Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Sentry Falloff
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 19:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Sentry Falloff on 12/09/2009 20:01:27 I dont know who was so really Interligent to makeing the TOTAL dums Rules. CCP why the d... f...... Hell did you make those stupid rules:
Results Teams are ranked again by match results (Wins & Losses). 16 teams are on 2 wins, 16 teams are on 0 wins, 32 teams are on 1 win / 1 loss. The Top 16 are through, the bottom 16 are cut. The middle 32 teams are sorted by points - the top 16 are through, and the bottom 16 are cut. This leaves us with a total of 32 teams in the final.
so you will Have 32 Teams where most of these Teams will have 1=Win and 1=loose and 125 Points...... and than a very very Interligent Person call this UP:
Rankings If at any point, teams are level in Win/Loss and also level in points scored, the following will be used in order to resolve this. 1. If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher. 2. The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better. 3. The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better.
WHAT A CRAP....
So you make 64 Teams where the first 32 Winners are Totaly WInners and cant be pushed down in the Rank, so why are you makeing the SECOND Round WHEN LOOSER PLAY AGAINST LOOSER and WINNER PLAY AGAINST WINNER!!!
for exampel:
Team A vs Team B = Team B win Team B got 125 point and a Win is also on Rank 1
Team C vs Team D= Team C win Team C got 125 points and a Win is also on Rank 2
and know no matter what Team A and Team D will do they cant get into the Finals becouse they have loosed in the First Round, and no matter what they win in the second Round they are out, becouse the second round plays Winner vs Winner and even if one of them loose he had a higher RANK from the first Round and he BETT EVERYONE from loosers from the FIRST round becouse of THIS:
If at any point, teams are level in Win/Loss and also level in points scored, the following will be used in order to resolve this. 3. The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better.
HIGHER IS BETTER ! LOL
... so everyone who winn in the first round get the rank from 1 to 32 is in the FInalls.... AND WE DONT NEED A 2 ROUND.
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:03:00 -
[2]
I think you will find that teams that lose in the first, but win in the second have just as much chance of getting through.
eg.
Team AWESOME wins round 1 with 125 points, and then they lose round 2 with 0 points. They are ranked at 1 win, 125 points going to the finals.
Team AVERAGE loses round 1, scoring 50 points for their loss. They win round 2 with 125 points. They are ranked at 1 win and 175 points. That puts them higher than Team AWESOME and they are more likely to qualify - even though they lost the first round.
-- |
|
Imperian
In for the Kill Scooty Puff Junior Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:05:00 -
[3]
Nowhere in the rules its stated that your kills count when you lose the match....
RAWR |
sylverdicate
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:09:00 -
[4]
no becouse, First: nowhere in the Rules is listen that the Point from Round 1 and Round 2 are Counted. Second: What do you want to make with the teams that Have all 1 loose and 1 winn got 125 points becouse the loosed total and dont get anythink down in there loosing Fight.
And if you have 10 of those Teams it will be decided by Rank from the First round.
so total Sight to Sentry
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:10:00 -
[5]
Pretty sure it does -
Quote: Winning a match
1. During a match, a team scores points for each enemy ship it kills, equal to the tournament points value of that ship.
2. The winner of a fight will receive a 25% bonus to their total points scored, rounding up.
http://www.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t7/rules.asp
Quote: Teams will then be ranked by their match result (Win or Loss), and then by kill points (see points section).
http://www.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t7/format.asp -- |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:17:00 -
[6]
This is certainly a thread.
|
|
Da'an
Xanadu
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:37:00 -
[7]
I have a concern with the current ranking,
2 pairs of team fight...
Team A beats Team B, Team A gets 125 pts, Team B gets 0 points Team C beats Team D, Team C gets 125 pts, Team D gets 50 points
Because Team B has 0 points, it is ranked 4th out of these teams, Team D is ranked 3rd with 50 points which is fine....
However Team C gets ranked 1st because it beat a higher ranked Team than Team A.
This seems backwards to me. I don't see any loss column on the rankings, and the rankings themselves doesn't seem to have any impact or all of the teams with 125 points would be reversed.
If both teams lost their next game getting equal points, then using this mini situation, Team A would not progress even though it had a stronger win than Team C.
I agree with the OP that these rules don't seem to be very logical. FunGuy Xanadu Community Officer |
Saibin Gias
No Trademark Notoriety Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:48:00 -
[8]
Also, putting your thread title in all caps add much weight to your argument.
|
Sentry Falloff
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:49:00 -
[9]
Yes thank you Da An
And the Same situation you have with the Teams that Have 1 Win, 1 loose and the same count of Points, like 125.
Its not Logical to set the better Ranked Team (that was Ranked from the round 1)Higher than a Team that have toale same Win/loose and same Points and just loosed the First Round and get a lower Rank.
Also the next Question, who decided the First Ranks? befor the Round 1 has already started?
The Big Mistake was just to play in the Secound Round Winner VS Winner and Looser vs Looser.
The Rules are only Logical when you set Winner vs Looser !
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 21:04:00 -
[10]
while i don't like the system, wow this is a really dumb thread
|
|
Lexa Hellfury
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 21:39:00 -
[11]
Soundwave is such a troll
Originally by: RedSplat The Forum moderation Software known as Mitnal became self aware. CCP had no choice but to shut it down.
|
Drykor
Minmatar Reikoku
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 21:51:00 -
[12]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave This is certainly a thread.
QFE
|
Pater Peccavi
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 21:59:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sentry Falloff The Big Mistake was just to play in the Secound Round Winner VS Winner and Looser vs Looser.
The Swiss will be dealt with. _________
|
Wellfan
Snake Eyes Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 07:05:00 -
[14]
As a Chess Arbiter and someone who uses the swiss system practically every weekend at a tournament, the pairings here are fine and are the easiest way to reduce the field by 50% without using a knockout.
There are several articles on the swiss system and how it is applies. Wikipedia has a good article as does the FIDE website. Try reading them and understanding how it works before you knock it
|
CamMan
Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 08:38:00 -
[15]
Whilst very poorly written, and a little too full of smack, I still believe I understand the OP as I had the same discussion when the rules first came out with a friend.
What he means is, because the teams on 1 win, 1 loss and equal points will inevitably come down to being seperated by the rank of the last opponent they played. So teams that lost in the first round will play a low ranked team in the second round, and teams that won will play a high ranked team in the second round there will always be a favourtism towards first round winners when it comes to splitting teams in this manor.
----------------------------------------------------------------- FOR EXAMPLE.
Team 1 and team 2 are first round 125 Vs 0 point winners; Team 63 and team 64 are first round 0 Vs 125 point loasers;
In the second round Team 1 plays team 2 and wins 125 Vs 0, Team 63 plays team 64 and wins 125 Vs 0,
Now the final standings would be Team 1 - 2 wins - 250 points Teams 2/63 - 1 win, 1 loss - 125 points Team 64 - 2 loses - 0 points
In seperating the middle two team 2 will always be rated above team 63, as it had the advantage of playing a team that won in the first round, and hence was garaunteed to finish on 2 wins with "Team 2"'s loss in the second round.
Alternatively, team 63 is always going to be ranked lower than team 2, as it is garaunteed to have last played a team that has 2 losses and is on the bottom of the rankings.
Hence, teams winning in the first round and losing in the second have an advantage over teams losing in the first round and winning in the second.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the OP, I dont think there will be that many teams that end up on the same points needing seperation by this method, and hence I dont think this advantage will be a big deal. I also think that this method prevents the issues of "unluckily teams" if random draws for both rounds. I also think that teams winning in the first round should have this slight advantage as they are generally playing a higher standard of opposition who also won in the first round.
TLDR; there is some slight favourtism to teams winning in the first round, but I still think it is the best idea for the two round 64 team qualify round draws I have heard
Originally by: Bender Interesting, no the other one ... tedious
|
Gerrard DuNord
SoE Roughriders Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 08:54:00 -
[16]
I think that an interesting point came up when CCP Claw fielded a 'joke' question on EVE radio last night. When asked if there could be a slot for the team that made the best comeback as a 'sympathy' slot in the finals, he rightly laughed and said 'EVE is a harsh world, and we don't reward failure'. Not the first time this phrase has beeen used.
However, the justification for the Swiss system is precisely to compensate for so-called 'unfairness' of being drawn against a good team in the first round. If you fail in R1, you still have a chance in R2.
Perhaps it would be far more 'EVEy' if we simply went to a knockout tournament. You lose, you are out. In addition, it would help expand the numbers that could be involved in the tourney.
After all, EVE is a harsh world, or so I'm told......
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 09:08:00 -
[17]
A swiss system is a fair method but requires more then 2 rounds for it to work. What we have here creats some un-interesting matches as teams in the win bracket goes for points rather then wins while some matches does not matter.
I think a better format would be the following for the next turnament.
Round 1: Stays the same.
Eliminate bottem 16 teams.
Round 2 Day 1, 32 winner play each other Round 2 Day 2, Loser of day 1 play the top 16 loser from round 1, winner advances.
This way every match is interesting.
|
Zumzat
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 09:35:00 -
[18]
OP fails more than CCP tbh =X
|
Hoshi
Eviction.
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 09:53:00 -
[19]
Originally by: CamMan
TLDR; there is some slight favourtism to teams winning in the first round
And this is actually an intended feature of the Swiss system.
The general idea is that someone who won in the early rounds will get stronger opposition in later rounds while someone who lost in earlier rounds will get weaker opposition later and if these 2 people end up on the same score the first one should be ranked higher as he had to preform better to get that score. So the earlier the loss comes the lower your tiebreaker score to account for you having played stronger opposition.
There are maybe 10+ different tiebrakes in the swiss system but most of them follow the same outline that earlier wins are better then late ones (while either directly or indirectly). See Cumulative scoring for the most extreme case, Cumulative is the 3rd suggested tie-breaker in official us chess tournaments.
There as some distortions in that unless you used accelerated pairings won't know the strength of the of the first opponent but it won't matter mostly.
As said in other places 2 rounds is generally too few for a swiss tournament, but when you only need to weed out half the players it works just fine. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Wellfan
Snake Eyes Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 12:08:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Wellfan on 14/09/2009 12:08:20
Originally by: Hoshi There are maybe 10+ different tiebrakes in the swiss system but most of them follow the same outline that earlier wins are better then late ones (while either directly or indirectly).
Not true,
Most of us use the Sonneborne-Berger method which is totally independant of when you win a game.
Basically you use 0, 0.5, 1 as your score for the game and multiply this by the your opponents final score for the tournament. This means the person who has performed best against the best players will win
|
|
Morvyn
Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:38:00 -
[21]
Quote:
I dont know who was so really Interligent to makeing the TOTAL dums Rules.
I honestly stopped reading his post after this sentence. "dums Rules"? Really?
Honestly this is a pretty obvious troll.
|
Hoshi
Eviction.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:50:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Wellfan Edited by: Wellfan on 14/09/2009 12:08:20
Originally by: Hoshi There are maybe 10+ different tiebrakes in the swiss system but most of them follow the same outline that earlier wins are better then late ones (while either directly or indirectly).
Not true,
Most of us use the Sonneborne-Berger method which is totally independant of when you win a game.
Basically you use 0, 0.5, 1 as your score for the game and multiply this by the your opponents final score for the tournament. This means the person who has performed best against the best players will win
This also depends in win order just indirectly. If you win early you will play against opponents with more wins giving you a higher tie breaker score. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Jordan Musgrat
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 22:01:00 -
[23]
It's not the perfect set of rules no, but it gives everyone a decent shot at making it into the top 32. I mean they only cut half the teams before we go to single eliminations, so if you're really that good, you should prolly make it in. This year I haven't seen a single alliance not make it in that deserved it, at least based on the matches they did play, maybe they were saving it for the harder matches?
It would be fairer to have a 3rd qualifying round, and actually a 4th would be the best with the current system, but I can understand that that would be alot more work. 2 qualifying rounds is fine, you just have to win 1 match and score some points on the other, and after that you simply have to win every match to win the Tourney. I really don't see much of a problem here. I'm guessing you or one of your favorites got knocked out and you're bitters? -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Osiris Daemon
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 22:53:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sentry Falloff words
u mad?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |