Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
sevyn nine
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 01:28:00 -
[31] - Quote
Humphrey Goff wrote:sevyn nine wrote: I wouldn't expect you to understand, but there comes a point to where your chances of you winning are close enough to 0 that you need to explore other possibilities.
How does that make you more valiant than Wild Boars/CO2?
We wouldn't have had to do it if they wouldn't have planned on doing it. Our actions were a response to their metagaming. If CCP had clamped down on metagaming last year, we wouldn't have had to do it. This was alrealy alluded to in previous posts. They forced our hand. Reading comprehension FTW. Again, good luck with your team this year. I'm not biting on any more of your trolling. |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
433
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 05:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Read the quoted post where I quote the person saying it's unfair which is what I was responding to, thus the quote. We disagree that it's stupid. I apologize that the change negatively impacts you but the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule.
I'm sure we'll have a discussion about it again next year dependent on how things go.
May I ask a simple question?
How does "selling" spots in the tournament guarantee quality matches? I fail to see the corrolation there. Biggest wallet means best team?
Then why even bother with the tournament and just auction off 1st, 2nd and 3rd place and be done with it. |
Humphrey Goff
Trotters Independent Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 06:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
sevyn nine wrote:Humphrey Goff wrote:sevyn nine wrote: I wouldn't expect you to understand, but there comes a point to where your chances of you winning are close enough to 0 that you need to explore other possibilities.
How does that make you more valiant than Wild Boars/CO2? We wouldn't have had to do it if they wouldn't have planned on doing it. Our actions were a response to their metagaming. If CCP had clamped down on metagaming last year, we wouldn't have had to do it. This was alrealy alluded to in previous posts. They forced our hand. Reading comprehension FTW. Again, good luck with your team this year.
I think you should have approached Outbreak with an offer that suited your high moral better, would have saved you the bitternes over my "trolling" - sure they would have been up for it.
Btw how did you know that CO2/Boars would do their conga line, did you guess or was it by playing the meta game?
[troll]PS. How much do you want to pay for bracket advancements this year? Contact me with an offer... [/troll] |
Okinata
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 00:38:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule.
But drawing names out of a hat is "guaranteeing quality matches"? |
LooknSee
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 00:44:00 -
[35] - Quote
Okinata wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule. But drawing names out of a hat is "guaranteeing quality matches"?
No, but it's unambiguously fair. Not sure how anyone can argue that a system wherein all teams have an equal chance of participation is somehow unfair. |
Okinata
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 00:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
LooknSee wrote:Okinata wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule. But drawing names out of a hat is "guaranteeing quality matches"? No, but it's unambiguously fair. Not sure how anyone can argue that a system wherein all teams have an equal chance of participation is somehow unfair.
Where did I mention fairness? I think random is 100% fair, but fair was not the issue I was addressing. I was writing about quality matches. |
LooknSee
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 00:51:00 -
[37] - Quote
Okinata wrote:Where did I mention fairness? I think random is 100% fair, but fair was not the issue I was addressing. I was writing about quality matches.
If guaranteeing the top 4 teams from the previous year didn't guarantee quality matches I'm not sure how you propose to make it happen.
I've been seeing a lot of posts about better teams supposedly producing better matches, but that's not strictly true. Good matches come from having teams of relatively equal ability play against one another, their absolute level of skill is irrelevant.
|
Ophelia Aivoras
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 00:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
LooknSee wrote:Good matches come from having teams of relatively equal ability play against one another, their absolute level of skill is irrelevant.
yup paralympics is what awaits us this year well mostly |
LooknSee
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 01:03:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ophelia Aivoras wrote:yup paralympics is what awaits us this year well mostly
lol
Ironically, I would actually rather watch the special olympics than the waste of time I saw last year.
|
Okinata
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 01:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
LooknSee wrote:Okinata wrote:Where did I mention fairness? I think random is 100% fair, but fair was not the issue I was addressing. I was writing about quality matches. If guaranteeing the top 4 teams from the previous year didn't guarantee quality matches I'm not sure how you propose to make it happen. I've been seeing a lot of posts about better teams supposedly producing better matches, but that's not strictly true. Good matches come from having teams of relatively equal ability play against one another, their absolute level of skill is irrelevant.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. They said grandfathering the previous year's top four teams was no promise of good matches. I tried to point out (in the form of a sarcastic question) that names in a hat does not promise good matches. You then start on some fairness thing, which was never mentioned, followed by a statement agreeing with my original intentions- that the current system is in no way designed for good matches over allowing the already proven top four teams into the starting round.
|
|
LooknSee
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 03:32:00 -
[41] - Quote
Okinata wrote:I don't think you understand what I was getting at. They said grandfathering the previous year's top four teams was no promise of good matches. I tried to point out (in the form of a sarcastic question) that names in a hat does not promise good matches. You then start on some fairness thing, which was never mentioned, followed by a statement agreeing with my original intentions- that the current system is in no way designed for good matches over allowing the already proven top four teams into the starting round.
Fairness was never mentioned by you, but has been by others. My point is that the 'current' system is really the common sense 'default' system: random drawing. Since going with the grandfathering approach didn't accomplish anything, it only makes sense to return to the default in the absence of a better idea (which has evidently not revealed itself). Otherwise one ends up just building on top of failed ideas and producing a complicated mess. |
Rhatar Khurin
United Earth Directorate
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
After the ATIX final, they normally have a post match talk, it was rather dubiously omitted from last years final.. me-thinks why |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |