Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Daneel Trevize
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 14:54:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Daneel Trevize on 30/05/2011 14:57:08 What is that 'Last Opponent' column??? Some blanks implies it's not opponent's prior rank (it's not the current rank of their last opponents as there's not a gap for values between 1 and 27. even 1-11 is punctuated by 4 & 5). There were no draws and there aren't only 32(50%) blanks so it's not opponents points assuming only wins produce points, and it's not points anyway because no one scored most of those values.
Edit: Is it Next Opponent?? |
Rubysister
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 15:21:00 -
[32]
Just a quick remark: Swiss system has been used in both minor and Major chess tournaments for over 100 years.
It solves the problem of reaching a reasonable ranking of strong compeditors in a minimum of time.
Round Robin with re-entry is used in sports like baseball, Basket Ball, and Chess at the top level to solve the "I had a hang nail vetching"
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 15:59:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Daneel Trevize Edited by: Daneel Trevize on 30/05/2011 14:57:08 What is that 'Last Opponent' column??? Some blanks implies it's not opponent's prior rank (it's not the current rank of their last opponents as there's not a gap for values between 1 and 27. even 1-11 is punctuated by 4 & 5). There were no draws and there aren't only 32(50%) blanks so it's not opponents points assuming only wins produce points, and it's not points anyway because no one scored most of those values.
Edit: Is it Next Opponent??
The "Last Opponent" is only used in the case where the Wins and Points column are the same. The list is sorted first on number of wins, then by scored points, then by the rank of the team you fought last, to use as a tiebreaker. Since it isn't needed to make the rankings if the wins and points column differ, the fields weren't filled out in some cases. To make it a bit more obvious, I have added the column to all the rows now, despite being needed or not.
|
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 16:27:00 -
[34]
Do the points not fielded by the opponent not count as part of your score? The rules state that if points aren't fielded then it counts toward the opponents score. So in the case of Paisti v Transmission Lost and Razor v Clockwork Pineapple, all 4 teams should be added an extra point, not just the winners.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Daneel Trevize
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 17:00:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Daneel Trevize on 30/05/2011 17:07:59
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra The "Last Opponent" is only used in the case where the Wins and Points column are the same. The list is sorted first on number of wins, then by scored points, then by the rank of the team you fought last, to use as a tiebreaker.
What if: Team 1 wins, then loses. Team 2 loses, then wins. The second match was between teams 1 and 2. Both teams have the same number of points.
The tiebreaker can't be broken because they're equal except for rank. Once you rank 1 ahead of the other it's not contradictory, but arbitrary, as you're using current ranking to derive current ranking. No? If you aren't using current ranking and it's previous ranking, how does everyone already have a non-arbitrary value if this was the first round? Nevermind, read the rules.
Quote: If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher.
Ok teams can't meet twice, but the rules mention a Draw result possibility. What if both teams picked up the same points/wins/draws from their first matches and draw their meeting? Again current ranking to derive current ranking? |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 18:57:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 18:58:06 Still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Regarding all of the teams with 62.5 points: the harder a team stomped their opponent, the lower their ranking? Really?
It won't make much of a difference with the pairings, but everyone with 62.5 points should be ordered by the inverse of the "last opponent" score. Teams like The Initiative swept the floor with their opponents, while Wildly Innapropriate just squeezed out a win. INIT should be ranked above WI.
|
Daneel Trevize
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 19:11:00 -
[37]
I think the argument's that winning a close fight is better than having a better fit/fleet to counter the other guys effortlessly. Rewarding piloting over prep/fitting. But it rewards both teams if they're both bad/make mistakes. Plus if you're confident of winning, let them kill more than then win overall (similar to Hydra's first match last year?). |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 20:02:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Daneel Trevize I think the argument's that winning a close fight is better than having a better fit/fleet to counter the other guys effortlessly. Rewarding piloting over prep/fitting. But it rewards both teams if they're both bad/make mistakes. Plus if you're confident of winning, let them kill more than then win overall (similar to Hydra's first match last year?).
Sense: that makes none.
