Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Wellfan
Snake Eyes Inc
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 07:12:00 -
[1]
Just has a look at the second round draw and would love to know who on earth taught CCP to do a swiss draw?
Before the flames start, yes I am very familiar with the Swiss system, I use it practically every weekend for running tournaments as well as in the national championships.
The idea is you have a score which would be match score and rank which would be number of points. to make it easier to understand, you have 64 teams numbered 1-64. 1 plays 33 2 plays 34 etc.
In round 2, 1 should be playing 17 2 18 etc. What we have is 1 v 3 2 v 4????
I can see how they have done it and understand the method they have used but it is highly flawed and will lead to teams being knocked out that shouldn't have (as well as teams who should not have got through, getting through).
I have offered to help them with the draw on numerous occasions over the years, but hey ccp know best...
|
Seldarine
Minmatar Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 08:50:00 -
[2]
Because you said national championships this adds legitimacy to your post. ______________________________
Seldarine
|
Iteken Hotori
Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 09:20:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Wellfan Just has a look at the second round draw and would love to know who on earth taught CCP to do a swiss draw?
You man the sort of Swiss draw where you only get 1 / 0.5 / 0 points, unlike the alliance tournament where you can get up to 126 points?
Quote: it is highly flawed and will lead to teams being knocked out that shouldn't have
You mean teams that do badly/well or well/badly may get more points than teams that do badly/badly and go through? And teams that do well/well will go through?
I see the fatal flaw. CCP Claw, I demand you resolve this issue immediately. Teams that do badly in round 1 should not fight easier opponents in Round 2 to give them a chance to progress, they should be kerbstomped by more powerful teams and eliminated.
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 09:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Wellfan Just has a look at the second round draw and would love to know who on earth taught CCP to do a swiss draw?
Before the flames start, yes I am very familiar with the Swiss system, I use it practically every weekend for running tournaments as well as in the national championships.
The idea is you have a score which would be match score and rank which would be number of points. to make it easier to understand, you have 64 teams numbered 1-64. 1 plays 33 2 plays 34 etc.
In round 2, 1 should be playing 17 2 18 etc. What we have is 1 v 3 2 v 4????
I can see how they have done it and understand the method they have used but it is highly flawed and will lead to teams being knocked out that shouldn't have (as well as teams who should not have got through, getting through).
I have offered to help them with the draw on numerous occasions over the years, but hey ccp know best...
Dear Sir
I regret to inform you that your knowledge of the swiss system is incorrect.
Pairings in a Swiss tournament system are very different from game to game, however the commonality is that winners play winners, and losers play losers. Therefore your 1-33, 2-34 example is incorrect.
Furthermore, tournament systems are a construct designed to best support the game and format for which they are being used. As such, using an unmodified, traditional system for an unusual tournament for Eve Online would generally not work.
If you require further explanation of game theory and of how systems can be modified by an experienced tournament organiser to fit the game and circumstances appropriately, I would be happy to send you an evemail.
Regards
CCP Claw
|
|
Alsyth
Night Warder
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 10:42:00 -
[5]
I think it would interest a LOT of people, CCP Claw.
Would you mind writing some devblog about that ? ♥
|
Goberth Ludwig
eXceed Inc. HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 11:08:00 -
[6]
still, the handicap system is too easy to exploit imo
two teams can make sure they will fight each other by handicapping a few points in the first game, and then rig the second game for an easy waltz into the finals
- Gob
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 11:16:00 -
[7]
Oh snap
|
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 11:17:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig still, the handicap system is too easy to exploit imo
two teams can make sure they will fight each other by handicapping a few points in the first game, and then rig the second game for an easy waltz into the finals
- Gob
I'm not following how that is easy.
Moreover, I'm not following how it is any different from any other system that we could use.
|
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 11:36:00 -
[9]
Hey guys, a bit of background on this format for you, if you haven't been following the previous tournaments some of this might be new [;)]
The first time this particular format was used was back in Alliance Tournament VI, and there was a fairly decent discussion of the format in this thread.
To recap the basic idea behind the system and why we do it this way:
The "World Cup Pool" arrangement of Tournaments 1 - 5 supported around 48 alliances over the 6 days of the tournament. We wanted to increase the number of alliances to 64 without increasing the time it takes to run the tournament. We settled on the idea of qualifying (over 4 days), and having a 32 team single elimination format on the finals weekend.
There are a couple of ways you can go from 64 - 32 teams over the (64 match) qualifying period, but we ended up settling on the current method. It gives everyone an equal chance at any point to qualify. I personally like the way swiss systems match (theoretically) even teams, as it keeps the fights in the qualifying rounds interesting, and Round 2 still presents a challenge to even the best teams.
As has been pointed out it is possible to try and play the system - that has been known for 3 tournaments now, and we will see how that works out for Hydra this time. At the end of the day it's still qualifying. Regardless of how you make it in, you still have to beat your way to the top of the 32 finalists to win, and the real tests are there.
Previous tournaments have showed the minimum that qualifying teams need do is to win one match, and score a reasonable amount of points in losing (if they lose a match). In the last tournament, the lowest qualifying team was Dystopia Alliance with a total of 135 points. Ie. they scored a whopping 10 points in the match they lost. And they still qualified for the finals.
Every year the topic of teams that "should" or "shouldn't" get in comes up. My question to you is this: If a team gets completely stomped in a match by another team - are they really finals material?
Oh and just to answer the OP - wikipedia taught me how to do a swiss draw
-- |
|
Wellfan
Snake Eyes Inc
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:17:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Wellfan on 10/06/2010 12:25:03 Edited by: Wellfan on 10/06/2010 12:24:22 Edited by: Wellfan on 10/06/2010 12:23:27 Editied as works pc is having problems with the forum :-(
CCP Claw, I would love to have a chat about it, your methodology and how is it inheranlty not the correct way to do a swiss draw. I would like to continue this so please send me an evemail.
To give my background and so that you understand how I know about Swiss Draws. I am a National Chess Arbiter, I am currently working towards my International Arbiters title and I am involved with the setting of the swiss rules on both a national and international basis.
To say I have not grasped swiss rules correctly is not exactly true...
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:33:00 -
[11]
Nono, don't take this to EVEmail, the thread will suck :(
|
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Wellfan I am a National Chess Arbiter, I am currently working towards my International Arbiters title and I am involved with the setting of the swiss rules on both a national and international basis.
To say I have not grasped swiss rules correctly is not exactly true...
But it is relatively true, since "the swiss rules" does not exist. The swiss system is a basis for a tournament system, it is not a be-all-and-end-all tournament system. The fact that it originally was invented for chess is neither here nor there.
Also, what you have to understand is that chess is a binary game. It has a simple win/loss condition. In Eve, losing whilst destroying your entire enemies' fleet bar one ship is something we want to recognise.
Here's the bit you should understand, as an accomplished arbiter; rules and formats are something that we use to make our tournaments as enjoyable and fair as possible. In this case, the system of pairing similar rank vs similar rank (which is also the system used in many, many competitive gaming events that use a swiss system) keeps games interesting and also means that the best teams qualify. The format should always work for you, not the other way round.
So whilst I appreciate your parallels, you are still incorrect.
|
|
Marquis d'Carabas
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:47:00 -
[13]
Wellfan, I think you are confusing round one pairings of the swiss system with round two pairings. CCP correctly does the round two pairings. Your example refers to how round one would be done if there was a previous indicator of performance, i.e. ELO.
Just my 2 pence, Marquis d'Carabas
|
Derwent
Free Lapland The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Seldarine Because you said national championships this adds legitimacy to your post.
Judging by the response hes getting i think he would of been better of making that international championships
|
FU00110010
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:00:00 -
[15]
Edited by: FU00110010 on 10/06/2010 13:05:32
Originally by: Wellfan
CCP Claw, I would love to have a chat about it, your methodology and how is it inheranlty not the correct way to do a swiss draw. I would like to continue this so please send me an evemail.
To give my background and so that you understand how I know about Swiss Draws. I am a National Chess Arbiter, I am currently working towards my International Arbiters title and I am involved with the setting of the swiss rules on both a national and international basis.
To say I have not grasped swiss rules correctly is not exactly true...
Go read this http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=18&view=category again.
I think FIDE knows better than you do. Obviously you dont deserve your titles.
EDIT: Since Im pretty sure you'll post without actually reading it, I thought I'd make it easy for you -
Quote: A. 3 Players are paired with others of the same score, or nearest score.
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz' aar K'in
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:06:00 -
[16]
I don't like how about 10 teams haven't got any hope of making the finals after round 1.
Give them a reason to risk everyhing.
As things are now, they can only lose more ships.
|
steave435
Caldari Final Agony B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:43:00 -
[17]
Quote: I don't like how about 10 teams haven't got any hope of making the finals after round 1.
Yes they do, they just need to use the "intentional handicap" rule and field less then 100 points.
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Smagd Edited by: Smagd on 10/06/2010 13:07:56 I don't like how about 10 teams haven't got any hope of making the finals after round 1.
Give them a reason to risk everyhing.
As things are now, they can only lose more ships.
Of course, just changing the pairings won't really help them in any way.
This is not smiley happy lollipop land. If you go into a game and score 0 points, its tough to progress for a reason.
At least with the intentional handicap rule there is a chance of going through. A small one, but a chance nontheless.
Because of the way this tournament works, this of course means that ideal setups in round 1 are setups that will score points even if they lose, unless you are supremely confident of victory. This is part of any tournament metagame.
|
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz' aar K'in
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 14:17:00 -
[19]
Originally by: steave435
Quote: I don't like how about 10 teams haven't got any hope of making the finals after round 1.
Yes they do, they just need to use the "intentional handicap" rule and field less then 100 points.
No they don't.
They'll have to fight a team with the exact same predicament.
Hence both teams are forced to go max handicap, cancelling each other out.
Unless one of the teams can BOTH not interpret the rules correctly AND still sucks enough to get wiped by a handicapped team, there is still no hope to make the finals.
I can however see how sucking too much in round one should be penalized even in Paper/Scissor/Rock games since it forces people to bring less specialized and higher DPS teams, and do something against spies.
Given a choice between 64 teams and the current qualifiers, and 48 teams and the old qualifiers, I'd probably chose the current system.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 14:27:00 -
[20]
Nobody can progress without at least one win as teams rank lower in this format for losing twice even if they do score more points than a team with one win one loss. As Claw stated during AT7 (IIRC) there is no reward for losing.
Yes you can game the two round qualifying system to some degree. Losing the first match whilst scoring highly gains you a potentially easier second round matchup and leads to fighting in the one win one loss bracket for the single eliminations. PL appeared to take this route in AT7 which worked very well, however if it was planned they were a little more subtle than self destructing (though much less amusing ).
Another option for matches where teams have one win is to arrange for both teams to score very highly which might cause lower scoring teams to be knocked out.
As other people have said, the intentional "handicap" system introduced this year may well allow teams currently on 0 points to progress which also means teams on 125 points still need to score well. We'll have to see if that works out for them.
All of this is very much in the spirit of Eve and should give the hosts and experts plenty to talk about in the Studio during the finals weekend.
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 14:49:00 -
[21]
I know this might sound strange coming from me but I don't like the handicap rule at all, it encourages people to bribe their opponents to throw matches.
Lost your first match and got no points ? No problem just pay your opponent to field 100 points and lose to a 50 point setup.
It's not even risky since you can use Chribba to middleman and other team gains nothing by going back on their word and winning (125 points not being enough to advance from a 0 vs 0 point match)
|
Iteken Hotori
Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 14:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Wellfan I am a National Chess Arbiter.
Unfortunately bro - CCP Claw is the Universe Championships Arbiter and out-ranks you.
also this:
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Nono, don't take this to EVEmail, the thread will suck :(
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 15:15:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Smagd
Given a choice between 64 teams and the current qualifiers, and 48 teams and the old qualifiers, I'd probably chose the current system.
Yes. I do not and never have proclaimed that this system is perfect or flawless. But it fits our needs, and that's what is important.
|
|
Wellfan
Snake Eyes Inc
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:13:00 -
[24]
And the trolls start...
If anyone out there can show me a correct swiss draw where you get 1v 2 3 v 4 almost the whole way down a draw, I will be amazed.
I suppose I have not been explaining myself correctly, I'll try now. What I am trying (and doing very badly it seems) is to explain how the swiss pairing rules as applied in virtually any other place result in a fairer draw.
The rules state that team are ranked W/L then Points scored then points scored by opposition. The is clarified by one of the Devs commenting that you need to win a game to go through. Hence within the language of a swiss draw, this is your score group. Chess is slightly different from Eve, Chess is trinary (not binary like eve), you win or you lose in Eve.
That gives us 32 winners in round 1. The first rule of a swiss draw is you should pair teams together on the same number of points. Well we have 32 who have won a game, how do be split them?
We have a ranking from the tiebreak. The teams can be ranked 1-32. Importantly this is where the AT is shying away from Swiss rules. In a swiss draw, the top of the top half in a scoregroup plays the top of the bottom half, so in this case, the team ranked 1 will play the team ranked 17. Remember all have 1 win.
This process is repeated for the second scoregroup
This is how a true swiss draw works. What is fairer, the swiss system above or 1v 2 3 v 4 etc. Why should the 1st and 3rd ranked teams be knocked out (which is fairly possible).
As for the Trolls on the thread, trust me I get worse insults at Junior tournaments and with more imagination as well.
Well I'm looking forward to Saturday. Love the AT :-)
|
Kashimir
Otoko no Baito The Polaris Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:21:00 -
[25]
Originally by: CCP Mindstar The first time this particular format was used was back in Alliance Tournament VI, and there was a fairly decent discussion of the format in this thread.
This.
|
steave435
Caldari Final Agony B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 19:04:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Smagd
Originally by: steave435
Quote: I don't like how about 10 teams haven't got any hope of making the finals after round 1.
Yes they do, they just need to use the "intentional handicap" rule and field less then 100 points.
No they don't.
They'll have to fight a team with the exact same predicament.
Hence both teams are forced to go max handicap, cancelling each other out.
Unless one of the teams can BOTH not interpret the rules correctly AND still sucks enough to get wiped by a handicapped team, there is still no hope to make the finals.
I can however see how sucking too much in round one should be penalized even in Paper/Scissor/Rock games since it forces people to bring less specialized and higher DPS teams, and do something against spies.
Given a choice between 64 teams and the current qualifiers, and 48 teams and the old qualifiers, I'd probably chose the current system.
Yes they do. If both teams field 50 points, that means that the team winning and wiping the other team out completely will score 50 (for killing ships) + 50 (for opponent points not fielded) + 50 (handicap) = 150 and then +25% on top of that for a total of 187.5 points (although it could possibly be only 165 points depending on if the 25% win bonus is applied to the handicap points or not), which means that they'll beat a team that won their first match and scored either 40/52 (depending on the rule interpretation above) or less points in their second match. Even 1 single handicap point is enough to out rank a team that won its first round but got killed without scoring any points in the second round.
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 19:17:00 -
[27]
no you need to read the rules better, if both teams field 50 points neither gets any handicap points
|
Enzee
Gallente Mos Vape Investments Mos Vape Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 02:12:00 -
[28]
Bottom line, OP's post was pretty weak, and CCP Claw used italics. Once you kick in the italics, it is ova, baby.... ova.
|
ANALtDESTROYR
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 02:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Moreover, I'm not following how it is any different from any other system that we could use.
Easy solution, just don't publicise which draw system you plan to use.
|
steave435
Caldari Final Agony B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 02:32:00 -
[30]
Edited by: steave435 on 11/06/2010 02:34:30
Originally by: ANALtDESTROYR
Originally by: CCP Claw
Moreover, I'm not following how it is any different from any other system that we could use.
Easy solution, just don't publicise which draw system you plan to use.
I can already hear people crying about CCP favoring certain alliances and matching them against easier opponents.
And yeah, turns out Tyrrax is right, but there's still a chance. You could field 50 points, while the opponent could still be dumb and field 100 points, and you could still beat those odds and win the match and advance. It's a minimal chance, but it's there.
|
|
Koronos
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 02:37:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk no you need to read the rules better, if both teams field 50 points neither gets any handicap points
Yep,
Originally by: Format If a team begins the match with less points value worth of ships than their opponent, and wins the match, they score extra ranking points equal to the difference in the two teamsĘ values.
So that's kind of a problem for the 1v2 3vs4 etc. the bottom teams have no chance, which if the point of the design is to make the fights interesting, it kinda fails there.
Still, that's not as bad as the fact that the "Intentional" is still in the rules
Originally by: Match Rules 4. Intentional pod killing is NOT allowed
but in the interest of not derailing the thread I won't beleaguer that point.
All that said from the metagaming and so forth I would very much like to have some clarification on this
Originally by: Format Teams will be seeded based on their positions after the qualifying rounds. Seeding will be used so that the highest ranked teams are on opposite sides of the elimination tree.
Specifically how, exactly, will Teams be seeded for the finals, is it the obvious 1vs32, 2vs31 in the opposite side of the bracket or something else?
Thanks, and fantastic thread I must say.
|
Massive Dragon
HAIL DRAGONS
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 02:46:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Massive Dragon on 11/06/2010 02:46:28 personally i dont think anyone would mind too much if the tournament was longer or over a few more weekends.
of course the ccp staff would have to do slightly more work, but i think for the most part the difficult part is the administrative stuff, not the actual length or week numbers of matches. (but i dont really know the ins and outs of what people are paid to do / how they do it / voulanteer work etc.)
im also convinsed ccp should be running 2 tournaments a year because it really is a big part of the game and a major selling point of what i think eve should be like! it is a great contributor to the reason a lot of people still play / log on / subscribe etc. (but again this would rely heavily on who is able to run it and so on)
bigger better and more frequent tourneys are good for buisness ;p at least thats what i think.
|
Major PewPew
Instant Annihilation Everto Rex Regis
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 05:28:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Wellfan Just has a look at the second round draw and would love to know who on earth taught CCP to do a swiss draw?
Before the flames start, yes I am very familiar with the Swiss system, I use it practically every weekend for running tournaments as well as in the national championships.
The idea is you have a score which would be match score and rank which would be number of points. to make it easier to understand, you have 64 teams numbered 1-64. 1 plays 33 2 plays 34 etc.
In round 2, 1 should be playing 17 2 18 etc. What we have is 1 v 3 2 v 4????
I can see how they have done it and understand the method they have used but it is highly flawed and will lead to teams being knocked out that shouldn't have (as well as teams who should not have got through, getting through).
I have offered to help them with the draw on numerous occasions over the years, but hey ccp know best...
did you even read the wiki article on Swiss Draw Tournaments before whining? |
Nemesor
Gallente Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 06:05:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Nemesor on 11/06/2010 06:06:40 As one of the top ranked team members my thoughts on the subject are as follows: "I do not care who I have to beat to get to the finals. Just tell me who to shoot."
No need to muddy the water with fairness. You don't get to pick who is waiting for you on the other side of the stargate. Life ain't fair, Eve ain't fair. Deal with it.
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz' aar K'in
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 08:39:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Koronos So that's kind of a problem for the 1v2 3vs4 etc. the bottom teams have no chance, which if the point of the design is to make the fights interesting, it kinda fails there.
So you're saying a team with 0 points from round 1 is more likely to win over 125 points against a higher ranking team than against another bottom ranking team?
Call me jaded but if I see any of the bottom teams in the finals it'll be because of shenanigans.
It's probably still more fun to see 1 vs 2 .. 31 vs 33 ... 63 vs 64 than 1 vs 33 .. 16 vs 49 .. 32 vs 64.
Hope those bottom teams feel motivated enough to bring a good fight. Bring it on, dudes:
You're on EVE TV, and I'll be watching you!
|
dexington
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 09:16:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Smagd It's probably still more fun to see 1 vs 2 .. 31 vs 33 ... 63 vs 64 than 1 vs 33 .. 16 vs 49 .. 32 vs 64.
Agree, winner vs. loser after one random seeded round would not add more fairness anyway.
The only thing i don't like about the system is that the optimal path, seems to be getting a good lose in the first round. Hydra Reloaded got the best lose you can possible get, and that advantage of this will follow them for as long as teams are seeded based on score.
... u r wee todd id, u r sofa king wee todd id ... |
Dodgy Past
Amarr Debitum Naturae BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 11:44:00 -
[37]
People are disappointing that a surprisingly large amount of teams have no chance to qualify, but it isn't the fault of the competition system but instead the fact that so many teams failed to kill anything at all.
As mentioned earlier, too many people went for set ups which would either win or be wiped out quickly if a key ship went down early. ( big disadvantage of relying on that one logistics ship )
They gambled and lost, but at least we'll get to see a bunch of well balanced matches this weekend which will be more entertaining as a result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- you seem determined to turn it into ******* Hollyoaks for neckbeards. |
centurion zulu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 16:30:00 -
[38]
Originally by: CCP Claw
This is not smiley happy lollipop land. If you go into a game and score 0 points, its tough to progress for a reason.
THIS
|
Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 17:38:00 -
[39]
I think there are better ways to more fairly do the tournament. However, this approach sacrifices some of the "perfect system" stuff for a more entertaining second weekend and that seems reasonable to me. If someone doesn't make it to the finals, its likely they weren't going to win anyway so its not that much of a sacrifice for a better 2nd weekend.
|
nikola777
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 21:30:00 -
[40]
there is no way to make life fair. You can do slightest mistake and get wiped out. You can win or can lose it will not show your potential in pvp. You can be lucky or not. It is just a game, interesting game but still game. And life unfair too if you noticed, fools can grasp better places in social ladder while you still in the bottom. So, stop whining and play, if you wish.
If you want fairness why not get rid of qualifications at all? Winner go through,loser go home. First matches arrange in alphabetic order of names these alliances. That's it. So current system provides more chances for teams to show their abilities. But if you want to show yourself - go and conquer Amamake.
|
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 23:36:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Yakov Draken on 11/06/2010 23:36:33 Great thread - really enjoyed reading the replies by the GM's and participants.
My 2 cents.
The 1v2, 3v4 2nd round pairings draw back is shown by Hydra's action. Regardless of how it plays out in practice in theory what Hydra did is a very strong move - a top team is less likely to progress in this format than a high scoring loser.
The advantage of the current setup is more competitive games in the qualifers but if strong teams get knocked out by the 2nd round match-ups it could lead to an overall lower quality of play in the later rounds.
I suspect next year the system will be tweaked to account for Hydra's actions. If so then well done Hydra for helping the system evolve.
|
Koronos
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 22:55:00 -
[42]
Well to be honest I don't see how Hydra Reloaded's move helps them at all (besides just being epic in and of itself) if the final lineups are seeded 1vs32, 2vs31 etc. Which is why I asked for clarification on that. Reason being that 2-win teams outrank any 1-win team regardless of points. I'd rather be seeded #1 and have the most optimal finals opponents even if I was as confident as they are because weird things can sometimes happen in the tournament based on matchups.
or maybe they are even better at this than I give them credit for and are aiming for one of the 16-seeds.
|
Vongroth
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 23:54:00 -
[43]
Originally by: steave435
Originally by: Smagd
Originally by: steave435
Quote: I don't like how about 10 teams haven't got any hope of making the finals after round 1.
Yes they do, they just need to use the "intentional handicap" rule and field less then 100 points.
No they don't.
They'll have to fight a team with the exact same predicament.
Hence both teams are forced to go max handicap, cancelling each other out.
Unless one of the teams can BOTH not interpret the rules correctly AND still sucks enough to get wiped by a handicapped team, there is still no hope to make the finals.
I can however see how sucking too much in round one should be penalized even in Paper/Scissor/Rock games since it forces people to bring less specialized and higher DPS teams, and do something against spies.
Given a choice between 64 teams and the current qualifiers, and 48 teams and the old qualifiers, I'd probably chose the current system.
Yes they do. If both teams field 50 points, that means that the team winning and wiping the other team out completely will score 50 (for killing ships) + 50 (for opponent points not fielded) + 50 (handicap) = 150 and then +25% on top of that for a total of 187.5 points (although it could possibly be only 165 points depending on if the 25% win bonus is applied to the handicap points or not), which means that they'll beat a team that won their first match and scored either 40/52 (depending on the rule interpretation above) or less points in their second match. Even 1 single handicap point is enough to out rank a team that won its first round but got killed without scoring any points in the second round.
You are wrong.
Quote: Intentional Handicaps
If a team begins the match with less points value worth of ships than their opponent, and wins the match, they score extra ranking points equal to the difference in the two teamsĘ values.
In the current setup, with pairing the lowest teams in the bunch together, both teams would have to try for intentionally handicapping themselves, which would negate the handicap.
If both teams went with 50 point setups, the winning team would get 50 points for ship kills, 50 points for the unfielded points from the other team, and 0 handicap points as the teams were both handicapped the same amount.
As far as the system goes, I would like to see a setup that more followed the World Cup schedule, in that you have a round of group play, and the winners of the groups advance. You would have 48 first-round games over two weekends (Each team competing on both days of one weekend, and one day of the next weekend) or add Friday as a competition day and change it so the round is only one weekend, instead of two (Not likely, as work schedules would conflict for participants.)
This would make it so that if a team randomly went against the absolute best counter-fleet to theirs (Each type of fleet generally has ONE achilles heel) they could still work their way into the second round. Overall, I think that change would make the AT much more fair, and would separate luck from skill, as a very good team might get cleaned out and score 0 points the first round, due to their setup more than their abilities.
|
Typecast
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 01:20:00 -
[44]
Originally by: dexington
Originally by: Smagd It's probably still more fun to see 1 vs 2 .. 31 vs 33 ... 63 vs 64 than 1 vs 33 .. 16 vs 49 .. 32 vs 64.
Agree, winner vs. loser after one random seeded round would not add more fairness anyway.
The only thing i don't like about the system is that the optimal path, seems to be getting a good lose in the first round. Hydra Reloaded got the best lose you can possible get, and that advantage of this will follow them for as long as teams are seeded based on score.
That's the only real niggle in the draw that I feel is flawed.
Might as well get 80 points and lose and have a good chance of winning round 2, rather than getting 125 points and risk playing another powerhouse in round 2 and risk losing.
|
Koronos
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 02:03:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Koronos on 13/06/2010 02:05:26
Originally by: Smagd
Originally by: Koronos So that's kind of a problem for the 1v2 3vs4 etc. the bottom teams have no chance, which if the point of the design is to make the fights interesting, it kinda fails there.
So you're saying a team with 0 points from round 1 is more likely to win over 125 points against a higher ranking team than against another bottom ranking team?
I don't believe I said anything of the kind.
edit: and in case my poast was tl for those that dr, this was the only worthwhile part:
Originally by: Koronos Specifically how, exactly, will Teams be seeded for the finals, is it the obvious 1vs32, 2vs31 in the opposite side of the bracket or something else?
|
steave435
Caldari Final Agony B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 03:54:00 -
[46]
Quote: You are wrong.
That's already been established. Point still stands though, as seen today many teams still field the full points, and some don't even show up. It's possible, but an extreme long shot, as it should be for people who failed badly enough to kill nothing.
|
Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 06:11:00 -
[47]
Just posting to say I miss the group stage format. Gave us a lot of good qualifying matches to see, as well as reduced the pressure on each team substantially - ie, you have to do well in two matches. If you have an "off" day, you're potentially out of the tourney, whereas in previous tournaments you could generally lose one and not be in significant trouble.
Do really approve of broadcasting the qualifiers over EVETV, though. Rawr.
Selective Pressure is recruiting. |
4 Degrees
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 06:39:00 -
[48]
I think CCP has explained it here and more in depth in other threads, as pointed out. Bottom bottom line is it is CCP's game, their tourny their rules and it's up to the players to use those rules to their advantage. Plain and simple. Fair, life or even better EVE is not fair, we wouldn't love it so much if risk was not involved. Gank what you can
|
Alphrya
Inter-Region Trade And Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 08:43:00 -
[49]
i think handicap suits most of the people involved tbhqft *** Buying your Junk!
EVEmail me or post in my thread! *** |
Milhibethjida
Amarr FoX-RaY
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 10:26:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Nemesor Edited by: Nemesor on 11/06/2010 06:06:40 As one of the top ranked team members my thoughts on the subject are as follows: "I do not care who I have to beat to get to the finals. Just tell me who to shoot."
No need to muddy the water with fairness. You don't get to pick who is waiting for you on the other side of the stargate. Life ain't fair, Eve ain't fair. Deal with it.
THIS
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |