 

Basically what I am proposing is that instead of "we try and let them play", we will let them play.

[Yaldi]

How about we practise good old fashioned segregation. Make EU great again and kick all the illegal muricans back to their NA server :p

 

In all seriousness this sounds like an alright idea tbf. Some people do prefer to pick the best players rather than showing compassion for others

[Jaysi]

Yes but what Black is saying is that people should not sit out 2 games in a row when there are more than 15 people wanting to play... Obviously this system is better than what's probably happening today (as you described is the exact way it is 90% of the time).

[MOTHER]

I can request new rooms added to Mumble for an "AOS WSO Challenge" to help organize this idea better. At least a "WSO Lobby" to visibly host players/losers waiting their turn to take on the challenge.

 

@Jaysi

 

Unless we have 20 people, some players will inevitably sit out 2 games in a row. Of course nothing is set in stone and sometimes we could make compromises on the spot (for example someone is short on time and another player in waiting can voluntarily switch with them). What this system offers is that they are guaranteed a spot after their wait, and guaranteed a chance of being a winner that stays on. With such guarantees in place, players will actually be able to gauge the time it will be until it is their turn, which means they can do other things instead of wait on the hope of getting picked only to be let down by player biases.

 

I honestly don't see a downside to this. At the very least, this idea is better than what we have now.

 

If you are a T1 player then you should welcome the WSO challenge to prove and maintain your T1 status. If you are not a T1 player this is an opportunity to get better, as it guarantees you will get experience playing AoS, and it also incentivizes you to do your best.

 

I know what I am proposing is that only the winners stay on (this is a competitive game after all), but really the entire IH community wins with these rules in place.

 

We should try it for a day at least before we judge any further.

[BlackXioN]

I would say most ih's are pretty good about picking people who didn't play over tier 1 players, especially when its NA captains. EU capts are always try hard

[johnnytherocker]

I'm sorry mate, but this is a flobing terrible idea.

 

Don't you understand the implication of what you are proposing? How flobing toxic people will be, if losing means you're guaranteed not to be in the next inhouse?

I won't even go into the mechanical oversights of this idea in depth, but just take this, scratching the surface: There are thirteen people in the lobby (i.e. not enough for full swap post-game) and after the game, the three lowest KDA on the losing team are swapped. How do you think the losing team will start playing, when they start losing? When they know that lower kda=benched for the next game? Teamplay will die and everyone will just play for themselves.

 

That aside, this spells the end of the days of fun drafts, picking players based on company/personality alongside skill. Gone are the days of people being chill and having a laugh.

The "entire community" doesn't win - it is a colossal loss for everyone involved. This is not a million dollar game, and while everyone (and certainly someone like me) likes winning a hell of a lot more than they like losing, don't place this totally out-of-place importance on winning above all else (which will cause massive toxicity) in a community as small as this. It will completely tear it apart, inside-out.

 

There is already a lot of good-mannered people willing to spectate games (Such as, particularly, Yaldi and Adam) when there are players who were waiting - and usually they are included in the next game, as a lot of others point out "so-and-so were waiting, they should be included". Apache is particularly good at picking whoever the flob is there. The only times I've seen this not happen, is if there is a humongous skill discrepancy with several of them, and the inhouse lobby is otherwise of good-to-great quality, and it would simply ruin the dynamic. Then they are, at least, included in the game after that, when they are indeed the singular (or duo) person who hadn't been playing in the last game, at that point.

 

Is there a better system that could be implemented than what is right now? Not that I know of.

What should be more pertinent is encouraging the community to grow and then eventually have two games running simultaneously as used to happen.

This idea isn't even a band-aid solution for a perceived problem of lack of inclusivity, it is exclusively exacerbating it by directly causing excessively toxic behaviour.

 

EDIT: Shout out to my homie Jay-Z.

Edited January 24, 2017 by johnnytherocker

[BlackXioN]

uhhh black volunteers to spec all the time wtf.....but I agree, I personally draft people I am going to have fun with rather than skill level.

Edited January 24, 2017 by BlackXioN

[johnnytherocker]

uhhh black volunteers to spec all the time wtf.....but I agree, I personally draft people I am going to have fun with rather than kill level

 

Exactly, but what if you knew that if you lost the game, you would be guaranteed not to be playing in the next one?