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 21:35:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 02:07:15 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 02:06:40 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 01:59:28 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 01:58:58 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 29/05/2011 23:59:51
The rankings are wrong.
"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 teams' values." from: http://www.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t9/format.asp
Regarding all of the teams with 62.5 points: the harder a team stomped their opponent, the lower their ranking? Really?
Also, for the next round, why match 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc? Wouldn't common sense dictate 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63, etc? This is what you would do if you wanted the best teams in the next level of competition.
Also, as per rules, unused points should credited to the opposing team.
Match Rules Ships & Points 5.Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I notice the points have been added to Paisti and Razor's scores, but Transmission Lost and Clockwork Pineapple aren't getting the same love. I know that we're both a long shot and need a miracle, but just in case we come up 1pt short of the cut, I'd like to be able to have it.
Match Rules
Ships & Points 5. Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Daneel Trevize
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 21:47:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Daneel Trevize on 30/05/2011 21:47:26
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Originally by: Daneel Trevize
Sense: that makes none.
What doesn't, CCP's argument if I've correctly stated it, or my statement for assuming that the alternative ranking method you were rejected was by the last opponent's descending scores rather than by rank as it seems to actually be? |
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 22:27:00 -
[41]
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra A team that wins both their matches is pretty much guaranteed to advance into the group stages
Not to be a **** or anything but this is not correct, 2 wins is automatic advancement, not "pretty much" advancement.
|
steave435
Caldari Rens 911 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 23:44:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 18:58:06 Still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Regarding all of the teams with 62.5 points: the harder a team stomped their opponent, the lower their ranking? Really?
It won't make much of a difference with the pairings, but everyone with 62.5 points should be ordered by the inverse of the "last opponent" score. Teams like The Initiative swept the floor with their opponents, while Wildly Innapropriate just squeezed out a win. INIT should be ranked above WI.
The reasoning goes somewhere along these lines: If Barcelona beats Real Madrid with 3-2, Barcelona should still rank higher then Random B-Team that beat Random C-Team with 10-0 since they beat a much better opponent. Like if someone beat PL A-team with a single destroyer left, that's a bigger achievement then beating an alt alliance that just fields a random collection of ships the pilots barely have the skills to sit in with no losses.
|
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 02:46:00 -
[43]
Originally by: steave435
The reasoning goes somewhere along these lines: If Barcelona beats Real Madrid with 3-2, Barcelona should still rank higher then Random B-Team that beat Random C-Team with 10-0 since they beat a much better opponent. Like if someone beat PL A-team with a single destroyer left, that's a bigger achievement then beating an alt alliance that just fields a random collection of ships the pilots barely have the skills to sit in with no losses.
Not sure if trolling or ignorant, but there were no preexisting rankings coming into this tournament.
|
steave435
Caldari Rens 911 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 05:31:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Originally by: steave435
The reasoning goes somewhere along these lines: If Barcelona beats Real Madrid with 3-2, Barcelona should still rank higher then Random B-Team that beat Random C-Team with 10-0 since they beat a much better opponent. Like if someone beat PL A-team with a single destroyer left, that's a bigger achievement then beating an alt alliance that just fields a random collection of ships the pilots barely have the skills to sit in with no losses.
Not sure if trolling or ignorant, but there were no preexisting rankings coming into this tournament.
...Indeed, thus why it is based on how well your opponent did...They're thinking that if you had a close match, it's because you were fighting a good team, not because you were bad.
|
Tjalve Myr'Aelyn
IMORTALS The Obsidian Front
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 10:24:00 -
[45]
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra It seems our internal records missed the kill of the Typhoon. I will add this kill and update your rankings along with the above mentioned teams.
Thanks!
|
Scythus Aratan
Poseidon's Wingmen Perihelion Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 11:49:00 -
[46]
When will the match schedule be posted?
|
MongWen
Xeno Tech Corp Vanguard Imperium
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:22:00 -
[47]
The matches for round 2 are posted.
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:13:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 02:07:15 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 02:06:40 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 01:59:28 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 01:58:58 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 29/05/2011 23:59:51
The rankings are wrong.
