Divisions - Discussion/Questions....

Majstor Matt

@specialone said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

One extra note about old school managers and loosing all their hard work over the years

Manager points ranking was also 'ignoring' a big part of ALL old school managers hard work

Yup, thats true, and thats why many oldschool managers that were top of the game couple years ago left when this new ranking was introduced back couple years ago. There simply should have been some option to keep some sort of "legendary ranking" that would give contribution to all manager points earned in your career. But okay, you explained to me once already why is that nearly impossible...

@specialone said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

Is it possible to play OSM competitively and for ranking with medal system?

Sure it is. As I mentioned before when I gave myself as an example, you can play with both goals, but to be a manager on TOP 100 playing in really competitive leagues with really good managers is risky, because losing a match in an high division will cost you a lot of medals.

Playing against human managers grants you way more medals than playing against CPUs, this makes the climb way faster, but it's also risky because one defeat can send you down quite a bit due to the amount of points you lose.

Again it's a manager choice to decide at which rate he wants to climb on rankings and which risks he wants to take.

This is pure politicism. You cannot claim in your reasonable sense that playing a Nations Cup and having 11wins 14draws 5defeats (against best managers from many countries) which resulted in me losing overall of -4333 Medals (WITH GOAL 13 team) is the same as it is for mister #1 vlootti who is playing against his friends (I could say "imaginary friends" ) in a closed league where average log in per manager is 2 times per league.

If I want to climb up the rankings, I simply must stop playing competitions and close my league, thats a fact. But okay, agree to disagree.

Restimat

@specialone said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

@specialone Okay thank you.
So it's "risky" means it's quite impossible to be in the Top 10 while playing high level competitions

Point me a single manager that is on TOP 10 of manager points ranking that plays high level competitions on the ranking slot?
Also tell me how many of the top managers on MP ranking have performances according to their rankings when they play competitive leagues?

I did not say it was the case and, to me, manager points are far from perfect, even though still quite useful in some way. It's not because something is used but bad that we need to copy that, besides medals system offer things that were not possible before...if well done, therefore my suggestions

Great to know that these suggestions will be analyzed then, thanks for passing them to study

Majstor Matt

@specialone said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

@specialone Okay thank you.
So it's "risky" means it's quite impossible to be in the Top 10 while playing high level competitions

Point me a single manager that is on TOP 10 of manager points ranking that plays high level competitions on the ranking slot?
Also tell me how many of the top managers on MP ranking have performances according to their rankings when they play competitive leagues?

I have a one suggestion. Lets make an experiment, and try to call up top 150 managers per medals on to a OSM World Cup Lets see how many of this "TOP level" managers will accept playing World Cup in an open league where they will risk their "precious medals" I can already see half of them telling they do not want to play, even though it is a big honour to participate in OSM WC... or at least it used to be, sadly if Medals will be deciding factor it wont be best managers anymore that will qualify..

Majstor Matt

Anyway, to sumarise. Medals system is like you now come on to a ATP tennis organisation and tell them they all start from nothing and that win in a Grand Slam quarterfinals is same as a win in Challenger in Zagreb. It simply does not have a logic in itself.

SpecialOne

@majstor-matt said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

I have a one suggestion. Lets make an experiment, and try to call up top 150 managers per medals on to a OSM World Cup Lets see how many of this "TOP level" managers will accept playing World Cup in an open league where they will risk their "precious medals" I can already see half of them telling they do not want to play, even though it is a big honour to participate in OSM WC... or at least it used to be, sadly if Medals will be deciding factor it wont be best managers anymore that will qualify..

Do you remember that OSM WC managers (old system, still not defined how it will happen on next edition) were checked before being invited, don't you? Not a really deep check, but good enough to get some of them out of OSM WC

SpecialOne

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

I did not say it was the case and, to me, manager points are far from perfect, ....

There will never be a perfect system. what we're trying to achieve is a system that can please the majority and at same time create some kind of reward to the most active managers.

Same way as we 'advertise' events on forums and other social communities. IF you're not active enough you only get the info on game itself, which can cost a lot.

SpecialOne

@majstor-matt said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

This is pure politicism. You cannot claim in your reasonable sense that playing a Nations Cup and having 11wins 14draws 5defeats (against best managers from many countries) which resulted in me losing overall of -4333 Medals (WITH GOAL 13 team) is the same as it is for mister #1 vlootti who is playing against his friends (I could say "imaginary friends" ) in a closed league where average log in per manager is 2 times per league.

If I want to climb up the rankings, I simply must stop playing competitions and close my league, thats a fact. But okay, agree to disagree.

You're just confirming what I've said.... You chose to get more medals per victory by playing against humans and if you managed to win all matches you wouldn't be losing those medals, but getting way more than playing in a closed league.

If users chose to play against 'imaginary friends' they also take a risk of getting caught (there are days in which we decide to take a look at random managers on ranking and if we find them cheating they got locked)

On a side note, as we discussed the other day, playing against humans, it's always risky, you just need to end up in a winners cup being simulated in the evening and you'll end up forgetting to do your line ups and lose the match (and 2K medals)

Restimat

@specialone said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

If users chose to play against 'imaginary friends' they also take a risk of getting caught (there are days in which we decide to take a look at random managers on ranking and if we find them cheating they got locked)

The problem is not the cheating, it's: how do we explain that it brings more points to play against low ranked inactive managers ? Doing so give them more points than players winning almost everything against active managers.
Whether they're cheating or not, it doesn't matter, it just shows that the inner system is unbalanced.

SpecialOne

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

The problem is not the cheating, it's: how do we explain that it brings more points to play against low ranked inactive managers ? Doing so give them more points than players winning almost everything against active managers.

No, this is not accurate! They only get more medals because they don't lose. If they lose against CPU or other accounts on the league they will get way less medals than you (if they lose same amount of matches, of course)

Restimat

@specialone Precisely, that's my question, how do we explain that winning everything against inactive low ranked managers earns more medals than winning 9 times/10 against active managers ?

(Or even 6/10 actually, someone who wins 6/10 or -even 4/10 against real active high division managers- should earn more medals that someone playing inactive low division managers).

SpecialOne

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

@specialone Precisely, that's my question, how do we explain that winning everything against inactive low ranked managers earns more medals than winning 9 times/10 against active managers ?

Keep in mind that this only happens when you're on division 9 and 10, and these are divisions for Top managers, if you lose a couple games on lower divisions it doesn't have such an impact.

You don't expect a system where Top managers have same medals as a beginner, do you?

Restimat

I don't, that's not what I said, I was talking about low division managers opponents (not players). Sorry if the formulation wasn't clear

How do we explain that high division managers winning everything against inactive low ranked managers receive more medals than a high division manager winning 9 or even 6 times/10 against active managers ?

SpecialOne

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

How do we explain that high division managers winning everything against inactive low ranked managers receive more medals than a high division manager winning 9 or even 6 times/10 against active managers ?

Again this is not true. Inactive managers are seen as CPU.

But I believe I understand where you're coming from:
Your idea should be something like: If I win over a manager on same division or higher, I should get more medals than beating a manager on a lower division (reverse situation when losing, you should lose more medals when you lose against a lower division manager than against a manager on same/higher level)

Is this what you're saying?

NOTE: I'm not aware of all variables on calculation system, but the above is something that's being discussed and that may suffer some changes.

Especial FCP

@specialone
Good afternoon. Yes, it is true that inactive managers are seen as CPU, but I will give the example of one of several managers at the top of the global ranking of medals who only play against managers who go through the CPU ...
Although there are many inactive, it seems that on the day that you will play against a manager, the account is activated which means that you always win some medals and thus do not play against an inactive manager ...
This is just one of several managers at the top of the global medal ranking.

Restimat

@specialone I know they are seen as CPU. The problem lies in the fact that the difference between CPU's/low ranked managers with active managers/high ranked managers is too thin. So the question remains: how comes playing like that gives more medals and allows to be top 1, top 10, top 100 or even top 10 000 ?

Before I said that, I actually looked at dozens of top ranked profiles and saw that they were playing against inactive low ranked managers.
I try not to say things I can't back up.

On my way, I also found some very rare profils who play the game rightly, against active managers, huge respect to them. They are also in the top, but still behind or equal to managers who play against inactive low ranked managers, unfortunately, which is incomprehensible.

Some of my examples have been locked, they weren't locked a few hours ago, but still let's just take one of them, a random top ranked manager.
I don't accuse anyone of cheating, just showing facts in order to understand the medals calculation system.

Borensberg000 is a manager who loves osm so much that he does his best to have a good ranking, he's now #19 in the world.
Borensbers000 plays, among others, a league in Argentina with Patronato. He's very strong and won all his matches:
Borensberg000 is so strong he doesn't need to build decent teams
It seems that Borensberg000 is so fearful that his low ranked opponents don't even want to log in.

In brief, Borensberg000 (and the HUGE majority of the dozens of top ranked I looked after) plays leagues where 2 opponents logged in today, 4 opponents logged in yesterday, and 9 teams don't have any manager out of 24 managers in total, in that case.

I don't have any problem with that.
I have a problem with the fact that it's possible for high division managers who play against inactive low ranked managers/CPU's to earn more medals, or the same amount, than managers playing against real active opponents, especially against high division managers. Even by winning everything, it shouldn't be possible.

Let's take a second example, just in case.

valéryck is a very smart manager: you give him an easy way to smash the ranking ? He takes it of course. valéryck is now 2nd in the French ranking, let us admire his skills.

Same goes for the French #1, leagues of 20 clubs with 3 managers and 17 bots. They can't be locked of course, they're no cheaters, just guys that understood that winning 100% against bots is better or almost equal than trying to win against real managers.

I have no problem with that way of playing.
I have a problem with the fact it's possible to be so high ranked while playing against bots/inactive players...how is it possible ?

-________________________________________________________________-

@specialone said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:But I believe I understand where you're coming from:

Your idea should be something like: If I win over a manager on same division or higher, I should get more medals than beating a manager on a lower division (reverse situation when losing, you should lose more medals when you lose against a lower division manager than against a manager on same/higher level)

Is this what you're saying?

Exactly, my idea is firstly to acknowledge the fact the calculation seems unbalanced and then to understand how we can make it better !
I made 4 suggestions a few posts above, among the one you said indeed.

@restimat said in Divisions - Discussion/Questions....:

Is it possible to count only medals when leagues are open and not private ?
(that would create a legit and fair ranking and also discourage cheating)

Is it possible to give less medals for the result (win/loss) and more medals according to the division of the opponent ?

Is it possible to give more medals against a high division opponent and less medals against a low division opponent ?

Is it possible to count medals only on a predetermined account for everyone ? Not like manager points, because I understand the technical heavier aspect of that, but something new where only 1 entry for the ranking system would count. Like a golden slot or something like that. No more confusion either for new players.

SpecialOne

@especial-fcp Looks like I'm wasting my time here... you guys just don't read....

MenagerBL

I understand that the Medals system has to be some sort of challenge and I accept the fact that you lose a huge amount of medals for losing a match at higher divisions...but something must be changed in terms of winning matches. It can't be the same if I beat a manager who is Division 10 and a manager who created his account yesterday. No logic. There must be a difference between each division and between division 1 and division 10 the difference has to be huge! This will also have an impact on the guys who play with accounts showed above because they won't get so much value from cheating, they can't have multi-accounts at divisions 8-9 or 10...

Ado Hackovic

Unfortunately, my dream will not come true, for my wife and I to be in the top 3 in the country

Wenger Wise

i spent 2 hours but still many messages unread in this topic so sorry if i repeat smbdy
i propose just to somehow mark those who have achieved success in the old points system
as an option: post information about their old rating in the profile of all managers (as you did with the crews, though now I don't see it ...) and add some icon or something like that for those who have the achievement "Top-100", because obviously you will also take it away as a 10k point achievement for the season
It seems to me that this way new players will be able to invest their money in the game and in a few months reach some heights in the game, and old strong managers, instead of playing on 3 competitive slots and 1 farm, will be able to play 4 competitive slots and not worry about their recognition on the world stage
and really hope you fix these new medals somehow, because the top 3 are all banned right now - not sure if this is the best advertisement for new players

jeffro davies

Basically you are going to take away manager points for a more fairer way of ranking you think? Also using 4 accounts will make OSM managers more active and a truer rank? Both assumptions but think I’m right, I can’t see a logical reason for the swap otherwise apart from these two reasons. I don’t expect a reply, hard questions I know. Just ignore me as per, I’m used to it@SpecialOne

The new way with medals is flawed a lot worse. You will get loads more cheaters and inactive leagues BUT they also don’t have to cheat to get above good managers that play in competitive leagues. This is the main flaw people are bothered about! I’ve read this off a few managers on this post with screen shots and it doesn’t seem to be sinking in. See @Restimat last post

So let’s talk money and BC spends, that’s yours and OSMs language, see how much these new high ranked managers will bring to the table.......

Easy way to get high ranked just pay 200 BCs to set a league up, lock it up, don’t buy/sell and build teams, don’t use TCs, don’t speed timers and BC compensation then it’s very cheap and can win every game and more importantly not losing loads of medals for a loss! You’re getting the reverse effect of trying to get people using 4 accounts and BC spends for ranking with lots of managers in each league.

Result in the long run you will get very high ranked managers that spend little on the game. We all know it’s about the money/BC spends with OSM. Why BC compensation is still on in app battles even if it makes them unfair