 

You might be a special case and actually do it anyway, Xion, but I guarantee everyone will become a hell of a lot more "tryhard" than they are now, player drafting will be a shapload more serious and hero drafting will not only be much more straight-and-narrow, it will likely also take at least twice as long as it already does. The games will eventually fill with raging and whining and it will be unbearable for not just all the wholly new players(who will be scared off completely), but particularly for all the less experienced/lower tier players already in the community. "flobing idiot, your shap boros is the reason I/we are not playing in the next game."

Edited January 24, 2017 by johnnytherocker

[DREX]

For me every single game is try hard when Im playing with BlackXion. I think the winner system is just a bad idea.

[BlackXioN]

There is hard games when someone drafts bad and then there are DREX level hard games, least they are fun. Maybe they just don't see the genius behind his lane choices like boros unix and kura tank boros but I SEE IT! Yea when me and DREX go try hard there is no losing

[MOTHER]

I'm sorry mate, but this is a flobing terrible idea.

 

Don't you understand the implication of what you are proposing? How flobing toxic people will be, if losing means you're guaranteed not to be in the next inhouse?

I won't even go into the mechanical oversights of this idea in depth, but just take this, scratching the surface: There are thirteen people in the lobby (i.e. not enough for full swap post-game) and after the game, the three lowest KDA on the losing team are swapped. How do you think the losing team will start playing, when they start losing? When they know that lower kda=benched for the next game? Teamplay will die and everyone will just play for themselves.

 

That aside, this spells the end of the days of fun drafts, picking players based on company/personality alongside skill. Gone are the days of people being chill and having a laugh.

The "entire community" doesn't win - it is a colossal loss for everyone involved. This is not a million dollar game, and while everyone (and certainly someone like me) likes winning a hell of a lot more than they like losing, don't place this totally out-of-place importance on winning above all else (which will cause massive toxicity) in a community as small as this. It will completely tear it apart, inside-out.

 

There is already a lot of good-mannered people willing to spectate games (Such as, particularly, Yaldi and Adam) when there are players who were waiting - and usually they are included in the next game, as a lot of others point out "so-and-so were waiting, they should be included". Apache is particularly good at picking whoever the flob is there. The only times I've seen this not happen, is if there is a humongous skill discrepancy with several of them, and the inhouse lobby is otherwise of good-to-great quality, and it would simply ruin the dynamic. Then they are, at least, included in the game after that, when they are indeed the singular (or duo) person who hadn't been playing in the last game, at that point.

 

Is there a better system that could be implemented than what is right now? Not that I know of.

What should be more pertinent is encouraging the community to grow and then eventually have two games running simultaneously as used to happen.

This idea isn't even a band-aid solution for a perceived problem of lack of inclusivity, it is exclusively exacerbating it by directly causing excessively toxic behaviour.

 

EDIT: Shout out to my homie Jay-Z.

 

 

A few things:

 

1- The proposal was a challenge. That there would be times/days in the week where the WSO rules would be at play. It's another way of experiencing the game that is friendlier to new players and more considerate of people's limited time as most of the time it would guarantee that you wouldn't have to wait for more than one game to get your turn. You are still free to play the game however/whenever you want.

 

2- Players who become toxic handfuls to other players because of losing were toxic handfuls to begin with, and it took a game to show their true colors ("exacerbate" lol). WSO can't make people toxic if they weren't that to begin with. Instead of helping their teammates or discussing faults in the game plan, they rage. Those aren't and probably never will be the kind of players that are conducive of growth anyway. As someone who has spent countless hours working on improving the game for all players, I can't help but say good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

3- You shoot down the idea but offer no alternative. Why should the same 4-5 people consistently game after game give up their places or go the extra mile to be inclusive/considerate of others to make up for the selfishness of the rest? Why shouldn't everyone get a chance to play in a timely fashion? Especially newer players with less to no established relationships? The IH community will never grow on the off chance that you "felt" like giving away your spot.

 

As I said, you are still free to play the game however you want with whoever you want. But if you remotely give a flob about the game and its playerbase, then you would see the significance of WSO or something like it at this point in time.

[johnnytherocker]

A few things:

 

1- The proposal was a challenge. That there would be times/days in the week where the WSO rules would be at play. It's another way of experiencing the game that is friendlier to new players and more considerate of people's limited time as most of the time it would guarantee that you wouldn't have to wait for more than one game to get your turn. You are still free to play the game however/whenever you want.

Completely irrelevant. The idea needs to survive on its merits, not because "It isn't there all the time anyway" or "You can just choose not to utilize it", though the last one would imply a person not interested in the system would (provided it was more-or-less officially sanctioned/implemented) be unable to play inhouses at all.

 

2- Players who become toxic handfuls to other players because of losing were toxic handfuls to begin with, and it took a game to show their true colors ("exacerbate" lol). WSO can't make people toxic if they weren't that to begin with. Instead of helping their teammates or discussing faults in the game plan, they rage. Those aren't and probably never will be the kind of players that are conducive of growth anyway. As someone who has spent countless hours working on improving the game for all players, I can't help but say good riddance to bad rubbish.

You are simply wrong, here. People have more fun because they care less. The more invested you are in the result of a game, the more easy-going you are able to be. For me personally, it works out to sometimes being a bit of a Debbie Downer when I am captaining, because I try to lead the team and become much more invested as a result of viewing it as my responsibility that the team performs to a certain standard - and that we win.

 

When you write sometime like this, it sounds like you haven't got a competitive bone in your body. I used to be a hardcore rager, whiner, flamer, whatever you want to call it. I matured and the chief reason I have at least curbed myself in this regard, is that I have come to realise that I am not going pro in these idiotic games, and it isn't the end of the world if we win or lose. I still get frustrated, sure, but it is primarily when people are intentionally being utterly idiotic in the game.

 

I certainly don't consider myself a toxic player, but your system would force me to become more invested in the end-result of a game, regardless of how that is achieved, or else I know for a fact, that I am sitting out the following game. That would mean I would become increasingly agitated at miss-plays, probably letting players (who are at this point also playing under increased pressure) that they're doing stupid things, and cause a bad situation. I know several people in the community would be a lot worse than me.

 

You have to be some special kind of deluded, if you don't understand how placing this extreme emphasis on winning (and even KDA, LMAO) will create a significantly different atmosphere in the games and the whole surrounding social sphere. It would come to colour all interactions.

 

3- You shoot down the idea but offer no alternative. Why should the same 4-5 people consistently game after game give up their places or go the extra mile to be inclusive/considerate of others to make up for the selfishness of the rest? Why shouldn't everyone get a chance to play in a timely fashion? Especially newer players with less to no established relationships? The IH community will never grow on the off chance that you "felt" like giving away your spot.

What? Nobody is being selfish, there are just people being selfless. This is not kindergarten and nobody is going to hold your hand and walk you into the sunset, mate.

You know how someone like me is often picked (and am now surviving somewhat on reputation)? Because I flobing earned it. In the most concise way of putting it: I was a flobing noob when I started, then I got better, I played inhouses and realised how I was still shapty, then I improved. I went from last pick to high tier pick. This is years and years ago. I helped develop the people who helped develop the people who developed the people who are current high tier inhousers. I went to DotA, came back and still tore shap up by having superior mechanics even if my AoS understanding was severely lacking. I just came back from a 40-whatever week break, having played very little video games at all in that period, and am still doing alright - even if I feel I am sometimes picked over players I shouldn't be, but simultaneously realise it is because I have become a pretty mellow, fun guy to play with... Exactly because winning doesn't matter to me, to the extent it used to.

 

I'll be honest with you, Mother, you have one way of assuring you will be picked: Get better. Put in effort to improve yourself, and it will be recognized. Even players like John and Apache started as scrubs. They weren't walk-on high-picks. The only example I can recall of that was Highdrater, because he was excessively good a select few heroes (and caught on to new ones very fast) making him able to go pretty much straight from a "pubstar" to an "inhouse star", with his snowbally aggressive playstyle, that frankly exploited even a averagely-skilled regular inhouser. Maybe you are more passive - that means you have less impact on games. You have to make your presence felt in the games, and it has to happen in a way that isn't exclusively teleporting to lanes and pushing them like some cancerous asshat fun-ruiner :-)

 

The community right now is honestly the least toxic I can remember, probably because all of us extremely tryhard handfuls either got older or simply aren't there anymore. Old-timers like John (so you don't have to take just my word for it) can vouch for how pleasant the inhouse experience is as a whole, these days, with extremely little raging and whining. That is a good thing, friend. Your proposal would only create problems, not solve current ones, at all.

 

I don't have to offer a different proposal, when what you're offering is based on the merits of "being competitive" and "wanting to establish a more tryhard, winning culture" since those things are already being rewarded. Good players are picked first because they give the captain a bigger chance of winning. The basis for this whole proposed system is simply flawed, because it is nonsensical in that it can be applied to the existing one also.

That, and your system brings a slew of faults and problems with it, that do not already exist, in any form.

 

In other words, if you want to be picked regularly, you have to simply earn that right, just like everyone else. I know it can suck dick, as do everyone else, to not get picked, that is why they made conscious effort not to be bad players, in order to help that. The community is already, I think, very good at ensuring waiting specs get to play the game after -- Sure, then they might only play the one game, but the reason for that is often that they are simply low tier players, and as such don't get picked. You already know how to remedy that.

 

As I said, you are still free to play the game however you want with whoever you want. But if you remotely give a flob about the game and its playerbase, then you would see the significance of WSO or something like it at this point in time.

A ridiculous, baseless claim. I have watched the rise of this game and its whole, continual development over the years - just like I have been a part of the community for years and years and years. A scary amount of time, really. I do care about the community and want it to grow - but even if I didn't, that doesn't make my critique of your idea (no doubt founded in your own inability to get picked) even less valid.

 

On a more personal note, I already expressed my befuddlement that you weren't a more highly rated player in AoS, considering you are 4k in DotA. 4k is no world-beater by any means, but it should still (in my eyes, at least) mean you are proficient at mechanics and positioning at a level far above the average AoS inhouser. That does not seem to be the case. Is that because you find yourself nervous in AoS? An inhouse setting? Do you not find your skills translating? I can probably help you with it, if you have some kind of issue on that front. I don't think a 4k DotA player should be last-pick material in AoS under any circumstance.

 

I apologise if you feel these posts are overly critical, but that is because I believe that your system would honestly completely kill what is left of the inhouse community.

[MOTHER]

You are focusing too much on the word winner.

 

This isn't about winning so much as it is about ensuring everyone gets a chance to play IH.

 

Do not make assumptions of my character. You don't know me, or the effort I put into this game. This isn't a personal issue, as I frankly don't care about getting picked. I care about getting more and more people to play this game. I made an observation about the quality of IHs and this is an idea I put forward in response to it. So spare me your pseudo-intellectual and amateur psychoanalysis.

 

Perhaps I'd take your "criticism" more seriously if you actually for once gave up your spot for others, or didn't quit on your team of 4, and subsequently ruined a game for 9 people (all who waited quite some time to get the game together) because you didn't have it your way. But I expected no less, as you have proven yourself to be a very inconsiderate, selfish, and rude person in the short amount of time I've interacted with you.

[johnnytherocker]

I don't think you understand social interactions or the high-intensity environment in competitive play.

 

Go wallow in your self-pity elsewhere, if you can't handle legitimate feedback on your proposal from someone who has been here longer than you, done more for the community than you, and will likely return from an extended break to play a random inhouse or two after you have gone.

[Yaldi]

I think the issue mother is trying to address is something I have noticed.

 

Ever since the inhouse scene has picked up again there has been 0 new faces in any of the inhouses. Before the resurgance we actually had a few newer player playing like khaldounz or the likes.

 

We are at an awkward point where we are sooo close to having 2 inhouses at once at peak times but this seems to be stagnating and not giving anyone new a chance...

 

I think maybe more effort could be made to find 4 new players if we have 16 people online rather than being stuck to this limit of 1 inh at a time. But that would take some leadership and effort.

[johnnytherocker]

I think the issue mother is trying to address is something I have noticed.

 

Ever since the inhouse scene has picked up again there has been 0 new faces in any of the inhouses. Before the resurgance we actually had a few newer player playing like khaldounz or the likes.

 

We are at an awkward point where we are sooo close to having 2 inhouses at once at peak times but this seems to be stagnating and not giving anyone new a chance...

 

I think maybe more effort could be made to find 4 new players if we have 16 people online rather than being stuck to this limit of 1 inh at a time. But that would take some leadership and effort.

 

First of all, Khaldouns is not new, he is older - older than everyone in the current scene except for me and John (and maybe Diipa) afaik :-)

 

Secondly, I am all for setting up a secondary inhouse, which I also wrote in my initial post. Do you think more experienced players will look more favourably at the less experienced ones, if teaming up with them nets them a significantly chance of not just losing, but outright not playing in the following game? There is no need to answer the question, because the answer is obvious.

 

The problem with what you're saying here is that it requires a firestarter to create that second inhouse. A well-liked, well-known person willing to put in the effort. That, or cooperation and help. "Sure, let go make a second one" and then sitting idly in the lobby is helping noone, when players are needed to start the game.

That, and 16 people is just too little. The pub scene is dead, and inhousers are found among peoples friendlists. In order to create a secondary inhouse, you likely need at least 17 at the outset, or everyone will end up sitting in a 8- or 9-man lobby for thirty minutes, because the community is so small.

 

I think there comes a times where you have to not only be open to newcomers, but also realise own limitations and look to cater to your existing base and helping it reach a point where it will at least not dwindle. Activity is the blood of the game. Don't overreach.

[MOTHER]

I don't think you understand social interactions or the high-intensity environment in competitive play.

 

Go wallow in your self-pity elsewhere, if you can't handle legitimate feedback on your proposal from someone who has been here longer than you, done more for the community than you, and will likely return from an extended break to play a random inhouse or two after you have gone.

 

I think you're too self absorbed to understand or relate to anything outside yourself. If anything, it is you who can't handle discussion without resorting to ad hominem arguments. Go check yourself

 

I also have no idea what you did for this community, but I probably did more in a week for this game than you did in the entirety of your time playing it. .

[Yaldi]

To be honest I think there is more truth to what I said regarding NA inhousers willing to come take advantage of our revived inhousing scene. The pub scene is quite busy over there and that is probably the main source of players that arent already inhousing

 

p.s. less dick measuring of community contribution and avoid personal insults explicit or implied or else i might have to actually moderate something...

Edited January 24, 2017 by Yaldi

[johnnytherocker]

Fair enough. I have limited knowledge of the NA scene, and no idea whatsoever about the NA pub scene. I do certainly hope they still have pubs :-) No doubt this system isn't the way forward, though, particularly in regards to attracting new players who aren't used to a harsh tone and a lot of pressure.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Yaldi

[BlackXioN]

I bet if we moved IH'ing to NA from EU we would have 30 new inhouse people :D.....should start nooooooooowwww

Edited January 24, 2017 by BlackXioN

[Jaysi]

Do any Axis clan members remember how we used to do IH? I'm trying to remember if we had a good system for players that sat out or not.

[John]

Do any Axis clan members remember how we used to do IH? I'm trying to remember if we had a good system for players that sat out or not.

 

The Axis clan was the worst lol, as far as I can remember they would only pick Axis players, or they had some rule that X amount of players had to be Axis in order for their internal competition or whatever it was to count.

 

As a result the Axis members would get picked over and over again.

 

 

 

 

As I see it now the main problem is the lack of people trying to organize inhouses.

 

I just logged came back on starcraft, noticed how there was a ton of people online, but none gives a shap about making an inhouse. People are lazy and doesn't care about putting down the necessary effort that is required to get it started.

 

The same thing happens when we have like 16 people in a lobby, it wouldn't be to hard to get 4 more if people and have a second inhouse going. But NONE gives a shap about doing it, cause they are lazy.

 

During the last couple of weeks / months that has passed, I can easily count the amount individuals who's made an inhouse on 1 hand.

Edited January 24, 2017 by John

[MOTHER]

 

 

 

The community is lazy and doesn't give a shap.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

/thread