Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 15:11:00 -
[1]
Rankings Schedule
A note on the rankings: Teams that have the same points for their matches (ie. same points scored by both winning and losing teams) have been ranked according to the order of the draw. The main teams this applies to are those on 125-0, of which there were 9 pairs. -- |
|
Herra B
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 16:26:00 -
[2]
Could you please post the method used to calculate the points? The current rankings are a bit confusing to say the least.
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 16:41:00 -
[3]
- Points are calculated by how many points worth of ships were killed. (25% bonus for a win)
- Teams are then ranked 1 - 64 by win/loss, then by points.
- Teams on equal points are then sorted according to the rank of the team they last fought (the column "last win vs rank #")
- Teams who are equal after this are sorted by their position in the original tournament draw. -- |
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 16:42:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Herra B Beyond divinity killed 99 out of 99 and gets 100, so 100 * 1.25 = 105?
I'll double check this - if this is the case there was an error on our score sheet and needs fixing -- |
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 18:32:00 -
[5]
Just a noob question:
Would this not, hypothetically, mean that there could be a incentive to field below the max points (100), in order to prevent a deny an opponent a max score (of 125-00)?
I am thinking of the 'must field 75-100 points' rule and the fact that there are a number of "made for the occasion" alliances. 75+25%<<100+25%.
Similarly, and not that I have any expectation that you want to debate rules while the tournament is in progress, I am surprised you do not award points for amount of ships left on the winning side, even if you would only count those as maybe 33% value.
As in, score = destroyed points * 67% + alive points * 33%. +25% of that total for a win. A complete onesided win would then be: 67 + 33 = 100. +25%. A halfwin (enemy dead, but only 50point of yours remain): 67 + 16.5 = 83.5. +25%. And it would score more fairly for the odd stalemate matches, with the loser (by points killed) being able to haul home a few extra points for the having some ships alive. Or a 50-50 distribution if you want. At least make it matter.
I know this would discriminate against beercan-strength ships (vs a "we bring fewer, but keep them alive" strategy), but it should matter. Losses are not free and score should reflect this in some way.
It would go a long way towards removing something as arbitrary as who happend to be drawn first, which would make bookmaking a bit more interesting as standings would be much more based on performance, rather than the current ridiculous situation with 27 teams having scored 125points, solely by clearing the field, regardless of their losses. That would have been much more spread out, if the winners amount of surviving points mattered. As I recall it, only 2 or 3 teams managed to pull off a show like that, everyone else had varying degrees of losses.
hm, note to self: Popped drones should count for something, just to spice it up.
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 18:40:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 07/09/2009 18:41:39
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
- Points are calculated by how many points worth of ships were killed. (25% bonus for a win)
- Teams are then ranked 1 - 64 by win/loss, then by points.
- Teams on equal points are then sorted according to the rank of the team they last fought (the column "last win vs rank #")
- Teams who are equal after this are sorted by their position in the original tournament draw.
Ehm. How can teams that have scored a pure "totalhelldeath" like Blanket Men and THE R0NIN be lower ranked than teams that lost a lot of ships during their fight like Kenzoku and The Wrong Alliance?
I'm pretty sure the sorting of "Last Win vs Rank #" is upside down .
Regards,
M.M.
|
EOH Blackbird
Eve Online Hold'Em ISK Six
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 20:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
- Teams who are equal after this are sorted by their position in the original tournament draw.
Originally by: http://www.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t7/format.asp
64 Alliances will be drawn from the ceremonial CCP Tinfoil Hat at random. Based on this, they will be assigned the numbers 1 - 64. This random order decides who fights who on the first weekend - 1 fights 2, 3 fights 4 and so on.
Teams will then be ranked by their match result (Win or Loss), and then by kill points (see points section).
Wouldn't this indicate that AAA was drawn first, IAC second, Banzai Boys third, etc. etc.? In which case the 9 teams you have currently ranked at the bottom:
Quote: 56 The Honda Accord 0 0 0 0 19 57 Night's Dawn 0 0 0 0 20 58 United Corporations Against Macros 0 0 0 0 21 59 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate 0 0 0 0 22 60 Nebula Rasa 0 0 0 0 23 61 Sub Rosa 0 0 0 0 24 62 Electus Matari 0 0 0 0 25 63 The Star Fraction 0 0 0 0 26 64 Scooty Puff Junior Alliance 0 0 0 0 27
Should be ordered like this instead?
Quote: Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate Electus Matari Night's Dawn Nebula Rasa Scooty Puff Junior Alliance SUB ROSA ALLIANCE The Star Fraction The Honda Accord United Corporations Against Macros
Though I guess if the order in which matches were played was not the order in which the entrants were drawn, then we can't really say much. But in that case, it would be nice to have the order in which teams were drawn made public (both now and in future tournaments, just so we can figure out the results accurately for ourselves).
|
Irongut
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 20:41:00 -
[8]
How can alliances like -A- and RAWR who had flawless victories with no losses be ranked below alliances like RKZ who lost loads of ships? Makes no sense at all. I was quite interested in the tournament this year but now I think it's a pile of badly thought out crap.
-- Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Ayari
Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 21:12:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Irongut How can alliances like -A- and RAWR who had flawless victories with no losses be ranked below alliances like RKZ who lost loads of ships? Makes no sense at all. I was quite interested in the tournament this year but now I think it's a pile of badly thought out crap.
The Swiss system is designed to create matchups between teams of similar skill, thus, teams that lost a lot of ships are thought to have had a more close fought battle, indicating that they were already playing somebody of a similar level. Teams that got a THD are imagined to have been matched with less skilled teams. Therefore the teams that had flawless victories will fight others that got flawless victories in the second round, leading to a more even match. Similarly, the teams that only just managed to get through will also fight teams that only just managed to get through. --------------------------------------
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Vile rat
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 22:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ayari
Originally by: Irongut How can alliances like -A- and RAWR who had flawless victories with no losses be ranked below alliances like RKZ who lost loads of ships? Makes no sense at all. I was quite interested in the tournament this year but now I think it's a pile of badly thought out crap.
The Swiss system is designed to create matchups between teams of similar skill, thus, teams that lost a lot of ships are thought to have had a more close fought battle, indicating that they were already playing somebody of a similar level. Teams that got a THD are imagined to have been matched with less skilled teams. Therefore the teams that had flawless victories will fight others that got flawless victories in the second round, leading to a more even match. Similarly, the teams that only just managed to get through will also fight teams that only just managed to get through.
Or they both stunk and it was a cripple fight to the finish line. Yeah I don't get this system either.
|
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 22:48:00 -
[11]
The sorting of the rankings list following Round 1 was something that came up in the last tournament as well - the fact that the 125-0 teams appear lower than the teams that lost a few ships. As was pointed out above, this system assumes that those teams that won with heavy losses had a more skilled opponent and are therefore ranked higher.
This really does not affect anyone in the long run, as it would not change the pairings going into the Qualifying Round 2. The list at this stage exists purely to create matchups for round 2. The specific purpose being to match up teams that had a very similar result, and it doesn't matter how the list gets sorted as that is what will happen. Whether you put AAA and the like at the top of the list, the team they are scheduled to fight would be right there with them.
What happens next weekend will be somewhat like this:
The very best teams will not be affected at all by this, as they will take a second win in qualifying round 2 and move to 250 points.
The mediocre teams, or those that had a very poor opponent in round 1 will have a much tougher fight on their hands.
Teams that lost a few ships but still won will face a team who did similarly well to them.
And most importantly: Teams that win twice will get into the finals regardless of the sorting of any ranks
Ultimately, we should have some very even matchups in Qualifying 2, and this will prove to be the round that shows the real contenders for the title. -- |
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 22:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Vile rat Or they both stunk and it was a cripple fight to the finish line. Yeah I don't get this system either.
And this is specifically what Round 2 is supposed to weed out from the list. Crappy teams that beat an even worse team will now face another team that won, and will be mercilessly slaughtered -- |
|
Templayer
Amarr Monks of War Banzai Boyz
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 05:31:00 -
[13]
I think Mindstar is too kind here explaining everything. Who cares about your ranking , wanna win = go and kill everybody. :D
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 17:13:00 -
[14]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/09/2009 17:12:58 I would greatly appreciate a response to the in game mail I sent to Eve Alliance Tournament in game RE: Scheduling.
Mail came from BobFromMarketing
|
Khefron
babby gon cry GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 20:17:00 -
[15]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/09/2009 17:12:58 I would greatly appreciate a response to the in game mail I sent to Eve Alliance Tournament in game RE: Scheduling.
Mail came from BobFromMarketing
Please look into this as the schedule change will likely result in some of our team no longer being able to participate as we've already made arrangements to be available for the Sunday time slot.
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 20:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Khefron
Please look into this as the schedule change will likely result in some of our team no longer being able to participate as we've already made arrangements to be available for the Sunday time slot.
We are looking into this and we should have a solution for you tomorrow. This will not be because it is a 'bad time' as everyone has to deal with that from time to time, but rather because we did post a schedule and we did change it, making this our fault.
For other teams, this does not mean that we are going to start allowing schedule changes on request; the schedule is as it is and everyone is in the same boat, and it would be simply impossible to change the schedule around to suit everyone at their best times.
Future schedulings will all come with 'are subject to change' warnings, though, starting with the upcoming weekend.
|
|
Khefron
babby gon cry GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 23:05:00 -
[17]
A timely response is about all that can be reasonably expected.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 04:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Khefron
Please look into this as the schedule change will likely result in some of our team no longer being able to participate as we've already made arrangements to be available for the Sunday time slot.
We are looking into this and we should have a solution for you tomorrow. This will not be because it is a 'bad time' as everyone has to deal with that from time to time, but rather because we did post a schedule and we did change it, making this our fault.
For other teams, this does not mean that we are going to start allowing schedule changes on request; the schedule is as it is and everyone is in the same boat, and it would be simply impossible to change the schedule around to suit everyone at their best times.
Future schedulings will all come with 'are subject to change' warnings, though, starting with the upcoming weekend.
We really appreciate yall looking into this for us. We know working with Goons isn't exactly CCP's pride and joy task and thank you for being understanding.
|
Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 04:48:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Veldya on 09/09/2009 04:49:39
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei Edited by: Ariane VoxDei on 07/09/2009 18:39:32 Just a noob question:
Would this not, hypothetically, mean that there could be a incentive to field below the max points (100), in order to prevent a deny an opponent a max score (of 125-00)?
Ships & Points
5. Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I don't really like the Swiss Cheese system, it is horribly flawed and easily vulnerable to manipulation.
Morus Mihi should have self-destructed half their team once they had their opponent down to one crappy ship, it would have given them a far superior score and ranking and easier subsequent match.
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Veldya Edited by: Veldya on 09/09/2009 04:49:39
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei Edited by: Ariane VoxDei on 07/09/2009 18:39:32 Just a noob question:
Would this not, hypothetically, mean that there could be a incentive to field below the max points (100), in order to prevent a deny an opponent a max score (of 125-00)?
Ships & Points
5. Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I don't really like the Swiss Cheese system, it is horribly flawed and easily vulnerable to manipulation.
Morus Mihi should have self-destructed half their team once they had their opponent down to one crappy ship, it would have given them a far superior score and ranking and easier subsequent match.
Same suggestion came up last tournament, and nobody (seems to have) took up the idea. Under this ranking system the only thing that really matters is whether you are above or below 32nd spot after Qualifying 2.
Ideally a swiss system uses more rounds to get more accuracy, and with each subesquent round "gaming" the system becomes much harder. For the purposes of identifying the best half of the field to set up an elimination finals round, I think it works quite well. -- |
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:24:00 -
[21]
Thank you CCP :)
|
Grunanca
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:18:00 -
[22]
Pirates can only gatecamp and not pvp right?
|
Herra B
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:32:00 -
[23]
WTS glasses for score keepers.
Chain of Chaos did not score 88 points in the second match.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |