|
Post by Kayz on Oct 22, 2011 22:03:02 GMT
I agree with Koras, especially since the money prize is huge this time, it sucks for Fenrys a lot, if Johnmir wins 1-2 rounds vs FaD. But still, now it's too late to blame it, and Fenrys lost 0-3 to FaD, it's his own fault there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2011 20:23:35 GMT
Darios proposition only weights Rounds, and totally blinds out Game victories.
"This site is worse then this from last year(i have serious problems with download replays). There is no archive, so new wormers cant check long story of this great turney. Our Profiles gone. Sorry but I liked old CWT site more."
This just proves your primitive charactere. What do you have ever contributed to CWT? Nothing. "Profiles gone." Kidding me? You even don't fill your own profile properly. Have you ever saied in a friendly way, that you have problems downloading replays? No.
2010, it was Zemke who did it. I doubt we would have today an own CWT site today.
This site is just fucking fantastic. Anyway, your opinion isn't important. Soon you will get back your donation. Don't wanna you pay for something you don't like. Or better, I don't want you as a part of these cups.
|
|
|
Post by Random00 on Oct 23, 2011 22:01:39 GMT
I don't see any reason to overreact here. Just calm down everyone ;s I know that it's a lot of work to get a cool site working properly. But in my opinion there was nothing wrong with last year's site iirc. Maybe it woulda been more clever to develop a new site until it's really finished and running without known bugs/problems (imo downloading replays simply takes too long; I dunno what Script/Query/whatever needs to be running when I click on the "R" for replays, but I know for a fact that it doesnt necessarily have to be). Darios proposition only weights Rounds, and totally blinds out Game victories. There are a few cases where someone who won just 1 game while losing 2 can advance and someone winning 2 games while losing just 1 could be out. But these situations are more rare, compared to the current system.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Oct 23, 2011 22:17:32 GMT
I, for myself, have to confess mistakes, which I did with the website due to my bad organization of time. I learnt from it and everybody can always expect me to improve.
khamski advised us to have a test run with the new points calculation, that would've prevented the current discussion. But now we've come to this point and we're ready to find new solutions. It is easy to say something is not good, but doing it better is the one step we need.
If you're still reading, Koras, it's an improvement. You rarely sacrifice time for what the others have to say unless they share the same opinion.
The website and the newly introduced guidelines of this year's edition of CWT were an important step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Oct 23, 2011 22:45:29 GMT
WTF at the guys who think that winning a game is just winning and losing a game is just losing, with no intermediate values. Throw a coin 5 times, if you get 3 faces and 2 tails, face wins so face is better?. lol right. 3-2 says almost nothing about who played better. John already had a better performance than Fenrys against DarkLord, so if now john has a better performance vs FaD than Fenrys vs FaD, it's because John played better at the group stage than Fenrys, and John deserves to be in playoff more than Fenrys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 10:22:24 GMT
khamski advised us to have a test run with the new points calculation, that would've prevented the current discussion. A test run would have been very nice, indeed, but I am sure it wouldn't have prevented this discussion. In my opinion, the system is fair. But sadly there are always 2 opinions, when close decision (Johnmir or Fenrys) appears. But in my opinion, Fenrys and Johnmir have both kinda deserved to forward. But it's a tourney and a tourney needs cruel decisions. And I still wonder, that there are persons complaining, who aren't involved in the case, but the supposdley victims, Johnmir and Fenrys, didn't complain once.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Oct 24, 2011 12:14:16 GMT
The new points calculation isn't as bad as people in this forum bash it. There's probably also a big amount of overlooked people, who like the new points calculation.
Dario's points calculation seems fair but it's unhandy in my opinion. Possible draws and additional decisive games, I don't like that.
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Oct 24, 2011 13:01:30 GMT
Probability of about 0.64 (need the games of this cwt to be finished to make a better estimation) that you will have 1 group with a draw between 1st and second, or second and 3d places. Small technicall problem (you'll probably need 1 or 2 tie-breaker games in the tournament) compared to the current system that having 2 equally good players with an equal performance you give 3 points to one and 2 points to the other one. non-sense. It's CWT, with cash price, you can't do that just to make the tournament last 1 week less.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Oct 24, 2011 13:42:18 GMT
Some posts ago you said 3-2 says almost nothing about who played better. But we can't give same amount of points to the winner and the loser. So what we did is, we gave the winner three points while the loser still makes two points. Now some say that rounds shouldn't count that much. After all, the current points calculation is fair and I don't see any need to change it.
Participators know the points calculation before they attend this tournament and they can adjust their playing style. No one will ever be stuck in group stage undeservedly! The cash prize arguments are ridiculous. It's like someone who is foundering on group stage could possibly win this tournament, haha.
Unfortunately we don't have a third party moderator but I think Joschi and I support the current points calculation and it is likely to be kept.
The current points calculation values your won rounds and it's up to you whether you win them or not and whether you advance to playoff or not.
