You might recall back in October I wrote about divisions with an ELO-style ranking to classify managers into divisions. Sorare indeed went down the divisions route, in a better manner than I suggested — allowing for multi-entry as well as the very clever in-season & classic split, however it seems it’s not without faults…
Of course, the caveat is that we’ve only had a handful of GWs to evaluate thus far, but I’ve got an idea that I feel would make a big improvement, and could be implemented from August onwards. It might also reduce the number of moans and groans we’ve all seen and heard in recent weeks. This transition phase is for gathering learnings, right?
The ELO-style SO Ranking I suggested was indeed a complex-to-build & complicated-to-understand metric, and especially when considering multi-entry, it doesn’t really work.
So how about an ideal, middle-ground, easy-to-implement and easy-to-understand solution that could ensure the fairest and best distribution of users amongst divisions?
Here’s the idea:
For each team entry, you use the average score of the last 8 entries of that team. This, versus all other entries, determines which division that team will be entered into for the upcoming GW.
I’ve gone with 8 but this could be anywhere from 4–16 last scores, I think 8 is a fairly good barometer. I suppose we can liken this to an often mentioned “form is temporary vs class is permanent” debate. Four could be too form heavy, sixteen feels like it could be inflexible. Sorare want users to see progression and so while form can allow a user to move up or down divisions fairly quickly, the overall performance of a manager’s team would be fairly represented by which division they find themselves in.
For example, let’s say I’ve scored an average of 332.5 for my Challenger In-Season Rare team “Temuri Ketsbaia” over the past 8 entries.
Division splits should be tiered more or less as Sorare have them currently — I like that the middle divisions are larger, as opposed to my original version growing with every step down. But it should be set with a firm % of total entries split per division, for example Rare could look like this:
Div 1: Top 15%
Div 2: Next 25%
Div 3: Next 35%
Div 4: Bottom 25%
i.e. if 1000 managers entered Challenger In-Season next GW, 150 would be in D1, 250 in D2, 350 in D3 and 250 in D4.
For Limited I’d recommend something like:
Div 1: 10%
Div 2: 20%
Div 3: 30%
Div 4: 25%
Div 5: 15%
And finally Super Rare:
Div 1: 25%
Div 2: 45%
Div 3: 30%
(all of the above are simply a rough guide for now)
A nice UX visual alongside each team you have would show what the average score is over the past 8 GWs you entered that team, along with showing what percentile of line-ups it is within that region & scarcity. On top, it wouldn’t take much to have a live updating visual to show which division the entry would most likely go into based on entries already submitted that GW, of course this would be more accurate the closer it gets to deadline.
For example, beside my “Temuri Ketsbaia” team — it would show a simple graphic of “L8 AVG: 332.5pts” & “top 9%” of Challenger In-Season Rare.
This would give me a good indication that I would likely be in Div 1 should I enter this team next GW.
If you had a team with an average of 174.3 points and it was in the 88th percentile, you’d know it’s most likely going to be in the lowest division for the upcoming GW. Of course, the same rule applies that any selling or listing of cards gives the team a score of 0 which would be factored into the average of the last eight scores.
If, of course, you didn’t submit any given team for a GW it wouldn’t be counted in your last eight scores. If we take an example with someone who has a PSV stack that they have used through the season (n.b. Check out Peter’s latest tweet for some fire stats and visuals), it’s likely that they’d rank pretty highly. But then the European season ends and they don’t have any MLS or Brazil cards to compete in Challenger through the summer. Their score would remain as is until they entered that team into Challenger again. For those using MLS & Brazil cards during that time, they may show up as being in the 18th percentile, but still play in Division 1 due to less line-ups entered from the total potential teams available. You might actually be in the top 10% of average scores of teams entered for this GW.
While the indication isn’t guaranteed as some teams will inevitably be “on the bubble” i.e. sitting close between two divisions splits, it creates excitement once the GW begins to find out what division you actually end up in, depending on how many other managers also enter that competition in that GW.
The primary reason for this is to ensure the best and fairest distribution of managers and skill levels amongst divisions.
Without the need for creating monthly leaderboards, or rewarding managers for staying in D1, this would give a fair balance to reward consistent skill, as well as rewarding temporary form.
One adjustment to the model I would make is to say that if you podium in a GW, that team gets automatic promotion to the division above the following week. There is a chance (albeit unlikely) that based on the average L8 scores, it may not be enough to move up with only one very strong GW, so I’d build that into the system — rewarding wins.
On the flip side, if you end up with an unexpected DNP every so often, it shouldn’t automatically relegate you given your overall performance over the past eight weeks.
I’m a bit pressed for time this week so haven’t had the chance to dive into how prize pools should be split between the divisions, but I do believe this likely needs some work. I also acknowledge that reward boxes, as part of prize pools, could and should be tweaked from August — I’ve already read some great ideas and some not so great, let’s hope Sorare side with the former!
Thoughts?