"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 teams' values." from: http://www.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t9/format.asp
Regarding all of the teams with 62.5 points: the harder a team stomped their opponent, the lower their ranking? Really?
Also, for the next round, why match 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc? Wouldn't common sense dictate 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63, etc? This is what you would do if you wanted the best teams in the next level of competition.
Also, as per rules, unused points should credited to the opposing team.
Match Rules Ships & Points 5.Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I notice the points have been added to Paisti and Razor's scores, but Transmission Lost and Clockwork Pineapple aren't getting the same love. I know that we're both a long shot and need a miracle, but just in case we come up 1pt short of the cut, I'd like to be able to have it.
Match Rules
Ships & Points
5. Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I hate to sound like a broken record but all the other issues regarding points have addressed and fixed. It may not seem like a big issue but at least address the concern. As it is both alliances are tied with ten others. With the points correctly awarded, we have a more feasible chance of advancing. Either way, at least address the question so we know our situation.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
RougeOperator
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:17:00 -
[49]
I hate the swiss system
I was playing a tabletop game, with and uneven number of players. Got a bye in the Tournament won every other match but was not a finalist cause the other two finalist that had perfect scores had not got the bye. So they had a better score then me. Even though I had no choice in the fact I had the bye.
Round Robin is the way to go and fairest way. Swiss system is for the lazy.
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 20:37:00 -
[50]
Originally by: RougeOperator I hate the swiss system
I was playing a tabletop game, with and uneven number of players. Got a bye in the Tournament won every other match but was not a finalist cause the other two finalist that had perfect scores had not got the bye. So they had a better score then me. Even though I had no choice in the fact I had the bye.
Round Robin is the way to go and fairest way. Swiss system is for the lazy.
This example is only a concern if you have an odd number of participants, which we do not.
The Swiss system is a good system to quickly, and fairly, sort a large number of players / teams. Having a round-robin system would either require a LOT more rounds of pre-qualifiers to take place, or it will become even more chance / luck of the draw based, who makes it through to the later stages.
As I have mentioned before, using the Swiss team gives teams that drew a very hard opponent in the first round, or maybe had something go wrong, a chance to still make it into the tournament. Only a handful of teams are guaranteed entry (the teams winning both their matches), with majority of slots open to teams who have lost one match and won a second, making it far from a given who takes the last slots for the group stages.
|
|
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 23:16:00 -
[51]
How do I get an answer from the CCP folk here? I¦ve repeated my question several times during this thread and devs have been watching and reading apparently everyone else¦s posts but not mine. There have been several different posts from devs but yet none responds to the still INCORRECT POINTS ON THE RANKINGS. If someone has a better idea of where to post this question please let me know.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 01:38:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 01/06/2011 01:38:30
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius How do I get an answer from the CCP folk here? I¦ve repeated my question several times during this thread and devs have been watching and reading apparently everyone else¦s posts but not mine. There have been several different posts from devs but yet none responds to the still INCORRECT POINTS ON THE RANKINGS. If someone has a better idea of where to post this question please let me know.
Marcus, yes, you are right. However, this rule has been around for years and has always been interpreted by adding unused points only to the winner's score, not the loser's score. Common sense would also dictate this, as you should not be given points for losing to a team that fields fewer than the maximum allowed points. CCP just needs to clarify the rule a bit.
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 02:41:00 -
[53]
Thank you for your reply. I just wish it didn't take whining on the forum to get an answer or even be acknowledged. I can understand the common sense of it. As it's stated though, it's not clear that it's only for the winner. And we could use a point
But again thanks for the reply.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 12:55:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Pinky Denmark on 01/06/2011 12:59:05 It's a little weird about the point rules being spread with this on the rules page:
- During a match, a team scores points for each enemy ship it kills.
- If a team chooses to field less than 50/100 points, unfielded points count towards the opponent's score
And this on the format page:
- The winner of each match gains a 25% bonus to the total ranking points scored.
- The winner gets extra points if having started with less points than oponent.
