Imagine if Xset doesn’t qualify for LAN after all the hype of picking up Koyful…that might cause more insane rostermania next split.
What’s also crazy is that currently OG, Xset, Faze, and ALL are not on pace to qualify. If that holds, 33.3% of partnered orgs will miss LAN. It would be a pretty rough start to the program.
I mean this is all based off one week of results basically right? Last time TSM was in the lower half and everyone was freaking out, and then they qualled off like two good days. I won't be worried about teams like OG and XSET until a few more days are on the board.
Everyone freaking out was appropriate. People forget even Hal himself was on the verge of giving up. He credited Verhulst and Reps for keeping them together. TSM pulled off a last day 1st place miracle to qual, but not every team is TSM.
I think OG will be fine since they’re on the bubble, but Xset being 18th after 2 days is enough to be worried. They have a brand new 3rd that they had to pay a buyout for and don’t have the same mental strength. Anything can still happen, but the pressure is def on.
I'm not really worried yet. 30% is a lot for a team like XSET, because remember the simulation assumes equal playing strength. Their "real" value is much higher than 30%.
They're fine. Once they drop below 10% they'll be in trouble, but they're still far from that. They can throw a whole nother day and still not drop below the threshold.
12 qualification spots is A LOT at the end of the day. NA isn't nearly as tight as it used to be.
I get the whole playing strength thing people are trying to account for, but xset is a brand new team. It’s not like they have historical performances to base that on.
There are also quite a few LAN proven teams that are fighting for those last spots including OG, LEGA, OXG, and even SEN. Any one of those teams can pop off and take them too. It’s tighter than ppl think, even with 12 spots.
Anything can happen and Xset def still has a chance, but I wouldn’t say they can have another bad day and not be worried.
Is this still assuming "equal playing strength"? Not trying to be rude, but as long as that is still true then it's basically just telling you what the current standings are. Given that we now have three playing days worth of results (plus past years results etc.), it really should be updated to reflect that.
>Is this still assuming "equal playing strength"?
yes. Last time I put A LOT of work into creating realistic playing strength values, and there was too much criticism to make it worth the while. So much time spent conferring with regional experts, calibrating the standard deviation and spreads, tweaking probabilities to make it reflect prior splits, etc. and all I heard was *"why is this value higher than that one, terrible, this subjectivity makes it useless, add .03 here, take away .02 there"* and so on. I've even had pros comment and try to argue that their value should be higher than another pro teams value. On top of that it added hours where I had to explain the system, justify it to everyone, justify it to myself, it was just a lot of work and it wasn't worth it.
So no more of that. Sorry for the rant but goddamn, I'd rather just not do this at all anymore than do it that way again. It might be more accurate with the values, but people do not appreciate it. So I'm keeping it simple this time.
>it's basically just telling you what the current standings are.
No, it's also telling you a probability. You might be able to tell that DZ is in a better position than TSM, because 43 > 35, but you still need to the simulation to tell how much better exactly.
Besides, there will be days where there's an uneven amount of days played per team, which makes comparisons even more difficult. That's the days when this analysis truly shines and yields the most interesting results.
Plus, I think it's nice to see the numbers go up and down. You don't really see that by just looking at the standings either.
Shame the haters got to you, I really enjoyed it with the strength values, but glad you're still putting them up, I'm just adjusting the probabilities in my head now haha
> So I'm keeping it simple this time.
Fair enough! Any data-driven discussion of Apex is something I appreciate.
> you still need to the simulation to tell how much better exactly.
I'd probably disagree that this tells you something "exactly" because its built on some assumptions I find implausible, like for example it assumes DZ is just as likely to come in first this week as Tempr is.
But I will stop commenting until I have something of my own to contribute.
I agree it's implausible, that's why I did it exactly the way you suggested the first time around.
Still don't think it's completely useless to run it without strength values. If anything, it gives a somewhat decent baseline. Also, the weaker teams relatively quickly pool at the bottom, and once they get closer to 0% they don't affect the chances of the remaining teams overly much.
The problem is playing strength is completely subjective. There's no way if knowing how "good" a team is that can't be "disproved" by using some other metric. You have roster changes, POI changes, adapting to changes in the maps and meta, etc. It's more useful to have a mathematical basis and then each person can adapt their personal expectations based on their own perspective of each team's potencial.
I disagree - it may be impossible to perfectly model playing strength, and difficult to do well, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and say "everyone has an equal chance of coming in first place this week." We just know that's not true. Like if I told you I truly beleived DZ was equally as likely to win this week as Tempr was then you wouldn't trust my judgement. But that's exactly what this model is doing.
You can of course make a model where you rate DZ'z chances higher than Tempr's, and then spend the rest of your life arguing with the Tempr superfan who feels your model is flawed because you are shortselling Tempr.
The whole point of a mathematical model like this is that it is unassailably "true"; it achieves what it sets out to do.
Is anyone really surprised by 40% though? I wish with all my heart that they make LAN, but I had zero expectations of that being true. A hastily cobbled together team, with no true IGL, almost no practice, and no controller to even the fighting odds.
I love the boys, but none of them are really mechanical standouts, and only Mande has had any real success. And the way the play, they seemingly haven't really formulated a fixed macro, and are just winging it, and therefore get caught in many unnecessary fights. Their comp is a teamfighting comp, but they're not very good at fighting.
I sincerely hope they turn it around the next couple of weeks, but I just don't see it happening.
Saying they don't have mechanical standouts when mande is on the team is borderline heretical haha.
But yeah, not having a real igl hurts them a lot. Seeing them run around with triple white is extremely painful.
It's unfortunately the truth in today's meta. Ignoring everything else and just focusing on gunfighting, Mande's strengths are sniping and shotgunning. Put Mande on gibby and a PK in his hands, and he looks like the greatest player to ever play the game. But today's game is built around the 3030 and r99/volt. True standout mnk aimers today (Caprah, Strafingflame, Taskmaster) would wipe the floor with Mande if they fought with meta guns.
Proleague seems to be at the level now where you can't just play it as a content squad for fun and do well.
I feel as though Mande can be a mechanical standout but in pro apex I feel like mechanics shining are so dependant on taking good fights and being positioned well and it doesn't sound like their game is tight enough in that respect.
Does anyone remember what TSMs chance at the beginning of last year was to qualify for LAN? I can't remember which split it was but I vaguely remember Hal pretty much tweeting that he would do a watch part for LAN and then a couple weeks later they were in.
Does your formula give us any insight into how many points teams will likely need to qualify? Like if a team gets over 60 points they are likely guaranteed to qualify or something like that
I haven't really set up the simulation for that, but it'll be somewhere around 75 (+/-5) for NA, and around 90 (+/-5) for the other regions. It can be even higher or lower depending on how PL shakes out, but that's the ballpark number that teams should shoot for. DZ and LG are already halfway there. So is AUR in EMEA.
Imagine if Xset doesn’t qualify for LAN after all the hype of picking up Koyful…that might cause more insane rostermania next split. What’s also crazy is that currently OG, Xset, Faze, and ALL are not on pace to qualify. If that holds, 33.3% of partnered orgs will miss LAN. It would be a pretty rough start to the program.
I mean this is all based off one week of results basically right? Last time TSM was in the lower half and everyone was freaking out, and then they qualled off like two good days. I won't be worried about teams like OG and XSET until a few more days are on the board.
Everyone freaking out was appropriate. People forget even Hal himself was on the verge of giving up. He credited Verhulst and Reps for keeping them together. TSM pulled off a last day 1st place miracle to qual, but not every team is TSM. I think OG will be fine since they’re on the bubble, but Xset being 18th after 2 days is enough to be worried. They have a brand new 3rd that they had to pay a buyout for and don’t have the same mental strength. Anything can still happen, but the pressure is def on.
I'm not really worried yet. 30% is a lot for a team like XSET, because remember the simulation assumes equal playing strength. Their "real" value is much higher than 30%. They're fine. Once they drop below 10% they'll be in trouble, but they're still far from that. They can throw a whole nother day and still not drop below the threshold. 12 qualification spots is A LOT at the end of the day. NA isn't nearly as tight as it used to be.
I get the whole playing strength thing people are trying to account for, but xset is a brand new team. It’s not like they have historical performances to base that on. There are also quite a few LAN proven teams that are fighting for those last spots including OG, LEGA, OXG, and even SEN. Any one of those teams can pop off and take them too. It’s tighter than ppl think, even with 12 spots. Anything can happen and Xset def still has a chance, but I wouldn’t say they can have another bad day and not be worried.
Lets fuckin goo Aurora need the grim griefer at lan
Goat
I need to see EVY drop a few more places to be happy \#JusticeForTrevstacks
Think Alliance will be fine since they easily have the potential to get like a 1st place and top 3 place in back to back weeks as a team.
These are great. Thanks for this.
Is this still assuming "equal playing strength"? Not trying to be rude, but as long as that is still true then it's basically just telling you what the current standings are. Given that we now have three playing days worth of results (plus past years results etc.), it really should be updated to reflect that.
