Zymogen

[NU] MexiDany and I will be playing footsies under the Vermilion PC table in ~50min from this post

More fool the person who would pay 1m for me either way lmao

me when i lose the deciding match anyway

tru

i agree, i'm not even on the nu ladder yet and i was waiting for a match for 1 hour the other day, so it probably needs adjusting

Kanicula vs myself in 30 min

u should play NU it's definitely not unstable at all

[NU] Kanicula vs myself at 12am GMT+2 on Sunday

gg wapo

I lied again The LC is still 6v5 after 30 min so me and Haazuu in 10 min

[NU] Haazuu vs Zymo after Blue vs Senju

Yo the date says September btw @Sethsen Really nice prize

When I queued it said something along the lines of "Position 70/0. Priority Queue not eligible.". It said the same thing (with a different queue position, but it was still X/0) for the East tournament but I still managed to enter that one. I signed up a little late for the West tournament but I figured that wouldn't matter since I should have had priority anyway; when the tournament started it just gave me the usual "you were not selected to participate in this tournament" system message

thanks i guess. don't know if there's anything to be done to save the upcoming uu tours but at least you know now.

seems like the season 1 nu tours are bugged, i finished #6 last season and i didn't get selected to enter the west tournament even though there's a priority queue... are they seriously based off of season 2's elo? @Kyu

there is a settings option for fast battle replays, it removes the time that the players take to think between turns

The example of 100 ladder games is arbitrary and clearly needs refining, and I agree that it should be weighted more towards tournaments than ladder. But the idea is that it wouldn’t be a requirement to join the TC in the first place (which should based on stricter criteria such as tournament success and other accomplishments), but simply a standardised method of tracking the activity of the players whilst actually in the TC because, as Think said, how could someone who doesn’t want to actively participate in the metagame be invested enough to take on the job of tiering? Take Zebra for example - great player historically, clearly would still be a great player if he chose to come back, but since he no longer plays, why should he still be in the TC? I think turnover of players who are no longer active is nothing but a good thing Regarding the point about outliers, it’s clear to see who is active and who isn’t when you also account for tournaments and big unofficials like PSL, so I agree in that I don’t think it should be as simple or as black-and-white as playing X amount of games on the ladder. It should be assessed on a case-by-case basis

I think this would only matter if it was a requirement to join TC, as opposed to a measurement of their activity and participation within the current meta. We can assume that the people joining TC are already competitively successful and widely regarded as competent, so I think the ladder is fine for the sole purpose of assessing someone’s activity once they’re actually in the council. But I guess there’d be no harm in also including a minimum number of tournaments entered per month as part of that measure E: Would also like to express my support in what’s proposed in this thread - this is long overdue. E2: Let’s also try to refrain from derailing the thread with personal attacks and snide comments towards staff/TC members and keep this a civil, productive discussion

haazuu vs myself on sunday

@Aerun

sad feraligatr noises

But in order to meaningfully compare said numbers, the sample size needs to be similar. This is exactly the point Yes, these are basic teambuilding principles which are a given and needn't be mentioned in these kinds of discussions No not really sorry

Look at the disparity between the numbers of games in which Roserade and Piloswine are used. Sample size is very important in statistics.