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Oct 24, 2011 14:50:29 GMT
But we can't give same amount of points to the winner and the loser Because you are using an inapropiate method to put the skills of players to test. You are using a method that allows 2 players with the exact same performance earn different points. Participators know the points calculation before they attend this tournament and they can adjust their playing style Adjust your playing style to ...¿?. Solid arguments please. No one will ever be stuck in group stage undeservedly Yes they will, because given 2 players with the exact same skill and performance, the system can cause them to play a different number of rounds in the group stage. And the difference is caused by amplifying the randomness intrinsic to the game. Why oh why to amplify randomness. The cash prize arguments are ridiculous. It's like someone who is foundering on group stage could possibly win this tournament Two things: 1-If the idea of the second player in a group winning the tournament is ridiculous, then the idea of having a tournament that allows the second player in each group into playoffs is ridiculous. Then defending a system by proving it is ridiculous, is ridiculous. 2-The same thing that could happen between 2cd and 3d group places can happen between 1st and 2cd. That determines who will be your opponents during playoff. The current points calculation values your won rounds and it's up to you whether you win them or not and whether you advance to playoff or not. Axiomatic metaphysycall arguments are ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Oct 24, 2011 15:42:16 GMT
Yeah, you're right, Dario. I've already said you're right long time ago. I fully understand your arguments, you don't need to repeat them.
I did only want to set straight that the current system isn't worse than yours or last year's nor is it unfair. How can a system that only values won rounds be unfair?
I don't think we need to go beyond the scope of the discussion. Some little changes on the current system would do it (like not giving four points for 3-0).
Adjust playing style to the points calculation.* With rounds counting more, players are forced to keep the throttle opened throughout the game, for example. I forgot to mention: Do you really think we abolished the home-away-system to end the tournament one week earlier?
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Oct 24, 2011 18:14:19 GMT
Lol, sry guys but i think you are jealous. ))
These two germans did a fantastic job and you are too boring to admit it. I am neither fan of Zemke or Joschi but their work is just damn awesome. I have a great feeling when i come to cwt site now. Talks, buzz, game comments, both old and new school is presented. Old cwt spirit is regained! Don't you feel it? Don't you love it? Sure you do. Then just say it. This huge work deserves applause.
p.s. I didn't have much problems with site tbh. Every game i wanted to watch i watched. Every comment i wanted to post i posted.
STOP COMPLAINING, YOU MURMUROUS FEKKERS! JUST SAY THANK YOU! ))
|
|
|
Post by Random00 on Oct 24, 2011 18:40:08 GMT
It's not complaining, it's constructive criticism. If I compare CWT 2008 (my first participation) with this year's CWT, it's simply awesome how much better it got. But this doesn't mean that we have to stop the process of CWT becoming better Dario is suggesting a whole new system, and said exactly how it works and in which way it is better then the current system. If you want a system where every round is important, then Dario's system is probably the best one for CWT group stage you could think of. I don't see any disadvantage in Dario's system. If anyone else does, then please post ^^
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2011 9:59:53 GMT
Critic is not the problem. Zemke receives from me more critics then from everybody else. It's just the fact, that some guys here don't know how to give a feedback. They aren't educated in formulating their critics. A good critical feedback contents always compliments. You even mix your critic at group stage modus with site appearance!! But if you talk in a general way bad of everything, you raise the impression, that your antipathie is personal. Yea, that is what arrives at referees side.
And that behaviour actually covers your supposedly true critical points.
If you say, the site is worse, contents bugs, you also neglete, that Zemke immediately reacts on site bugs. For me the streaming thing is just a thing of awesomeness, a big step in comparison to last year, but it rarelly find place in your judgement of tourney. Here I have a big dislike, that nobody of community - except khamski - clearly contradicts Koras post.
I attempt, that current system is fair. That doesn't close the door for a change next year. But a possible change needs a profond discussion and it doesn't help to blame Zemke and me, because we already ran a discussion, so it was a community decision.
Sorry Dario, but your point of view ("Axiomatic metaphysycall arguments"; in fact I thought you meant it a bit ironic the 1st time) is too fundamental here. I stay at my point, like Zemke, that group stage modus won't influence TOP3. If you check playoff tree of 2010 and 2011, it will be almost the same.
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Oct 25, 2011 13:35:15 GMT
Something is telling me that there is no real basis under "croup stage calc" critics. I mean this edition group results. I am too fucking busy to go there yet but i will do that soon. Agree with Joschi. Current system is good. Giving 4 points for 3-0 win is good. It in some way makes this system better than Dario's. Because it bases on rounds but compliments players for being flawless. Also kudos to MODs team for considering Dario system for a discuss for next year. It is wise. offtopic:I am amazed by that wise approach you MODs did with that scheduling. I mean you've let players play at their times but gave tight deadlines. Then ONLY those who didn't manage to play it in time get scheduled cwt'09 way. Fucking good thinking. This all sounds like a kissass.. lol.. Well, no. I just say it as it is. You all know i can be an acid-spraying bastard when things are going ugly. But here.. It's a pure beauty. I am impressed.
|
|