But the formula for scores seems to be:
Winner ((Points killed + enemy unfielded points) x 1,25) + Handicap Bonus = Points Total
Loser Points killed + enemy unfielded points = Points Total
From reading the rules page º3 under victory conditions it's clear that unfielded points are awarded to oponents no matter if they win or lose. If CCP are doing it in a different way at least make sure to correct rules. It's not THAT many rules to go through... -
I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew... |
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 14:15:00 -
[55]
That¦s the way that others have interpreted the rules when setting up unofficial spreadsheets too. It¦s a little annoying that as teams we spend a ton of time going over the rules to make sure we¦re in compliance and planning, but CCP don¦t seem to know the rules for their own tournament. If it¦s supposed to be different then that¦s fine, but it should be written differently. Like you said, it¦s not that many rules to look through and if it¦s been commonly understood differently for several years then why hasn¦t it been adjusted yet?
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Not-Apsalar
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 16:35:00 -
[56]
Originally by: steave435
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 18:58:06 Still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Regarding all of the teams with 62.5 points: the harder a team stomped their opponent, the lower their ranking? Really?
It won't make much of a difference with the pairings, but everyone with 62.5 points should be ordered by the inverse of the "last opponent" score. Teams like The Initiative swept the floor with their opponents, while Wildly Innapropriate just squeezed out a win. INIT should be ranked above WI.
The reasoning goes somewhere along these lines: If Barcelona beats Real Madrid with 3-2, Barcelona should still rank higher then Random B-Team that beat Random C-Team with 10-0 since they beat a much better opponent. Like if someone beat PL A-team with a single destroyer left, that's a bigger achievement then beating an alt alliance that just fields a random collection of ships the pilots barely have the skills to sit in with no losses.
This is an even field. There is no relegation or existing rankings.
|
RobFu
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 22:30:00 -
[57]
Edited by: RobFu on 01/06/2011 22:33:21 Edited by: RobFu on 01/06/2011 22:32:48
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 02:07:15 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 02:06:40 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 01:59:28 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 01:58:58 Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 29/05/2011 23:59:51
The rankings are wrong.
"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 teams' values." from: http://www.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t9/format.asp
Regarding all of the teams with 62.5 points: the harder a team stomped their opponent, the lower their ranking? Really?
Also, for the next round, why match 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc? Wouldn't common sense dictate 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63, etc? This is what you would do if you wanted the best teams in the next level of competition.
Also, as per rules, unused points should credited to the opposing team.
Match Rules Ships & Points 5.Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I notice the points have been added to Paisti and Razor's scores, but Transmission Lost and Clockwork Pineapple aren't getting the same love. I know that we're both a long shot and need a miracle, but just in case we come up 1pt short of the cut, I'd like to be able to have it.
Match Rules
Ships & Points
5. Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
I hate to sound like a broken record but all the other issues regarding points have addressed and fixed. It may not seem like a big issue but at least address the concern. As it is both alliances are tied with ten others. With the points correctly awarded, we have a more feasible chance of advancing. Either way, at least address the question so we know our situation.
Yes, can CCP answer this? Clockwork really should have 1 point given RAZOR only had 49 points on the field. The rule seems very vague and if it is for just the winner, perhaps ccp should make that clearer.
|
RobFu
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 22:55:00 -
[58]
Also, saying it should be for the winning team only doesnt make much sense because even the losing teams who lost with ships still on the field had points that were used in ranking the teams. The only difference was the winning team got 25% more based on their standing points.
|
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 11:36:00 -
[59]
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra ...The Swiss system is a good system to quickly, and fairly, sort a large number of players / teams...
I challenge you to find any reputable competition that uses the Swiss system when there are only two rounds of competition. The Swiss system works well with three or more rounds.
|
IDGAD
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 16:15:00 -
[60]
Who do I send a resume to? Interested in replacing whomever needs to be replaced in order to run this tournament correctly, additionally to add a sympathetic ear to the ranks of CCP. It's great you guys defend each other despite overwhelming outcry from the player base. There are many issues, but regarding just AT9, there is a better way to run this event and restore its image among the players and fans.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |