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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |