I think some recency bias is still necessary given teams can improve over the season and particularly due to roster changes. Shock/Gladiators are better teams than they were in Stage 1 whatever the meta is.
If overall playoffs are a different patch to Stage 4 (so different playoff meta) then is having a recency bias for seeding a poor way of selecting the 'best' teams? Wins over 4 potentially different metas, weighted equally, should select the best teams for an unknown future meta.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This line of thinking presupposes that balance patches are a force of nature you can't harness. In truth, OWL and the dev team should design systems that harmonize. 1/2
-
Recency bias if they will only have minor changes (this promises the highest level playoffs) or stay with the current system if they want the playoff patch to be volatile. LoL patch cycles have long been adapted to Worlds. It should be doable.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is that this discounts the improvements teams make in their overall strategy/synergy through each stage, and suggests that performance is purely meta-driven. Tiered weightings would be more appropriate than equal weightings.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The last time you organised an esports tournament it didn't even finish, stop giving advice out...
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No. Stage four is a whole lot closer to the playoffs than stage one is. Unless they’re planning on removing Brigitte and giving Mercy back her second rez, I don’t see how recent wins should be worth the same as older wins.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.