|
Post by Dario on Sept 3, 2011 17:13:46 GMT
I know I failed with example, it's not the example what matters, it's the idea behind it. So stop pointing at the example . Each player gets to play a different ammount of rounds and then they are all judged according to how many total rounds they won. That is not fair. The chances of that unfairness having practical consecuences on the tournament and your willingness to do something different, are another (although related) issue.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Sept 6, 2011 18:44:43 GMT
Maybe I don't get your point but it's up to the player how many rounds he can possibly play and win. They are all judged according to how many total rounds they won, yes, but they have control over that.
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Sept 7, 2011 1:07:16 GMT
No, they don't have control over that . if you play 5 rounds and you are going to win 2 of them, you can't control when you win them. But this system rewards you if it happens that you won 2 before losing 3, and punishes you if it happens that you lost 3 before wining 2. If given 5 rounds between 2 players the result is going to be 3-2, then in which order those events happen is purely random and does not, by any means, depend on the skills of the players. Is someone who wins 2 rounds and then loses 3 better than someone who loses 3 rounds and then wins 2?. nope. Is someone who wins 1 round, loses 2, wins 1 and loses 1 more better than someone who wins 1 round, loses 3 and then wins 1 more? nope. (expand the examples above with all the possible combinations where 2 players get different ammount of points depending on the order of the victories in 5 rounds and not on the ammount of victories) Is someone who wins 1 round and then loses 4 better than someone who loses 3 rounds and then wins 2? no. Is someone who wins 3 rounds and then loses 2 just as good as someone who wins 5 rounds? no. (again feel free to expand with more examples, there are many). Thing is: "best of" games are a shortcut for knock-out stages (what's the point of playing 5 rounds if I've already won 3 and only the one who won more rounds will go through), they are not fair for stages where the number of rounds won matter.
|
|
|
Post by Koras on Sept 7, 2011 11:30:51 GMT
Thing is: "best of" games are a shortcut for knock-out stages (what's the point of playing 5 rounds if I've already won 3 and only the one who won more rounds will go through), they are not fair for stages where the number of rounds won matter. yea thats a good point, once again imo old system was really good.
|
|
|
Post by TenoriTaiga on Sept 7, 2011 13:26:13 GMT
Thing is: "best of" games are a shortcut for knock-out stages (what's the point of playing 5 rounds if I've already won 3 and only the one who won more rounds will go through), they are not fair for stages where the number of rounds won matter. This. If you want to get rid of home-away system that much (no idea why would you want, it makes the whole tournament special, just like the dueling system at 4 Hills Tournament, for example), then games of five rounds should be played, with possible scores 5:0, 4:1, 3:2, 2:3, 1:4, 0:5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 17:46:57 GMT
Beside that this discussion is far too late, because Zemke already did the main thing of programming the tables, I don't think details will be that decisive. Because I think, if someone deserves to forward to playoffs? he will also reach it. Independent of tourneys scheme, because everybody has the same circumstances. Every player has his own destiny in his own hands.
Zemkes and my main idea was, to focus the attention (also of other participants as spectators) on few group games. If you have "only" 6 games per group, you also give more importance/attention to each singel game.
Zemke wrote in his 1st post: "8 out of 90 games were won by the loser of the first game. It's like playing 82 times in vain."
Sorry Dario, but I didn't invite you to this discussion without any reason. But only Ivo, Domi and Khamski followed my invitation and we closed this topic with an major agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Sept 7, 2011 18:12:53 GMT
Ah, now I got it, Dario. I didn't think this way, that's certainly a good point. TenoriTaiga, if you want to know why I would want that, read the first post. About all your suggestions about the new points calculation, your ideas are written down, let's see what I can do for 2012. It's not even a month until CWT, I did even have to delay the renewing of the website because things in my life have been demanding more time than I expected. You've started being considered about the new points calculation a whopping 48 days after it had been published. Joschi kept you up to date about CWT trends on NNN forums all the time. I'm sorry for you guys.
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Sept 8, 2011 0:16:30 GMT
Every player has his own destiny in his own hands. Wrong, read above for the explanations. Ye, no need to change the tables if it's a mess, just saying that a tournament that is going as serious as giving trophies and cash to the winners, should avoid making system mistakes that could, even if improbable, unfairly put a player in a place he doesn't really deserve (just looks like he deserves because of the order of the victories).
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Sept 8, 2011 16:46:49 GMT
We understand your point and you're right.
I got TenoriTaiga's new approach (definitely not possible for this year's CWT). What would you do, Dario?
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Sept 16, 2011 18:13:02 GMT
4 rounds against each player of the group. If there is a tie between 2 players (same ammount of rounds won in the group stage, 2-2 result between them) you can either ask them to play 1 more round or ask them to play a bo3 game (I'd choose a bo3 game, might feel more fair to the players). Tied rounds count as 0.5 points for each player.
This 4 rounds mode looks good because: Against each player you will play 2 caves and 2 islands; you will start 2 times and your opponent 2 times, if who is the host is a problem for you then you will host 2 rounds (1 cave, 1 island) and your opponent 2 rounds (1 cave, 1 island). You will always play 4 rounds, not more, not less. This means the players that already have to schedule their games late in the night won't risk having to play 7 rounds (bo5 games can be really long if there are ties). 4 rounds is a good ammount of rounds, so the chances of having 2 players with the same ammount of points at the end of the group stage (thing that would mean having to schedule another game, probably delaying the tournament) are really low.
If you want to avoid having to setup tie-breaker games at the end of the group stage, then instead of 4 rounds use 5 rounds. But that will make the games last longer and break the balance of hosting, starting turn and map type (one player will start 3 times, the other one 2; same for map type and hosting).
Replaying tied rounds is a good option too (instead of 0.5 points for each player), but it makes games longer and breaks the balance of hosting/starting turn and map type.
|
|
|
Post by Thouson on Oct 7, 2011 1:55:06 GMT
4 rounds against each player of the group. If there is a tie between 2 players (same ammount of rounds won in the group stage, 2-2 result between them) you can either ask them to play 1 more round or ask them to play a bo3 game (I'd choose a bo3 game, might feel more fair to the players). Tied rounds count as 0.5 points for each player. This 4 rounds mode looks good because: Against each player you will play 2 caves and 2 islands; you will start 2 times and your opponent 2 times, if who is the host is a problem for you then you will host 2 rounds (1 cave, 1 island) and your opponent 2 rounds (1 cave, 1 island). You will always play 4 rounds, not more, not less. This means the players that already have to schedule their games late in the night won't risk having to play 7 rounds (bo5 games can be really long if there are ties). 4 rounds is a good ammount of rounds, so the chances of having 2 players with the same ammount of points at the end of the group stage (thing that would mean having to schedule another game, probably delaying the tournament) are really low. If you want to avoid having to setup tie-breaker games at the end of the group stage, then instead of 4 rounds use 5 rounds. But that will make the games last longer and break the balance of hosting, starting turn and map type (one player will start 3 times, the other one 2; same for map type and hosting). Replaying tied rounds is a good option too (instead of 0.5 points for each player), but it makes games longer and breaks the balance of hosting/starting turn and map type. This is a nice idea,i already played a cup using this kind of format, and worked nice, but had the "home and away", so was a lot of games to be played in group stage...But considering the purposed tie of the match maybe a nice tatic when u dont start...
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Oct 7, 2011 9:32:26 GMT
Eeek.. Dario i right. 4 round idea is.. ideal. It meets MODs desires to have a compact and contollable group stage. Also it's good for players.
But i didn't get clearly what to do if we have a draw. Extra round is bad because its an extra points. Replaying the whole game again is bad too. Meh... Or i don't get something?
|
|
|
Post by Koras on Oct 7, 2011 21:14:28 GMT
U are right Kham. IMO it was ok... 2 games CHL system was perfect. other unnecessary changes :/
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Oct 8, 2011 6:09:20 GMT
Typo there.
|
|
|
Post by Koras on Oct 8, 2011 8:38:12 GMT
sorry thats my personal opinion, anyway still 2 top player's will play in PO
|
|