Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 9:00:47 GMT
Sorry, I don't understand you. I think with "group" you mean the playoff pairings, right? Or all opponents you can meet on the way to final? And who is the "mini crespo", what do you want to say with that?
General statement: We changed the group stage modus. Reproach is, that we've run a hiden discussion, that we didn't ask everyone by pm. We kept the same playoff modus like last year. Reproach is, that we - on our own - didn't change this modus of last year.
I mean, we couldn't express it more clear then it's written in rules:
Last sixteen pairs will be drawn, with two restrictions: Restriction 1: Place one will always play against place two. Restriction 2: Players from the same group won't clash in the 1/8 finals.
I have learned that I can't make 31 players happy, also that big silent majority is always content with things. But to speak of a general "breach of trust" is just a big disrespect to Zemkes done work. And that, after admitting, that following discussions before tourney start would have been too much work. If you check the 1st page of this thread, it was Ivos suggestion to implement such seeding factors. Zemke, khamski, Tenori and me didn't like idea, but we saied, that we wish more people to participate here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 9:21:58 GMT
I'm fine with things being random, but it's not that difficult to make a determination of who the top 4 players are and spread them out. It's certainly subjective, but you can take into account things like past CWT performances and achievements in NNNL to compare people. Absolutly right, I would take last CWT performances to compare people and make seed factors. It's not difficult at all. Problem is, that we, in ten years CWT history, never used such seed factors. I, for my part, don't like such seeding factors, Champions League (our image of good tourney playoffs) don't use it aswell. But that all isn't important, because my opinion counts like yours. It's just, that I made the effort to publish it, others, who actually complain now, didn't make this effort. I saied, this is a community work and majority decides. Though Zemke and me will always earn the compliments
|
|
|
Post by Tomek on Oct 29, 2011 10:11:11 GMT
ah sorry i saw the table and thought we will play vs secons player from same group.. but i got fucking pro opponent xD
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 10:15:53 GMT
Oh, my posted screenshot of my admin panel. looool
Sorry, that was a bit confusing, indeed! Haha, no, I just wanted to show you, what is actually already clear: System makes again 2 pots and schedule them completly random (with this one restriction..)
I just pressed one time "Pair them". That was all I was able to do. After that, the tree was generated automatically and uploaded by Zemke.
|
|
|
Post by Koras on Oct 29, 2011 11:57:46 GMT
.
|
|
|
Post by Koras on Oct 29, 2011 11:58:34 GMT
The playoff pairing system has been like that for 10 years. not really in past U could meet player from your group in final. Not earlier anyway i am lucky there, top 3 (atm its Daz,Mablak and Kayz) are on second half of tree
|
|
|
Post by Tomek on Oct 29, 2011 12:10:54 GMT
hah im dizzy sometimes well.. show time comming.. 5 days to play game right?
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Oct 29, 2011 13:39:14 GMT
All I see are argumentative fallacies: "We've done it like this before so we will do it again". Doesn't prove random isn't bad.
"It was published before". Still doesn't prove random isn't bad.
"Other people do it like this". Others don't, so what.
"You are being disrespectful". Again doesn't prove random isn't bad.
Being able to get into the final without having to face one of the previous CWT finalists is bad. Because then you can have a silver medal just out of tree-luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 13:58:03 GMT
Because I don't want to convince you of anything. I, in contrary to you, don't insist that my point of view speaks the truth. I just say, that all your done reproaches directs to your own.
What you say to the point, majority decides?
Football Worldcup knows also lucky winner (2. Place Germany 2002, Paraguay, USA, South Korea, Final: Brazil), there are exemples for CHL and all other competitons, too. Where the actual 2nd Place didn't had a very hard program to make. If you want most fair system, you should play a league system.
WTF do you expect from us??! On the one hand you claim, that we changed group stage modus. On the other hand, you claim, that we didn't change playoff modus (because, omg, there is a cash prize now).
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Oct 29, 2011 14:36:17 GMT
So you simply think that having a lucky silver medal is good enough even though you could have easily prevented that from happening.
Now seeing that you want to change the topic of the disscussion into a personal thing, and want to enter a debate about the "the majority decides" paradigm, I'll just say: this is not the place. About my "wtf expectations": I expected a far better thought through organization that doesn't require other people to be constantly pointing out incongruencies in the system.
|
|
|
Post by Ivo on Oct 29, 2011 16:00:02 GMT
Football Worldcup knows also lucky winner (2. Place Germany 2002, Paraguay, USA, South Korea, Final: Brazil), there are exemples for CHL and all other competitons, too. Where the actual 2nd Place didn't had a very hard program to make. I'm not quite sure if I understood you well here, Joschi. But World Cup and CHL has different PO pairings. The WC has it like I defended here some posts ago, knowing, before the competition starts, what will be the PO tree in function of the groups positions. CHL, has it like you are doing here, random PO with the only non-random thing being 1st from group can only play against 2nd from group. In my previous posts, weeks ago, I called attention from this tree possibility. I'm totally against what Khamski said: make another one. The decision has been taken so, for good or for bad, you should keep it. But, what happened, this PO tree, imo, is bad for the tourney. And it could have been avoided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 16:10:23 GMT
My exemple of Worldcup shall only prove, that a tourney isn't the most fair way to determine a winner of 32 players. That is a thought that we should consider. I toke this exemple, because everybody knows it and I didn't had to search for it. There are similar exemples for CHL, too. But Worldcup doesn't know any seed factors, too!
I don't know, why it isn't a valid argument, to refere on a football tourney (CHL) with millions of money, jobs and fans.
It's not bad for the tourney, because everybody loves surprises. That makes a tourney interesting. Main problem is, that I am under suspicion to have made a fake tree, for my own advantage. I am aware of this suspicion and will take my consequences of it.
|
|
|
Post by Kayz on Oct 29, 2011 16:16:24 GMT
Ok you are right Dario, in the case that it could happen, that you get a silver medal without facing former CWT finalists, but well, I see Random00 is in upper tree, he won CWT as I know and FaD got bronze, all fine and well skilled players. I think it's refreshing, to not have all the time the same finalists in the final. If you want to get the cash prize and gold, you must win EVERYONE, and I don't mind, if someone gets bronze or silver with what you call "tree-luck" since in the upper tree are also amazing and awesome players!!! You did a great job with this year's CWT, and I am glad that I have to win many awesome games vs awesome players to get to the final, then I know I deserved to be there...
|
|
|
Post by Random00 on Oct 29, 2011 16:24:55 GMT
I like the system the way it is. I think a big tournament needs a certain amount of randomness and luck involved.
|
|
|
Post by Kayz on Oct 29, 2011 16:31:25 GMT
Hah Random likes randomness. Anyway, want to add something: If seriously some people believe that Joschi, who is a trusted NNN member, faked a tree for his advantage, is in my view not worth to be called a good wormer at all. That'd be just plain stupid. But I don't think someone really would believe this, you can't tell me, that someone who fakes a tree can put a cup on his desk without doubting the merit. xD Good evening and nice weekend everyone And good luck everyone in your games.
|
|