|
Post by Kayz on May 4, 2012 17:28:03 GMT
Hi fellow CWT society. Last year we had this round system: 3-0: 4 points for winner - 0 for loser. 3-1 3 points for winner - 1 for loser. 3-2 3 points for winner - 2 for loser. So the last year's point system took the worth of rounds much higher than of games itself, so it could happen that you got a higher rank with less won games than other players. Most famous example was the game of Johnmir vs Fenrys, when Johnmir got into POs though he lost to Fenrys 2-3. Now we will change this, because we agreed, that won games are far more important than won rounds. This year's point system looks like this: 3-0: 3 points for winner - 0 for loser 3-1: 3 points for winner - 0 for loser 3-2: 3 points for winner - 1 for loser In this case Johnmir'd have 5 points last year, for winning 1 game 3-0, and losing 2 games 2-3, and Fenrys'd have 6 points for winning two games. So you see, if you won the same amount of games than another player, then the rounds still matter because you can get 1 point for a lost 2-3. In case of two players have the same amount of points, first game ratio will be counted, and after that round ratio. If all is the same, which won't happen I hope, then they each must play an extra game. Have fun and good luck this autumn
|
|
|
Post by Kayz on May 5, 2012 11:30:45 GMT
I will post all new rules in this thread. Just renamed it. You know that CWT will have 32 participants, so we will act as last year: The admins will check the players who signed in and you are only in CWT 2012, if an admin confirmed it. Those players who were never seen before in the Worms Community, will only be signed in, if there are no other well known wormers who are on the waiting list. (That's because the 32 players should be one of the best wormers of the Intermediate community) People who signed in in time but are less known or 'weaker' players could be replaced in seldom cases with players on the waiting list who show a high activity. But of course everybody is welcome who reacts on admin PMs, and showed a high activity in playing this awesome scheme. Questions or Criticisms or Death Threats in this thread, please
|
|
|
Post by Kayz on Jun 3, 2012 13:43:38 GMT
Since the other thread had 4 sites, not everyone might see this:
Our final Playoff rule is there:
After long discussions and more discussions our team came to this compromise and we accepted that we put the Top 2 players in one branch each, (the position in the branch is random itself), and then we just put group winner vs 2nd. That's it. Easy, simple, still fair, very low chance of treeluckboxing (ty Johnmir for this term, it's very famous now).
So nothing else to say, but weeeee CWT is going to be great fun.
|
|
|
Post by Kayz on Jul 9, 2012 18:09:29 GMT
We agreed to the rule that if someone gets inactive during the group phase, we will send first a warning, and then we will ban the person after some weeks, replacing him with another active player, and void all games he already played.
If we don't void the games and give everyone else tech wins, the other groups might complain about the fact that this particular group gets one easy win each.
Also the player who went inactive might've already played 1 game and eventually won it, so it would be unfair to the player who lost to see that all other remaining group members get a 3-0.
It's necessary to void those games. Technical wins are surely the worst thing for Crespo's Worms Tournament. Technical wins are a sign of incapability of finding better solutions. Also voiding the games is the fairest thing to do in this not really fair situation.
Of course we hope that this scenario won't happen and that the players play their games in time, since it's no home/away system anymore.
|
|