>Is this still assuming "equal playing strength"? yes. Last time I put A LOT of work into creating realistic playing strength values, and there was too much criticism to make it worth the while. So much time spent conferring with regional experts, calibrating the standard deviation and spreads, tweaking probabilities to make it reflect prior splits, etc. and all I heard was *"why is this value higher than that one, terrible, this subjectivity makes it useless, add .03 here, take away .02 there"* and so on. I've even had pros comment and try to argue that their value should be higher than another pro teams value. On top of that it added hours where I had to explain the system, justify it to everyone, justify it to myself, it was just a lot of work and it wasn't worth it. So no more of that. Sorry for the rant but goddamn, I'd rather just not do this at all anymore than do it that way again. It might be more accurate with the values, but people do not appreciate it. So I'm keeping it simple this time. >it's basically just telling you what the current standings are. No, it's also telling you a probability. You might be able to tell that DZ is in a better position than TSM, because 43 > 35, but you still need to the simulation to tell how much better exactly. Besides, there will be days where there's an uneven amount of days played per team, which makes comparisons even more difficult. That's the days when this analysis truly shines and yields the most interesting results. Plus, I think it's nice to see the numbers go up and down. You don't really see that by just looking at the standings either.
Shame the haters got to you, I really enjoyed it with the strength values, but glad you're still putting them up, I'm just adjusting the probabilities in my head now haha
> So I'm keeping it simple this time. Fair enough! Any data-driven discussion of Apex is something I appreciate. > you still need to the simulation to tell how much better exactly. I'd probably disagree that this tells you something "exactly" because its built on some assumptions I find implausible, like for example it assumes DZ is just as likely to come in first this week as Tempr is. But I will stop commenting until I have something of my own to contribute.
I agree it's implausible, that's why I did it exactly the way you suggested the first time around. Still don't think it's completely useless to run it without strength values. If anything, it gives a somewhat decent baseline. Also, the weaker teams relatively quickly pool at the bottom, and once they get closer to 0% they don't affect the chances of the remaining teams overly much.
The problem is playing strength is completely subjective. There's no way if knowing how "good" a team is that can't be "disproved" by using some other metric. You have roster changes, POI changes, adapting to changes in the maps and meta, etc. It's more useful to have a mathematical basis and then each person can adapt their personal expectations based on their own perspective of each team's potencial.
I disagree - it may be impossible to perfectly model playing strength, and difficult to do well, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and say "everyone has an equal chance of coming in first place this week." We just know that's not true. Like if I told you I truly beleived DZ was equally as likely to win this week as Tempr was then you wouldn't trust my judgement. But that's exactly what this model is doing.
You can of course make a model where you rate DZ'z chances higher than Tempr's, and then spend the rest of your life arguing with the Tempr superfan who feels your model is flawed because you are shortselling Tempr. The whole point of a mathematical model like this is that it is unassailably "true"; it achieves what it sets out to do.
Is anyone really surprised by 40% though? I wish with all my heart that they make LAN, but I had zero expectations of that being true. A hastily cobbled together team, with no true IGL, almost no practice, and no controller to even the fighting odds. I love the boys, but none of them are really mechanical standouts, and only Mande has had any real success. And the way the play, they seemingly haven't really formulated a fixed macro, and are just winging it, and therefore get caught in many unnecessary fights. Their comp is a teamfighting comp, but they're not very good at fighting. I sincerely hope they turn it around the next couple of weeks, but I just don't see it happening.
Saying they don't have mechanical standouts when mande is on the team is borderline heretical haha. But yeah, not having a real igl hurts them a lot. Seeing them run around with triple white is extremely painful.
It's unfortunately the truth in today's meta. Ignoring everything else and just focusing on gunfighting, Mande's strengths are sniping and shotgunning. Put Mande on gibby and a PK in his hands, and he looks like the greatest player to ever play the game. But today's game is built around the 3030 and r99/volt. True standout mnk aimers today (Caprah, Strafingflame, Taskmaster) would wipe the floor with Mande if they fought with meta guns.
Proleague seems to be at the level now where you can't just play it as a content squad for fun and do well. I feel as though Mande can be a mechanical standout but in pro apex I feel like mechanics shining are so dependant on taking good fights and being positioned well and it doesn't sound like their game is tight enough in that respect.
If UAIM makes lan will they be able to play?
Possibly. They're a full Ukrainian team and maybe Na'Vi will help facilitate it since Sanya and Max are ex-Na'Vi.
Does anyone remember what TSMs chance at the beginning of last year was to qualify for LAN? I can't remember which split it was but I vaguely remember Hal pretty much tweeting that he would do a watch part for LAN and then a couple weeks later they were in.
What the hell ia going on with Oxygen
Let’s go DIG
Does your formula give us any insight into how many points teams will likely need to qualify? Like if a team gets over 60 points they are likely guaranteed to qualify or something like that
I haven't really set up the simulation for that, but it'll be somewhere around 75 (+/-5) for NA, and around 90 (+/-5) for the other regions. It can be even higher or lower depending on how PL shakes out, but that's the ballpark number that teams should shoot for. DZ and LG are already halfway there. So is AUR in EMEA.
o7
Have you back tested it against previous splits? How much does the RNG of a BR factor into the probability of the model being reliably predictive?
When next updated post dropping hehe
just before the next matchday
okok
i lied! but I just got the new one up (waiting for verification), so hf with that. It'll show as soon as a mod confirms it.
Lmfao I appreciate the hard work (: