CG Verified Teams

9:09am Dec 27th 16

Hello everyone, today we're announcing a new feature called "CG Verified Teams". Which are active teams that are stable and have had a reasonably consistent roster for 6+ months.

A list can be seen here:
http://au.cybergamer.com/verifiedteams/

In addition there is a second level called "Gold Verified" which is for teams that meet the normal verified requirements, but have also made the finals in a major competition in the last 12 months. We'll likely announce some more concrete rules to what is required to meet this. But coming top 3 in CGm/CGi/CGp or winning CGa is enough. Doing similar in non-CG leagues is also acceptable. Your team must still meet the normal verified requirements, as unfortunately plenty of teams are capable of winning a season once and then disbanding the following week.

We hope this feature will help teams find organisations and sponsors easier by having CyberGamer vouch for the teams stability.

The requirements are the same across the site, we'll likely tweak them slightly based on platform/game in the future. The current requirements look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/iTkkc3z.png

If you believe that your team is failing one or more of the requirements by mistake or if you legitimately only fail a single requirement please open a support ticket and an admin will review. At the bottom of your team profile you can see the requirements table.

As a final note, one of the requirements is:
All players meet the CyberGamer code of conduct within and outside of CyberGamer. Reported issues will result in the loss of verified status.

We have no interest in vouching for teams that are abusive, unsportsmanlike or don't set a good example for the community. If you lose verified status for such actions, you're unlikely to ever get it back even if the affected players are no longer part of the team.

In the future we may be able to provide a more direct link to connect teams to sponsors that contact us.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated,

Thanks

9:56am Dec 27th 16

Nice work great feature!
Can you split up 5s into maybe Bronze for CGd, Silver for CGa, Gold for CGp and Platinum for CGi for top 2 spots maybe or top 3

No, it's aimed at being straight forward to understand for the sponsor. Further it is primarily aimed at stability, which is what many sponsors and organisations care for as a prerequisite before looking into the teams performance.

There's also no need to just re-label what division the team is competing at which is clearly shown on their team page.

Plus I can't imagine PS has enough teams that have had a consistent roster for 6 months to split them into more than two categories.

10:22am Dec 27th 16

Skcel why can't you just accept anything the way it is?

You want a variation on absolutely everything that has been posted in the last month. We are all for suggestions on things we can improve but this was literally just created, at least give it time to see how it plays out before asking us to change it before it begins.

2:11pm Dec 27th 16

I think this is mainly just a concern with PS, but will something be done to allow this to be transferred across ladders? As you know CoD is released yearly and new teams need to be created etc. to compete on new ladders.

2:24pm Dec 27th 16

I think this is mainly just a concern with PS, but will something be done to allow this to be transferred across ladders? As you know CoD is released yearly and new teams need to be created etc. to compete on new ladders.

Yeah i've done some work to make that work thus far, but it's a bit of a pain to detect properly. If your team is part of an organisation it makes it a lot easier. Just open a support ticket if your old team passes most of the checks and it'll help me make it work properly.

Essentially your rosters need to be very similar between the new and old team for it to re-verify you immediately. The ones that are "mostly" the same are the ones I need to detect and improve better. I also don't really use any of the tournament info in the checks, i'll likely integrate them into it in someway soon.

3:49pm Dec 27th 16

are you thinking of doing this for organisations as a collective not just "optic: csgo team". e.g. for what you can say a organisation can be verified for: ones that have had teams for ...... time, been around for a long time, have had this many teams with this many wins or have had a good track record of teams and success ect ect

4:48pm Dec 27th 16

are you thinking of doing this for organisations as a collective not just "optic: csgo team". e.g. for what you can say a organisation can be verified for: ones that have had teams for ...... time, been around for a long time, have had this many teams with this many wins or have had a good track record of teams and success ect ect

I will have organisations show which teams are "verified" within them, and perhaps relax the requirements on the other teams in the organisation slightly. It is more aimed at helping organisations find teams though. Anyway will see how it goes and make any modifications later.

Plan on doing a lot of improvements to organisations before the next CGPL season starts, particularly with teams in the tournament system being able to link to them, now that off-seasons and more proper leagues are run within it. But also to allow organisations to pay for their teams entry fees and such easier.

As a side note, it is very likely that the main league system will become deprecated/removed in the near future and all league/round-robin competitions will run within the tournaments system. Given teams there are re-created from scratch every single "tournament" it'll require organisations to be the main long-term page to view and group past results.

3:15am Dec 28th 16

so i'm guessing it's core 4 stability?

11:09am Dec 29th 16

so i'm guessing it's core 4 stability?

It is 3 or less changes to your roster over the last 6 months. Or maintaining core 4 for the entire time with as many changes to your 5th as you want. Very likely i'll revisit this check later, it's actually a bit of a pain to detect correctly.